Advertisement

Introduction

  • Markus RheindorfEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Postdisciplinary Studies in Discourse book series (PSDS)

Abstract

Foucault’s suggestion that discourse analysis should constitute a ‘toolbox’ of methods, rather than a monolithic approach, has long been quoted to motivate methodological plurality in Critical Discourse Studies. It has inspired an openness to borrowing, mixing, and developing methods that has been presented as eclecticism, mixed methods, or triangulation—often without specifying a rationale or aim. With this productive openness has also come criticism of arbitrary combinations, incompatibilities, abandoning discourse analysis, or dabbling in inadequately understood methods. The introduction discusses, as a framework for the following chapters, the specific benefits potentially gained from combining methods and/or datasets: corroboration, diversity of views, offset, complementarity, enhancement, explanation, exploration, instrument development, sampling, contextualization, illustration, and increased credibility. The remainder of the Introduction provides an overview of the following chapters.

References

  1. Baker, Paul. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. Continuum Discourse Series. London and New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 2014. Using Corpora to Analyze Gender. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 2015. “Chapter 12. Does Britain Need Any More Foreign Doctors? Inter-Analyst Consistency and Corpus-Assisted (Critical) Discourse Analysis.” In Studies in Corpus Linguistics, edited by Nicholas Groom, Maggie Charles, and Suganthi John, vol. 73, 283–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.  https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.73.13bak.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, Paul, and Erez Levon. 2015. “Picking the Right Cherries? A Comparison of Corpus-Based and Qualitative Analyses of News Articles About Masculinity.” Discourse & Communication 9 (2): 221–36.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481314568542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, Paul, Costas Gabrielatos, Majid KhosraviNik, Mihał Krzyzanowski, Tony McEnery, and Ruth Wodak. 2008. “A Useful Methodological Synergy? Combining Critical Discourse Analysis and Corpus Linguistics to Examine Discourses of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press.” Discourse & Society 19 (3): 273–306.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926508088962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryman, Alan. 2006. “Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research: How Is It Done?” Qualitative Research 6 (1): 97–113.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Candlin, Christopher, and Jonathan Crichton (eds.). 2013. Discourses of Trust: Palgrave Studies in Professional and Organizational Discourse. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Cicourel, Aaron V. 1969. Method and Measurement in Sociology. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, John W. 2014. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Creswell, John W., and Dana L. Miller. 2000. “Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.” Theory into Practice 39 (3): 124–30.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Denzin, Norman K. 2009. The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  12. Flick, Uwe. 2017. Doing Triangulation and Mixed Methods, 1st ed., The Sage Qualitative Research Kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Forchtner, Bernhard, and Ana Tominc. 2012. “Critique and Argumentation: On the Relation Between the Discourse-Historical Approach and Pragma-Dialectics.” Journal of Language and Politics 11 (1): 31–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foucault, Michel. (1994 [1974]). “Prisons et asiles dans le mécanisme du pouvoir”. In Dits et Ecrits, t. II, 523–4. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  15. Gabrielatos, Costas, and Alison Duguid. 2014. “Corpus Linguistics and CDA: A Critical Look at Synergy.” Presented at the CDA20+ Symposium. September 9, 2014, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Grossberg, Lawrence. 1997. Bringing It All Back Home: Essays on Cultural Studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hammersley, Martyn. 2003. “Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms?.” Discourse & Society 14 (6): 751–81.  https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030146004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hocking, Darryl. 2015. “Health Communication and Corpus Linguistics: Using Corpus Tools to Analyse Eating Disorder Discourse Online.” In Corpora and Discourse Studies: Integrating Discourse and Corpora, edited by Tony McEnery and Paul Baker, 192–219. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Koselleck, Reinhart. 2007. The Practice of Conceptual History: Timing History, Spacing Concepts, Reprint, Cultural Memory in the Present. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lynch, Michael. 2007. “Discourse Analysis.” In The Sage Handbook of Social Science Methodology, edited by William Outhwaite and Stephen Turner, 499–515. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marchi, Anna, and Charlotte Taylor. 2009. “If on a Winter’s Night Two Researchers…: A Challenge to Assumptions of Soundness of Interpretation.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines: CADAAD 3 (1): 1–20.Google Scholar
  22. Mautner, Gerlinde. 2011. “Die Kritische Masse. Korpuslinguistik Und Kritische Diskursanalyse.” In Korpuspragmatik. Thematische Korpora Als Basis Diskurslinguistischer Analysen, edited by Ekkehard Felder, Marcus Müller, and Friedemann Vogel, 83–114. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. ———. 2016. Discourse and Management: Critical Perspectives Through the Language Lens. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  24. Rheindorf, Markus. 2005a. “Die Ausdruckskraft Der Körper: Natürlichkeit Und Physiognomie in Der Filmtheorie Der Zwischenkriegszeit.” In Leibhaftige Moderne: Körper in Kunst Und Massenmedien 1918 Bis 1938, edited by Michael Cowan and Kai M. Sicks, 217–30. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2005b. “Film as Language: The Politics of Early Film Theory (1920–1960).” Journal of Language and Politics 4 (1): 143–59.Google Scholar
  26. ———. 2006. “The Languages That Films Speak—Discourse-Historical Perspectives on Film Theory: Dis/Continuities and Contexts.” PhD thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna.Google Scholar
  27. ———. 2007. “Die Sprachen, Die Filme Sprechen: Die Geschichte Der Deutschsprachigen Filmtheorie Als Diskursgeschichte.” Zeitschrift Für Kulturwissenschaften. Themenheft Filmwissenschaft Als Kulturwissenschaft 2: 11–24.Google Scholar
  28. ———. 2017. “Integration Durch Strafe? Die Normalisierung Paternalistischer Diskursfiguren Zur „Integrationsunwilligkeit“.” Zeitschrift Für Diskursforschung 5 (2): 182–206.Google Scholar
  29. ———. 2018. “Disciplining the Unwilling. Normalisation of (Demands for) Punitive Measures Against Immigrants in Austrian Populist Discourse.” In Doing Politics: Discursivity, Performativity and Mediation in Political Discourse, edited by Michael Kranert and Geraldine Horan, 179–208. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  30. Rheindorf, Markus, and Ruth Wodak. 2018. “Borders, Fences, and Limits—Protecting Austria from Refugees: Metadiscursive Negotiation of Meaning in the Current Refugee Crisis.” Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 16 (1–2): 15–38.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15562948.2017.1302032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rothbauer, Paulette. 2008. “Triangulation.” In The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, edited by Lisa M. Given, 892–94. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. van Dijk, Teun. A. 2006. “Discourse, Context and Cognition.” Discourse Studies 8 (1): 159–77.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wodak, Ruth, and Markus Rheindorf. 2017. “‘Whose Story?’—Narratives of Persecution, Flight and Survival Told by the Children of Austrian Holocaust Survivors.” In Linguistic Diversity and Superdiversity: Sociocultural Linguistic Perspectives, edited by Anna de Fina, Didem Ikizoglu, and Jeremy Wegner, 17–36. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2009. “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by R. Wodak, & M. Meyer, 1–33. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Wodak, Ruth, Rudolf de Cillia, Martin Reisigl, and Karin Liebhart. 2009. The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd ed., Critical Discourse Analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations