Qualitative methods in organizational research

7/29/2019 Qualitative methods in organizational research

1/11

iscourse AnalysisPennyDick

Discourse analysis is concerhed with how individuals use language in specific social contexts.There are very many forms of discourse analysis, which range from quite descriptivetechniques, aimed at understanding such conventions in speech as 'turn-taking', 'hedges' andgrammatical structure, through to more analytic techniques, focused on understandinglanguage use in specific social contexts, such as patient-doctor interactions.

This chapter is concerned with a particular form of discourse analysis, called criticaldiscourse analysis, which shares in common many of the concerns of critical research, asdiscussed by MacKenzie Davey and Liefooghe, Chapter 15, this volume. It is a method thatexamines how individuals use language to produce explanations of themselves, theirrelationships and the world in general. It is critical in the sense that language is not seen asreflecting the nature of individuals, of relationships and of the world, but as actively constructingthese domains. Furthermore, the constructions that are made of these domains are neitherincidental nor arbitrary: they have distinct regulatory and ideological fiinctiohs, and are henceproductive of social practice. As a method, therefore, critical discourse analysis is underpinnedby a social constructionist epistemology. A key focus is not only on understanding howindividuals use language to construct themselves and the world; but also on understandingwhythey construct themselves and the world in particular ways. Critical discourse analysis assumesthat the constructions individuals make operate not only to 'make sense', but also to reproduceor challenge ideologicalsystems of beHef that existin society at large. Suchsystems are'rarelymonoHthic but are generally contested. Foucault's work on discourse is used within criticaldiscourse analysis to understand the complexity of ideological systems.

FOUCAULT AND DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Foucault was concerned with knowledge production. In society, what constitutes knowledgeis discursive in nature. That is, it is created in language, and is not necessarily related to thediscovery of'trudi'.This is particularly the case when dealing withobjects in the social world(such as people), but nevertheless applies also to objects in theso-called hard sciences (Mulkayand Gilbert, 1982). Foucault suggests that knowledge production, particularly as it pertainsto social objects, is a consequence of the operation of disciplinary power.

From a Foucauldian perspective, power is not examined in terms ofits properties or source,but in its modus operandi, how it produces compliance or resistance. Power operates'bydisciplining individuals, rendering them visible, and making their psychological and physicalattributes salient. It is through discourse that disciplinary power exerts its effects at the level ofthe individual. The regulatory effectsof discourse occurdue to the production of'normalizing


2/11

Q U A L I T A T I V E METHODS I N ORGANIZATION STUDIES

judgements' (Foucault, 1977). That is, discourses prescrifee appropriate behaviours and attributesacross a whole range of social domains. In different epochs, certain domains of behaviourcome under the scrutiny of the authorities of that period"becau'selhey,are deemed to beproblematic for various reasons. It is when domains are scrutinized that discourses thatconstruct these domains are both identified and produced. An example from Foucault's ownwork should help make these ideas easier to understand.

In his analysis of sexuality, Foucault (1981, 1988, 1990) argues that the Victorian era sawthe attempt to regulate the sexual activity of the population by various authorities includingthe government and the medical profession. The aim was to confine sexual activity to thelegitimate heterosexual couple, in response to a number of problems, including the health ofthe population, the capacity of the population to engage in economically productive work,and a general concern at the tirne with moral and physical hygiene. However scrutinizing thepopulation to examine its sexual practices (in the form, for example, of medical andpsychiatric interviews) resulted in an explosionof discourses on sexuality produced as a directconsequence of this scrutiny. Thus, far firom successfiiUy regulating the sexual activity of thepopulation, the production of a plethora of discourses on sexuality meant that theestablishment of 'norms' was impossible.

As this example should make clear, the production of discourse in any social domain isalways uncontrollable and unpredictable. The upshot of this is that discourse is never unitary(there are never just one set of norms governing any area of social practice). Because of thisnon-unitary nature of discourse, disciplinary power neversecures complete compliance-hereare always alternative discourses available that enable different individuals and groups to resistthe regulatory norms in any specific social domain.

