Mighty Digests # 26: MARKHAM, Internet Communication as a Tool for Qualitative Research

Markham, A. (2008). Internet communication as a tool for qualitative research. In D. Silverman Qualitative Research: Theory Method and Practice (pp. 95-124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

From this article emerges that virtual is extremely real, in many senses, and at many levels. The example of the cyber-rape is a proof of this virtual/real connection.

One very interesting concept is “the need to compensate”, in a computer mediated communication, for the lack of the variety of tools of expression that we usually have in face-to-face interactions. How will these “compensational devices” evolve (for example, today, we have some graphical/animated substitutions of emoticons)? Will they ever disappear, as we get more accustomed to this kind of interaction? How are we going to compensate for the lack of copy&paste, undo’s, etc. in a face-to-face interaction? I think that we should be viewing this issue from both sides…

We can conceptualize the Internet from different points of view, as a tool and as a context for research:

Internet as:

1. a medium for communication
2. a network of computers
3. a context of social construction

I found these definitions very useful, but I also think that that the Internet is much more, and it is continuously evolving. Just five years ago, it was completely something different (for example, we may consider the impact of Facebook and other social media in the construction of the so called “Web 2.0”).

I like the definition of Internet interactions that are perceived as providing “a visceral sense of presence” (Soja, 1989). (p. 99)

And this is one of the best definitions on the Internet that I have ever found:

“The Internet can be a tool but it is also a location where one can travel and exist and wherein one’s discursive activities can contribute directly to the shape and nature of the place.” (p. 99)

I found it in other books and articles too, but I don’t think that we can consider the Internet as an “umbrella term”. In my opinion, its multidimensional “being” goes far beyond this definition. Would we say that “life” is an umbrella term for sleeping, studying, writing, etc. (Now, why did I choose these verbs? Oh my, are THESE the first words that come to my mind when I think of “life”? O, Winter Break, where art thou?).

A very interesting point for a researcher to consider in CMC about “anonymous participants” is the potential contrast of openness/freedom of expression vs. authenticity. (p. 103)

Something that made me think was the concept of “control” on CMC data… I think that there is a lot on the “dark side” too, for example, the fact that once we publish something on the Internet, it is there, virtually forever, and could “kick us back” many years later...

Scary Words # 24: Suicide Postvention

Horne, J. & Wiggins, S. (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.

“Those with suicidal identities may not be looking for someone who cares, but someone who validates their identity as genuinely suicidal” (p. 182)

Mighty Digests # 25: HORNE & WIGGINS, Doing being ‘on the edge’...

Horne, J. & Wiggins, S. (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.

Well, this article made me think… What does it mean to be ‘genuinely suicidal’?

I don’t know, I have this idea that instead of looking for the ‘genuinely suicidal’ individuals, these forums may actually be challenging suicide, in an explicit or subtle way, even with the best intentions.

Still, I think that in such an analysis the biggest issue is authenticity.

Furthermore, if we consider that even “depression may be related to suicide but not be a necessary factor”, the task of pre and post analysis is very difficult. Explaining, or trying to understand suicide, looks like trying to explain or understand death itself. Once we have identified the major factors that may lead to suicide, we will still be far away from preventing it. In my opinion, the silent voices are those who cry loudest.

Mighty Digests # 24: LAMERICHS & TE MOLDER: Computer-Mediated Communication: From a Cognitive to a Discursive Model

Lamerichs, J. & te Molder, H.F.M. (2003). Computer-mediated communication: From a

cognitive to a discursive model. New Media & Society 5(4): 451-473.

I appreciated the focus of the article on the social dimension of CMC and “an approach in which

text and talk are analyzed as part of social practice.” (p. 452)

Another important point is that “Rather than viewing talk as a descriptive route to what we ‘really’ think, it must be understood as performing various kinds of discursive actions.” (p. 452)

From this perspective, even the concept of “identity” can be reinterpreted as a discursive social construct:

“We have tried to illustrate how participants manage their identities in ways which cannot be accounted for when adopting a traditional social psychological view.” (p. 468)

It was fascinating to read about CMC from a 1991 perspective, with concepts like “cuelessness”, “flaming”, and about its alleged “ephemeral” character.

