Research Practices and Operations in Studying Debates and Documents

Part of the Rhetoric, Politics and Society book series (RPS)


The chapter presents research practices and operations (or methods and techniques) that are useful in studying debates and documents as part, and as arenas and reflections, of political activity, political processes, strategies and actions. It contains first general considerations that are valid and helpful for most interpretative and textual analyses, with additional emphasis set on how to analyse political activity linked to texts: the research interest and research question target the moves, strategies, interests and actors involved in the political processes in question, rather than simply the contents of the text, and this in return crucially determines material selection, research questions, and setting and course of the analysis. The second part presents the core steps of this kind of analysis, using an exemplar case.


Discourse Analysis Fair Play Veto Power Parliamentary Debate Interpretative Analysis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



  1. Adamson, Sylvia, Gavin Alexander, and Karen Ettenhuber, eds. 2007. Renaissance Figures of Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ankersmit, F.R. 1996. Aesthetic Politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. ——— 2001. Historical Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. ——— 2002. Political Representation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Atkins, Judi, Alan Finlayson, James Martin, and Nick Turnbull, eds. 2014. Rhetoric in British Politics and Society, Series: Rhetoric, Politics and Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Austin, J.L. 1962 [1990]. How to Do Things with Words. Edited by J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisà. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brecht, Bertolt. 1967. Gesammelte Werke, Bd. 15. Wikipedia [LD1] imap:// Accessed 5 May 2016.
  8. Burke, Kenneth. 1945 [1969]. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1950 [1969]. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  10. Campion, Gilbert. 1958. An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 3rd edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2014. Analysing Political Speeches: Rhetoric, Discourse and Metaphor. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clausewitz, Carl von. 1832 [1980]. Vom Kriege. Frankfurt/M: Ullstein.Google Scholar
  13. Colclough, David. 2005. Freedom of Speech in Early Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. De Mille, James. 1878. Elements of Rhetoric. New York: Harper & Brothers. Google Scholar
  15. Dijk, Teun A. van. 2001. Critical Discourse Analysis. In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, and H. Hamilton, 352–371. Malden, MA [u.a.]: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  16. Dunn, John. 1968. The Identity of the History of Ideas. Philosophy 43: 85–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fairclough, Norman, and Ruth Wodak. 1997. Critical Discourse Analysis. In Discourse as Social Interaction, ed. Teun A. van Dijk, 258–284. London [u.a.]: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Finlayson, Alan. 2014. Proving, Pleasing and Persuading? Rhetoric in Contemporary British Politics. The Political Quarterly 85(4): 428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flynn, Paul. 2012. How to be an MP. London: Biteback.Google Scholar
  20. Foucault, Michel. 1969. L’archéologie du savoir. Bibliothèque des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 1971. L’ordre du discours: Leçon inaugurale au Collège de France prononcée le 2 décembre 1970. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  22. Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Observations. Chicago, IL: Aldine.Google Scholar
  23. Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2004. Experteninterviews und Qualitative Inhaltanalyse. Wiesbaden: VS.Google Scholar
  24. Haapala, Taru. 2012. “That in the Opinion of this House”: The Parliamentary Culture of Debate in the Nineteenth-Century Cambridge and Oxford Union Societies. PhD dissertation, University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  25. ———. 2013. The Mockery of Adbusters Magazine in the Classical Tradition of Political Rhetoric. In The Distant Present, ed. Tuula Vaarakallio and Taru Haapala, 71–89. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, SoPhi.Google Scholar