Discourses effectively produce different versions ofwhat counts^normal' social practice.Thus, at the present time, thereare very many discourses that construct the social domain of'employment', constructing norms ofbehaviour that are targeted at employees. Any individualerriployee will come to understand his or her own behaviour as an employee through thediscourses that construct that domain. That is, discourses not only construct objects in thesocial domain-mployees in general, but also produce subjects in that domain-, theemployee. Foucault is anti-essentiaUst. He does not believe that individuals possess innatecharacteristics. Instead he su^ests that discourses make available 'positions' that we can takeup in response to our own personal circumstances. Thus for example, being Mnempbyed isa term that someone might use about themselves if they are not in paid employment. This'positioning' has distinct effects on how the individual views hini or-her self, as well as howthey feel andact. However, the position 'unemployed' is only available through discourses inwhich employment is constructed as contributing direcdy to the economic activity ofsociety(Grint, 1998). In the feudal epoch, this discourse was far less dominant, and therefore theposition 'unemployed' with its attendant effects on the identity of the individual was availableto relatively few people, and certainly would not have had the meaning (nor effects) that ithas today.

THE PRINCIPLES OFCRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ^

Utilizing Foucaults ideas, described above, Fairclough (1992) has developed an^ extensive andelaborate system of critical discourse analysis. The method set out in this chapter is based on


3/11

DISCOURSE A N A L Y S I S

Fairclough's approach, but also draws on the discourse analytic methods of HoUway (1989)and Mama (1995). text. For example, the question'Do you drink?' is likely to be interpreted entirely difFerendy if the question is asked by amedical'doctor than if it is asked by a social science researcher. In turn, the interpretation thatis made of the'question wiU then have quite specific consequences on the nature of the textj)roduced. For instance, if the question was asked by a doctor, it might account for the factthe response contains hedges (the question is not answered directly), and an attempt to defendthe behaviour ('Only on social occasions').Social practiceThis level ofanalysis is most closely related to Foucault's i^eas on discourse, discussed aboVe.The key focus for theanalyst is examining the propositions that are made in the text and theextent to which the text 'gets away with' using a s'pecific proposition without beingchallenged, or anticipating beingchallenged. Propositions that are relatively easy to 'get awayvwth' are probably ideological in origin. That is, they are taken fk)m a dominant discoursethat is generally taken as 'true'.

Propositions that are challenged or which are defended in the text are examples ofhegemony, which Fairclough (1992) describes as the process through which contested viewsof reality are dealt with in order tosecure ideological consent. Fairclough (1992) talks about'hegemonic struggle' as a situation where different ideologies compete for dominance.

It is this dimension that bears most resemblance to Foucault's view ofdiscourse as multipleand contradictory. As already discussed, discourses provide individuals with subject positions.However, because discourse is never unitary there are-always alternative positions available that


4/11

Q U A L I T A T I V E METHODS I N ORGANIZATION STUDIES

the individual could take up or in whichother people could place that individual. The extentto which the text appears to defend or justify the position is an indication of hegemonicstruggle (Fairclough, 1992), or more simply a sign that competing discourses exist in thatparticular domain.

IDENTIFYING DISCO URSES

In addition to analysing text in terms of the three-dimensional framework discussed above,it is usefiil in some research contexts to identify specific discourses, defined as 'sets of regulatedstatements' (Henriques et al., 1998) or, 'interpretive repertoires' (Potter and Wetherell, 1987)that are being used to construct certain accounts of reality. HoUway (1989) and Mama (1995)used this process in their work on adult heterosexual relations and the identity ofblack Britishfemales, respectively. More recendy, this type of analysis has been applied in organizationalsettings, to examine the identities of call centre workers (Ball and Wilson, 2000); the careeridentities ofBritish graduates (Coupland, 2001), and resistance to diversity initiatives in a UKpolice force (Dick and Cassell, 2002).

Identifying a specific discourse can be a difficult process, not least because of questions overwhat actually counts as a discourse. Stricdy speaking, in critical discourse analysis, theresearcher is seeking to identify social constructions that have regulatory effects, and which,to some extent, are presented as self-evident or common sense features of the social domainthat is being researched. Forexample, Dick and Cassell (2002) identified a dominant discoursewithin a UK police force that was used to construct promotion practices. This discourseconstructed promotion practices as being fair and objective, as utilizing job specific criteriato inform decision-making and of being based on' principles of equal opportunities. Thisdiscourse could be used to construct subject positions. For example, a recently promotedofficer could use this discourse to account for their success. Having identified the discoursein use, the text analysis then followed the three dimensional framework proposed byFairclough to examine the ideological and hegemonic processes that were at play.

