research paper topics for discourse

21 Great Examples of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is an approach to the study of language that demonstrates how language shapes reality. It usually takes the form of a textual or content analysis .

Discourse is understood as a way of perceiving, framing, and viewing the world.

For example:

• A dominant discourse of gender often positions women as gentle and men as active heroes.
• A dominant discourse of race often positions whiteness as the norm and colored bodies as ‘others’ (see: social construction of race )

Through discourse analysis, scholars look at texts and examine how those texts shape discourse.

In other words, it involves the examination of how the ‘ways of speaking about things’ normalizes and privileges some frames of thinking about things while marginalizing others.

As a simple example, if movies consistently frame the ideal female as passive, silent, and submissive, then society comes to think that this is how women should behave and makes us think that this is normal , so women who don’t fit this mold are abnormal .

Instead of seeing this as just the way things are, discourse analysts know that norms are produced in language and are not necessarily as natural as we may have assumed.

Examples of Discourse Analysis

1. language choice in policy texts.

A study of policy texts can reveal ideological frameworks and viewpoints of the writers of the policy. These sorts of studies often demonstrate how policy texts often categorize people in ways that construct social hierarchies and restrict people’s agency .

Examples include:

2. Newspaper Bias

Conducting a critical discourse analysis of newspapers involves gathering together a quorum of newspaper articles based on a pre-defined range and scope (e.g. newspapers from a particular set of publishers within a set date range).

Then, the researcher conducts a close examination of the texts to examine how they frame subjects (i.e. people, groups of people, etc.) from a particular ideological, political, or cultural perspective.

3. Language in Interviews

Discourse analysis can also be utilized to analyze interview transcripts. While coding methods to identify themes are the most common methods for analyzing interviews, discourse analysis is a valuable approach when looking at power relations and the framing of subjects through speech.

4. Television Analysis

Discourse analysis is commonly used to explore ideologies and framing devices in television shows and advertisements.

Due to the fact advertising is not just textual but rather multimodal , scholars often mix a discourse analytic methodology (i.e. exploring how television constructs dominant ways of thinking) with semiotic methods (i.e. exploration of how color, movement, font choice, and so on create meaning).

I did this, for example, in my PhD (listed below).

5. Film Critique

Scholars can explore discourse in film in a very similar way to how they study discourse in television shows. This can include the framing of sexuality gender, race, nationalism, and social class in films.

A common example is the study of Disney films and how they construct idealized feminine and masculine identities that children should aspire toward.

6. Analysis of Political Speech

Political speeches have also been subject to a significant amount of discourse analysis. These studies generally explore how influential politicians indicate a shift in policy and frame those policy shifts in the context of underlying ideological assumptions.

9. Examining Marketing Texts

Advertising is more present than ever in the context of neoliberal capitalism. As a result, it has an outsized role in shaping public discourse. Critical discourse analyses of advertising texts tend to explore how advertisements, and the capitalist context that underpins their proliferation, normalize gendered, racialized, and class-based discourses.

11. Analyzing Lesson Plans

As written texts, lesson plans can be analyzed for how they construct discourses around education as well as student and teacher identities. These texts tend to examine how teachers and governing bodies in education prioritize certain ideologies around what and how to learn. These texts can enter into discussions around the ‘history wars’ (what and whose history should be taught) as well as ideological approaches to religious and language learning.

12. Looking at Graffiti

One of my favorite creative uses of discourse analysis is in the study of graffiti. By looking at graffiti, researchers can identify how youth countercultures and counter discourses are spread through subversive means. These counterdiscourses offer ruptures where dominant discourses can be unsettled and displaced.

Get a Pdf of this article for class

Enjoy subscriber-only access to this article’s pdf

The Origins of Discourse Analysis

1. foucault.

French philosopher Michel Foucault is a central thinker who shaped discourse analysis. His work in studies like Madness and Civilization and The History of Sexuality demonstrate how our ideas about insanity and sexuality have been shaped through language.

The ways the church speaks about sex, for example, shapes people’s thoughts and feelings about it.

The church didn’t simply make sex a silent taboo. Rather, it actively worked to teach people that desire was a thing of evil, forcing them to suppress their desires.

Over time, society at large developed a suppressed normative approach to the concept of sex that is not necessarily normal except for the fact that the church reiterates that this is the only acceptable way of thinking about the topic.

Similarly, in Madness and Civilization , a discourse around insanity was examined. Medical discourse pathologized behaviors that were ‘abnormal’ as signs of insanity. Were the dominant medical discourse to change, it’s possible that abnormal people would no longer be seen as insane.

One clear example of this is homosexuality. Up until the 1990s, being gay was seen in medical discourse as an illness. Today, most of Western society sees that this way of looking at homosexuality was extremely damaging and exclusionary, and yet at the time, because it was the dominant discourse, people didn’t question it.

2. Norman Fairclough

Fairclough (2013), inspired by Foucault, created some key methodological frameworks for conducting discourse analysis.

Fairclough was one of the first scholars to articulate some frameworks around exploring ‘text as discourse’ and provided key tools for scholars to conduct analyses of newspaper and policy texts.

Today, most methodology chapters in dissertations that use discourse analysis will have extensive discussions of Fairclough’s methods.

Discourse analysis is a popular primary research method in media studies, cultural studies, education studies, and communication studies. It helps scholars to show how texts and language have the power to shape people’s perceptions of reality and, over time, shift dominant ways of framing thought. It also helps us to see how power flows thought texts, creating ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’ in society.

Key examples of discourse analysis include the study of television, film, newspaper, advertising, political speeches, and interviews.

Al Kharusi, R. (2017). Ideologies of Arab media and politics: a CDA of Al Jazeera debates on the Yemeni revolution. PhD Dissertation: University of Hertfordshire.

Alaazi, D. A., Ahola, A. N., Okeke-Ihejirika, P., Yohani, S., Vallianatos, H., & Salami, B. (2021). Immigrants and the Western media: a CDA of newspaper framings of African immigrant parenting in Canada. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 47 (19), 4478-4496. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2020.1798746

Al-Khawaldeh, N. N., Khawaldeh, I., Bani-Khair, B., & Al-Khawaldeh, A. (2017). An exploration of graffiti on university’s walls: A corpus-based discourse analysis study. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics , 7 (1), 29-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i1.6856

Alsaraireh, M. Y., Singh, M. K. S., & Hajimia, H. (2020). Critical DA of gender representation of male and female characters in the animation movie, Frozen. Linguistica Antverpiensia , 104-121.

Baig, F. Z., Khan, K., & Aslam, M. J. (2021). Child Rearing and Gender Socialisation: A Feminist CDA of Kids’ Popular Fictional Movies. Journal of Educational Research and Social Sciences Review (JERSSR) , 1 (3), 36-46.

Barker, M. E. (2021). Exploring Canadian Integration through CDA of English Language Lesson Plans for Immigrant Learners. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique appliquée , 24 (1), 75-91. Doi: https://doi.org/10.37213/cjal.2021.28959

Coleman, B. (2017). An Ideological Unveiling: Using Critical Narrative and Discourse Analysis to Examine Discursive White Teacher Identity. AERA Online Paper Repository .

Drew, C. (2013). Soak up the goodness: Discourses of Australian childhoods on television advertisements, 2006-2012. PhD Dissertation: Australian Catholic University. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4226/66/5a9780223babd

Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language . London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction . London: Vintage.

Foucault, M. (2003). Madness and civilization . New York: Routledge.

Hahn, A. D. (2018). Uncovering the ideologies of internationalization in lesson plans through CDA. The New English Teacher , 12 (1), 121-121.

Isti’anah, A. (2018). Rohingya in media: CDA of Myanmar and Bangladesh newspaper headlines. Language in the Online and Offline World , 6 , 18-23. Doi: http://repository.usd.ac.id/id/eprint/25962

Khan, M. H., Adnan, H. M., Kaur, S., Qazalbash, F., & Ismail, I. N. (2020). A CDA of anti-Muslim rhetoric in Donald Trump’s historic 2016 AIPAC policy speech. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs , 40 (4), 543-558. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13602004.2020.1828507

Louise Cooper, K., Luck, L., Chang, E., & Dixon, K. (2021). What is the practice of spiritual care? A CDA of registered nurses’ understanding of spirituality. Nursing Inquiry , 28 (2), e12385. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12385

Mohammadi, D., Momeni, S., & Labafi, S. (2021). Representation of Iranians family’s life style in TV advertising (Case study: food ads). Religion & Communication , 27 (58), 333-379.

Munro, M. (2018) House price inflation in the news: a CDA of newspaper coverage in the UK. Housing Studies, 33(7), pp. 1085-1105. doi: 10.1080/02673037.2017.1421911

Ravn, I. M., Frederiksen, K., & Beedholm, K. (2016). The chronic responsibility: a CDA of Danish chronic care policies. Qualitative Health Research , 26 (4), 545-554. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1049732315570133

Sengul, K. (2019). Critical discourse analysis in political communication research: a case study of right-wing populist discourse in Australia. Communication Research and Practice , 5 (4), 376-392. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2019.1695082

Serafis, D., Kitis, E. D., & Archakis, A. (2018). Graffiti slogans and the construction of collective identity: evidence from the anti-austerity protests in Greece. Text & Talk , 38 (6), 775-797. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2018-0023

Suphaborwornrat, W., & Punkasirikul, P. (2022). A Multimodal CDA of Online Soft Drink Advertisements. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network , 15 (1), 627-653.

Symes, C., & Drew, C. (2017). Education on the rails: a textual ethnography of university advertising in mobile contexts. Critical Studies in Education , 58 (2), 205-223. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2016.1252783

Thomas, S. (2005). The construction of teacher identities in educational policy documents: A critical discourse analysis. Critical Studies in Education , 46 (2), 25-44. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480509556423

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ 15 Self-Actualization Examples (Maslow's Hierarchy)
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Forest Schools Philosophy & Curriculum, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori's 4 Planes of Development, Explained!
• Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd/ Montessori vs Reggio Emilia vs Steiner-Waldorf vs Froebel

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples

Published on August 23, 2019 by Amy Luo . Revised on June 22, 2023.

Critical discourse analysis (or discourse analysis) is a research method for studying written or spoken language in relation to its social context. It aims to understand how language is used in real life situations.

When you conduct discourse analysis, you might focus on:

• The purposes and effects of different types of language
• Cultural rules and conventions in communication
• How values, beliefs and assumptions are communicated
• How language use relates to its social, political and historical context

Discourse analysis is a common qualitative research method in many humanities and social science disciplines, including linguistics, sociology, anthropology, psychology and cultural studies.  

Table of contents

What is discourse analysis used for, how is discourse analysis different from other methods, how to conduct discourse analysis, other interesting articles.

Conducting discourse analysis means examining how language functions and how meaning is created in different social contexts. It can be applied to any instance of written or oral language, as well as non-verbal aspects of communication such as tone and gestures.

Materials that are suitable for discourse analysis include:

• Books, newspapers and periodicals
• Marketing material, such as brochures and advertisements
• Business and government documents
• Websites, forums, social media posts and comments
• Interviews and conversations

By analyzing these types of discourse, researchers aim to gain an understanding of social groups and how they communicate.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

Unlike linguistic approaches that focus only on the rules of language use, discourse analysis emphasizes the contextual meaning of language.

It focuses on the social aspects of communication and the ways people use language to achieve specific effects (e.g. to build trust, to create doubt, to evoke emotions, or to manage conflict).

Instead of focusing on smaller units of language, such as sounds, words or phrases, discourse analysis is used to study larger chunks of language, such as entire conversations, texts, or collections of texts. The selected sources can be analyzed on multiple levels.

Discourse analysis is a qualitative and interpretive method of analyzing texts (in contrast to more systematic methods like content analysis ). You make interpretations based on both the details of the material itself and on contextual knowledge.

There are many different approaches and techniques you can use to conduct discourse analysis, but the steps below outline the basic structure you need to follow. Following these steps can help you avoid pitfalls of confirmation bias that can cloud your analysis.

Step 1: Define the research question and select the content of analysis

To do discourse analysis, you begin with a clearly defined research question . Once you have developed your question, select a range of material that is appropriate to answer it.

Discourse analysis is a method that can be applied both to large volumes of material and to smaller samples, depending on the aims and timescale of your research.

Step 2: Gather information and theory on the context

Next, you must establish the social and historical context in which the material was produced and intended to be received. Gather factual details of when and where the content was created, who the author is, who published it, and whom it was disseminated to.

As well as understanding the real-life context of the discourse, you can also conduct a literature review on the topic and construct a theoretical framework to guide your analysis.

Step 3: Analyze the content for themes and patterns

This step involves closely examining various elements of the material – such as words, sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure – and relating them to attributes, themes, and patterns relevant to your research question.

Step 4: Review your results and draw conclusions

Once you have assigned particular attributes to elements of the material, reflect on your results to examine the function and meaning of the language used. Here, you will consider your analysis in relation to the broader context that you established earlier to draw conclusions that answer your research question.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Chi square tests
• Confidence interval
• Quartiles & Quantiles
• Cluster sampling
• Stratified sampling
• Thematic analysis
• Cohort study
• Peer review
• Ethnography

Research bias

• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Conformity bias
• Hawthorne effect
• Availability heuristic
• Attrition bias
• Social desirability bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Luo, A. (2023, June 22). Critical Discourse Analysis | Definition, Guide & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved June 9, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/discourse-analysis/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is qualitative research | methods & examples, what is a case study | definition, examples & methods, how to do thematic analysis | step-by-step guide & examples, what is your plagiarism score.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 02 March 2021

Research impact evaluation and academic discourse

• Marta Natalia Wróblewska   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8575-5215 1 , 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  58 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

5297 Accesses

12 Citations

40 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics
• Science, technology and society

The introduction of ‘impact’ as an element of assessment constitutes a major change in the construction of research evaluation systems. While various protocols of impact evaluation exist, the most articulated one was implemented as part of the British Research Excellence Framework (REF). This paper investigates the nature and consequences of the rise of ‘research impact’ as an element of academic evaluation from the perspective of discourse. Drawing from linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian discourse analysis, the study discusses shifts related to the so-called Impact Agenda on four stages, in chronological order: (1) the ‘problematization’ of the notion of ‘impact’, (2) the establishment of an ‘impact infrastructure’, (3) the consolidation of a new genre of writing–impact case study, and (4) academics’ positioning practices towards the notion of ‘impact’, theorized here as the triggering of new practices of ‘subjectivation’ of the academic self. The description of the basic functioning of the ‘discourse of impact’ is based on the analysis of two corpora: case studies submitted by a selected group of academics (linguists) to REF2014 (no = 78) and interviews ( n  = 25) with their authors. Linguistic pragmatics is particularly useful in analyzing linguistic aspects of the data, while Foucault’s theory helps draw together findings from two datasets in a broader analysis based on a governmentality framework. This approach allows for more general conclusions on the practices of governing (academic) subjects within evaluation contexts.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Artificial intelligence and illusions of understanding in scientific research

The carbon emissions of writing and illustrating are lower for AI than for humans

Introduction.

The introduction of ‘research impact’ as an element of evaluation constitutes a major change in the construction of research evaluation systems. ‘Impact’, understood broadly as the influence of academic research beyond the academic sphere, including areas such as business, education, public health, policy, public debate, culture etc., has been progressively implemented in various systems of science evaluation—a trend observable worldwide (Donovan, 2011 ; Grant et al., 2009 ; European Science Foundation, 2012 ). Salient examples of attempts to systematically evaluate research impact include the Australian Research Quality Framework–RQF (Donovan, 2008 ) and the Dutch Standard Evaluation Protocol (VSNU–Association of Universities in the Netherlands, 2016 , see ‘societal relevance’).

The most articulated system of impact evaluation to date was implemented in the British cyclical ex post assessment of academic units, Research Excellence Framework (REF), as part of a broader governmental policy—the Impact Agenda. REF is the most-studied and probably the most influential impact evaluation system to date. It has been used as a model for analogous evaluations in other countries. These include the Norwegian Humeval exercise for the humanities (Research Council of Norway, 2017 , pp. 36–37, Wróblewska, 2019 ) and ensuing evaluations of other fields (Research Council of Norway, 2018 , pp. 32–34; Wróblewska, 2019 , pp. 12–16). REF has also directly inspired impact evaluation protocols in Hong-Kong (Hong Kong University Grants Committee, 2018 ) and Poland (Wróblewska, 2017 ). This study is based on data collected in the context of the British REF2014 but it advances a description of the ‘discourse of impact’ that can be generalized and applied to other national and international contexts.

Although impact evaluation is a new practice, a body of literature has been produced on the topic. This includes policy documents on the first edition of REF in 2014 (HEFCE, 2015 ; Stern, 2016 ) and related reports, be it commissioned (King’s College London and Digital Science, 2015 ; Manville et al., 2014 , 2015 ) or conducted independently (National co-ordinating center for public engagement, 2014 ). There also exists a scholarly literature which reflects on the theoretical underpinnings of impact evaluations (Gunn and Mintrom, 2016 , 2018 ; Watermeyer, 2012 , 2016 ) and the observable consequences of the exercise for academic practice (Chubb and Watermeyer, 2017 ; Chubb et al., 2016 ; Watermeyer, 2014 ). While these reports and studies mainly draw on the methods of philosophy, sociology and management, many of them also allude to changes related to language .

Several publications on impact drew attention to the process of meaning-making around the notion of ‘impact’ in the early stages of its existence. Manville et al. flagged up the necessity for the policy-maker to facilitate the development of common vocabulary to enable a broader ‘cultural shift’ (2015, pp. 16, 26. 37–38, 69). Power wrote of an emerging ‘performance discourse of impact’ (2015, p. 44) while Derrick ( 2018 ) looked at the collective process of defining and delimiting “the ambiguous object” of impact at the stage of panel proceedings. The present paper picks up these observations bringing them together in a unique discursive perspective.

Drawing from linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian discourse analysis, the paper presents shifts related to the introduction of ‘impact’ as element of evaluation in four stages. These are, in chronological order: (1) the ‘problematisation’ of the notion of ‘impact’ in policy and its appropriation on a local level, (2) the creation of an impact infrastructure to orchestrate practices around impact, (3) the consolidation of a new genre of writing—impact case study, (4) academics’ uptake of the notion of impact and its progressive inclusion in their professional positioning.

Each of these stages is described using theoretical concepts grounded in empirical data. The first stage has to do with the process of ‘problematization’ of a previously non-regulated area, i.e., the process of casting research impact as a ‘problem’ to be addressed and regulated by a set of policy measures. The second stage took place when in rapid response to government policy, new procedures and practices were created within universities, giving rise to an impact ‘infrastructure’ (or ‘apparatus’ in the Foucauldian sense). The third stage is the emergence of a crucial element of the infrastructure—a new genre of academic writing—impact case study. I argue that engaging with the new genre and learning to write impact case studies was key in incorporating ‘impact’ into scholars’ narratives of ‘academic identity’. Hence, the paper presents new practices of ‘subjectivation’ as the fourth stage of incorporation of ‘impact’ into academic discourse. The four stages of the introduction of ‘impact’ into academic discourse are mutually interlinked—each step paves the way for the next.

Of the described four stages, only stage three focuses a classical linguistic task: the description of a new genre of text. The remaining three take a broader view informed by sociology and philosophy, focusing on discursive practices i.e., language used in social context. Other descriptions of the emergence of impact are possible—note for instance Power’s four-fold structure (Power, 2015 ), at points analogous to this study.

Theoretical framework and data

This study builds on a constructivist approach to social phenomena in assuming that language plays a crucial role in establishing and maintaining social practice. In this approach ‘discourse’ is understood as the production of social meaning—or the negotiation of social, political or cultural order—through the means of text and talk (Fairclough, 1989 , 1992 ; Fairclough et al., 1997 ; Gee, 2015 ).

Linguistic pragmatics and Foucauldian approaches to discourse are used to account for the changes related to the rise of ‘impact’ as element of evaluation and discourse on the macro and micro scale. In looking at the micro scale of every-day linguistic practices the analysis makes use of linguistic pragmatics, in particular concepts of positioning (Davies and Harré, 1990 ), stage (Goffman, 1969 ; Robinson, 2013 ), metaphor (Cameron, et al., 2009 ; Musolff, 2004 , 2012 ), as well as genre analysis (Swales, 1990 , 2011 ). Analyzing the macro scale, i.e., the establishment of the concept of ‘impact’ in policy and the creation of an impact infrastructure, it draws on selected concepts of Fouculadian governmentality theory (crucially ‘problematisation’, ‘apparatus’, ‘subjectivation’) (Foucault, 1980 , 1988 , 1990 ; Rose, 1999 , pp. ix–xiii).

While the toolbox of linguistic pragmatics is particularly useful in analyzing linguistic aspects of the datasets, Foucault’s governmental framework helps bring together findings from the two datasets in a broader analysis, allowing more general conclusions on the practices of governing (academic) subjects within evaluation frameworks. Both pragmatic and Foucauldian traditions of discourse analysis have been productively applied in the study of higher education contexts (e.g., Fairclough, 1993 , Gilbert and Mulkey, 1984 , Hyland, 2009 , Myers, 1985 , 1989 ; for an overview see Wróblewska and Angermuller, 2017 ).

The analysis builds on an admittedly heterogenous set of concepts, hailing from different traditions and disciplines. This approach allows for a suitably nuanced description of a broad phenomenon—the discourse of impact—studied here on the basis of two different datasets. To facilitate following the argument, individual theoretical and methodological concepts are defined where they are applied in the analysis.

The studied corpus consists of two datasets: a written and oral one. The written corpus includes 78 impact case studies (CSs) submitted to REF2014 in the discipline of linguistics Footnote 1 . Linguistics was selected as a discipline straddling the social sciences and humanities (SSH). SSH are arguably most challenged by the practice of impact evaluation as they have traditionally resisted subjection to economization and social accountability (Benneworth et al., 2016 ; Bulaitis, 2017 ).

The CSs were downloaded in pdf form from REF’s website: https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/ . The documents have an identical structure, featuring basic information: name of institution, unit of assessment, title of CS and core content divided into five sections: (1) summary of impact, (2) underpinning research, (3) references to the research, (4) details of impact (5) sources to corroborate impact. Each CS is about 4 pages long (~2400 words). The written dataset (with a word-count of 173,474) was analyzed qualitatively using MAX QDA software with a focus on the generic aspect of the documents.

The oral dataset is composed of semi-structured interviews with authors of the studied CSs ( n  = 20) and other actors involved in the evaluation, including two policy-makers and three academic administrators Footnote 2 . In total, the 25 interviews, each around 60 min long, add up to around 25 h of recordings. The interviews were analyzed in two ways. Firstly, they were coded for themes and topics related to the evaluation process—this was useful for the description of impact infrastructure presented in step 2 of analysis. Secondly, they were considered as a linguistic performance and coded for discursive devices (irony, distancing, metaphor etc.)—this was the basis for findings related to the presentation of one’s ‘academic self’ which are the object of fourth step of analysis. The written corpus allows for an analysis of the functioning of the notion of ‘impact’ in the official, administrative discourse of academia, looking at the emergence of an impact infrastructure and the genre created for the description of impact. The oral dataset in turn sheds light on how academics relate to the notion of impact in informal settings, by focusing on metaphors and pragmatic markers of stage.

The discourse of impact

Problematization of impact.

