Response to Discourse Analysis: Making Complex Methodology Simple
As is its title, the article focuses on the discourse analysis in research, particularly the information systems (IS). Discourse analysis can simply be described as an examination of “the details of speech or writing that are arguably deemed relevant in the context and that are relevant to the arguments the analysis is attempting to make” (Gee 2010). In this particular case, IS is chosen as “context” in which the authors of the article could demonstrate the importance of discourse analysis. The main reason for that choice is apparently the significant growth of “multiplicity [in IS field] that is echoed in the discourse, which policy makers and end-users use when they talk or write about IS”.
Information Systems (IS) is considered a peer-reviewed scientific journal. The article points out the shift in view that occurred around the 90‘s. Apparently, IS research was “dominated by the positivistic view” before the notion of “multiple perspectives on the exploration of a dynamic implementation” emerged and replaced by the interpretive view. It is stated that the goal of the discourse analyst is exploring “the relationship between discourse and reality, interpret a hidden meaning, and mediate it between the past and present”. In terms of adopting a discourse analysis in IS, this hidden meaning is apparently achieved “by a constant interplay between texts (project documents, interviews with the end-users or managers, manuals of IS), discourse (sets of the texts), and context (historical and social background)”. The article also states that “texts are almost irrelevant if taken individually. It is only their interconnection that makes discourse analysis valuable”.
I believe, the closest statement to a claim that could be found in the article is the following: “…the systematic amplification of the philosophical origins of the theory of discourse analysis” is not supported by the researchers, which leads to “…a framework bridging the philosophical foundations, theoretical implications and ‘doing’ discourse analysis” being neglected. In other words, the interpretive nature of the research is not emphasized enough. The research conducted by the authors, and presented at the end, as well as other general information related to discourse analysis that sets it up, is supposed to display what sort of bridging framework that they believe is required, or crucial for authenticity. Although, it is difficult for me to say that they fully accomplished that task —some parts were a bit confusing, they were able to describe their intentions and the results clearly.
The article draws the origins of discourse analysis to “the philosophical discussion on hermeneutics”, which “views interpretations as interminable, or open”. It is stated that “interpretation is not an occasional additional act subsequent to understanding, but rather understanding is always an interpretation, and hence interpretation is the explicit form of understanding”. Thus, discourse analysis does not indicate the interplay between the language use and society “as deterministic but implies the mediation that is in hands of an interpreter”, whose “worldview and the special goals of the project” shape his/her approach to the interpretation. This is a very important point in the article, and it relates back to the “claim” above. It is not that difficult to imagine how the negligence of this notion in a research could cause serious problems, especially in terms of “trustworthiness” of the results. Though, I wish these particular issues were addressed more, perhaps even exemplified, it the article.
Their conducted research, and the steps they had taken to reach it, displays a lot of qualitative aspects. It is indicated that the concern of the authors were “on the social context of the use of technology and discourse that supported it”, and they focused on collecting “empirical data about knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of managerial employees, members of project teams and end-users in the companies”. Their interviews were aimed at “obtaining both consistency and diversity”. They also mention “hermeneutic levels distinguished by Oevermann (1996)”, which is also included more thoroughly in Gee’s article, and how they used it in their analysis to examine the components and the constructs they obtained during their research. Going back to the “claim”, they draw strong attention to the supportive aspect of how they conducted the research overall. As I’ve mentioned, though, it is difficult to examine its success without a clear comparison. Still, I would say the results are well put together.
Finally, in the conclusion section, the authors make the assertion that, despite its shortcomings, there are strong reasons for adopting discourse analysis in IS field; such as the reflection of real life interactions or “the trustworthiness of the discursive-based study being assessed by the interplay between open-ended interpretations and their transparency”. Still, some of the shortcomings do leave a question mark in my mind, particularly the emphasis on “shortage of clear procedures” or being “highly labor intensive”. I do not necessarily see this type of research as the best candidate for my own research proposal, but at the same time, I find the interpretive nature of it very intriguing. Perhaps, spending enough time to compare it to some of the other research methods that we examined in the class could change my mind.
_____
Bondarouk, Tatyana and Ruel, Huub, “Discourse Analysis: Making Complex Methodology Simple” (2004). ECIS 2004 Proceedings. 1.
http://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2004/1
Serkan's Writing Blog 