***********************************
Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. Sage Publications. p. 77-177.
Tonight's reading covered Chapters 4-7, the tail end of Edwards and Potter's book. Chapter 4 centered on factual reporting- how have psychologists previously attribute cause and responsibility. Chapter 5 compared chapter 4's information to how one might find attribution in discourse. Chapter 6 examined factual description and how people construct factual description and how they use it to undermine alternatives. Chapter 7 summed up the entire book and neatly packaged the work in the Discursive Action Model (DAM).
I enjoyed that chapter 5 went back to Lawsongate. I particularly connected with this passage: "Put simply, when there is nothing to argue about there is no need to formulate the facts. Far from factual reporting being a contrast to rhetoric, it is a feature of rhetoric" (p. 125). The author's go on to point out that the journalists involved in Lawsongate only wrote vividly detailed description of the events (Factual accounts) when they had to defend themselves (argue) against Lawson's claims. In general this makes sense to me as a natural part of human discourse. I like to try to remember details from events so that as I am remembering them (in discourse with someone else) I can "prove" that it happened the way I am saying it.
A question (or concern?) came up in Chapter 6 after I read Edwards and Potter's analysis of the Thatcher interview. As I'm reading their analysis, it makes sense. Also, in class, we analyzed Paula Deen's interview- and that seemed to go smoothly. However, I feel like there is something missing. A lot of my own comments about Paula Deen were just gut instincts- "she probably means x" or "in my experience saying x meant y." So, do DP researchers actually start with a heavy background in psychology or conversation analysis? Is that what I'm missing? Or is it just going with your gut (after of course pouring over and transcribing the data)?
My favorite part of the reading was the fake conversations between Edwards and Potter in Chapter 7. Box 9 was cute- it's a book about discourse, and they're talking to each other! Then, on page 164, the authors describe fact and interest (a section of DAM) as "the notion that reports are designed rhetorically," ....and... I realized that the entire book was written that way! Holy smokes! Even more of a shocker (and made me open my mind a little more to DP) Box 10 is another conversation discussing how their "descriptive discourse is put together to generate all sorts of effects," "The textual contrasts in the...book help set the analysis up as unproblematic and the voice of reason," and finally, that "all discourse [is} subject to the sorts of processes that we highlight" (p. 172, 173). I almost wish that I had read Chapter 7 first- not only for the great overview, but also for that ah-ha click that discourse is what we say and write and how we do those actions. (I actually do not think that Chapter 7 would be better first. I think a week of background knowledge and reading the first part of the book acclimated me to the vocabulary and context of Chapter 7.)
"Put simply, when there is nothing to argue about there is no need to formulate the facts. Far from factual reporting being a contrast to rhetoric, it is a feature of rhetoric" (p. 125)." Yes! This is exactly what the "disprefered" response is all about.
ReplyDelete"A lot of my own comments about Paula Deen were just gut instincts- "she probably means x" or "in my experience saying x meant y." So, do DP researchers actually start with a heavy background in psychology or conversation analysis? Is that what I'm missing? Or is it just going with your gut (after of course pouring over and transcribing the data)?" This is a great question. DP does not require that you are trained in anything other than being a human being and reasonably fluent in the language/cultural context you are studying. This goes back to the idea of everyone having "equal access" to what is happening. As just "one of the participants" (even as an observer), the researcher doesn't position themselves as above or outside the action, or as an expert. Instead they are simply trying to "see" it as the participants saw it. So in the case of the Deen interview, our gut instincts as to what she was "doing" and what it accomplished are pretty much on target. Now, that doesn't mean that DP scholars don't rely on some jargon to write up their findings - that is what comes out of conversation analysis - to call it an "extreme case formulation" for example.
So far I have 2 votes for leaving Chapter 7 where it is and 1 vote for moving it to the front of the book :)