The introduction of ‘impact’, a new element of evaluation accounting for 20% of the final result, was seen as a surprise and as a significant change in respect to the previous model of evaluation—the Research Assessment Exercise (Warner, 2015 ). The outline of an approach to impact evaluation in REF was developed on the government’s recommendation after a review of international practice in impact assessment (Grant et al., 2009 ). The adopted approach was inspired by the previously-created (but never implemented) Australian RQF framework (Donovan, 2008 ). A pilot evaluation exercise run in 2010 confirmed the viability of the case-study approach to impact evaluation. In July 2011 the Higher Education Council for England (HEFCE) published guidelines regulating the new assessment (HEFCE, 2011 ). The deadline for submissions was set for November 2013.

In the period between July 2011 and November 2013 HEFCE engaged in broad communication and training activities across universities, with the aim of explaining the concept of ‘impact’ and the rules which would govern its evaluation (Power, 2015 , pp. 43–48). Knowledge on the new element of evaluation was articulated and passed down to particular departments, academic administrative staff and individual researchers in a trickle-down process, as explained by a HEFCE policymaker in an account of the run-up to REF2014:

There was no master blue print! There were some ideas, which indeed largely came to pass. But in order to understand where we [HEFCE] might be doing things that were unhelpful and might have adverse outcomes, we had to listen. I was in way over one hundred meetings and talked to thousands of people! (…) [The Impact Agenda] is something that we are doing to universities. Actually, what we wanted to say is: ‘we are doing it with you, you’ve Footnote 3 got to own it’.

Int20, policymaker, example 1 Footnote 4

Due to the importance attributed to the exercise by managers of academic units and the relatively short time for preparing submissions, institutions were responsive to the policy developments. In fact, they actively contributed to the establishment and refinement of concepts related to impact. Institutional learning occurred to a large degree contemporarily to the consolidation of the policy and the refinement of the concepts and definitions related to impact. The initially open, undefined nature of ‘impact’ (“there was no master blue-print”) is described also in accounts of academics who participated in the many rounds of meetings and consultations. See example 2 below:

At that time, they [HEFCE] had not yet come up with this definition [of impact], not yet pinned it down, but they were trying to give an idea of what it was, to get feedback, to get a grip on it. (…) And we realised (…) they didn’t have any more of an idea of this than we did! It was almost like a fishing expedition. (…) I got a sense very early on of, you know, groping.

Int1, academic, example 2

The “pinning down” of an initially fuzzy concept and defining the rules which would come to govern its evaluation was just one aim of the process. The other one was to engage academics and affirm their active role in the policy-making. From an idea which came from outside of the British academic community (from the the government, the research councils) and originally from outside the UK (the Australian RQF exercise), a concept which was imposed on academics (“it is something that we are doing to universities”) the Impact Agenda was to become an accepted, embedded element of the academic life (“you’ve got to own it”). In this sense, the laboriousness of the process, both for the policy-makers and the academics involved, was a necessary price to be paid for the feeling of “ownership” among the academic community. Attitudes of academics, initially quite negative (Chubb et al., 2016 , Watermeyer, 2016 ), changed progressively, as the concept of impact became familiarized and adapted to the pre-existing realities of academic life, as recounted by many of the interviewees, e.g.,:

I think the resentment died down relatively quickly. There was still some resistance. And that was partly academics recognising that they had to [take part in the exercise], they couldn’t ignore it. Partly, the government and the research council has been willing to tweak, amend and qualify the initial very hard-edged guidelines and adapt them for the humanities. So, it was two-way process, a dialogue.

Int16, academic, example 3

The announcement of the final REF regulations (HEFCE, 2011 ) was the climax of the long process of making ‘impact’ into a thinkable and manageable entity. The last iteration of the regulations constituted a co-creation of various actors (initial Australian policymakers of the RQF, HEFCE employees, academics, impact professionals, universities, professional organizations) who had contributed to it at different stages (in many rounds of consultations, workshops, talks and sessions across the country). ‘Impact’ as a notion was ‘talked into being’ in a polyphonic process (Angermuller, 2014a , 2014b ) of debate, critique, consultation (“listening”, “getting feedback”) and adaptation (“tweaking”, “changing”, “amending hard-edged guidelines”) also in view of the pre-existing conditions of academia such as the friction between the ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ sciences (as mentioned in example 3). In effect, impact was constituted as an object of thought, and an area of academic activity begun to emerge around it.

The period of defining ‘impact’ as a new, important notion in academic discourse in the UK, roughly between July 2011 and November 2013, can be conceptualized in terms of the Foucauldian notion of ‘problematization’. This concept describes how spaces, areas of activity, persons, behaviors or practices become targeted by government, separated from others, and cast as ‘problems’ to be addressed with a set of techniques and regulations. ‘Problematisation’ is the moment when a notion “enters into the play of true and false, (…) is constituted as an object of thought (whether in the form of moral reflection, scientific knowledge, political analysis, etc.)” (Foucault, 1988 , p. 257), when it “enters into the field of meaning” (Foucault, 1984 , pp. 84–86). The problematization of an area triggers not only the establishment of new notions and objects but also of new practices and institutions. In consequence, the areas in question become subjugated to a new (political, administrative, financial) domination. This eventually shapes the way in which social subjects conceive of their world and of themselves. But a ‘problematisation’, however influential, cannot persist on its own. It requires an overarching structure in the form of an ‘apparatus’ which will consolidate and perpetuate it.

Impact infrastructure

Soon after the publication of the evaluation guidelines for REF2014, and still during the phase of ‘problematisation’ of impact, universities started collecting data on ‘impactful’ research conducted in their departments and recruiting authors of potential CSs which could be submitted for evaluation. The winding and iterative nature of the process of problematization of ‘impact’ made it difficult for research managers and researchers to keep track of the emerging knowledge around impact (official HEFCE documentation, results of the pilot evaluation, FAQs, workshops and sessions organized around the country, writings published in paper and online). At the stage of collecting drafts of CSs it was still unclear what would ‘count’ as impact and what evidence would be required. Hence, there emerged a need for specific procedures and specialized staff who would prepare the REF submissions.

At most institutions, specific posts were created for employees preparing impact submissions for REF2014. These were both secondment positions such as ‘impact lead’, ‘impact champion’ and full-time ones such as impact officer, impact manager. These professionals soon started organizing between themselves at meetings and workshops. Administrative units focused on impact (such as centers for impact and engagement, offices for impact and innovation) were created at many institutions. A body of knowledge on impact evaluation was soon consolidated, along with a specific vocabulary (‘a REF-able piece of research’, ‘pathways to impact’, ‘REF-readiness’ etc.) and sets of resources. Impact evaluation gave raise to the creation of a new type of specialized university employee, who in turn contributed to turning the ‘generation of impact’, as well as the collection and presentation of related data into a veritable field of professional expertize.

In order to ensure timely delivery of CSs to REF2014, institutions established fixed procedures related to the new practice of impact evaluation (periodic monitoring of impact, reporting on impact-related activities), frames (schedules, document templates), forms of knowledge transfer (workshops on impact generation or on writing in the CS genre), data systems and repositories for logging and storing impact-related data, and finally awards and grants for those with achievements (or potential) related to impact. Consultancy companies started offering commercial services focused on research impact, catering to universities and university departments but also to governments and research councils outside the UK looking at solutions for impact evaluation. There is even an online portal with a specific focus on showcasing researchers’ impact (Impact Story).

In consequence, impact became institutionalized as yet another “box to be ticked” on the list of academic achievements, another component of “academic excellence”. Alongside burdens connected to reporting on impact and following regulations in the area, there came also rewards. The rise of impact as a new (or newly-problematised) area of academic life opened up uncharted areas to be explored and opportunities for those who wished to prove themselves. These included jobs for those who had acquired (or could claim) expertize in the area of impact (Donovan, 2017 , p. 3) and research avenues for those studying higher education and evaluation (after all, entirely new evaluation practices rarely emerge, as stressed by Power, 2015 , p. 43). While much writing on the Impact Agenda highlights negative attitudes towards the exercise (Chubb et al., 2016 ; Sayer, 2015 ), equally worth noting are the opportunities that the establishment of a new element of the exercise opened. It is the energy of all those who engage with the concept (even in a critical way) that contributes to making it visible, real and robust.

The establishment of a specialized vocabulary, of formalized requirements and procedures, the creation of dedicated impact-related positions and departments, etc. contribute to the establishment of what can be described as an ‘impact infrastructure’ (comp. Power, 2015 , p. 50) or in terms of Foucauldian governmentality theory as an ‘apparatus’ Footnote 5 . In Foucault’s terminology, ‘apparatus’ refers to a formation which encompasses the entirety of organizing practices (rituals, mechanisms, technologies) but also assumptions, expectations and values. It is the system of relations established between discursive and non-discursive elements as diverse as “institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions” (Foucault, 1980 , p. 194). An apparatus servers a specific strategic function—responding to an urgent need which arises in a concrete time in history—for instance, regulating the behavior of a population.

There is a crucial discursive element to all the elements of the ‘impact apparatus’. While the creation of organizational units and jobs, the establishment of procedures and regulations, participation in meetings and workshops are no doubt ‘hard facts’ of academic life, they are nevertheless brought about and made real in discursive acts of naming, defining, delimiting and evaluating. The aim of the apparatus was to support the newly-established problematization of impact. It did so by operating on many levels: first of all, and most visibly, newly-established procedures enabled a timely and organized submission to the upcoming REF. Secondly, the apparatus guided the behavior of social actors. It did so not only through directive methods (enforcing impact-related requirements) but also through nurturing attitudes and dispositions which are necessary for the notion of impact to take root in academia (for instance via impact training delivered to early-career scholars).

Interviewed actors involved in implementing the policy in institutions recognized their role in orchestrating collective learning. An interviewed impact officer stated:

My feeling is that ultimately my post should not exist. In ten or fifteen years’ time, impact officers should have embedded the message [about impact] firmly enough that they [researchers] don’t need us anymore.

Int7, impact officer, example 4

A similar vision was evoked by a HEFCE policymaker who was asked if the notion of impact had become embedded in academic institutions:

I hope [after the next edition of REF] we will be able to say that it has become embedded. I think the question then will be “have we done enough in terms of case studies? Do we need something very much lighter-touch?” “Do we need anything at all?”—that’s a question. (…) If [impact] is embedded you don’t need to talk about it.

Int20, policy-maker, example 5

Rather than being an aim in itself, the Impact Agenda is a means of altering academic culture so that institutions and individual researchers become more mindful of the societal impacts of their research. The instillment of a “new impact culture” (see Manville et al., 2014 , pp. 24–29) would ensure that academic subjects consider the question of ‘impact’ even outside of the framework of REF. The “culture shift” is to occur not just within institutions but ultimately within the subjects—it is in them that the notion of ‘impact’ has to become embedded. Hence, the final purpose of the apparatus would be to obscure the origins of the notion of ‘impact’ and the related practices, neutralizing the notion itself, and giving a guise of necessity to an evaluative reality which in fact is new and contingent.

The genre of impact case study as element of infrastructure

In this section two questions are addressed: (1) what are the features of the genre (or what is it like?) and (2) what are the functions of the genre (or what does it do? what vision of research does it instil?). In addressing the first question, I look at narrative patterns, as well as lexical and grammatical features of the genre. This part of the study draws on classical genre analysis (Bhatia, 1993 ; Swales, 1998 ) Footnote 6 . The second question builds on the recognition, present in discourse studies since the 1970s’, that genres are not merely classes of texts with similar properties, but also veritable ‘dispositives of communication’. A genre is a means of articulation of legitimate speech; it does not just represent facts or reflect ideologies, it also acts on and alters the context in which it operates (Maingueneau, 2010 , pp. 6–7). This awareness has engendered broader sociological approaches to genre which include their pragmatic functioning in institutional realities (Swales, 1998 ).

The genre of CS differs from other academic genres in that it did not emerge organically, but was established with a set of guidelines and a document template at a precise moment in time. The genre is partly reproductive, as it recycles existing patterns of academic texts, such as journal article, grant application, annual review, as well as case study templates applied elsewhere. The studied corpus is strikingly uniform, testifying to an established command of the genre amongst submitting authors. Identical expressions are used to describe impact across the corpus. Only very rarely is non-standard vocabulary used (e.g., “horizontal” and “vertical” impact rather then “reach” and “significance” of impact). This coherence can be contrasted with a much more diversified corpus of impact CSs submitted in Norway to an analogous exercise (Wróblewska, 2019 ). The rapid consolidation of the genre in British academia can be attributed to the perceived importance of impact evaluation exercise, which lead to the establishment of an impact infrastructure, with dedicated employees tasked with instilling the ‘culture of impact’.

In its nature, the CS is a performative, persuasive genre—its purpose is to convince the ‘ideal readers’ (the evaluators) of the quality of the underpinning research and the ‘breadth and significance’ of the described impact. The main characteristics of the genre stem directly from its persuasive aim. These are discussed below in terms of narrative patterns, and grammatical and lexical features.

Narrative patterns

On the level of narrative, there is an observable reliance on a generic pattern of story-telling frequent in fiction genres, such as myths or legends, namely the Situation-Problem–Response–Evaluation (SPRE) structure (also known as the Problem-Solution pattern, see Hoey, 1994 , 2001 pp. 123–124). This is a well-known narrative which follows the SPRE pattern: a mountain ruled by a dragon (situation) which threats the neighboring town (problem) is sieged by a group of heroes (response), to lead to a happy ending or a new adventure (evaluation). Compare this to an example of the SPRE pattern in a sample impact narrative from the studied corpus:

Mosetén is an endangered language spoken by approximately 800 indigenous people (…) (SITUATION). Many Mosetén children only learn the majority language, Spanish (PROBLEM). Research at [University] has resulted in the development of language materials for the Mosetenes. (…) (RESPONSE). It has therefore had a direct influence in avoiding linguistic and cultural loss. (EVALUATION).

CS40828 Footnote 7

The SPRE pattern is complemented by patterns of Further Impact and Further Corroboration. The first one allows elaborating the narrative, e.g., by showing additional (positive) outcomes, so that the impact is not presented as an isolated event, but rather as the beginning of a series of collaborations, e.g.,:

The research was published in [outlet] (…). This led to an invitation from the United Nations Environment Programme for [researcher](FURTHER IMPACT).

Patterns of ‘further impact’ are often built around linking words, such as: “X led to” ( n  = 78) Footnote 8 , “as a result” ( n in the corpus =31), “leading to” ( n  = 24), “resulting in” ( n  = 13), “followed” (“X followed Y”– n  = 14). Figure 1 below shows a ‘word tree’ for a frequent linking structure “led to”. The size of the terms in the diagram represents frequencies of terms in the corpus. Reading the word tree from left to right enables following typical sentence structures built around the ‘led to’ phrase: research led to an impact (fundamental change/development/establishment/production of…); impact “led to” further impact.

Word tree with string ‘led to'. This word tree with string ‘led to’ was prepared with MaxQDA software. It visualises a frequent sentence structure where research led to impact (fundamental change/ development/ establishment/ production of…) or otherwise how impact “led to” further impact.

The ‘Further Corroboration’ pattern provides additional information which strengthens the previously provided corroborative material:

(T)he book has been used on the (…) course rated outstanding by Ofsted, at the University [Name](FURTHER CORROBORATION).

Grammatical and lexical features

Both on a grammatical and lexical level, there is a visible focus on numbers and size. In making the point on the breadth and significance of impact, CS authors frequently showcase (high) numbers related to the research audience (numbers of copies sold, audience sizes, downloads but also, increasingly, tweets, likes, Facebook friends and followers). Adjectives used in the CSs appear frequently in the superlative or with modifiers which intensify them: “Professor [name] undertook a major Footnote 9 ESRC funded project”; “[the database] now hosts one of the world’s largest and richest collections (…) of corpora”; “work which meets the highest standards of international lexicographical practice”; “this experience (…) is extremely empowering for local communities”, “Reach: Worldwide and huge ”.

Use of ‘positive words’ constitutes part of the same phenomenon. These appear often in the main narrative on research and impact, and even more frequently in quoted testimonials. Research is described in the CSs as being new, unique and important with the use of words such as “innovative” ( n  = 29), “influential” ( n  = 16), “outstanding” ( n  = 12), “novel” ( n  = 10), “excellent” ( n  = 8), “ground-breaking” ( n  = 7), “tremendous” ( n  = 4), “path-breaking” ( n  = 2), etc. The same qualities are also rendered descriptively, with the use of words that can be qualified as boosters e.g., “[the research] has enabled a complete rethink of the relationship between [areas]”; “ vitally important [research]”.

Novelty of research is also frequently highlighted with the adjective “first” appearing in the corpus 70 times Footnote 10 . While in itself “first” is not positive or negative, it carries a big charge in the academic world where primacy of discovery is key. Authors often boast about having for the first time produced a type of research—“this was the first handbook of discourse studies written”…, studied a particular area—“This is the first text-oriented discourse analytic study”…, compiled a type of data—“[We] provid[ed] for the first time reliable nationwide data”; “[the] project created the first on-line database of…”, or proven a thesis: “this research was the first to show that”…

Another striking lexical characteristic of the CSs is the presence of fixed expressions in the narrative on research impact. I refer to these as ‘impact speak’. There are several collocations with ‘impact’, the most frequent being “impact on” ( n  = 103) followed by the ‘type’ of impact achieved (impact on knowledge), area/topic (impact on curricula) or audience (Impact on Professional Interpreters). This collocation often includes qualifiers of impact such as “significant”, “wide”, “primary”,“secondary”, “broader”, “key”, and boosters: great, positive, wide, notable, substantial, worldwide, major, fundamental, immense etc. Impact featured in the corpus also as a transitive verb ( n  = 22) in the forms “impacted” and “impacting”—e.g., “[research] has (…) impacted on public values and discourse”. This is interesting, as use of ‘impact’ as a verb is still often considered colloquial. Verb collocations with ‘impact’ are connected to achieving influence (“lead to..”, “maximize…”, “deliver impact”) and proving the existence and quality of impact (“to claim”, “to corroborate” impact, “to vouch for” impact, “to confirm” impact, to “give evidence” for impact). Another salient collocation is “pathways to impact” ( n  = 14), an expression describing channels of interacting with the public, in the corpus occasionally shortened to just “pathways” e.g., “The pathways have been primarily via consultancy”. This phrase has most likely made its way to the genre of CS from the Research Councils UK ‘Pathways to Impact’ format introduced as part of grant applications in 2009 (discontinued in early 2020).

On a syntactic level, CSs are rich in parallel constructions of enumeration, for instance: “ (t)ranslators, lawyers, schools, colleges and the wider public of Welsh speakers are among (…) users [of research]”; “the research has benefited a broad, international user base including endangered language speakers and community members, language activists, poets and others ”; [the users of the research come] “from various countries including India, Turkey, China, South Korea, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, and Japan ”. Listing, alongside providing figures, is one of the standard ways of signaling the breadth and significance of impact. Both lists and superlatives support the persuasive function of the genre. In terms of verbal forms, passive verbs are clearly favored and personal pronouns (“I, we”) are avoided: “research was conducted”, “advice was provided”, “contracts were undertaken”.

Vision of research promoted by the genre of CS

Impact CS is a new, influential genre which affects its academic context by celebrating and inviting a particular vision of successful research and impact. It sets a standard for capturing and describing a newly-problematized academic object. This standard will be a point of reference for future authors of CSs. Hence, it is worth taking a look at the vision on research it instills.

The SPRE pattern used in the studied CSs favors a vision of research that is linear: work proceeds from research question to results without interference. The Situation and Problem elements are underplayed in favor of elaborate descriptions of the researchers’ ‘Reactions’ (research and outreach/impact activities) and flattering ‘Evaluations’ (descriptions of effects of the research and data supporting these claims). Most narratives are devoid of challenges (the ‘Problem’ element is underplayed, possible drawbacks and failures in the research process are mentioned sporadically). Furthermore, narratives are clearly goal-oriented: impact is shown as included in the research design from the beginning (e.g., impact is frequently mentioned already in section 2 ‘Underpinning research’, rather than the latter one ‘Details of the impact’). Elements of chance, luck, serendipity in the research process are erased—this is reinforced by the presence of patterns of ‘further proof’ and ‘further corroboration’. As such, the bulk of studied CSs channel a vision of what is referred to in Science Studies as ‘normal’ (deterministic, linear) science (Kuhn, 1970 , pp. 10–42). From a purely literary perspective this makes for rather dull narratives: “fairy-tales of researcher-heroes… but with no dragons to be slain” (Selby, 2016 ).

The few CSs which do discuss obstacles in the research process or in securing impact stand out as strikingly diverse from the rest of the corpus. Paradoxically, while apparently ‘weakening’ the argumentation, they render it more engaging and convincing. This effect has been observed also in in an analogous corpus of Norwegian CSs which tend to problematize the pathway from research to impact to a much higher degree (Wróblewska, 2019 , pp. 34–35).

The lexical and grammatical features of the CSs—the proliferation of ‘positive words’, including superlatives, and the adjective “first”— contribute to an idealization of the research process. The documents channel a vision of academia where there is no place for simply ‘good’ research—all CSs seem based on ‘excellent’ and ‘ground-breaking’ projects. The quality of research underpinning impact is recognized in CSs in a straightforward, simplistic way (quotation numbers, peer reviewed papers, publications in top journals, submission to REF), which contributes to normalizing the view of research quality as easily measurable. Similarly, testimonials related to impact are not all equal. Sources of corroboration cited in CSs were carefully selected to appear prestigious and trustworthy. Testimonials and statements from high-ranking officials (but also ‘celebrities’ such as famous intellectuals or political leaders) were particularly sought-after. The end effect reinforces a solidified vision of a hierarchy of worth and trustworthiness in academia.

The prevalence of impersonal verbal forms suggests an de-personalized vision of the research process (“work was conducted”, “papers were published”, “evidence was given…”), where individual factors such as personal aspirations, constraints or ambitions are effaced. The importance given to numbers contributes to a strengthening of a ‘quantifiable’ idea of impact. This is in line with a trend observed in academic writing in general – the inflation of ‘positive words’ (boosters and superlatives) (Vinkers et al., 2015 ). This tendency is amplified in the genre of CS, particularly in its British iteration. In a Norwegian corpus claims to excellence of research and breadth and significance of impact were significantly more modest (Wróblewska, 2019 , pp. 28–30).

The genre of impact CS is a core binding component of the impact infrastructure: all the remaining elements of this formation are mutually connected by a common aim – the generation of CSs. While the CS genre, together with the encompassing impact infrastructure, is vested with a seductive/coercive force, the subjects whose work it represents and who produce it take different positions in its face.

Academics’ positioning towards the Impact Agenda

Academics position themselves towards the concept of impact in many explicit and implicit ways. ‘Positioning’ is understood here as performance-based claims to identity and subjectivity (Davies and Harré, 1990 , Harré and Van Langenhove, 1998 ). Rejecting the idea of stable “inherent” identities, positioning theorists stress how different roles are invoked and enacted in a continuous game of positioning (oneself) and being positioned (by others). Positioning in academic contexts may take the form of indexing identities such as “professor”, “linguist”, “research manager”, “SSH scholar”, “intellectual”, “maverick” etc. (Angermuller, 2013 ; Baert, 2012 , Hamann, 2016 , Hah, 2019 , 2020 ). Also many daily interactions which do not include explicit identity claims involve subject positioning, as they carry value judgments, thereby also evoking counter-statements and colliding social contexts (Tirado and Galvaz, 2008 , pp. 32–45).

