Last week in class, I tried to ask a question about the connection of a researcher's agenda to her theory and method paradigm. Unfortunately, I didn't explain it well, so it came off a bit stupid (and probably random). Lucky for me, the reading this weekend from Jorgenson and Phillips' Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method brought the issue back to bat.
My original question, revised: in post-structuralism--and really, I should be saying Derridian deconstruction--"il n'y a pas de texte [there is nothing outside of the text]." The stance creates a unique moment in creating the contextual space of a discursive moment. Based on the intertextuality of the articulations, the scene that develops is only of the "now": who is there and what is said in that space. That's a great axiom for discourse analysts (trying to finish a dissertation) to incorporate, since it limits the ethnographic detail needed to learn the articulated varieties. So if someone were claiming a post-structural theoretical backing, it sheds light to her methods, but what about her agenda for research? In the same way that discourse analysis and critical discourse analysis differ in their stance to right injustices, doesn't a person's agenda have to match their theory, and thus additionally their methods? My ultimate question: what is the relationship between a researcher's agenda, theory, and method? The title to this blog post implies that I'm looking to create a visual model to metaphorize this issue, but that's only because I like visuals. With that said, how would a visual model look to represent these point situating the researcher's ethos: tree diagram, venn diagram, or constellation model? I understand that I'm limiting the available representations, but that's only because I can see one of these styles working to explain this model.
Reading "Across Approaches" brought this growing conceptual issue to hand because of the various styles of interpretive research. The author's explain that Fairclough posits two analytical dimensions: (1) the event and (2) the theory that drives the method; Laclau and Mouffe stand between articulation and discourse (140-41). But this all stems from the genesis of a research question. Research questions start organically: someone sees something and questions it. We are coming face-to-face with a bias/agenda driven issue. That researcher then compiles a lit review, reviews theories, or falls back on her expertise, assembles her theory-method concoction. Moreover, the "Analytical Tools" section is shaped by the researcher's initial sighting of the issue, and then her stance on it. Because of this, there has to be an equal tripart consideration of framing a qualitative project.
But I think this falls apart because a researcher's agenda isn't constrained by a boundary based on time. Or at least it shouldn't. If a researcher based her stance on a case or concept, it sounds an awfully lot like positivism. Which no post-structuralist is going to sign up for. Ever. They'd rather poke their eye out. So while I'm sure of that, I'm no longer sure of this posting. I had the proverbial wheels spinning, but maybe they were spinning out of control.
And now I can't build the model I wanted so badly at the beginning of this post.
Here's to another week of theoretical ramblings...
I guess I need to hear more about what you mean by "if a researcher based her stance on a case or concept, it sounds an awfully lot like positivism" - what do you mean by a case or a concept?
ReplyDeleteI do think that someone's agenda drives their method, and that various social theories may come in between - what that EXACT relationship is likely varies from person to person and perhaps other variables are at play (like audience and consumer of research driving the theory and framing of method).
Maybe we need a concrete example to give weight to the abstract nature of this question?