What is Discourse Analysis
 |
| Discourse Analysis |
At the risk of oversimplification, discourse analysis examines the
organization of language at a level of analysis beyond the clause or the
sentence. It focuses on larger linguistic units, such as whole conversations or
written messages. Discourse analysis is also concerned with the way language is
used in social contexts and how people make sense of one another’s messages. As
summarized by van Dijk (1997), discourse analysis examines who uses language,
how, why, and when.
Daymon and Holloway (2002) suggest that researchers who use discourse analysis analyze three specific aspects of language:
1. The form and content of the language used
2. The ways people use language to communicate ideas and beliefs
3. Institutional and organizational factors that might shape the way the
language is used
Data collection in discourse analysis involves gathering examples of texts and messages that are relevant to the problem being investigated. These may consist of existing documents, such as speeches by company executives, press releases, internal memos, and advertisements. In addition, the researcher can generate new data by conducting interviews with key informants.
There is no concrete set of procedures for conducting a discourse analysis.
Data analysis usually consists of focusing on large segments of language to
identify key words, themes, imagery, and patterns in the text.
In addition, the researcher might conduct a rhetorical analysis that looks
at how various arguments are constructed and arranged within a given body of
language. Finally, the investigator should pay special attention to the context
of the language, examining such factors as who is speaking, the circumstances
surrounding the message, and the intended audience.
Levin and Behrens (2003), for example, presented a discourse analysis of
Nike’s internal and external communications.
They analyzed such linguistic structures as semantic association,
opposites, degradation, genre manipulation, pronoun selection, obfuscation,
slanting, speech acts, restricted style, and metaphor. They found that during
the height of Nike’s popularity, both company literature and press reports
contained a preponderance of positive imagery. However, this changed when the
company was accused of unfair labor practices. The press abandoned its positive
portrayal and used the same linguistic devices to create a more negative image.
In another example, Holtzhausen and Voto (2002) conducted a discourse analysis
of interviews conducted with public relations professionals and found that many
were endorsing postmodern values. Finally, Brooks and Waymer (2009) used
discourse analysis to examine Crystallex International
Corporation’s mining operations in South America. They looked at press release archives, news and advertising
archives of Venezuelan newspapers, and the archives of specialized media in the mining
area. They found that the company’s public relations efforts improved once it
started emphasizing corporate responsibility.
Advantages and Disadvantages.
Discourse analysis can be used to
study different situations and subjects. It allows public relations researchers
to uncover deeply held attitudes and perceptions that are important in an
organization’s image and communication practices that might not be uncovered by
any other methods.
On the other hand, discourse analysis can take large amounts of time and
effort.
A second disadvantage is that this technique focuses solely on language.
Although language may be an important component of public relations practice,
it rarely tells the whole story. Consequently, discourse analysis should be
supplemented by other qualitative techniques such as observation or focus group
interviewing.