My analysis draws attention to the process of incorporating impact into academic subjectivities. I look firstly at the mechanics of academics’ positioning towards impact: the game of opposite discursive acts of distancing and endorsement. Academics reject the notion of ‘impact’ by ironizing, stage management and use of metaphors. Conversely, they may actively incorporate impact into their presentation of academic ‘self’. This discursive engagement with the notion of impact can be described as ‘subjectivation’, i.e., the process whereby subjects re(establish) themselves in relation to the grid of power/knowledge in which they function (in this case the emergent ‘impact infrastructure’).

The relatively high response rate of this study (~50%) and the visible eagerness of respondents to discuss the question of impact suggest an emotional response of academics to the topic of impact evaluation. Yet, respondents visibly struggled with the notion of ‘impact’, often distancing themselves from it through discursive devices, the most salient being ironizing, use of metaphors and stage management.

Ironizing the notion of impact

In many cases, before proceeding to explain their attitude to impact, interviewed academics elaborated on the notion of impact, explaining how the notion applied to their discipline or field and what it meant for them personally. This often meant rejecting the official definition of impact or redefining the concept. In excerpt 6, the interviewee picks up the notion:

Impact… I don’t even like the word! (…) It sounds [like] a very aggressive word, you know, impact, impact ! I don’t want to imp act ! What you want, and what has happened with [my research] really is… more of a dialogue.

Int21, academic, example 6

Another respondent brought up the notion of impact when discussing ethical challenges arising from public dissemination of research.

When you manage to go through that and navigate successfully, and keep producing research, to be honest, that’s impact for me.

Int9, academic, example 7

An analogous distinction was made by a third respondent who discussed the effect of his work on an area of professional activity. While, as he explained, this application of his research has been a source of personal satisfaction, he refused to describe his work in terms of ‘impact’. He stressed that the type of influence he aims for does not lend itself to producing a CS (is not ‘REF-able’):

That’s not impact in the way this government wants it! Cause I have no evidence. I just changed someone’s view. Is that impact? Yes, for me it is. But it is not impact as understood by the bloody REF.

Int3, academic, example 8

These are but three examples of many in the studied corpus where speakers take up the notion of impact to redefine or nuance it, often juxtaposing it with adjacent notions of public engagement, dissemination, outreach, social responsibility, activism etc. A previous section highlighted how the definition of impact was collectively constructed by a community in a process of problematization. The above-cited examples illustrate the reverse of this phenomenon—namely, how individual social actors actively relate to an existing notion in a process of denying, re-defining, and delimiting.

These opposite tendencies of narrowing down and again widening a definition are in line with the theory of the double role of descriptions in discourse. Definitions are both constructions and constructive —while they are effects of discourse, they can also become ‘building blocks’ for ideas, identities and attitudes (Potter, 1996 , p. 99). By participating in impact-related workshops academics ‘reify’ the existing, official definition by enacting it within the impact infrastructure. Fragments cited above exemplify the opposite strategy of undermining the adequacy of the description or ‘ironizing’ the notion (Ibid, p.107). The tension between reifying and ironizing points to the winding, conflictual nature of the process of accepting and endorsing the new ‘culture of impact’. A recognition of the multiple meanings given to the notion of ‘impact’ by policy-makers, academic managers and scholars may caution us in relation to studies on attitudes towards impact which take the notion at face value.

Respondents nuanced the notion of impact also through the use of metaphors. In discourse analysis metaphors are seen in not just as stylistic devices but as vehicles for attitudes and values (Mussolf, 2004 , 2012 ). Many of the respondents make remarks on the ‘realness’ or ‘seriousness’ of the exercise, emphasizing its conventional, artificial nature. Interviewees admitted that claims made in the CSs tend to be exaggerated. At the same time, they stressed that this was in line with the convention of the genre, the nature of which was clear for authors and panelists alike. The practice of impact evaluation was frequently represented metaphorically as a game. See excerpt 9 below:

To be perfectly honest, I view the REF and all of this sort of regulatory mechanisms as something of a game that everybody has to play. The motivation [to submit to REF] was really: if they are going to make us jump through that hoop, we are clever enough to jump through any hoops that any politician can set.

Int14, academic, example 9

Regarding the relation of the narratives in the CSs to truth see example 10:

[A CS] is creative stuff. Given that this is anonymous, I can say that it’s just creative fiction. I wouldn’t say we [authors of CSs] lie, because we don’t, but we kind of… spin. We try to show a reality which, by some stretch of imagination is there. (It’s) a truth. I’m not lying. Can it be shown in different ways? Yes, it can, and then it would be possibly less. But I choose, for obvious reasons, to say that my external funding is X million, which is a truth.

Int3, academic, example 10

The metaphors of “playing a game”, “jumping through hoops” suggest a competition which one does not enter voluntarily (“everybody has to play it”) while those of “creative fiction”, “spinning”, presenting “ a truth” point to an element of power struggle over defining the rules of the game. Doing well in the exercise can mean outsmarting those who establish the framework (politicians) by “performing” particularly well. This can be achieved by eagerly fulfilling the requirements of the genre of CS, and at the same time maintaining a disengaged position from the “regulatory mechanism” of the impact infrastructure.

Stage management

Academics’ positioning towards impact plays out also through management of ‘stage’ of discursive performance, often taking the form of frontstage and backstage markers (in the sense of Goffman’s dramaturgy–1969, pp. 92–122). For instance, references to the confidential nature of the interview (see example 10 above) or the expression “to be perfectly honest” (example 9), are backstage markers. Most of the study’s participants have authored narratives about their work in the strict, formalized genre of CS, thereby performing on the Goffmanian ‘front stage’ for an audience composed of senior management, REF panelists and, ultimately, perhaps “politicians”, “the government”. However, when speaking on the ‘back stage’ context of an anonymous interview, many researchers actively reject the accuracy of the submitted CSs as representations of their work. Many express a nuanced, often critical, view on impact.

Respondents frequently differentiate between the way they perceive ‘impact’ on different ‘levels’, or from the viewpoint of their different ‘roles’ (scholar, research manager, citizen…). One academic can hold different (even contradictory) views on the assessment of impact. Someone who strongly criticizes the Impact Agenda as an administrative practice might be supportive of ‘impact’ on a personal level or vice versa. See the answer of a linguist asked whether ‘impact’ enters into play when he assesses the work of other academics:

When I look at other people’s work work as a linguist, I don’t worry about that stuff. (…) As an administrator, I think that linguistics, like many sciences, has neglected the public. (…) At some point, when we would be talking about promotion (…) I would want to take a look at the impact of their work. (…) And that would come into my thinking in different times.

Int13, academic, example 11

Interestingly, in the studied corpus there isn’t a simple correlation between conducting research which easily ‘lends itself to impact’ and a positive overall attitude to impact evaluation.

Subjectivation

The most interesting data excerpts in this study are perhaps the ones where respondents wittingly or unwittingly expose their hesitations, uncertainties and struggles in positioning themselves towards the concept of impact. In theoretical terms, these can be interpreted as symptoms of an ongoing process of ‘subjectivation’.

‘Subjectivation’ is another concept rooted in Foucauldian governmentality theory. According to Foucault, individuals come to the ‘truth’ about their subjectivity by actively relating to a pre-existent set of codes, patterns, rules and rituals suggested by their culture or social group (Castellani, 1999 , pp. 257–258; Foucault, 1988 , p. 11). The term ‘subjectivation’ refers to the process in which an individual establishes oneself in relation to the grid of power/knowledge in which they function. This includes actions subjects take on their performance, competences, attitudes, self-esteem, desires etc. in order to improve, regulate or reform themselves (Dean, 1999 , p. 20; Lemke, 2002 ; Rose, 1999 , p. xii).

Academics often distance themselves from the assessment exercise, as shown in previous sections. And yet, the data hints that having taken part in the evaluation and engaged with the impact infrastructure was not without influence on the way they present their research, also in nonofficial, non-evaluative contexts, such as the research interview. This effect is visible in vocabulary choices—interviewees routinely spoke about ‘pathways to impact’, ‘impact generation’, ‘REF-ability’ etc. ‘Impact speak’ has made its way into every-day, casual academic conversations. Beyond changes to vocabulary, there is a more deep-running process—the discursive work of reframing one’s research in view of the evaluation exercise and in its terms. Many respondents seemed to adjust the presentation of their research, its focus and aims, when the topic of REF surfaced in the exchange. Interestingly, such shifts occurred even in the case of respondents who did not submit to the exercise, for instance because they were already retired, or because they refused to take part in it. For those who have submitted CSs to REF, the effect of having re-framed the narrative of their research in this new genre often had a tremendous effect.

Below presented is the example of a scholar who did not initially volunteer to submit a CS, and was reluctant to take part when she was encouraged by a supervisor. During the interview the respondent distanced herself from the exercise and the concept of impact through the discursive devices of ironizing, metaphors, stage management, and humor. The respondent was consistently critical towards impact in course of the interview. Therefore the researcher expected a firm negative answer to the final question: “did the exercise affect your perception of your work?”. See excerpt 13 below for her the respondent’s somewhat surprising answer.

Do you know what? It did, it did, it did. Almost a kind of a massive influence it had. Maybe this is the answer that you didn’t see coming ((laughing)). (…) It did [have an influence] but maybe from a different route as for people who were signed up for [the REF submission] from the outset. (…) When I saw this [CS narrative] being shaped up and people [who gave testimonies] I kind of thought: goodness me! And there were other moving things.

Int21, academic, example 13

Through the preparation of the CS and particularly through familiarizing herself with the underpinning testimonials, the respondent gained greater awareness of an area of practice which was influenced by her research. The interviewee’s attitude changed not only in the course of the evaluation exercise, but also—as if mirroring this process—during the interview. In both cases, elements which were up to that moment implicit (the response of end-users of the work, the researcher’s own emotional response to the exercise and to the written-up narrative of her impact) were made explicit. It is the process of recounting one’s story in a different framework, according to other norms and values (and in a different genre) that triggers the process of subjectivation. This example of a change of attitude in an initially reluctant subject demonstrates the difficulty in opposing the overwhelming force of the impact infrastructure, particularly in view of the (sometimes unexpected) rewards that it offers.

Many respondents found taking part in the REF submission—including the discursive work on the narrative of their research—an exhausting experience. In some cases however, the process of reshaping one’s academic identity triggered by the Agenda was a welcome development. Several interviewees claimed that the exercise valorized their extra-academic involvement which previously went unnoticed at their department. These scholars embraced the genre of CS as an opportunity to present their impact-related activities as an inherent part of their academic work. One academic stated:

At last, I can take my academic identity and my activist identity and roll them up into one.

Int11, academic, example 14

Existing studies have focused on situating academics’ attitudes towards the Impact Agenda on a positive-negative scale (e.g., Chubb et al., 2016 ), and studied divergences depending on career stage or disciplinary affiliation etc. (Chikoore, 2016 ; Chikoore and Probets, 2016 ; Weinstein et al., 2019 ). My data shows that there are many dimensions to each academic’s view of impact. Scholars have complex (sometimes even contradictory) views on ‘impact’ and the discursive work in incorporating impact into a coherent academic ‘self’ is ongoing. While an often overwhelming ‘impact infrastructure’ looms over professional discursive positioning practices, academic subjects are by no means passive recipients of governmental new-managerial policies. On the contrary, they are agents actively involved in accepting, rejecting and negotiating them on a local level—both in front-stage and back-stage contexts.

Looking at the front stage, most CSs seem compliant in their eagerness to demonstrate impact in all its breadth and significance. The documents showcase large numbers and data once considered trivial in the academic context (Facebook likes, Twitter followers, endorsement of celebrities…) and faithfully follow the policy documents in adopting ‘impact speak’. Interviews with academics paint a different picture: the respondents may be playing according to the rules of the evaluation “game”, but they are playing consciously , often in an emotionally detached, distanced manner. Other scholars adjust to the regulations, but not in the name of compliance, but in view of an alignment between the goals of the Agenda and their personal ones. Finally, some academics perceive the evaluation of impact as an opportunity to re-position themselves professionally or re-claim areas of activity which were long considered non-essential for an academic career, like public engagement, outreach and activism.

Concluding remarks

The initial, dynamic phases of the introduction of impact to British academia represent, in terms of Foucauldian theory, the phase of ‘emergence’. This notion draws attention to the moment when discursive concepts (‘impact’, ‘impact case study’…) surface and consolidate. It is in these terms that the previously non-regulated area of academic activity will be thereon described, assessed, evaluated. New notions, definitions, procedures related to impact and the genre of CS will continue to circulate, emerging in other evaluation exercises, at other institutions, in other countries.

The stage of emergence is characterized by a struggle of forces, an often violent conflict between opposing ideas—“it is their eruption, the leap from the wings to centre stage” (Foucault, 1984 , p. 84). The shape that an emergent idea will eventually take is the effect of clashes of these forces and it does not fully depend on any of them. Importantly, emergence is merely “the entry of forces” (p. 84), and “not the final term of historical development” (p. 83). For Foucault, a concept, in its inception, is essentially an empty word, which addresses the needs of a field that is being problematized and satisfies the powers which target it. A problematization (of an object, practice, area of activity) is a response to particular desires or problems—these constitute an instigation, but do not determine the shape of the problematization. As Foucault urges “to one single set of difficulties, several responses can be made” (2003, p. 24).

With the emergence of the Impact Agenda, an area of activity which has always existed (the collaboration of academics with the non-academic world) was targeted, delimited and described with new notions in a process of problematization. The notion of ‘impact’ together with the genre created for capturing it became the core of an administrative machinery—the impact infrastructure. This was a new reality that academics had to quickly come to terms with, positioning themselves towards it in a process of subjectification.

The run-up to REF2014 was a crucial and defining phase, but it was only the first stage of a longer process—the emergence of the concept of ‘impact’, the establishment of basic rules which would govern its generation, documentation, evaluation. Let’s recall Foucault’s argument that “rules are empty in themselves, violent and unfinalized; they are impersonal and can be bent to any purpose. The successes of history belong to those who are capable of seizing these rules”… (pp. 85–86). The rules embodied in the REF guidelines, the new genre of CS, the principals of ‘impact speak’ were in the first instance still “empty and unfinalized”. It was up to those subject to the rules to fill them with meaning.

The data analyzed in this study shows that despite dealing with a new powerful problematization and functioning in the framework of a complex infrastructure, academics continue to be active and highly reflective subjects, who discursively negotiate key concepts of the impact infrastructure and their own position within it. It will be fascinating to study the emergence of analogous evaluation systems in other countries and institutions. ‘Impact infrastructure’ and ‘genre’ are two excellent starting points for an analysis of ensuing changes to academic realities and subjectivities.

Data availability

The interview data analyzed in this paper is not publicly available, due to the confidential nature of the interview data. It can be made available by the corresponding author in anonymised form on reasonable request. The cited case studies were sourced from the REF database ( https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/ ) and may be consulted online. The coded dataset is considered part of the analysis (and hence protected by copyright), but may be made available on reasonable request.

Most of the studied documents—71 CSs—have been submitted to the Unit of Assessment (UoA) 28—Linguistics and Modern Languages, the remaining seven have been submitted to five different UoAs but fall under the field of linguistics.

Some interviewees were involved in REF in more than just one role. ‘Authors’ of CSs authored the documents to a different degree, some (no = 5) were also engaged in the evaluation process in managerial roles.

Words underlined in interview excerpts were stressed by the speaker.

When citing interview data I give numbers attributed to individual interviews in the corpus, type of interviewee, and number of cited example.

‘Apparatus’ is one of the existing translations of the French ‘dispositif’, another one is ‘historical construct’ (Sembou, 2015 , p. 38) or ‘grid of intelligibility’ (Dreyfus and Rabinow, 1983 , p. 121). The French original is also sometimes used in English texts. In this paper, I use ‘apparatus’ and ‘infrastructure’, as the notion of ‘infrastructure’ has already become current in referring to resources dedicated to impact generation at universities, both in scholarly literature (Power, 2015 ) and in managerial ‘impact speak’.

A full version of the analysis may be found in Wróblewska, 2018 .

CS numbers are those found in the REF impact case study base: https://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/ . I only provide CS numbers for cited fragments of one sentence or longer; exact sources for cited phrases may be given on request or easily identified in the CS database.

The figures given for appearances of certain elements of the genre in the studied corpus are drawn from the computer-assisted qualitative analysis conducted with MaxQDA software. They serve as an illustration of the relative frequency of particular elements for the reader, but since they are not the result of a rigorous corpus analytical study of a larger body of CSs, the researcher does can not claim statistical relevance.

Words underlined in CS excerpts are emphasized by the author of the analysis.

Number of occurrences of string ‘the first’ in the context of quality of research, excluding phrases like “the first workshop took place…” etc.

Angermuller J (2013) How to become an academic philosopher: academic discourse as a multileveled positioning practice. Sociol Hist 2:263–289

Google Scholar  

Angermuller J (2014a) Poststructuralist discourse analysis. subjectivity in enunciative pragmatics. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills/Basingstoke

Angermuller J (2014b) Subject positions in polyphonic discourse. In:Angermuller J, Maingueneau D, Wodak R (eds) The Discourse Studies Reader. Main currents in theory and analysis. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, p 176–186

Baert P (2012) Positioning theory and intellectual interventions. J Theory Soc Behav 42(3):304–324

Article   Google Scholar  

Benneworth P, Gulbrandsen M, Hazelkorn E (2016) The impact and future of arts and humanities research. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Bhatia VK (1993) Analysing genre: language use in professional settings. Longman, London

Bulaitis Z (2017) Measuring impact in the humanities: Learning from accountability and economics in a contemporary history of cultural value. Pal Commun 3(7). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-017-0002-7

Cameron L, Maslen R, Todd Z, Maule J, Stratton P, Stanley N (2009) The discourse dynamics approach to metaphor and metaphor-led discourse analysis. Metaphor Symbol 24(2):63–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480902830821

Castellani B (1999) Michel Foucault and symbolic interactionism: the making of a new theory of interaction. Stud Symbolic Interact 22:247–272

Chikoore L (2016) Perceptions, motivations and behaviours towards ‘research impact’: a cross-disciplinary perspective. Loughborough University. Loughborough University Institutional Repository. https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/22942 . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Chikoore L, Probets S (2016) How are UK academics engaging the public with their research? a cross-disciplinary perspective. High Educ Q 70(2):145–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12088

Chubb J, Watermeyer R, Wakeling P (2016) Fear and loathing in the Academy? The role of emotion in response to an impact agenda in the UK and Australia. High Educ Res Dev 36(3):555–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1288709

Chubb J, Watermeyer R (2017) Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia. Stud High Educ 42(12):2360–2372

Davies B, Harré R (1990) Positioning: the discursive production of selves. J Theory Soc Behav 20(1):43–63

Dean MM (1999) Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California

Derrick G (2018) The evaluators’ eye: Impact assessment and academic peer review. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Donovan C (2008) The Australian Research Quality Framework: A live experiment in capturing the social, economic, environmental, and cultural returns of publicly funded research. New Dir for Eval 118:47–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.260

Donovan C (2011) State of the art in assessing research impact: introduction to a special issue. Res. Eval. 20(3):175–179. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820211X13118583635918

Donovan C (2017) For ethical ‘impactology’. J Responsible Innov 6(1):78–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1300756

Dreyfus HL, Rabinow P (1983) Michel Foucault: beyond structuralism and hermeneutics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

European Science Foundation (2012) The Challenges of Impact Assessment. Working Group 2: Impact Assessment. ESF Archives. http://archives.esf.org/index.php?eID=tx_nawsecuredl&u=0&g=0&t=1609373495&hash=08da8bb115e95209bcea2af78de6e84c0052f3c8&file=/fileadmin/be_user/CEO_Unit/MO_FORA/MOFORUM_Eval_PFR__II_/Publications/WG2_new.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Fairclough N (1989) Language and power. Longman, London/New York

Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK/Cambridge

Fairclough N (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: The Universities. Discourse Soc 4(2):133–168

Fairclough N, Mulderrig J, Wodak R (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van Dijk TA (ed) Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. SAGE Publications Ltd, New York, pp. 258–284

Foucault M (1980) The confession of the flesh. In: Gordon C (ed) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977. Vintage Books, New York

Foucault M (1984) Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In: Rabinow P (ed) The Foucault Reader. Pantheon Books, New York

Foucault M (1988) Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings, 1977–1984. Routledge, New York

Foucault M (1990) The use of pleasure. The history of sexuality, vol. 2. Vintage Books, New York

Gee J (2015) Social linguistics and literacies ideology in discourses. Taylor and Francis, Florence

Gilbert GN, Mulkay M (1984) Opening Pandora’s Box: a sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Goffman E (1969) The presentation of self in everyday life. Allen Lane The Pinguin Press, London

Grant J, Brutscher, PB, Kirk S, Butler L, Wooding S (2009) Capturing Research Impacts. A review of international practice. Rand Corporation. RAND Europe. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2010/RAND_DB578.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Gunn A, Mintrom M (2016) Higher education policy change in Europe: academic research funding and the impact agenda. Eur Educ 48(4):241–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10564934.2016.1237703

Gunn A, Mintrom M (2018) Measuring research impact in Australia. Aust Universit Rev 60(1):9–15

Hah S (2019) Disciplinary positioning struggles: perspectives from early career academics. J Appl Linguist Prof Pract 12(2). https://doi.org/10.1558/jalpp.32820

Hah S (2020) Valuation discourses and disciplinary positioning struggles of academic researchers–a case study of ‘maverick’ academics. Pal Commun 6(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-0427-2

Hamann J (2016) “Let us salute one of our kind.” How academic obituaries consecrate research biographies. Poetics 56:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.005

Harré R, Van Langenhove L (1998) Positioning theory: moral contexts of international action. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester

HEFCE (2015) Research Excellence Framework 2014: Manager’s report. HEFCE. https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/REF_managers_report.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

HEFCE (2011) Assessment framework and guidance on submissions. HEFCE: https://www.ref.ac.uk/2014/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframeworkandguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Hoey M (1994) Signalling in discourse: A functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In: Coulthard M (ed) Advances in written text analysis. Routledge, London

Hoey M (2001) Textual interaction: an introduction to written discourse analysis. Routledge, London

Hong Kong University Grants Committee (2018) Research Assessment Exercise 2020. Draft General Panel Guidelines. UGC. https://www.ugc.edu.hk/doc/eng/ugc/rae/2020/draft_gpg_feb18.pdf Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Hyland K (2009) Academic discourse English in a global context. Continuum, London

King’s College London and Digital Science (2015) The nature, scale and beneficiaries of research impact: an initial analysis of Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 impact case studies. Dera: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/22540/1/Analysis_of_REF_impact.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Lemke T (2002) Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Rethink Marx 14(3):49–64

Maingueneau D (2010) Le discours politique et son « environnement ». Mots. Les langages du politique 94. https://doi.org/10.4000/mots.19868

Manville C, Jones MM, Frearson M, Castle-Clarke S, Henham ML, Gunashekar S, Grant J (2014) Preparing impact submissions for REF 2014: An evaluation. Findings and observations. RAND Corporation: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR726.html . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Manville C, Guthrie S, Henham ML, Garrod B, Sousa S, Kirtley A, Castle-Clarke S, Ling T (2015) Assessing impact submissions for REF 2014: an evaluation. Rand Corporation. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1000/RR1032/RAND_RR1032.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Myers G (1985) Texts as knowledge claims: the social construction of two biology articles. Soc Stud Sci 15(4):593–630

