Frame Analysis

Primary frame: Natural c.f Social
Goffman

Nested Frames
Minsky

Meta Frames
Dombos (2009)

Frames can be used to promote negative/positive image, Johnson (1995) persuade or be deliberately obtuse (Wilson 1990)

Object > "Problem"
Positive and Negative Framing

http://bristol.academia.edu/MHope/Papers/259680/Frame_Analysis_as_a_Discourse_Method_Framing_Climate_Change_Politics

Goffman, E.  (1979, 1984) Frame Analysis – An Essay on the Organization of Experience, 

Boston: North-eastern University Press.

Schön, D.A. and Rein, M. (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of 

Intractable Policy Controversies, New York: Basic Books. 

Thematic Analysis - Boyatzis

Thematic Analysis

May be identified at a "manifest level"(Directly observable in the info) or the latent level (underlying the info) generated inductively from raw information (Hume?) or deductively from theory and prior research (Godel?) compilation of such codes is called a codebook... (Post structuralist?)

The method has widespread use yet not much has been written on technique. It has typically been passed from experienced professional to professional in training like the motto of a secret society...

Thematic annalysis is a translator from those speacking the langiuage of  qualitative analysis to those speaking the language of quantitative anlyisis (hence claims to do a similar thing to Checklands SSM)


Boyatzis R . Transforming qualitative info 1998

A simple Discourse Structure? and it's effects on space for Creativity?

Discourse has structure (eg schank ableson), a simple structure could be for example

 " you are x.... produce/consume y  to become z  for several hours... you are  x"

such a structure may have inbuilt assumptions such as the only way to become z is to produce/consume y

such a form when normalised in a discourse community may restrict  conceptual ,social and physical space that provide possibilities for rationally discussing alternative methods of becoming z and/or experimenting  with  these alternative methods, perhaps via improvisational techniques, possibly involving  focus and identification(eg yoga), and random expressive flow (stream of consciousness).

CDA Notes

The role of discourse in the reproduction and challenge of Dominance and Inequality

Control via action & cognition (management of social representations p257)
Social cognitions mediate between macro and micro aspects of society, they are shared and presupposed by group members

evaluative beliefs have a schemata form based on categories

Evaluative Beleifs>Norms> Ideologies

Dominance: exercise of social power by elites institutions or groups

Reproduction via: overt suppport, enactment,representation, legitimation, denial, mitigation, concealment.


Power may be jointly produced when dominated groups are pursuaded that dominace is "natural"

CDA tends to concentrate on elites and their

History - Marx - Frankfurt School - Habermas

Ultimately it's success is measured by it's effectiveness and relevance contribution to change (p253)



from Van Djik Principles of critical Discourse analysis

Discourse Analysis

3. Discourse Analysis.

Whereas constructivist methods tend to focus on the meaning making efforts of individuals, families, and small groups, social constructionist methods shift attention to the broader systems of languaging that characterize public speech, disciplinary discourse, or cultural contexts. Even when applied to individual language users, such methods tend to have a critical thrust, such as when careful deconstructive listening is used to bring to light the hidden assumptions that constrain a speaker’s view of what positions are permissible for self or others. Social constructionist methods are in this sense more radical than constructivist methods, attempting to uproot oppressive and marginalizing forms of thinking and speaking that have dehumanizing consequences.

An example of social constructionist methods is provided by discourse analysis, the critical evaluation of social texts to reveal their concealed constraints and contradictions. For example, analyses of published debates in the South African parliament in the early 1980s have elucidated the shared assumptions about the superiority of whites held by both liberal and conservative MPs. Likewise, feminist discourse of the 1970s has been deconstructed to expose the ways in which butch/femme lesbians were marginalized to support a politic that advocated lesbian androgyny. Interestingly, discourse analysts have been especially active in undermining traditional assumptions in psychology, such as the largely unexamined convictions that people ideally function as rational selves and that psychotherapy involves a move toward greater reality contact. As a method, discourse analysis appears to be more an art than a science, borrowing from deconstructive and critical literary theory in order to understand and resist dominant narratives that limit the terms of debate or the permissible range of human variation that is considered normal It is therefore sometimes used by psychotherapists concerned with helping clients free themselves from the oppressive narratives of their lives, and recover a sense of themselves as the authors of their experience. Related social constructionist methods include the analysis of rhetoric, the tropes or moves used to advance a persuasive argument, and textual analysis, which reveals the way in which authors skillfully position themselves and others within the moral discourse of an account, so as to present themselves to best advantage.

