are combined to look at the data in an uncritical manner, like an ordinary, not purposefully discerning reader might. Typically, the idealized reader is looking for the general picture of the text without trying to position or angle it. In the case of this study, an idealized reader
framework centers the busy practitioner who reads for a gist and may not have either the time to spend or the effort to exert on analyzing the text beyond skimming the abstract and conclusions or, at best, reading the first two or three sentences in the lead in each section of the article.
The second analytical tool used in level one analysis is intertextual analysis. According to Fairclough (1992), intertextuality is “the property texts have of being full of snatches of other texts, which may be explicitly demarcated or merged in, and which the text may assimilate, contradict, ironically echo, and so forth” (p. 84). To paraphrase, intertextual analysis names the ways a text invites a reader to recall previous understandings when interacting with new
information. This may be done explicitly by naming a memory or previous piece of knowledge or it may be implied, leaving the reader to fill in omissions based on what they already know.
Intertextual analysis is important because it shows how texts are produced and
reproduced in the light of other social and discursive practices. The framework of critical race feminism will be used to provide a language for deconstructing the latent messages found in these narratives. Intertextuality may be demonstrated in two ways, manifest or constitutive intertextuality. Manifest intertextuality addresses the ways quotes or citations of previous works are selected and contextualized. Conversely, constitutive intertextuality refers to the ways texts are made up of undefined connotations and implications. Manifest intertextuality in this study is demonstrated in the conventions of academic writing such as in text citations.
My analysis, however, will focus on constitutive intertextuality in the form of textual silences. Textual silence is defined as “the omission of some piece of information that is pertinent to the topic at hand” (Huckin, 2002, p. 348). Huckin (2002) identified five types of textual silences: (1) speech-act silences, (2) presuppositional silences, (3) discrete silences, (4) genre-based silences, and (5) manipulative silences. Speech-act silence can be characterized as
an intentional silence with the express purpose of communicating a specific point. As stated earlier, this study focused on less transparent forms of intertextuality as the purposeful silence is not a convention of academic writing.
The remaining four types of silences are used to examine the aggregated textual silences present in the dataset as a whole. Presuppositional silences omit pertinent information, thus compelling the reader to access unspoken understandings implicitly understood to be shared and taken-for-granted knowledge between the text producer and receiver. Discreet silences are those that avoid stating sensitive information either to avoid offending the reader or to avoid infringing on the interest or privacy of those affected by the subject matter at hand. Genre-based silences are those that are governed by genre conventions. For example, research conducted in a positivist tradition may routinely leave out those details whose inclusion would foreground the researcher’s positionality for fear that such information may undermine the genre’s aura of objectivity. Finally, manipulative silences are those that deliberately conceal relevant
information from the reader in order to further the interests of the writer or speaker. This type of silence relies on the reader’s or listener’s lack of awareness (Huckin, 2002).
Level two analysis. The second level of analysis is more interpretive, taking the
constructions described in level one and placing them in the context of discourse production and consumption (Jorgensen & Phillips, 2002). Level two analysis focuses on Fairclough’s second dimension—discourse as practice—focusing on the institutional contexts in which the text are produced and consumed as well as sensemaking and application on the part of the reader. At this level of analysis, interpretation is rooted in the researcher’s experiential knowledge and analysis within academic journals, the peer review process, and student affairs culture. This analysis involves situating the text within this wider context that contributes to this production and
consumption of messages about Black undergraduate women. In dealing with discursive practices, the following questions were considered:
Why are certain issues/concerns rather than others chosen to be addressed? Why are topics addressed the way they are?
What are the factors that influence and/or control scholars in their work? What impact may the messages regarding Black women in college have in the
daily practices of student affairs practitioners?
Level three analysis. In the third level of analysis, Fairclough’s third dimension— discourse as social practice—is explored. Fairclough (2003) suggested that certain key elements in the composition of social practice be examined. This comprehensive analysis assists in understanding and interpreting the wider sociopolitical picture in which certain discourses and ideologies work and interact. Toward this end, I connected the conclusions of the analysis thus far to a wider social and cultural context by examining the discursive construction of Black undergraduate women within the culture of student affairs and the broader U.S. context by using the analytical framework of critical race theory and critical race feminism. The tenets and concepts of CRF facilitated an exploration of the complexities involved in the hegemonic process with regards to the construction of race and gender in U.S. society and its role in social and political exclusion and marginalization of Black women in higher education as well as explaining how the hegemonic process of academic journals persists.
Methodological Summary
I first attended specifically to CDA’s level one, description, where I explored the idealized reader perspective and examined textual silences as a tool of intertextuality. From there, I moved to CDA’s level two, interpretation, where I examined the context of the text’s
production and consumption within student affairs culture. Next, I examined CDA’s level three, explanation, where I explained how the authors’ choices reflect sociocultural practices that are situated within a larger discourse.