  26. ———. forthcoming 2017. Political Rhetoric in the Oxford and Cambridge Unions, 1830–1870, Series: Studies in Modern History. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Hexter, J.H., ed. 1992. Parliament and Liberty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Ihalainen, Pasi, and Kari Palonen. 2009. Parliamentary Sources in the Comparative Study of Conceptual History: Methodological Aspects and Illustration of a Research Proposal. Parliaments, Estates & Representation 29, 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ilie, Cornelia. 2001. Unparliamentary Language. Insults as Cognitive Forms of Confrontation. In Language and Ideology. Vol. 2, eds. R. Driven, R. Frank, and C. Ilie, 235–263. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. ———. 2004. Insulting as (un)parliamentary Practice in the British and Swedish Parliaments. In Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, Series: Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, ed. Paul Bayley, 45–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. ———, ed. 2010. European Parliaments under Scrutiny. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  32. Johnstone, Barbara. 2008. Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn. Malden, MA [u.a.]: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Kelle, Udo, and Susann Kluge. 1999. Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kivistö, Hanna-Mari. 2013. ‘Dubliners’ in the European Union—A Perspective on the Politics of Asylum-Seeking. In The Distant Present, eds. Tuula Vaarakallio and Taru Haapala, 106–128. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, SoPhi.Google Scholar
  35. Kopperschmidt, Josef, and Helmut Schanze, eds. 1994. Nietzsche oder “Die Sprache ist Rhetorik”. München: Fink.Google Scholar
  36. Koselleck, Reinhart. 1972. Einleitung. In Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. I. xiii–xxvii.Google Scholar
  37. ———. 1979. Vergangene Zukunft. Zur Theorie historischer Zeiten. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  38. ———. 1982 [2010]. Archivalien—Quellen—Geschichten. In Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte, ed. Carsten Dutt, 68–79. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1983. Begriffsgeschichtliche Probleme der Verfassungsgeschichtsschreibung. Der Staat-Sonderheft 6, 7–21.Google Scholar
  40. ———. 2006. Begriffsgeschichten. Herausgegeben von Carsten Dutt. Frankfurt/M: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  41. ———. 2010. Vom Sinn und Unsinn der Geschichte. herausgegeben mit Nachwort von Carsten Dutt. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 2011. Introduction (Einleitung) to the Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Translated by Michaela Richter. Contributions to the History of Concepts 7, 7–25.Google Scholar
  43. Koselleck, Reinhart, Ulrike Spree, and Willibald Steinmetz. 2006. Drei bürgerliche Welten. Zur vergleichenden Semantik der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft in Deutschland, Frankreich und England. In Begriffsgeschichten: Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik der politischen und sozialen Sprache, herausgegeben von Reinhart Koselleck, 402–463. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  44. Kurunmäki, Jussi. 2015. How Women’s Suffrage Was Devalued: The Burden of Analytical Categories and the Conceptual History of Democracy. In Parliamentarism and Democratic Theory, eds. Kari Palonen, and José María Rosales, 31–52. Leverkusen: Budrich.Google Scholar
  45. Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. 1985. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  46. Lausberg, Heinrich. 1962. Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik. München: Huber.Google Scholar
  47. Lowe, Robert. 1867. Speeches and Letters on Reform. London: Bush.Google Scholar
  48. Mack, Peter. 2002. Elizabethan Rhetoric: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martin, James. 2014. Politics and Rhetoric: A critical introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Mayring, Philipp. 2008. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken, 10th edn. Weinheim [u.a.]: Beltz.Google Scholar
  51. Mouffe, Chantal. 2013. Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  52. Nelson, John S. 1998. Tropes of Politics. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  53. Nelson, John S., Donald McCloskey, and Alan Megill. 1987. Rhetoric of the Human Sciences. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  54. Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1995. Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe 2/4. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  55. Palonen, Kari. 2006. The Struggle with Time. A Conceptual History of ‘Politics’ as an Activity. Hamburg: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar
  56. ———. 2008. The Politics of Limited Times: The Rhetoric of Temporal Judgment in Parliamentary Democracies. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. ———. 2010a. ‘Objektivität’ als faires Spiel. Wissenschaft als Politik bei Max Weber. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. ———. 2010b. The Parliamentarisation of Elections. Redescriptions 14, 133–156.Google Scholar
  59. ———. 2012a. Rhetorik des Unbeliebten. Lobreden auf Politik im Zeitalter der Demokratie. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  60. ———. 2014a. Fair Play and Scarce Time: Aspects of the 1882 Procedural Reform Debate in the British Parliament. In The Politics of Dissensus: Parliament in Debate, eds. Kari Palonen, José María Rosales, and Tapani Turkka, 327–348. Santander: Cantabria University Press/McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  61. ———. 2014b. Politics and Conceptual Histories. Rhetorical and temporal perspectives. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 2014c. The Politics of Parliamentary Procedure. The Formation of the Westminster Procedure as a Parliamentary Ideal Type. Leverkusen: Budrich.Google Scholar
  63. ———. 2016. From Oratory to Debate. Parliamentarisation of Deliberative Rhetoric in Westminster. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Parvikko, Tuija. 2008. Arendt, Eichmann and the Politics of the Past. Helsinki: The Finnish Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  65. Peltonen, Markku. 2013. Rhetoric, Politics and Popularity in Pre-Revolutionary England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Perelman, Chaïm, and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1958 [1983]. Traité de largumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique. Bruxelles: L’éditions de l‘Université libre de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  67. Pocock, J.G.A. 1971 [1989]. Politics, Language and Time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. Popper, Karl R. 1934 [1971]. Logik der Forschung. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  69. Redlich, Josef. 1905. Recht und Technik des Englischen Parlamentarismus. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  70. Schmitt, Carl. 1932 [1979]. Der Begriff des Politischen. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  71. Simons, Herbert W. 1990. The Rhetorical Turn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Skinner, Quentin. 1969. Meaning and Understanding in the History of Ideas. History and Theory 8, 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. ———. 1970. Conventions and the Understanding of Speech Acts. Philosophical Quarterly 20, 118–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. ———. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought I–II. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. ———. 1988. A Reply to My Critics. In Quentin Skinner and His Critics, ed. James Tully, 231–288. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  76. ———. 1996. Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. ———. 1998. Liberty Before Liberalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  78. ———. 1999. Rhetoric and Conceptual Change. Finnish Yearbook of Political Thought 3: 60–73.Google Scholar
  79. ———. 2002a. Visions of Politics. Vol. 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. ———. 2007. Paradiastole. In Renaissance Figures of Speech, eds. Sylvia Adamson, Gavin Alexander, and Karin Ettenhuber, 147–163. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  81. ———. 2014. Forensic Shakespeare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Taylor, Harriet. 1851. Enfranchisement of Women. Westminster and Foreign Quarterly Review 54: 289–311.Google Scholar
  83. Vaarakallio, Tuula. 2013. The Anti-parliamentarism of the French Front National Party. In The Distant Present, eds. Tuula Vaarakallio, and Taru Haapala, 28–47. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, SoPhi.Google Scholar
  84. Vaarakallio, Tuula, and Taru Haapala. 2013. Introduction. In The Distant Present, eds. Tuula Vaarakallio, and Taru Haapala, 4–11. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, SoPhi.Google Scholar
  85. Weber, Max. 1904 [1973]. Die ‘Objektivität’ sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis. In Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, ed. herausgegeben von Johannes Winckelmann, 146–214. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  86. ———. 1918 [1988]. Parlament und Regierung im neugeordneten Deutschland. In Max-Weber-Studienausgabe I/15, ed. herausgegeben von Wolfgang J. Mommsen, 202–302. Tübingen: Mohr.Google Scholar
  87. ———. 2012. In Collected Methodological Writings, eds. Hans Henrik Bruun, and Sam Whimster. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  88. White, Hayden. 1973. Metahistory. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Wiesner, Claudia. 2007. Bürgerschaft und Demokratie in der EU. Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  90. ———. 2014a. Demokratisierung der EU durch nationale Europadiskurse. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. ———. 2014c. The European Parliament as Special Parliament and Political Actor. In The Politics of Dissensus. Parliament in Debate, eds. Kari Palonen, José María Rosales, and Tapani Turkka, 101–126. Santander: University of Cantabria Press/McGrawHill.Google Scholar
  92. Wodak, Ruth, ed. 2008. Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke [u.a.]: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  93. Wood, Linda A., and Rolf O. Kroger. 2000. Doing Discourse Analysis. Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. Thousand Oaks [u.a.]: SAGE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Jyväskylä and Technical, University DarmstadtDarmstadtGermany
  2. 2.University of JyväskyläJyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations