The politics of historical discourse analysis: a qualitative research method?

Abstract

This article deals with the ways in which historical discourse analysis is at once different from and similar to research described as qualitative or quantitative. It discusses the consequences of applying the standards of such methods to historical discourse analysis. It is pointed out that although the merit of research using historical discourse analysis must not be judged by the standards of qualitative methods alone, it can be easier to admit the influence of the discourse on methodology. Therefore, the article considers whether and how the ideas of validity, reliability, sample, and transferability can be used to explain the merit of study using historical discourse analysis. The author also discusses the basic concepts and principles of historical discourse analysis, and he describes step-by-step a particular way of conducting historical discourse analysis.

Keywords:

• historical discourse analysis
• discourse analysis
• qualitative methods
• narrative

Acknowledgements

The article was drafted during a research sabbatical granted by the University of Akureyri. I would like to thank my colleagues as well as graduate students in three overseas universities, namely Gothenburg University, John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio, and the University of Wisconsin, Madison for their conversations and inspiration when we were discussing this topic.

Notes

1. In an English translation of Foucault's lecture, ‘What is an author?’, the phrase is historical analysis of discourse (Foucault, 1979b).

2. After the publication of an article in Discourse (Jóhannesson, 2006a), I was asked to write a chapter in a book about ideas and concepts in disability studies in Icelandic (Jóhannesson, 2006b). The primary focus of the chapter was to be a guide about how to conduct discourse analysis. This article follows in part the logic and ideas presented there, but with a wider focus on the discussion.

3. I am indebted to Sharp and Richardson (2001) for identifying many of the steps and guiding questions at each step. Their steps and questions were helpful in my task of explaining my ways of working.

4. An important method to learn to perform historical discourse analysis is to read such work. This journal, Discourse, publishes many articles that use historical discourse analysis (see, for instance, Jóhannesson, 2006a; Thomas, 2003; Thomson, 2001). Of edited volumes, I recommend, for instance, Popkewitz, Franklin, and Pereyra (2001) and Baker and Heyning (2004).

5. Mentioning genealogy, one may ask how historical discourse analysis differs from it. I would begin by saying that the difference between historical discourse analysis and other Foucauldian, Bourdieuean, or feminist research approaches is not important per se. But if there is a difference between my use of historical discourse analysis and genealogy, it is the focus of historical discourse analysis on a particular historical conjuncture that makes the difference. Moreover, genealogy as a term for a research approach is probably less likely to be claimed by ‘qualitative’ methods than historical discourse analysis; thus it needs less defence.