Thank you so much for your responses/ interest in my dilemma.
I am researching grief, I have interviewed bereavement counsellors to see how they construct the concept of grief. I have found lots of literature that shows that grief is socially constructed, and is dependent on the socio-cultural context. For example, the differences of grief in various cultures, and what is acceptable. Also that there are certainly dominant academic and clinical discourses in the literature about grief, such as that grief progresses through stages, has universal distress, and pathologising views towards grief. These suggest the importance of the wider discourses, and looking at the socio-cultural context, and the idea of dominant discourses and power. As such I can see how FDA fits, and able to show this in my literature review. Does this make sense?
The dilemma I am having is about the idea that with FDA I am suggesting that clinicians are 'subjectified' by discourses and have little agency in how they are using their discursive resources, something that makes me uncomfortable because clinicians are already in a powerful position so why would they be subjectified? Equally it feels uncomfortable from a professional perspective that psychologists etc have no choice or agency in what discourses they draw on. But then again maybe my discomfort comes from not wanting to critisize clinicians, and not make assumptions about power.
From my understanding Foucauldian analysts take the position of 'critical realism' (in social constructionism) as they show how reality (and powerful discourses) such as institutions exist outside of discourse, and influence people's talk, and hence again sits uncomfortably with my dilemma. Does anybody know if relativism (in social constructionism) sits with FDA? Because I think this way I may be able to overcome my dilemma of power/agency (and clinicians) by showing that therapy talk is relative and only context dependent, therefore power is interdependent between institutions, discourses, and clinicians talk. As such powerful figures like professionals can both create power and be 'subjectified' (by dominant discourses). I wanted to check if this makes sense at all, and if this is even possible to argue relativist position within FDA?
I had an integrative model as an option, and found that it became very complex with different levels, and action orientations between interpretative repertoires and discourses. So decided to keep it simpler. And I thought Willig's steps to FDA allow you to look at action orientation i.e. what people 'do' with their talk, without making it more difficult (mind you only for me!). I also considered critical discursive psychology, but wasnt sure whether 'ideological dilemmas' sit with my data.
I am sorry if I just actually nearly wrote out my whole thesis in this search for help with my dilemma.
I would really appreciate any thoughts
Merry Christmas,
Roxy
