I am about to start doing my analysis for my qualitative data (interviews) and i am planning on doing a discourse analysis. While i am aware there are loads of 'types' of DA (e.g. CDA, FDA, CA....), i kinda know what i want to look for (ie what my research question states) and think the best thing will be to make a start. However, my supervisors think i need to theoretically 'locate' my analysis, and go into huge detail about my analytical influences, strength & limitations etc of all the possible types of DA, and why the type I've selected (FDA) is best. But, having read through a number of theses, many don't seem to write more than say a paragraph on the theoretical stance of their analysis.
I'm guess I'm wondering what others out there are doing - have they found a great need to explicate their analytical framework in detail?

Hi Zelda,

I'm using CA and I was told the same thing - to 'locate' the methodology within a bigger framework. At first I thought there was no point in doing this (I wanted to get to the 'real' business of writing the PhD, was sure of my method, and equally sure there was nothing really to write on the other ones) but, in doing it, I realised that the excersise was so valuable to the research, the analysis, and eventually paved the framework for the analytical perspective of the PhD. Yikes. I totally did not expect that (and yet again my supervisor was right... grrr...) . So back to the question ...

...I would first go back to the origin of your methodology - what theoretical perspective is it based on/informed by? (for my methodology, its symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodological thought). From there you can get an idea of what other methodologies were also inspired by these theoretical roots, but have a different take on certain aspects (such as different transcription conventions, ways to apply the methodology). Methodologies that are more different than that are often from different theoretical schools of thought, and will need some exploration too.

...You can then discuss what your methodology can reveal of your data and why your methodology is best suited to the task (over all the other relevent methodologies that could be used). It's time and brain-energy consuming but totally worth it in the end - that you've chosen your methodology makes it much easier - you'll know why you use it and chose it already As for length... once you start looking in detail I found there was enough stuff to write about that for two essays of 4,000 words on different aspects of methodology (the essays situated CA in ethnomethodology and then situated ethnomethodology in criminology) hope this helped!!

Hi

First off I am curious what FDA is? Functional discourse analysis?

I was the same - I started believing I was doing CDA or rhetorical analysis, but actually I think I am doing some thing more multi-modal. But I think that is the beauty of the method, that it is so adaptable, but the mthodology can be a nightmare with some weighty reading.

Although I admire Faircloughs work particulalry the new labour new language and his recent book on globalisation when it comes to actually pinpointing a method and locating it, it's all rather iffy. I have returned to Foucault and some social semiotics for my methodology. It makes my head go all ga-ga, but I think your super is right, it really helps in the end, more than you think.

Good luck I feel your pain!

Dammit- i was hoping my super wouldn't be right! Gggrrr. FDA = Foucauldian discourse analysis.

Hi Zelda

Yup - I agree with the others. It helps if you think of the methodology as another kind of lit review... and consider the idea that sometimes we write to inform, sometimes we write to understand. In this respect, the methodology is a little bit of both... as you write, to inform and justify others your choice of method (as one amongst many - hence the lit review ref), so too your own understanding of why the method is suitable, apt and applicable should emerge and, like myself and others who have commented - you may find your path shifting.

I think this is especially true when it comes to Discourse Analysis approaches as there are so many different ways of approaching discourse. Your methodology shows that you understand the different approaches and you understand why the chosen one is appropriate to your needs. I hated working on my methodology chapter - but when I finally got to grips with it, it made much more sense and paid off mega dividends when it came to understanding what I was doing with my empirical work later.