It is important that any discourse that is identified has validity. That is, the researcher needsto be able to demonstrate that the discourse exists as a resource within the specific contextof the research. This might be achieved by demonstrating its use by a'relatively-largeproportion of the respondents (for example, Ball and Wilson, 2000), by referring to instancesof its use in other texts (referred to by Fairclough as intertextuality) (for example, Dick andCassell, 2002); or simply by pointingout its dominance in any specific socio-cultural context(for example, HoUway, 1989). While this notion of vaUdity appears,at face value, at oddswitha social constructionist philosophy, it is, in fact, simply concerned with identifying thoserelative stabiUties (Kilduffand Mehra, 1997) in the social domain under exploration.The focusin critical discourse analysis is not to present any such stabilities as objective features of thatdomain, but to carefiiUy examine how those stabilities are reproduced or changed.

COLLECTING'TEXT'FOR ANALYSIS

In Fairclough's system, any instance of language use can be used for discourse analysis. In hisbook. Discourse and Social Change, he uses a variety of'texts' to iUustrate his system, including


5/11

/ DISCOURSE A N A L Y S I S ^^2^

newspaper articles, extracts from health care brochures, and transcripts of conversations. Theseare 'natural' texts in the sense that they are the products of mundane interactions or everydaytext production. However, in the case of organizational research, while there are manyopportunities to collect such everyday texts, such as in-house magazines and snatches ofconversation, most often the researcher has a specific question iri mind and will probably becollecting 'text' in the form of interview data.

Interview data needs to be fuUy transcribed for analysis. Some discourse analystsrecommend the use of special notations to indicate pauses, overlap between speakers, andother paralinguistic features of the text. The method set out in this chapter does not requirethis amount of detail in the transcription, as the focus for analysis is on content, more thanprocess (see HoUway, 1989 for a further discussion of this issue).

SAMPLE AND SAMPLE SIZEIf coUecting text for discourse analysis via interviews, typicaUy only a relatively small sampleof respondents wiU be involved in the study. This is because the focus is on the text, not theindividual and because the aim is to provide an in-depth analysis that is focused onexplanation, rather than generalization. However, as has already been mentioned, if attemptingto identify a specific discourse, it is important to be able to demonstrate that the discourse doesexist as a set of regulated statements. If this is to be achieved through examiiiing whatrespondents say, then it is advisable to use a grounded theory approach to sampling (Glaserand Strauss, 1967).

Thus, for example, if the researcher believed he or she had identified a discourse that wasbeing used to construct a specific version of some particularsocial object (say-nursing practice),he or she would then need to interview a number of other nurses, from differentorganizational and personal contexts (for example, age, seniority, role, ward type, andso on)in order to identify whether this discourse was also used by individuals in these groups, orwhether different discourses were used. The contextual features of the text production canthen be used in the analysis to explain any variations thus identified.

Analysing how a discourse is used to construct a certain version of reality and explammgwhy it is being used in this way can be carried out on one text or several, depending on thescope and scale of the research. In the application example below, for instance, the analysisis carried out on one extract, though the discourses used in the analysis were identified usingaJarger sample of 16 participants.

CONDUCTING AN INTERVIEW INA DISCOURSE ANALYTIC STUDY In critical discourse analysis, it is vital that the researcher realizes that no matter how informaUythey present themselves and no matter what their own epistemological stance is to theknowledge production process, the participant is likely to position the researcher accordingto their own personal beliefs. Simply put, the participant makes a social reading of theinterview and the interviewer and this has a fundamental effect on the nature of the dataproduced, which needs to be accounted for within the analysis. This is illustrated in theapplication example below.


