Discursive Psychology: Between Method and Paradigm

Abstract

Hammersley (2003) criticizes a particular style of discourse research for developing as a distinct paradigm, yet lacking the coherence a paradigm would require. He suggests a range of problems in relation to constructionism, reflexivity and the ‘thin’ model of the human actor, and argues instead for methodological eclecticism in which discourse analytic methods are supplementary to alternatives. This commentary highlights a range of confusions and misunderstandings in this critique. In particular, it highlights the way discourse analytic work is connected to a range of theoretical notions, most fundamentally in its theorizing of discourse itself as a medium oriented to action. It identifies important sources of incoherence that can arise when mixing discourse analytic and more traditional methods. It reiterates the virtues of constructionism, particularly when considering the operation of descriptions, stresses the value of exploring (rather than ignoring) reflexive issues, and emphasizes the rich and nuanced approach to psychology that has been developed in this tradition.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Antaki, C. (1999) ‘Assessing Quality of Life of Persons with a Learning Disability: How Setting Lower Standards May Inflate Well-Being Scores’ , Qualitative Health Research 9: 437–454 .

Ashmore, M. (1989) The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .

Atkinson, P. (1990) The Ethnographic Imagination: The Textual Construction of Reality. London: Routledge .

Billig, M. (1999) Freudian Repression: Conversation Creating the Unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Drew, P. (1992) ‘Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .

Edwards, D. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage .

Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage .

Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (2001) ‘Discursive Psychology’, in A.W. McHoul and M. Rapley (eds) How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings: A Casebook of Methods, pp. 12–24. London: Continuum International .

Edwards, D., Ashmore, M. and Potter, J. (1995) ‘Death and Furniture: The Rhetoric, Politics, and Theology of Bottom Line Arguments Against Relativism’ , History of the Human Sciences 8(2): 25–49 .

10.

Goodwin, C. (1997) ‘The Blackness of Black: Color Categories as Situated Practice’, in L.B. Resnick, R. S‰lj, C. Pontecorvo and B. Burge (eds) Discourse, Tools and Reasoning: Essays on Situated Cognition, pp. 111–140. Berlin: Springer .

11.

Hammersley, M. (2003) ‘Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms’ , Discourse & Society 14(6): 751–781 .

12.

Hepburn, A. (2003) An Introduction to Critical Social Psychology. London: Sage .

13.

Hepburn, A. and Potter, J. (in press) ‘Discourse Analytic Practice’, in C. Seale, D. Silverman, J. Gubrium and G. Gobo (eds) Qualitative Research Practice. London: Sage .

14.

Heritage, J. (2002) ‘Applied Conversation Analysis’ , paper presented at the conference on Texts, Interaction and Ethnography, Tampere, 27–8 May.

15.

Jaworski, A. and Coupland, N. (eds) (1999) The Discourse Reader. London: Routledge .

16.

Kuhn, T.S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .

17.

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press .

18.

Luff, P. and Heath, C. (2002) Broadcast Talk: Initiating Calls Through a Computer Mediated Technology . Research on Language and Social Interaction 35: 337–366 .

19.

Matoesian, G.M. (1993) Reproducing Rape: Domination Through Talk in the Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press .

20.

Matoesian, G.M. (2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press .

21.

Phillips, L.J. and Jorgenson, M.W. (2002) Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. London: Sage .

22.

Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage .

23.

Potter, J. (1998a) ‘Discursive Social Psychology: From Attitudes to Evaluations’ , European Review of Social Psychology 9: 233–266 .

24.

Potter, J. (1998b) ‘Fragments in the Realization of Relativism’, in I. Parker (ed.) Social Constructionism, Discourse and Realism, pp. 27–45. London: Sage .

25.

Potter, J. (2003) ‘Discourse Analysis and Discursive Psychology’, in P.M. Camic, J.E. Rhodes and L. Yardley (eds) Qualitative Research in Psychology: Expanding Perspectives in Methodology and Design, pp. 73–94. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association .

26.

Potter, J. (in press) ‘Discourse Analysis’, in M. Hardy and A. Bryman (eds) Handbook of Data Analysis. London: Sage .

27.

Potter, J. and Edwards, D. (2001) ‘Discursive Social Psychology’, in W.P. Robinson and H.Giles (eds) The New Handbook of Language and Social Psychology(pp. 103–118). London: Wiley .

28.

Puchta, C. and Potter, J. (2002) ‘Manufacturing Individual Opinions: Market Research Focus Groups and the Discursive Psychology of Attitudes’ , British Journal of Social Psychology 41: 345–363 .

29.

Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation.Vols I & II (edited by G. Jefferson). Oxford: Blackwell .

30.

Schegloff, E.A. (1999) ‘Discourse, Pragmatics, Conversation, Analysis’ , Discourse Studies 1: 405–436 .

31.

Schiffrin, D. (1994) Approaches to Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell .

32.

Silverman, D. (1998) Harvey Sacks: Social Science and Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Policy Press .

33.

van Dijk, T.A. (1997) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction(2 Vols). London: Sage .

34.

Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. London: Harvester .

35.

Wetherell, M., Taylor, S. and Yates, S. (eds) (2001) Discourse as Data: A Guide for Analysis. London: Sage .

36.

Wiggins, S. and Potter, J. (in press) ‘Attitudes and Evaluative Practices: Category vs. Item and Subjective vs. Objective Constructions in Everyday Food Assessments’ , British Journal of Social Psychology.

37.

Wood, L.A. and Kroger, R.O. (2000) Doing Discourse Analysis: Methods for Studying Action in Talk and Text. London: Sage .

38.

Wood, L.A. and Rennie, H. (1994) ‘Formulating Rape’ , Discourse & Society 5: 125–148 .

39.

Wowk, M. (1984) ‘Blame Allocation: Sex and Gender in a Murder Interrogation’ , Women’s Studies International Forum 7: 75–82 .