discourse analysis research methods

• Privacy Policy

Home » Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Table of Contents

Discourse Analysis

Definition:

Discourse Analysis is a method of studying how people use language in different situations to understand what they really mean and what messages they are sending. It helps us understand how language is used to create social relationships and cultural norms.

It examines language use in various forms of communication such as spoken, written, visual or multi-modal texts, and focuses on how language is used to construct social meaning and relationships, and how it reflects and reinforces power dynamics, ideologies, and cultural norms.

Types of Discourse Analysis

Some of the most common types of discourse analysis are:

Conversation Analysis

This type of discourse analysis focuses on analyzing the structure of talk and how participants in a conversation make meaning through their interaction. It is often used to study face-to-face interactions, such as interviews or everyday conversations.

Critical discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on the ways in which language use reflects and reinforces power relations, social hierarchies, and ideologies. It is often used to analyze media texts or political speeches, with the aim of uncovering the hidden meanings and assumptions that are embedded in these texts.

Discursive Psychology

This type of discourse analysis focuses on the ways in which language use is related to psychological processes such as identity construction and attribution of motives. It is often used to study narratives or personal accounts, with the aim of understanding how individuals make sense of their experiences.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on analyzing not only language use, but also other modes of communication, such as images, gestures, and layout. It is often used to study digital or visual media, with the aim of understanding how different modes of communication work together to create meaning.

Corpus-based Discourse Analysis

This type of discourse analysis uses large collections of texts, or corpora, to analyze patterns of language use across different genres or contexts. It is often used to study language use in specific domains, such as academic writing or legal discourse.

Descriptive Discourse

This type of discourse analysis aims to describe the features and characteristics of language use, without making any value judgments or interpretations. It is often used in linguistic studies to describe grammatical structures or phonetic features of language.

Narrative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing the structure and content of stories or narratives, with the aim of understanding how they are constructed and how they shape our understanding of the world. It is often used to study personal narratives or cultural myths.

Expository Discourse

This type of discourse analysis is used to study texts that explain or describe a concept, process, or idea. It aims to understand how information is organized and presented in such texts and how it influences the reader’s understanding of the topic.

Argumentative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing texts that present an argument or attempt to persuade the reader or listener. It aims to understand how the argument is constructed, what strategies are used to persuade, and how the audience is likely to respond to the argument.

Discourse Analysis Conducting Guide

Here is a step-by-step guide for conducting discourse analysis:

• What are you trying to understand about the language use in a particular context?
• What are the key concepts or themes that you want to explore?
• Select the data: Decide on the type of data that you will analyze, such as written texts, spoken conversations, or media content. Consider the source of the data, such as news articles, interviews, or social media posts, and how this might affect your analysis.
• Transcribe or collect the data: If you are analyzing spoken language, you will need to transcribe the data into written form. If you are using written texts, make sure that you have access to the full text and that it is in a format that can be easily analyzed.
• Read and re-read the data: Read through the data carefully, paying attention to key themes, patterns, and discursive features. Take notes on what stands out to you and make preliminary observations about the language use.
• Develop a coding scheme : Develop a coding scheme that will allow you to categorize and organize different types of language use. This might include categories such as metaphors, narratives, or persuasive strategies, depending on your research question.
• Code the data: Use your coding scheme to analyze the data, coding different sections of text or spoken language according to the categories that you have developed. This can be a time-consuming process, so consider using software tools to assist with coding and analysis.
• Analyze the data: Once you have coded the data, analyze it to identify patterns and themes that emerge. Look for similarities and differences across different parts of the data, and consider how different categories of language use are related to your research question.
• Interpret the findings: Draw conclusions from your analysis and interpret the findings in relation to your research question. Consider how the language use in your data sheds light on broader cultural or social issues, and what implications it might have for understanding language use in other contexts.
• Write up the results: Write up your findings in a clear and concise way, using examples from the data to support your arguments. Consider how your research contributes to the broader field of discourse analysis and what implications it might have for future research.

Applications of Discourse Analysis

Here are some of the key areas where discourse analysis is commonly used:

• Political discourse: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze political speeches, debates, and media coverage of political events. By examining the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the political ideologies, values, and agendas that underpin different political positions.
• Media analysis: Discourse analysis is frequently used to analyze media content, including news reports, television shows, and social media posts. By examining the language used in media content, researchers can understand how media narratives are constructed and how they influence public opinion.
• Education : Discourse analysis can be used to examine classroom discourse, student-teacher interactions, and educational policies. By analyzing the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape educational outcomes.
• Healthcare : Discourse analysis is used in healthcare to examine the language used by healthcare professionals and patients in medical consultations. This can help to identify communication barriers, cultural differences, and other factors that may impact the quality of healthcare.
• Marketing and advertising: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze marketing and advertising messages, including the language used in product descriptions, slogans, and commercials. By examining these messages, researchers can gain insight into the cultural values and beliefs that underpin consumer behavior.

When to use Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a valuable research methodology that can be used in a variety of contexts. Here are some situations where discourse analysis may be particularly useful:

• When studying language use in a particular context: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used in a specific context, such as political speeches, media coverage, or healthcare interactions. By analyzing language use in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• When exploring the meaning of language: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. This can be particularly useful in fields such as sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies.
• When examining power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to reinforce or challenge power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• When conducting qualitative research: Discourse analysis can be used as a qualitative research method, allowing researchers to explore complex social phenomena in depth. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain rich and nuanced insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.

Examples of Discourse Analysis

Here are some examples of discourse analysis in action:

• A study of media coverage of climate change: This study analyzed media coverage of climate change to examine how language was used to construct the issue. The researchers found that media coverage tended to frame climate change as a matter of scientific debate rather than a pressing environmental issue, thereby undermining public support for action on climate change.
• A study of political speeches: This study analyzed political speeches to examine how language was used to construct political identity. The researchers found that politicians used language strategically to construct themselves as trustworthy and competent leaders, while painting their opponents as untrustworthy and incompetent.
• A study of medical consultations: This study analyzed medical consultations to examine how language was used to negotiate power and authority between doctors and patients. The researchers found that doctors used language to assert their authority and control over medical decisions, while patients used language to negotiate their own preferences and concerns.
• A study of workplace interactions: This study analyzed workplace interactions to examine how language was used to construct social identity and maintain power relations. The researchers found that language was used to construct a hierarchy of power and status within the workplace, with those in positions of authority using language to assert their dominance over subordinates.

Purpose of Discourse Analysis

The purpose of discourse analysis is to examine the ways in which language is used to construct social meaning, relationships, and power relations. By analyzing language use in a systematic and rigorous way, discourse analysis can provide valuable insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication and interaction.

The specific purposes of discourse analysis may vary depending on the research context, but some common goals include:

• To understand how language constructs social reality: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain insight into the cultural and social factors that shape communication.
• To identify power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language use reinforces or challenges power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• To explore social and cultural norms: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how social and cultural norms are constructed and maintained through language use. By analyzing language use in different contexts, researchers can gain insight into how social and cultural norms are reproduced and challenged.
• To provide insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.

Characteristics of Discourse Analysis

Here are some key characteristics of discourse analysis:

• Focus on language use: Discourse analysis is centered on language use and how it constructs social meaning, relationships, and power relations.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.
• Systematic and rigorous methodology: Discourse analysis employs a systematic and rigorous methodology, often involving transcription and coding of language data, in order to identify patterns and themes in language use.
• Contextual analysis : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use, and takes into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• Focus on power relations: Discourse analysis often examines power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society.
• Interpretive approach: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it seeks to understand the meaning and significance of language use from the perspective of the participants in a particular discourse.
• Emphasis on reflexivity: Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of reflexivity, or self-awareness, in the research process. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own positionality and how it may shape their interpretation of language use.

Advantages of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis has several advantages as a methodological approach. Here are some of the main advantages:

• Provides a detailed understanding of language use: Discourse analysis allows for a detailed and nuanced understanding of language use in specific social contexts. It enables researchers to identify patterns and themes in language use, and to understand how language constructs social reality.
• Emphasizes the importance of context : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use. By taking into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication, discourse analysis provides a more complete understanding of language use than other approaches.
• Allows for an examination of power relations: Discourse analysis enables researchers to examine power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society. By identifying problematic language use, discourse analysis can contribute to efforts to promote social justice and equality.
• Provides insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. This multidisciplinary approach allows for a more holistic understanding of language use in social contexts.

Limitations of Discourse Analysis

Some Limitations of Discourse Analysis are as follows:

• Time-consuming and resource-intensive: Discourse analysis can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive process. Collecting and transcribing language data can be a time-consuming task, and analyzing the data requires careful attention to detail and a significant investment of time and resources.
• Limited generalizability: Discourse analysis is often focused on a particular social context or community, and therefore the findings may not be easily generalized to other contexts or populations. This means that the insights gained from discourse analysis may have limited applicability beyond the specific context being studied.
• Interpretive nature: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it relies on the interpretation of the researcher to identify patterns and themes in language use. This subjectivity can be a limitation, as different researchers may interpret language data differently.
• Limited quantitative analysis: Discourse analysis tends to focus on qualitative analysis of language data, which can limit the ability to draw statistical conclusions or make quantitative comparisons across different language uses or contexts.
• Ethical considerations: Discourse analysis may involve the collection and analysis of sensitive language data, such as language related to trauma or marginalization. Researchers must carefully consider the ethical implications of collecting and analyzing this type of data, and ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of participants is protected.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Descriptive Statistics – Types, Methods and...

Graphical Methods – Types, Examples and Guide

Histogram – Types, Examples and Making Guide

Content Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Narrative Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on August 23, 2019 by Amy Luo . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Critical discourse analysis (or discourse analysis) is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations.

When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies.  

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis, other interesting articles.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analyzing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g. to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved August 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, get unlimited documents corrected.

✔ Free APA citation check included ✔ Unlimited document corrections ✔ Specialized in correcting academic texts

What (Exactly) Is Discourse Analysis? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you’ve landed on this post, you’re probably interested in discourse analysis, but you’re not sure whether it’s the right fit for your project, or you don’t know where to start. If so, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Discourse Analysis Basics

In this post, we’ll explain in plain, straightforward language :

• What discourse analysis is
• When to use discourse analysis
• The main approaches to discourse analysis
• How to conduct discourse analysis

What is discourse analysis?

Let’s start with the word “discourse”.

In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence . Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term “language” can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context .  “Context” here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language.

A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal.

Now that we’ve defined discourse, let’s look at discourse analysis .

Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning . This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis center in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. We’ll dig deeper into these two above-mentioned approaches later.

As Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) put it: “discourse analysis provides a general framework to problem-oriented social research”. Basically, discourse analysis is used to conduct research on the use of language in context in a wide variety of social problems (i.e., issues in society that affect individuals negatively).

For example, discourse analysis could be used to assess how language is used to express differing viewpoints on financial inequality and would look at how the topic should or shouldn’t be addressed or resolved, and whether this so-called inequality is perceived as such by participants.

What makes discourse analysis unique is that it posits that social reality is socially constructed , or that our experience of the world is understood from a subjective standpoint. Discourse analysis goes beyond the literal meaning of words and languages

For example, people in countries that make use of a lot of censorship will likely have their knowledge, and thus views, limited by this, and will thus have a different subjective reality to those within countries with more lax laws on censorship.

When should you use discourse analysis?

There are many ways to analyze qualitative data (such as content analysis , narrative analysis , and thematic analysis ), so why should you choose discourse analysis? Well, as with all analysis methods, the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. the purpose of your research) will heavily influence the right choice of analysis method.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include the social, cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.

For example, if you were to study a politician’s speeches, you would need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve looking at the politician’s background and views, the reasons for presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the country’s social and political history (just to name a few – there are always multiple contextual factors).

Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power imbalances , including how this is developed and maintained, how this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example, you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example, a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level employee).

Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:

• Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent individuals interact with those who are less wealthy
• How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)
• Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared using language (like in political speeches)
• How communication is used to achieve social goals (such as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)

As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for assessing social issues , as well as power and power imbalances . So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for you.

Discourse Analysis: The main approaches

There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk ) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis ). Let’s take a look at each of these.

Approach #1: Language-in-use

Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.

Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when something “sounds okay” to a native speaker of a language). Analyzing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context.

For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, “un” in “unbelievable”) and suffixes (“able” in “unbelievable”) but doesn’t typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, “that’s un-flipping-believable”. From a language-in-use perspective, the infix “flipping” could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then answering questions such as, “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?”

Need a helping hand?

Approach #2: Socio-political

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context , and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis , which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault’s early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalized power .

Normalized power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It’s what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power , which is power that is actively asserted.

Sounds a bit fluffy? Let’s look at an example.

Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted).

Normalized power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class . It’s the subtle clues we’re given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don’t even realize that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it.

In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analyzing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics.

While the above-mentioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture , customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts).

On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you’re considering using discourse analysis, familiarize yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision.

How to “do” discourse analysis

As every study is different, it’s challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research.

Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach

The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions . Of course, this means that you need to have these components clearly defined. If you’re still a bit uncertain about these, check out our video post covering topic development here.

While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out about a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet), it is still vital to have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis. Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context, it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying language within context.

Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your needs. Importantly, you  need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study’s purpose . So, think carefully about what you are investigating and what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options available within discourse analysis.

It’s vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from the get-go , so that you don’t waste time randomly analyzing your data without any specific plan.

Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data

Once you’ve got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of “talk” and “text” , which means that it can consist of interviews , ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts.  

The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you’re gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the “what”, “who” and “why” of your study, so that you don’t end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Discourse analysis can be very time-consuming, so you want to ensure that you’re not wasting time on information that doesn’t directly pertain to your research questions.

When considering potential collection methods, you should also consider the practicalities . What type of data can you access in reality? How many participants do you have access to and how much time do you have available to collect data and make sense of it? These are important factors, as you’ll run into problems if your chosen methods are impractical in light of your constraints.

Once you’ve determined your data collection method, you can get to work with the collection.

Step 3: Investigate the context

A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:

• What is the discourse?
• Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?
• When did the discourse take place?
• Where did it happen?
• Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?
• What does the discourse say about society in general?
• How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse?

Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible.

Once you’ve investigated the context of your data, you’ll have a much better idea of what you’re working with, and you’ll be far more familiar with your content. It’s then time to begin your analysis.

Step 4: Analyze your data

When performing a discourse analysis, you’ll need to look for themes and patterns .  To do this, you’ll start by looking at codes , which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here.

Next, you’ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about the discourse. For example, if you’re wanting to know about women’s perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be “safety” or “convenience”.

In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation . This refers to when you’ve investigated your topic and analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it’s essential.

Once you’ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you’re ready to move onto the next step – final review.

Step 5: Review your work

Hey, you’re nearly there. Good job! Now it’s time to review your work.

This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data.

Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it’s easier for them to assess your work.

When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives , and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Let’s recap…

In this article, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways are:

• Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to draw meaning from language in context.
• You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to analyze the functions and underlying meanings of language in context.
• The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis are language-in-use and socio-political approaches .
• The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your data, investigating the context of your data, analyzing your data, and reviewing your work.

If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book an initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we can help.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

33 Comments

This was really helpful to me

I would like to know the importance of discourse analysis analysis to academic writing

In academic writing coherence and cohesion are very important. DA will assist us to decide cohesiveness of the continuum of discourse that are used in it. We can judge it well.

Thank you so much for this piece, can you please direct how I can use Discourse Analysis to investigate politics of ethnicity in a particular society

Fantastically helpful! Could you write on how discourse analysis can be done using computer aided technique? Many thanks

I would like to know if I can use discourse analysis to research on electoral integrity deviation and when election are considered free & fair

I also to know the importance of discourse analysis and it’s purpose and characteristics

This is helpful. It is highly informative. Thank you. Is it possible to use more one analysis technique? I would to book for personal assistance. I am doing my Methodology chapter for a PhD Thesis.

Thanks, we are doing discourse analysis as a subject this year and this helped a lot!

Please can you help explain and answer this question? With illustrations,Hymes’ Acronym SPEAKING, as a feature of Discourse Analysis.

What are the three objectives of discourse analysis especially on the topic how people communicate between doctor and patient

Very useful Thank you for your work and information

thank you so much , I wanna know more about discourse analysis tools , such as , latent analysis , active powers analysis, proof paths analysis, image analysis, rhetorical analysis, propositions analysis, and so on, I wish I can get references about it , thanks in advance

Its beyond my expectations. It made me clear everything which I was struggling since last 4 months. 👏 👏 👏 👏

Thank you so much … It is clear and helpful

Thanks for sharing this material. My question is related to the online newspaper articles on COVID -19 pandemic the way this new normal is constructed as a social reality. How discourse analysis is an appropriate approach to examine theese articles?

This very helpful and interesting information

This was incredible! And massively helpful.

I’m seeking further assistance if you don’t mind.

Found it worth consuming!

What are the four types of discourse analysis?

very helpful. And I’d like to know more about Ethnography-based discourse analysis as I’m studying arts and humanities, I’d like to know how can I use it in my study.

Amazing info. Very happy to read this helpful piece of documentation. Thank you.

is discourse analysis can take data from medias like TV, Radio…?

I need to know what is general discourse analysis

Direct to the point, simple and deep explanation. this is helpful indeed.

Thank you so much was really helpful

really impressive

Thank you very much, for the clear explanations and examples.

It is really awesome. Anybody within just in 5 minutes understand this critical topic so easily. Thank you so much.

Thank you for enriching my knowledge on Discourse Analysis . Very helpful thanks again

This was extremely helpful. I feel less anxious now. Thank you so much.

Extremely helpful, I am going to be working on CDA about animal rights, particularly stray dogs using social media content, and I was so lost, thank you for clearly illustrating how the research should go forward, thank you

This is helpful. It is highly informative. Thank you. Is it possible to use more than one analysis technique in a single study? I would like to book for personal assistance. I am doing my Methodology chapter for a PhD Thesis.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• How it works

Discourse Analysis – A Definitive Guide With Steps & Types

Published by Alvin Nicolas at August 14th, 2021 , Revised On August 29, 2023

What is Discourse Analysis?

Discourse analysis is an essential aspect of studying a language and its uses in day-to-day life.

It aims to gain in-depth knowledge about the language and identify its association with society, culture, and people’s perception.

It is used in various social science and humanities disciplines, such as linguistic, sociolinguistics, and psycholinguistics.

Aims of Discourse Analysis

It focuses on

• The clear, in-depth meaning of the language.
• The uses of language and its effects.
• The association of the language with cultures, interpersonal relationships, and communication.
• Various components of the language like vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, tone of voice, fonts, and written form.

Uses of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is

• Used to study the language and its applications in texts and contexts.
• It focuses on the entire conversation and real text instead of constructed or artificial text.
• It helps linguists to know the role of language in improving the understanding of people.
• It enables teachers to learn many language strategies to teach students writing/speaking skills better.

Materials Used in Discourse Analysis

The material includes

Types of Discourse

What to Analyse?

Does your Research Methodology Have the Following?

• Great Research/Sources
• Perfect Language
• Accurate Sources

If not, we can help. Our panel of experts makes sure to keep the 3 pillars of Research Methodology strong.

How to Conduct Discourse Analysis?

While conducting discourse analysis, you need to focus on the following points.

• Purpose of the writer
• The context of the speech/passage
• Type of the language used.
• The organisation of the text

You need to interpret the meaning and context of the discourse based on the available material and resources. There are various methods to conduct discourse analysis, but we are discussing the most basic method below.

Step1: Develop a Research Question

Like any other research in discourse analysis, it’s essential to have a  research question  to proceed with your study.  After selecting your research question, you need to find out the relevant resources to find the answer to it. Discourse analysis can be applied to smaller or larger samples depending on your research’s aims and requirements.

Example : If you want to find out the impact of plagiarism on the credibility of the authors. You can examine the relevant materials available on the topic from the internet, newspapers, and books published during the past 5-10 years.

Step 2: Collect Information and Establish the Context

After formulating a research question, you can  review the literature and find out the details about the source material, such as:

• Who is the author?
• What is the year and date of publication?
• What’s the name of the publication?
• What country and place is it from?
• What language is used?
• How and where did you find it?
• How can others get access to the same source?
• What kind of impact did it make on its audience?
• What’s the association between discourse material and real life?

These questions enable you to construct a strong evidence-based theory about your study.

Example: While investigating the history and origin of a particular religion. You also have to research the political events, culture, language of the people, and their association with society.

Generally, details about the publication and production of the material are available in the  about section on their online websites. If you don’t find the relevant information online, don’t hesitate to contact the editor or publication via email, phone calls, etc. 

Step 3: Analyse the Content

In this step, you should analyse various aspects of the materials such as:

• Sentence structure
• Inter-relationship between the text
• Layout and Page quality (if you are using offline materials)
• Links, comments, technical excellence, readability, multimedia content (if you are using online material)
• The genre of the source (a news item, political speech, a report, interview, biography, commentary, etc.)

The analysis of these elements gives you a clear understanding, and you can present your findings more accurately.  Once you have analysed the above features, you should analyse the following aspects:

• The structure of the argument
• The role of the introduction and conclusion of the material
• The context of the material
• Patterns and themes
• Discursive statements (arguments, perspective, thoughts of the writer/speaker
• Grammatical features (use of pronouns, adjectives, phrases, active or passive voice, and their meaning)
• Literary figures (idioms, similes, metaphors, allegories, proverbs)

Step 4: Interpret the Data

Now you have all the information, but the question that arises here is: 

What does it all mean?

To answer this question,  compile all your findings  to explain the meaning and context of the discourse.

Step 5: Present your Findings

It’s time to present your results. Throughout the process, you gathered detailed notes of the discourse, building a strong presentation or thesis. You can use the references of other relevant sources as evidence to support your discussion. Always try to make your paper interesting to grab the attention of the reader.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Discourse Analysis

• It provides a way of thinking and analysing the problem.
• It enables us to understand the context and perception of the speaker.
• It can be applied at any given time, place, and people.
• It helps to learn any language its origin and association with society and culture.

Disadvantages

• There are many options available as each tradition has its own concepts, procedures, and a specific understanding of discourse and its analysis.
• Discourse analysis doesn’t help to find out the answer to scientific problems.

Frequently Asked Questions

How to describe the discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis examines language use in context. It studies how communication shapes and reflects social meaning, power dynamics, and cultural norms. By analyzing spoken, written, or visual language, it unveils hidden ideologies, identities, and social structures within various contexts.

You May Also Like

A confounding variable can potentially affect both the suspected cause and the suspected effect. Here is all you need to know about accounting for confounding variables in research.

Baffled by the concept of reliability and validity? Reliability refers to the consistency of measurement. Validity refers to the accuracy of measurement.

Quantitative research is associated with measurable numerical data. Qualitative research is where a researcher collects evidence to seek answers to a question.

USEFUL LINKS

LEARNING RESOURCES

COMPANY DETAILS

• How It Works

• 🆕 Interactive Articles

Methods and Approaches of Discourse Analysis

• by Discourse Analyzer
• March 31, 2024 May 3, 2024

Are you ready to enhance your learning by asking the assistant?

Alternatively, if you don't have an account yet

“Methods and Approaches of Discourse Analysis” article serves as a gateway for readers interested in the complex ways that language influences and reflects social structures. The article details various analytical frameworks and methodologies used in Discourse Analysis (DA), ranging from Content Analysis and Conversation Analysis to more critical perspectives like Foucauldian Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis . Each approach is carefully outlined to show how it contributes to understanding language in texts and social interactions, whether through quantitative measurement of language features or qualitative interpretations of textual meanings. Additionally, the article addresses the significance of methodological diversity in DA, including mixed methods approaches that combine qualitative depth with quantitative breadth, offering a richer, more comprehensive understanding of discourse. This introductory guide not only equips readers with the knowledge of different DA methods but also emphasizes the importance of rigorous data collection, ethical considerations, and the thoughtful analysis necessary to explore the powerful role of language in shaping human experience and social order.

1) Content Analysis

2) conversation analysis (ca), 3) critical discourse analysis (cda), 4) ethnography of communication, 5) foucauldian discourse analysis, 6) narrative analysis, 7) multimodal discourse analysis, 8) corpus linguistics, 1) qualitative approaches, 2) quantitative approaches, 3) differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches, 4) mixed methods in da, 1) data collection and analysis, 2) coding and categorizing data, 3) ethical considerations, frequently asked questions, 1. analytical frameworks.

Discourse Analysis (DA) encompasses a variety of methods and approaches for examining language use across texts, talks, and social practices . These methods vary widely depending on the theoretical perspective and the specific objectives of the research. Below are some key methods and approaches used in Discourse Analysis:

This method involves systematically categorizing the content of texts (which could be written texts, speech, or other forms of communication) to quantify certain aspects, such as the frequency of certain words, phrases, themes, or concepts. Content analysis can be both qualitative and quantitative and is useful for analyzing large volumes of text to identify patterns or trends.

CA is a methodological approach that focuses on the detailed, systematic study of the talk in interaction . It examines the sequential organization of speech to understand how participants in a conversation manage turn-taking, repair, openings, closings, and how they achieve mutual understanding. CA is particularly interested in the procedural aspects of conversation and how social actions are accomplished through talk.

CDA is an approach that aims to understand the relationship between discourse and social power . It analyzes how discourse structures (such as texts, talks, or visual images) serve to establish, maintain, or challenge power relations within society. CDA pays close attention to the ways in which language is used to represent different social groups and interests, often focusing on issues of ideology , identity , and hegemony.

This approach combines ethnographic methods with the analysis of discourse, focusing on the ways in which language use is embedded within cultural contexts . Researchers adopting this method study communication practices within their socio-cultural settings to understand the norms, values, and expectations that govern how language is used in specific communities.

Inspired by the work of Michel Foucault , this approach examines how discourses construct subjects, objects, and knowledge within specific historical and social contexts . It is concerned with the rules and practices that produce discourses, how discourses are related to power and knowledge , and the effects they have on society and individual subjects.

Narrative analysis focuses on the ways in which people use stories to make sense of their experiences and the world around them. This method examines the structure, content, and function of narratives to understand how individuals construct identities and social realities through storytelling.

With the recognition that communication is not only verbal but also involves other modes (such as visual, audio, gestural), multimodal discourse analysis studies how these different modes interact and contribute to the meaning-making process. It is particularly relevant in the analysis of digital media, advertising, and other forms of communication that use multiple semiotic resources.

While not exclusively a method of discourse analysis, corpus linguistics involves analyzing large collections of texts (corpora) using computational tools to identify patterns, frequencies, collocations, and other linguistic features. This method can support discourse analysis by providing empirical evidence of language use across different contexts .

Each of these methods and approaches brings a unique perspective to the study of discourse, allowing researchers to explore the complex ways in which language shapes and is shaped by social reality . The choice of method often depends on the research questions, the data available, and the theoretical framework guiding the analysis.

2. Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches

Discourse Analysis (DA) can be approached through qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods, depending on the research objectives, the nature of the data, and the theoretical framework adopted. Understanding these different approaches and how they can be integrated provides a comprehensive toolkit for researchers in the field.

Qualitative approaches to DA focus on the interpretation of textual or spoken data to understand the underlying meanings, themes, and patterns within a discourse. This method is less about counting occurrences and more about understanding the context, the social practices, and the power relations that discourse reflects and constructs. Qualitative DA is deeply concerned with the nuances of language use, such as metaphors, narrative structures, and the ways in which language constructs identities and social realities.

Applications: Qualitative DA is often used in studies where the goal is to explore the complexities of discourse in shaping social phenomena, such as identity formation, social inequality , or cultural practices. Methods like Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Conversation Analysis (CA) typically adopt a qualitative approach.

Quantitative approaches to DA involve the systematic coding and counting of features within texts or spoken language to identify patterns, frequencies, and correlations. This method relies on statistical analysis to draw conclusions about the data, offering a more objective measurement of discourse patterns.

Applications: Quantitative DA is suitable for studies aiming to generalize findings from a larger corpus of text or speech. It can be used to track changes in discourse over time, compare discourse across different groups, or measure the prevalence of certain linguistic features. Content analysis and corpus linguistics are examples of methods that can be applied quantitatively.

• Objective vs. Subjective: Quantitative DA is often viewed as more objective, relying on statistical methods to analyze data, while qualitative DA is more subjective, focusing on the interpretation of texts and contexts.
• Data Representation: Quantitative methods result in numerical data, graphs, and tables, whereas qualitative methods produce detailed descriptions, themes, and narrative accounts.
• Focus: Quantitative DA tends to focus on the frequency and distribution of certain elements within discourse, whereas qualitative DA focuses on the content, meaning , and context of discourse.
• Scope: Quantitative approaches can handle large volumes of data, making them suitable for broad analyses. Qualitative approaches, while potentially more time-consuming, provide deep insights into smaller datasets.

Mixed methods involve the combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches in the analysis of discourse. This integration allows for a more comprehensive understanding of discourse by leveraging the strengths of both methodologies.

Applications: Mixed methods can be particularly useful when researchers seek to explore a complex research question that requires both an in-depth understanding of contextual meanings (qualitative) and the generalizability or measurement of certain features across a larger dataset (quantitative). For example, a mixed-methods study might first use qualitative methods to explore the themes and narratives within a set of interviews and then apply quantitative methods to measure how frequently certain themes appear across a broader range of texts.

Advantages: Mixed methods in DA offer a robust framework for research, allowing researchers to validate findings through triangulation, enrich the analysis by combining insights from different methodological perspectives, and provide a more nuanced understanding of the phenomena under study.

In summary, the choice between qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods in Discourse Analysis depends on the research questions, the nature of the data, and the goals of the study. Each approach offers unique insights and has its place in the comprehensive study of discourse.

3. Data Collection and Analysis

Discourse Analysis (DA) involves a meticulous process of data collection and analysis, with careful consideration of the types of texts or corpora selected, the methodologies employed for coding and categorizing data, and adherence to ethical standards. Here’s an overview:

In DA, data can comprise a wide variety of texts, including written documents (books, articles, social media posts), spoken language (interviews, conversations, speeches), or multimodal texts (videos, images with captions). The choice of data depends on the research question and the theoretical framework guiding the analysis.

Selecting Texts and Corpora The selection of texts or corpora is a critical step in DA. Researchers must choose texts that are representative of the discourse being studied, considering factors such as genre, context, and the social practices they reflect. For instance, a study on political discourse might analyze speeches and social media posts of political figures, while research on medical discourse might examine patient-doctor conversations and medical textbooks. It’s essential to justify the selection of texts to ensure the study’s relevance and reliability.

Analyzing the Data Analysis in DA varies widely across different approaches but generally involves closely reading and interpreting the text to uncover patterns, themes, meanings, and structures. This might involve identifying discourse strategies, narrative structures, rhetorical devices, or specific uses of language that reveal underlying ideologies, power relations, or social identities .

Coding involves systematically labeling segments of the text to identify specific features or themes. This can be done manually or with the help of software. Coding can be inductive, emerging from the data itself, or deductive, based on pre-existing theoretical frameworks.

Categorizing involves grouping coded segments into broader categories that reflect major themes, concepts, or discourse strategies identified in the analysis. This process helps in structuring the analysis and facilitating the interpretation of how language functions within the texts.

Ethical considerations in DA are paramount, especially when dealing with sensitive topics or personal data. Key ethical concerns include:

• Consent: Ensuring that participants in studies involving spoken discourse or private texts have given informed consent for their data to be used in research.
• Anonymity and Confidentiality: Protecting the identity of participants by anonymizing data and maintaining confidentiality, especially when dealing with sensitive information.
• Impact: Considering the potential impact of the research on participants and communities, including avoiding harm and misrepresentation.
• Bias and Reflexivity: Researchers should be aware of their own biases and the power dynamics in the research process, striving for reflexivity in how their perspectives and choices may influence the analysis.

Overall, DA requires a thoughtful and rigorous approach to data collection, analysis, coding, and ethical practices. These steps ensure that the research is robust, reliable, and respectful of the communities and discourses it aims to understand.

In conclusion, the analytical frameworks of Discourse Analysis (DA) present a rich tapestry of methodologies that enable researchers to delve into the complexities of language and its role in shaping social phenomena. From qualitative approaches that unveil nuanced meanings embedded within discourse to quantitative methods that uncover patterns and frequencies, each framework contributes to a comprehensive understanding of language use. Moreover, the integration of mixed methods offers a holistic approach, bridging the qualitative-depth and quantitative-breadth to provide multifaceted insights into discourse analysis. As researchers navigate the terrain of data collection, analysis, and ethical considerations, they engage in a rigorous process that not only illuminates the mechanisms of discourse but also upholds principles of integrity and respect. Ultimately, these analytical frameworks serve as invaluable tools for unraveling the multifaceted nature of language and its profound impact on society, paving the way for deeper insights and transformative understanding.

DA is a field that examines language use across texts, talks, and social practices to uncover how language shapes and is shaped by social reality. It incorporates various methods and approaches, influenced by theoretical perspectives and research objectives.

Key methods include Content Analysis, Conversation Analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis, Ethnography of Communication , Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, Narrative Analysis, Multimodal Discourse Analysis, and Corpus Linguistics. Each method offers a unique lens for analyzing discourse.

Content Analysis systematically categorizes text content to quantify aspects like word frequencies, themes, or concepts. It can be qualitative or quantitative and is ideal for analyzing large volumes of text to identify patterns.

CA focuses on the detailed study of talk in interaction, examining how participants manage conversation through turn-taking, repair, and achieving mutual understanding. It emphasizes the procedural aspects of conversation and social action accomplishment.

CDA aims to understand the relationship between discourse and social power, analyzing discourse structures to see how they establish, maintain, or challenge power relations. It explores language use in representing social groups and focuses on ideology, identity, and hegemony.

This approach merges ethnographic methods with discourse analysis, studying how language use is embedded in cultural contexts. It aims to understand the norms, values, and expectations governing language use in specific communities.

Inspired by Michel Foucault, this approach examines how discourses construct subjects, objects, and knowledge within historical and social contexts. It focuses on discourse production rules, power-knowledge relations, and societal effects.

Narrative Analysis studies how people use stories to construct identities and realities, examining narrative structure, content, and function to understand storytelling’s role in experience interpretation.

Recognizing that communication involves various modes (visual, audio, gestural), this analysis studies how different modes interact and contribute to meaning-making, especially in digital media and advertising.

Although not exclusively for DA, Corpus Linguistics analyzes large text collections using computational tools to identify linguistic patterns, frequencies, and features, providing empirical language use evidence across contexts.

Qualitative approaches focus on interpreting textual or spoken data to understand underlying meanings and contexts. In contrast, quantitative approaches involve systematic coding and counting of text features to identify patterns and correlations. Mixed methods combine both to offer a comprehensive discourse understanding.

Ethical considerations include obtaining informed consent, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality, considering research impact, and being reflexive about biases and power dynamics in the research process.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Privacy Policy

Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is the analysis of both written and spoken language in relation to its social context and refers to the way that different types of language construct meaning. The emergence of discourse analysis can be traced back to the work of French theorist Michel Foucault who considered discourses as statements that are recognised as meaningful within society and then reproduced through said discourse. Fundamentally, discourse analysis is considered valuable as it seeks to establish how and why certain social ‘scripts’ or systems are attributed significance and therefore helps us better understand the world around us. Discourse analysis also provides a tool to analyse the role of language in reinforcing and producing such social value systems and material realities. In this sense, “language does not explain the world as much as produces it” (Dunn and Neumann, 2016: 2).

Discourse analysis typically begins with the close reading and rereading of texts. Rereading of texts enables the analyst to notice small details and systematic patterns within the data which can highlight patterns, variability, and consistencies (Albertin  et al , 2016). Following this stage, it is possible to develop hypothesis around how certain linguistic forms operate in that context. Whilst discourse analysis is embedded within a wide constructivist theoretical framework, the analytical approach applied will vary according to the epistemological context of the research.

Discourse analysis methods are employed within a wide range of fields however are commonly used within linguistics, sociology, anthropology, education, and social psychology, to name a few.

Newcastle University is home to the Critical Discourse Group which “aims to address issues concerning the relationships between language, politics, media and culture.” Find out more  here .

An example project that utilises discourse analysis can be found  here .

• Darren Kelsey
• Hanna Burdorf
• Majid Khosravinik
• Soudeh Ghaffari
• Steve Walsh

Courses or Relevant Research

ALC8031: Discourse Analysis

ALT8107: Discourse Analysis for English Language Teachers

Applied Linguistics & Communication Research

Albertin Carbó, P., Vázquez Ahumada, Andrea., Dorado, A.D., (2016). "How do I do Discourse Analysis?" Teaching Discourse Analysis to novice researchers through a study of intimate partner gender violence among migrant women,  Qualitative Social Work ., 15(3), pp. 363-379.

Dunn, K., and Neumann, I., (2016).  Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research.  Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Discourse Analysis

Saul McLeod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

What is Discourse Analysis?

Discourse analysis is a qualitative research method used to study written and spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations.

It goes beyond analyzing just the words and sentences to establish a deeper understanding of how language is used.

Instead, it examines the linguistic content (what is being said) and the way language is used in a given text to convey meaning in different social settings.

Instead of simply focusing on the literal meanings of words and sentences, discourse analysis explores the deeper meaning behind how language is used in specific social contexts.

This method of research analyzes the intended meaning behind the words and phrases within a specific context, rather than just their definition, frequency, or surface-level themes.

It helps researchers understand the underlying values, assumptions, and intentions embedded in language.

Language helps people share thoughts and ideas, build relationships, establish culture, influence others, and create meaning.

Discourse analysis, therefore, provides a lens through which researchers can view the many functions of language, including shaping power structures, constructing societal narratives, and molding opinions

Researchers use discourse analysis to study:

• How language creates and maintains social identities: Researchers can analyze how linguistic choices contribute to identity formation and expression by scrutinizing language use in diverse settings.
• How language creates and maintains power relations: This involves analyzing how language is used to reinforce or challenge power structures and reveal unspoken assumptions and biases related to social hierarchies. For instance, analyzing how politicians use language to construct social divisions.
• How language is shaped by and reflects social and cultural values: Discourse analysis recognizing that meaning is shaped by social and cultural factors. It explores how language use reflects cultural values and how those values, in turn, influence language interpretation.
• How language constructs and maintains social reality: Discourse analysis recognizes that language does not merely reflect reality but actively constructs and maintains it. It investigates how individuals utilize shared linguistic resources to create specific versions of social phenomena and realities.
• How language can be used to persuade, inform, or entertain: Discourse analysts recognize that language is inherently action-oriented, meaning people use it to accomplish particular interactional goals, which can include persuading, informing, or entertaining. For example, studying how politicians use persuasive language in political discourse to win elections.

Key Concepts

The social, cultural, and historical factors that influence communication play a crucial role in discourse analysis. The context of a conversation shapes the meaning of the language used, even if the words themselves are the same. For instance, a chat with a police officer differs significantly from a casual conversation with a close friend, highlighting the importance of context in shaping language use.

2. Structure

Discourse analysis examines how language is organized and structured to convey meaning. This involves studying elements such as:

• Turn-taking in conversations.
• The overall organization of interactions.
• How sequences of language are organized.

3. Statements

By dissecting individual statements within a text, discourse analysis seeks to understand how specific language choices contribute to the overall meaning. Researchers employ various “lenses” or “tools” to examine these statements, such as those outlined by Gee, which help uncover the ways in which language communicates, persuades, and constructs meaning.

4. Shape Reality

One of the key insights of discourse analysis is that language is not neutral; instead, it actively shapes our understanding of the world and influences social reality. Through language, we construct our identities, relationships, and knowledge systems. Discourse analysis helps researchers understand how this process works in different contexts.

5. Power Dynamics

Discourse analysis is often used to uncover how language can reflect and perpetuate power imbalances in society. For example, critical discourse analysis (CDA) examines how language can be used to assert dominance, control narratives, and marginalize certain groups.

CDA aims to deconstruct these power dynamics and challenge social inequality by bringing them to light.

Types of Discourse Analysis

There are two primary approaches to discourse analysis: language-in-use and socio-political.

The language-in-use approach focuses on the technical aspects of language, such as how grammar, syntax, and phonology are used to create meaning. The socio-political approach examines how language reflects normalized or repressive power dynamics.

1. Language-in-use Approaches to Discourse Analysis

Language-in-use approaches to discourse analysis concentrate on the linguistic features of language , including:

The aim is to understand how these aspects of language are used and manipulated in social contexts. This approach recognizes that language does not merely reflect a pre-existing social reality but actively constructs it.

For example, how conversational markers (e.g., turn-taking, overlap, exhalation, disagreement) are used to negotiate meaning and build knowledge within conversations.

“Language-in-use” is sometimes used synonymously with “ pragmatics ,” which refers to the study of how context influences the meaning of language .

This includes analyzing how listeners interpret the meaning of words and phrases based on the social context.

Analyzing language in use involves two key tasks:

• Utterance-type meaning: Studying the typical communicative functions of language forms (e.g., how a specific grammatical structure is generally used).
• Utterance-token/Situated meaning: Examining how the meaning of language forms varies depending on the specific context in which they are used.

However, the terms “discourse analysis” and “pragmatics” are not always used in the same way.

Sometimes, “discourse analysis” is reserved for analyzing how sentences in a spoken or written text work together to create meaning and define different genres (e.g., dialogues, narratives, reports).

This distinction emphasizes the role of language in shaping and being shaped by social situations.

When analyzing discourse, it’s important to consider the interplay of various linguistic elements, cultural influences, and social dynamics.

Researchers use a systematic approach, carefully examining spoken conversations, written texts, and visual media to understand how language functions within a particular context.

This involves going beyond literal meanings to uncover the hidden dimensions and power dynamics embedded in communication.

Key Concepts Related to Language-in-use:

• Context of Situation: The specific circumstances surrounding language use, including the relationships among participants, communicative purposes, and the mode of communication (spoken or written).
• Register: The variety of language used in a particular context of situation, reflecting the field (social activity), tenor (relationships between interactants), and mode (role of language).
• Genre: A recognizable and recurring communicative event characterized by its purpose, structure, and typical linguistic features (e.g., research articles, political speeches). Genres can be analyzed as a specific form of discourse analysis, focusing on recurring language use patterns.
• Intertextuality: The way in which one text incorporates, references, or alludes to other texts, either directly or indirectly. This highlights the interconnectedness of texts and how meaning is constructed through these connections.

Example Methods

• Conversation analysis : Focuses on the structure and patterns of spoken interaction. For example, this approach can be used to study how people manage turn-taking and negotiate roles during conversations. Conversation analysis often uses transcripts of conversations to examine how conversational markers, such as pauses or specific phrases, contribute to the conversation’s flow and meaning.
• Narrative analysis : Looks at how individuals construct their identities and experiences through storytelling. Researchers using this approach might analyze personal accounts of homelessness to understand how individuals integrate their experiences with societal narratives.

2. Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis are more philosophical and mainly concerned with how language constructs and sustains power dynamics in society. Although politics is a central focus, these approaches apply more broadly.

These approaches move beyond analyzing just the linguistic elements to consider the social and political implications of language use:

Critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) examines how language is used to create, maintain, and challenge power relations in society. CDA is particularly concerned with issues of social justice, inequality, and oppression.

CDA is inspired by philosopher Michel Foucault, who argued that language reflects how power is used in society.

Critical discourse analysis researchers believe that language isn’t neutral; it reflects power dynamics in society.

It aims to uncover the hidden agendas and biases that are present in everyday conversations and official communications.

Assumptions

• CDA recognizes that language isn’t just about communication; it shapes our understanding of the world and how we see reality.
• It explores how language can both reinforce and challenge the power of those in dominant positions.
• CDA often focuses on institutional discourse—the language used in settings like schools, courts, and the media—because these institutions often reflect and perpetuate broader social power dynamics.
• CDA examines the language used in media, like news coverage, to see how those in power might be misusing their position or how inequality, dominance, and pushback are portrayed in discussions of social and political topics.

For example

• CDA might be used to study how politicians use language to divide people in a campaign speech.
• It could also be used to examine how medical language can reinforce the authority of doctors over patients.

CDA researchers pay close attention to who has control over communication :

• They look at who gets to decide the time and place of a conversation, who is allowed to speak, and what topics are considered acceptable.
• They also study how grammatical choices and the structure of conversations can reflect and reinforce power dynamics. For example, in some situations, people in less powerful positions may have to speak differently than those in positions of authority.

CDA argues that understanding these subtle ways that language shapes our perceptions of power is crucial for challenging social inequality.

Discourse analysis offers a powerful lens for critically examining the intricate relationship between language, meaning, and social life.

Other examples of critial discourse analysis

• Feminist discourse analysis : Focuses specifically on how language constructs and perpetuates gender norms and ideologies. Researchers utilizing this approach might study how beauty advertisements reinforce specific beauty standards and how consumers engage with or resist these representations.
• Foucauldian discourse analysis : Inspired by the work of philosopher Michel Foucault, examines how discourse shapes knowledge, power, and social practices. This approach emphasizes the relationship between language and power, exploring how discourse constructs our understanding of the world and influences our actions.
• Ethnography of communication : Rooted in anthropology, studies communication within cultural contexts, examining the rules and norms that govern interactions within specific communities. This approach involves immersing oneself in a particular social group to understand their communication patterns, often using participant observation and interviews to collect data.

Steps for Conducting Discourse Analysis

Step 1: define the research question and select the content of analysis.

Begin with a clearly defined research question and then select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Examples of clearly defined research questions

• How does media coverage of immigration policies reinforce or challenge prevailing stereotypes and power dynamics in shaping public perceptions?
• How do beauty advertisements construct and perpetuate gender norms and ideologies of beauty, and how do consumers negotiate or resist these representations?
• How do participants in family dinner conversations use language to negotiate roles, relationships, and decision-making processes?
• How do linguistic features, visual elements, and interaction patterns in online political discussions on social media platforms contribute to the polarization of political opinions?

Select the content of analysis

After developing a research question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis can be applied to both large volumes of material and smaller samples, depending on the research aims and timescale.

To illustrate, consider a research project exploring how a country’s transition from a dictatorship to a democracy affected the public relations rhetoric of businesses in that country.

The researcher might decide to analyze the mission statements and marketing material from the 10 largest companies within 5 years of the regime change

Step 2: Collect information about the material production and its presentation medium

When engaging in discourse analysis, gathering information about the material production and presentation is essential for putting data into context and gaining a complete nuanced understanding.

What does “Material Production” mean?

Material production refers to the origin and creation of the text or content you are analyzing. This means finding out:

• When and where the content was created
• Who the author is
• Who published the material
• Who the intended audience is
• The historical context in which the content was created

What does “Presentation Medium” mean?

“Presentation Medium” refers to how the material is presented. This could include things like:

• The type of media used (e.g. book, newspaper, website, social media post, interview, political speech, advertisement, government document).
• The specific publication or platform where the material appeared (e.g. The New York Times, Facebook, Twitter).
• The format of the material (e.g. article, blog post, video, speech).

Example: Analyzing a speech

Let’s say you’re analyzing a speech about climate change. To understand the speech properly, you would need to know:

• Material Production:  Who wrote the speech? Is the speaker a scientist, a politician, or an activist? What is their background? When and where was the speech given?
• Presentation Medium:  Where was the speech delivered? Was it a public address, a speech to a specific group, or a presentation at a conference? Was it live-streamed or recorded?

By considering these factors, you can better understand the speaker’s perspective and motivations, as well as the potential impact of the speech.

Step 4: Identify the text producer(s) and their position(s) in discourse analysis

Identifying the text producer(s) and their position(s) is often carried out in conjunction with understanding the material production of a text (step 3).

This step involves figuring out who created the text and what perspectives and biases they might have . It’s like trying to understand where someone is coming from when they’re talking to you.

Identifying the text producer(s) and their positions is an important step towards critically analyzing a text and uncovering the hidden meanings and assumptions embedded within it.

To determine the text producer’s position, you need to examine:

• Their background, profession, and area of expertise.
• Their role in the social context of the text.
• Their relationship to other participants in the discourse.

By considering these factors, you can gain insights into the author’s perspective and potential biases.

For example, in an academic study analyzing interviews with teenagers from working-class and upper-middle-class families, the researchers considered the social and economic backgrounds of the teenagers and their interviewers.

They also acknowledged the power dynamics inherent in the interviewer-interviewee relationship, recognizing that teenagers might adapt their language based on the perceived identity of the interviewer as a “school-based” or “college-based” person.

Similarly, when analyzing workplace interactions, researchers might look at the power dynamics between managers and employees or between colleagues at different levels of seniority.

Understanding these dynamics can shed light on how language is used to negotiate power, status, and identity within specific social contexts.

Step 5: Examine the structure of the text

After figuring out the context of your data, you should analyze how the author organized their ideas and arguments to form the “structure” of the text, which provides further context.

• Locate key sections and their relationship: Look for important sections where the main ideas are presented and see how they connect to each other.
• Analyze argument presentation: Pay attention to how the author presents their arguments, using elements like headings, formatting, introductions, and conclusions.
• Identify key arguments and support: Figure out the main points the author is making and how they are backing up those points with evidence or explanations.
• Identify viewpoints and negotiation: See if the text presents different perspectives and how the author navigates between those viewpoints.

By understanding the structure, you can better grasp the author’s goals and what they are trying to say. This understanding also makes your qualitative analysis and results stronger.

Helpful tips for examining the text structure:

• Read Carefully and Take Notes: Pay close attention to the author’s main ideas and how they are organized while reading. Jot down notes on the important parts of the text and how those parts relate to one another.
• Words like “first,” “second,” and “third” might suggest a chronological order.
• Words like “however,” “on the other hand,” and “in contrast” might point to a compare/contrast structure.
• Use Graphic Organizers: Graphic organizers can be useful tools to visualize the structure of a text. Some common options include flow charts, co-occurrence matrices, Venn diagrams, and mind maps.

At the base of the pyramid lies the context . Every interview, document, or text is situated within some context, be it cultural or otherwise.

Moving up a level, we encounter the structure of these interviews, documents, or texts. While they consist of discursive statements, these statements are part of a larger rhetorical structure that’s important to understand.

At the apex of the pyramid are the statements themselves. Statements form the core of texts, and discourse analysis offers various lenses that delve deeply into these statements.

Step 6: Analyze the discursive statements within the text

Identify statements within the text that reveal underlying values, assumptions, and how the text constructs social reality.

Discursive statements are the fundamental units of meaning within a discourse.

They’re essentially the sentences or phrases that convey ideas and arguments within a text. Analyzing these statements involves dissecting them to uncover their underlying meaning and how they contribute to the overall message of the text.

To analyze discursive statements effectively, you can use different “lenses” or analytical tools. These lenses help you examine the statement from multiple perspectives and uncover hidden layers of meaning.

Here are a few examples of these lenses:

• Frame Lens : After analyzing the discursive statements, go back to the context surrounding the text. Consider if there’s any additional information that might change your initial analysis. This lens encourages you to think critically about how the context shapes the meaning of the statements.
• “Doing and Not Just Saying” Lens: Look beyond the literal meaning of the statement and consider what the speaker or writer is trying to achieve with their words. This lens helps you understand the intention behind the statement, recognizing that communication involves both explicit and implicit messages. For example, a politician might use vague language to hide contradictions between their actions and their public image.
• Stanza Lens: This lens focuses on the organization and structure of the text. Examine how sentences and paragraphs are grouped to form distinct sections or “stanzas.” Understanding this structure helps you understand how the author guides the reader’s understanding and emphasizes certain points.
• Activities Building Lens : Consider how the statements within the text contribute to specific social activities or practices. This lens encourages you to think about the broader social implications of the language used. For example, even a car’s user manual has a specific structure and uses language in a way that promotes certain activities.

Analyzing discursive statements is like peeling back the layers of an onion. Each layer reveals new insights into how language shapes meaning and understanding.

By using different analytical lenses, you can gain a deeper appreciation for the complexities of language and its role in constructing social realities.

It’s important to start by practicing the analysis of discursive statements in different types of texts, like news articles or speeches. This practice will help you refine your analytical skills and better understand how discourse operates in various contexts.

Remember, the goal is to move beyond simply describing what the text says to understanding how it constructs meaning and shapes our understanding of the world.

Step 7: Interpreting data and explaining discourse

Connect your findings to explain the essence and functionality of the discourse.

Interpreting the data requires connecting the findings from the previous steps of discourse analysis to explain the main point and purpose of the discourse.

This means taking everything learned about the discourse’s background, author, and social impact and putting it all together into a clear and organized written report.

The goal is to go beyond merely describing what the text says to understanding how it constructs meaning. This involves moving back and forth between the context and the language used.

For example, if analyzing a speech, consider the speaker’s background and their relationship to the audience.

Think about the social and historical events happening when the speech was given, and what the speaker hoped to achieve with their words.

By connecting these contextual factors to the specific language used in the speech, one can start to interpret the data and explain the speech’s essence and function.

It is important to remember that discourse analysis is about formulating hypotheses and gaining confidence in them by looking at data. Always be open to finding evidence that might contradict any hypotheses.

Step 8: Present your findings

You need to convey the results of your discourse analysis in an organized way. This may involve:

• Writing a research paper.
• Giving a presentation.
• Creating a multimedia product.

When presenting your findings, you should:

• Emphasize the relevance of your findings.
• Present a compelling case supported by evidence from your analysis.
• Consider who your audience will be and whether they are familiar with discourse analysis.
• Focus on what is new about your findings if your audience already uses discourse analysis.

Discourse analysis researchers typically disseminate research findings through:

• Conference presentations
• Journal articles
• Book chapters

It is accepted practice in discourse research to include extracts of data to demonstrate how the analysis is linked to the data. This allows readers to assess the analysis for themselves.

When presenting data in published form, it might be necessary to simplify the transcription system to make it easier for a reader to understand. One example is to provide a series of images, like a filmstrip, next to the corresponding talk.

Interpretations can also be presented by referencing line numbers. Providing readers with access to the raw data, in addition to the analysis, strengthens the plausibility of your interpretations.

Challenges of Discourse Analysis

• Complexity: Discourse analysis can be intricate because it requires a deep understanding of linguistic and social theories. This complexity may discourage some researchers from using it.
• Subjectivity: Interpretation is a significant part of discourse analysis, so different analysts may reach different conclusions when examining the same text. Subjectivity is inherent in qualitative analysis, so steps should be taken to validate results, such as peer debriefing, reflexivity, or using a mixed-method study.
• Time-Intensive: Comprehensive discourse analysis can be time-consuming, especially for newcomers. Discourse analysis involves meticulous interpretation of texts, which can be demanding for longer or more extensive materials.
• Identifying the Focus of Activity: When studying discourse in an environment where people are moving between locations, it can be difficult to determine the focus of the activity.
• Lack of Contextual Dynamism: A weakness of discourse analysis is that corpus-based methods focus on the text as a product and cannot account for the linguistic and contextual factors of discourse. Also, the lack of non-verbal aspects of communication accompanying spoken corpora is a weakness.
• Misinterpretations due to Cultural Differences:  When speakers have different native languages, they may use or interpret communicative cues differently. Researchers should be cautious of automatically treating any difference in terms of culture.
• Delimiting Discourse: It is crucial to establish boundaries for discourse analysis by defining a manageable range of sources and timeframes, but problems with delimitation are inevitable. The choices made regarding delimitation must be defended.
• Accounting for All Discourses: A challenge is that a given discourse cannot be entirely separated from all other discourses. Discourses are ordered and scaled in relation to one another.

Validating Results in Discourse Analysis

To ensure trustworthiness and rigor in discourse analysis, researchers employ various strategies like reflexivity and transparency.

• Reflexivity involves acknowledging the researcher’s inherent subjectivity and how personal experiences and perspectives can influence data interpretation.
• Transparency emphasizes documenting the research process, including rationale for coding, theme development, and any modifications to the analytical approach. This transparency enables others to comprehend the analysis and evaluate its credibility.

Here are some practical strategies to incorporate reflexivity and transparency in thematic analysis:

• Reflexive Journal: Researchers maintain a journal to record their thoughts, assumptions, and potential biases. This journal acts as a log of the researcher’s evolving understanding of the data and assists in recognizing potential blind spots.
• Team-Based Analysis: Collaboration involving multiple researchers can enhance reflexivity through diverse perspectives and interpretations of data. Discussing coding and theme development as a team allows researchers to challenge assumptions, ensuring a comprehensive analysis.
• Articulating the Analytical Process: When presenting thematic analysis findings, researchers should thoroughly detail their methods, including the reasoning behind coding, theme development, and challenges during analysis. This transparency helps readers understand the steps taken to ensure rigor and trustworthiness.

Researchers should document all decisions made during the research process and demonstrate how the analysis is linked to the collected data.

The analysis should offer a plausible account of the data, be coherent in explaining occurrences, and produce fruitful outcomes that contribute to knowledge.

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. Sage, London.

Gee, J., P. (2011).  An Introduction to Discourse Analysis . Routledge, London.

Gergen, K. J. (2015,). An invitation to Social Construction . Sage, London.

Gergen, K. J. (2014). Pursuing excellence in qualitative inquiry .  Qualitative Psychology ,  1 (1), 49.

Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., Reeves, S. (2008). Discourse Analysis.  BMJ , a879.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction .  Conversation analysis , 13-31.

Johnstone, B. (2017).  Discourse Analysis . Wiley, London.

Paltridge, B. (2012).  Discourse Analysis: An Introduction . Bloomsbury.

Parker, I. (2013). Discourse analysis: Dimensions of critique in psychology.  Qualitative research in psychology ,  10 (3), 223-239.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. In  Studies in the organization of conversational interaction  (pp. 7-55). Academic Press.

Tannen, D., Hamilton, H., Schiffrin, D. 2015.  The Handbook of Discourse Analysis . Wiley, Chichester.

• Abell, J., Condor, S., Lowe, R. D., Gibson, S., & Stevenson, C. (2007). Who ate all the pride? Patriotic sentiment and English national football support .  Nations and nationalism ,  13 (1), 97-116.
• Andreouli, E., Greenland, K., & Figgou, L. (2020). Lay discourses about Brexit and prejudice: “Ideological creativity” and its limits in Brexit debates . European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(2), 309–322
• Brown, K., & Newth, G. (2024). ‘Post-fascism’, or how the far right talks about itself: the 2022 Italian election campaign as a case study .  Critical Discourse Studies , 1-21.
• Griffin, C. (2007). Being dead and being there: research interviews, sharing hand cream and the preference for analysingnaturally occurring data ‘.  Discourse Studies ,  9 (2), 246-269.
• Horowitz, A. D., & Kilby, L. (2019). Thinking out loud: A discourse analysis of ‘thinking’during talk radio interaction s.  Text & Talk ,  39 (6), 699-724.
• Kirkwood, S., McKinlay, A., & McVittie, C. (2013). ‘ They’re more than animals’: Refugees’ accounts of racially motivated violence .  British Journal of Social Psychology ,  52 (4), 747-762.
• McVittie, C., & McKinlay, A. (2019). ‘ Would it not be better to get someone out workin?’:‘Safe prejudice’against Polish workers .  European Journal of Social Psychology ,  49 (1), 19-30.
• Seymour-Smith, S., Gough, B., Matthews, C. R., & Rutherford, Z. (2020). Food assessment: a discursive analysis of diet talk in interviews with older men who are obese .  Psychology & Health ,  35 (8), 946-967.
• Stokoe, E. (2010). ‘I’m not gonna hit a lady’: Conversation analysis, membership categorization and men’s denials of violence towards women .  Discourse & Society ,  21 (1), 59-82.
• Discourse & Society  
• Critical Discourse Studies

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on 5 May 2022 by Amy Luo . Revised on 5 December 2022.

Discourse analysis is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real-life situations.

When you do discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs, and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political, and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology, and cultural studies. It is also called critical discourse analysis.

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication, such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers, and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts, and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analysing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasises the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g., to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words, or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analysed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analysing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyse the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Luo, A. (2022, December 05). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 21 August 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/discourse-analysis-explained/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

Case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | guide & examples, content analysis | a step-by-step guide with examples.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 23: Discourse analysis

Tess Tsindos

Learning outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Describe discourse analysis.
• Understand how to conduct discourse analysis.
• Identify the strengths and limitations of discourse analysis.

What is discourse analysis?

Discourse analysis is a field of qualitative analysis that has its origins in disciplines such as linguistics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology. 1 It is an interdisciplinary field that deals with ‘language’ and meaning. 2

According to Jaworski and Coupland, the purpose of discourse analysis is that it ‘offers a means of exposing or deconstructing the social practices that constitute ‘social structure’ and what we might call the conventional meaning structures of social life. It is a sort of forensic activity’. 3 ( p5 ) There are three domains of discourse analysis: the study of social interaction; the study of minds, selves and sense-making; and the study of culture and social relations. 4 ( p5 )

Discourse analysis is the study of texts such as transcribed interviews, websites, forums, books, newspapers, government documents (and many more), and the analysis of those texts to understand different accounts and the meanings behind those accounts. Qualitative researchers strive to understand the relationships between text (discourse) and social constructs. As text is analysed, the meaning behind the text is also explored, often as the ‘voices’ in the text. For example, when a participant is asked about their eating habits and they discuss their joy in eating as well as feelings of guilt from eating high-calorific foods, they may be voicing their parents’ disapproval of this eating behaviour. The relationship between text and social constructs can also be seen in alcohol advertising: an advertisement may be promoting alcohol consumption as a fun behaviour, but also cautions listeners to drink ‘responsibly’, because the advertiser is required to do so by advertising standards authorities. This inherent contradiction in the advertising is part of the meaning-making regarding alcohol consumption. This meaning-making is contextual and differs between countries, such as Australia (a high alcohol consumption culture) and Canada (a lower alcohol consumption culture). Another example of context is in the use of the word ‘just’ by an interview participant; the term can mean many things, but if the researcher is asking about job title, ‘just’ may the participant’s implication or inference that the title does not reflect an important position (e.g. ‘I’m just an editor’). In discourse analysis, texts, meanings and inferences are important.

Following is an example of media articles and two distinct discourses about violence towards women. The first media article, published by The Guardian on 15 June 2018 , 5 presents a discourse about how it is the responsibility of women to prevent men from being violent towards them. The second article about the same incident, published by The Age on 25 May 2019, 6 presents a discourse that it is the responsibility of men not to be violent towards women.

Meanings of texts are particularly important when participants use metaphors. The researcher needs to examine the implications of the metaphor, deliberate or inadvertent. For example, when the researcher asks the participant how they felt about their life and the participant replies, ‘life is a highway’, the researcher needs to look beyond what was said to understand the participant’s meaning.

As an interdisciplinary method, discourse analysis can be complex and intricate. Gee 7 provides 72 tools to assist with various types of discourse analysis, ranging from identifying what is being said and what is not being said, to examining ‘how the person is using language, as well as ways of acting, interacting, believing, valuing, dressing, and using various objects, tools, and technologies in certain sorts of environments to enact a specific socially recognizable identity and engage in one or more socially recognizable activities’. 7 ( p201 ) Gee also includes a helpful table (see Table 23.1) populated with his 7 building tasks for researchers to examine their discourses, and provides the answers. 8

Table 23.1. Seven Building Tasks and associated discourse analysis questions

How to conduct discourse analysis

Discourse analysis, as in all other qualitative methods, is used depending on the research topic and question(s) or aim(s). The following steps are recommended:

Step 1: Have a clearly defined topic and research question, because this informs the types of research materials that will be used.

Step 2: Conduct wide-ranging searches for materials that will inform the research topic.

Step 3: Determine which theory and framework will be used as the underpinning foundation for the analyses (see Section 1 chapters 1–4).

Step 4: Analyse the content of the materials. This analysis is different (but similar) to content analysis, which is a research technique to systematically classify codes and identify themes or patterns within the data. Discourse analysis is concerned with identifying themes and patterns within the texts that relate to the social contexts reflected in the research topic and within the theoretical lens chosen for analyses.

Step 5: Interpret and draw conclusions. Reflect on your work and examine how the various texts use language within the context of the research topic to answer the research question(s).

As an example, Table 23.3 includes a study on girls’ experience of competitive dancing . 9 The authors progressed through the steps as follows:

Step 1: The topic is eating disorders and young dancers. The research question is ‘ How does experience in the world of competitive dance shape the relationship that young girls have with their bodies ?’

Step 2: The author conducted wide – ranging literature searches on eating disorders, ballet dancers, body image, thinness, Western culture, dieting, media influences and many more topics.

Step 3: Feminism was the theoretical underpinning of the text ual analys i s. As described by the authors, ‘ a feminist post structural approach was chosen to provide a critical lens to explore the beliefs, values, and practices of young dancers… aimed to provide an understanding of the dominant and competing discourses present in the world of dance and discover how these discourses are constituted, perpetuated, and form ways of knowing in relation to body and body image.’ 9(p 7 )

Ste p 4: T he transcripts were analysed in 5 steps , following Aston 10 a nd presented in table 23.2 :

Table 23.2. A guide to using feminist poststructuralism informed by discourse analysis

*Note: This table is from an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits copy and redistribution of material in any medium or format, remix, transform and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially provided the original work is properly cited.

Step 5: Results were first interpreted within an ‘environmental’ context (competitive culture, ideal dancer’s body, mirrors, and dance attire and costumes) , which was predominately negative due to the competitive culture. The second context was ‘parents’ , which encompassed body monitoring, joking, and parents and support. Although most of the dancers stated that their parents did not influence their relationship with their body, discourse analysis demonstrated that parents did influence them. The third context was ‘ coaches’ . Coaches had a very strong influence on participants’ body image. While the dancers believed their coaches were supportive, the discourse demonstrated that most coach es’ comments were negative. ‘Peers’ represented in the final context for analysis. Again, the dancers believed their peers were supportive ; however , discourse analysis demonstrated that many peer comments were negative. The conclusions drawn from the research were that ‘ all participants experienced negative physical, mental, and/or emotional repercussions throughout their competitive dance experience. It was also determined that environment, parents, coaches, and peers largely shaped the dancer’s relationship with body and body image in the world of dance. These influences generated and perpetuated the dominant negative body image discourse that dancers were often unable to resist, and consequently their relationship with body and body image suffered.’ 9(p p22-23 )

This is a good example of situating a topic (body image) within a context (young women dancing) underpinned by a theoretical framework that explores the dancers’ beliefs, values and practices.

Table 23.3. Discourse analysis examples

Advantages and challenges of discourse analysis

Discourse analysis can be used to analyse small and large data sets with homogenous and heterogenous samples. It can be applied to any type of data source, from interviews and focus groups to diary entries, news reports and online discussion forums. However, interpretation in discourse analysis can lead to limitations and challenges that tend to occur when discourse analysis is misapplied or done poorly. Discourse analysis can be highly flexible and is best used when anchored in a theoretical approach. Because discourse analysis involves subjective interpretation, training and support from a qualitative researcher with expertise in the method is required to ensure that the interpretation of the data is meaningful. Finally, discourse analysis can be time-consuming when analysing large volumes of texts.

Discourse analysis is a process whereby texts are examined and interpreted. It looks for the meanings ‘behind’ text in cultural and social contexts. Discourse analysis is flexible, and the researcher has scope to interpret the text(s) based on the research topic and aim(s). Having a theoretical approach assists the researcher to position the discourse in cultural and social grounding.

• Schiffrin D, Tannen D et al . , ed s . The Handbook of Discourse Analysis . Blackwell ; 2001.
• Jaworski A, Coupland N. eds. The Discourse Reader . 2nd ed. Routledge; 2006.
• Jaworski A, Coupland N. Introduction: perspectives on discourse analysis. In: Jaworski A, Coupland N, eds. The Discourse Reader . 2nd ed. Routledge; 2006.
• Wetherell M, Taylor S, Yates S. (2001) Discourse Theory and Practice: A Reader . 2nd ed. Sage. 2001.
• Davey M. ‘Men need to change’: anger grows over police response to Eurydice Dixon’s murder. Guardian . June 15, 2018. Accessed April 28, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jun/15/men-need-to-change-anger-grows-over-police-response-to-comedians#:~:text=Melbourne
• Fowler M. ‘This is about men’s behaviour’, says top policy offer after another woman’s murder . Age . May 25, 2019. Accessed April 28, 2023. https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/this-is-about-men-s-behaviour-says-top-police-officer-after-another-woman-s-murder-20190525-p51r46.html
• Gee J. How t o d o Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit .  2nd ed. Routledge; 2014.
• Gee J. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method . 3rd ed. Routledge; 2011.
• Doria N, Numer M. Dancing in a culture of disordered eating: a feminist poststructural analysis of body and body image among young girls in the world of dance. PLoS ONE . 2022;17(1): e0247651. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247651
• Aston M. Teaching feminist poststructuralism: founding scholars still relevant today.  Creative Education . 2016;7(15):2251-2267. doi: 10.4236/ce.2016.715220
• Öhman A, Burman M, Carbin M et al . ‘The public health turn on violence against women’: analysing Swedish healthcare law, public health and gender-equality policies.  BMC Public Health . 2020;20:753. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-08766-7
• Carrasco JM, Gómez-Baceiredo B, Navas A et al. Social representation of palliative care in the Spanish printed media: a qualitative analysis. PLoS ONE . 2019;14(1):e0211106. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0211106

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Tess Tsindos is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Introducing Discourse Analysis for Qualitative Research

Qualitative researchers often try to understand the world by listening to how people talk, but it can be really revealing to look at not just what people say, but how. This is how discourse analysis (DA) can be used to examine qualitative data.

Daniel Turner

Qualitative research often focuses on what people say: be that in interviews , focus-groups , diaries , social media or documents . Qualitative researchers often try to understand the world by listening to how people talk, but it can be really revealing to look at not just what people say, but how. Essentially this is the how discourse analysis (DA) can be used to examine qualitative data. Discourse is the complete system by which people communicate, it’s the widest interpretation of what we call ‘language’. It includes both written, verbal and non-verbal communication, as well as the wider social concepts that underpin what language means, and how it changes. For example, it can be revealing to look at how some people use a particular word, or terms from a particular local dialect. This can show their upbringing and life history, or influences from other people and workplace culture. It can also be interesting to look at non-verbal communication: people’s facial expressions and hand movements are an important part of the context of what people say. But language is also a dynamic part of culture, and the meanings behind terms change over time. How we understand terms like ‘fake news’ or ‘immigration’ or ‘freedom’ tells us a lot, not just about the times we live in or the people using those terms, but groups that have power to change the discourse on such issues. We will look at all these as separate types of discourse analysis. But first it’s important to understand why language is so important; it is much more than just a method of communication.

“Language allows us to do things. It allows us to engage in actions and activities. We promise people things, we open committee meetings, we propose to our lovers, we argue over politics, and we “talk to God”…

Language allows us to be things. It allows us to take on different socially significant identities. We can speak as experts—as doctors, lawyers, anime aficionados, or carpenters—or as ‘everyday people’. To take on any identity at a given time and place we have to ‘talk the talk’…”         - Gee 2011

Language is more than a neutral way of communicating, it’s deeply connected with actions and personal identity, and can even shape the way we think about and understand the world. Who we are, what we do, and our beliefs are all shaped by the language we use. This makes it a very rich avenue for analysis.

Types of discourse analysis Just like so many blanket qualitative terms , there are a lot of different practices and types of analysis called ‘discourse’ analysis, and many different ways of applying them. Hodges et al. (2008) identify 3 meta-types, broadly going from more face-value to conceptual analysis:      • Formal linguistic (basically looking at words/phrases, grammar or semantics)      • Empirical (social practice constructed through text)              • Critical (language constructing and limiting thought)

Tannen et al., 2015 categorise three similar broad types of analysis, again becoming increasingly socially conceptual:

• language use

• anything beyond the sentence

• a broader range of social practice that includes non-linguistic and non-specific instances of language

However Gee (2011) only recognises two main categories, essentially those that look at the use of words, and ‘critical discourse analysis’: like the latter of both groupings above, this is analysis of how language is situated in cultural and contextual power dynamics. But before we get there, let’s start with an example of some more obvious linguistic level discourse analysis.

Example Imagine the following scenario from your favourite fictional medical drama. A patient is wheeled into the ER/casualty unit, conscious but suffering from burns. The doctor attending says three things:

To Patient: “We’re just going to give you a little injection to help with the pain.”

To Nurse: “10cc’s of sodium pentothal, stat!”

To Surgeon: “We’ve got severe second-degree chemical burns, GA administered”

In this situation, the doctor has said essentially the same thing 3 times, but each time using a different response for each recipient. Firstly, when talking to the patient, the doctor doesn’t use any medical terminology, and uses calming and minimising language to comfort the patient. This is a classic type of discourse we are familiar with from medical TV dramas, the ‘good bed-side manner’.

To the nurse, the doctor has a different tone, more commanding and even condescending. It’s a barked command, finished with the term ‘stat!’ - a commonly used medial slang word (actually from the Latin word ‘statum’ meaning immediately, that’s your linguistic analysis!). This is interesting, because it’s not a term you’d hear used in other professional places like a busy kitchen. It shows there is a specific discourse for the setting (a hospital) and for different people in the setting. The ‘10cc of sodium pentothal’ is a commonly used anaesthetic: the same ‘something to help with the pain’ but now with a (trademarked) pharmacological name and dose.

Finally, to the surgeon the same prescription is described by the doctor as an abbreviation (GA for General Anaesthetic). Between senior health professionals, abbreviations might be used more often, in this case actually hiding the specific drug given, perhaps on the basis that the surgeon doesn’t need to know. It could also imply that since only that basic first step has been made, there has been little assessment or intervention so far, telling to an experienced ear what stage of the proceedings they are walking in on. The use of the term ‘we’ might imply the doctor and surgeon are on the same level, as part of the team, a term not used when addressing the nurse.

Even in this small example, there are a lot of different aspects of discourse to unpack. It is very contextually dependent, none of the phrases or manners are likely to be adopted by the doctor in the supermarket or at home. This shows how the identity and performativity of the doctor is connected to their job (and shaped by it, and contextual norms). It also shows differences in discourse between different actors, and power dynamics which are expressed and created through discursive norms.

At a very basic level, we could probably do an interesting study on TV shows and the use of the term ‘stat!’. We could look at how often the term was used, how often it was used by doctors to nurses (often) and by nurses to doctors (rarely). This would probably be more like a basic linguistic analysis, possibly even quantitative. It’s one of the few occasions that a keyword search in a qualitative corpus can be useful – because you are looking at the use of a single, non-replaceable word. If someone says ‘now please’ or ‘as soon as you can’ it has a very different meaning and power dynamic, so we are not interested in synonyms here. However, we probably still want to trawl through the whole text to look at different phrases that are used, and why ‘stat!’ was not the command in all situations. This would be close to the ‘formal linguistic’ approach listed above.

But a more detailed, critical and contextual examination of the discourse might show that nurses struggle with out-moded power dynamics in hospitals (eg Fealy and McNamara 2007 , Turner et al 2007 ). Both of these papers are described as ‘critical’ discourse analysis. However, this term is used in many different ways.

Critical discourse analysis is probably the most often cited, but often used in the most literal sense – that it looks at discourse critically, and takes a comparative and critical analytic stance. It’s another term like ‘grounded theory’ that is used as a catch-all for many different nuanced approaches. But there is another ‘level’ of critical discourse analysis, influenced by Foucault (1972, 1980) and others, that goes beyond reasons for use and local context, to examine how thought processes in society influenced by the control of language and meanings.

Critical discourse analysis (hardcore mode)

“What we commonly accept as objective or obviously true is only so because of negotiated agreement among people” – Gee (2011)

Language and discourse are not absolute. Gee (2011) notes at least three different ways that the positionality of discourse can be shown to be constructed and non-universal: meanings and reality can change over time, between cultures, and finally with ‘discursive construction’ – due to power dynamics in setting language that controls how we understand concepts. Gee uses the term ‘deconstruction’ in the Derridian sense of the word, advocating for the critical examining and dismantling of unquestioned assumptions about what words mean and where they come from.

But ‘deep’ critical discourse analysis also draws heavily from Foucault and an examination of how language is a result of power dynamics, and that the discourse of society heavily regulates what words are understood to mean, as well as who can use them. It also implies that because of these systems of control, discourse is used to actually change and reshape thought and expression. But the key jump is to understand and explain that “what we take to be the truth about the world importantly depends on the social relationships of which we are a part” (Gergen 2015). This is social construction, and a key part of the philosophy behind much critical discourse analysis.

Think of the use of the term ‘freedom’ in mainstream and political discourse in the United States. It is one of the most powerful words used by politicians, and has been for centuries (eg Chanley and Chanley 2015 ) However, it’s use and meaning have changed over time, and what different people from different parts of the political spectrum understand to be enshrined under this concept can be radically different, and even exclusionary. Those in powerful political and media positions are able to change the rhetoric around words like freedom, and sub-terms like ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘freedom of religion’ are both being shifted in public discourse, even on a daily basis, and taking our own internal concepts and ideas with them. It may be that there has never been an age when so much power to manipulate discourse is concentrated in so few places, and able to shift it so rapidly.

Doing Discourse

So do we ‘do’ discourse analysis? How can we start examining complex qualitative data from many voices from a point of view of discourse? Like so many qualitative analytical techniques , researchers will usually adopt a blend of approaches: doing some elements of linguistic analysis, as well as critical discourse analysis for some parts or research questions. They may also draw on narrative and thematic analysis . But discourse analysis is often comparative, it lends itself to differences in the use of language between individuals, professionals and contexts.

From a practical point of view, it can be started by a close reading of key words and terms, especially if it is not clear from the outset what the important and illustrative ones are going to be. For building a complete picture of discourse, a line-by-line approach can be adopted, but it’s also useful to use ‘codes’ or ‘themes’ to tag every use of some terms, or just significant ones. A qualitative software tool like Quirkos can help you do this.

For critical discourse analysis, examination of primary data is rarely enough – it needs to be deeply contextualised within the wider societal or environmental norms that govern a particular subset of discourse. So policy and document analysis are often entwined and can be analysed in the same project. From here, it’s difficult to describe a single technique further, as it will greatly vary by type of source. It is possible in discourse analysis for a single sentence or word to be the major focus of the study, or it may look widely across many different people and data sources.