6/11

QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES

The use of structured and semi-structuredinterviews as well as unstructured conversationsare all legitimate ways of collecting data for discourse analysis. Which technique is useddepends on the nature of the research. Exploratory research looking at an open-ended issuemay best be approached using unstructured conversations. In the application example below,the research aim was to explore issues around the management of diversity in the poHce servicein the UK. Unstructured conversations were used to collect the data.The disadvantage of this technique is that it generates a huge amount of data andtranscribing and analysing such a quantity of data is thus very, very time consuming. A usefultechnique for deahng with this type of data was developed by HoUway (1989) and is caUeddata sampling. The researcher initiaUy listens to the taped conversations repeatedly in order toget a feel for what is being said. Once the researcher believes that he or she has identified aspecific discourse that is of particular significance to the research aims, he or she transcribesonly those parts of the conversation in which that discourse is used. The discourses used bythe participant and the researcher are attended to.

Structured and semi-structured interviews are more useful where the researcher isinterested in examining aspecific issue, for example, graduates' career expectations (Coupland,2001). However, it is important to account for the discourses used by the researcher toconstruct the interview questions and to build these into the analysis.

APPLICATION EXAM PLE:THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OFPOLICE WORK

Background to the researchThe management of diversity within the UK police service" is high on the agenda of mostforces. Aside firom the problem of redruitingand retaining racial minorities,.police forces havean additional problem recruitingand retaining female officers. This retention problem makesthe achievement of female representation in the senior ranks extremely difficult for mostforces.

The key problem in retaining police women is that they tend to leave the job once theyhave families. This tendency is unproblematicaUy attributed to the difficulties of combiningmotherhood with fuU-time police work. The reasons why the two appear incompatible isbecause pohcing is generaUy portrayed as being mainly concerned with crime fighting andas therefore being unpredictable and highly demanding. The practical consequences of thisportrayal are that officers need to work a harsh rotating shift system; be prepared to stay onat work at the end of a shift in order to process a crime; and be prepared to be caUed in towork at very short notice in case of manpower shortage. This portrayal of poUcing has beensubject to considerable debate over the last 20 or so years. Waddington sums this up as foUows;

There Is ilttle doubt that the occupational self-image of the police is that of 'crime-fighters' and this is not just a distortion of what they do, it is virtually a collectivedelusion. A mountain of researchhas indicated that police have little impact oncrimerates, are responsible for discovering few crimes anddetecting fewer offenders, do notspend much duty-time on crime related tasks and so forth...ndeed, it would beasaccurate, if not more so, to associate policing with the provision of'help andassistance... (1999:299, original emphasis)


7/11

D I S C O U R S E A N A L Y S I S

If policing is not that demanding and unpredictable, then why are officers so invested inmaintaining this portrayal? This is a crucial question, as it is this portrayal that is largelyresponsible for maintaining the idea that policing is incompatible with motherhood. Usingcritical discourse analysis enables an examination and explanation of this issue. The applicationexample that foUows uses an extract of conversation from a research project that was focusedon the position of women in the police. For the sake of brevity, details about the researchproject are omitted, but a fuUer account can be-read in Dick and Cassell (forthcoming).

Using the techniques described above in the section entitled 'identifying discourses', twoparticular discourses were identified that officers routinely used to construct the nature ofpolice work. One of these discourses promoted the view that policing was mainly concernedwith crime fighting and that as a consequence. t involved a high levelof conflict-management,the necessity for a reliable team to support officefs. on the streets, and a high level ofcommitment from individual officers to the job. The other discourse promoted the vi^w thatpolicing was not about 'force' but about service and as such was mainly concerned withfostering and maintaininggood public relations. Both of these discourses are discussed vwdelyin the police literature (for example, Heidensohn, 1992; Morris and Heal, 1981; Reiner, 1992;Waddingtoft, 1999).

Transcripts of the conversations were made whenever these discourses were used by eitherthe participants or the author. Thisprocess reduced the data considerably. The data obtainedfrom this process were then subjected to the three dimensional analytic framework discussedabove. In the analysis which foUows, the discourse that promotes the idea that policing ismainly concerned with crime fighting wiU be iUustrated to show how the idea that poUcingand motherhood are incompatible is successfiaUy reproduced.

