"But Mother, the Spider Does not Harm a Fly ..." Methodological Notes on Historical Discourse Analysis
Author(s):
Ingolfur Asgeir Johannesson
Conference:
ECER 2009
Network:
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

23 SES 01 C, Approaching Education Policy (Part 1)

Paper Session. Continued in 23 SES 02 C.

Time:
2009-09-28
09:15-10:45
Room:
HG, HS 16
Chair:
Palle Rasmussen

Contribution

In current discourse about research in education and other related disciplines there is an emphasis on methodology. This is not a new trend, as pointed out by the Swedish education scholar Daniel Kallós about 30 years ago (Kallós, 1981), but a persistent phenomenon recorded by many feminists (Ellsworth, 1989; Sawicki, 1991; Einarsdóttir, 1999; Lather, 1991, 2006, 2007; Søndergaard, 2002; Tamboukou, 2000, 2001) and other radical scholars (Jóhannesson, 1998). The emphasis on methodology sometimes comes close to be a fetish on the methods rather than the topic thas is to be studied. Further, there is a noteworthy trend to create a taxonomy of research methods, classifying them into quantitative and qualitative categories with strict sets of standards. Most recently, the American Educational Research Association has also created standards for what is called humanities-oriented research (AERA, n.d.), which could add to the general taxonomy of methodologies. This presentation has multiple agendas. The first and most important agenda is questioning the fruitfulness of seeing discourse analysis as a separate column in a taxonomy of methods, or a box in humanities-oriented research. If it was really seen that way, historical discourse analysis would be a box among other types of discourse analysis in the respective column. This relates to the second agenda which is to discuss what is historical discourse analysis and its basic concepts and purposes; in brief, what makes historical discourse analysis an identifiable approach in research. The third agenda is to describe how the author conducts his/her studies, step-by-step. The fourth agenda is to reflect upon some of the differences and similarities between historical discourse analysis and other types of research. In brief, the chief aim of the presentation is to problematize the ways in which narrow definitions of “method” are applied to research as well as the consquences (good and bad) for historical discourse analysis—as an endeavour that can not be detached from educational politics. Of course this is a contradictory project to critique the emphasis on methods and methodology – but a relevant task to explain why it is fruitful to see historical discourse analysis is an approach instead of a method. This discussion may also be useful for other humanities-oriented educational research.

Method

Historical discourse analysis as described here is drawn from the work of Foucault (1971, 1978, 1979, 1991, 1998/1967, 1998/1972)and a few Foucauldian and feminist scholars in various disciplines, including educational studies (see citations above). In this presentation, there will be described a six-step way of working—we can call it a model (Jóhannesson, 2006b, Sharp & Richardson, 2001)—using examples from a few other studies (e.g., Einarsdóttir, 1999; Thomas, 2001; Thomson, 2003). In this particular model, the work is based on analyzing documents and the context of the documents as they are a part of a historical conjuncture. The focus of this model is to create a narrative out of the identification of discursive themes and legitimating principles and the identification of the continuities

Expected Outcomes

The discussion of the model for historical discourse analysis is aimed at problematizing how certain concepts of in common methodologies in educational and health sciences are colonizing other research. The concepts discussed here are validity, reliability, sample, and transferability. The discussion is aimed how to, at once, accept and escape these methodological requirements. The focus of presenting the model of working is to provide examples of how analysis of discourse in Foucauldian-feminist style needs to be judged on its own basis but not on concepts from other types of research, especially the importance of seeing the personal, professional, and political involvement of the researcher(s) as a part of the research narrative, rather than bracketing or excusing the involvement, in part because often it is these involvements that count for the validity of the research. It will also be discussed how these issues are often more practical than they are ethical.

References

AERA (American Educational Research Association) (2008). Standards for reporting on Humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. [Draft Report, 30 April]. Website: www.aera.net (accessed in June 2008). Einarsdóttir, Þ. (1999). The gendering of status and status of gender: The case of the Swedish medical profession. In I.Hellberg, M.Saks & C.Benoit (Eds.), Professional identities in transition: Cross cultural dimensions. (Monograph from the Department of Sociology 71). Gothenburg: Gothenburg University. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 297–324. Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social Science Information, 10(2), 7–30. Foucault, M. (1978). Politics and the study of discourse. Ideology and Consciousness, 3, 7–26. Foucault, M. (1979). What is an author? In J.V. Harari (Ed.), Textual strategies. Perspectives in post-structural criticism (pp. 141–160). Ithaca (N.Y.): Cornell University Press. Foucault, M. (1981). Questions of method [an interview]. I & C, 8, 3–14. Foucault, M. (1998/1967). On the ways of writing history. In J.D. Faubion (Ed.), Aesthetics, methods, and epistemology (pp. 279–295). New York: The New Press. Foucault, M. (1998/1972). Return to history. In J.D. Faubion (Ed.), Aesthetics, methods, and epistemology (pp. 419–432). New York: The New Press. Jóhannesson, I.Á. (1998). Genealogy and progressive politics: Reflections on the notion of usefulness. In T.S. Popkewitz & M. Brennan (Eds.), Foucault’s challenge: Discourse, knowledge and power in education (pp. 297–315). New York og London: Teachers College Press. Jóhannesson, I.Á. (2004). Karlmennska og jafnréttisuppeldi [Masculinity and gender equality education]. Reykjavík: Rannsóknastofa í kvenna- og kynjafræðum við Háskóla Íslands [The Centre for Women’s and Gender Studies at the University of Iceland]. Jóhannesson, I.Á. (2005a). Icelandic nationalism and the Kyoto Protocol: An analysis of the discourse on global environmental change in Iceland. Environmental Politics, 14, 495–509. Jóhannesson, I.Á. (2006a). ‘Strong, independent, able to learn more …’ Inclusion and the construction of school students in Iceland as diagnosable subjects. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 27, 103–119. Jóhannesson, I.Á. (2006b). Leitað að mótsögnum. Um verklag við orðræðugreiningu [Finding contradictions. How-to analyse discourse]. In R. Traustadóttir (Ed.), Fötlun. Hugmyndir og aðferðir á nýju fræðasviði [Disability. Ideas and methods for a new research area]. Reykjavík: Háskólaútgáfan [University of Iceland Press]. Jóhannesson, I.Á. (in progress). Historical discourse analysis as professional and political reflexivity. Kallós, D. (1981). The study of schooling: What is studied? Why? And how? In T.S. Popkewitz & R.B.Tabaschnick (Ed.), The study of schooling. Field based methodologies in educational research and evaluation (pp. 31–68). New York: Preager. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge. Lather, P. (2006). Foucauldian scientificity: Rethinking the nexus of qualitative research and educational policy analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Studies, 19, 783–791. Lather, P. (2007). Post(critical) feminist methodology: Getting lost. Presentation at the American Educational Research Association conference, Chicago, 9–13 April, 2007. Sawicki, J. (1991). Disciplining Foucault: Feminism, power and the body. New York & London: Routledge. Sharp, L. & Richardson, T. (2001). Reflections on Foucauldian discourse analysis in planning and environmental policy research. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 3, 193–209. Søndergaard, D.M. (2002). Poststructuralist approaches to empirical analysis. Qualitative Studies in Education, 15, 187–204. Tamboukou, M. (2000). The paradox of being a woman teacher. Gender and Education, 12, 463–478. Tamboukou, M. (2001). Writing genealogies: An exploration of Foucault’s strategies for doing research. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 20, 201–217 Thomas, S. (2003). The ‘trouble with our schools’: A media construction of public discourses on Queensland schools. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 24, 19–33. Thomson, P. (2001). How principals lose ‘face’: A disciplinary tale of educational administration and modern managerialism. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 22, 5–22.

Author Information

Ingolfur Asgeir Johannesson
University of Akureyri
Education
Akureyri
103

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.