Discursive psychology
Discursive psychology emerged in the mid-to-late 1980s as a critique of cognitivism (Willig, 2013; Wetherell, 2007). Key figures and works in the early development of this approach include Potter and Wetherell (1987), Edwards and Potter (1992, 1993), Antaki (1998), Billig (1996), Billig et al. (1988)
Discursive psychology rejects the dualism inherent in cognitivist approaches to the study of psychological life. Within cognitivism, psychological ‘topics’ such as
identity, attitudes and mental states have been theorised as cognitive-perceptual phenomena, contained within an isolated, private individual. Such phenomena are, typically, investigated using experimental, or realist methodology. In line with its social constructionist foundations, discursive psychology is interested in the performative nature of everyday language use. It rejects the notion that cognition can be accessed directly and transparently via talk; instead, it is concerned with
constituted. Edwards and Potter (1993) make claims for the understanding of language as social action in their Discursive Action Model (Horton-Salway, 2001; Edwards and Potter, 1993). This model is concerned with the way in which ‘descriptions and versions of events are constructed by speakers and writers to perform social actions’ (1993:25). Particular focus is on action, fact and interest, and accountability in talk. Rather than accepting that language illuminates cognitive or social reality, opinions and attributions are seen to be situated in ‘activity sequences’, such as blaming and defending (Edwards and Potter, 1993:24). An example of this is provided here from the data collected for this research project. Ingrid is talking about how she has finally decided to medicate her son after some initial reluctance: now I think I’m the other way, you watch
these programmes with people who’ll refuse to medicate and I think that’s completely wrong now because you see that even though it’s medication they do need it because they are… you know… there’s not the right
connection up there. A traditional approach to this talk, would consider Ingrid’s
statement to have provided a transparent route to her internally held ‘opinion’ that it is completely wrong not to medicate. This ‘opinion’ would be considered as fairly stable and constant (although there would be acknowledgement that something tangible had caused her to change her opinion at some point). The opinion that ‘it is wrong to medicate’ might be identified as a thematic category across the data set, and, instances of this opinion might be counted and compared with those parents who express an alternative view. However, if we alter the emphasis of our research question from ‘What is Ingrid (her talk) saying?’ to ‘What is Ingrid (her
talk) doing?’, our conclusions would be very different. Considerations of the
second question might lead the researcher to conclude that Ingrid is justifying her decision to medicate her son by constructing a version of people who don’t
convey persistent and dogged insistence; they will refuse to medicate. ‘Refuse’ can suggest a problematic form of agency, and so, in working up an account of these people as being stubborn and problematic, Ingrid not only distances herself from them, but also validates her own decision to medicate. One reason that Ingrid might be justifying this decision is that she is being interviewed by a psychologist, who, through the recruitment process, has problematized the parental experience of having a child with ADHD. For a social constructionist approach, variability is not problematic. Indeed, it would be anticipated that Ingrid would offer different accounts in different situations to fit the requirements of the social context. So, as exemplified, enquiring about what language is doing rather than what it is
saying shifts the analytic focus from individual, cognitive events and processes to
social interaction. As Hepburn and Wiggins state (2005:595), discursive
psychologists are concerned with ‘how ‘psychology’ and ‘reality’ are produced, dealt with, and made relevant by participants in and through interaction’. It is through language and interaction that individuals negotiate and formulate such psychological concerns as identity, group membership, social categorisation and attributions (Widdicombe and Wooffitt, 1995). Central to a discursive psychological approach is that language is implicated in the construction of moral psychological selves. Talk is understood to perform moral work as its aim is to present a
‘credible and creditable moral position’ for the speaker (Burr, 2003:135).
Consequently, this approach emphasises the accountability of descriptions and, specifically, how speakers attend to issues of accountability and responsibility for the actions and events they describe, and also for the discursive accounts they provide (Potter, 1996; Hepburn and Wiggins, 2005; Burr, 2003; Horton-Salway, 2001; Widdicombe and Wooffitt, 1995; Edwards and Potter, 1992). This, therefore, seems a particularly relevant and useful approach to draw upon in exploring how parents negotiate their understanding of ADHD, a disorder which is, of itself, often
subject to critical and judgemental attention and with which parents are morally implicated as outlined in Chapter 3. The main focus of this research is to
understand the ways in which the identities of parents of children with an ADHD diagnosis are produced given this moral positioning. The interest of discursive psychology in identifying the discursive techniques employed by individuals in the production and negotiation of their social identities is, therefore, a very pertinent and useful approach for answering this question.
I found Potter’s description (2010) of accounts having both an action-orientation and an epistemological orientation a useful framework for, firstly, identifying the discursive techniques, and, secondly, analysing their performative function. Action- orientation refers to what descriptions do. For example, are they working to
attribute blame or responsibility or to work up an action as common-place.
Epistemological orientation refers to how speakers construct their accounts as true and factual. Discursive techniques relating to action-orientation which I have found useful in my analysis include extreme case formulations (Potter, 1996; Edwards 2000; Pomerantz, 1986) three-part lists (Potter, 1996; Jefferson, 1990) and script formulation (Potter, 1996; Edwards, 1994). With regards to the epistemological orientation of descriptions, I have drawn on the following techniques in my analysis: interest management and stake inoculation (Potter, 1996; Horton- Salway, 2001; Edwards and Potter, 1993), category entitlements (Potter, 1996; Sacks, 1995; Widdicombe and Wooffit, 1995), empiricist discourse (Gilbert and Mackay, 1984; Woolgar, 1988), footing (Goffman, 2001), and reported speech (Stokoe, 2003, 2009; Stokoe and Edwards, 2007). Many of these techniques are drawn from conversation analysis, and I explain and illustrate them as they appear in the data chapters 5–8.
Discursive psychology is influenced by theories located within disciplines including sociology (Goffman, 1990, 1971), semiology (Barthes, 2006), anthropology
(Geertz, 1973) and philosophy (see Potter, 2001 for a discussion of Wittgenstein) and this accounts for the distinct epistemological divisions within the approach. Some discursive psychologists align themselves with conversation analysis and ethnomethodology, suggesting analysis should be restricted to the immediate interaction of research interest (see the debate between Schegloff, 1997, 1998; Wetherell, 1998; Billig, 1999). Other discursive psychologists, however, argue for a synthetic approach combining fine-grain analysis with a consideration of the
influence of wider cultural, historical and power relations (Seymour-Smith, 2008; Wetherell, 2007; Seymour-Smith and Wetherell, 2006).