instalación y explotación de software de aplicaciones

Discourse analysis has been selected to analyse the qualitative data in this study due to the recognition of the centrality of discourse in the social construction of knowledge as part of the wider constitution of society. The choice of discourse analysis also supports the ontological position of weak naturalism and constructionism given the view highlighted by Burkitt (1998: 123) that there is ‘one reality with many different epistemic and discursive positions upon it.’

It should be highlighted that the analysis incorporates two very different applications of discourse analysis. Given that the discourses at the micro level have been translated, the analysis at this level is less directly critical of the language used. The aim here is to foreground the discourse of the villagers, and to use the

concept of legitimation in order to allow the risk constructions of villagers to be presented in their own (translated) words.160

It is noted that participants at the meso level are using English as a second language.161 However, the degree of proficiency of these actors allows the analysis to become more directly critical of the language used. Here, the use of critical discourse analysis permits a particular focus on the way in which power is ideologically negotiated through discourse. Fairclough (1992: 12) argues that ‘critical approaches [to discourse analysis] show…how discourse is shaped by relations of power and ideologies, and the constructive effects discourse has upon social identities, social relations and systems of knowledge and belief.’ In this way, critical discourse analysis not only permits an analysis of the ideological struggle in which social actors are engaged; it also enables a critique of the naturalised assumptions social actors adopt in their attempts to legitimate and delegitimate their ideological positioning. This recognises that, as Breeze (2012: 4) highlights, ‘legitimation is an essential aspect of the way that ideologies function through discourse.’

The focus at the meso level is, therefore, on the ‘de-structuring’ (Fairclough, 1989: 171) of ideological assumptions which have become ‘naturalized’ (ibid.: 33) as part of existing power arrangements. The discourse analysis at this level also seeks to

160

The researcher’s Telugu reached a standard where she was able to engage in basic conversations, and check aspects of the translation. However, it remained inadequate to conduct research interviews without the assistance of a translator.

examine the dual role of ideology in both ‘reproduc[ing] and challeng[ing] aspects of…institutional norms and power relations’ (Skillington, 1997: 507). Hence, theoretical concepts from critical discourse analysis are adopted far more rigorously at the meso level than at the micro level.

The discovery of the ‘categories of legitimation’ developed by Van Leeuwen (2007; 2008) represented a key turning point in the thesis, and led to the centrality of legitimation as a key analytical and theoretical concept. The adoption of the categories of legitimation as a central analytical framework is highly conducive to the constructionist approach in that it allows the normative standards immanent in the social context itself to emerge through the discourse of participants. The use of legitimation as an analytical device also importantly allows the researcher to remove herself from the struggle itself in order to gain the type of broader (though still necessarily subjective and imperfect) perspective necessary for a sociological analysis.

The categories of legitimation (Van Leeuwen, 2007; 2008: 105-123) adopted as the analytical framework for the thesis are as follows:

Authorization: legitimation by reference to persons in whom authority is vested. In the current study, this relates to an exploration of the way in which legitimation is mediated through power relations;

Moral evaluation: legitimation by reference to ‘discourses of values’ (Van Leeuwen, 2007: 91). In terms of the current research, this relates to the ‘life [which people have] reason to value’ (Sen, 1999: 74) as part of normative conceptualisations of development;

Rationalization: legitimation by reference to the ‘goals, uses and effects’ of practices (Van Leeuwen, 2008: 113). With regard to the current study, this relates to the reasons given for the legitimation and delegitimation of Bt technology;

Mythopoesis: legitimation by reference to narratives that reward legitimate actions. In terms of this thesis, democracy is explored through an examination of the narratives of participants with regard to their views on the way in which power should legitimately be exercised within democratic society.

At the meso level, the use of ‘counterframing’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 617) supports the ‘negative exposing’ (Strydom, 2011: 137) and ‘positive disclosing’ (ibid.) approach to critique which has been discussed previously. The ‘diagnostic framing’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 615) as ‘problem identification’ (ibid.) is part of the ‘negative exposing’ (Strydom, 2011: 137) critique undertaken by the Non-Bt Coalition as a delegitimation of the Bt Coalition. Here, the emphasis is on gaining recognition for the ‘‘victims’ of…injustice and amplify[ing] their victimization’ (Benford and Snow, 2000: 615).

The ‘prognostic framing’ which Benford and Snow (2000: 616) describe is linked to the articulation of solutions. Here, the thesis seeks to undertake the ‘positive disclosing’ (Strydom, 2011: 137) function of critique in highlighting the alternative normative and material solutions offered by the Non-Bt Coalition as part of an alternative conceptualisation of development.

As a method critical discourse analysis obliges analysts to be reflexive with regard to their own ideological assumptions. The process of ‘de-structuring’ (Fairclough, 1989: 171) ideological assumptions, and the researcher’s attempts to critique perspectives as part of this reconstruction is, of course, strongly influenced by the researcher’s own ideological positioning. As Fairclough (1989: 171) notes, ‘restructuring’ requires ‘a strategy for dealing with the problematization of one’s position to be creative, to put together familiar discourse types in novel combinations’ (ibid.).

The analysis of competing perspectives requires that researchers are flexible enough in their own thinking to gain the type of in-depth insight into a perspective which is required. As Savin-Baden (2004: 367) highlights, such a struggle for interpretation involves ‘messiness, self-critique and pain’, particularly when the research entails highly polarised perspectives. It is also, as Scheper-Hughes (1995: 147) notes, ‘necessarily flawed’ given the researcher’s imperfect self-awareness and inability to fully transcend her positionality; however, it is argued that it is ‘good enough’ (Scheper-Hughes, 1995: 147) if it seeks to push the boundaries of the researcher’s

self-awareness further, and leads to new insights, not only on the theme of the research, but also on the process of knowledge construction itself.

The current research entailed quantitative and qualitative data obtained from ninety recorded interviews. (This relates to cited interviews only. In total, the research involved over one hundred interviews). The corpus of data comprised more than seven hundred pages of single-spaced, typed material. In order to undertake the analysis of such a large volume of data, training on data analysis software (SPSS software for the quantitative work, and NVIVO for the qualitative analysis) was undertaken between January and March, 2012. Despite a further three months spent inputting and categorising the data using these programs, however, both were subsequently largely abandoned.

These programs were found to be useful in terms of gaining familiarity with, and organising, the data. However, the subsequent decision to almost totally reject them was due to the fact that their use became increasingly problematic given the depth of understanding and creativity which the analysis required. (SPSS remained crucial as a database for the easy referencing of quantitative data on individual participants). Seidel (1991: 114) notes that ‘some computer programs’ diminish the ‘close involvement and interaction with their data’ (ibid.) which many researchers value. Similarly, Bazeley (2007: 8) asserts that certain software packages can lead to a ‘loss of context’ and ‘alienation’ (ibid.) from the data. The experience with this thesis suggests that researchers should be guided by their research objectives

and their own sense of their data when taking decisions on the use of software. They should also be flexible enough to abandon such tools if they become an obstacle to gaining more in-depth access to the data later in the research process.