Again, an important point for me is that:

 “A discursive approach is participant-centred, i.e. it begins from the perspective of the participant rather than that of the researcher.” (p. 459)

And:

“An important starting point for analysis is the way in which participants themselves orient towards a particular utterance. Instead of using researchers’ informed guesses, the focus is first on the kind

of understanding that co-participants display in subsequent turns (for example, they may treat a particular utterance as a compliment, an invitation or an accusation).” (p. 459)

...

P.S. Is there something I am missing, maybe between the lines, or in discursive terms, about our two last readings for the course, one being about depression and the other about suicide?

Mighty Digests # 23: LESTER & PAULUS: Accountability and Public Displays of Knowing...

Lester, J. & Paulus, T. (Forthcoming). Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies 13(5). 

In my opinion, some of the most interesting points in this article are:

1. The “expectation of quality talk” vs. real outcomes.
2. The consideration of the balance between responding to an academic task and simultaneously managing one’s identity.
3. “Knowing as an interactional accomplishment” (p. 11)

The article made me think about the presence of meaning(s) in different layers of CMC, depending on the analytical tools we are using to pierce through the text, and dynamically visualize it as a living, active entity. I am starting to think about texts as the sea, something you should respect, when you approach it, that can be fascinating and dangerous, deep, lively, animated, silent, infinite. A mysterious, malleable pathway to discover new lands, and make sense of ourselves as lonely and socially-bound voyagers. (Sorry about that, it’s late at night, and I have been on Nescafé Clásico for a couple of days…)

Well, this was one of the most powerful parts of the article and it really requires a minute of deep reflection:

“‘based on the use of relatively rudimentary categories which, furthermore, represent a set of concepts defined by the researcher rather than participants themselves’ (Lamerichs and te Molder, 2003: 469).”

I am still thinking about my research, and this changes everything! I’ve been struggling to find the “perfect” model to start building my “even-more-perfect” model of interpretation of the discussion forum I will be analyzing, and the answer to this quest is just in the concepts defined by the participants themselves!

I think that now I should address my efforts to the study of methods to foster the emersion of these concepts in a meaningful way. This is truly a game-changer for me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!

P.S. By the way, it was fun reading about students blogging for a course! :-)

Scary Words # 23: Asynchronous Discussion Forums for Evidence of Learning

Lester, J. & Paulus, T. (Forthcoming). Accountability and public displays of knowing in an undergraduate computer-mediated communication context. Discourse Studies 13(5).


“Asynchronous Discussion Forums for Evidence of Learning”...

I am thinking of my envisioned dissertation proposal, and the need for an “evidence of learning” resonates in my mind! Personally, I think that I may be able to find some pieces of that evidence in the online interactions, to be interpreted and confronted with others pieces, emerging from different tools and settings. 


Still, looking for the “evidence of learning” in a discussion forum sounds like taking a road suspended between aspirations and expectations…

Scary Words # 22: Figured Worlds

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 2 – James Paul Gee, Discourse Analysis: What Makes it Critical?

“A figured World is a picture of a simplified world that captures what is taken to be typical or normal.” (p. 42)

Mighty Digests # 22: KRESS: Discourse Analysis and Education: A Multimodal Social Semiotic Approach

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 10 – Gunther Kress: Discourse Analysis and Education: A Multimodal Social Semiotic Approach

I really enjoyed this article. Reading it after the Fairclough chapter was “oxygenating”. And, I guess, you can read it as a response to the aforementioned chapter. But this article is much, much more.

The very first page of the chapter offers so much insight in the topic, that it is almost redundant trying to summarizing it. A “copy and paste” would have worked as well! And as I keep on reading, it is very true for the whole article.

I want to quote some of the most useful definitions in the article, that helped me to better understand the concept of “Text”, from different angles and layers of meaning:

“Texts are outcomes of processes initiated and performed by social agents for social reasons; and they provide a means of getting insight into these processes and the purposes of social agents.” (p. 205)

“Texts – as material objects – are in part constitutive of social institutions.” (p. 205)

“Texts are outcomes of processes initiated and performed by social agents for social reasons.” (p. 205)

“Texts are the results of semiotic work of design, production, and composition.” (p. 207)

The concept of “multimodality” sounds like a powerful concept/model to interpret language, discourse and texts in educational contexts.

