III. RESULTADOS
3.1 Propuesta de programa de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional de central térmica
3.1.3 Respecto al cumplimiento de la norma SST General acorde a ley Nº 2
One way of engaging in social research which is consistent with a post-structuralist analysis of language and the role meaning structures play in the construction and regulation of social life is through employing the strategy of discourse analysis (Bannister et aI., 1 994; Gavey, 1 989; Parker, 1 992). Discourse analysis is a relatively new, yet well established method in psychology (Banister et aI., 1 994; Potter and Wetherell, 1 987) of which not all forms are post structural, reflecting both the diversity of perspectives by which language is approached and the variety of purposes which govern linguistic research (Potter and Wetherell, 1 987; Potter, Wetherell, Gill and Edwards, 1 990) (e.g. Hollway, 1 984; Squire, 1 990; van Dijk, 1 985).
Discourse analysis, as it is used here in this Foucauldian tradition of post-structuraIlsm,
involves the study of 'texts' with the aim of identifying the discursive patterns of meaning
which inhabit and inform the text (Bannister et aI., 1 994; Gavey, 1 989; Parker, 1 992). It involves the careful reading of texts with the aim of identifying the discrete meaning systems employed in the understanding of personal and social phenomena and entails an analysis
which is attentive both to detail in language and to the wider social picture. It operates on the post-structuralist assumptions that there are many possible constructions of reality, that the subjectivity which produces texts are fragmented, inconsistent and contradictory as a result of
this, and that texts realise the various discourses available in the social, cultural and historical context of the author (Gavey, 1 989; Parker, 1 992). It is the analysist's role to tease apart the discourses at work in the text (Bannister et ai., 1 994).
Identifying the discrete discourses underlying and infonning texts is an interpretive task in which the researcher simultaneously immerses themself in and takes a critical distance from the textual material at hand. There is no set method for identifying discourses however (Gavey, 1 989; Potter and Wetherell, 1 987) as "each step rests on a bedrock of intuition" (Parker, 1 990, p I 9 1 ). "Perhaps the first step in successful discourse analysis (is) the suspension of belief in what one nonnally takes for granted, as we begin to think about how a practice is constructed and what it assumes rather than seeing it as a mere reflection of an unproblematic reality" (Potter and Wetherell, 1 987, p 1 04).
A discourse, appearing in any fonn of text, paints pictures of reality which can be reduced to a "regulated system of statements" (Henriques et ai., 1 984, p i 05). This interrelated "system of statements ... cohere(s) around common meanings and values" (Hollway, 1 983, p 1 3 1 ) or 'constructions' (Parker, 1 992) and can be identified in this way. Identifying the discrete discourses inhabiting a text involves the careful reading of the text with a view to discerning the patterns of meaning, contradictions and inconsistencies existing within it (Gavey, 1 989). According to Potter and Wetherell ( 1 987, p 149), this involves a search for "recurrently used systems of tenns used for characterizing and evaluating actions, events and other phenomena (which are) constituted through a limited range of tenns (and are) organised around specific metaphors and figures of speech" .
. In order to identify the different systems of meaning, intuition as well as careful consideration and observation is required (Hollway, 1 989; Parker, 1 990) as the discourse analyst attempts to "get a sense of what (each discourse) feels like as a coherent whole" (Parker, 1 992, p I 4). This involves a search for the 'implicit' or 'overlapping' themes (Billig et aI., 1 988; Gavey, 1 992) of construction which cohere and contrast within the text. Once these themes or coherent systems of meaning are identified a discourse analyst will deliberately systematise the different ways of talking so the reader can more easily understand them (Parker, 1 992).
of discourses, thus removing much of the 'confusion' (Bannister et aI., 1 994) involved in the identification of the discrete meaning systems infonning a text. In providing these criteria Parker ( 1 992) does not advocate a set 'sequential ' method but rather he offers these 'steps' as a guideline to be emphasised differently in different ways, depending upon the research focus (Bunnan and Parker, 1 993 ; Coombes, 1 996). In the following section I will briefly outline the strategies employed in this research project to incorporate each of the criteria as advocated by Parker ( 1 992). Reflecting the Foucauldian tradition, Parker begins with a working definition of discourse as "a system of statements which constructs an object" (Parker,
1 990, p 1 9 1 ). He maintains that it is essential, as the analysis proceeds, to step back and revisit
early stages of the analysis as it develops to make sense of selected pieces of the text. A discourse is realised in texts
A 'text' is anything which possesses "delimited tissues of meaning reproduced in any fonn that can be given an interpretive gloss" (Parker, 1 992, p6). Parker ( 1 992) broad definition of a text broadens the application of discourse analysis beyond exclusively linguistic fonns. His definition of a text includes fonnal and infonnal speech, transcripts, documents, stories and even images, architecture, bodily movements and social practices, all of which convey specific social meanings and thereby 'realise' and reproduce discourses. The particular texts used in this study include the social science theoretical literature, interview transcripts and a social intervention practice.
A discourse is about
There are two levels of 'objectification' involved in Parker's ( 1 992) discourse analysis, both of which are incorporated as central features of this study. Firstly, the analyst seeks to identify the particular objects 'constructed' within the text and thereby given a 'reality' by the author/reader. Secondly the analyst will locate these constructions within an 'objectified' system of meanings. "A discourse is about objects and discourse analysis is about discourses as objects" (Parker, 1 992, p9). Throughout this research project both levels of objectification will be addressed. As constructions are identified in the analysis they will be located within a broader system of meanings - objectified discourses.
A discourse contains
through positioning the subject within "a particular space" amongst the constructions (Parker, 1 992, p9). This discursive space constrains and enables "particular types of self to step in" (Parker, 1 992, p9) thus effectively "hailing" the subject (Althusser, 1 97 1 ) to act and experience themself and the world in a way which is consistent with the particular discourse(s) realised. Subj ectivity is an effect of the subject positions afforded through a discourse and this analysis will be sensitive to the subject positions and senses of subjectivity which are evoked through the texts explored.
A discourse is a coherent of
The notion of discourse as a 'regulated ' or 'coherent ' system of meanings explicitly realises Foucault 's use of the tenn (Parker, 1 992, p l l ) in which discourse is construed as an interconnected system of statements constructed around other meanings in an internally consistent manner. The interconnected objects and subjectivities which are constructed through a 'regulated' meaning system avails a coherent world view to the user of the discourse. Discourse analysis in this research involves a search for coherent meaning systems in which constructed obj ects and subjectivities and their implications for action cohere together in a meaningful and consistent way.
A discourse is located
Because contemporary discourses have emerged at some point III the past a complete
"discourse analysis cannot take place without locating it's obj ect in time" (Parker, 1 992, p I 6). Through this research practice the "structure and force" (Parker, 1 992, p 1 6) of a discourse can be more fully appreciated as the historical forces leading to the discourse's adoption in contemporary life are explored-and articulated. In this research proj ect each discourse as it is identified through the various texts explored will be located within the broader social and historical context from which it has emerged. To achieve this Foucault's genealogical history, in which qualitatively different epochs are distinguishable through the institutional dominance of different discourses, will be employed as a guide. Discourses found in the contemporary social sciences will be traced to a time in which they emerged to gain institutional power.
A discourse refers to other discourses -
"Discourses embed, entail and presuppose other discourses" (Parker, 1 992, p 1 3) through drawing upon the concepts, analogies and metaphors constructed in other discourses which
appear useful and appropriate to filling the 'spaces ' within a particular discourse. "The systematic character of a discourse includes its systematic articulation with other discourses. In practice, discourses delimit what can be said, whilst providing the spaces - the concepts, metaphors, models, analogies - for making new statements within any specific discourse" (Henriques et al. 1 984, pp I 05-6). Parker suggests that being aware of this feature of the·
dynamics of discourse facilitates analysis through reading for ways in which objects constructed through different discourses "overlap, where they constitute what look like the same object in different ways" (Parker, 1 992, p I 4). Discursive co-articulations will be explored and addressed throughout the research project. Discourses identified in the various texts will be compared and contrasted with one another and overlaps in their constructions and implications will be noted as part of the 'objectification' process.
A discourse reflects on its own of
A discourse as it is elaborated and established within a text frequently contrasts itself with common meanings constructed through other discourses, thus subtly positioning itself as 'different' . The contrasts involved in this process require the author of the text to take a 'reflexive' standpoint and to evoke explicit contrasts with ' implicit meanings' . The elaboration of these 'hidden meanings' (Billig et aI., 1 988) constitutes the task of explicating the reflexive process involved in the elaboration of the text. In this study subtle differences in meaning implied by each discourse, as well as the explicit contrasts, will be elaborated upon as each discourse is identified and distinguished from others within the texts of concern.
Parker ( 1 992) describes these seven features of discourse as a necessary and sufficient criteria for identifying discrete discourses at work within any given text. He also offers three 'auxiliary' features of a discourse which, he claims, ought to be considered in any discursive research project. These auxiliary features concern the politics of discourse analysis and the role of discourse in the broader social system. Stated briefly, once discourses have been identified, an analysis should be attendant to (a) the role of a discourse in supporting institutions and institutional practices; (b) it's role in the reproduction andlor propagation of power relations in society; and (c) it's 'ideological' consequences in tenns of social relations and material effects. These broader concerns for the implications of discourses within society as a whole reflect the interdisciplinary nature of post-structuralist work. Given the context of this research project the institutions I will be concerned with are those which legitimate or
challenge men's violence to their partners in the community. The dynamics of power explored in this piece of research includes a consideration of the struggle by the protagonists of each discourse to establish dominance and hegemony within the field at large and this will necessarily involve an examination of the power dynamics inherent in each discourse. The ideological effects I will explore are those implications of each discourse for subj ectivity, social relations and action norms.
These three auxiliary features of discursive implication, as well as the seven point criteria for the identification of discourses as proposed by Parker ( 1 992), will be incorporated throughout this research as a guide for the identification and exploration of the discourses being realised and reproduced within and through the various texts explored.
A Post-structuralist reading of the theoretical literature surrounding wife abuse.
In this study the social science theoretical literature accounting for wife abuse was explored and analysed discursively. All books and journal articles pertaining to the field, which were accessible to the researcher were read and re-read several times in search of commonalities and variations in the way in which theorists and interventionists throughout the social sciences accounted for and explained wife abuse. ' Implicit' or 'overlapping' themes (Billig et aI., 1 988; Gavey, 1 992)