1. Discourse Analysis
Introducing theory and method for
analysing content, conversation and
meaning
Sue Bond-Taylor

2. Aims of the Lecture
 To introduce a range of theoretical perspectives
for analysing meaning in talk and text:
1) Content analysis - quantitative & qualitative
2) Grounded Theory
3) Semiotics
4) Discourse analysis
 To illustrate these techniques with examples
from my own research : A discourse analysis of
Anti-Social Behaviour policy.

3. Content Analysis –
Quantitative Method
 Involves identifying categories within a text
and counting the number of instances that
fall into each category.
 “Content analysis translates frequency of
occurrence of certain symbols into summary
judgements and comparisons of content of
the discourse” (Starosta 1984, cited in
Altheide, 1987:66)
 Hence, the greater the space and/or time
taken up by the category, the greater its
significance.

4. Content Analysis-
Criticisms of Quantitative Method
 Considers only data which can be standardised and
placed into categories.
 Tells us little about how representations are produced.
 It therefore reproduces the meanings used by the author
rather than critically evaluating those meanings within the
context of their production.
 Audience may interpret the message differently from
researcher / there may be a number of possible readings.
 “The frequency with which words or phrases occur in
a text (a quantitative emphasis) may therefore say
nothing about its ‘significance within the document’ (a
qualitative emphasis).” (May, 2001:192)

5. Content Analysis -
Qualitative / Ethnographic Method
 Ethnographic content analysis is used to
‘document and understand the
communication of meaning, as well as to
verify theoretical relationships’ (Altheide,
1987:68).
 A more reflexive process.
 Initial categories might guide the study, but
further categories will emerge.
 The researcher is not limited by rigid research
design created at the outset.

6. Content Analysis in Practice:
Respect and Responsibility (2003)
 As a society, our rights as individuals are based on the sense of
responsibility we have towards others and to our families and
communities. This means respecting each other’s property, respecting
the streets and public places we share and respecting our neighbours’
right to live free from harassment and distress. It is the foundation of a
civic society.
 This White Paper is all about this sense of responsibility: an
acceptance that anti-social behaviour, in whatever guise, is not
acceptable and that together we will take responsibility to stamp it out,
whenever we come across it. This responsibility starts in the family,
where parents are accountable for the actions of their children and set
the standards they are to live by. It extends to neighbours, who should
not have to endure noise nuisance. It continues into local
communities, where people take pride in the appearance of estates
and do not tolerate vandalism, litter or yobbish behaviour.
 Our aim is a ‘something for something’ society where we treat one
another with respect and where we all share responsibility for taking a
stand against what is unacceptable.

7. Content Analysis in Practice:
Respect and Responsibility (2003)
 As a society, our rights as individuals are based on the sense of
responsibility we have towards others and to our families and
communities. This means respecting each other’s property, respecting
the streets and public places we share and respecting our neighbours’
right to live free from harassment and distress. It is the foundation of a
civic society.
 This White Paper is all about this sense of responsibility: an
acceptance that anti-social behaviour, in whatever guise, is not
acceptable and that together we will take responsibility to stamp it out,
whenever we come across it. This responsibility starts in the family,
where parents are accountable for the actions of their children and set
the standards they are to live by. It extends to neighbours, who should
not have to endure noise nuisance. It continues into local
communities, where people take pride in the appearance of estates
and do not tolerate vandalism, litter or yobbish behaviour.
 Our aim is a ‘something for something’ society where we treat one
another with respect and where we all share responsibility for taking a
stand against what is unacceptable.

8. Content Analysis in Practice:
Respect and Responsibility (2003)
 A quantitative content analysis identifies
repetition of words:
 Responsibility (5), Respect (4),
Community (2), Rights (2)
 But tells us little about the meaning of
those words.
 We could assume that responsibility is
more important than rights?

9. Ethnographic Content Analysis:
Predicate Analysis
“focuses on the language practices of predication –
the verbs, adverbs and adjectives that attach to
nouns. Predications of a noun construct the thing(s)
named as a particular sort of thing, with particular
features and capacities.” (Milliken 1999:232)
‘Communities’
“Local…, …spiralling downwards, ASB ruins…,
responsibility to…, families and…”
Can this give us an impression of how ‘community’ is
defined within this discourse?

10. Ethnographic Content Analysis:
Grounded Theory Method
 Highly theorised and widely used in social research.
 A process of constant comparison in which data
collection, coding, analysis, interpretation and
literature review are continually and simultaneously
undertaken.
 Initial themes may be identified at the outset in order
to shape the research design, but hypotheses will not
be in place and the research process is constantly
evolving.
 By ‘grounding’ the theoretical evaluations in the data in
this way, the qualitative researcher can avoid charges
of subjectivity and produce conclusions clearly
supported by the data.

