As I considered the various approaches within DA, my research journal shows a growing frustration that no single approach appeared to offer all of the characteristics I believed were necessary to enable adequate understanding of the research area.
A generic approach appeared to offer a practical way forward. I was however aware that the use of a robust theoretical framework would serve to structure my research and would allow a clear statement of my approach towards issues of ontology, epistemology and methodology (Mack 2010). Anfara & Mertz (2015) argue that a theoretical framework has a significant influence on almost every aspect of qualitative research including the nature of the research focus and the study’s conduct. They acknowledge however that a variety of opinions exist within the qualitative research about the significance and purpose of theory in research. Use of a theoretical framework appeared particularly important as a novice researcher, enabling coherence and rigour within the study. Delamont (2002) for example suggests that the use of theory separates social science accounts from those accounts found in journalism or stories. Paul and Marfo (2001) also caution that a failure to examine the theoretical perspectives underpinning a research study inevitably leads to a simplistic, technique-based approach.
I also wished to avoid the frequent criticism that theoretical issues are often ignored in the increasing numbers of health and nursing research studies using DA (Buus 2005, Cheek 2004, Smith 2007). Cheek (2004), for example, emphasises that researchers need to define the theoretical underpinnings of their use of discourse and discourse analysis, justify their choice of texts and should provide a rationale for the framework underpinning analysis. A relevant theory to underpin the study appeared however to be elusive and a considerable period of time was spent in seeking one theoretical framework that was consistent with all aspects of the study. Dillow’s (2009) paper, in which she describes her journey towards theoretical understanding proved a turning point. Whilst her study was entirely different to mine, as was the nature of her struggle with theory, I was able to recognise the
feelings of uncertainty that she described and to appreciate that the use of theory may often involve a ‘journey away from certainties’ (Dillow 2009: 1349).
Following further study of the nature of the many paradigms/theories available in social sciences research and their appropriate use (e.g. Coulehan 2009, Holloway & Riley 2011, Lather 2006), I was able to fully understand that it was not necessary to find ’one best way’ in which the research could be grounded (Lather 2006: 36). This search was perhaps influenced by my previous research experience gained largely from positivist studies. An arguably misplaced confidence in the value of the positivist paradigm means that concerns about appropriate paradigms are not a particular issue for positivist researchers whilst ‘tensions, controversies and conflicts’ are widespread within social sciences research (Holloway & Riley, 2011: 973).
Lather (2006: 52) suggests that a proliferation of frameworks is necessary in a post- modern era since it enables researchers to grapple with ‘a less comfortable social science full of stuck places and difficult philosophical issues’. It challenges researchers to work within an epistemological diversity rather than the consensus and sequential paradigm models traditionally advocated by authors such as Denzin and Lincoln (2005). Research students, she suggests, need to develop an enhanced understanding of the underpinning philosophical, political and ethical considerations in research rather than the ability to apply simple technical procedures. I came to recognise that I had perhaps been seeking a set of defined procedures to conduct the study rather than being open to the evolution and development that is characteristic of qualitative methodology (Cutcliffe & Harder 2012).
My difficulties in making a decision regarding the appropriate methodological framework can also perhaps be characterised as a situation of being ‘terrorized by the literature’ (Becker 2007:135). In common with many postgraduate students in his experience, I was paying too much attention to the research literature and trying to demonstrate a full understanding of all theoretical approaches in order to select the one which was appropriate. He cautions that there are many difficulties arising from this approach and novice researchers should instead pursue the normal scientific goals of producing a good piece of work, with a clear rationale, that can be used by others and which enhances understanding (Becker 2007).
Whilst this view of the appropriate conduct of a study was reassuring, concern remained about the extent to which a theoretical framework was essential to the
conduct of a systematic analysis of data. Different analytic frameworks were considered but provide a very specific way of examining data which appeared inappropriate for an exploratory study. A theoretical framework can mean that the researcher becomes ‘blind’ to aspects of the data that are not part of the theory (Mertz & Antaki, 2015:232). Wolcott (2002) however provided a further turning point when he stressed that theory should only be introduced when researchers are clear about what they need to focus on theoretically and how it specifically relates to what they have to report. The following statement struck a particular resonance and enabled the confident use of a generic approach to discourse analysis:
‘In other words, when you can make theory work for you, use it. When theory is only making work for you, look for alternative ways to pull your account together and to explain what you have been up to’ (Wolcott 2002:96 emphases in original).
Consideration of Wolcott’s (2002) assertion reassured me that a generic approach to discourse analysis was appropriate. The approach was consistent with Becker’s (2007) advice in that it offered a methodology that enabled a comprehensive and appropriate examination of issues relevant to the research question and allowed an explanation of the study’s conduct. It was therefore adopted within the current study. The strategies used to promote rigour within the study are outlined below.