Disclosure Analysis (DA) Flashcards
BACKGROUND
- good reasons for psychological interest in language as it’s v central to all social activities; can be easy to take for granted
- study of language = particularly vital to social psych because:
1) most basic/pervasive form of interaction between people
2) we spend much of our social loves talking to each other
SCHEGLOFF (1997) - large part of our social activities are performed via language; language & talk do NOT exist in same conceptual real; language = medium for action
PURPOSE OF TALK
- a person’s account will vary according to its function aka. it will vary according to purpose of talk (ie. talk w/friends VS talk w/someone disliked)
EDWARDS & POTTER (2017)
- discursive psych focuses on everyday management of relations between mental states & an external world
- this analysis method considers how people (in talk/text) formulate personal subjectivity (ie. mental states/dispositions/feelings/judgements/reactions) & tie them to descriptions/assessments of what the world is like aka. the object side
- focused on discourse as it’s primary arena for action/understanding/inter-subjectivity
- starts w/view of people as social/relational w/psychology as domain of practice > abstract contemplation
DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGY SCENARIOS
1) How are actions coordinated in counselling session to manage blame of dif parties for relationship breakdown?
2) How is upset displayed/understood/receipted in call to child protection helpline?
- qs like this require understanding of what’s “psychological” for people as they act/interact in particular settings (ie. families/workplaces/schools)
DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGY STUDIES
EDWARDS (1997)
- how does a party in relation counselling session build description of troubles indirectly blaming other party & places onus on them to change?
WETHERELL & POTTER (1992)
- how does speaker show how they’re not prejudiced while developing damning version of entire ethnic group?
AUBURN (2005)
- how do narratives in sex offender therapy sessions manage issues of blame & how can this be misidentified as cognitive distortion?
DISCURSIVE PSYCH: HISTORY
- developed out of particular form of discourse analysis outlined most fully in Potter & Wetherell’s (1987) influential book “Discourse & Social Psych”
- pioneered qualitative discourse research in psych providing basis for some of the first qualitative papers in empirical journals (ie. British Journal of Social Psych & European Journal of Social Psych)
- Potter & Wetherell reconceptualised topic of social psych; outlined alternative methodological approach that could be used instead of exps/questionnaires (mainstay of psych work)
3 CORE OBSERVATIONS
1) DISCOURSE = CONSTRUCTED & CONSTRUCTUVE
2) DISCOURSE = ACTION-ORIENTATED
3) DISCOURSE = SITUATED
DISCOURSE = CONSTRUCTED & CONSTRUCTIVE
CONSTRUCTED
- made up of linguistic building blocks (words/categories/repertoires)
- used to present particular versions of the world
- ie. “let’s go to dad’s for lunch”
CONSTRUCTIVE
- these versions of the world = product of talk itself NOT something that exists prior to it
DISCOURSE = ACTION-ORIENTATED
- primary medium for social action (blame/justify)
- to separate talk & action (aka. attitudes VS behs) is to set up false dichotomy & overlook ways in which talk achieves things in itself
DISCOURSE = SITUATED
- words are understood according to what precedes & follows them
- within particular institutional setting (classroom/helpline)
- to understand discourse fully you must examine it in situ as it happens bound up within its situational context
ETHOS & EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANCE
- assumption that common sense psych ideas need to be replaced by more scientific ones ignores role that common sense psych concepts play IRL
- they are NOT false concepts; their proper status isn’t part of rival TOM (to be replaced by science) but resources for IRL understandings/practices
- common sense psych = part of reality of psych life aka. terms in which people understand/account for their actions/thoughts/feelings
- being objectively right/wrong in description of their psych states isn’t the point; what matters is that these are the terms people actually use available for careful empirical/conceptual analysis
MEMORY
BIOLOGICAL PSYCHOLOGIST
- interested in researching which parts of brain are activated when pp is asked to recall certain words/incidents
DISCOURSE ANALYSIST
- interested in how that memory is constructed within pps language & how it’s received by others in conversation
INTENTIONALITY
- DA does NOT not suggest that conventions/omissions = deliberate/intentional
- construction can emerge as person is trying to make sense of interaction aka. how an argument develops in conversation
ATTITUDES - a person constructs 1 attitude on 1 occasion& contradictory attitude on another
- quantitative researcher may see this as problem w/validity/consistency
- discourse analyst: would ask on what occasions 1 attitude is used VS other? how are said accounts constructed? what purpose do they achieve
DA IN A NUTSHELL
1) Language is used for variety of functions.
2) Language is both constructed & constructive.
3) There will be considerable variation in accounts 7 this is OK!
4) BUT conversations usually follow certain convention; when they deviate there can be interactional trouble (oft interesting for researcher)
5) Constructive & flexible ways in which language is used should themselves become central topic.
DEFINITION
- speech/actions are recorded; both coded for later analysis (usually using Jefferson transcription method but not always (Jefferson (2004))
- emphasises ways in which versions of reality = accomplished via language
- naturally occurring data
WHY NATURALISTIC?
- avoids imposing researchers’ own categories/assumptions onto data
- situates research within seemingly “messy” settings of everyday life; people aren’t separated from sorts of agentic/accountability issues that arise in social interaction
- provides directly practical way of doing research > trying to apply findings from 1 setting to another
- allows research be guided by issues that may not’ve been anticipated by researcher (oft how novel/unexpected topics arise)
- captures life as it happens in sufficient detail to be able to analyse complexity of seemingly “mundane” situations
THE JEFFERSON METHOD (2004): TRANSCRIBING
- transcribing interviewee involves taking notes of interview aka. full script of interview
- aim = take full written version
- v time consuming w/estimated time ratio of 5:1 (ie. 5h transcribing = 1h interview)
THE JEFFERSON METHOD (2004): BENEFITS
- researcher can concentrate/listen/respond better
- discussion flows better when there’re no distractions
- increased risk of researcher being subjective in note-taking
- entire interview/observation is recorded aka. gives better/more holistic idea of what’s happening
- pps may feel less observed if recorded tape is used in discreet way
- researcher has opportunity to go back over material during analysis
CRITICISMS
SUBJECTIVITY
- data = interpreted & so influenced by personal experiences/beliefs of researcher
REPLICABILITY
- data cannot necessarily be replicated since researcher influences data
GENERALISABILITY
- no attempt to recruit “representative” sample; people selected don’t reflect pop
TRANSPARENCY
- it’s sometimes difficult to establish exactly what was done/how conclusions were arrived at
RIGOUR
CREDIBILITY
- is researcher’s interpretation of data credible (ie. respondent validation & triangulation)?
TRANSFERABILITY
- is description provided rich enough in detail for others to make judgements about transferability to other milieu?
DEPENDENDABILITY
- can research be audited?
CONFIRMABILITY
- is it apparent that researcher hasn’t overtly allowed personal values/theoretical inclinations to influence conduct of research/interpretation of data?
COMBATING CRITICISMS
CREDIBILITY/TRIANGULATION
- more than 1 investigator/method
TRANSFERABILITY
- thick description
DEPENDABILITY
- research should be conducted in explicit/systematic way
- meticulous record keeping incl. separate diary
CONFIRMABILITY
- openness/honesty about theoretical perspectives/biases
