Our
two readings are very helpful to make sense of the way how discourse analysis
could be done in an organized way. In this post, I mostly focus on making some
claims about the past-present and future of discourse to frame the dimensions
of discourse. My specific question was: how would the dimensions of discourse
be themtized as an independent discipline?
Potter
(2004) in his article, Discourse Analysis,
seemed that there were three levels in the work of discourse analysis. They
could be listed as (1) the way of reporting, which includes recoding,
transcription, listening & reading and coding, (2) the way of analysis,
that consists of variation, detail, rhetoric, accountability and stake &
interest; (3) the way of validation which covers participants’ observation,
deviant cases, coherence and readers’ evaluations. I have some concerns about
this kind listing in any methodology and theory.
I
think that we need more critical explanations for solving the various
discrepancies. All of the three steps could be defined as the way of reporting
the structure or construction of “something”. Actually, we need to be aware of
the context that make these ways possible. In other words, what we have to
understand the necessary conditions
of discourse should lead to understand the sufficient
condition to be critical. For example, the feasibility and accessibility of
reporting have been changing a lot. At the beginning, there were only paper and
pen, now we have more complex machines to record and make something textual and
recorded. While we are aware of these developments, we have to be aware of our
theoretical and ethnomethodological assumptions. In the article, these changes
were given as different spaces, for me, there is no differences between
“coding” and “analyzing”.
Most of the research guides make a
sequential list to complete the research as an objectified and project. I think
that research is itself as artifact, extracted claims and “facts” are claimed.
I think that the means and modes of knowledge must be related with both ethos
and eros. Thus, what is the difference between writing diary / letters and
field notes? When the private reporting becomes the data?
Analogically, the transparency about the production, praxis and motivation makes researchers' artifacts more reliable and valid.