11. Grounded Theory in Practice:
Respect and Responsibility (2003)
 A GT method encourages us to go through line by line to
identify themes or ‘tags’. We can compare tags and
group them into categories, eg:

Balancing rights and responsibilities
 Respecting places
 Respecting others rights

Responsibilisation

Responsibilising families

Responsibilising communities
 Through this analysis we can see that:
 Rights are just as important as responsibilities because it
is only through our responsibilities that we can demand
rights.
 ‘Community’ is perceived largely geographically, by
places and spaces.

12. Semiotics
 Semiotics offers an analysis of the use of
‘signs’ within modes of representation.
 Language is a set of signs which are quite
arbitrarily assigned and are connected to the
objects which they represent only by the
shared understanding of cultures.
 Because of this, such signs are subject to
history and therefore shifts in meaning,
interpretations and understandings.
 There is thus no universal true meaning to
any representation or text.

13. “Chair”
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stewf/52793227 /
http://www.flickr.com/photos/epsos/6018530849 /

14. “Chair”
http://www.flickr.com/photos/baltic-development-forum/5380626101/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/barbietron/3296163134 /
“ *~¬¬¬#^^ ” http://www.flickr.com/photos/hiddedevries/5980995875/

15. Semiotics
 Roland Barthes (1967) developed this
semiotic approach to the analysis of social
behaviour and popular culture
 Everyday activities are a language through
which meaning is communicated (ibid).
 Two levels of signification: denotation and
connotation.
 A symbol denotes on a descriptive level what
is signified, but the connotation draws upon
wider ideological and cultural depictions.

16. “Hoodie”
 We might recognise a ‘hoodie’ on a descriptive
level, but this connotes further imagery in
relation to youth, disorder and anti-social
behaviour. This is the second level of
signification.
http://www.freefoto.com/images/11/
23/11_23_18---Broken-
Window_web.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/severalsecon
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sonia ds/4440007946/sizes/o/in/photostream /
luna/2503576586/

17. So What is Discourse Analysis?
 DA “emphasizes the way versions of the
world, of society, events and inner
psychological worlds are produced in
discourse” (Potter, 1997:146)
 Discourse as the ‘solution to a problem’
(Gill, 1996, cited in Bryman: 2004).
 Need to search for the purpose behind the
way things are represented in discourse.
 Gill (2000)identifies 4 key themes in DA:

18. Theme 1:
Discourse is a topic
 A focus of enquiry in itself.
 Contrasts with some forms of content
analysis which see language only as a
means of accessing social reality.
 Researchers are interested in how
discourses are constructed and why.

19. Theme 2:
Language is constructive
 Discourse is a way of constructing a
particular view of the social world.
 It reflects the individual constructing that
view.
 It reflects the context in which it is
constructed.
 We can use language devices to construct
‘facts’.

20. Theme 3:
Discourse is a form of action
 Discourse is a way of doing something.
 Individuals construct different discursive
strategies or ‘repertoires’ about the same
topic.
 E.g. you might construct different ways of
talking about Uni life when talking to your
mum, your mates, an employer.
 What are you trying to accomplish in each
discourse?

21. Theme 4:
Discourse is rhetorically organised
 Discourse is concerned with “establishing
one version of the world in the face of
competing versions” (Gill, 2000:176).
 Discourses are therefore actively
constructed to persuade others to accept
that this version is social reality.
 Think about how certain people are
presented in discourses eg ‘youth’ ‘asylum
seekers’ ‘benefit cheats’ ‘rioters’ etc.

22. Foucault on Discourses
 Foucault identifies the issue of power within
discourse:
• Power gives knowledge the authority of truth,
• Power allows that knowledge to make itself true
 “There is no power relation without the
correlative constitution of a field of
knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not
presuppose and constitute at the same time,
power relations.” (Foucault, 1977:27)

23. A Foucauldian discourse analysis
should therefore identify:
 Statements about the topics being studied.
 The rules which prescribe certain ways of talking about
these topics and exclude other ways, ie what is
‘thinkable’ or ‘sayable’ about it.
 ‘Subjects’ who personify the discourse
 How this knowledge about the topic acquires authority
and becomes viewed as ‘truth’.
 The practices within institutions for dealing with the
subjects.
 Acknowledgement that in a later period a different
discourse will arise, opening up a new ‘discursive
formation’ and supporting a new ‘regime of truth’.
(Hall, 1997:45-46)

24. Discourse Analysis & ASB
 An analysis of political discourse re anti-social behaviour
thus requires not just a content analysis of the language
within the texts, but a critique of the processes and
practices which evolve out of, support or construct this
discourse.
 In what ways are policies addressing ASB not only
a. A response to the ‘knowledge’ represented by such
political documents?
But also...
a. Reinforcing that ‘knowledge’ and therefore constructing
the problem itself?

25. Confused?
 This lecture has provided the theoretical
context of Discourse Analysis methods.
 Next week’s lecture (JJ) will be exploring
how you can apply these theories to your
DA assignment.
 Analysing practitioner discourses, eg re
managerialism, public sector funding
crisis, organisational cultures and values.
 Using real examples from past speakers.
Don’t miss it!!