“Social semiotics provides a theoretical frame for a focus on all aspects of meaning-making.” (p. 208)

This article, the whole article, is also a great source of key-concepts (“lexis vs. depiction”,  “centrality vs. marginality”, learning in time and space, framing, interpretation…) and all-important references (Barthes, Chomsky, Foucault, Habermas, Labov…).

Gold star here!

Contrarian Instincts # 5: FAIRCLOUGH, Semiotics Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 6 – Norman Fairclough, Semiotics Aspects of Social Transformation and Learning

“Social structures are abstract entities. One can think of a social structure […] as defining a potential – a set of possibilities. […] Social practices can be thought of as ways to control the selection of certain structural possibilities and the exclusion of others.” (p. 120)

I must admit that I found this article confusing in many parts. For example, the author introduces a personal definition of language and affirms that it “defines a certain potential, certain possibilities, and excludes others”. Then, he brings an example: “the book is possible as a phrase in English, book the is not.” Well, didn’t he just use it? What is his definition of “possibility”? Is it semantic? Semiotic? Syntactic?

Fairclough’s point of view seems to underestimate the influence of social elements. The movement “from abstract structures toward concrete events” appears itself as an imposition of an ontological hierarchy.

I don’t agree with the author, when he asserts that language “becomes increasingly overdetermined”. In my opinion, this is the very nature of language, almost its “essence”, and it cannot be “overdetermined”. Language is constructed, deconstructed and reconstructed in what I would call “the alleys of the concrete”.

His definition of “orders of discourse” (p. 120) seems very arbitrary too, as well as his definitions of style and ideology.

As opposed to his “mild” approach to the role of texts in the construction of the social world (social constructivism), I think that, in turn, the social world plays a fundamental role in the construction of texts. Furthermore (just to play his world-game), his construction of the argument against the social world as textually constructed appears like an abstract construal.

The rest of the article is based on these arbitrary assumptions, and the inordinate use of abstract terms and categories marked by strong personal overtones, makes the text cryptically abstruse.

Contrarian Instincts # 4: GEE, Discourse Analysis: What Makes it Critical?

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 2 – James Paul Gee, Discourse Analysis: What Makes it Critical?

Utterance-type meaning = range of possible meanings associated with an utterance. (e.g. “cat” has to do with felines).

Utterance-token meaning = the situated meaning of an utterance (in an actual context of use).

While I understand this distinction, and it makes a lot of sense on a superficial level, I think that there cannot be a single utterance-token meaning. There may be many situated meanings, connected, for example to a specific object. Let’s imagine that a family has a “live” cat and a big ceramic cat. They are moving to another city, there are boxes everywhere. The door is open. The wife asks her husband: “Where is the cat?” Her husband answers: “Outside”. Which cat are they talking about?

On the other side, I don’t think there can be a defined utterance-type meaning. This range varies, depending on the knowledge of the speaker and of the listener. And even if we consider “all the possible meanings” of an utterance, one could still add one to the range. Therefore, in my opinion, if a range is unlimited, it’s no longer a range. For example, if you and I agree that “cat” means “a black table on wheels”, that’s a situated meaning (utterance-token meaning), but it also breaks into the utterance-type meaning range, expanding it. One could even invent a new word and attribute a new meaning to it.

I also think that Gee “plays” with the structure of the sentence. If we consider a subject, it’s a subject, it’s not a “center of interest” or a “center of empathy”. He is applying meaning, which is not derived by a discursive analysis, but by an a-priori assumption. It looks like he is projecting the “meaning” of the sentence on a single word (the subject). He is “moving parts” between two different layers of analysis.

Therefore, one may say that every utterance is situated (in a specific context, situation, or culture), and there is no such thing as an “utterance-type meaning”.

Critical Discourse Analysis

“Critical approaches […] go further and treat social practices, not just in terms of social relationships, but also in terms of their implications for things like status, solidarity, the distribution of social goods, and power.” (p. 28)

“Language-in-use is a tool, not just for saying and doing things, but also, used alongside other non verbal tools, to build things in the world.” (p. 30)

Seven Building Tasks of Language = Seven Tools for Discourse Analysis

“Whenever we speak or write, we always and simultaneously build one of seven things or seven areas of “reality”. We often build more than one of these simultaneously through the same words and deeds. Let’s call these seven things the “seven building tasks” of language (Gee, 2011)”. (p. 31)

1. Significance = “Things are not trivial or important by themselves”
2. Activities (Practices) = encouraging, telling something about, etc.
3. Identities = taking on a certain identity or role.
4. Relationships = with people, groups, institutions.
5. Politics (distribution of social goods) = any situation where the distribution of social good is at stake
6. Connections = among elements in the discourse
7. Sign Systems and Knowledge = “We use language to build up or tear down various sign systems […] and ways of knowing the world.”

Theoretical Tools of Inquiry

Gee states:

“Our primary Discourse gives us our initial and often enduring sense of self and sets the foundations of our culturally specific vernacular language (our “everyday language”), the language in which we speak and act as “everyday” (nonspecialized) people.” (p. 38)

Is it possible? Is there really a neutral, nonsopecialized language? Aren’t we always building up a personal (experience) and situated (context) discourse? I think that we are never nonspecialized persons, even when we buy a bottle of milk.

In a shop we will talking “the shop language”, in a bar, “the bar language”, and so on. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an “everyday” language, or a “lifeworld Discourse”. I think that language is an organic entity, and assuming such a perspective, means not recognizing its ever-changing and adaptable nature.

Concluding his article, the author claims:

“Since Discourses and their interactions in time and space are inherently about the distribution of social goods […], discourse analysis is or should be inherently “critical” and even “political”.” (p. 43)

Inherently? Says who? …

I am a little bit perplexed about this abrupt and dogmatic ending of a very interesting and thought-provoking article.

Mighty Digests # 21: ROGERS, An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (Chapter 1)

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Chapter 1 – Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis in Educational Research

Power

“Critical approaches to discourse analysis recognize that inquiry into meaning making is always also an exploration into power.” (p. 1)

“Blommaert suggests that critical discourse studies should offer an analysis of the effects of power, the outcomes of power, of what power does to people/groups/societies and how this impact comes about.” (p. 3)

“Critical analysis of discourse is an analysis not only of what is said, but of what is left out; not only what is present in the text, but what is absent.” (p. 15)

Critical Social Theory (CST)

“Critical Social Theory (CST) provides a theoretical foundation for critical approaches to discourse analysis. […] At the heart of critical social theory is a commitment to work with heart, head, and hands.” (p. 4)

“It is important to note that while critique is an important part of the “critical project” it is not the end goal. The end goal is to hope, to dream, and to create alternative realities that are based in equity, love, peace, and solidarity.” (p. 5)

Discourse

“Discourse is never just an artifact but a set of consumptive, productive, distributive, and reproductive processes that exist in relation to the social world.” (p. 6)

Analysis and important authors

“Three of the most influential traditions of critical approaches to discourse analysis in educational research are those of James Gee […], Norman Fairclough […], and Gunther Kress.” (p. 10)

James Gee

“Over time his work has included narrative research (1985, 1991, 1999), analysis of situated cognition (1992), social linguistics (1996), and discourse analysis (1999/2005) of video games and learning (2003).” (p. 11)

“Gee reminds us that anytime we are communicating, we are building social relationships, identities, and figured worlds. The question for the discourse analyst is: What sign systems are being used to accomplish these social goals?” (p. 11)

“Gee’s approach to discourse analysis asks the analyst to attend to learning – how meanings are built and transformed over time.” (p. 12)

Norman Fairclough

“Fairclough has consistently worked on the question of mediation between the textual and social work. […] This recursive movement between linguistics and social analysis, a key feature of Fairclough’s approach, is what makes CDA a dialectical approach.” (pp. 12-13)

Gunther Kress

“[He] developed an approach for making sense of the social meanings of texts through a methodology strongly influenced by systemic functional linguistics.” (p. 13)

“Language as Ideology (1979) […] was concerned with how power gets realized in linguistic forms.” (p. 13)

“He […] viewed a speaker as a socially located individual who uses semiotic systems to achieve particular functions or goals.” (p. 13)

“Ideology [can] be found in many forms of representation, not just language.” (p. 13)

“A social semiotic approach is concerned with how meanings are made. […] A key development has been the development of a transcription system that does not privilege language over other representational systems; or, put another way, a convention for representing modally dense meaning making (Norris, 2004). Depending on the social practice, this could mean that body kinesthesics or gestures (not language) are most salient in meaning making.” (p. 14)

Mighty Digests # 20: RAPLEY, Exploring documents

Article: Rapley, T. (2007). Exploring documents (Chapter 9). In Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis.

“Exploring a text often depends as much on focusing on what is said […] as well as focusing on what is not said – the silence, gaps or omissions.”

For example, the omission of the age in a dating advertisement is “a noticeably absent feature of text.”

We can also focus on “how different elements of the text combine to further consolidate (or disrupt) the meaning.”

The author suggests “reading with and against the grain of the text and focusing on how the different elements work together.”

“When studying texts you are also interested in the rhetorical work of the text, how the specific issues it raises are structured and organized and chiefly how it seeks to persuade you about the authority of its understanding of the issue.”

One last, very important point we should consider when we approach a text:

“It is worthwhile to skeptically engage with the assumptions embedded in texts.”

Mighty Digests # 19: RAPLEY, Exploring conversations about and with documents

Article: Rapley, T. (2007). Exploring conversations about and with documents (Chapter 7). In Doing conversation, discourse and document analysis.

This chapter focuses on “the role of documents and texts in our everyday life and the various institutions we engage with.”

“When talking about documents-in-use, you should focus on questions about the immediate here-and-now context.”

“Documents (whether paper or computer-based) and related technologies (of bookmarks, pens, highlighters, photocopiers, computers, printers, etc.) both constrain and enable our actions and interactions.”

“Texts are transformed in and through the actions of reading them out.”

“Seeing and knowing are not simply a product of inner psychological processes but rather intimately tied to complex local and situated social actions and interactions.”

Mighty Digests # 18: PRIOR, Doing things with documents

Article: Prior, L. (2008). Doing things with documents. In D. Silverman Qualitative Research: Theory Method and Practice (pp. 76-94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

I like the definition of “text in a network of action”. (p. 76)

In my opinion, it is an important reflection on the “dual” nature of text-in-action and inter-text-action. Every and each document does not exist in a vacuum, but is related to other documents, in a historical and geographic perspective. Studying what these networks of texts do through words is a complex and fascinating adventure. This means to go beyond the idea of “documents as containers of content”.

When I was reading about the encyclopedic categorizations, the Darwinian metaphor of the tree for the evolution of the species, and the taxonomies used in science and human studies, I started thinking about the inherent dangers of such “cataloguing” efforts. If we say that “X” belongs to one category, we are implying that he/she/it doesn’t belong to the other. We are creating distinctions. By race, color, or creed. Income, nationality, or education. These categorizations may help us to better understand (and handle) the complexity of the world, but the danger, the “monster” side of it, resides in how we are using and interpreting these “portable cages”.

I think that categorization is an answer to a question open to manipulation. That is, a category can be used as an answer to an ill-posed question.

The same word can have different meanings in the same community in different times, depending on its function in the ongoing discourse (for example, the use of the word “depression”, cited in the article).

The author states:

“It is always beneficial to ask how documents are produced.” (p. 84).

I think that this task is getting more and more difficult in the “digital age”, in which documents can be manipulated, transformed, and shared in a number of ways.

Another important point presented by the author is that readers are structured by texts.

“Text and documentation are not only produced, but also, in turn, are productive.” (p. 84)

“Latour (1987) has used the term “action-at-a-distance” to indicate how decisions written down in one context and setting can carry implications for action in future settings.” (p. 88)

“Treat the document as topic rather than as source.” (p. 91)

“Documents are not just manufactured, they are consumed. […] They also function in different ways. […] So a further route of analysis for the researcher is to ask questions about how documents function in specific circumstances.” (p. 91)

Mighty Digests # 17: GOODMAN, The generalizability of discursive research

Goodman, S. (2008). The generalizability of discursive research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5, 265-275.

The article deals with generalization and generalizability issues in Discourse Analysis.

Validity

“Validity refers to the research showing what it is claiming to show.” (p. 265)

a)    “construct validity” = “is used to show that “the effect demonstrated can be generalized from the measures used in the study (e.g., I.Q. test) to the fuller construct (e.g., intelligence)” (Coolican, 2004: 86)”

b)    “external validity” = relates to being able to generalize the research findings to the population in general.

                                 i.     “ecological validity” = “refers to the extent to which the research findings can be generalized to other settings”

                                 ii.     “population validity” = “refers to the extent to which the research findings can be generalized from the sample studied to the wider population (whether or not there is a representative sample)”

Reliability

“Reliability is defined as “the extent to which a given finding will be consistently reproduced.” (Haslam and McGarty, 2003: 25), where it is deemed that similar results will be consistently found from the same research study”. (p. 266)

“By contrast, qualitative researchers tend to accept that their findings cannot be generalized  in this way; instead generalizability is sacrificed in favor of a more detailed understanding of the issue being researched. (p. 266)

Generalizability in Discursive Psychology = e.g., interpretative repertoires, Discursive Action Model (focus on action, not cognition)

“Discursive findings can be seen as highlighting generalizable actions performed by a rhetorical strategy.” (p. 268)

“The analyst must show a strategy working in a range of different contexts if it is to be shown to be generalizable.” (p. 273)

Mighty Digests # 16: ANTAKI, Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis...

(Antaki, C., Billig, M.G., Edwards, D. and Potter, J.A., (2003) Discourse Analysis Means Doing Analysis: A Critique of Six Analytic Shortcomings, Discourse Analysis Online, 1

Available from: http://www.shu.ac.uk/daol/articles/v1/n1/a1/antaki2002002-paper.html)

In my opinion, this is a great article, extremely clear, helpful, and well written. Take that, Paul!

“Our aim here is […] to highlight some methodological troubles that are visible from whatever discourse perspective one adopts.”

“In addition, it might help prevent researchers from producing work that might lend credence to the quantitative researcher’s dismissal that, in discourse analysis, ‘anything goes’. ”

“What we shall do in this paper, then, is to identify things that might superficially give the

appearance of conducting discourse analysis in social psychology, but do not in fact do

so. We have collected together six such non-analyses:”

(1) under-analysis through summary: “Transcription prepares the data for analysis. However, it is not analysis in itself.”

(2) under-analysis through taking sides: “Position-taking – whether analysts align themselves with, or critically distance themselves from, the speakers whom they are studying – is not analysis in itself.”

(3) under-analysis through over-quotation or through isolated quotation: “Quotation, like summarising, is not discourse analysis in itself. […] The over-quotation may impede certain forms of discourse analysis by removing utterances from their discursive context.”

(4) the circular identification of discourses and mental constructs: “the data cannot be left to ‘speak for itself’, as if a series of quotes is sufficient in itself to show the existence of the repertoire, ideology or discourse. […] The discursive psychologist should resist positing mental entities and should concentrate upon examining the use of psychological language in discourse.”

(5) false survey: “There is a danger of extrapolating from one's data to the world at large.”

(6) analysis that consists in simply spotting features: “The recognition of features does not constitute analysis. […]What is required is to show what the feature does, how it is used, what it is used to do, how it is handled sequentially and rhetorically, and so on. […] Good analysis always moves convincingly back and forth between the general and the specific.”

“Perhaps it is safe to say that analysis means a close engagement with one's text or transcripts, and the illumination of their meaning and significance through insightful and technically sophisticated work. In a word, Discourse Analysis means Doing Analysis.”

One question. The article says that:

“One would consult the relevant previous research on all these conversational moves and apply the accumulated insights to the present data.”

Where can we find such a wonderful “repository”?

The article also notes that:

“Conversation and critical discourse analysts have, over the past twenty-five years, noticed and labelled a wide variety of conversational and rhetorical procedures. Anyone engaging in these sorts of analyses should properly acquaint himself or herself with such work. They should be able to recognize these conversational features in data extracts.  The same is true of rhetorical tropes in printed persuasive materials and so on.”

Where can we start from?