As I think about how to frame a response for these readings I want to first take a moment to remind myself where I stand in terms of my previous fields of study. Situating myself this way may better set up a response to our readings and perhaps be an appropriate starting point as I encounter Discourse (and Conversation) Analysis as a new field of study.
I am trained in Comparative Literature and as such, cultural studies and literary theory feel comfortable to me. Placing lenses on texts seems always to be the right way to approach language (written or spoken). I also am a trained teacher. I have learned to understand spaces and individuals in terms of their larger life histories and experiences, to seek out potential and potential problems, and to connect theory and practice pragmatically and critically. As a doctoral student I have begun training as an ethnographer and qualitative analyst. These research-oriented fields, in different ways, push me to think about contexts as well, to sort through and to remain aware of my own thinking. I will say the overarching connection in my experiences leads me to align myself quite closely with Discourse Analysis as a field, and to say with great certainty that I, too, understand that "our access to reality is always through language" (Jørgenson & Phillips, 2002).
As I read this week, I felt, however, an almost instant aversion to Conversation Analysis. While I recognize the benefits of better understanding turn-taking, for example, I am concerned by Woofit's (2005) claims that because turn-taking is 'universal' we must recognize it as "the basis upon which misunderstandings can be identified and addressed" (p. 33). This seemed a common refrain in explaining Conversational Analysis: that these fundamental, essential and universal pieces of conversation should a) be understood as such and b) provide the foundation for understanding social interactions in conversation. I worry here about the ways this leaves out context and, perhaps more appropriate for this class, discourses. The intersections of potential misunderstandings and differences across time, space, culture, race, class, gender, etc. seem waylaid in the quest for 'truth'. Methodologically, I understand working towards means by which to better support the ways we can make strong validity claims to our analysis as researchers, but Conversation Analysis remains problematic to me not for its emphasis on validity - I think there are some solid validity claims made by focusing in on the construction of conversation - but for its insistence of generalizability and failure (at this point in my readings) to account for context. This clearly ties back to my own experiences in my chosen fields of study - my teachers and mentors have introduced me to contextual, social, cultural and embodied ways of understanding that must account for plurality to be valid.
It was this reading of Conversation Analysis that leads me to feel much more comfortable in the space Discourse Analysis occupies. I most likely lean more to understanding Gilbert & Mulkay because of their emphasis on context. In particular Woofit's explanation of their argument for context (p. 18) highlights why understanding the world as situated in space and time via experiences makes sense to me. Additionally, Fairclough and CDA more generally, sit comfortably for me because of their emphasis on not just context but also power and change. I recognize in discursive practice (Jørgenson & Phillips, p. 18) - or discourse as practice - that changes, and can be changed, over time and space recurring ideas that have rung true and fit in with my previous studies. The idea of discursive practice not only connects with the ways that literacy studies has learned to approach definitions of literacy (as literacy practices one does rather than literacy as a cognitive skill), but also more broadly in my understanding of teaching as a practice. Practices can explored in terms of discrete events that build on one another, thus it is possible for that a researcher can engage with data on practices concretely while also accounting for context.
As I think over these readings, I can see a home for myself in Discourse Analysis and hope to challenge myself by considering, and contesting, Conversation Analysis.
References
Jørgenson, M. & Phillips, L.. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Woofit, R. (2005). Conversation analysis and discourse analysis: A comparative and critical introduction. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Love this post! First, I really appreciate that you located yourself at the start. Knowing the positionalities that you bring to the readings/class is really helpful. It does not surprise me that your literary theory background would "mesh" well with a DA perspective. I've found this to be the case quite often over the years. There is a "natural" meshing that often comes about.
ReplyDeleteAbout CA -- your critiques are valuable, important, and have great merit. CA takes an epistemologically different stance than many approaches to DA. It has historically been FAR less aligned with 'radical constructionism' than DA. I presume this has to do with its disciplinary origins, as sociology has some tendencies in that direction. Over the years, though, we've seen a slow acknowledgement amongst DA scholars that CA is (to some extent) valuable. Yet, few DA scholars would EVER claim (and not CA scholar would allow it!) that they are doing pure CA work -- rather they are doing what Jorgensen and Phillips called multiperspectival work. Why? The universalist claims are discomforting to a social constructionist-minded DA scholar -- they are troubling and worthy of resistance. So, the question becomes, what can we learn and how can we link it in productive ways to other DA efforts, while acknowledging the epistemic and ontologic tensions. Should tensions result in avoidance? These are questions I have struggled with in my own scholarship for many years. I'm so glad you brought this up. I think this is a productive methodological consideration -- with useful implications for DA scholarship.