Advertisement

The Voices of New Zealand Voters

  • Jay M. Woodhams
Chapter

Abstract

Listening to what voters have to say provides us a different angle on the political. It allows us insight into how sociocultural and historical factors, subnational or local discourses and interactional demands shape us as political people. It allows us to consider our political identities and those of others both intersubjective and multifaceted. Recognising this complexity can lead to a more nuanced approach to political discourse and dialogue in an increasingly polarised global environment.

References

  1. Bhaskar, R. (2016). Enlightened common sense: The philosophy of critical realism. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bucholtz, M., & Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7(4–5), 585–614.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Elder-Vass, D. (2012). The reality of social construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Holmes, J. (2018). Negotiating the culture order in New Zealand workplaces. Language in Society, 47(1), 33–56.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404517000732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Holmes, J., Marra, M., & Lazzaro-Salazar, M. (2017). Negotiating the tall poppy syndrome in New Zealand workplaces: Women leaders managing the challenge. Gender & Language, 11(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Marra, M., Holmes, J., & Kidner, K. (2017). Transitions and interactional competence: Negotiating boundaries through talk. In S. P. Doehler, A. Bangerter, G. de Weck, L. Filliettaz, E. González-Martínez, & C. Petitjean (Eds.), Interactional competences in institutional settings (pp. 227–251). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46867-9_9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Maton, K., & Moore, R. (Eds.). (2010). Social realism, knowledge and the sociology of education. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  10. Moore, R. (2013). Social realism and the problem of the problem of knowledge in the sociology of education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 333–353.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.714251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Phillips, L. J., & Jørgensen, M. W. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Sayer, A. (1997). Critical realism and the limits to critical social science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27(4), 473–488.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and social science. London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sayer, A. (2010). Method in social science: A realist approach (2nd ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M., & Liebhart, K. (Eds.). (2009). The discursive construction of national identity (2nd ed.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Woodhams, J. M. (2015). A critical realist study of political identity in Aotearoa New Zealand: Materiality, discourse and context. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jay M. Woodhams
    • 1
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations