Discursive psychology

Last updated

Discursive psychology (DP) is a form of discourse analysis that focuses on psychological themes in talk, text, and images.

Contents

As a counter to mainstream psychology's treatment of discourse as a "mirror" for people's expressions of thoughts, intentions, motives, etc., DP's founders made the case for picturing it instead as a "construction yard" wherein all such presumptively prior and independent notions of thought and so on were built from linguistic materials, topicalised and, in various less direct ways, handled and managed. [1] Here, the study of the psychological implies commitment not to the inner life of the mind, but rather, to the written and spoken practices within which people invoked, implicitly or explicitly, notions precisely like "the inner life of the mind". [2] Discursive psychology therefore starts with psychological phenomena as things that are constructed, attended to, and understood in interaction. An evaluation, say, may be constructed using particular phrases and idioms, responded to by the recipient (as a compliment perhaps) and treated as the expression of a strong position. In discursive psychology, the focus is not on psychological matters somehow leaking out into interaction; rather, interaction is the primary site where psychological issues are live. It is philosophically opposed to more traditional cognitivist approaches to language. It uses studies of naturally occurring conversation to critique the way that topics have been conceptualised and treated in psychology.

History

The origins of what is now termed "discursive psychology" can arguably be traced to the late 1980s, and the collaborative research and analysis sessions that took place as part of Loughborough University's then newly formed Discourse and Rhetoric Group (DARG). [3] A key landmark was the publication of Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell's classic text Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour in 1987. Charles Antaki, writing in the Times Higher Education Supplement, described the impact of this book:

Potter and Wetherell have genuinely presented us with a different way of working in social psychology. The book's clarity means that it has the power to influence a lot of people ill-at-ease with traditional social psychology but unimpressed with (or simply bewildered by) other alternatives on offer. It could rescue social psychology from the sterility of the laboratory and its traditional mentalism.

The field itself was originally labeled as DP during the early 1990s by Derek Edwards and Potter at Loughborough University. It has since been developed and extended by a number of others, including (but by no means limited to): Charles Antaki, Malcolm Ashmore, Frederick Attenborough, Bethan Benwell, Steve Brown, Carly Butler, Derek Edwards, Alexa Hepburn, Eric Laurier, Hedwig te Molder, Sue Speer, Liz Stokoe, Cristian Tileaga, Sally Wiggins and Sue Wilkinson. Discursive psychology draws on the philosophy of mind of Gilbert Ryle and the later Ludwig Wittgenstein, the rhetorical approach of Michael Billig, the ethnomethodology of Harold Garfinkel, the conversation analysis of Harvey Sacks and the sociology of scientific knowledge of those like Mike Mulkay, Steve Woolgar and Bruno Latour. The term "discursive psychology" was designed partly to indicate that there was not just a methodological shift at work in this form of analysis, but also, and at the same time, that it involved some fairly radical theoretical rethinking.

Study

Discursive psychology conducts studies of both naturally occurring and experimentally engineered human interaction that offer new ways of understanding topics in social and cognitive psychology such as memory, identity and attitude. Although discursive psychology subscribes to a different view of human mentality than is advanced by mainstream psychology, Edwards and Potter's work was originally motivated by their dissatisfaction with how psychology had treated discourse. In many psychological studies, the things people (subjects) say are treated as windows (with varying degrees of opacity) into their minds. Talk is seen as (and, in experimental psychology and protocol analysis, used as) descriptions of people's mental content. In contrast, discursive psychology treats talk as social action; that is, we say what we do as a means of, and in the course of, doing things in a socially meaningful world. Thus, the questions that it makes sense to ask also change. [4]

DP-in-action: an illustration

DP can be illustrated with an example from Edwards' research on script formulations. [5] Traditional social psychology treats scripts as mentally encoded templates that guide action. Discursive psychology focuses on the foundational issue of how a description is built to present a course of action as following from a standardized routine. Take the following example from a couple counselling session (the transcription symbols here were developed by Gail Jefferson). The Counsellor says: "before you moved over here how was the marriage". After a delay of about half a second, Connie, the wife who is being jointly counselled, replies "Oh to me all along, right up to now, my marriage was rock solid. Rock solid = We had arguments like everybody else had arguments, but to me there was no major problems." One thing that discursive psychologists would be interested in would be the way that Connie depicts the arguments that she and her partner have as the routine kind of arguments that everybody has. While arguments might be thought as a problem with a marriage, Connie "script formulates" them as actually characteristic of a "rock solid" marriage. Action and interaction is accomplished as orderly in interactions of this kind. Discursive psychology focuses on the locally organized practices for constructing the world to serve relevant activities (in this case managing the live question of who is to blame and who needs to change in the counselling). In the discursive psychological vision, scripts are an inseparable part of the practical and moral world of accountability.

Applications of DP: spoken and textual approaches

In the past few years, one particular strand of discursive psychology has focused its analytic gaze on spoken interaction. As a consequence, it has relied heavily on (but also contributed to the development of) the principles and practices of conversation analysis. Focusing on material drawn from real world situations such as relationship counselling, child protection helplines, neighbour disputes and family mealtimes, it has asked questions such as: How does a party in relationship counselling construct the problem as something that the other party needs to work on? How does a child protection officer working on a child protection helpline manage the possibly competing tasks of soothing a crying caller and simultaneously eliciting evidence sufficient for social services to intervene to help an abused child? And what makes a parent's request to a child to eat different from a directive, and different in turn from a threat?

Although most recent DP oriented studies take talk-in-interaction as their primary data, it is not difficult to locate another strand of DP-related research in which texts are approached as sites for the active literary/narratorial management of matters such as agency, intent, doubt, culpability, belief, prejudice, and so on. [6] [7] One of the founding studies for this kind of textual approach was "Who killed the Princess? Description and Blame in the British Print Press" by Derek Edwards and Katie MacMillan. [8] The "generally applicable discourse analytic approach" articulated and demonstrated therein has proved particularly useful for the study of media texts. [9] Whereas traditional DP studies explore the situated, occasioned, rhetorical use of our rich common sense psychological lexicon across various forms of spoken data, this newer form of textual DP shows that and how authors use that same lexicon in order to present themselves (or others) as individuals and/or members of larger collectives that are (ab)normal, (ir)rational, (un)reasonable, etc. [10] This approach has proved particularly productive in an age marked by the growth in usage of social media, [11] SMS texts, photo messaging apps, blogs/vlogs, YouTube, interactive websites (etc.): never before have so many opportunities for explicitly public, accountably interactional and rhetorically motivated invocations of psychological terms been available to so many people. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Social constructionism</span> Sociological theory regarding shared understandings

In the fields of sociology, social ontology, and communication theory, social constructionism is a framework that proposes that certain ideas about physical reality arise from collaborative consensus, instead of the pure observation of said physical reality. The theory of social constructionism proposes that people collectively develop the meanings of social constructs. Social constructionism has been characterised as a neo-Marxian theory and as a neo-Kantian theory, proposing that social constructionism replaces the transcendental subject with a societal concept that is descriptive and normative.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) is defined as any human communication that occurs through the use of two or more electronic devices. While the term has traditionally referred to those communications that occur via computer-mediated formats, it has also been applied to other forms of text-based interaction such as text messaging. Research on CMC focuses largely on the social effects of different computer-supported communication technologies. Many recent studies involve Internet-based social networking supported by social software.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Qualitative research</span> Form of research

Qualitative research is a type of research that aims to gather and analyse non-numerical (descriptive) data in order to gain an understanding of individuals' social reality, including understanding their attitudes, beliefs, and motivation. This type of research typically involves in-depth interviews, focus groups, or observations in order to collect data that is rich in detail and context. Qualitative research is often used to explore complex phenomena or to gain insight into people's experiences and perspectives on a particular topic. It is particularly useful when researchers want to understand the meaning that people attach to their experiences or when they want to uncover the underlying reasons for people's behavior. Qualitative methods include ethnography, grounded theory, discourse analysis, and interpretative phenomenological analysis. Qualitative research methods have been used in sociology, anthropology, political science, psychology, communication studies, social work, folklore, educational research and software engineering research.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conversation analysis</span> Approach to the study of social interaction

Conversation analysis (CA) is an approach to the study of social interaction that empirically investigates the mechanisms by which humans achieve mutual understanding. It focuses on both verbal and non-verbal conduct, especially in situations of everyday life. CA originated as a sociological method, but has since spread to other fields. CA began with a focus on casual conversation, but its methods were subsequently adapted to embrace more task- and institution-centered interactions, such as those occurring in doctors' offices, courts, law enforcement, helplines, educational settings, and the mass media, and focus on multimodal and nonverbal activity in interaction, including gaze, body movement and gesture. As a consequence, the term conversation analysis has become something of a misnomer, but it has continued as a term for a distinctive and successful approach to the analysis of interactions. CA and ethnomethodology are sometimes considered one field and referred to as EMCA.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice. CDA combines critique of discourse and explanation of how it figures within and contributes to the existing social reality, as a basis for action to change that existing reality in particular respects. Scholars working in the tradition of CDA generally argue that (non-linguistic) social practice and linguistic practice constitute one another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and reinforced through language use. In this sense, it differs from discourse analysis in that it highlights issues of power asymmetries, manipulation, exploitation, and structural inequities in domains such as education, media, and politics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Potter</span>

Jonathan Potter is Dean of the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University and one of the originators of discursive psychology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discourse analysis</span> Generic term for the analysis of social, language policy or historiographical discourse phenomena

Discourse analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is an approach to the analysis of written, vocal, or sign language use, or any significant semiotic event.

Michael Billig is a British academic. He is Emeritus Professor of Social Sciences at Loughborough University, working principally in contemporary social psychology although much of his work crosses disciplinary boundaries in the social sciences.

Ian Parker is a British psychologist and psychoanalyst. He is Emeritus Professor of Management in the School of Business at the University of Leicester.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Erica Burman</span>

Erica Burman is a critical development psychologist based in the United Kingdom. While little known in the developmental psychology research community, her work has been a conceptual resource for critiques of the field, notably feminist perspectives on the connections between different forms of oppression, and methodological debates in psychology.

Margaret Wetherell is a prominent academic in the area of discourse analysis.

Alexa Hepburn is professor of communication at Rutgers University, and honorary professor in conversation analysis in the Social Sciences Department at Loughborough University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Drury (psychologist)</span> British academic

John Drury is a Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Sussex. His core research is in the area of crowd psychology.

Feminist post-structuralist discourse analysis (FPDA) is a method of discourse analysis based on Chris Weedon's theories of feminist post-structuralism, and developed as a method of analysis by Judith Baxter in 2003. FPDA is based on a combination of feminism and post-structuralism. While it is still evolving as a methodology, FPDA has been used by a range of international scholars of gender and language to analyse texts such as: classroom discourse, teenage girls' conversation, and media representations of gender. FPDA is an approach to analysing the discourse of spoken interaction principally.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Elizabeth Stokoe</span>

Elizabeth Stokoe is a British scientist and Professor of Social Interaction at Loughborough University where she studies conversation analysis.

Mediated stylistics or media stylistics is a new and still emerging approach to the analysis of media texts. It aims to take seriously two ideas: first, that media texts involve 'the construction of stories by other means'; and second, that in an age marked by digital connectivity, media texts are inherently interactive phenomena. To meet this twofold aim, mediated stylistics has brought together the analytic toolkits of discursive psychology—which is finely attuned to the contextual specificities of interaction—and stylistics—which is finely attuned to the grammatical/rhetorical/narratorial specificities of texts as texts. Recent research in which mediated stylistics has been put to work, for instance, has shown how mediated representation of issues like sexism, sexualisation, alleged rape and violence against women can differ, and differ in rhetorically consequential ways, from the original un-mediated source material.

Bethan Benwell, is a British linguist. She has been a senior lecturer in English Language and Linguistics, for the Division of Literature and Languages, at the University of Stirling since 2008.

Susan "Sue" Speer C.Psychol, FHEA is a senior lecturer at the School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judith Baxter</span> British sociolinguist

Judith Baxter was a British sociolinguist and Professor of Applied linguistics at Aston University where she specialised in Gender and Language, and Leadership Language. She served in editorial positions with several academic journals.

Discursive deracialization is a term used for the rhetorical removal of 'race' from potentially racially motivated arguments. Earlier known as "deracialization of discourse", discursive deracialization is where the opposition to, or negative representations of, minority out-groups is attributed to reasons other than race. Discourse does not have to be explicitly racist to have discriminatory, exclusionary and oppressive effects. Downplaying race as an explanatory construct may allow for the continued institutionalisation of racial exclusion. Goodman and Burke point out that economic, religious and incompatibility arguments are used in the discursive deracialization of opposition to asylum-seeking. These explanatory arguments may be viewed in light of an increasing emphasis on national belonging and discourses of nation in the discursive deracialization of racist discourses.

References

  1. ↑ Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality. London: Sage.
  2. ↑ Edwards, D., Potter, J. (2005) Discursive psychology, mental states and descriptions, in L. te Molder, J. Potter (eds.) Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 241–259.
  3. ↑ Augoustinos, Martha; Tileagă, Cristian (2012). "Twenty five years of discursive psychology". British Journal of Social Psychology. 51 (3): 405–412. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2012.02096.x. PMID   22554222.
  4. ↑ Edwards, D; Potter, J (1992). Discursive Psychology. London: Sage. ISBN   978-0-8039-8442-4.
  5. ↑ Edwards, D. (1994) Script Formulations: An Analysis of Event Descriptions in Conversation, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 13(3): 211–247.
  6. ↑ Attenborough, F. (2015, forthcoming) A forgotten legacy? Towards a disursive psychology of the media, in C. Tileaga, E. Stokoe (eds.) Discursive Psychology: Classic and Contemporary Issues. London: Routledge.
  7. ↑ Horne, Judith (2009). "Doing being 'on the edge': managing the dilemma of being authentically suicidal in an online forum". Sociology of Health & Illness. 31 (2): 170–184. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2008.01130.x. PMID   18983421.
  8. ↑ Macmillan, Katie; Edwards, Derek (1999). "Who Killed the Princess? Description and Blame in the British Press". Discourse Studies. SAGE Publications. 1 (2): 151–174. doi:10.1177/1461445699001002002. ISSN   1461-4456. S2CID   145237436.
  9. ↑ "Rape is rape (Except when it's not): The media, recontextualisation and violence against women". Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict. 2 (2): 183–203. 2014. doi:10.1075/jlac.2.2.01att.
  10. ↑ Ashmore, M (1993). "The Theatre of the Blind". Social Studies of Science. 23 (1): 67–106. doi:10.1177/030631293023001003. S2CID   143770755.
  11. ↑ McGeechan, Grant J.; James, Becky; Burke, Shani (2021-03-04). "'Well that's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! No excuse'. A discourse analysis of social media users' othering of non-attenders for cervical screening". Psychology & Health. 36 (3): 290–306. doi: 10.1080/08870446.2020.1772258 . ISSN   0887-0446. PMID   32456477.
  12. ↑ Sneijder, P.; te Molder, H. (2005). "Moral logic and logical morality: attributions of responsibility and blame in online discourse on veganism". Discourse and Society. 16 (5): 675–696. doi:10.1177/0957926505054941. S2CID   145163445.

Bibliography

Classic texts

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.