essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

212 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––mentality, whereby potentially harmful and certainly unethical ‘acts’ such as rape ordiscrimination are dismissed as ‘discourses’ that lack material reality. This is certainly aworrying criticism. However, proponents of the approach would argue that the existence ofdiscourses that construct certain acts as ‘rape’ or ‘discrimination’ illustrate the unpredictable,imprecise and fragmented nature of the operation of disciplinary power. Such discourses havebeen produced by ‘resistance’ to social practices that could potentially be constructed asnormal or harmless, thus illustrating one of Foucault’s central ideas: power is rarely oppressive,but always productive. Critical discourse analysis does not deny a material reality to socialpractices such as sexual activity, but it suggests that our understanding of such practices isconstructed through discourse and is therefore always open to change.CONCLUSIONS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––The key concern of critical discourse analysis is to understand language use as bothconstructing aspects the world, and as simultaneously reproducing and/or changing theseaspects. The focus for analysis is the identification of how this reproduction or change occurs.The advantage of critical discourse analysis is that it encourages researchers not to acceptresearch data at face value. It takes nothing for granted and indeed is underpinned by theassumption that the world can be different (Burr, 1998). Its chief disadvantage is that it isexcessively time consuming and is a technique that requires considerable experience beforethe researcher feels ‘comfortable’ with it.A final point, as discussed in the section above, is that critical discourse analysis is acontentious method. Its social constructionist, and especially Foucauldian underpinnings arethe subject of much academic debate and critique (for example, Reed, 1998; Newton, 1998).The ‘relativist’ criticism is particularly difficult to deal with. One potential ethical issue hasalready been discussed. However, there is a further, potentially worrying ethical issue.Researchers using critical discourse analysis are often concerned with political issues, seekingto explore situations that oppress or advantage certain groups in society. Not only is there aproblem of researchers speaking on behalf of groups that may not perceive themselves to beoppressed or disadvantaged (Burr, 1998), but there is also a further, related problem. In seekingto subvert dominant constructions of reality and the social structures and institutions that areproduced through them, there is a danger that the alternative constructions and structures thatare produced could subordinate different groups to those whose lot researchers are seekingto improve. These are the sorts of issues that researchers using this method need to be preparedto engage with.FURTHER READING ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––For an excellent account of the epistemological and ontological concerns of discourse analysis,see Hollway (1989). See Fairclough (1992) for a detailed account of the analytic frameworkoutlined in this chapter. See Reed (1998) for a wide ranging and thoughtful critique ofdiscourse analytic methods, especially those with a Foucauldian bent.