The textbooks below are all classic works on discourse analysis, each a rabbit hole in itself to digest (especially the new edition of Gergen (2015) which goes much wider into social construction). However, Hodges et al. (2008) is a nice short, practical overview to start your journey.

If you are looking for a tool to help your qualitative discourse analysis, why not give Quirkos a try? It was designed by qualitative researchers to be the software they wanted to use, and is flexible enough for a whole number of analytical approaches, including discourse analysis. Download a free trial , or read more about it here .

Gee, J., P., 2011. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis . Routledge, London.

Gergen, K. J., 2015, An invitation to Social Construction . Sage, London.

Hodges, B. D., Kuper, A., Reeves, S. 2008. Discourse Analysis. BMJ , a879.

Johnstone, B., 2017. Discourse Analysis . Wiley, London.

Paltridge, B., 2012. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction . Bloomsbury.

Tannen, D., Hamilton, H., Schiffrin, D. 2015. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis . Wiley, Chichester.

Sign up for more like this.

How to... Use discourse analysis

Margaret Adolphus talks about discourse analysis.

On this page

Definition of discourse analysis, where does discourse analysis fit, some prominent thinkers in discourse analysis, applications of discourse analysis, what can discourse analysis contribute to research.

The  Oxford English Dictionary  defines discourse analysis as:

"Linguistics, a method of analysing the structure of texts or utterances longer than one sentence, taking into account both their linguistic content and their sociolinguistic context; analysis performed using this method."

There is a problem, however, not with the wording of this definition, but with the concept itself, which implies that language can have a fixed meaning as the very ethos of discourse analysis is that language and discourse (in the sense of a speech communication) is not a fixed, immutable reality, but one that is moulded by a social context, and can in turn build up a picture of the world which is unique to the author of the discourse.

Discourse analysis as a research technique involves the analysis of language with the above framework in mind, and has become increasingly popular in recent years in the social and management sciences.

More definitions of discourse analysis

According to Snape and Spencer (2003, p. 200), discourse analysis originates from the discipline of sociology and is about:

"Examining the way knowledge is produced within different discourses and the performances, linguistic styles and rhetorical devices used in particular accounts."

According to Jankowicz (2005, p.229), discourse analysis is of particular relevance when listening to people's own narratives of a situation – the biographical approach.

"Discourse analysis ... [focuses] on the way in which your respondents draw on differing interpretive repertoires depending on their interpretation of the context in which your interview takes place. The technique focuses on the way in which language is used in given settings, and in a discourse analysis, your task is to identify the context; the various interpretive repertoires; and attempt a matching of one to the other, to arrive at an understanding of the function, from the point of view of your respondent, of the different stories being told."

In a guest editorial from the  Journal of Organizational Change Management  which looked at the contribution of discourse analysis to an understanding of organisational change, Grant  et al . (2005) quote Fairclough and Wodak (1997, p. 277):

"Discourse is not produced without context and cannot be understood without taking context into consideration ... Discourses are always connected to other discourses which were produced earlier, as well as those which are produced synchronically and subsequently."

In other words, language does not have a fixed, objective meaning, but is coloured by a whole range of situational factors: the author's belief system, the surrounding political, economic and social context, any professional community to which the person belongs – which will have its own jargon (as in medical or legal) – as well as the immediate situation in which the words were uttered.

Herasymovych and Nørreklit (2006) provide a case study of ideological assumptions of Ukrainian managers, in which they use discourse analysis to reveal how attitudes change as a result of the transformation from communism to market liberalism.

The authors found several discourses of:

• anti communism ("From Soviet times, there is a common psychology: the best job is the one with the higher salary and doing nothing");
• the influence of religion, which is very strong in the Ukraine. Thus although the managers wanted to distance themselves from religion, they still used a discourse of pastoral authority – the image of the good shepherd – to describe their management style;
• liberalism, of a certain kind: motivation of the individual to succeed, but based not on desire to do one's best, but fear of the consequences of failure.

Discourse analysis is an analytic technique rather than a theory, and its popularity has arisen from the growing interest, starting late in the last century, in qualitative research and ways of analysing the data it produces. There are a number of similar methods, for example,

• content analysis, which analyses content according to key variables,
• narrative analysis, which looks at the patterns people find in their lives and situations, and
• conversational analysis, which looks at the structure of dialogue (for more information, see  How to ... analyse qualitative data: some specific techniques ).

Discourse analysis has multiple disciplinary origins – sociology, socio-psychology, anthropology, linguistics and philosophy, communications studies, and literature (Grant  et al ., 2005). It thus brings a multidisciplinary perspective.

Its regard for context sets it slightly apart from ethnographic methods, which, according to Lee and Roth (2006) tend to approach participants' talk and actions at face value. Participant observation often involves the researcher having a relatively "invisible" role, as an observer. In the collection of data for discourse analysis, however, the researcher has a more active role and may "co-construct" the interview process.

It can also be contrasted with behaviourist and cognitivist approaches: discourse is not just a product of a person's cognitive and mental state. Thinking makes use of concepts, and concepts are by definition in the public domain, influenced by a broad range of social and intellectual factors. discourse analysis is also influenced by social constructionism: people and their doings are not "natural observable facts", but are constantly shaped by the society around them.

Many writers have contributed to the field of discourse analysis, but two of the most prominent are  Norman Fairclough  and  Michel Foucault .

Norman Fairclough is the father of critical discourse analysis. He comes to discourse analysis from a linguistics and language perspective; he is emeritus professor in the Department of Linguistics and English Language at the University of Lancaster, UK.

Fairclough sees discourse as:

"a social practice which constructs social identities, social relations and the knowledge and meaning systems of the social world ... [which] both reflects and produces the ideas and assumptions relating to the ways in which personal identities, social relations, and knowledge systems are constituted through social practice" (Nielson and Nørreklit, 2009; p. 204).

In other words, critical discourse analysis sees the language of discourse as a kind of two-way mirror: it both reflects and contributes to the social world, its knowledge systems and its social relationships.

There are two dimensions to critical discourse analysis: the "communicative event", or the specific incident of language use, and that which Fairclough terms "discourse order", which is the "discourse practices" or the way language is used within a particular social institution (for example, the particular vocabulary used within an organisation) or domain area (for example, linguistics, sociology, or medicine).

Critical discourse analysis uses three levels of analysis (Nielson and Nørreklit, 2009; p. 205):

• The text of the communicative event itself, with reference to its vocabulary, its use of metaphor and rhetorical forms, its grammar and the relationship between sentences, the types of argument used.
• The discourse practice – i.e. how the particular communicative event changes or copies existing practice within that particular discourse.
• The wider social practice of which the communicative event forms part.

Critical discourse analysis combines an "internal" study of language with "external" study of its context – how the text is affected by social practices and relations (Cheng, 2009). The term "intertextuality" is often used – which means the need for one text to be read in the light of its allusions to and differences from the content or structure of other texts. Critical discourse analysis can often be used to reveal power relationships, and how certain groups can be marginalised.

Figure 1. Model of critical discourse analysis as applied to management coaching

The approach of Michel Foucault, the French philosopher, sociologist and historian, is more abstract and less linguistically based than that of Fairclough. Although he acknowledged the role of language in the creation and formation of knowledge, he was not concerned with the analysis of spoken and written language and texts. He was more interested in the rules that determine which statements are accepted as meaningful, and the links between power and knowledge: expert knowledge in a particular domain can act as a system of control, and knowledge is institutionally contingent (Haider and Bawden, 2007).

Discourse analysis is used in a wide range of fields. A search [October 2009] of Emerald's journal database content (all fields excluding fulltext) for the phrase "discourse analysis" over the last ten years produced results with the following distribution:

• Organisational change and organisational studies – 10.
• Corporate social responsibility – 5.
• Employee development and human resource development – 7.
• Education – 3.
• Entrepreneurship – 3.
• Accountancy – 9.
• Library and information management – 6.
• Gender issues and diversity – 7.
• Political economy – 2.
• Hospitality – 2.
• Marketing, market research, and corporate communications – 7.
• Sociology and social work – 4.
• Miscellaneous (gaming, law, supervenience, quality, nutrition, psychopathology, virtual communities, health care) – 8.

It is interesting that there are in this sample almost as many accountancy papers as there are ones on organisational change. Several of the top journals in their fields are represented –  Journal of Organizational Change Management  (6),  Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal  (6),  Journal of Documentation  (4),  European Journal of Marketing  (1).

Methods of collecting the data included document analysis, interviews, group discussion, case studies, and ethnography; the data are drawn from a variety of different types of "talk" and "text".

"Talk" examples

• Interviews, often described as "semi-structured" or "in-depth", are the most common method of soliciting talk. Examples include: research on consumers' shopping experiences (Sitz, 2008), and a case study of new-start entrepreneurs in New Zealand (Mills and Pawson, 2006).
• Longitudinal case studies with repeat interviews of primary school co-principals were carried out by Court (2004).
• Ethnographic research: e.g. interview in a social context to understand workplace practice (Lee and Roth, 2006); shadowing managers and observing them interacting with their work colleagues (Rigg, 2005); observation of training and training-related events, in conjunction with interviews (Chio, 2008); reflective journals (in conjunction with interviews) used to study workplace learning (Jurasaite-Harbison, 2009).
• Discussion in a documentary programme, e.g. one on a model of sustainability for Australia (Clulow, 2005).
• Netnography – an ethnographic research method used to observe behaviour in an online environment, e.g. a web-based discussion forum on fantasy sport (Smith  et al ., 2006), using net chat to research the sensitive topic of cosmetic surgery (Langer and Beckman, 2005); chat on health care (Misra  et al ., 2008).
• Focus groups: e.g. used as a method to study managers in a small-to-medium enterprise (O'Shea, 2007); institutionalisation in community organisations (O'Shea, 2007).

"Text" examples

• Business documents, e.g. corporate social responsibility reports, documents relating to a takeover (Ferguson, 2007), corporate annual reports, brochures, diversity documents.
• The media: for example, Jensen (2008) analyses the Mohammed cartoon controversy by reference to Danish newspaper articles on the subject; Krefting (2002) analyses the  Wall Street Journal' s portrayal of women executives.
• Scholarly journal articles, e.g. Haider and Bawden (2007) look at the concept of "information poverty" in 35 English language articles.
• Textbooks, government policy documents, etc., e.g. Iarskaia-Smirnova and Romanov (2008) analyse Russian textbooks on social care.
• Poetry: Robinson and Lynch (2007) explore hospitality breakdown by means of an Ogden Nash poem.
• Websites: e.g. Pollach (2005) analyses the "About us" sections of 20 well-known corporate websites.

The above lists are not exhaustive, but are meant to show the versatility of discourse analysis, which can be applied to almost any situation in which language is used (and indeed, to images as well, as these are often intended to convey a particular meaning, as in cartoons or newspaper advertisements).

Neither the methods nor the data sources are used exclusively: observation is often combined with interviews, interviews with document analysis, for example. Discourse analysis is often not used on its own, but in combination with other analytic methods, such as content analysis, critical sense making, rhetorical analysis, or quantitative linguistic analysis.

The big advantage of discourse analysis is that it challenges "the taken-for-granted nature of language" (Sitz, 2008). Thus it can probe the way in which organisational language displays subtle shifts in values and priorities, disclose how documents may appear to present a positive agenda to the reader, but in fact have a much darker purpose, and encourage a more qualitative, interpretative perspective on an area such as company reports, which have previously only been subjected to quantitative approaches.

Discourse analysis as a way of describing organisational change

Grant  et al . (2005) provide a guest editorial to an issue of the  Journal of Organizational Change Management  (Vol. 18 No. 1) which looks at the contribution of discourse analysis to the area. They cite a number of benefits of the method:

• it enables researchers to analyse the key discourses which formulate change;
• it shows how particular discourses can be used to shape behaviour, by way of development of a dominant meaning;
• it shows the importance of the overall context;
• it affords the advantage of a multidisciplinary perspective;
• all these advantages mean that discourse analysis can generate fresh insights.

Tsoukas (2005), in an afterword to the same issue, confirms the value of discourse analysis in understanding the complexity of organisational change.

Language is very subtle: new meanings can be created or subtly subverted to put a positive gloss on something, while the same events can be described in radically different ways. Some years ago, a large publishing conglomerate decided to pull all its academic journals out of one company and exchange them for another company's small division of distance learning materials. The managers described this as "portfolio realignment"; a disgruntled worker, disillusioned at the loss of a cash cow in return for a problem child, referred to the exchange as "leprosy".

Reading between the lines: analysing policy texts

Policy documents are often in fact public relations documents. In a democracy, policy has to be sold; you cannot enforce it. And policy, too, may be dictated by complex factors – free market capitalism, for example – which it may not be politic to disclose too clearly.

Discourse analysis can disentangle the different agendas of policy documents. Ocler (2009) describes how in France, corporate social responsibility became a legal requirement – but firms needed to present their corporate social responsibility policies in a positive light for the benefit of their policy holders.

Cheng (2009) discusses the introduction of the voucher scheme for pre-primary education in Hong Kong. She shows how while the policy text highlighted issues of choice, efficiency and equity, the reality is in fact more complex:

" ... notions of choice and efficiency have an obvious attraction, but the language presented masks a much more complex situation in which choice and efficiency are to be secured through the application of market principles and given this development it is by no means certain that these objectives will be secured. For example, different producers and consumers become privileged in this market context, and it is by no means certain that all will have choice. More likely, is that choice will be restricted to the more affluent, whilst efficiency may be effected by a failure to create any level playing field between not for profit and private providers" (Cheng, 2009; p. 364).

All policy documents should be read within their context, in this case, marketisation, and in that referred to above, legislation. This is what Fairclough means by "discourse practice".

Providing greater depth to qualitative accounting research

Accountancy is an area which has recently seen a greater interest in qualitative methods; in fact, a journal was recently launched devoted to this approach ( Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management ). According to Ferguson (2007), the study of text can be limited if it does not look at the circumstances surrounding its production and interpretation.

Motivation is also part of the surrounding context, and Yusoff  et al ., (2006) use discourse analysis to probe the corporate motivation for environmental activities.

Information synthesis

Various uses have been made of discourse analysis in the field of library and information science, but Haider and Bawden (2007) make an interesting contribution when they point out that one of the key concepts of the field, information poverty, is in fact a product of information synthesis: two concepts, both with strong resonances, are put together with explosive political effect.

The above are just a few of many examples which could be cited of the insights which discourse analysis can bring to research. It is a versatile technique which brings insights from many disciplines, and which uses the richness and ambiguity of language to go beyond the text into the many worlds that influence it.

Cheng, A.Y.N. (2009), " Analysing complex policy change in Hong Kong: what role for critical discourse analysis? ",  International Journal of Education Management , Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 360-366.

Chio, V. (2008), " Transfers, training and inscriptions: The production of modern market citizens in Malaysia ",  critical perspectives on international business , Vol. 4 No. 2/3, pp. 166-183.

Clulow, V. (2005), " Futures dilemmas for marketers: can stakeholder analysis add value? ",  European Journal of Marketing , Vol. 39 No. 9/10, pp. 978-997.

Court, M. (2004), " Advancing women's careers: what can we learn from co-principals' stories? ",  Equal Opportunities International , Vol. 23 No. 7/8, pp. 39-61.

Ferguson, J. (2007), " Analysing accounting discourse: avoiding the 'fallacy of internalism'" ,  Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal , Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 912-934.

Grant, D., Michelson, G., Oswick, C. and Wailes, N. (2005),  Guest editorial: discourse and organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management ,  Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-15.

Haider, J. and Bawden, D. (2007), " Conceptions of 'information poverty' in LIS: a discourse analysis ",  Journal of Documentation , Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 534-557.

Herasymovych, A. and Nørreklit, H. (2006), " Management discourse in the transition from communism to market economy: the case of Ukraine ",  Society and Business Review , Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 158-170.

Jankowicz, A.D. (2005),  Business Research Projects , 4th ed., Thomson Learning, London.

Jensen, H.R. (2008), " The Mohammed cartoons controversy and the boycott of Danish products in the Middle East ",  European Business Review , Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 275-289.

Jurasaite-Harbison, E. (2009), " Teachers' workplace learning within informal contexts of school cultures in the United States and Lithuania ",  Journal of Workplace Learning , Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 299-321.

Krefting, L.A. (2002), " Re-presenting women executives: valorization and devalorization in US business press ",  Women in Management Review,  Vol. 17 No. 3/4, pp. 104-119.

Langer, R. and Beckman, S.C. (2005), " Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited ",  Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal , Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 189-203.

Iarskaia-Smirnova, E. and Romanov, P. (2008), " Gendering social work in Russia: towards anti-discriminatory practices ",  Equal Opportunities International , Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 64-76.

Lee, Y-J. and Roth, W-M. (2006), " Learning about workplace learning and expertise from Jack: a discourse analytical study ",  Journal of Workplace Learning , Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 205-219.

Mills, C.E. and Pawson, K. (2006), " Enterprising talk: a case of self construction ",  International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research , Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 238-344.

Misra, R., Mukherjee, A. and Peterson, R. (2008), " Value creation in virtual communities: the case of a healthcare web site ",  International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Marketing , Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 321-337.

Nielson, A.E. and Nørreklit, H. (2009), " A discourse analysis of the disciplinary power of management coaching ",  Society and Business Review , Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 202-214.

Ocler, R. (2009), " Discourse analysis and corporate social responsibility: a qualitative approach ",  Society and Business Review , Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 175-186.

O'Shea, P. (2007), " A discursive study of institutionalization in community organizations ",  International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy , Vol. 27 No. 11/12, pp. 483-493.

Pollach, I. (2005), " Corporate self-presentation on the WWW: Strategies for enhancing usability, credibility and utility ",  Corporate Communications: An International Journal , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 285-301.

Rigg, C. (2005), " 'It's in the way they talk': A discourse analysis of managing in two small businesses ",  International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research , Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 58-75.

Robinson, M.G. and Lynch, P.A. (2007), " Hospitality through poetry: control, fake solidarity, and breakdown ",  International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research , Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 237-246.

Sitz, L. (2008), " Beyond semiotics and hermeneutics: discourse analysis as a way to interpret consumers' discourses and experiences ",  Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal , Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 177-191.

Smith, B., Sharma, P. and Hooper, P. (2006), "Decision making in online fantasy sports communities",  Interactive Technology and Smart Education , Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 347-360.

Snape, D. and Spencer, L. (2003) "The foundations of qualitative research", in Ritchie, J. and Lewis, J. (Eds),  Qualitative Research Practice , Sage Publications, London.

Tsoukas, H. (2005), " Afterword: why language matters in the analysis of organizational change ",  Journal of Organizational Change Management , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 96-104.

Yusoff, H., Lehman, G. and Nasir, N. (2006), " Environmental engagements through the lens of disclosure practices: A Malaysian story ",  Asian Review of Accounting , Vol. 14 No. 1/2, pp. 122-148.

Fall 2024 COH Faculty Hires

The College of Humanities is pleased to welcome new faculty for the upcoming academic year.

“These are outstanding scholars who represent the breadth and diversity of Humanities scholarship and teaching,” said Dorrance Dean Alain-Philippe Durand. “Their expertise in languages and cultures around the world will further our mission of graduating students equipped with the skills they need to succeed on the global job market.” ​​​

Lawrence N. Berlin, Director Center for English as a Second Language (CESL)

Lawrence N. Berlin is the incoming Director of the Center for English as a Second Language. An international educator and researcher, he holds a Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching from the University of Arizona, an M.A. in Foreign Languages from West Virginia University and a B.F.A. in Drama from New York University. Most recently, he has been working as an independent consulting professor based in Medellin, Colombia. From 2000-2017 he served as a Professor of TESOL at Northeastern Illinois University in Chicago, serving successively as Coordinator of the English Language Program, Interdisciplinary Coordinator of the First-Year Experience Program, Chair of the Department of Anthropology, Linguistics, Philosophy, and TESOL, and then simultaneously as the Director of International Programs and Director of the School for the Advancement of English Language Learning, which he founded. From 2018 to 2021, he served as the Academic Director of Languages at EAFIT University in Medellin, Colombia, where he spearheaded the renovation of the curriculum and teaching method across 8 languages, and in 2022 he served as Senior English Language Specialist at the National Academy for Educational Management of the Ministry of Education in Dhaka, Bangladesh where he led the faculty of English language teacher trainers in the redesign of English language teacher training for secondary education across the country. He has demonstrated expertise in teacher training, program and project development and management, curriculum design and innovation, grant writing, and strategic planning, and presented and published widely on English language teaching, pragmatics, and political discourse analysis.

Colin Law, Visiting Lecturer Department of Religious Studies and Classics

Colin Law’s academic background in Religious Studies includes an M.A. from the University of Georgia and a Ph.D. from the University of Ottawa.  Dr. Law’s research explores the intersections of religion, politics, culture, and civic space.  His current project utilizes an interdisciplinary approach exploring U.S. history, American civil religion, symbolic representations of identity, and the contentious debates surrounding monuments and memorials.  He is particularly interested in how civil and religious sacred sites construct cultural identities and practices.  Additionally, he examines material religion, investigating how religious objects and artifacts influence religious beliefs and practices.  Through Dr. Law’s research, he aims to uncover how space and place shape religious experiences and contribute to the broader understanding of cultural and religious dynamics.

Matthew M. Mars, Professor Department of Public and Applied Humanities

Matt Mars is an interdisciplinary scholar who teaches and writes about community innovation and the influence of market narratives on everyday life and routines. Prof. Mars’ research is published in a diverse range of journals that span sociology, marketing, community development, and higher education. Some examples of the journals he has published in include  Community Development, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Journal of Higher Education, Marketing Theory , and  Minerva . Prof. Mars’ current work explores the influence of visual narratives on the creation and identities of local consumption spaces, whether they be coffee shops, craft breweries, or farmers’ markets. Prof. Mars is currently the Co-Editor of  Advances in the Study of Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth  series (Emerald), Associate Editor of  Community Development , and a member of the editorial board of  Local Development & Society .

Prof. Mars has received multiple teaching awards and recognitions including being named Dorrance Scholarship Program Professor of Excellence in Teaching (2017-present), the USDA/APLU Excellence in College and University Teaching Award – Western Region (2020), and the APLU Innovative Teaching Award (2018).

Prof. Mars earned his PhD through the Center for the Study of Higher Education at The University of Arizona. He also holds an MEd in Counseling and Human Relations from Northern Arizona University and a BA in Sociology and Anthropology from Utica College of Syracuse University.

Victoria Meyer, Associate Professor of Practice Associate Director of Interdisciplinary Studies Program

Dr. Victoria N. Meyer is the incoming Associate Director of the Interdisciplinary Studies Program for the College of Humanities.  She completed her undergraduate studies at the University of Arizona before earning her Ph.D. in history from the University of Virginia. For the past several years she has supported University of Arizona initiatives in the Near You Network and served as the Director of Distance Initiatives for the College of Humanities generally and for the Interdisciplinary Studies specifically. Her research and teaching interests cover the history of medicine and public health, gender and sexuality, health humanities, and the histories of the early modern world, and modern Europe.

And ré  Pettman, Assistant Professor Department of French and Italian

Dr. André Pettman holds a Ph.D. in French from Columbia University (2024). He also holds an M.A. in French (2017) and B.A. degrees in French and Psychology (2016) from the University of Arizona. A specialist of contemporary French & Francophone literature, his research interests include critical theory, politics, film studies, and translation. His current book project examines twenty-first-century French literature as a site of radical political imagination. His book project questions the narrow political frameworks through which twenty-first-century French literature continues to be read and demonstrates how radical politics appear in unexpected ways in a period of literature sometimes reduced to the reactionary or the apolitical.

Dr. Pettman is also an active translator whose work focuses on Francophone literatures and cultures. He has co-translated, with Soraya Limare, Assia Djebar’s inaugural speech at l’Académie Française and is currently writing a critical introduction to accompany its publication. His articles and book reviews appear or are forthcoming in  French Forum, Nottingham French Studies, Contemporary French and Francophone Studies: SITES, French Studies Bulletin, Modern Language Quarterly, and Studies in 20th & 21st Century Literature , and an entry in the  Dictionnaire Assia Djebar,  edited by Maya Boutaghou & Anne Donadey (Paris: Honoré Champion). His translations have appeared in  Yale French Studies  and in the edited volume  Hip Hop en français: An Exploration of Hip-Hop Culture in the Francophone World , edited by Alain-Philippe Durand (Rowman & Littlefield, 2020).

Veronika Williams, Assistant Professor of Practice Department of Russian and Slavic Studies

Veronika Williams is an educator, mentor, and event planner. Dr. Williams joined the Department of Russian and Slavic Studies as a Lecturer and Event and Recruitment Coordinator in 2020 after working with international students at the Center of English as a Second Language. Dr. Williams received her Ph.D. in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching in 2016 and her MA in Russian Studies in 2010 from the University of Arizona.

Dr. Williams’ primary research focuses on language pedagogy, in particular learner autonomy and language learning strategies.  Other areas of interest include methodology in Russian language teaching, intercultural competence, and intersection of Russian language and culture.  Currently, Dr. Williams is exploring the connections between Russian rap and politics.

Sarah Matthews, Visiting Lecturer Department of Russian and Slavic Studies

Sarah Matthews is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at the University of Southern California. Her dissertation compares the poetry of Vladislav Khodasevich and T.S. Eliot in the context of European Modernism. She argues that their poetry is a unique lens to reexamine and redefine the relation of the material and the metaphysical. At the University of Southern California, she was awarded the Teresa Wilson Endowed Fellowship for her dissertation and the Teaching Excellence Award for Assistant Lecturers from the Center of Languages and Cultures for her work as an instructor of the Russian language. She is passionate about teaching Slavic language and cultural courses. Ms. Matthews earned her master’s degree in Slavic Languages and Literatures from the University of Southern California in 2021 and two bachelor’s degrees in Russian and English from Brigham Young University in 2019. Her current research interests include Russian poetry, Polish poetry, English poetry, Modernism, ecopoetry, environmental humanities, comparative literature, formalism, structuralism, and religion.