Myers G (1989) The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. Appl Linguist 10(1):1–35

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Musolff A (2004) Metaphor and political discourse. Analogical reasoning in debates about Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Musolff A (2012) The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Crit. Discourse Stud. 9(3):301–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2012.688300

National Co-ordinating Centre For Public Engagement (2014) After the REF-Taking Stock: summary of feedback. NCCFPE. https://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publication/nccpe_after_the_ref_write_up_final.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Potter J (1996) Representing reality: discourse, rhetoric and social construction. Sage, London

Power M (2015) How accounting begins: object formation and the accretion of infrastructure. Account Org Soc 47:43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2015.10.005

Research Council of Norway (2017) Evaluation of the Humanities in Norway. Report from the Principal Evaluation Committee. The Research Council of Norway. Evaluation Division for Science. RCN. https://www.forskningsradet.no/siteassets/publikasjoner/1254027749230.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Research Council of Norway (2018) Evaluation of the Social Sciences in Norway. Report from the Principal Evaluation Committee. The Research Council of Norway.Division for Science and the Research System RCN. https://www.forskningsradet.no/siteassets/publikasjoner/1254035773885.pdf Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Robinson D (2013) Introducing performative pragmatics. Routledge, London/New York

Rose N (1999) Governing the soul: the shaping of the private self. Free Association Books, Sidmouth

Sayer D (2015) Rank hypocrisies: the insult of the REF. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Selby J (2016) Critical IR and the Impact Agenda, Paper presented at Pais Impact Conference. Warwick University, Coventry, pp. 22–23 November 2016

Sembou E (2015) Hegel’s Phenomenology and Foucault’s Genealogy. Routledge, New York

Stern N (2016) Building on Success and Learning from Experience. an Independent Review of the Research Excellence Framework. Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Assets Publishing Service. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/541338/ind-16-9-ref-stern-review.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Swales JM (1998) Other floors, other voices: a textography of a small university building. Routledge, London/New York

Swales JM (1990) Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Swales JM (2011) Aspects of Article Introductions. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

Tirado F, Gálvez A (2008) Positioning theory and discourse analysis: some tools for social interaction analysis. Historical Social Res 8(2):224–251

Vinkers CH, Tijdink JK, Otte WM (2015) Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ 351:h6467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

VSNU–Association of Universities in the Netherlands (2016) Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP). Protocol for Research Assessments in the Netherlands. VSNU. https://vsnu.nl/files/documenten/Domeinen/Onderzoek/SEP2015-2021.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Watermeyer R (2012) From engagement to impact? Articulating the public value of academic research. Tertiary Educ Manag 18(2):115–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.641578

Watermeyer R (2014) Issues in the articulation of ‘impact’: the responses of UK academics to ‘impact’ as a new measure of research assessment. Stud High Educ 39(2):359–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2012.709490

Watermeyer R (2016) Impact in the REF: issues and obstacles. Stud High Educ 41(2):199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2014.915303

Warner M (2015) Learning my lesson. London Rev Books 37(6):8–14

Weinstein N, Wilsdon J, Chubb J, Haddock G (2019) The Real-time REF review: a pilot study to examine the feasibility of a longitudinal evaluation of perceptions and attitudes towards REF 2021. SocArXiv: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/78aqu/ . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Wróblewska MN, Angermuller J (2017) Dyskurs akademicki jako praktyka społeczna. Zwrot dyskursywny i społeczne badania szkolnictwa wyższego. Kultura–Społeczeństwo–Edukacja 12(2):105–128. https://doi.org/10.14746/kse.2017.12.510.14746/kse.2017.12.5

Wróblewska MN (2017) Ewaluacja wpływu społecznego nauki. Przykład REF 2014 a kontekst polski. NaukaiSzkolnicwo Wyższe 49(1):79–104. https://doi.org/10.14746/nisw.2017.1.5

Wróblewska MN (2018) The making of the Impact Agenda. A study in discourse and governmnetality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Warwick University

Wróblewska MN (2019) Impact evaluation in Norway and in the UK: A comparative study, based on REF 2014 and Humeval 2015-2017. ENRESSH working paper series 1. University of Twente Research Information. https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/102033214/ENRESSH_01_2019.pdf . Accessed 30 Dec 2020

Download references

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Prof. Johannes Angermuller, the supervisor of the doctoral dissertation in which many of the ideas discussed in this paper were first presented. Prof. Angermuller’s guidance and support were essential for the development of my understanding of the importance of discourse in evaluative contexts. I also thank the reviewers of the aforementioned thesis, Prof. Jo Angouri and Prof. Srikant Sarangi for their feedback which helped me develop and clarify the concepts which I use in my analysis, as well as its presentation. Any errors or omissions are of course my own. The research presented in this paper received funding from the European Research Council (DISCONEX project 313,172). The underpinning research was also facilitated by the author’s membership in EU Cost Action “European Network for Research Evaluation in the Social Sciences and the Humanities”(ENRESSH CA15137-E). Particularly advice and encouragement recieved from the late prof. Paul Benneworth was invaluable.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Marta Natalia Wróblewska

National Centre for Research and Development–NCBR, Warsaw, Poland

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Natalia Wróblewska .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Wróblewska, M.N. Research impact evaluation and academic discourse. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 58 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8

Download citation

Received : 12 May 2020

Accepted : 11 January 2021

Published : 02 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00727-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Privacy Policy

Home » Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Discourse Analysis – Methods, Types and Examples

Table of Contents

Discourse Analysis

Definition:

Discourse Analysis is a method of studying how people use language in different situations to understand what they really mean and what messages they are sending. It helps us understand how language is used to create social relationships and cultural norms.

It examines language use in various forms of communication such as spoken, written, visual or multi-modal texts, and focuses on how language is used to construct social meaning and relationships, and how it reflects and reinforces power dynamics, ideologies, and cultural norms.

Types of Discourse Analysis

Some of the most common types of discourse analysis are:

Conversation Analysis

This type of discourse analysis focuses on analyzing the structure of talk and how participants in a conversation make meaning through their interaction. It is often used to study face-to-face interactions, such as interviews or everyday conversations.

Critical discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on the ways in which language use reflects and reinforces power relations, social hierarchies, and ideologies. It is often used to analyze media texts or political speeches, with the aim of uncovering the hidden meanings and assumptions that are embedded in these texts.

Discursive Psychology

This type of discourse analysis focuses on the ways in which language use is related to psychological processes such as identity construction and attribution of motives. It is often used to study narratives or personal accounts, with the aim of understanding how individuals make sense of their experiences.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis

This approach focuses on analyzing not only language use, but also other modes of communication, such as images, gestures, and layout. It is often used to study digital or visual media, with the aim of understanding how different modes of communication work together to create meaning.

Corpus-based Discourse Analysis

This type of discourse analysis uses large collections of texts, or corpora, to analyze patterns of language use across different genres or contexts. It is often used to study language use in specific domains, such as academic writing or legal discourse.

Descriptive Discourse

This type of discourse analysis aims to describe the features and characteristics of language use, without making any value judgments or interpretations. It is often used in linguistic studies to describe grammatical structures or phonetic features of language.

Narrative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing the structure and content of stories or narratives, with the aim of understanding how they are constructed and how they shape our understanding of the world. It is often used to study personal narratives or cultural myths.

Expository Discourse

This type of discourse analysis is used to study texts that explain or describe a concept, process, or idea. It aims to understand how information is organized and presented in such texts and how it influences the reader’s understanding of the topic.

Argumentative Discourse

This approach focuses on analyzing texts that present an argument or attempt to persuade the reader or listener. It aims to understand how the argument is constructed, what strategies are used to persuade, and how the audience is likely to respond to the argument.

Discourse Analysis Conducting Guide

Here is a step-by-step guide for conducting discourse analysis:

• What are you trying to understand about the language use in a particular context?
• What are the key concepts or themes that you want to explore?
• Select the data: Decide on the type of data that you will analyze, such as written texts, spoken conversations, or media content. Consider the source of the data, such as news articles, interviews, or social media posts, and how this might affect your analysis.
• Transcribe or collect the data: If you are analyzing spoken language, you will need to transcribe the data into written form. If you are using written texts, make sure that you have access to the full text and that it is in a format that can be easily analyzed.
• Read and re-read the data: Read through the data carefully, paying attention to key themes, patterns, and discursive features. Take notes on what stands out to you and make preliminary observations about the language use.
• Develop a coding scheme : Develop a coding scheme that will allow you to categorize and organize different types of language use. This might include categories such as metaphors, narratives, or persuasive strategies, depending on your research question.
• Code the data: Use your coding scheme to analyze the data, coding different sections of text or spoken language according to the categories that you have developed. This can be a time-consuming process, so consider using software tools to assist with coding and analysis.
• Analyze the data: Once you have coded the data, analyze it to identify patterns and themes that emerge. Look for similarities and differences across different parts of the data, and consider how different categories of language use are related to your research question.
• Interpret the findings: Draw conclusions from your analysis and interpret the findings in relation to your research question. Consider how the language use in your data sheds light on broader cultural or social issues, and what implications it might have for understanding language use in other contexts.
• Write up the results: Write up your findings in a clear and concise way, using examples from the data to support your arguments. Consider how your research contributes to the broader field of discourse analysis and what implications it might have for future research.

Applications of Discourse Analysis

Here are some of the key areas where discourse analysis is commonly used:

• Political discourse: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze political speeches, debates, and media coverage of political events. By examining the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the political ideologies, values, and agendas that underpin different political positions.
• Media analysis: Discourse analysis is frequently used to analyze media content, including news reports, television shows, and social media posts. By examining the language used in media content, researchers can understand how media narratives are constructed and how they influence public opinion.
• Education : Discourse analysis can be used to examine classroom discourse, student-teacher interactions, and educational policies. By analyzing the language used in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape educational outcomes.
• Healthcare : Discourse analysis is used in healthcare to examine the language used by healthcare professionals and patients in medical consultations. This can help to identify communication barriers, cultural differences, and other factors that may impact the quality of healthcare.
• Marketing and advertising: Discourse analysis can be used to analyze marketing and advertising messages, including the language used in product descriptions, slogans, and commercials. By examining these messages, researchers can gain insight into the cultural values and beliefs that underpin consumer behavior.

When to use Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a valuable research methodology that can be used in a variety of contexts. Here are some situations where discourse analysis may be particularly useful:

• When studying language use in a particular context: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used in a specific context, such as political speeches, media coverage, or healthcare interactions. By analyzing language use in these contexts, researchers can gain insight into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• When exploring the meaning of language: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. This can be particularly useful in fields such as sociology, anthropology, and cultural studies.
• When examining power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language is used to reinforce or challenge power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• When conducting qualitative research: Discourse analysis can be used as a qualitative research method, allowing researchers to explore complex social phenomena in depth. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain rich and nuanced insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication.

Examples of Discourse Analysis

Here are some examples of discourse analysis in action:

• A study of media coverage of climate change: This study analyzed media coverage of climate change to examine how language was used to construct the issue. The researchers found that media coverage tended to frame climate change as a matter of scientific debate rather than a pressing environmental issue, thereby undermining public support for action on climate change.
• A study of political speeches: This study analyzed political speeches to examine how language was used to construct political identity. The researchers found that politicians used language strategically to construct themselves as trustworthy and competent leaders, while painting their opponents as untrustworthy and incompetent.
• A study of medical consultations: This study analyzed medical consultations to examine how language was used to negotiate power and authority between doctors and patients. The researchers found that doctors used language to assert their authority and control over medical decisions, while patients used language to negotiate their own preferences and concerns.
• A study of workplace interactions: This study analyzed workplace interactions to examine how language was used to construct social identity and maintain power relations. The researchers found that language was used to construct a hierarchy of power and status within the workplace, with those in positions of authority using language to assert their dominance over subordinates.

Purpose of Discourse Analysis

The purpose of discourse analysis is to examine the ways in which language is used to construct social meaning, relationships, and power relations. By analyzing language use in a systematic and rigorous way, discourse analysis can provide valuable insights into the social and cultural factors that shape communication and interaction.

The specific purposes of discourse analysis may vary depending on the research context, but some common goals include:

• To understand how language constructs social reality: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how language is used to construct meaning and shape social reality. By analyzing language use in a particular context, researchers can gain insight into the cultural and social factors that shape communication.
• To identify power relations: Discourse analysis can be used to examine how language use reinforces or challenges power relations in society. By analyzing language use in contexts such as political discourse, media coverage, or workplace interactions, researchers can gain insight into how power is negotiated and maintained.
• To explore social and cultural norms: Discourse analysis can help researchers understand how social and cultural norms are constructed and maintained through language use. By analyzing language use in different contexts, researchers can gain insight into how social and cultural norms are reproduced and challenged.
• To provide insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.

Characteristics of Discourse Analysis

Here are some key characteristics of discourse analysis:

• Focus on language use: Discourse analysis is centered on language use and how it constructs social meaning, relationships, and power relations.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology.
• Systematic and rigorous methodology: Discourse analysis employs a systematic and rigorous methodology, often involving transcription and coding of language data, in order to identify patterns and themes in language use.
• Contextual analysis : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use, and takes into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication.
• Focus on power relations: Discourse analysis often examines power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society.
• Interpretive approach: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it seeks to understand the meaning and significance of language use from the perspective of the participants in a particular discourse.
• Emphasis on reflexivity: Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of reflexivity, or self-awareness, in the research process. Researchers are encouraged to reflect on their own positionality and how it may shape their interpretation of language use.

Advantages of Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis has several advantages as a methodological approach. Here are some of the main advantages:

• Provides a detailed understanding of language use: Discourse analysis allows for a detailed and nuanced understanding of language use in specific social contexts. It enables researchers to identify patterns and themes in language use, and to understand how language constructs social reality.
• Emphasizes the importance of context : Discourse analysis emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use. By taking into account the social and cultural factors that shape communication, discourse analysis provides a more complete understanding of language use than other approaches.
• Allows for an examination of power relations: Discourse analysis enables researchers to examine power relations and how language use reinforces or challenges power imbalances in society. By identifying problematic language use, discourse analysis can contribute to efforts to promote social justice and equality.
• Provides insights for social change: Discourse analysis can provide insights that can be used to promote social change. By identifying problematic language use or power imbalances, researchers can provide insights that can be used to challenge social norms and promote more equitable and inclusive communication.
• Multidisciplinary approach: Discourse analysis draws on theories and methodologies from a range of disciplines, including linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and psychology. This multidisciplinary approach allows for a more holistic understanding of language use in social contexts.

Limitations of Discourse Analysis

Some Limitations of Discourse Analysis are as follows:

• Time-consuming and resource-intensive: Discourse analysis can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive process. Collecting and transcribing language data can be a time-consuming task, and analyzing the data requires careful attention to detail and a significant investment of time and resources.
• Limited generalizability: Discourse analysis is often focused on a particular social context or community, and therefore the findings may not be easily generalized to other contexts or populations. This means that the insights gained from discourse analysis may have limited applicability beyond the specific context being studied.
• Interpretive nature: Discourse analysis is an interpretive approach, meaning that it relies on the interpretation of the researcher to identify patterns and themes in language use. This subjectivity can be a limitation, as different researchers may interpret language data differently.
• Limited quantitative analysis: Discourse analysis tends to focus on qualitative analysis of language data, which can limit the ability to draw statistical conclusions or make quantitative comparisons across different language uses or contexts.
• Ethical considerations: Discourse analysis may involve the collection and analysis of sensitive language data, such as language related to trauma or marginalization. Researchers must carefully consider the ethical implications of collecting and analyzing this type of data, and ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of participants is protected.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

ANOVA (Analysis of variance) – Formulas, Types...

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

Textual Analysis – Types, Examples and Guide

Critical Analysis – Types, Examples and Writing...

Uniform Histogram – Purpose, Examples and Guide

Documentary Analysis – Methods, Applications and...

What (Exactly) Is Discourse Analysis? A Plain-Language Explanation & Definition (With Examples)

By: Jenna Crosley (PhD). Expert Reviewed By: Dr Eunice Rautenbach | June 2021

Discourse analysis is one of the most popular qualitative analysis techniques we encounter at Grad Coach. If you’ve landed on this post, you’re probably interested in discourse analysis, but you’re not sure whether it’s the right fit for your project, or you don’t know where to start. If so, you’ve come to the right place.

Overview: Discourse Analysis Basics

In this post, we’ll explain in plain, straightforward language :

• What discourse analysis is
• When to use discourse analysis
• The main approaches to discourse analysis
• How to conduct discourse analysis

What is discourse analysis?

Let’s start with the word “discourse”.

In its simplest form, discourse is verbal or written communication between people that goes beyond a single sentence . Importantly, discourse is more than just language. The term “language” can include all forms of linguistic and symbolic units (even things such as road signs), and language studies can focus on the individual meanings of words. Discourse goes beyond this and looks at the overall meanings conveyed by language in context .  “Context” here refers to the social, cultural, political, and historical background of the discourse, and it is important to take this into account to understand underlying meanings expressed through language.

A popular way of viewing discourse is as language used in specific social contexts, and as such language serves as a means of prompting some form of social change or meeting some form of goal.

Now that we’ve defined discourse, let’s look at discourse analysis .

Discourse analysis uses the language presented in a corpus or body of data to draw meaning . This body of data could include a set of interviews or focus group discussion transcripts. While some forms of discourse analysis center in on the specifics of language (such as sounds or grammar), other forms focus on how this language is used to achieve its aims. We’ll dig deeper into these two above-mentioned approaches later.

As Wodak and Krzyżanowski (2008) put it: “discourse analysis provides a general framework to problem-oriented social research”. Basically, discourse analysis is used to conduct research on the use of language in context in a wide variety of social problems (i.e., issues in society that affect individuals negatively).

For example, discourse analysis could be used to assess how language is used to express differing viewpoints on financial inequality and would look at how the topic should or shouldn’t be addressed or resolved, and whether this so-called inequality is perceived as such by participants.

What makes discourse analysis unique is that it posits that social reality is socially constructed , or that our experience of the world is understood from a subjective standpoint. Discourse analysis goes beyond the literal meaning of words and languages

For example, people in countries that make use of a lot of censorship will likely have their knowledge, and thus views, limited by this, and will thus have a different subjective reality to those within countries with more lax laws on censorship.

When should you use discourse analysis?

There are many ways to analyze qualitative data (such as content analysis , narrative analysis , and thematic analysis ), so why should you choose discourse analysis? Well, as with all analysis methods, the nature of your research aims, objectives and research questions (i.e. the purpose of your research) will heavily influence the right choice of analysis method.

The purpose of discourse analysis is to investigate the functions of language (i.e., what language is used for) and how meaning is constructed in different contexts, which, to recap, include the social, cultural, political, and historical backgrounds of the discourse.

For example, if you were to study a politician’s speeches, you would need to situate these speeches in their context, which would involve looking at the politician’s background and views, the reasons for presenting the speech, the history or context of the audience, and the country’s social and political history (just to name a few – there are always multiple contextual factors).

Discourse analysis can also tell you a lot about power and power imbalances , including how this is developed and maintained, how this plays out in real life (for example, inequalities because of this power), and how language can be used to maintain it. For example, you could look at the way that someone with more power (for example, a CEO) speaks to someone with less power (for example, a lower-level employee).

Therefore, you may consider discourse analysis if you are researching:

• Some form of power or inequality (for example, how affluent individuals interact with those who are less wealthy
• How people communicate in a specific context (such as in a social situation with colleagues versus a board meeting)
• Ideology and how ideas (such as values and beliefs) are shared using language (like in political speeches)
• How communication is used to achieve social goals (such as maintaining a friendship or navigating conflict)

As you can see, discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for assessing social issues , as well as power and power imbalances . So, if your research aims and objectives are oriented around these types of issues, discourse analysis could be a good fit for you.

Discourse Analysis: The main approaches

There are two main approaches to discourse analysis. These are the language-in-use (also referred to as socially situated text and talk ) approaches and the socio-political approaches (most commonly Critical Discourse Analysis ). Let’s take a look at each of these.

Approach #1: Language-in-use

Language-in-use approaches focus on the finer details of language used within discourse, such as sentence structures (grammar) and phonology (sounds). This approach is very descriptive and is seldom seen outside of studies focusing on literature and/or linguistics.

Because of its formalist roots, language-in-use pays attention to different rules of communication, such as grammaticality (i.e., when something “sounds okay” to a native speaker of a language). Analyzing discourse through a language-in-use framework involves identifying key technicalities of language used in discourse and investigating how the features are used within a particular social context.

For example, English makes use of affixes (for example, “un” in “unbelievable”) and suffixes (“able” in “unbelievable”) but doesn’t typically make use of infixes (units that can be placed within other words to alter their meaning). However, an English speaker may say something along the lines of, “that’s un-flipping-believable”. From a language-in-use perspective, the infix “flipping” could be investigated by assessing how rare the phenomenon is in English, and then answering questions such as, “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?”

Need a helping hand?

Approach #2: Socio-political

Socio-political approaches to discourse analysis look beyond the technicalities of language and instead focus on the influence that language has in social context , and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis , which focuses on power structures (for example, the power dynamic between a teacher and a student) and how discourse is influenced by society and culture. Critical Discourse Analysis is born out of Michel Foucault’s early work on power, which focuses on power structures through the analysis of normalized power .

Normalized power is ingrained and relatively allusive. It’s what makes us exist within society (and within the underlying norms of society, as accepted in a specific social context) and do the things that we need to do. Contrasted to this, a more obvious form of power is repressive power , which is power that is actively asserted.

Sounds a bit fluffy? Let’s look at an example.

Consider a situation where a teacher threatens a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class. This would be an example of repressive power (i.e. it was actively asserted).

Normalized power, on the other hand, is what makes us not want to talk in class . It’s the subtle clues we’re given from our environment that tell us how to behave, and this form of power is so normal to us that we don’t even realize that our beliefs, desires, and decisions are being shaped by it.

In the view of Critical Discourse Analysis, language is power and, if we want to understand power dynamics and structures in society, we must look to language for answers. In other words, analyzing the use of language can help us understand the social context, especially the power dynamics.

While the above-mentioned approaches are the two most popular approaches to discourse analysis, other forms of analysis exist. For example, ethnography-based discourse analysis and multimodal analysis. Ethnography-based discourse analysis aims to gain an insider understanding of culture , customs, and habits through participant observation (i.e. directly observing participants, rather than focusing on pre-existing texts).

On the other hand, multimodal analysis focuses on a variety of texts that are both verbal and nonverbal (such as a combination of political speeches and written press releases). So, if you’re considering using discourse analysis, familiarize yourself with the various approaches available so that you can make a well-informed decision.

How to “do” discourse analysis

As every study is different, it’s challenging to outline exactly what steps need to be taken to complete your research. However, the following steps can be used as a guideline if you choose to adopt discourse analysis for your research.

Step 1: Decide on your discourse analysis approach

The first step of the process is to decide on which approach you will take in terms. For example, the language in use approach or a socio-political approach such as critical discourse analysis. To do this, you need to consider your research aims, objectives and research questions . Of course, this means that you need to have these components clearly defined. If you’re still a bit uncertain about these, check out our video post covering topic development here.