REPRODUCING THE DEA THAT POLICING AND MOTHERHO OD ARE INCOMPATIBLE

Extract 1 Judy (probationer constable, aged 26)1 M e: R i g h t . A nd do you want to go far ( i n your career)?2 J: I don't know, becausemy attitude's changed somewliat. Wlien I joined3 I wanted to go up tiie ladder and get as high as can. But now, ummy4 values have probably changed andmeeting somebody that I've got5 engaged toand everything..and that i want to spend the rest of my life6 with and havea familynow..soit's...7 Me: You don't see the family andgoing up the rank structureas compatible?8 J: Well. . .we' ve t a l k e d a b o u t t h i s ahd what I ' v e s a i d i s . . . i f we havea am...9 I mean we're going to get marriedsort gf this timene)


8/11

^^210^ QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES

APPLYING FAIRCLOUGH'S FRAMEWORK

At the level of text, the first question to ask is what is achieved by both of the individuals inthis extract? In terms offorce, therefore, the researcher has produced two accounting situationsby implying thatJudy ought to have aspirations associated with the modern woman: the desirefor a career and the maintenance ofthat career following marriage and children (lines 1and 7).In terms of force, Judy's response is an attempt to justify her aspirations.

What propositions have been made within the extract? The researcher's propositions areconstructed through femirust discourse in which the notion that women should have careerseven when they have children is promoted. The dominance of this discourse is indicated bythe large number of hedges (statements that are not directly related to the questions asked)Judy makes (all her statements up to line 12 when she answers the question). This suggeststhat she feels the need to defend her aspirations by providing several lines of justification.

Judy's propositions are constructed through two key discourses. The first is a discourse offamily that promotes the idea that the needs of children should be a mother's primaryconsideration. She imputes herchange of aspirations (from initiaUy wanting toclimb as highas she could (Une 3), to wanting to work part-time (line 11)), to her proposed marriage andfamUy. The proposition here is that young single women are likely to be more career mindedthan'older married women who have children. She justifies her desire to work part-timefoUowing the birth of her children by proposing that this wiU ensure that the children areguaranteed at least one parent (Unes 1213). Again the proposition here is that the mother isthe best person to take care of the children.

The second discourse is that which portrays policing as crime fighting and it is this thatenables the justification of herdesire to work part-time to be both creditable and credible. Shesays that it is unfair (on the children) to have both parents in a dangerous job (Une 13). Theproposition hereis that if both parent's worke'd'as fuU time'beat officers then they might beat risk of death or debUity, therefore depriving the children of one or both parents. Thisjustification results in a further textual achievement: she persuades the researcher that thereasons for her wish to work part-time are not because she is an 'old-fashioned' woman whobelieves that a woman's place is in the home, nor because she is 'firightened' of the conflictualnature of police work (a further assertion of her 'modern woman' credentials), but areinsteadrelated to her concern for her future offspring.

At the level of discursive practice the relationship between the researcher and the participanthas effectively produced the accounting situation discussed above. This iUustrates the pointmade earUer about the difficulties of attempting to equalize the power relationship betweenthe researcher and the participant. The large number of hedges in Judy's responses to theresearcher's questions lines 2 to 10 (indicating thatJudy is anticipating disapproval firom theresearcher), and the nature of her justification, suggest that she has positioned the researcheras the more powerful party. The achievement of her self-construction as a modern womanwho has a desire to be a 'good' mother, proceeds directly firom the nature of the interaction.The researcher has raised the possibiUty that Judy could be positioned as a lackey to n^lepower, by desiring to drop her career aspirations foUowing the birth of her children.

At the level of social practice, there is evidence of hegemonic struggle iUustrated by thecompeting ideologies of the feminist and family discourses discussedabove. Despite the success(and dominance) of feminist ideology in promoting the idea that women are as entitled to acareer as men, the perhaps more dominant ideology, that a woman is the best and 'natural'


9/11

DISCOURSE A N A L Y S I S

caregiver to children, competes with this. In the specific context of this extract, the genderof the author, the aims of the research and the nature of the questions asked have resulted inthe need for Judy to cut a careful path between the two ideologies, as has been shown. Thediscourse of policing as crime fighting has enabled her to attribute her desire to work part-time not to any psychological failings of herx)wn, but to the nature of the job itself. Thus atthe level ofidentity, these discourses have enabled Judy toposition herself as a modern womanand a good potential mother; at the relational level, she has maintained her credentials withinthe research relationship; and at the ideational level she has successfiiUy reproduced elementsof bothfeminist and famUy ideologies, though, as discussed, these two ideologies do competein tejrms of their construction of what women's aspirations ought to be.

IMPLICATIONS ^

What has been achieved in this analysis? First, the analysis has treated the idea that poUcingis crime-fighting as a discourse that performs particular fiinctions in the specific socio-culturalcontext of both the poUce institution and the research study itself Within the specific contextof the poUceinstitution, this discourse fiinctions in a number of ways. It provides officers witha meaningfiil identity within a problematic occupation. Despite the fact that the poUce fromtheir inception were heraldedas 'citizens in uniform' (Reiner, 1992), they are able to exercise(or at least have the potential to exercise) coercive authority. The discourse of policing ascrime-fighting therefore fiinctions ideologicaUy to legitimate the poUce to the public, and tothemselves (Waddington, 1999). In turn, it justifies the working practices that constitutea keypart of the officer's identity: working harsh shifts, working overtime on command, and beingavailable for duty at any time are constructed as signifiers of a committedofficer who sees thejob as a vocation (Ueidensohn, 1992). Within the context of the research study, the discoursehas enabled the participant 'to avoid being positioned by the researcher in .ways that mightcompromise her own identity. s

Second, this analysis suggests that the position of women officers could be different. IfpoUcing is actuaUy more to do with pubUc service than fighting crime, then not only can the

^working practices'that are accepted as 'normal', be chaUenged, but also the attributes that aretaken as self-evidendy essential for poUce officers can be opened up for scrutiny. Do officersneed to be so committed totheir jobs that they must subordinate home to work at aU times?The increasing numbers ofofficers taking up part-time work is a site where the discourse ofpolicing as crime-fighting might be most successfuUy chaUenged (Dick and CasseU,forthcoming).

Third, this analysis has shown that ideologies about the proper role for women in societyare in continual hegemonic struggle. Discourses offamUy that position women as the best andmost natural caregivers of children are disrupted and resisted by feminist discourses'thatpromote women's rights to both career and family. These discourses have to be successfiiUynavigated by women in certain contexts, as positioning the self fiiUy within either cancompromise the woman's subjectivity. However, this struggle has changed social practiceswithin poUcing the very availability of part-time work and job share iUustrates this mostclearly.

A final, contentious issue, relates to ethics. Some detractors (for example. Reed, 1998)suggest that the sort of approach outlined in this chapter, encourages an 'anything goes'


10/11

Q U A L I T A T I V E M ET H OD S IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES

mentality, whereby potentially harmful and certainly unethical acts such as rape ordiscrimination are dismissed as 'discourses' that lack material reality. This is certainly aworrying criticism. However, proponents of the approach wouldargue that the existence ofdiscourses that construct certain acts as 'rape' or 'discrimination illustrate the unpredictable,imprecise and fragmented nature of the operation ofdisciplinary power. Such discourses havebeen produced by 'resistance' to socialspractices that could potentially be constructed asnormal or harmless, thus illustrating one of Foucault's central ideas: power is rarely oppressive,but always productive. Critical discourse analysis does not deny a material reality to socialpractices such as sexual activity, but it suggests that our understanding of such practices isconstructed through tliscourse and is therefore always open to change.

CONCLUSIONSThe key concern of critical discourse analysis is to understand language use as bothconstructing aspects the world, and as simultaneously reproducing and/or changing theseaspects. The focusfor analysis is the identification of how this reproduction or change occurs.

The advantage of critical discourse analysis is that it encourages researchers not to acceptresearch data at face value. It takes nothing for granted and indeed is underpinned by theassumption that the world can be different (Burr, 1998). Its chief disadvantage is that it isexcessively time consuming and is a techmque that requires considerable experience beforethe researcher feels 'comfortable' with it.

A final point, as discussed in the section above, is that critical discourse analysis is acontentious method. Its social constructionist, and especially Foucauldian underpirmingsarethe subject of much academic debate-and critique (for example. Reed,1998; Nevrton, 1998).The 'relativist' criticism is particularly difficult to deal with. One potential ethical issue hasalready been discussed. However, there is a further, potentially worrying ethical issue.Researchers using critical discourse analysis are often concerned with politicalissues, seekingto explore situations that oppress or advantage certain groups in society. Not only is there aproblem of researchers speaking on behalf of groups that may not perceive themselves iobeoppressed or disadvantaged (Burr, 1998), but there is also a further, related problem. Inseekingto subvert dominant constructions of realityand the social structures and*institutions that areproduced through them, there is a danger that the alternative constructions and structures thatare produced could subordinate different groups to those whose lot researchers are seekingto improve. These are thesorts of issues that researchers using this method need to be preparedto engage vnth.

FURTHER READING For an excellent account of the epistemological and ontological concerns of discourseanalysis,see HoUway (1989). See Fairclough (1992) for a detailed account of the analytic firameworkoutUned in this chapter. Se.e Reed (1998) for a wide ranging and thoughtfiil critique ofdiscourse analytic methods. especiaUy those with a Foucauldian bent.


11/11

D I SCOU RSE A N A L Y S I S -0REFERENCESBall, K. and Wilson, D.C. (2000) ^Power, control an d computer-based performance monitoring: rejertoires, resistance an d

subjectivities', Organizat ion Studies, 21 (3): 539-65. . . ' wBurr, V. (1998) Overview: realism, relativism, socialconstructionism', in I.Parker (ed.), Socia l Construct ionism, Discourse a n a

Real ism, London: Sage.Coupland, C. (2001) 'Accounting for change: a discourse analysis of graduate trainees talk of adjustment, Journal ofManagement Studies, 38(8): 1103-19.

Dick, P. and Cassell, C. (2002) Barriers to managing diversity in a U K constabulary: the role of discourse, Journal of M a n a g em en tStudies, 39(7):953-76. ^ J O i,Dick, P. and Cassell, C. (forthcoming)The position of police women:a discourse analytic stud/, Work , Employment an d Society,18(1).

Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge: Polity Press.Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish, London: Allen Lane.Foucault, M. (1981) Th e History of Sexual ity, volume 1: The Will to Know ledge, London: Penguin,foucault (1988) Th e History of Sexual ity, volume 2: The U ses of Pleasure, London: Penguin.Foucault (1990) 7?ie H/s(ofy ofSexua/Ziy, vo lume 3: TTie Care o f fh e Se/f, London: Penguin.Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967)Th e Discovery of Grounded Theory. Strategies fo r Qualitative Research, Chicago: Aldine.Grint K (1998) Th e Sociology of W o r k , Cambridge: Polity Press (first edition 1991).Heidensohn F (1992) Women/nConfro/? T he Rote of W o m e nm LawEnforcement , Oxford:Clarendon Press.Henriques, J. , Hollway, W., Unwin, C ., Venn, C. an d Walkerdine, V (eds) (1998) Changing th e Subject Psychology, S o a a l

Regulat ion and Stibjectivity, London: Routledge (first edition 1984).Hollway, W.(1989) SubjecftV/fK andMeM/nPsycfiotogy, London:S a ge . ohKilduff, M.and Mehra, A. (1997) Postmodernism and organizational research', A c a d e m y of M a n a g em en t Review, 22(2): 453-81.M a m a , A. (1995) Beyond (he Waste: Gender, Raceand Sub/ecf tV i tK, London: Routledge. , ^ .Morris, Pand Heal, K. (1981) C r i m e Control and the Police: A Review of Research, Home Office Research Study No .67 . London.Mulkay, M. and Gilbert, G.N. (1982) 'Accounting fo r error-ow scientists construct their social world when they account for

correctand.incorrectbelief', Soc/otogy, 16(2):165-83. .nm.Newton, T. (1998) Theorizing subjectivity in organizations: the failure of Foucauldian Studies?, Organizat ion Studies, 19(3).

415-47.Potter J. a n " d Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social 'Psychology. Beyon d Attitudes an d Behaviour, London: Sage'Reed, M. (1998) 'Organiz ational analysis as discourse analysis: a critique', in D. Grant, T. Keenoy an d C.Oswick (eds). Discourse

and Organizat ion, lon^n:S a ge . ^Reiner, R. (1992) Th e Politics of th e Police, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf (first edition 1985).Waddington, PA.J. (1999) Police (canteen) sub-culture: an appreciation", British Journa l of Criminology, 39(2):287-309.

Documents

Qualitative methods in organizational research