Diving in to Discourse Analysis

From the moment I first read the words "discourse analysis" I knew this was a theory and methodology I needed to learn more about.  Something about it just clicked with my own interests and ideas about learning.  I come from a Special Education background, but I've never really felt at home with their behaviorist ways.  Throughout my years in the classroom and in graduate school, I've started to understand my own perspectives on learning and research and come to realize why I never did agree with so many things I learned in my Special Education coursework.  I was excited to see that UT offered this course and knew I had to take it.  I was excited to start reading this week and start understanding exactly what discourse analysis really is and why it is that I've felt drawn to it.

Research:

So here's the thing...I want to make this useful for me and the types of research I'm interested, but I work with deaf kids and that gets even more complicated than "typical" discourse analysis (whatever that is...)  I am currently doing a case study of a student who is severely language delayed (when compared to his d/hh peers).  And I'm really interested in the discourse he participates in on a daily basis.  I want to know more about the language his teachers and cottage staff use with him and how that may impact his language interactions and participation.  I would love to analyze a video of him in a class, but I am nervous that it will be very difficult to do given the complexity of recording video in a language that has no written form.   By transcribing, we are already altering the language which makes it a bit...sticky.  I would like my text analysis to be connected in some way...but I'm not sure what I would use.  The student himself writes very little.  Sarah's idea of an IEP meeting, made me think that I could possible use his IEP or some time of written report about him.  So...in summary--I don't know.  But I really want to look at language in a classroom with deaf students in some way if possible.  For the mini-lit review: I first want to know if there is any work out there using discourse analysis with deaf education or sign language in general...so I'll likely try to find out what I can find in that area.  I'd like to look at how it's been used in the field of literacy with struggling readers and writers, or just with teacher language.  Maybe I should just take this time to read everything Cazden has ever written about classroom talk.  That's been on my to do list for a few years!  I'm pretty sure I have 4 of her books sitting on my shelf...and it may be a better starting point.

The readings:

I started my reading with the Rogers et al (2005) article based on a recommendation from a peer. So thankful for her wisdom.  It was a helpful way to start tackling--What is discourse analysis?   I really enjoyed understanding where DA came from and all of the fields that have had a hand in its development.  I especially liked the explanation of how DA made its way into education--"Education researchers turned to discourse analysis as a way to make sense of the ways in which people make meaning in educational contexts" (p. 366).  Yep, that pretty much sums up why I'm interested in DA.  I also really liked how the authors divided out Critical-Discourse-Analysis, and discussed each of these constructs.  It really helped me start understanding DA but also what makes CDA unique.

• Critical.  Because I'm most familiar with Gee's work in discourse analysis, I didn't really know CDA.  It makes sense how the addition of the "C" really sets CDA apart, but I didn't really know much about it prior to this reading.  I am interested in this type of research because I my research is with a marginalized population...but I'm not really sure that it's where my own research interests lie...because I'm more interested in understanding teacher language so that we can inform teaching practice.  A critical stance seems to be more interested in critiquing the language and doesn't seem as productive (at least not for the work I'm interested in).  
• Discourse.  Loved the brief discussion of the characteristics that CDA and Systemic Functional Linguistics share.  I've just recently begun to look into SFL because I find that it is very helpful to my work with deaf education, so this information was especially meaningful to me.  I want to know more about functional linguistics and a functional view of language development.  It's nice to know that this ties in well to DA.  (p. 369)
1. Language as social construction.
2. Language and contexts influence one another.
3. Cultural and historical acts of meaning making.  
• Analysis.  Fairclough's framework was helpful to me, because I felt I could visualize the three levels of analysis, which is helpful when learning about these constructs that can seem so intangible at times.  (p. 371)
1. the text
2. the discursive practice (production and interpretation of texts)
3. the sociocultural practice 

Out of the themes discussed, I think I was most surprised to read about the "Reflexivity and Role of the Researcher".  I suppose I sort of presumed that researchers using this methodology would clearly position themselves.  I was not expecting the review to find that few examples of thorough reflexivity.  While I am knew to qualitative research, I see reflexivity as an absolutely necessary component.  This was a good reminder of how I need to make sure that I am always being reflexive in my research.  The following quote really helped me walk away from the article understanding the current critical needs for CDA research:  "If CDA as a theory and method is to move beyond the present critiques, researchers might attend to the following:  (a) the links between the micro and the macro; (b) explaining why certain linguistic resources are analyzed and not others, and (c)  clear analytic procedures outlining the decision making of the researcher"  (p. 387).   It helped me see how methodology based on CDA should be developed.  In the directions for future research, I think the authors captured the reasons I thought discourse analysis could be a good theory/methodology for me before I even knew exactly what it was.  (That sounds like I know what it is now...I don't...but I'm getting there!)  "CDA offers a synergistic framework with social constructivist and community of practice models of learning.  Indeed, CDA can be used to trace changes in discourse patterns over time and across contexts--changes that we might refer to as learning (p. 387).  Exactly.  What they said.

And then... I read Jorgenson and Philips (2002) Chapters 1-3...and reread Jorgenson and Philips...  This one took some closer reading, but I liked it--especially chapter 1.  I appreciated that the first chapter set the stage by talking about the characteristics shared by the 3 approaches to discourse analysis (Laclau & Mouffe's discourse theory, critical discourse analysis, and discursive psychology), as well as the differences that exist between the approaches.  This helped me better understand discourse analysis in a broad sense before learning the specifics of the various approaches.  (p. 3)

• Similarities 
• social constructionist starting point
• view of language 
• understanding of the individual
• Diferrences
• 'scope' of discourses
• focus of analysis

Out of the three approaches, I have to say the first is the most difficult for me to grasp.  Fairclough is much more accessible to me at the moment.  I guess I did read both a chapter and an article on CDA, so this makes sense.  At first, I liked Fairclough because he "insists that discourse is just one among many aspects of any social practice" (p.7)  But then I began to understand what he means by that...and I don't so much agree.  That may be where Laclau and Mouffe are starting to win me over.  In their theory discourse does not interact with other things because discourse is encompassing of those things.  Their view of discourse is much broader, it includes other dimensions of social practice.  To me this makes more sense...of course, it also makes discourse analysis even more complex.  (Which makes me think that Fairclough and his followers are just trying to take the easy way out...just sayin')  Anyway...I think I just talked myself in a circle...and that's sort of how I feel after these readings.  At first I thought the readings were helping me to understand discourse analysis a little more,  but in the end they may have left me back at the beginning with even more questions!  I'm not quite sure yet.  Time, sleep, class discussion, and future readings will help I'm sure!  :-)