While discourse analysis can be exploratory (as in, used to find out about a topic that hasn’t really been touched on yet), it is still vital to have a set of clearly defined research questions to guide your analysis. Without these, you may find that you lack direction when you get to your analysis. Since discourse analysis places such a focus on context, it is also vital that your research questions are linked to studying language within context.

Based on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you need to assess which discourse analysis would best suit your needs. Importantly, you  need to adopt an approach that aligns with your study’s purpose . So, think carefully about what you are investigating and what you want to achieve, and then consider the various options available within discourse analysis.

It’s vital to determine your discourse analysis approach from the get-go , so that you don’t waste time randomly analyzing your data without any specific plan.

Step 2: Design your collection method and gather your data

Once you’ve got determined your overarching approach, you can start looking at how to collect your data. Data in discourse analysis is drawn from different forms of “talk” and “text” , which means that it can consist of interviews , ethnographies, discussions, case studies, blog posts.  

The type of data you collect will largely depend on your research questions (and broader research aims and objectives). So, when you’re gathering your data, make sure that you keep in mind the “what”, “who” and “why” of your study, so that you don’t end up with a corpus full of irrelevant data. Discourse analysis can be very time-consuming, so you want to ensure that you’re not wasting time on information that doesn’t directly pertain to your research questions.

When considering potential collection methods, you should also consider the practicalities . What type of data can you access in reality? How many participants do you have access to and how much time do you have available to collect data and make sense of it? These are important factors, as you’ll run into problems if your chosen methods are impractical in light of your constraints.

Once you’ve determined your data collection method, you can get to work with the collection.

Step 3: Investigate the context

A key part of discourse analysis is context and understanding meaning in context. For this reason, it is vital that you thoroughly and systematically investigate the context of your discourse. Make sure that you can answer (at least the majority) of the following questions:

• What is the discourse?
• Why does the discourse exist? What is the purpose and what are the aims of the discourse?
• When did the discourse take place?
• Where did it happen?
• Who participated in the discourse? Who created it and who consumed it?
• What does the discourse say about society in general?
• How is meaning being conveyed in the context of the discourse?

Make sure that you include all aspects of the discourse context in your analysis to eliminate any confounding factors. For example, are there any social, political, or historical reasons as to why the discourse would exist as it does? What other factors could contribute to the existence of the discourse? Discourse can be influenced by many factors, so it is vital that you take as many of them into account as possible.

Once you’ve investigated the context of your data, you’ll have a much better idea of what you’re working with, and you’ll be far more familiar with your content. It’s then time to begin your analysis.

Step 4: Analyze your data

When performing a discourse analysis, you’ll need to look for themes and patterns .  To do this, you’ll start by looking at codes , which are specific topics within your data. You can find more information about the qualitative data coding process here.

Next, you’ll take these codes and identify themes. Themes are patterns of language (such as specific words or sentences) that pop up repeatedly in your data, and that can tell you something about the discourse. For example, if you’re wanting to know about women’s perspectives of living in a certain area, potential themes may be “safety” or “convenience”.

In discourse analysis, it is important to reach what is called data saturation . This refers to when you’ve investigated your topic and analyzed your data to the point where no new information can be found. To achieve this, you need to work your way through your data set multiple times, developing greater depth and insight each time. This can be quite time consuming and even a bit boring at times, but it’s essential.

Once you’ve reached the point of saturation, you should have an almost-complete analysis and you’re ready to move onto the next step – final review.

Step 5: Review your work

Hey, you’re nearly there. Good job! Now it’s time to review your work.

This final step requires you to return to your research questions and compile your answers to them, based on the analysis. Make sure that you can answer your research questions thoroughly, and also substantiate your responses with evidence from your data.

Usually, discourse analysis studies make use of appendices, which are referenced within your thesis or dissertation. This makes it easier for reviewers or markers to jump between your analysis (and findings) and your corpus (your evidence) so that it’s easier for them to assess your work.

When answering your research questions, make you should also revisit your research aims and objectives , and assess your answers against these. This process will help you zoom out a little and give you a bigger picture view. With your newfound insights from the analysis, you may find, for example, that it makes sense to expand the research question set a little to achieve a more comprehensive view of the topic.

Let’s recap…

In this article, we’ve covered quite a bit of ground. The key takeaways are:

• Discourse analysis is a qualitative analysis method used to draw meaning from language in context.
• You should consider using discourse analysis when you wish to analyze the functions and underlying meanings of language in context.
• The two overarching approaches to discourse analysis are language-in-use and socio-political approaches .
• The main steps involved in undertaking discourse analysis are deciding on your analysis approach (based on your research questions), choosing a data collection method, collecting your data, investigating the context of your data, analyzing your data, and reviewing your work.

If you have any questions about discourse analysis, feel free to leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 help with your analysis, book an initial consultation with a friendly Grad Coach to see how we can help.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

This was really helpful to me

I would like to know the importance of discourse analysis analysis to academic writing

In academic writing coherence and cohesion are very important. DA will assist us to decide cohesiveness of the continuum of discourse that are used in it. We can judge it well.

Thank you so much for this piece, can you please direct how I can use Discourse Analysis to investigate politics of ethnicity in a particular society

Fantastically helpful! Could you write on how discourse analysis can be done using computer aided technique? Many thanks

I would like to know if I can use discourse analysis to research on electoral integrity deviation and when election are considered free & fair

I also to know the importance of discourse analysis and it’s purpose and characteristics

Thanks, we are doing discourse analysis as a subject this year and this helped a lot!

Please can you help explain and answer this question? With illustrations,Hymes’ Acronym SPEAKING, as a feature of Discourse Analysis.

What are the three objectives of discourse analysis especially on the topic how people communicate between doctor and patient

Very useful Thank you for your work and information

thank you so much , I wanna know more about discourse analysis tools , such as , latent analysis , active powers analysis, proof paths analysis, image analysis, rhetorical analysis, propositions analysis, and so on, I wish I can get references about it , thanks in advance

Its beyond my expectations. It made me clear everything which I was struggling since last 4 months. 👏 👏 👏 👏

Thank you so much … It is clear and helpful

Thanks for sharing this material. My question is related to the online newspaper articles on COVID -19 pandemic the way this new normal is constructed as a social reality. How discourse analysis is an appropriate approach to examine theese articles?

This very helpful and interesting information

This was incredible! And massively helpful.

I’m seeking further assistance if you don’t mind.

Found it worth consuming!

What are the four types of discourse analysis?

very helpful. And I’d like to know more about Ethnography-based discourse analysis as I’m studying arts and humanities, I’d like to know how can I use it in my study.

Amazing info. Very happy to read this helpful piece of documentation. Thank you.

is discourse analysis can take data from medias like TV, Radio…?

I need to know what is general discourse analysis

Direct to the point, simple and deep explanation. this is helpful indeed.

Thank you so much was really helpful

really impressive

Thank you very much, for the clear explanations and examples.

It is really awesome. Anybody within just in 5 minutes understand this critical topic so easily. Thank you so much.

Thank you for enriching my knowledge on Discourse Analysis . Very helpful thanks again

This was extremely helpful. I feel less anxious now. Thank you so much.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a research method used in linguistics and social sciences to investigate how language is used in social contexts. It analyzes spoken or written language, examines shared cultural understandings, and looks at the power dynamics between people in conversation. Discourse analysis can help better understand the language and speech patterns used, uncover hidden meanings, and identify underlying ideologies and values. Discourse analysis is a powerful tool, used to inform policy and decision-making, uncover inequality and bias, and improve communication. It has also been used to analyze media discourse, investigate health behavior, and understand the dynamics of online discourse.

Related Topics

Linguistic Geography

Related Article For "Discourse Analysis"

About (83) results

Full-text HTML

Download as PDF

Download as XML

Discourse Analysis Research Methodology – Meaning, Uses and Procedure

Published 16 October, 2023

Discourse analysis is a research methodology that involves the study of linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of human communication, including verbal and written texts. This type of analysis can be done on any kind of written or spoken communication, but researchers typically use it when studying conversations and other interactions between people. This blog post will explain how to conduct a discourse analysis by explaining the steps required for this process.

What is Discourse Analysis?

Discourse analysis in research is roughly defined as the linguistic study of texts. It examines not only the wording and grammar but also how an author’s cultural identity, background knowledge, and purposes shape written messages.

It is basically a qualitative research technique which mainly utilizes in the field of humanities and social science. Material that researchers use for performing discourse analysis includes books, newspapers, etc. You can perform discourse analysis for developing an in-depth understanding of various aspects of communication. Discourse analysis mainly emphasizes the contextual meaning of language . Discourse analysis is basically an analytical procedure that mainly involves criticizing and deconstructions language that the researcher utilizes in a social context .

Discourse analysis is basically an analytical technique that researcher utilities for analyzing language. You can also utilize it for identifying the way people use language. The main objective of discourse analysis is to develop perception. It also intends to classify the meaning, networks, and procedure. In simple words, the main objective of discourse analysis is to categorize the data .  Another objective is to help in the extraction of meaningful information from it. This type of analysis mainly emphasizes negotiation, change, and production of meaning.

For example, suppose researchers conduct medical research for determining whether a misunderstanding has taken place between doctors and patients or not. The researcher has organized interviews for gathering information about the experience and feelings of women in relation to the diagnosis of breast cancer.

While performing discourse analysis in research you need to mainly emphasize on

• Objective and impact of different kinds of languages.
• Code of conduct in specific cultures and principles in the context of communication.
• The way believes ideas and opinions are communicated
• The way people use language in relation to historical, political, and social contexts.

Uses of discourse analysis

• You can perform discourse analysis for developing an understanding of the functions of language.
• It can be useful in terms of analyzing the way meaning is generated in various social contexts.
• By performing the discourse analysis you can gain knowledge about the different social groups. You will be able to develop an understanding of the way they communicate.
• Discourse is basically one of the types of research techniques that you can use for analyzing a large volume of material.
• You can also apply it to smaller samples all things depend on the aims, objectives, and time period of investigation.

Sources which you can analyze at the different communication level

Procedure of conducting discourse analysis

There are different phases involved in discourse analysis, these are:

Step 1. Defining a research question and selecting content for analysis

Before beginning to perform discourse analysis in research you need to identify the research questions for which you want to get answers. After that, you need to define the same. This means that after formulating good research questions you need to choose different materials that could be helpful in getting answers.

For example, Suppose, you perform research for developing the understanding of the way the particular transformation of dictatorship to democracy that influences the businesses. You for collecting the information about the same can emphasize on the identification of mission. In addition to this, you will also need to analyze the marketing material such as a brochure, advertisement of the five largest organizations after the transformation in a management system.

Step 2. Collection of facts and hypotheses on the context

it is a phase where you need to gather detailed information about the sources of content. Other details that you will need to gather about content include the name of the author, information about publication and publisher, etc. You can do the construction of a theoretical framework and write a literature review can as this strategy will help you in supporting your analysis.

For example , you are performing an investigation on the history and politics of the nation. You are collecting information about history and politics meantime you are conducting research on business. You are also performing a study on analyzing the relationship between government and businesses.

Step 3. Analysis of content for designing themes

It is the stage in discourse analysis where you need to closely analyze the various components and aspects of material like every word, sentence, paragraph structure in a research paper . After analyzing the material closely you need to relate them with the themes or research questions.

For example, using the above example where the research on history and politics in the country has been performed. At this phase, if you are using the newspaper as material then you have to closely analyze each sentence, text, and opinion of people about the topic.

Step 4. Reviewing outcome and Making a conclusion

At this phase of discourse analysis in research, you need to express your opinion about the Research findings of the investigation. It is the strategy that will help you in analyzing the meaning and functions of language. It is a stage you need to review the analysis which you have to perform in terms of a wide context.

For example, Research on the history and politics of the nation, results reveals that the article which was published before the transformation of the management system states that there is a need for change. Whereas, it has been found by material published after changes in the regime that there is a need for transformation for providing high value to customers.

Stuck During Your Dissertation

Our top dissertation writing experts are waiting 24/7 to assist you with your university project,from critical literature reviews to a complete PhD dissertation.

Other Related Guides

• Research Project Questions
• Types of Validity in Research – Explained With Examples
• Schizophrenia Sample Research Paper
• Quantitative Research Methods – Definitive Guide
• Research Paper On Homelessness For College Students
• How to Study for Biology Final Examination
• Textual Analysis in Research / Methods of Analyzing Text

A Guide to Start Research Process – Introduction, Procedure and Tips

Research findings – objectives , importance and techniques.

• Topic Sentences in Research Paper – Meaning, Parts, Importance, Procedure and Techniques

Recent Research Guides for 2023

Get 15% off your first order with My Research Topics

Connect with a professional writer within minutes by placing your first order. No matter the subject, difficulty, academic level or document type, our writers have the skills to complete it.

My Research Topics is provides assistance since 2004 to Research Students Globally. We help PhD, Psyd, MD, Mphil, Undergrad, High school, College, Masters students to compete their research paper & Dissertations. Our Step by step mentorship helps students to understand the research paper making process.

Research Topics & Ideas

• Sociological Research Paper Topics & Ideas For Students 2023
• Nurses Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
• Nursing Capstone Project Research Topics & Ideas 2023
• Unique Research Paper Topics & Ideas For Students 2023
• Teaching Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
• Literary Research Paper Topics & Ideas 2023
• Nursing Ethics Research Topics & Ideas 2023

Research Guide

Disclaimer: The Reference papers provided by the Myresearchtopics.com serve as model and sample papers for students and are not to be submitted as it is. These papers are intended to be used for reference and research purposes only.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Individual and Society — Discourse Community

Essays on Discourse Community

Engaging discourse community essay prompts.

Finding the right prompt can set the stage for an insightful essay. Here are some thought-provoking prompts to get you started:

• Evaluate the discourse within an online forum dedicated to sustainability.
• Analyze the communication patterns of a professional esports team.
• Investigate how a local art collective uses language to build community.

Picking a Standout Discourse Community Essay Topic

Choosing a compelling topic is crucial. Here’s how to make sure you land on something engaging:

• Interest : Opt for a community you’re personally interested in or curious about.
• Originality : Seek out topics that aren’t overdone. The more unique, the better.
• Accessibility : Make sure you can access enough information and resources for your essay.

Examples of Discourse Community Essay Topics

To avoid the usual suspects and spark your imagination, consider these unique essay topics:

• Discourse practices in online coding bootcamps.
• Language and identity in expatriate communities.
• How DIY forums challenge traditional expertise.
• Discourse dynamics in feminist activist groups.
• The role of language in local food cooperatives.
• Communication styles within virtual reality spaces.
• Analysis of discourse in mental health support groups.
• Language use in underground music communities.
• How digital nomads create community through discourse.
• Discourse among members of a city council.
• Cross-cultural communication in international business teams.
• Language and power in academic departments.
• Communication strategies in environmental advocacy groups.
• Discourse in online platforms for language learning.
• Community building in co-living spaces.
• Discourse strategies in political campaigning.
• Role of language in crafting a makerspace identity.
• Online forums as spaces for medical discourse.
• Language evolution in multiplayer online games.
• Building a discourse community in coworking spaces.

Inspiration for Your Discourse Community Essay

Need a nudge to get your writing process started? Let these ideas inspire you:

"Exploring the esports team's communication reveals a complex system of language, symbols, and rituals, highlighting the nuanced ways members create a sense of belonging and identity."

"The vibrant discourse within the feminist activist group not only challenges societal norms but also fosters a strong sense of community and shared purpose among its members."

Understanding and Examples of a Discourse Community

"discourse community" by john swales: summary, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Discourse Community

My experiences in volleyball discourse community, analysis of a discourse community: craft and diy enthusiasts, the game super smash bros. melee's community as an example of a discourse community, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Discourse Community of Hypebeasts

Six characteristics that can be used to identify what qualifies as a discourse community, a reflection paper on football discourse community, research on discourse community of a small start-up business, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Authority Within a Discourse Community: Personal Reflection

Rhetorical methods in the finance and economics discourse communities, critical discourse analysis and power relations, critical discourse analysis of race and racism, critical discourse analysis: historical origins, analyzing gender stereotypes, and empowerment in the always campaign, gender diffrences in political discourse, discourse community practices.

A discourse community refers to a collective of individuals who possess a shared set of discourses, encompassing fundamental values, assumptions, and modes of communication that revolve around common objectives.

A discourse community exhibits distinct characteristics that define its identity and functioning. Firstly, they have a common goal or purpose that unites members and serves as a focal point for their interactions. This shared objective creates a sense of belonging and facilitates effective communication within the community. Secondly, discourse communities have specific language and communication practices unique to their group. These can include specialized terminology, jargon, or even non-verbal cues that enable efficient and meaningful communication among members. Mastery of this shared language is crucial for individuals to participate actively and contribute to the community's discourse. Thirdly, discourse communities often possess established conventions, norms, and expectations regarding appropriate behavior, ethics, and standards of communication. These guidelines ensure cohesion, cooperation, and mutual respect among members. Lastly, discourse communities may have gatekeepers who regulate access and maintain the integrity of the community. These gatekeepers may be experts, mentors, or long-standing members who ensure that new participants meet the community's requirements and contribute positively to its ongoing discourse.

The concept of discourse community emerged as a framework in the field of sociolinguistics and discourse analysis. Although there is no specific historical origin attributed to it, the study of discourse communities can be traced back to the works of scholars such as John Swales and James Gee in the late 20th century. John Swales, a prominent linguist, introduced the term "discourse community" in his influential book "Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings" published in 1990. Swales emphasized the importance of understanding the communicative practices and conventions within specific communities to effectively participate in their discourse. James Gee, another influential scholar, expanded the concept of discourse community and introduced the idea of "situated learning" in his book "Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses" published in 1996. Gee explored how discourse communities shape identity, knowledge acquisition, and socialization processes. Since then, the study of discourse communities has gained prominence in various fields, including linguistics, communication studies, and sociology.

1. Professional Discourse Communities. 2. Academic Discourse Communities. 3. Hobbyist Discourse Communities. 4. Cultural Discourse Communities. 5. Online Discourse Communities:

Academic Discourse Community: Scholars, researchers, and students within a specific discipline form an academic discourse community. They share specialized knowledge, use discipline-specific terminology, and engage in scholarly writing and discussions. Online Gaming Community: Gamers who participate in online multiplayer games create a discourse community. They use game-specific jargon, communicate through forums or chat platforms, and share strategies and experiences related to gaming. Professional Discourse Community: Professions such as medicine, law, or engineering have their own discourse communities. Professionals within these fields communicate using technical terminology, share professional experiences, and adhere to specific codes of conduct. Sports Fan Community: Fans of a particular sports team or sport create a discourse community. They engage in discussions, debates, and analyses of games and players, often using sports-related slang and terms. Social Media Community: Users of social media platforms form discourse communities based on shared interests, such as fashion, food, or photography. They communicate through hashtags, comments, and posts, creating a unique community around their shared topics.

Social Construction of Reality, Situated Learning Theory, Communities of Practice, Genre Theory.

The study of discourse communities holds significant importance as it sheds light on the intricate ways in which individuals and groups interact, communicate, and form shared understandings within specific contexts. Understanding discourse communities allows us to recognize and appreciate the diversity of social groups and their unique discursive practices, values, and goals. Exploring discourse communities helps us comprehend how language shapes social interactions, knowledge construction, and the formation of identities. It allows us to identify the power dynamics and hierarchies that exist within these communities and how they influence individuals' access to resources and opportunities for participation. Moreover, discourse communities play a crucial role in the transmission and dissemination of knowledge, expertise, and cultural practices. By studying discourse communities, we gain insights into how knowledge is constructed, shared, and preserved within specific fields or domains.

The topic of discourse communities is a compelling subject for an essay due to its relevance and wide-ranging implications in various fields of study. By delving into discourse communities, one can explore the intricate ways in which language, communication, and social interaction shape our understanding of the world. Writing an essay on discourse communities allows for an in-depth examination of how different communities form, develop shared understandings, and create meaning through their discursive practices. It offers an opportunity to analyze the power dynamics, norms, and values that influence communication within specific groups. Furthermore, studying discourse communities provides insights into knowledge transmission, expertise, and identity formation. It allows for a critical exploration of the role of language in shaping social relationships, access to resources, and opportunities for participation within specific communities.

1. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. Routledge. 2. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. 3. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge University Press. 4. Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity in the academy. Routledge. 5. Bazerman, C. (2004). Speech acts, genres, and activity systems: How texts organize activity and people. Routledge. 6. Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151-167. 7. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. Continuum. 8. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing in one community. Routledge. 9. Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre, frames and writing in research settings. John Benjamins Publishing. 10. Johns, A. M. (2017). Discourse communities and communities of practice. In T. Johnstone (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of discourse studies (pp. 257-273). Cambridge University Press.

Relevant topics

• Social Justice
• Media Analysis
• Sociological Imagination
• Effects of Social Media
• American Identity
• Social Media
• Cultural Appropriation
• Sex, Gender and Sexuality

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 113 great research paper topics.

General Education

One of the hardest parts of writing a research paper can be just finding a good topic to write about. Fortunately we've done the hard work for you and have compiled a list of 113 interesting research paper topics. They've been organized into ten categories and cover a wide range of subjects so you can easily find the best topic for you.

In addition to the list of good research topics, we've included advice on what makes a good research paper topic and how you can use your topic to start writing a great paper.

What Makes a Good Research Paper Topic?

Not all research paper topics are created equal, and you want to make sure you choose a great topic before you start writing. Below are the three most important factors to consider to make sure you choose the best research paper topics.

#1: It's Something You're Interested In

A paper is always easier to write if you're interested in the topic, and you'll be more motivated to do in-depth research and write a paper that really covers the entire subject. Even if a certain research paper topic is getting a lot of buzz right now or other people seem interested in writing about it, don't feel tempted to make it your topic unless you genuinely have some sort of interest in it as well.

#2: There's Enough Information to Write a Paper

Even if you come up with the absolute best research paper topic and you're so excited to write about it, you won't be able to produce a good paper if there isn't enough research about the topic. This can happen for very specific or specialized topics, as well as topics that are too new to have enough research done on them at the moment. Easy research paper topics will always be topics with enough information to write a full-length paper.

Trying to write a research paper on a topic that doesn't have much research on it is incredibly hard, so before you decide on a topic, do a bit of preliminary searching and make sure you'll have all the information you need to write your paper.

#3: It Fits Your Teacher's Guidelines

Don't get so carried away looking at lists of research paper topics that you forget any requirements or restrictions your teacher may have put on research topic ideas. If you're writing a research paper on a health-related topic, deciding to write about the impact of rap on the music scene probably won't be allowed, but there may be some sort of leeway. For example, if you're really interested in current events but your teacher wants you to write a research paper on a history topic, you may be able to choose a topic that fits both categories, like exploring the relationship between the US and North Korea. No matter what, always get your research paper topic approved by your teacher first before you begin writing.

113 Good Research Paper Topics

Below are 113 good research topics to help you get you started on your paper. We've organized them into ten categories to make it easier to find the type of research paper topics you're looking for.

Arts/Culture

• Discuss the main differences in art from the Italian Renaissance and the Northern Renaissance .
• Analyze the impact a famous artist had on the world.
• How is sexism portrayed in different types of media (music, film, video games, etc.)? Has the amount/type of sexism changed over the years?
• How has the music of slaves brought over from Africa shaped modern American music?
• How has rap music evolved in the past decade?
• How has the portrayal of minorities in the media changed?

Current Events

• What have been the impacts of China's one child policy?
• How have the goals of feminists changed over the decades?
• How has the Trump presidency changed international relations?
• Analyze the history of the relationship between the United States and North Korea.
• What factors contributed to the current decline in the rate of unemployment?
• What have been the impacts of states which have increased their minimum wage?
• How do US immigration laws compare to immigration laws of other countries?
• How have the US's immigration laws changed in the past few years/decades?
• How has the Black Lives Matter movement affected discussions and view about racism in the US?
• What impact has the Affordable Care Act had on healthcare in the US?
• What factors contributed to the UK deciding to leave the EU (Brexit)?
• What factors contributed to China becoming an economic power?
• Discuss the history of Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies  (some of which tokenize the S&P 500 Index on the blockchain) .
• Do students in schools that eliminate grades do better in college and their careers?
• Do students from wealthier backgrounds score higher on standardized tests?
• Do students who receive free meals at school get higher grades compared to when they weren't receiving a free meal?
• Do students who attend charter schools score higher on standardized tests than students in public schools?
• Do students learn better in same-sex classrooms?
• How does giving each student access to an iPad or laptop affect their studies?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Montessori Method ?
• Do children who attend preschool do better in school later on?
• What was the impact of the No Child Left Behind act?
• How does the US education system compare to education systems in other countries?
• What impact does mandatory physical education classes have on students' health?
• Which methods are most effective at reducing bullying in schools?
• Do homeschoolers who attend college do as well as students who attended traditional schools?
• Does offering tenure increase or decrease quality of teaching?
• How does college debt affect future life choices of students?
• Should graduate students be able to form unions?

• What are different ways to lower gun-related deaths in the US?
• How and why have divorce rates changed over time?
• Is affirmative action still necessary in education and/or the workplace?
• Should physician-assisted suicide be legal?
• How has stem cell research impacted the medical field?
• How can human trafficking be reduced in the United States/world?
• Should people be able to donate organs in exchange for money?
• Which types of juvenile punishment have proven most effective at preventing future crimes?
• Has the increase in US airport security made passengers safer?
• Analyze the immigration policies of certain countries and how they are similar and different from one another.
• Several states have legalized recreational marijuana. What positive and negative impacts have they experienced as a result?
• Do tariffs increase the number of domestic jobs?
• Which prison reforms have proven most effective?
• Should governments be able to censor certain information on the internet?
• Which methods/programs have been most effective at reducing teen pregnancy?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks of the Keto diet?
• How effective are different exercise regimes for losing weight and maintaining weight loss?
• How do the healthcare plans of various countries differ from each other?
• What are the most effective ways to treat depression ?
• What are the pros and cons of genetically modified foods?
• Which methods are most effective for improving memory?
• What can be done to lower healthcare costs in the US?
• What factors contributed to the current opioid crisis?
• Analyze the history and impact of the HIV/AIDS epidemic .
• Are low-carbohydrate or low-fat diets more effective for weight loss?
• How much exercise should the average adult be getting each week?
• Which methods are most effective to get parents to vaccinate their children?
• What are the pros and cons of clean needle programs?
• How does stress affect the body?
• Discuss the history of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
• What were the causes and effects of the Salem Witch Trials?
• Who was responsible for the Iran-Contra situation?
• How has New Orleans and the government's response to natural disasters changed since Hurricane Katrina?
• What events led to the fall of the Roman Empire?
• What were the impacts of British rule in India ?
• Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki necessary?
• What were the successes and failures of the women's suffrage movement in the United States?
• What were the causes of the Civil War?
• How did Abraham Lincoln's assassination impact the country and reconstruction after the Civil War?
• Which factors contributed to the colonies winning the American Revolution?
• What caused Hitler's rise to power?
• Discuss how a specific invention impacted history.
• What led to Cleopatra's fall as ruler of Egypt?
• How has Japan changed and evolved over the centuries?
• What were the causes of the Rwandan genocide ?

• Why did Martin Luther decide to split with the Catholic Church?
• Analyze the history and impact of a well-known cult (Jonestown, Manson family, etc.)
• How did the sexual abuse scandal impact how people view the Catholic Church?
• How has the Catholic church's power changed over the past decades/centuries?
• What are the causes behind the rise in atheism/ agnosticism in the United States?
• What were the influences in Siddhartha's life resulted in him becoming the Buddha?
• How has media portrayal of Islam/Muslims changed since September 11th?

Science/Environment

• How has the earth's climate changed in the past few decades?
• How has the use and elimination of DDT affected bird populations in the US?
• Analyze how the number and severity of natural disasters have increased in the past few decades.
• Analyze deforestation rates in a certain area or globally over a period of time.
• How have past oil spills changed regulations and cleanup methods?
• How has the Flint water crisis changed water regulation safety?
• What are the pros and cons of fracking?
• What impact has the Paris Climate Agreement had so far?
• What have NASA's biggest successes and failures been?
• How can we improve access to clean water around the world?
• Does ecotourism actually have a positive impact on the environment?
• Should the US rely on nuclear energy more?
• What can be done to save amphibian species currently at risk of extinction?
• What impact has climate change had on coral reefs?
• How are black holes created?
• Are teens who spend more time on social media more likely to suffer anxiety and/or depression?
• How will the loss of net neutrality affect internet users?
• Analyze the history and progress of self-driving vehicles.
• How has the use of drones changed surveillance and warfare methods?
• Has social media made people more or less connected?
• What progress has currently been made with artificial intelligence ?
• Do smartphones increase or decrease workplace productivity?
• What are the most effective ways to use technology in the classroom?
• How is Google search affecting our intelligence?
• When is the best age for a child to begin owning a smartphone?
• Has frequent texting reduced teen literacy rates?

How to Write a Great Research Paper

Even great research paper topics won't give you a great research paper if you don't hone your topic before and during the writing process. Follow these three tips to turn good research paper topics into great papers.

#1: Figure Out Your Thesis Early

Before you start writing a single word of your paper, you first need to know what your thesis will be. Your thesis is a statement that explains what you intend to prove/show in your paper. Every sentence in your research paper will relate back to your thesis, so you don't want to start writing without it!

As some examples, if you're writing a research paper on if students learn better in same-sex classrooms, your thesis might be "Research has shown that elementary-age students in same-sex classrooms score higher on standardized tests and report feeling more comfortable in the classroom."

If you're writing a paper on the causes of the Civil War, your thesis might be "While the dispute between the North and South over slavery is the most well-known cause of the Civil War, other key causes include differences in the economies of the North and South, states' rights, and territorial expansion."

#2: Back Every Statement Up With Research

Remember, this is a research paper you're writing, so you'll need to use lots of research to make your points. Every statement you give must be backed up with research, properly cited the way your teacher requested. You're allowed to include opinions of your own, but they must also be supported by the research you give.

#3: Do Your Research Before You Begin Writing

You don't want to start writing your research paper and then learn that there isn't enough research to back up the points you're making, or, even worse, that the research contradicts the points you're trying to make!

Get most of your research on your good research topics done before you begin writing. Then use the research you've collected to create a rough outline of what your paper will cover and the key points you're going to make. This will help keep your paper clear and organized, and it'll ensure you have enough research to produce a strong paper.

What's Next?

Are you also learning about dynamic equilibrium in your science class? We break this sometimes tricky concept down so it's easy to understand in our complete guide to dynamic equilibrium .

Thinking about becoming a nurse practitioner? Nurse practitioners have one of the fastest growing careers in the country, and we have all the information you need to know about what to expect from nurse practitioner school .

Want to know the fastest and easiest ways to convert between Fahrenheit and Celsius? We've got you covered! Check out our guide to the best ways to convert Celsius to Fahrenheit (or vice versa).

These recommendations are based solely on our knowledge and experience. If you purchase an item through one of our links, PrepScholar may receive a commission.

Christine graduated from Michigan State University with degrees in Environmental Biology and Geography and received her Master's from Duke University. In high school she scored in the 99th percentile on the SAT and was named a National Merit Finalist. She has taught English and biology in several countries.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

What Is a Discourse Analysis Essay: Example & Guide

Discourse is the way people talk about any specific topic. It’s also the way in which language is used to convey social and historical meanings. Discourse analysis is the process that helps to understand the underlying message of what is being said. Sounds interesting? Keep reading to learn more. 

This in this article, our custom writing team will:

• define discourse and its analysis; 
• explain how to write a discourse analysis essay step by step; 
• provide an essay sample.
• 🤔 Discourse Analysis Definition
• 🔬 Types & Approaches
• 👣 Step-by-Step Guide
• 📑 Discourse Analysis Example

🔍 References

🤔 what is a discourse analysis.

To write a good discourse analysis, it’s essential to understand its key concepts. This section of the article will focus on the definition of discourse itself and then move on to its analysis.

Discourse: Definition

Discourse is verbal or written communication that has unity, meaning, and purpose. In linguistics, discourse refers to a unit of language that is longer than a sentence. When you analyze discourse, you examine how the language is used to construct connected and meaningful texts. 

One crucial thing that can’t be neglected when it comes to discourse is the context. In linguistics, there are different ways to classify contexts. Here is one such classification:

The knowledge of context is crucial for discourse analysis, as it helps interpret the text’s meaning. For that reason, it’s essential to keep the context in mind while analyzing the discourse. No context simply means no discourse.  

Discourse vs Syntax: Difference

• Syntax is one of discourse’s dimensions. It encompasses rules for composing grammatical sentences. Unlike discourse, syntax can also be applied to non-verbal instances such as music or any other code.
• Discourse is one level above syntax. It studies how the sets of sentences following syntactic parameters work together and convey the meaning.

Spoken Discourse vs Written Discourse

Discourse itself can be classified as written and spoken (or oral.) One of the main differences is that spoken discourse uses spoken words to transfer information, while written one uses written words. There are also some other differences:

• Spoken discourse needs to be understood immediately. It also usually contains discourse markers— words that create pause or separation of ideas such as “you know,” “like,” or “well.” 
• Written discourse can be referred to several times. For the written discourse to happen, the participants need to know how to write and read, requiring specific skills. It’s also often tied to the genre or structure of the language it uses to imply the purpose or context of the text. 

Discourse Analysis Definition

Discourse analysis is a technique that arose in the late 20th century from the growing interest in qualitative research. The main purpose of discourse analysis is to understand the message and its implications. It can be done by studying the text’s parts and the factors that influence people’s understanding of it.

Discourse analysis is deeply connected with linguistics, anthropology, sociology, socio-psychology, philosophy, communications studies, and literature. It challenges the idea that we should take language for granted and instead encourages more interpretative and qualitative approaches. That’s why it is used in various fields to:

• describe organizational change;
• read between the lines while analyzing policy texts;
• provide greater depth to qualitative accounting research;
• use multiple fields to synthesize information. 

Content Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis

Content analysis and discourse analysis are research techniques used in various disciplines. However, there are several differences between the two:

• Content analysis is quantitative. It focuses on studying and retrieving meaningful information from documents.
• Discourse analysis is qualitative. It focuses on how language is used in texts and contexts.

🔬 Preparing to Write a Discourse Analysis Essay

Now let’s talk about writing a discourse analysis essay. Before you start to work on your paper, it’s best to decide what type of discourse analysis you plan to do and choose the correct approach. It will influence your topic choice and writing techniques. Besides, it will make the whole process easier.

Types of Discourse Analysis: How to Choose

Critical Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Critical discourse analysis or CDA is a cross-disciplinary methodological and theoretical approach. It focuses on the issues of power and inequalities in linguistic interactions between individuals and groups. It’s closely related to applied linguistics, cultural and social studies, anthropology, intercultural communication, and critical pedagogy.

Choose a critical discourse analysis if you want to do the following:

• Study meaning and context of the verbal interaction or a text.
• Focus on the topics of identity and power.
• Examine the potential for a change in an area.
• Explore the connections between power and ideology.

Cultural Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Cultural discourse analysis or CuDA is a method of studying culturally distinctive communication practices in our world. In the communication field, CuDA is most often used by scholars of Language and Social Interaction.

Choose a cultural discourse analysis if you’re interested in:

• Studying culturally-specific means of communication in various local contexts.
• Seeing how people talk about identity, relations, actions, and feelings.
• Proving that the differences should be acknowledged, embraced, and celebrated in intercultural dialogue.

Political Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Political discourse analysis or PDA focuses on the use of language in politics, political texts, and documents. It also includes the recipients of communicative political events, such as the citizens and the general public. Therefore, it can be said the discourse is located in both political and public spheres.

Choose a political discourse analysis if you want to do the following:

• Deal with the concepts of political power, power   abuse ,  or domination.
• Examine the discursive conditions and consequences of social and political inequality.
• Analyze the words and actions of politicians.

Multimodal Discourse Analysis Characteristics

Multimodal discourse analysis is a technique that implies looking at multiple modes of communication such as text, color, and images. It studies how they interact with one another to create semiotic meaning.

Each mode of communication plays a specific role in the analysis. A picture, for instance, can easily depict something that takes too long to describe in words. Colors are mainly used to highlight specific aspects of the general message.

Choose a multimodal discourse analysis if you plan to:

• Look at several modes of communication at once.
• Conduct a nuanced and complex analysis of visual media.
• Work with online sources and platforms. 

Approaches to Discourse Analysis: How to Choose

Now that you’ve chosen the type of discourse analysis, it’s time to choose a suitable approach. There are two approaches to discourse analysis: language -in-use and socio-political discourse analysis .

• The language-in-use approach mainly focuses on the regular use of language in communication. It pays attention to sentence structure, phonology, and grammar. This approach is very descriptive and is mainly used in linguistics or literature.
• The socio-political approach focuses on how a language influences the social and political context and vice versa. One of the main socio-political approaches is Critical Discourse Analysis, born out of Michel Foucault’s work Discipline and Punish . It identifies two types of power: normalized and repressive (you can read about in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Foucault .) 

The language-in-use framework involves identifying the technicalities of language and investigating how the features are used in a particular social context. 

the English language usually uses affixes and suffixes but not infixes. If an English speaker says something similar to “that’s un-flipping-believable,” the questions for this approach would be “What role does the infix play?” or “What is the goal of using such an infix?” 

Now let’s see an example of a socio-political approach. We’ll take the power dynamic between a teacher and a student as an illustration.

A teacher threatening a student with detention if they don’t stop speaking in class can be classified as a repressive power. Normalized power, in contrast, isn’t actively asserted. It’s the power that makes students not want to talk in class. It’s manifested in the subtle clues from our environment that tell students how to behave.

👣 How to Do Discourse Analysis Step by Step

Now you are finally ready to start writing your discourse analysis. Follow our step-by-step guide, and you’ll excel at it.

Step #1: Choose the research question and select the content of the analysis.

Coming up with a clearly defined research question is crucial. There’s no universal set of criteria for a good research question. However, try to make sure that you research question:

• clearly states the purpose of the work;
• is not too broad or too narrow;
• can be investigated and has enough sources to rely on;
• allows you to conduct an analysis;
• is not too difficult to answer.

Step #2: Gather information.

Go through interviews, speeches, discussions, blogs, etc., to collect all the necessary information. Make sure to gather factual details of when and where the content you will use was created, who the author is, and who published it.

Step #3: Study the context.

This step involves a close examination of various elements of the gathered material.

• Take a closer look at the words used in the source text, its sentences, paragraphs, and overall structure.
• Consider 3 constructs of context: participants, setting, and purpose . These 3 characteristics reflect information about the individual, their emotional state, and their identity as members of a societal group.

Step #4: Review the results.

Once you’ve researched and examined all the sources, it’s time to reflect on your results and place your analysis in a broader context.

• To establish a broader context, you may consider what events have impacted the topic you are writing about and the consequences.  
• Finally, draw conclusions that answer your research question. 

Step #5: Make an outline.

Before you are all set with your discourse analysis, one last step is to write an outline. Usually, a discourse analysis essay consists of six parts:

📑 Example of Discourse Analysis Essay

Now that you know all about discourse analysis, we will introduce an example of a discourse analysis essay. From this sample, you can see what the layout of this kind of essay usually looks like. 

You might also want to check out the discourse analysis samples below.

• Dysphemism in Political Discourse Examples
• Historical Memory Discourse in Public Diplomacy
• Lincoln’s and Dickinson’s Rhetorical Discourses

Discourse Analysis Essay Topics

• Terrorism theories and media discourse
• The benefits of infographics in social media advertising
• Do better communication skills lead to the development of the social self?
• How can you make social media advertising successful?
• Possible causes of the Mayan civilization’s political collapse   
• Commission of Education and Communication’s worldwide contribution
• Coach and athletes’ communication strategy
• Celebrities’ impact on politics 
• Social media marketing for brand promotion
• What makes listening the most effective communication technique? 
• Excessive social media usage and its consequences
• Web-based organizational discourses: climate change
• Media as a tool to cause intense emotions
• Verbal and nonverbal communication skills for presentations 
• New media technologies and the development of relationships and communication 
• Features and issues of the American political system
• Association between social media use and FOMO
• Communication issues between stakeholders 
• Why is political opportunity theory essential for social movement studies?
• How do social media and the Internet connect people?
• How can communication be used for self-presentation? 
• Does social media limit personal freedom?
• Hamlet’s universality and contemporary cultural discourse 
• Is it possible to apply Goffman’s theory of the presentation of self in digital communication?
• The Democratic and Republican party’s position on the issue of terrorism
• How does social media affect families?
• How communication affects the individual’s development
• Characteristics of a political issue
• Ageism in media and society
• Possible mobile communication technologies of the future
• How does social media technology improve democratic processes?
• Persuasion and public communication
• The signs of social media addiction 
• Psychometric approach and discourse analysis in the psychology of laughter
• The role of media in a political system
• Cultural differences in nonverbal communication 
• The politically socialized vision of the world
• The negative effects of digital media platforms on the lives of young people
• Core beliefs of different political ideologies
• Approaches to overcome miscommunications in the workplace
• The effectiveness of social media tools for educational purposes
• Is technology a threat to face-to-face communication?
• What issues come with using electronic media ?
• Difficulties connected with the development of communication technologies

Thanks for reading till the end! We hope you’ve enjoyed the article and found lots of helpful information. If you did, feel free to share it with your friends. We wish you good luck with the discourse analysis essay!

Further reading

• How to Write a Discursive Essay: Tips to Succeed & Examples
• Case Study Analysis: Examples + How-to Guide & Writing Tips
• How to Write a Literary Analysis Essay Step by Step
• How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis Essay: Outline, Steps, & Examples

❓ Discourse Analysis FAQs

Literary discourse analysis is a type of discourse analysis that deals with literature and is viewed as a relatively new approach to it. It integrates the analysis of literature and non-literary genres in an innovative study of discourse.

Rhetoric uses language to appeal to emotions to persuade, inform, or motivate the audience. Rhetorical discourse is used to study texts aimed at specific audiences. Such texts often try to convince or persuade people by using particular language and arguments. 

Critical discourse analysis focuses on issues of power and inequalities in linguistic interactions between individuals and different groups. It studies the role of power in the social construction of difference and examines how it’s created, questioned or inflicted through communication.

Discourse analysis is a blanket term that encompasses a range of qualitative research approaches that analyze the use of language in social contexts. These techniques help understand the underlying message of what people say and how they say it, whereas in face-to-face conversation, non-verbal interaction, documents, or images.

To write a discourse analysis of any community, you need to examine and understand it. Ask yourself these questions and try to identify the patterns:

1. What ideas or concerns keep the community together? 2. What kind of langue does it use? 3. Does it produce any written documents?

• Discourse: The University of Chicago
• Definition and Examples of Discourse: ThoughtCo
• Discourse: British Council: BBC
• Use Discourse Analysis: Emerald Publishing
• Discourse Analysis—What Speakers Do in Conversation: Linguistic Society of America
• Critical Discourse Analysis and Information and Communication Technology in Education: Oxford Research Encyclopedias
• Political Discourse Analysis: Exploring the Language of Politics and the Politics of Language: Research Gate
• Discourse Analysis and Everything You Need to Know: Voxco
• Multimodal Discourse Analysis: Diggit Magazine
• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to LinkedIn
• Share to email

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

A critical analysis essay is an academic paper that requires a thorough examination of theoretical concepts and ideas. It includes a comparison of facts, differentiation between evidence and argument, and identification of biases. Crafting a good paper can be a daunting experience, but it will be much easier if you...

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

Any critique is nothing more than critical analysis, and the word “analysis” does not have a negative meaning. Critical writing relies on objective evaluations of or a response to an author’s creation. As such, they can be either positive or negative, as the work deserves. To write a critique, you...

Any literary analysis is a challenging task since literature includes many elements that can be interpreted differently. However, a stylistic analysis of all the figurative language the poets use may seem even harder. You may never realize what the author actually meant and how to comment on it! While analyzing...

As a student, you may be asked to write a book review. Unlike an argumentative essay, a book review is an opportunity to convey the central theme of a story while offering a new perspective on the author’s ideas. Knowing how to create a well-organized and coherent review, however, is...

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Discourse Analysis of Research Papers

Related Papers

Samaila Yakubu

Writing seems to be the most complex of the four basic languages skills. It is a process that requires both the knowledge of Morphology and syntax because letters have to be appropriately put to form words and words to form phrases and sentences. There are different types of writing that are done to achieve different purposes. Academic writing is one of the writing skills that students are to acquire before completing their programme of studies in higher institutions of learning. Being a professional and critical writing, it is intended for professionals, experts and informed audience on the field. Academic writing deals with investigated facts rather than fiction or prose. Learners in higher institutions need the skills because it is mandatory for them to submit research projects to their departments as partial fulfillments for the award of certificates or degrees in their programme of studies. However, sometimes what the students submit does not communicate well or depict their pr...

Dorian L Harrison

The act of teaching writing requires a negotiation of discourses which are inextricably linked to particular values and beliefs about learning to write and how writing should be assessed. This study seeks to better understand the types of discourse practices that are present in the collegiate writing classroom. A primary goal of this research is to utilize Ivanic's (2004) framework to identify discourse styles in order to further illuminate how they may impact writing education for students. There are three central questions identified for this investigation: 1. How does the instructor manage and facilitate classroom talk about writing? 2. What are the patterns of student discourse around writing in the classroom and how is student knowledge constructed in this setting? 3. What are the discourses of writing and learning to write that are present in the classroom? The following sections detail the literature review, methods, analysis, findings, discussion and conclusion associated with our initial pilot study. It is followed by a brief rationale for scaling this research up to create a more complete portrait of discourses within this writing environment.

Anitha Devi Pillai

"'…any vision we may have of the scientist-researcher working away in the lab or in the field and then retiring to a quiet place to type up quickly the experimental report according to some stereotyped format is decidedly at odds with reality'. (Swales, 1990, p. 117) Learning to write academic papers is a challenging task for novice writers, who must be able to cope with the demands of conducting research and learn to ‘converse’ in a new discourse. Novice writers need to understand task requirements, the instructor’s expectations, and the rudiments of writing up their research in an acceptable format. Even when novices are receptive to the challenge, this is particularly demanding for them since they have little experience of the meticulous academic writing skills expected of them. This study addresses the perceived problems that novices enrolled in a university’s Foundation program face when writing their first academic research project papers. An investigation of the coping strategies used by novices in overcoming these problems should therefore help shed light on how they may be helped to effectively tackle the demands of academic research and academic report writing skills that they require in order to be accepted in the community of practice. The main findings are that novice writers struggle to acquire academic writing literacy and to understand academic writing requirements, expectations and conventions. The study then looks at how a group of novice writers in a foundation programme responded to the demands of completing their first research projects. The thesis is based on the premise that the beliefs and practices of novice writers are shaped by their knowledge repository of what constitutes research and academic writing as well as their nascent knowledge of academia."

