Friday, June 02, 2006
Is Gee's Discourse Analysis critical?
In reading about Discourse Analysis and Critical Discourse Analysis I wonder if Gee’s method is really ‘critical’. Rogers, et al. (2005) stated “Gee’s theory is inherently ‘critical’ in the sense of asserting that all discourses are social and thus ideological, and that some discourses are valued more than others” (p. 370). However, in the same article Rogers presented Fairclough's (1989, 1992, 1995) ‘three-tiered framework’ common among critical discourse analysts. This framework includes the following three goals: to describe, interpret, and offer an explanation.
After reading An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice, I can see how Gee (2005) describes and interprets data in order to construct a ‘Discourse model,’ but I still cannot see how the explanation goal is accomplished. This goal includes the exploration and explanation “of why and how social practices are constituted, changed, and transformed in the ways that they are” (Rogers, et al., 2005, p. 371”). Rogers, et al. also added that this goal “is concerned with issues of power” (p. 371).
In Gee (2005) I read how ‘Discourse models’ are related with politics, and politics with ‘social goods’ “such as power, status, or valued knowledge, positions, or possessions” (p. 84). However, is this enough to say that Gee’s discourse analysis is critical? I am not sure!
Well, this brought me to keep looking for other resources that could help me understand this issue. One cited by Rogers is Gee’s 2004 chapter titled “Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical?” published in a book edited by Rogers herself, titled An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis. So, now I need to check this source out and try to find the missing link.
Would you like to comment?
– Two other chapters that seem interesting in this book are one by N. Fairclough, “Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning,” and another by L. P. Stevens, titled “Locating the role of the Critical Discourse Analyst.”
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), pp. 365-416.
After reading An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Practice, I can see how Gee (2005) describes and interprets data in order to construct a ‘Discourse model,’ but I still cannot see how the explanation goal is accomplished. This goal includes the exploration and explanation “of why and how social practices are constituted, changed, and transformed in the ways that they are” (Rogers, et al., 2005, p. 371”). Rogers, et al. also added that this goal “is concerned with issues of power” (p. 371).
In Gee (2005) I read how ‘Discourse models’ are related with politics, and politics with ‘social goods’ “such as power, status, or valued knowledge, positions, or possessions” (p. 84). However, is this enough to say that Gee’s discourse analysis is critical? I am not sure!
Well, this brought me to keep looking for other resources that could help me understand this issue. One cited by Rogers is Gee’s 2004 chapter titled “Discourse Analysis: What makes it critical?” published in a book edited by Rogers herself, titled An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis. So, now I need to check this source out and try to find the missing link.
Would you like to comment?
– Two other chapters that seem interesting in this book are one by N. Fairclough, “Semiotic aspects of social transformation and learning,” and another by L. P. Stevens, titled “Locating the role of the Critical Discourse Analyst.”
Gee, J. P. (2005). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 75 (3), pp. 365-416.