In summary, constructivist and social constructionist methods in psychology are multifaceted in form and diverse in application, but tend to express a shared commitment to revealing the structure of personal and collective meanings and the processes by which they are constructed. Given their convergence with postmodern trends in the human sciences, it is likely that their influence will continue to grow in the future.

http://pagerankstudio.com/Blog/2010/10/constructivism-constructionism-methodology/

Discourse Analysis & Worldviews

1. We become who we are through relationship - through the meaning we make of other's perceptions and of us and interactions with us.

2. We organize our lives through stories.
    We can make many different stories or meanings of any particular event.
    There are many experiences in each of our lives that have not been “storied.” Each of those events could, if storied, lead to a different, often preferable, life narrative.

3. The dominant discourses in our society powerfully influence what gets storied and how it gets storied.
    A discourse is a system of words, actions, rules, beliefs, and institutions that share common values. Particular discourses sustain particular worldviews. We might even think of a discourse as a worldview in action.
    Discourses tend to be invisible--taken for granted as part of the fabric of reality.

4. Locating problems in particular discourses helps us see people as separate from their problems.
    We seek to identify the discourses that support problematic stories. Once a problem is linked to a problematic discourse, we can more easily help people oppose the discourse or chose to construct their relationship in line with a different, preferred, discourse.


One classical marxist arguement against discourse anlysis may be that the stable/dominat discourse is actually inherent in the  metric and structure of  a capitalist society itself - Capital and the systems that maintain it.

Re Discourse Analysis : Creative Facilitation

Discourse Analysis

1) The focus of discourse analysis should be local points of power rather than centralized forms to show how power functions daily through normalized techniques and procedures.

OK 

2) Analysis should focus on the material or practicaleffects of power rather than a search for its origins.

OK

3) Power should be analyzed as operating independently of particular persons; individuals are only the conduits through which power moves.

OK

4) Studies should portray power as ascending from the lowest levels of society (the family, schools, etc.) rather than descending from above.

? this allows for potential but does it adequately acknowledge the internalisation of oppressive power structures 

(Foucault) re access to inherent resources

5) Power should not be treated as ideology, but instead as the rules and instruments that produce what is accepted as "truth".

? "Ideology"    technologies of the self?  conceptual apparatus > expert systems?

Discourse Analysis: Method

Discourse analysis

Founded onFoucaults ideas not centered on subject but on discourse community

Interdiciplinary

Concerned with Language Power and Ideology Wodak 89

Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b; Rasmussen 1996). Its current focus on language and discourse was initiated with the hat emerged (mostly in the UK and Australia) at the end of the 1970s (Fowler et al. 1979; see also Mey 1985). CDA has also counterparts in "critical" developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social sciences,somealready dating back to the early 1970s (Birnbaum 1971; Calhoun 1995; Fay 1987; Fox and Prilleltensky 1997; Hymes 1972; Ibanez and Iniguez 1997; Singh 1996; Thomas 1993; Turkel 1996; Wodak 1996). As is the case in these neighboring disciplines, CDA may be seen as a reaction against the dominant formal (often "asocial" or "uncritical") paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s. 

Van Djik 

18 Critical Discourse Analysis 

TEUN A. VAN DIJK 

Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-80) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows: 

CDA addresses social problems , Power relations are discursive ,Discourse constitutes society and culture , Discourse does ideological work, Discourse is historical ,The link between text and society is mediated,  Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory, Discourse is a form of social action. 

Language use, discourse, verbal interaction, and communication belong to the micro- level of the social order. Power, dominance, and inequality between social groups are typically terms that belong to a macrolevel of analysis. This means that CDA has to theoretically bridge the well-known "gap" between micro and macro approaches, which is of course a distinction that is a sociological construct in its own right (Alexander et al. 1987; Knorr-Cetina and Cicourel 1981

There are several ways to analyze and bridge these levels, and thus to arrive at a unified critical analysis Members–groups: Language users-engage in discourse as members of (several) social groups, organizations, or institutions; and conversely, groups thus may act "by" their members. 2 Actions–process: Social acts of individual actors are thus constituent parts of group actions and social processes, such as legislation, newsmaking, or the reproduction of racism. 3 Context–social structure: Situations of discursive interaction are similarly part or constitutive of social structure; for example, a press conference may be a typical practice of organizations and media institutions. That is, "local" and more "global" contexts are closely related, and both exercise constraints on discourse. 4 Personal and social cognition: Language users as social actors have both personal 

and social cognition: personal memories, knowledge and opinions, as well as those shared with members of the group or culture as a whole. Both types of cognition influence interaction and discourse of individual members, whereas shared "social representations" govern the collective actions of a group.

Wodak(2009) offers an up to date comparison of the various methods and their relation to the theoretical positions (p20)

Basically, the following approaches/trends can be distinguished which I 

have summarised extensively in my chapter in SEALE, GIAMPETRO, GUBRIUM and SILVER- 

MAN, 2004 (however, all typologies do not really fit; totally different classification would emerge 

by topics or also by theoretical underpinnings; many scholars are not mentioned here): 

• Functional Systemic Grammar: FAIRCLOUGH, KRESS, GRAHAM, RICHARDSON 

• Lesarten approach: MAAS, JANUSCHEK 

• Duisburg approach: JÄGER, LINK 

• Socio-cognitive approach: VAN DIJK, CHILTON, KOLLER 

• Combining CDA and Corpus Linguistics: MAUTNER, Carmen CALDAS-COULTHARD 

• Social Actors Approach: VAN LEEUWEN 

• Visual Grammar: KRESS, VAN LEEUWEN, LEMKE, SCOLLON and SCOLLON 

• Loughborough approach: BILLIG 

• Vienna School: WODAK, MENZ, GRUBER, REISIGL, KRZYZANOWSKI, DE CILLIA, 

POLLAK [19] 

The various schools differ in their theoretical underpinnings. JÄGER and FAIR- CLOUGH draw heavily on FOUCAULT; the Vienna School more on the Frankfurt School, in their empirical research. FAIRCLOUGH usually tends to illustrate his theory with few selected data, whereas we proceed in a more abductive manner, as does JÄGER. The various schools also differ in the selection of topics for research. Moreover, all of us have developed different methodologies which are compatible in many ways (see WODAK & MEYER, 2001 for an overview). JÄGER focuses heavily on the study of metaphors, FAIRCLOUGH applies functional systematic grammar, and I use argumentation theory and rhetoric when analysing texts and discourses. [23] 

Diagram from  p20 

Methods of critical discourse analysis

FQS 8(2), Art. 29, Ruth Wodak in Conversation With Gavin Kendall: What Is Critical Discourse Analysis? 

 In WEISS and 

WODAK (2003) we define and spell out precise criteria for an interdisciplinarand also discuss the limitations of interdisciplinary research. [36]  implies a dialeticl relationship between the situation, sinstitutions and social structures which frame it

Science, Discourse Analysis, Reflective practice

4. Beyond Empirical Observations: The Discursive Turn

Popper’s empiricist framework of science theory apparently did not allow him to consider--and take seriously--sources of critique other than those of experimental science. I am thinking, for example, of various forms of criticism drawn from the humanities (e.g., hermeneutic reflection, language analysis), from practical philosophy (e.g., ethical reflection,discourse analysis), and from open discourse among researchers and concerned citizens in a functioning civil society (e.g., democratically organized consultation procedures, participatory models of research). I may also be allowed to mention my own specific concept of criticism drawn from critical systems thinking and critical pragmatism, i.e., boundary critique, a form of critical discourse that examines the way in which the meaning and reach of validity claims in applied science and expertise depend on the context that is taken to be relevant (Ulrich, 1983, 2000, 2001, 2006). Considering the vital part that research plays today in problem solving and decision making everywhere, such an opening up of our universe of criticaldiscourse appears vital. A well understood critical approach to research can no longer a priorilimit itself to any specific source or method of criticism; for what ultimately matters is not where a critical challenge comes from but only what arguments support or question it. Such arguments can only be identified and examined in an open discourse that is accessible to everyone concerned and to all forms of cogent argumentation.

Its notion of research competence will be very different indeed from that of critical rationalism. In particular, it will understand research competence in terms of these three indispensable qualities: reflective competence is

1. self-critical: the effort of systematically examining one’s own premises through self-reflection and dialogue, with a view to carefully qualifying the meaning and validity of one’s claims;
2. emancipatory: working actively to help others in emancipating themselves from one’s claims, as well as from theirs; and
3. ethically alert: making transparent to oneself and to others the value implications of one’s claims, and limiting these claims accordingly.

Rethinking Critically Reflective Research Practice: Beyond Popper’s Critical Rationalism

Keywords: critical rationalism; science theory; empirical foundationalism; primacy of theory; methodology choice; reflective practice

Werner Ulrich

Journal of Research Practice, Volume 2, Issue 2, 2006