Ina Suryani

jennifer de ramos

The study examines the types of discourse markers adult second language (L2) learners in a research writing class most predominantly use given the types of research paper they are required to write. Two Englres (Basic Research) classes at De La Salle University - Manila, each composed of between forty and forty-three students who were assigned to worked in pairs, were selected. Classes were taken from two colleges. From the two research paper classes, thirty papers were collected. The papers were examined on the basis of what discourse markers types are predominantly used in the Body section of the students’ research papers. This study used Hyland and Tse’s Taxonomy of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse (2004) and Halliday and Hasan’s (1976) concept of cohesion. Results reveal that the students from the College of Engineering who are required to write a descriptive research paper use the logical connectives of addition and contrast more than they use the other types of discours...

S. Amina Gardezi

fethi helal

DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)

Leila Dobakhti

Studies in English Language and Education

Lulus Irawati

The present study reports potential factors influencing the rhetorical patterns of research articles (RA) discussion sections. The study was conducted by utilizing descriptive qualitative research. The researcher purposefully focused on investigating 10 bilingual writers who wrote both one English and one Indonesian research article. The selected writers were those who had an educational background in language and language teaching. The interviews covered the interviewees’ background information, current activities, writing activities, and their rhetorical patterns of discussion sections. The interviews were conducted by utilizing the snowball technique to search for more information. The interview data were analyzed into some steps namely, transcribing the interview data, organizing data, summarizing data, and interpreting data. All data transcription was then categorized and coded. Research findings revealed that the writers’ choice of move structure could be as a result of learni...

Noorli Khamis

The need to write for scholarly publications has triggered many investigations into research articles published in reputable and indexed journals. This paper attempts to compile and provide a review of the complete rhetorical organisation of research articles, from Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results to Discussion sections, from several studies. Though the studies revealed a general pattern in the writing of these research articles, it was also noted that different disciplines adopt certain localised structures, which characterise the discourse of the disciplines. Thus, this paper calls for the discovery of local structures of research articles from more disciplines to cater for the growing demands for scholarly publications, especially amongst researchers, academicians and postgraduates.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

Nataša Milivojević

Watinee Suntara

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Thesis Topics in Discourse and Linguistics

by Bastis Consultores | Aug 9, 2021 | Educational News , Thesis Development | 0 comments

The study of discourse and linguistics is a vast field that offers many fascinating details about people, culture, movements, technology, and all the other changes that have taken place over time. The study of language reveals a lot about the people who use it.

Discovering the topic of your interest

Once you find something that piques your interest, you can turn it into a thesis that is plausible for your task. Remember that the more interested you are in the topic of the thesis, the more it will be reflected in your writing. In this regard, you will not put all your effort into “selling” the idea if you are not really interested. Also, having a theme is just the beginning. You have to seek the approval of your professor or advisor before starting the research.

Remember to take into account your reader’s expectations as well as task constraints. You should develop one or two possible topics as a backup just in case you start the research process and find that there is not enough information to substantiate the original claim you wanted to make. But, you don’t have to commit to a single idea at the beginning of the process. You can present your ideas to your advisor and ask them to help you determine which one is the most promising on your list. If your advisor is enthusiastic about your topic, they’re likely to be much more involved in supporting you during the writing process.

The researcher will have to determine the interaction between sound and meaning when presented with this topic. Therefore, a linguistic research paper will deal with the following:

The nature of language

How human languages are classified

The instruments used in the identification of languages

The language attracts researchers, as it attracts significant and sustained attention with the reader. With the many languages that currently exist in the world, you can not miss an area or two to write about this topic.

How to write linguistics topics for your dissertation

Having trouble finding a research topic for your research paper? Here are the main recommendations of the experts:

Brainstorm on your own and with your friends

Choose a broad topic and freely write specific subtopics about it

Get inspired by other available language research topics

After finding a topic that interests you, check that it meets the criteria of the task.

Research topics on the history of language

As for topics about the history of language, here are some options:

The contribution of Greek philosophers to language

Importance of the more than 30,000 cuneiform writings preserved for language

Early speculation about the origin of language

The Long History of Language Rooted in Mythology

Why the origin of language is an unanswered problem

A critical analysis of the theories that explain the origin and development of language

Topics of argumentative university linguistic research

In relation to argumentative university linguistic research, we leave you some examples:

Is language the only medium we can use to communicate?

Does a brain injury influence language?

Should we refer to language as a mere system of symbols?

Do language disorders make it a difficult subject to study?

Does the mother tongue influence the effectiveness of communication?

Should we learn two or more languages?

Linguistic Research Topics – Difficult Questions

Why is there a similarity between many English and French words?

What makes people speak different languages?

Why does the mother tongue always interfere with pronunciation?

What makes language translation possible?

Is sign language just a matter of making signs with your hands?

Why are some languages harder to learn than others?

Sociolinguistic research topics

Social factors that make linguistic variation and varieties necessary

What are the attitudes towards language in different societies?

The relationship between language and identity

Critical assessment of language and ethnicity

Analysis of language dropout among most English speakers

The different functions of language between different communities

Topics of interest in linguistics

Prominent factors contributing to language change and death

Why no one can claim to know a certain language in its entirety

Why is written communication more accurate than spoken communication?

Problems of ambiguity in language translation

Is it true that language influences society or vice versa?

The effectiveness of language support and subject teaching

Topics of linguistics work on policy

Persuasive linguistic strategies and techniques in political discourses

Why do politicians use languages for cultural use when addressing indigenous communities?

The Place of Colonial Rule in African Politics

Case study of effective political communication

Understand the changing landscape of political communication

The use of buzzwords and slogans in political speeches

Linguistic research topics on semantics

In relation to semantics, here are these options:

How does meaning work in the analysis and interpretation of language?

How are the meanings of words related?

What causes ambiguity in language?

How do different speakers acquire the meaning of language?

Critical analysis of language use and acquisition

How sentences relate to each other

Linguistic topics on translation

As for the linguistic issues about translation, you can be guided by these ideas:

The role of the latest technologies in the translation industry

Are translators’ training and pedagogy producing efficient translators?

Are translations the cause of misunderstandings between different languages?

What is the effectiveness of audiovisual translation?

Does literary translation cause more harm than good in communication?

What is the relationship between translation and popular culture?

Interesting linguistic topics on language disorders

In relation to the topics on language disorders below we leave you some examples:

Causes of Receptive Language Disorders in Children

Mental formation of language disorders during child development

Symptoms of language disorders and how to treat them

What is the effectiveness of psychotherapy in treating language disorders?

Why is autism spectrum disorder common among most children?

What causes phrase and word fluency problems?

Why do 1- and 2-year-olds have trouble with the sounds p, b, m, h, and w?

Interesting linguistic topics on Communication

How people communicate: When there is no shared language

The Process of Changing Everyday Language: How Society Changes Words

How to communicate better: Is verbal or nonverbal better?

Neuro-linguistic programming: how companies and politicians address their audiences

The effectiveness of verbal communication in showing feelings

How Neuro-Linguistic Programming Can Reduce the Negative Power of Words for Trauma Victims

The effectiveness of nonverbal communication in showing emotions

Other thesis topics in Discourse Studies and Linguistics

Writing about discourse studies can help change what people know about their own culture or history, and if you want to pursue this issue, take a look at the language thesis topics below that you can use freely:

How linguistic analysis cultivates buzzwords for politicians

Rapid Language Development: How Childhood Can Make or Break Speech

Using linguistic patterns to trace migratory routes

The negative impact of computers on modern language

How Time Changes Words: Language Travels Through Time

How Language Learning Works: What We Know About Brain Functions

The Impact of Texting: How Technology Has Created a Linguistic Subculture

How Other Linguistics Becomes the Norm: How Technology Changes Communication

Historical Battles: The Power of Language to Capitalize on Emotions

The Ethics of Language: How World Leaders Used It to Change Citizens’ Emotional Opinions

How students acquire language at different ages: Does a hardened palette prevent learning?

The benefits of learning a second language in primary school

Developmental Benefits of Learning Two Languages at Once as a Child

Our specialists wait for you to contact them through the quote form or direct chat. We also have confidential communication channels such as WhatsApp and Messenger. And if you want to be aware of our innovative services and the different advantages of hiring us, follow us on Facebook, Instagram or Twitter.

If this article was to your liking, do not forget to share it on your social networks.

You may also be interested: Thesis Topics in Architecture

Source: Edinburg Research Archive

Thesis Topics in Discourse and Linguistics. Photo: Unsplash. Credits: Kojo Kwarteng @cwojo

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Please enter an answer in digits: two × 3 =

Categories:

The most seen.

Copy short link

• Conversation, Dialogue, and Discourse Research Paper

View sample communication research paper on conversation, dialogue, and discourse. Browse research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a thorough research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Conversation, dialogue, discourse. Each of these terms names a form of communication in everyday life, yet each directs our attention in different ways. Conversation , ordinarily understood as informal, free-flowing talk, is what we do with friends, family, and coworkers when we have meals together, do joint tasks, or talk on the phone. Conversation is a descriptive term; it captures one kind of talking that is an alternative to others, such as interviewing, being in a meeting, or giving a speech.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Dialogue is both a descriptive term and an evaluative one. As a descriptive term, dialogue is a synonym for conversation. This descriptive meaning traces its roots to the scholarship of Mikhail Bakhtin, a Russian scholar who wrote in the first half of the 20th century. Every utterance, the basic and fundamental unit of talk, is dialogic: responding to what was said before and at the same time offering something new. By Bakhtin’s definition, conversation is inherently dialogic. In communication studies, the more common meanings for dialogue are the evaluative ones that have been developed by Martin Buber, Carl Rogers, and others.As an evaluative term, dialogue is not just any stretch of conversation; it is a stretch in which people exhibit an openness to hear others, often on personal or difficult topics (Anderson, Baxter, & Cissna, 2004). Dialogues are communicative achievements, something only a small percentage of conversations deserve to be labeled as.

Discourse , the last term, is also descriptive. In contrast to conversation, it is much broader, including speeches, interrogations, and meetings, as well as conversation. Simply put, discourse is any type of talk. Drawing on discourse as the central term, this research paper addresses three issues. The paper’s first section describes several of the key units of discourse and their usual social functions. Then, the paper overviews how discourse is made “study-able” and analyzed. The final sections focus on an especially significant function of talk—to build and maintain identities. After the process of “identity-work” is explained generally, the paper examines two studies of law enforcement discourse to illustrate the subtleties with which discourse accomplishes identity-work.

Key Units of Discourse

Just as a “pizza” can be divided into slices or squares of different sizes or become a single big unit—a “calzone”— the unitizing possibilities for discourse are many and affected by an analyzer’s purposes. Linguistics, a field also interested in discourse, and especially its written forms, treats discourse as an umbrella term to reference spoken or written units of language that are larger than a sentence.

Language has semantic units (words such as smile and word endings such as past-tense markers, as in “smil ed ”), phonemic units (the sounds that go with meaningful distinctions: r and 1 distinguish the word rave from lave ), and syntactic rules (about how words may be ordered to make meaningful sentences). In linguistics, discourse refers to units that are bigger than sentences (e.g., paragraphs, stories) or the social and practical functions to which a stretch of language is put.

In the field of communication, the central interest is in spoken discourse and the purposes to which it is put. For this reason, unitizing begins with the utterance, which is the smallest unit of speech (e.g., “Hi,” “Sure, no problem”). A basic and important kind of utterance is the speech act . In the mid-20th century, the issue about speech to which scholars gave the most attention concerned how well a stretch of speech represented a state of affairs in the world. Speech that was not a true, accurate representation of what existed was asserted to be meaningless. The language philosopher John Austin (1962) regarded this view as missing what was crucial about speech in social life. Speech does not simply represent the world, he argued. It performs social actions.When people speak, their utterances compliment, warn, advise, promise, command, or perform any number of other actions.

John Searle (1969), a student of Austin’s, went on to distinguish among five categories of speech acts. Speech acts may be (1) directives—acts that suggest, guide, or direct a person to do something; (2) representatives—acts that assert what is taken to be true in the world; (3) commissives—acts that commit a speaker to a future course of action; (4) expressives—acts that make a speaker’s feelings visible; and (5) declaratives—speech that has the power to transform people from one state to another, as happens when a minister pronounces two people to be married. Not everyone agrees with Searle’s typology of speech acts, but his typology begins to make visible the varied purposes to which speech is actually put.

One type of speech act that has been extensively studied is the “account.” As Scott and Lyman (1968) defined it, an account is “a statement made by a social actor to explain unanticipated or untoward behavior” (p. 47). People offer accounts when they are late for a meeting, speak in a thoughtless fashion to a friend, or eat more than they think they should. They also offer accounts for highly consequential matters, such as when they violate a law (e.g., explaining to a police officer why they were speeding) or transgress a significant relational norm (e.g., sexual infidelity). Although people can offer accounts out of the blue, they more typically occur within a conversational sequence in which they are a response to an act of reproaching. Reproaches, as is the case with accounts, occur in different flavors. Just as accounts may justify why individuals did what they did or point to circumstances that made their action not entirely under their control, reproaches may range in tone from direct and hostile (“What the hell do you think you are doing?”) to indirect and subtle, which could be seen in sarcastic compliments or a speaker muttering a comment under his or her breath that is hearable (“Hmmm, I wonder what’s going on here”).

Directives and apologies are two other speech acts that have received considerable attention (Blum-Kulka, House, & Kasper, 1989). Both of these acts are socially sensitive to perform and have relational repercussions. To direct another invariably raises the issue of who has the right to tell whom to do what. Similarly, speakers who apologize often want to accept that they did a wrong but minimize the wrong’s scope or elicit a counterapology.

A second unit of discourse is what Tracy (2002) referred to as naming practices. Naming practices include both the words and the phrases used to address particular others and the terms that are used to reference, label, and categorize people. Forms of address include first and last names, nicknames, titles (e.g., “Ms.,” “Professor”) and general terms of endearment (e.g., “babe”). Choosing among possible forms of address conveys what the speaker takes to be the formality or closeness of a relationship. To address a person using his or her title and last name (e.g., “Dr. Jones”) constructs a relationship as a distant one; in contrast, calling that person by a nickname, especially if it is an exclusive one known only by a select few, constructs two people as close. Speakers also combine forms to build relationships that mix respectful distance with friendliness, as seen in the rather common practice of children calling adults by their title and first name (e.g., “Dr. Joe,” “Miss Jane”).

Not only do speakers directly address others by a selected name, they also refer to others in relational terms (e.g. “My friend will be joining us” vs. “An acquaintance from work will be joining us) and by categories (group memberships, such as “Shriner” or “Catholic”; job categories, such as “librarian” or “office manager”; and race and ethnicity, such as “African American” or “black,” “Hispanic” or “Latino/a”). Debates about how to refer to people have become the focus of controversies in the larger society. One such debate that led to significant change in speaking and writing in the communication and other social science fields has been over the use of gender-neutral terms. On one side of the argument are people advocating that mixed-sex groups be referred to as “he and she” rather than the generic “he” and that forms such as “postal worker” or “police officer” should be preferred over “mailman” and “policeman” because the former terms are more inclusive of women. On the other side of the argument are people who regard these changes as unimportant, a matter of being “politically correct” (Aufderheide, 1992). In communication studies, there is consensus that, at least in its weak form, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis captures a truth about meaning making. Edwin Sapir and his student Benjamin Whorf argued that the semantic and grammatical distinctions available in a particular language, whether the language be English, Hopi, or Portuguese, shape how people make sense and understand possibilities for action. Names matter. Although names do not determine what a person may think, they channel thought, making some interpretations and associations more (or less) likely.

Two more complicated units of discourse deserve mention. The first, direct/indirect conversational style , includes a large set of talk features, often going together, that speakers use to convey meanings either straightforwardly or through hints and subtle cues (Tracy, 2002). A relatively direct conversational style is one in which words convey a speaker’s intended meaning straightforwardly; an indirect style requires a listener to arrive at a speaker’s likely meaning by considering what was said in light of the topic and how it is viewed in society, the speech situation, and the relationship between conversational partners. Being direct involves saying what one thinks without softeners, bluntly and noneuphemistically. Being indirect involves using more words to convey a message; it is accomplished by hinting at what one might want, fishing for information, softening opinions, or avoiding certain expressions entirely.

A central way in which speakers vary their level of directness is through the use of politeness tokens (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Politeness is not just about saying “please” and “thank you”; it refers to language practices that soften potential threats to others. If a communicator wanted to borrow fifty dollars from a friend, the request could be made directly without regard for the other’s desires (“Hey, can I borrow fifty dollars?”). The request could also be made less directly by attending to the other’s need for social acceptance and approval, what Brown and Levinson call people’s “positive face wants,” using devices such as compliments and friendly forms of address (e.g., “Hey buddy, be a pal and loan me fifty dollars.”). An even more indirect move, the negative-politeness strategy, would give attention to the partner’s desire to be free from imposition and obligation (e.g., “I hate to be a burden by asking you this, but do you think you could loan me fifty dollars?”). Negative-politeness forms include verbal markers that mitigate the intensity of the speaker’s request (e.g., “I was wondering,” “Would it be at all possible”). The most indirect form, barring not making the request at all, would be for a speaker to hint at needing money in the hope that the other will offer it (“Oh gosh, looks like I’m going to be fifty dollars short for my rent”). In an extensive study of requests, Craig, Tracy, and Spisak (1986) found that people do not typically use only a single form but mix politeness strategies in skillful ways.

The directness style a communicator uses will have interpersonal consequences. The use of a relatively direct style can cue that a speaker is sincere and outspoken, a person who prefers to “get down to business.”At the same time, the usage of a direct style may be interpreted as showing aggressiveness and insensitivity to others. Conversely, an indirect strategy could cue tactfulness and “people skills,” but it also could seem indecisive, shifty, or untrustworthy. There are no simple positive/negative assessments that go with being indirect or direct. Most speakers use a mix of both styles, which vary with the kind of situation in which they find themselves. To complicate matters further, national and ethnic communities have sharply different notions about the most reasonable conversational style in particular situations.

Stance indicators is a second complex bundle of talk features to which people regularly attend in conversation.A speaker’s stance—his or her in-the-moment attitude toward the topic of talk, the other, or the situation—is conveyed through linguistic, vocal, and gestural cues. In everyday life, people make judgments about whether their partner is an expert or novice on the subject, friendly or hostile toward them, and involved or bored with the situation. These “stances” are cued by sets of indicators. In Tannen’s (2005) examination of conversations among friends, she found that when speakers talk loudly and fast, make large hand gestures, pause only briefly, and vary their pitch extensively, they will be assumed to be involved and interested in the topic.

A second example of a stance indicator has to do with belief and skepticism. When speakers respond to what another has said, they implicitly convey whether they believe or are skeptical of what their conversational partner said (Pomerantz, 1989/1990). When people believe a person, they will report it to others straightforwardly (e.g., “Arnie can’t come to the party tonight because he hurt his back”). The stance indicators that cue skepticism include adding phrases such as “According to Arnie . . . ,” “Arnie claims that . . . ,” and “Arnie’s story is that. . . .” Thus, when speakers report what a person said, they not only provide a sense of the message’s content, but they also reveal their stance to what the other has said.

These four discourse units—speech acts, naming practices, direct/indirect conversational style, and stance indicators—are but a small set of possible discourse units; there are many more. For instance, speech acts often occur in pairs (e.g., greeting-greeting, question-answer), creating demands for how the first part of a pair should be responded to or generating inferences about the respondent if that expected second part is not forthcoming. Not returning a greeting does happen, but when a return greeting is absent, marked inferences will be made (e.g., the spoken-to party is completely distracted, or the greeter is being snubbed by the spoken-to other). Units of discourse may also be quite large and include smaller interaction practices. An example is a story; stories usually include strings of speech acts and multiple reports of what various people in the story’s social world have said—a discourse device referred to as “reported speech” (e.g., “Mary said, ‘No, don’t go.’And I said . . .”) (Buttny, 2004). Jointly,thesediscourseunitsandothersoccurinsceneswithin social life and perform a variety of interpersonal functions. Before examining more closely the identity-work functions of talk, let us consider how discourse is studied to arrive at the claims that research forwards.

How Discourse Is Studied

The analysis of discourse began in earnest as audio- and video-recording technologies became commonplace and as the idea that ordinary exchanges between people in family and work life deserved as much systematic attention as had previously only been given to “big” events such as a politician’s speech took root. It has been the work of the sociologist Harvey Sacks (1992) in the late 1960s, which strongly influenced a large range of distinct discourse analysis traditions. Working in a crisis call center in Los Angeles, he began taping, transcribing, and studying these telephone calls, as well as doing the same with phone calls between family members and friends. In disagreement with Noam Chomsky, an influential linguist of the time who thought that language was too messy to study in actual occasions of talk, Sacks argued for the value of looking closely at the social world and at conversational exchanges in particular. “From close looking at the world,” Sacks stated, “you can find things that we couldn’t by imagination assert were there: One wouldn’t know that they were typical, one might not know that they even happened” (p. 420).

Over time, conventions developed in communication as to the best way to represent features of spoken discourse in written form. The transcription system that is most often employed today is the one developed by Gail Jefferson, commonly referred to as the CA (conversation analysis) transcription system. Symbols in the CA system capture (a) the actual pronunciation and contractions of words (e.g., “y’know,” “got ’em goin’”), repetitions, and word cutoffs; (b) intonation patterns of utterances and word stress; and (c) utterance timing, including pauses and where one person’s speech overlaps another’s. Table 1 includes the most common meanings of the symbols used in transcripts.

An obvious question to pose is why bother with so much detail; is it useful for understanding discourse better? Communication scholars who analyze discourse, although they have disagreements with each other about the appropriate level of transcript detail, would all agree that a careful record of what has been said is an important first step to building interesting claims about communication.

An example of a CA transcript and how it led to an insightful understanding of communication is seen in Excerpt 1. This excerpt comes from a study by Staske (2002). Staske was interested in how romantic partners’ talk reflected and further solidified closeness in their relationships—something talk in intimate relationships was assumed to do, but how this was accomplished through talk was not well understood. Her study recorded romantic partners having conversations with each other, created transcripts of the exchanges, and then repeatedly looked at the transcripts while listening to the exchanges. Following this intense immersion with the discourse materials, she was able to name and describe a conversational practice that relational partners regularly used. It is a practice for doing intimacy. The practice, which Staske labeled “claims of intimate partner knowledge,” or CIPKs for short, tended to occur when partners were discussing relational problems.

• M: Why does what affect us?
• F: Our differences in our personalities. Do you
• think this affects us? Do think it’s
• [something that just [bothers us all the time
• M: [Because               [you: a
• F: Listen to you. I knew you would say that. That
• you’d say it was all my fault
• M: No:: I’m not saying it’s your fault
• F: Aren’t you admitting
• M: I’m just saying you blew a lot of things way
• outta proportion

Line 6 is an example of a CIPK. The vocal emphasis specifically on “ knew ” cues the speaker’s certainty about predicting what her partner would likely say at that moment. This is interesting because M’s utterance in Line 5 is broken and unfinished; nonetheless, F claims that she knows what M would say even though he barely said anything at all. In Line 8, M denies F’s CIPK, although his final comment (lines 10 and 11) frames F as not being completely off base. Stating that she “blows things way outta proportion” does imply blame. His utterance, then, partially confirms her CIPK. Claims that a speaker knows what the other will say is one discourse practice through which people enact themselves as close. This is true even if, as happens in Excerpt 1, the partner disputes the specific content of the claim.

The analysis of discourse is an inductive research enterprise. As Sacks formulated it so aptly, communication scholars doing discourse analysis are committed to discovering interesting features of social life by studying talk closely. One particularly interesting issue in social life that analysis of discourse has been used to further is the study of identity enactment.

Discourse and Identity-Work

When people talk, they present a version of self to others. The sociologist Erving Goffman (1959) used a dramaturgical metaphor to understand this presentation process. People in ordinary exchanges are “actors” and, as in the theater, they are expected to know their lines, have the right costume, and make their actions appropriate and believable to the role they are playing. Other communicators in a social situation, “the audience,” are expected to respond appropriately to the actor’s performance, applauding, laughing, and crying at appropriate moments. Because not all performances go smoothly, actors and audiences have practices they employ to respond to errors and glitches. Communicators in the actor role use “defensive practices,” such as when they have to “wing it” or “fake it.” Similarly, “protective practices,” such as listening or showing interest, are used by communicators in audience member roles to ratify that the actor has done a reasonable job.

Although the dramaturgical metaphor ably captures a part of what people experience as they meet, greet, and talk with others, it also introduces elements that are problematic. People do not change who they understand themselves to be (i.e., their identities) as quickly and easily as the theater metaphor implies; for that reason, we use the term identity-work to describe the work talk accomplishes during the presentation of self. A second advantage of identity-work as the key frame for understanding what discourse does is that it draws attention to another aspect of the discourse-identity process besides self-presentation. At the same time that a person’s talk is presenting a self, it is also altercasting.

Altercasting refers to the process through which talk casts the conversational partner in a particular role (Tracy, 2007). Imagine a student stopping by a professor’s office to get help in understanding a theory (“the systems perspective”) that was presented during a lecture and requesting help in one of two ways:

Request A: Excuse me Dr. Trintash, I was wondering if you could go over the systems perspective with me again. I wasn’t feeling well in class the other day and didn’t listen as closely as I should have.

Request B: Hi Jean, how’s it goin? I was getting lost in class when you were talking about the systems perspective. Could you explain it to me one more time?

The person-referencing practices used in RequestA, title and last name, imply a nonclose relationship in which the teacher has a higher status. In contrast Request B, by virtue of the first-name form of address, casts the teacher as an informal, friendly other. Request A also uses a more tentative, negative-politeness strategy (“I was wondering if . . . ”) that treats the request for help as a favor rather than a matter-of-fact right to which the student is entitled. Part of the sense that B is treating the request as a right is cued by the account that the speaker gives for why she did not understand. Describing the reason for needing clarification as “I was getting lost” subtly justifies the student’s having trouble and makes relevant the possibility that the teacher did not give a clear explanation. In contrast, the student in Request A accounts for her request by saying that she “didn’t feel well” and she “didn’t listen closely,” suggesting that her inability to understand was a result of her own state rather than the teacher’s failure. In essence, Requests A and B altercast the teacher in markedly different ways. At the same time, the requests present the speaker differently. Request A portrays the student as a deferential person who sees self as responsible for mastering class material; Request B presents the speaker as a friendly, informal sort of student who sees self as entitled to receiving clear explanations of course ideas.

Another way to explain identity-work is with Goffman’s (1955) notion of face.Around the same time when Goffman was developing his dramaturgical view of social life, he introduced the idea of “face.” “Face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact. Face is an image of self delineated in terms of approved social attributes” (Goffman, 1967, p. 5). Face is the identity that a person desires in a particular social situation; it is not something over which a speaker has total control. Rather, face is granted by the people with whom a person interacts. The face that a speaker desires will always be situation specific. In work situations, people often want to be seen as “responsible,” “competent,” or “loyal.” In friendships, people may want to be seen as experts on a topic, “fun,” “funny,” or “trustworthy.” People also do work to avoid being seen in negative ways—for example as boring, incompetent, or autocratic. It is discourse practices that maintain face, ward off possible threats, or save face after it is lost. Face is an umbrella term that references a large set of desired personal identities.

It is important to note that identities have many layers, some of which become more relevant than others in a particular situation. One layer of identity pertains to the broad social and cultural groups people belong to (such as race, nationality, age, gender, or religion). Another is the personality-style characteristics people possess (such as being friendly, rude, generous, or opinionated). A third kind of identity relates to the institutional roles that people hold at work and in families, and the last relates to the interactional style with which people act in workplace and intimate relationships (e.g., laidback vs. uptight teacher, close vs. distant friend). Stemming from the fact that people are usually considered to uphold multiple identities, they often work to give attention to more than one goal at a time. In making a request, for instance, the requestor can be seen as having the goals of (a) convincing the other person to comply with the request, (b) preserving the conversational partner’s face, and (c) preserving the self’s own face.

What makes communication difficult is that interactional goals may be incompatible with each other.Attending to one identity goal can endanger another one. For instance, a common practice in most academic departments is for graduate students and faculty to meet and discuss the research projects that a student or faculty member is working on (Tracy, 1997). In this kind of discussion group, which includes institutional members of different ranks (i.e., beginning and advanced graduate students, junior and senior faculty), presenting ideas and asking questions is likely to challenge multiple identities of the participants. Discussants, for instance, often desire to be seen as intellectually competent—accomplished through asking tough questions, and at the same time they desire to be judged supportive and tactful—accomplished through posing easily answerable questions. Participants typically recognize the importance of distinguishing among fellow members’expertise levels (i.e., a graduate student and a faculty member are not equally expert), but at the same time they believe that for the discussion to go well, it is important to minimize status differences and develop a climate of equality.

To summarize, identity-work is the simultaneous presentation of self and altercasting of others and is accomplished through discourse practices. As identity is multilayered and interaction goals can be in tension with each other, identitywork is a complicated and uncertain process.

Two Extended Examples of Identity-Work

The first example of identity-work to be examined occurred in a call a citizen made to the police/9-1-1. People call 9-11 for a variety of reasons, many of which are at odds with ordinary notions of “emergency.” When people have troubles they want help solving and there is no obvious other person or agency to intervene, they will turn to the police. One kind of situation in which this happens is when a person has problems with someone with whom there is a connection. If we seek to describe the likely face/identity wants that a person with this type of trouble would have, three are probable. First, we can expect that callers would like to get their trouble resolved, whether it is getting a piece of property back or getting another to stop engaging in harassing actions. Second, we would expect that callers would want to be perceived by the police agents with whom they talk as reasonable, or at least not unreasonable given the trouble they are experiencing. Third, in some cases, albeit not necessarily all, callers may want to accomplish the first two goals without strongly implying that the person with whom they have the trouble is so blameworthy that he or she should be arrested. Of note, these likely self-presentation and altercasting goals are in tension with each other.

Tracy and Anderson (1999) examined a small set of police calls in which citizens had these kinds of “connection-to-people-they-knew” troubles. One call involved a woman whose car had been taken. Consider how the caller initially describes her trouble.

1 CT1:     Citywest Police?

2 C:         Um, yeah, I need to file a complaint about my

3              car being taken?

4 CT1:     (.) It was stol en?

5 C:         Well .hhhhh a friend borrowed it and h- he

6              never brought it back.

7 CT1:     How long’s he had it?

8 C:         Uh:m close to forty-eight hours.

By looking closely at these calls, Tracy and Anderson identified the discourse practices citizens use to manage conflicting identity goals. A first practice was for citizen callers to formulate a problem as agent-less. The caller does this in lines 2 and 3, where she identifies no agent who “took” the car. This agent-less formulation can be seen as attentive to not accusing a particular other and getting that person in trouble with the police. At the same time, it causes difficulty because it leads the call taker to infer that the caller has no knowledge of who took the car (line 4), thereby making relevant a police bulletin seeking to apprehend and arrest whoever was driving her car.As the caller knows the person who took her car, this agent-less formulation causes confusion.

As noted previously, naming practices reflect closeness and distance. A second strategy callers use to preserve their identity as reasonable people is to label an intimate sexual partner a “friend” and trade on the ambiguity of the term. “Friend,” for instance, can be used as a polite term to refer to an acquaintance, or it can reference an ability to talk easily and openly with an intimate (My dad is one of my best friends). Most often, though, it is used as a contrast term with intimate (“just a friend”). To refer to someone as a friend will typically be heard as distinguishing them from a sexual partner. Following a lengthy exchange, the first call taker refers the caller to auto fraud, and the following exchange occurs. Note how in lines 7 to 8 in Excerpt 3, the second call taker probes the meaning behind the caller’s description of the car taker as a “friend.”

1 C:         Uhm yeah I don’t know what to do. A friend of

2              mine uhmm was using my car while I was in the

3              hospital? And he’s been gone now for, well, it’s

• been, gosh, about 36 hours.And I haven’t been able
• to get in touch with him. He doesn’t have a local
• phone number, and I don’t know what to do.
• CT2: Okay a friend of yours, meaning an acquaintance
• friend? Or a friend, a boyfriend?

9 C:          He’s staying with me.

10 CT2:    Pardon? A boyfriend?

11 C:         Yeah

With the call taker’s probing, the “friend” label looks like a downgrade from the close type of relationship the caller ends up admitting. What this exchange makes visible is the delicacy in police calls, and presumably other kinds of institutional encounters, in selecting forms of reference. Each form sets in motion different inferences about the caller and the kind of relationship he or she will be taken as having with the called-about person.

A second complex example of identity-work, also from a law enforcement context, illustrates how an FBI negotiator in a crisis situation failed to establish his superiority and his right to tell a law breaker what he should do (Excerpt 4; Agne & Tracy, 2001). Inequality is not necessarily preestablished, as it often is in parent/young-child relationships or in job interviews where the parent or the interviewer (respectively) is regarded as higher ranking before talk even begins. Talk often upholds the expected relational picture, but sometimes it reframes what would be situationally expected, turning nonequals into equals or making the superior the subordinate. Such a reframing is illustrated in the hostage negotiations that took place in 1993 between FBI agents and David Koresh, the leader of a religious group called the Branch Davidians, who were living in a compound outside Waco, Texas. The crisis situation started when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms tried to arrest David Koresh on charges of abusing the children of his followers and illegally stockpiling weapons. The attempted arrest led to gunfire and killing of several people on both sides; it was followed by a 51-day standoff between the FBI and the Davidians, in which FBI agents and Koresh and several other key Davidians spoke regularly on the telephone.

During the telephone negotiations, both sides worked to assume authority over the other. The FBI saw themselves as the enforcers of the law, expecting all citizens to abide by their directives regardless of a citizen’s religious affiliation. Koresh, in contrast, believed that he was the Lamb of God prophesized in the Book of Revelation to open the Seven Seals and usher in the Apocalypse and Judgment Day. As a result, Koresh saw himself as justified to resist “the government.” In the following exchange, the FBI negotiator (Sage) and Koresh construct an asymmetrical relationship. Using discourse practices, most likely out of conscious awareness, Sage altercasts Koresh as more knowledgeable (and hence superior). At the same time, Koresh constructs himself as an expert teacher and altercasts Sage as a novice student. Consider the discourse practices in a short exchange that contributed to these identities.

• Sage: I’m not claiming to be anywhere near as well
• versed in word and quotation as you are and I
• respect that capability. But I find in that book
• (.) that that book says the only person (.) the

5             only person (.) the only entity that can open

6             those Seven Seals is the Lamb of God.

• Koresh: Ex ac tly
• (six lines omitted)
• Sage: It’s gar bageit’safalsehopeand[youknowthat.
• Koresh: [No it’s not ,
• on the contrary. These people remain here

12           because I have tho roughly opened to them

• the Seven Seals see if you had [understood.
• Sage: [Well then you
• have a message that’s extremely valuable
• that you need to share with the rest of
• this world. The only way you can do that
• David is if we can get this matter resolved
• when when you come out you will be provided
• with that opportunity and I’ll be in the front of
• 21 the line to lis ten to it

22          Koresh: That’s where you remain ig norant it’s not your

23           fault I do not hold you con temp tible for that

• but you remain ig norant to un derstand what is
• actually being applied at this very time (.) see
• (.) when it says in twenty two when I come
• my reward is me it very clearly identifies that
• when Christ comes the identifying mark will 29 be the knowledge of those Seven S eals .

There are several discourse practices that invoke a teacher identity for Koresh, therein establishing his expertise, and frame Sage as not so knowledgeable. First, the confirmation, “Ex ac tly” in line 7 acknowledges some part of Sage’s statements (lines 1–6), whether it be that Sage is not “near as well versed,” that only the Lamb of God can open the Seven Seals, or both. “Ex ac tly” is used much as a teacher does when validating a student’s response as correct; in fact, the remark has the flavor of a teacher giving a gold star for superlative work. Sage’s “ gar bage” comment in line 9 diffuses Koresh’s positive assessment, and in lines 10 to 13 Koresh straightforwardly disagrees with Sage (“No it’s not , on the contrary”) and explains why he is wrong (“ I have tho roughly opened to them the Seven S eals ”).

Koresh also sounds like a teacher in lines 22 to 29. By emphasizing Sage’s lack of understanding (“but you remain ig norant to un derstand . . .”) followed by a lesson on where in the Bible the identity of the one to open the Seven Seals is revealed, he underscores Sage’s limited knowledge. Saying, “in twenty-two” instead of “in Revelation, chapter twenty two,” establishes Koresh as an expert who uses the biblical text so often that shorthand jargon is called for. In addition, when in line 27, the phrase “ very clearly ” is stressed, Koresh conveys his view that the lesson he is conveying is an easy one to comprehend. Notice, too, the very short but noticeable pauses between words (signaled by (.)). These micropauses before and after “see” cue that a speaker is about to say something that he has said many times before.

At the same time that Koresh is presenting himself as a teacher and altercasting Sage as a novice, Sage’s talk is confirming rather than resisting this relational identity. His disclaimer in lines 1 and 2 (“I’m not claiming to be anywhere near as well versed in word and quotation as you are”) positions himself as a novice; in addition, Sage saying that he “respects that capability” positions Koresh as the recognized expert. The FBI agent’s talk in this call was adhering to one kind of advice that negotiators are trained to consider in crisis negotiations: It gave attention to Koresh’s face wants to be seen as competent. In not adequately thinking through their complex interactional goals, however, the FBI did not give adequate attention to discursively building their rank as legitimately higher, with its attendant right to have their directives obeyed.

Negotiating equality and inequality is difficult not just because people struggle to attain one or the other in a given relationship but because the two are related in such a way that the pursuit of one necessarily involves the other. Tannen (1986) describes this as the paradox of power and solidarity in relationships. The desire to establish rapport or equal footing in a relationship is accomplished through discourse moves that if done only by one person (e.g., using first names, patting another on the shoulder) will enact an unequal relationship.At the same time, refraining from doing friendly gestures to avoid the possibility of being seen as claiming a higher status identity could be taken as simple unfriendliness.

This research paper has described several of the basic units of discourse and the identity-work process, examined how discourse practices do identity-work, and considered how communication researchers interested in discourse arrive at claims about social life. In 2007, a new journal, Discourse and Communication , was launched. Its mission is to promote research that furthers connections between what Gee (1999) called Big-D and little-d discourse, that is, larger social and institutional issues and the specifics of talk and texts. The felt need for this new journal points to one rapidly growing discourse research arena: studies that investigate how talk is designed and structured to achieve or avoid certain ends in business contexts, media institutions, health care organizations, governance bodies, volunteer groups, and social-movement organizations. The audio and video recorders in these new institutional areas are rolling. It is now up to future scholars to transcribe, study carefully, and create insights into these previously unexamined stretches of conversational life.

Bibliography:

• Agne, R. R., & Tracy, K. (2001). Bible babble: Naming the interactional trouble at Waco. Discourse Studies, 3, 269–294.
• Anderson, R., Baxter, L. A., & Cissna, K. N. (2004). Texts and contexts of dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter, & K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing difference in communication studies (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Antaki, C., & Widdicombe, S. (1998). Identities in talk. London: Sage.
• Aufderheide, P. (Ed.). (1992). Beyond PC: Toward a politics of understanding. Paul, MN: Graywolf Press.
• Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Blum-Kulka, S., House, J., & Kasper, G. (1989). Investigating cross-cultural pragmatics: An introductory overview. In S. Blum-Kulka, J. House, & G. Kasper (Eds.), Cross-cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies (pp. 1–34). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Buttny, R. (2004). Talking problems: Studies of discursive construction. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Craig, R. T., Tracy, K., & Spisak, F. (1986). The discourse of requests: Assessment of a politeness approach. Human Communication Research, 12, 437–468.
• Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method . London: Routledge.
• Glenn, P., LeBaron, C. D., & Mandelbaum, J. (Eds.). (2003). Studies in language and social interaction: In honor of Robert Hopper. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231.
• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
• Jaworski,A., & Coupland, N. (Eds.). (1999). The discourse reader. London: Routledge.
• Pomerantz,A. (1989/1990). Constructing skepticism: Four devices used to engender the audience’s skepticism. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 293–313.
• Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation (2 vols.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• Sarangi, S., & Roberts, C. (Eds.). (1999). Talk, work, and institutionalorder:Discourseinmedical,mediationandmanagement settings. Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62.
• Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
• Staske, S. (2002). Claiming individualized knowledge of a conversational partner. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 35, 249–276.
• Tannen, D. (1986). That’s not what I meant: How conversational style makes or breaks relationships . New York: Ballantine.
• Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
• Tracy, K. (Ed.). (1990). Understanding face-to-face interaction: Issues linking goals and discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Tracy, K. (1997). Colloquium: Dilemmas of academic discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Tracy, K. (2002). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities . New York: Guilford Press.
• Tracy, K. (2007). Discourse and identity: Language or talk? In B. Whaley & W. Samter (Eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars (pp. 15–35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Tracy, K., & Anderson, D. (1999). Relational positioning in police calls: A dilemma. Discourse Studies, 1, 201–225.

More Communication Research Paper Examples:

Communication Research Paper

• Bias in Communication Research Paper
• Cognition and Information Processing Research Paper
• Communication and Friendship Research Paper
• Speech Communication Research Paper
• Philosophy and Theory of Communication Research Paper
• Rhetorical Criticism in Communication Research Paper
• Quantitative Approaches to Communication Research Paper
• Qualitative Approaches to Communication Research Paper
• Critical Cultural Communication Research Paper
• Feminist Approaches to Communication Research Paper
• Queer Approaches to Communication Research Paper
• Message Construction and Editing Research Paper
• Perspective Taking Research Paper
• Social Construction Research Paper
• Listening, Understanding, and Misunderstanding Research Paper
• Performance and Storytelling Research Paper
• Persuasion and Compliance Gaining Research Paper
• Identity in Communication Research Paper
• Interviewing Research Paper
• Public Speaking Research Paper
• Deliberation, Debate, and Decision Making Research Paper
• Conflict Management Research Paper
• Visual Rhetoric Research Paper
• Memorials and Collective Memory Research Paper
• Verbal and Nonverbal Communication Research Paper
• Rhetorical Style Research Paper
• Drama and Dramatic Elements Research Paper
• Rhetorical Exigency and Argumentation Research Paper
• Supportive Communication Research Paper
• Communication in Relationships Research Paper
• Intergenerational Communication Research Paper
• Romantic Relationships and Communication Research Paper
• Workplace Communication Research Paper
• Group Communication Research Paper
• Instructional Communication Research Paper
• Patient-Provider Communication Research Paper
• Gender and Communication Research Paper
• Sexual Orientation and Communication Research Paper
• Culture and Communication Research Paper
• Risk Communication Research Paper
• Freedom of Expression Research Paper
• Globalization and Communication Research Paper
• Ethical and Unethical Communication Research Paper
• Competent and Incompetent Communication Research Paper
• Unwanted Communication, Aggression, and Abuse Research Paper
• Sexual Harassment and Communication Research Paper
• Deception and Communication Research Paper
• Professional Communication Research Paper

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• Trustworthy AI

Our trust in technology relies on understanding how it works. It’s important to understand why AI makes the decisions it does. We’re developing tools to make AI more explainable, fair, robust, private, and transparent.

Tiny benchmarks for large language models

• Foundation Models

IBM’s Granite model is one of the most transparent LLMs in the world

• AI Transparency
• Open Source

What is red teaming for generative AI?

• Adversarial Robustness and Privacy
• Fairness, Accountability, Transparency
• Natural Language Processing

An AI model trained on data that looks real but won’t leak personal information

• Data and AI Security

The latest AI safety method is a throwback to our maritime past

• Explainable AI
• Generative AI

What is AI alignment?

• Automated AI
• See more of our work on Trustworthy AI
• AI Testing We’re designing tools to help ensure that AI systems are trustworthy, reliable and can optimize business processes.
• Adversarial Robustness and Privacy We’re making tools to protect AI and certify its robustness, and helping AI systems adhere to privacy requirements.
• Explainable AI We’re creating tools to help AI systems explain why they made the decisions they did.
• Fairness, Accountability, Transparency We’re developing technologies to increase the end-to-end transparency and fairness of AI systems.
• Trustworthy Generation We’re developing theoretical and algorithmic frameworks for generative AI to accelerate future scientific discoveries.
• Uncertainty Quantification We’re developing ways for AI to communicate when it's unsure of a decision across the AI application development lifecycle.

Science for Social Good

IBM Science for Social Good partners IBM Research scientists and engineers with academic fellows, subject matter experts from NGOs, public sector agencies, and social enterprises to tackle emerging societal challenges using science and technology.

Publications

• Cynthia Dwork
• Kristjan Greenewald
• Frank Libsch
• Steve Bedell
• Assala Benmalek
• Celia Cintas
• Leshem Choshen
• LREC-COLING 2024
• Brian W. Bauer
• JMIR Mental Health

Building trustworthy AI with Watson

Our research is regularly integrated into Watson solutions to make IBM’s AI for business more transparent, explainable, robust, private, and fair.

Broadband Internet Access, Economic Growth, and Wellbeing

Between 2000 and 2008, access to high-speed, broadband internet grew significantly in the United States, but there is debate on whether access to high-speed internet improves or harms wellbeing. We find that a ten percent increase in the proportion of county residents with access to broadband internet leads to a 1.01 percent reduction in the number of suicides in a county, as well as improvements in self-reported mental and physical health. We further find that this reduction in suicide deaths is likely due to economic improvements in counties that have access to broadband internet. Counties with increased access to broadband internet see reductions in poverty rate and unemployment rate. In addition, zip codes that gain access to broadband internet see increases in the numbers of employees and establishments. In addition, heterogeneity analysis indicates that the positive effects are concentrated in the working age population, those between 25 and 64 years old. This pattern is precisely what is predicted by the literature linking economic conditions to suicide risk.

We are grateful to participants at the Association of Public Policy and Management and the Washington Area Labor Symposium conferences for their helpful comments. Any errors or conclusions are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Mentioned in the News

More from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .