Bone - The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis Structures, Developments and Perspectives

7/27/2019 Bone - The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis Structures, Developments and Perspectives

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bone-the-field-of-foucaultian-discourse-analysis-structures-developments 1/23

The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis: Structures, Developments and Perspectives

Author(s): Rainer Diaz-Bone, Andrea D. Bührmann, Encarnación Gutiérrez Rodríguez, WernerSchneider, Gavin Kendall, Francisco TiradoReviewed work(s):Source: Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, Vol. 33, No. 1 (123), DiscourseAnalysis in the Social Sciences / Diskursanalyse in den Sozialwissenschaften (2008), pp. 7-28Published by: Center for Historical Social ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20762257 .

Accessed: 09/01/2012 22:00

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Center for Historical Social Research is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chsr

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20762257?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20762257?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=chsr



The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis:Structures, evelopments andPerspectives

Rainer Diaz-Bone, Andrea D. B?hrmann,Encarnacion Gutierrez Rodriguez, Werner Schneider,

Gavin Kendall & Francisco Tirado*

Abstract: ?Das Feld der Foucaultschen Diskursanalyse: Strukturen, Entwick

lungenundPerspektiven?. The article outlines the field of FOUCAULTiandiscourse analysis. The FOUCAULTian concept of discourse is introduced,andmethodological positions andmethodological developmentsare sketched.

Compared tootherqualitative social researchapproaches, thedifferent esearchers and researchgroups thathave adopted the FOUCAULTian concept ofdiscourse arenot linkedby a fully ntegratedommonresearchparadigm.Ho

wever, they share common methodological problems and areas of methodolo

gical researchresulting romvarious references oFOUCAULTian positions.In the last decade, different research groups have become aware of these sha

redcommonalities,so that ne can speakof an emergingfieldofFOUCAULTian discourse analysis rather han n emerging aradigm.The articlegives an

insight ntodiscourse analyticresearch in selected countries,discusses the internationalizationfFOUCAULTian discourse analysis and highlights urrenttrends and perspectives.

Keywords: Michel FOUCAULT, FOUCAULTian discourse analysis, discourse analysis, field, paradigm.

Address all communications to: Rainer Diaz-Bone; Freie Universit?t Berlin; Institut f?r

Soziologie, Garystra?e 55, 14195 Berlin, Germany; e-mail: [email protected];Andrea D. B?hrmann, Institut f?r Soziologie, LMU M?nchen, Konradstr. 6, 80801 M?n

chen, Germany; e-mail: [email protected]; Encarnacion Gu

tierrezRodriguez, Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American Studies, School of Languages,

Linguistics and Cultures, University ofManchester, Manchester, Ml3 9PL, United King

dom; e-mail: [email protected]; Werner Schneider, Philosophisch-Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakult?t, Universit?t Augsburg, Universit?tsstr. 10, 86135 Augsburg,

Germany; e-mail: [email protected]; Gavin Kendall, School of Hu

manities and Human Services, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD4034,

Australia; e-mail: [email protected]; Francisco Tirado, Departament de Psicologia So

cial, Facultat de Psicologia, Universit?t Aut?noma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra (Barce

lona), Spain; e-mail: [email protected] Print Version of: Diaz-Bone, Rainer; B?hrmann, Andrea D.; Gutierrez Rodriguez,

Encarnacion; Schneider, Werner; Kendall, Gavin & Tirado, Francisco (2007). The Field of

Foucaultian Discourse Analysis: Structures, Developments and Perspectives [52 para

graphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2),Art. 30, URL: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-30-e.htm.

Historical Social Research, Vol. 33 2008 ? No. 1, 7-28



1. Introduction

The debate on discourse analysis, originally influenced by Michel FOU

CAULT, has gained significance invarious academic disciplines, inparticularas a qualitative research method. However, we still need to develop a more

accurate focus regarding the foundation of discourse analysis as amethod and

itsapplication in social research. This is the aim of this special issue ofHSR.

The articles in this issue offer an insight into theoretical andmethodological

aspects of FOUCAULT's 'discourse', discussion on theproblems we mightencounter applying it as a method and its currentdevelopment. The articles

represent a selection of the on-line journal special issue of FQS- Forum:

Qualitative Social Research 8(2): "FromMichel Foucault's Discourse TheorytoEmpirical Discourse Research".1The concept of discourse understood as a collective form of practice in the

social fieldor inareas of society points to the creation of a collectively shared

knowledge order, althoughFOUCAULT has emphasised that the individual as

subject is created discursively.While the concept of discourse addresses the

meso- and macro-level to discursively analyse the influences of discourses on

interaction nd agents, italso addresses themicro level of social relations.At

the centre of the analysis lies the individual and her/hisdiscursive productionas well as the relationship between discursive practices or discursive forma

tions and processes of subjectification. In recentwork both perspectives arebrought togetherthrough,forexample, FOUCAULT's concept of dispositif or

JudithBUTLER's concept of performativity.Within this background new

debates onmethodological developments indiscourse analysis are takingplace.This will be discussed in thefollowing articles inthis issue.

Thus, discourse analysis isnot perceived as "just" a theoretical "attitude" or

as a different"perspective" inqualitative social research.Recently researchers

have been attentive to the socio-historical studies of FOUCAULT and his

methodological reflectionswith regard to archaeology and genealogy. On this

basis a new and differentform of self-reflexiveempirical research has been

produced. Therefore, there is a need to reflectupon the coherence and premisesof FOUCAULT's discourse analysis. In this regard, some of thecontributions

here discuss specific research designs, explanations,methodological standards

and quality criteria. Furthermore, these articles illustrate the relevance and

significance of the following questions: Does discourse analysis implyor de

scribe a specific researchmethod, research concepts and conceptualisations or

instruments s well as their application in the research process? And: How

could we combine other research perspectives or paradigms with discourse

analysis? Finally, the selected articles illustratedifferentreceptions of FOU

CAULT's discourse analysis and the impossibility of departingfrom a ho

1Available throughURL: <http://www.qualitative-resea

8



mogenous paradigm in social research.Nonetheless, the articles show thatthere

isa field of discourse analysis inqualitative researchmethods.This issue startswith an outline to the internationalfield of FOUCAULT's

discourse analysis.2We speak of "field", because discourse analysis which is

informedby or oriented to thework of FOUCAULT isnot an integrated ara

digm in the sensemade famous byKUHN (1962). After theFOUCAULTian

notion of discourse and the conception of discourse analysis that "workswith

FOUCAULT" are presented, some of the different local/national scenes of

discourse analysiswill be sketched. This will be donemainly with referenceto

national approaches because so far there does not seem to be a strong trans

national structure f the field?although thereare some networks, such as in

the"sub"-fields of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), that transcend nationalboundaries already. Thenwe will discuss some current trands nd perspectivesinFOUCAULTian discourse analysis. In short,we will look at how: (1) the

collection of articles in thisHSR-issue presents converging developments but

also theheterogeneityof thefield of FOUCAULTian discourse analysis and (2)the differentgroups and national scenes have started to connect themselves

internationally. o theeditors of this issuehope to give a fresh insightinto the

stateof discourse analysis and to contributewith this special issue ofHSR to

thediscussion and development of thisfield.

2. The FOUCAULTian Conception ofDiscourse and

FOUCAULTian Discourse Analysis

Today the theoreticalwork ofMichel FOUCAULT iswidely regarded as being

part of the theoreticalbody of social sciences like sociology, social history,

political sciences and social psychology. But FOUCAULTian notions are also

fundamental n otherdynamic fields such as cultural studies,gender studies and

postcolonial studies. Discourse theoryconcepts and arguments are no longerrestrictedto linguisticsor other sciences of language use. Today theyare part

of the social sciences.3One of thereasons

for this spread beyond thepurelylinguistic is thatFOUCAULT conceived discourse as social structure nd dis

cursive practice as social practice. "Discourse" is not simply dialogue or phi

losophical monologue. The term "discourse" was first used to signify the

2This is a shorter version of the Introduction of the FQS-Issue Vol. 8(2): Diaz-Bone, Rainer;

B?hrmann, Andrea D.; Gutierrez Rodriguez, Encarnacion; Schneider, Werner; Kendall,Gavin & Tirado, Francisco (2007). The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis: Structu

res, Developments and Perspectives [52 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 30, URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.

net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-30-e.htm>.

3 See for the English-speaking world URL: <http://www.michel-foucault.com/> and the

online-journal Foucault Studies.

9



grammatical structure f narratives (BARTHES, 1988). Here "discourse" was

conceived as the order overarching the level of the sentence. For a long timethe various purely linguistic approaches to discourse were dominant (VANDIJK, 1985, 1997a, 1997b). In socio-linguistic approaches and conversation

analysis (TEN HAVE, 1999) "discourse" means an interactional order which

emerges in social situations, so here "discourse" is an interactionistconcept

(ANGERM?LLER, 2001). In the different traditions of French structuralism

and (so called) post-structuralismthe termdiscourse seems tobe omnipresent.In the structuralist ra discourse was introducedas theunderlying deep struc

tureof thehumanmind (LEVI-STRAUSS) or thehuman psyche (LACAN).The FOUCAULTian use of this concept is the firstthat combines a struc

turalistview with a praxeological interpretationf discourse intoan (at least)dualistic concept. FOUCAULTian discourse is conceived of as a superindividual reality; as a kind of practice thatbelongs to collectives rather than

individuals; and as located in social areas or fields.However, as the laterwork

of FOUCAULT (1988, 1990, 2005) and thework of JudithBUTLER (1990,

1993) have shown,discourses have an impacton individuals as they re discur

sively constructedand constituted.So some researchers in the field (J?GER,2004; KELLER, 2007; DIAZ-BONE, 2007) consider the FOUCAULTian

concept of discourse tobelongmore to ameso- ormacro-level thantoamicrolevel (as in conversation analysis or ethnomethodology) although it influences

socialized individuals and interactions in social situations.However, others inthe field see, from a post-structuralist angle, the subject as constructed and

constitutedon thebasis of a discursivematrix: several articles in this specialedition discuss the relationship between a discursive matrix and subjectiva

tion/subjectification T?TE, 2007, and, in the context of dispositif, see also

B?HRMANN & SCHNEIDER, 2007). They focus on the subject and the

discursive constitution of the subject: in thisway, FOUCAULTian discourse

analysis enters themicro-level.

FOUCAULT worked out his concept of discourse and discursive practice in

The Archaeology ofKnowledge (FOUCAULT, 1972a), which was announced

as a methodological supplement to his epistemological magnum opus TheOrder of Things (FOUCAULT, 1970). FOUCAULT offershis principles of

discourse theory in theArchaeology ofKnowledge. Using this approach?located "beyond hermeneutics and structuralism"(DREYFUSS & RABINOW,

1983)?FOUCAULT wishes todistance himself from certain centralhypotheses of the traditional treatment f history.For FOUCAULT, the goal of the

Archaeology ofKnowledge (1972a) is toengage ina pure descriptionof discur

sive events,which treats thematerial in its original neutrality, serving as a

horizon for the investigationof theunities constructedwithin it. In thiscontext

FOUCAULT first crutinizes theconcepts of "tradition","discipline", "devel

opment" or "author" because he assumes these implythe illusion of historical

continuity.Where representationsof continuityare asserted FOUCAULT in

10



troduces the category of discontinuityand the concepts of "rift", "threshold",

"series," "rupture" and "transformation".Second, FOUCAULT problematizesthecategory ofmeaning. He wishes to scrutinize the discourse concerning the

fact and conditions of a discourse's manifest appearance and not to dwell on

the content thatmay be concealed therein,but ratheron the transformations

that the discourses have effected.Finally, FOUCAULT abandons the notion of

a sovereign subject in so faras he conceives of discourses as a self-contained

order,which is inaccessible with regard to the intentions of the individuals

involved in themwhen one's attempt ignores the objects or contexts of the

discourses.

Through this deconstructive operation,FOUCAULT (1972a) establishes the

archaeological area of research that is constitutedby the totality f all effectivestatements?whetherwritten or spoken?in theirdispersion and in the force

fulness that is proper to each one (as a "serious speech act" [DREYFUSS &

RABINOW, 1983]). The startingpoint of the FOUCAULTian analysis of

statementsis thus thediversityof all statementswhose positivity is inneed of

investigation. he point here is toanalyse thehistorical conditions of theactual

existence of statements.Beginning with the actual positive existence of state

ments, FOUCAULT (1972a) then proposes to include a large quantity of

statementswithin a discourse insofaras they belong to the same discursive

formation. In analysing discourses, he differentiatesfour complexes thatare

characterized by regularities in theirdiscursive practices and correspondwiththe identified xistence-functionsof statements.Thus, discourses are structured

and constitutedby the formationrules of objects, enunciativemodalities, con

cepts, and strategies. In conclusion, one can say thatinFOUCAULT's descriptions of theprocess of discursive analysis he first askswhich object or area of

knowledge is discursively produced; second, he asks according towhat logicthe terminologyis constructed; third, e asks who authorized it;and finally,he

askswhich strategicgoals are being pursued in thediscourse (see also B?HR

MANN 2004:27-39).Yet inhis Archaeology ofKnowledge FOUCAULT stilldelivers theoretical

work,withinwhich discourse ispresented as a systemof statements("enuncia

tions"). It is this character of an "ordered system"which is constitutive of

statements,ratherthan the intentionality f individuals in situations (althoughindividuals still have to enact discourses and statements).These statements re

produced (diachronically) in an ongoing discursive stream,whereby thepre

ceding statementsbuild the (virtual) contextof previously-enacted statements.

Ongoing statementshave to respect the set of rules which is inherentin this

context of preceding statements. If theyfail to do this, theywill not have an

impact; theywill not be accepted or even recognized in the social area or social

field as "serious speech acts" (DREYFUSS & RABINOW, 1983). To identifyand to analyse discourses is equivalent to identifyingnd analysing systemsofstatementsas bearers of theirrules offormation i.e. the rules thatmade the

11



Statementspossible and that simultaneously already reside in the (system of

preceding) statements.They are not external to the statementsthemselves andtheymust be understood as the resultof a socio-historicprocess inwhich the

discourse as a field of knowledge and a systemof rules emerges. These rulesare said to be "responsible" for the organized?i.e. systematic and pre

structured?ways of using "concepts", of referring o "objects", of thinking n

strategiesand of formattingtheways of speaking. So one can speak of these

ways ofmaking statements s discursive practices.These discursive practices are productive: theyproduce the specific seman

tics of thewords inuse, and theyrelatewords to objects and to strategiesof

acting towards and thinking bout things, ersons etc. In thisway, ontologizing

categorizations and evaluations are integrated, nd theyappear as "natural" as

opposed to "constructed" or as thecontingentresult of discursive practices. In

this sense, discourses produce a perception and representation f social reality.This representationformspart of hegemonic strategiesof establishing dominant interpretations f "reality" (see the contributions in LACLAU, HOW

ARTH, NORVEL & STAVRAKAKIS, 2000). It is thisaspect of discourse as a

mediator and tool ofpower throughtheproduction ofknowledge thatgender or

queer (e.g. BUTLER) and postcolonial theorists(e.g. SAID and SPIVAK) have

exploredwhen engagingwith FOUCAULT's concept of discourse. Discourses,as SAID (1978) and SPIVAK (1987) note are not innocentexplanations of the

world. They are, as SPIVAK emphasizes, away ofworlding, of appropriatingtheworld through nowledge. The strandsofknowledgewith which we engagein our attemptto describe and understand theworld are produced in complexpower relations inwhich different ctors and institutions ork to establish a

dominant interpretation f "reality". It is in regard to the understanding ofdiscourse as an instance of hegemony that AID and SPIVAK look at thequestion ofwhat kind of truth as been produced within the context of Europeancolonialism. Furthermore,they investigatewhat kind of descriptions ofworld,

people and thingshave been discursively conveyed as the"Other" in thename

of the"Orient" and the "gendered subalternized "Other".Discourses are under

stood in these approaches as instances of ideology, showing how ideologyneeds tobe analysed beyond theMARXist paradigm of "false consciousness".

Instead, FOUCAULT's concept of discourse brings us to the question of he

gemony and thepower of discourses in establishing a dominant or a counter

hegemonic representation GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ, 1999). Discourse doesnot only imply the semantic structureof individual utterances or political

speeches, but, as HARAWAY (1991) notes, itdelineates amaterial-semantic

knot, inwhich subjective experiences and objects of knowledge are inscribed.

Discursive practices are interwovenwith non-discursive practices. This distinc

12



tion leads to the concept of the "dispositif'.4Here, institutional nd technical

forms of social practices are embedded indiscourses and vice versa. The dispositif is the constitutive interface forpower-knowledge relations which FOU

CAULT has analysed inmany of his socio-historical studies, inparticular inhis

work on governmentality,which became extraordinarilyfamous in the last

three decades (FOUCAULT, 1977, 1978; LEMKE, KRASMAN & BR?CK

LING, 2000; GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ & PIEPER, 2003, B?HRMANN,

2004;B?HRMANN& SCHNEIDER,2007).Discourses are studied in their socio-historical development,which is not

theorized as a continuous unfolding of an a priori existing "logic", but as a

process that is characterized by discontinuities and ruptures.The early notion

of discourse emphasizes theexistence of a systemof ruleswhich is inherent ndiscursive practices, and stresses the coherent organization of discourse. Later,FOUCAULT (1972b) and especially his followerMichel PECHEUX (1975)

"opened" this structuralposition by including inconsistencies and contradic

tions. The FOUCAULTian notion of discourse was firstdeveloped in thearea

of thehistorical epistemology of sciences and in applications in social historyin France. Here in the 1960s discourse researchers startedto reflectupon the

methodology of discourse analysis. But this first strand of FOUCAULTian

discourse analysis remained a Francophone research area with little interna

tional reception (HAK & HELSOOT, 1995;WILLIAMS, 1999; HELSLOOT

& HAK, 2007; DIAZ-BONE, 2003, 2007).Instead the theoretical concepts in the FOUCAULTian work received a

wider internationalreception invarious social sciences. These were adoptedand combinedwith other theoretical traditions in sociology and linguistics. In

short, indifferentdisciplines researchers startedtowork with theFOUCAUL

Tian concept of discourse as an empirical concept. The startingpoint for the

development of discourse analysis outside of France, however, was an interdis

ciplinaryheterogeneityof differentsyntheses.Over the last twentyyears, one can speak of an increasing interest nmeth

odological positions and themethodological consequences of FOUCAULT's

considerations about how to explore discourses, i.e. the empirical analysis ofdiscursive structuresand discursive practices. Some of themethodologicaldebates have focussed the question on whether there is one methodology in

FOUCAULTian work, and ifthere is just one, to ask questions like:What are

its standpoints, its strategies etc. (DREYFUSS & RABINOW, 1983)? Some

discourse researchers startedexploringmethodological strategiesand collectingtools for empirical discourse analysis (KENDALL & WICKHAM, 1999;

KELLER, 2004) or topresent theresults of theirmethodological experiences as

4However, some discourse analysts do not accept this distinction?they regard every socialpractice as discursive.

13



"schedules" for discourse analysis (e.g.MEYER & WODAK, 2001; J?GER,

2004).Since the 1990s different esearchers and researchgroups that se theFOU

CAULTian notion of discourse started to become aware of each other and to

influence each other. InGermany one can say thatdifferent onferences and

workshops built theplatformfordiscussions. First,discourse researchers com

pared theoretical uses of FOUCAULTian notions and different theoretical

paradigms and disciplinary footings. Soon, handbooks, overviews (BUBLITZ,

B?HRMANN, HANKE & SEIER, 1999;KELLER, HIRSELAND, SCHNEI

DER & VIEH?VER, 2001,2003,2005;KERCHNER& SCHNEIDER,2006)and an increasingamount ofmonographs emerged. InFrance the situationwas

similar, but there linguistsand historians kept a more prominent role in the

development and continuity of FOUCAULTian discourse analysis (WILLIAMS, 1999; CHARAUDEAU & MAINGUENEAU, 2003; GUILHAU

MOU, 2005). Here, following the seminal works of PECHEUX, different

groups started to develop methodological tools for discourse analysis. The

influence of thisFOUCAULTian discourse analytic perspectiveweakened in

the 1980s, but isnow experiencing a kind of renaissance.

All these national and international nitiativesmobilized therecognitionand

acknowledgement of others,which supported the emergence of a field of

FOUCAULTian discourse analysis. A field?in BOURDIEU's (1985, 1988)

sense?differs froma paradigm by virtue of itswidely recognized cleavagesand differences (MARTIN, 2003; DIAZ-BONE, 2002). The groups and indi

viduals that recognize each other as part of the field share common topics,

methodological questions and interests.5There are some older attempts togive an overview of the international rea

of discourse analysis (e.g. EHLICH, 1994). KELLER (2004) delivers a more

recentportrayalof the international ield.Recently, somemore specific suggestions have been made about how to interpret he structure f national fields.

ANGERM?LLER (2001) suggested a differentiation between two central

paradigms: a so-called "pragmatical discourse analysis" and a "post-structural

discourse theory".The firstparadigm is characterized by a more descriptiveand specificmicro-orientation. Sociologists and social psychologists inparticular have used thisapproach to research everyday conversation and interaction.

This paradigm includes approaches like symbolic interactionism, thnometh

odology and conversation analysis. Discourse means here?more or less?an

emergent symbolic system. In contrast to this, theparadigm of post-structuraldiscourse theory ismore macro-oriented. Here ANGERM?LLER points in

particular tohow linguisticsattempts tofind outmore about (current nd his

torical) political ideologies. This diagnosis may have been valid up until the

5 The notion of field was first introduced as a social space with national boundaries. ButBOURDIEU (2000) has extended this concept and discussed international fields.

14



beginning of thisdecade. However, today only a part of thisdiagnosis is cor

rect.One can argue that thenewer sociological strandof FOUCAULTian discourse analysis ismeso- ormacro-oriented (KELLER, 2007; DIAZ-BONE,

2002, 2006a) and themain problemwith linguistic analysis in the so-called

post-structuraldiscourse analysis iswith theuse of small corpuses of data. But

likemany others in the field,ANGERM?LLER (2001) points to surprising

methodological and theoretical convergences, which have been discussed in

many conferences and workshops. Perhaps themost interestingfacet of this

debate is thatboth paradigms can be understood as modifications and devel

opments of FOUCAULTian discourse analysis. That does notmean that they

totally alignwith such an approach, but thattheyall refermore or less to the

methodological principles ofFOUCAULTian discourse analysis.

3. Structures and Positions in the Field of FOUCAULTian

Discourse Analysis

Today, the structure f the field of FOUCAULTian discourse analysis?or of

formsof discourse analysis that re stronglyinfluencedby theworks of FOU

CAULT?is not an internationally ntegratedfield.One can speak of different

national histories of the receptionof FOUCAULT and different ational situa

tions inwhich FOUCAULT-oriented approaches are embedded. So one canspeak of a fragmented nternational ield containingnational "subfields",which

aremore or less self-oriented.Some of thesehave a rich tradition f theirown

and focus mainly on this tradition (as, for example, does French discourse

research); some are more internationally riented and in the last few yearsnational traditionshave startedto intensify heirrelations.We as editors are an

internationallyrecruitedgroup and all of us have amassed experience in the

field of discourse analysis formany years, but nonetheless our perspectivemaybe biased. So ifwe present information bout a national scene such as French

discourse analysis or theBritish scene of discourse analysis, other countries?

or even complete continents?may be neglected. This is thecase especially forLatin America, where, for example, in Brazil there is a traditionof the influence of thework ofMichel PECHEUX.6 Another underrepresentedarea is the

USA, where?as far as we can see?the impactof FOUCAULTian discourse

theory s enormous and themethodological orientationtoward discourse analysis is increasing, ifwe use the second and third ditions of "The SAGE hand

book of qualitative research" (DENZIN & LINCOLN 2000, 2005) as an indica

tor.7

6But forArgentina see HAID AR, 2007 and for Chile see ROMAN BRUGNOLI, 2007.

7 In theUSA, FOUCAULTian concepts are extensively referred to and one can find the

taken-for-granted use of the concept of FOUCAULTian discourse analysis (with the chap

15



In thisFQS special issue, reportsfromdifferent esearchgroups?especially

fromGermany?are collected (see table of contents).However, we want topresent some schematic remarks about thenational scenes of discourse analysisas they integrateor are oriented by FOUCAULTian concepts. The relative

lengthof thepresentation of differentnations is not correlated to the relative

importanceof the differentnational scenes (as if such a thingcould ever be

adjudicated upon). And of coursewe do not assert thatour presentation is ex

haustive.

3.1 France

The French situation is in some way paradigmatic, not only because FOUCAULT was a French philosopher, epistemologist and ina way historian,but

also because here the groups in the Parisian regionwhich promoted a FOU

CAULTian formof discourse analysis as an empiricalmethod were interdisci

plinaryfrom thebeginning?as later inother countries?and have made inter

and sometimes transdisciplinary exchange possible since the late 1960s. In

France, historians, linguistsand social psychologists formed the first nterdisci

plinary research groups in the late 1960s. One importantinfluencewas the

French traditionof theANNALES School, anotherpoint is thework and the

projects ofMichel PECHEUX (HAK & HELSLOOT, 1995; HELSLOOT &

HAK, 2007; see below Section 3.4). Both integrated linguistics foundationswith theFOUCAULTian notion of discourse. As GlynWILLIAMS (1999) has

pointed out, the beginnings of "French discourse analysis"?although first

focused around FOUCAULTian notions discourse?were in thisera embedded

in thewider context of post-structuralism nd thereforenot narrowly oriented

only to theworks of one author. The works of theFrench school of "epistemol

ogy" influenced thewhole movement of structuralism nd post-structuralism

(WILLIAMS, 1999; DIAZ-BONE, 2002, 2007). The founder of this school

was Gaston BACHELARD; his student,Georges CANGUILHEM, was a

teacher not only of FOUCAULT but also of PECHEUX and otherworld

renowned social scientists (such as Pierre BOURDIEU and Louis ALTHUSSER). WILLIAMS (1999) traces thedifferent ormations,theworks and

projects of PECHEUX. Connected with PECHEUX are the French historians

who combined the FOUCAULTian notion of discourse (as amateriality of its

own, as PECHEUX [1975] formulated)with the so-called ANNALES tradition

(thename stemsfrom thehistorical journalANNALES, which was foundedby

ter "Foucauldian discourse analysis" in the articles in GUBRIUM & HOLSTEIN [2000,

p.493ff.]; HOLSTEIN & GUBRIUM [2005, p.490]). In the third edition a new article is

included which discusses the methodological foundations of FOUCAULTian discourse

analysis (esp. archaeology and genealogy) and presents an enormous literature of works in

the field of education, where the authors use FOUCAULTian theoretical notions or workwithFOUCAULTianmethodologiesSCHEURICH& MCKENZIE, 2005).

16



Luden FEBVRE and Marc BLOCH [seeDOSSE, 1994]). Here, the historical

"archives" of discursive knowledge (especially in theera of theFrench revolution)were the main research topics. The works of Regine ROBIN (1973),

Jacques GUILHAUMOU (2003, 2005; GUILHAUMOU, MALDIDIER &

ROBIN, 1994) andDominique MAINGUENEAU (1984) can be cited as land

marks (MAINGUENEAU & ANGERM?LLER, 2007). In the 1970s the

FOUCAULTian impact vanished because of the MARXist dominance of

French discourse analysis. Today one cannot speak of a clearlymarked French

field of FOUCAULTian discourse analysis. But theFOUCAULTian influence

has been in ascendency since the 1980s. Linguists and historians reoriented

their ork towards FOUCAULTian andmore sociological topics.

The French field today isheterogeneous and gains invisibilityby special issues of (mainly) linguistics journals (such as Langages, No. 17/1995 "Les

analyse du discours enFrance";Marges Linguistiques, No. 9/2005 "Analyse du

discours. L'etat de l'art et perspectives", available at) and conferences.8What

is remarkable about the state of French FOUCAULTian discourse analysis is

thatsub-disciplines likeCritical Discourse Analysis are not present, that soci

ology is not so influentialas inGermany or England, and that the linguistic

perspective integratesFOUCAULTian work. In France, discourse analysis

(including FOUCAULTian perspectives) ismainly organized in research cen

tres in theParisian region.9There are a few exceptions, such as thepublications

by a group fromRennes, where political, linguisticand sociological perspectives are integrated, nd techniques forcomputer-aided discourse analysis are

presented (RINGOOT & ROBERT-DEMONTROND, 2004). The Frenchscene of discourse analysis ismainly nationally oriented,but therehave alwaysbeen "go-betweens" and bridges, such as the discussions between Michel

PECHEUX and J?rgenLINK (resulting in the elaboration of the?different?

concepts of interdiscourse,DIAZ-BONE, 2006b), the exchange between

Reiner KELLER and Jacques GUILHAUMOU (see GUILHAUMOU, 2003),and thework of JohannesANGERM?LLER (2007).10

3.2 Germany

The early reception of FOUCAULTian discourse theory?from about the

1970s on to the 1980s?was mainly done inwomen's studies,history, literarystudies and criminology.Researchers referredchiefly to thegenealogical stud

ies ofFOUCAULT (1977, 1978, 1988, 1990). But theyalso pursued therole of

discourses especially in theprocess of the"humanization of punishment" or the

8See the conference report of FEIN & FLOREA (2007).

9ANGERM?LLER (2007) discusses three such centres/perspectives.10We thank Johannes ANGERMULLER for his copious help. He is preparing a special

edition of the French journal Langage et societe, which will present German approaches todiscourse analysis.

17



Diskursforschung") fromAugsburg/Munich (see KELLER & SCHNEIDER,

2007). Perspectives and limitations indiscourse theoryand discourse analysiswere discussed at theseworkshops and conferences (see KELLER, HIRSE

LAND, SCHNEIDER & VIEH?FER, 2001, 2003).11 Since the end of the

1990s the relationship between the sociology of knowledge and discourse

analysis has been targeted by these activities (see KELLER, HIRSELAND,SCHNEIDER & VIEH?FER, 2005), while Reiner KELLER (2004, 2005) has

published an approach forgroundingdiscourse theory nd empirical discourse

research in the sociology of knowledge (see also SCHNEIDER 1999;SCHNEIDER & HIRSELAND, 2005; DIAZ-BONE, 2003).

A fruitful nd productive exchange has been established among thesediffer

ent research groupsmentioned here. One could say thatthere is a very livelydiscourse scene?both theoretically nd analytically.12 ne can find researchor

working groups but also "solo" researchers spread all over the German

speakingworld. As faras we can see themain research interests n this scene

are the following issues:methodological work on (FOUCAULT's) discourse

analysis and theory; the expansion of discourse analysis and theory towards

interdiscoursetheory; dispositif research; the analysis of everyday conversa

tion,media discourses and (narrative) interviews; and, finally, thecombination

of discourse theorywith other theories or concepts like Pierre BOURDIEU's

praxeological theory rNiklas LUHMANN's theory f differentiation,rnesto

LACLAU and Chantal MOUFFE's concept of hegemony, and JudithBUTLER'S idea of theheteronormativematrix.

3.3 Great Britain

InBritain thereexists a strongtradition n thedifferent trandsof linguisticand

socio-linguistic discourse research (KELLER, 2004). In the British context

FOUCAULTian discourse analysis (or forms of discourse analysis which

stronglyrefertoFOUCAULT) has been developed fromat least threedifferent

11There have been six workshops of theArbeitskreis "Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursfor

schung" (Augsburg/M?nchen): "1. Workshop: Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse", March

11-12, 1999 (Augsburg); "2.Workshop: Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse II",March 30-31,2000 (Augsburg); "3. Workshop: Diskurs-Wissen-Kultur", September 25-26, 2003 (Augs

burg); "Praxis-Workshop Diskursanalyse", June 17-18, 2004 (Augsburg); "2. Praxis

Workshop Diskursanalyse", June 14-15, 2005 (Augsburg); "Sprache- Macht - Wirklich

keit", October 10-12, 2007 (Augsburg) For programs, see URL: <http://www.

diskursforschung.de/> [last access: 08.11.07].12

This liveliness can be seen in theworkshops "Endlich Ordnung in derWerkzeugkiste. Zum

Potential der Foucaultschen Diskursanalyse", April 29-30, 2005 (Berlin), program: URL:

<http://www.polwiss.fu-berlin.de/akmell/diskurswerkstatt/P [lastaccess: 09.11.2006]. See also theworkshops at theBerliner Methodentreffen, June 24-25,

2005 and July 14-15, 2006, the programs can be accessed atURL: <http://www.berliner

methodentreffen.de/material/index.php> [last access: 08.11.2007].

19



perspectives: (a) critical linguisticsand sociolinguistics; (b) social psychology;

and (c) ideology and discourse analysis. Regarding the firstperspective, theUniversity of East Anglia (UEA) inauguratedCritical Linguistics with the

publication of "Language and Control" in 1979. The "linguistic turn" in the

Social Sciences and the "critical paradigm" within linguistics led not only to

Critical Linguistics but also toCritical Discourse Analysis. In the 1970s the

project of critique opened up the space to thinkabout the relations of powerand representation. In continuation of this tradition,the School ofLanguage,

Linguistics and Translation Studies organized an internationalconference on

Critical Approaches toDiscourse Analysis Across Disciplines (CADAAD) in

June2006, inauguratingtheResearch Centrefor Language and Communica

tion.CADAAD hosts an on-line journal,which published its first ssue inFebruary2007. The on-line interdisciplinary ournal engages incritical approachesto discourse analysis and with a variety ofmethodologies. Another hub for

critical discourse analysis is based at theDepartment ofLinguistics andEnglish

Language at Lancaster University,where Norman FAIRCLOUGH, since the

early 1980s, has been working on critical discourse analysis, including the

place of language in social relations ofpower and ideology, and how language

figures inprocesses of social change. RuthWODAK (see Section 3.5) is also

based thereas Chair inDiscourse Studies. Under theguidance of Paul CHILTON and Ruth WODAK theprojectNew Discourse inContemporary China

(NDCC) has been developed. [25]The second strand is represented atManchester Metropolitan University

(MMU), where a Discourse Unit in social psychology was established. The

Discourse Unit is a trans-institutional ollaborative centre,which supports a

variety of qualitative and theoretical research projects contributingto thede

velopment of radical theory nd practice. The term discourse" is used primar

ily in critical hermeneutic and structuralist enses to include inquiries influ

enced by feminism and psychoanalysis. The centre functions: (1) as a teachingresource base for qualitative and feministwork; (2) as a supportunit for the

(re)production of radical academic theory; (3) as a networking centre for the

development of critical perspectives in action research.13The initiators f theMMU Discourse Unit are Ian PARKER and Erica BURMAN, both critical

psychologists. The Discourse Unit has been established as a centreforqualitative and theoretical research on the reproduction and transformation f lan

guage, subjectivityand practice.14The thirdstrandon ideology and discourse analysis is hosted by theWorld

Network in Ideology and Discourse Analysis based at theCentrefor Theoreti

cal Studies in the umanities and Social Sciences and theDepartment ofGov

13Within this context inMarch 2007 the sixth Conference of theDiscourse, Power, Resis

tance Series was held atMMU.14The centre runs short courses, including ones on critical psychology and discursive practice.

20



ernment at theUniversity of Essex. The IDA World Network facilitates the

exchange of ideas and information n Ideology and Discourse Analysis. In June2007 IDA World held the 5thAnnual IDA World workshop with Ernesto

LACLAU.

3.4 Spain

In Spain, discourse analysis?strongly inheritedthroughthe French tradition,and particularly throughMichel FOUCAULT's work?has been implementedas a working tool in some research groups thatare located ingeographicallydistant universities such as The Autonomous University of Barcelona, The

Complutense UniversityofMadrid or The

Universityof Valencia. Further

more, some individual researchersareworking along similar lines inareas such

as Euskadi, Andalucia orGalicia. Discourse analysis is present in disciplinessuch as sociology, social psychology or linguistics.Recently, some historians

have also startedto explore thepossibilities offeredby discourse analysis (seealso TIRADO, 2007). The Autonomous University ofBarcelona's Social Psy

chology PhD program is a good example ofwhere FOUCAULT's theories

have been developed. This institution as been contributingto academic dis

course formore than tenyears. Their program has produced teachers and re

searchers thatunderstand the practice of Social Psychology using premises

adoptedfrom

FOUCAULT; manyof theresearchersassociated with this insti

tution have utilized discourse analysis as a common tool of research and

thought. Some of these researchers have formed or taken part in research

groups such asATIC (ResearchGroup on Technology and Social Action) from

TheOpen UniversityofCatalonia and theGESCIT (Group of Social Studies on

Science and Technology) of theUniversit?tAut?noma de Barcelona. All three

universities share similar characteristics: (1) although located administrativelyinDepartments and Faculties of Social Psychology,Humanities orPsychology,theirmembers come from differentdisciplines, making the aforementioned

academic groups totally interdisciplinary; 2) one of the tools theyuse is dis

courseanalysis. Regardless

of theadaptation

or version of discourse analysis

employed by these institutions, tsvery utilization reflectsa strongconnection

toFOUCAULT's work; (3) thefocus on control, social transformationnd the

technological dimension of our reality constitutes the core of theirvaried re

search projects. All threegroups have adapted elements of FOUCAULTian

discourse analysis to utilize it in the analysis of thepractices thatmanaging

technology imply.

3.5 Further ational Fields

There are two comparatively small countries,Austria and theNetherlands that

arementioned here because of their two leading researchers: Teun A. VANDDK, who originally hailed fromAmsterdam (where he worked formany

21



years, althoughnow he is based inBarcelona) andRuthWODAK from ienna

(now based at Lancaster, see Section 3.3). VAN DIJK contributed two earlyinterdisciplinary olumes thatgathered contributionsto thedifferentformsof

discourse analysis (VAN DIJK, 1985, 1997a, 1997b). He founded and edited

discourse analytic journals such as Discourse & Society, and was one of the

leading researchers inCDA (see his homepage). For theNetherlands, thework

of Tony HAK and Niels HELSLOOT must be mentioned. Their contribution

consists in research on thework of Michel PECHEUX and foundations of

"post-FOUCAULTian discourse analysis" (HAK & HELSLOOT, 1995;HEL

SLOOT & HAK, 2007).RuthWODAK's work in the 1970s and 1980s founded the so-called Vienna

school of critical discourse analysis. Here a small discourse analytic orientednetwork inVienna developed (see KENDALL [2007] and REISIGL [2007]).RuthWODAK and Teun A. VAN DIJK are also outstanding examples of the

internationalization f discourse analysis. These two researchers arewell con

nectedwith otherprominentdiscourse researchers inCDA. CDA was initiated

towork out theoretical andmethodological firstprinciples of a criticalperspective inempirical discourse analysiswhich extended FOUCAULTian notions of

discourse, power and society,and prominent inthisendeavourwere researchers

such as Norman FAIRCLOUGH (UK), Siegfried J?GER (Germany),G?nterKRESS (UK), and Theo VAN LEEUWEN (theNetherlands) (MEYER &

WODAK, 1991).

4. Conclusion: A Still-emerging Field inQualitative Social

Research

In Section 2 we pointed out that the theoreticalwork of FOUCAULT is in

many social sciences an established part of their theoreticalbody (or is cur

rently stablishing itself, s inpolitical science and historyoutside France). The

international"sciences movements" such as gender studies, cultural studies,

postcolonial studies and especially governmentality studies force the integrationof FOUCAULT's works into the international nd interdisciplinary and

scapes of the social sciences. But we have topoint out the difference between

research in the area of FOUCAULTian discourse theory,research done with

referenceto the theory f FOUCAULT on one side and empirical FOUCAUL

Tian discourse analysis on the other side. FOUCAULTian discourse analysis is

not a theoretically informed attitude" or just another "perspective" in thearea

of qualitative social research.Many researchers in the last few decades have

become more and more aware that the socio-historical analyses of FOU

CAULT and hismethodological considerations about archaeology and geneal

ogy have laid the groundwork for a new methodological area for empiricalresearch thatconceives itself s a form of scientific and self-reflexivepractice:

22



FOUCAULTian discourse analysis asmethodological discourse of social dis

courses and discursive practices.Itfollows, then,thatdiscourse research has to reflect n thecoherence of the

research practice and the degree of fitwith the theoretical notions of FOU

CAULTian discourse theory, tsunderlying assumptions and models. Itfollows

also thatthereare (orhave tobe developed) specific forms of researchdesign,modes of explanation, methodological standards and quality criteria for the

evaluation of FOUCAULTian analysis?as the articles in this issue demon

strate. et these articles demonstrate also thatdiscussions are still active about

the questions: does FOUCAULTian discourse analysis include or prescribecertainmethods, research tools and instruments, heirdesign and use in the

practice of discourse analysis? And how can other approaches and paradigmsbe combined with FOUCAULTian discourse research?

The collection of articles in this special issue of HSR demonstrates that

there are different strands of FOUCAULTian discourse research and that

FOUCAULTian discourse analysis isnot integrated n theway thatone could

speak of a FOUCAULTian paradigm. But thedifferentresearch groups have

begun to recognize each other and to identify haredmethodological problemsand topics. And here new perspectives for FOUCAULTian methodology

emerge, as concepts such as "interdiscourse", "dispositif', "materialities" (as

techniques, bodies, visual materials, media), events, other forms of practices

and performativity orce questions about the consequences of adequate methodological adaptation. The authors in this anthology address many of these

questions.We hope that thisbook gives some more insight ntothe stateof the

art inFOUCAULTian discourse research as an emerging field of qualitativesocial research thatforges its internationalintegration.

References

Angerm?ller, Johannes (2001). Diskursanalyse: Str?mungen, Tendenzen, Perspektiven. Eine Einf?hrung. In Johannes Angerm?ller, Katharina Bunzmann & Martin

Nonhoff (Eds.), Diskursanalyse: Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen (pp.7-22).

Hamburg: Argument.

Angerm?ller,Johannes 2007). Research report: ajor research enters ndiscourse

analysis in France. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative So

cial Research, 8(2), URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-P4-e.htm> [last access: 28.05.07].

Angerm?ller, Johannes;Bunzmann,Katharina & Nonhoff,Martin (Eds.) (2001).Diskursanalyse: Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen. Hamburg: Argument.

Barthes,Roland (1988). The semioticchallenge.New York: Hill andWang.Bourdieu, Pierre (1985). The genesis of theconceptsofhabitus and of field. Socio

criticism, 2, 11-24.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1988). Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

23



Bourdieu, Pierre (2000). The social structuresof the economy.London: Polity

Press.Bublitz, Hannelore (1999). Foucaults Arch?ologie des kulturellenUnbewu?ten.

Frankfurt/M.: Campus.

Bublitz,Hannelore (2007). Projektbericht: aderbomerAnsatz derDiskursanalyse:?Die Ordnung der Geschlechterverh?ltnisse.Arch?ologie und Genealogie derGeschlechterdifferenzmDiskurs ?ber die Kulturkriseum 1900" (DFG-Projektvon 1995-1999).Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ orum: Qualitative Social

Research, 8(2), URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2P6-d.htm> [last access: 31.05.07].

Bublitz,Hannelore; B?hrmann,Andrea; Hanke, Christine& Seier,Andrea (Eds.)(1999). Das Wuchern der Diskurse. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.

B?hrmann,Andrea D. (2004). Der Kampf umweibliche Individualit?t. ur Transformation moderner Subjektivierungsweisen inDeutschland um 1900. M?nster:

Verlag westf?lischesDampfboot.B?hrmann,Andrea D. & Schneider,Werner (2007).Mehr als nur diskursivePra

xis? -Konzeptionelle GrundlagenundmethodischeAspekte derDispositivanaly

se [51paragraphs]. orum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ orum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 28, URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/

2-07/07-2-28-d.htm> [last access: 28.05.07].

Butler,Judith1990). Gender trouble. ew York: Routledge.Butler,Judith1993). Bodies thatmatters.New York: Routledge.Charaudeau, Patrick & Maingueneau, Dominique (Eds.) (2002). Dictionaire d'ana

lysedu discours. Paris: Edition du Seuil.Denzin, Norman & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.) (2000). The SAGE handbook ofqualitativeresearch (2nd edition).Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Denzin, Norman & Lincoln, Yvonna S. (Eds.) (2005). The SAGE handbook ofqualitative research (3rd edition). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Diaz-Bone, Rainer (2002). Kulturwelt, Diskurs und Lebensstil. Eine diskurstheore

tische Erweiterung der bourdieuschen Distinktionstheorie. Opladen: Leske +

Budrich.

Diaz-Bone, Rainer (2003). Entwicklungen imFeld der foucaultschen iskursanalyse.Collective Review: GlynWilliams (1999). Frenchdiscourse analysis.Theme

thod of post-structuralism /Johannes Angerm?ller, Katharina Bunzmann & Mar

tin onhoff(Eds.) (2001). Diskursanalyse. Theorien,Methoden,Anwendungen

/Reiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland,Werner Schneider& Willy Vieh?fer (Eds.)(2001). Handbuch SozialwissenschaftlicheDiskursanalyse.Band 1:Theorien und

Methoden / atrickCharaudeau & DominiqueMaingueneau (Eds.) (2002). Dictionaired'analyse du discours /Reiner Keller (2003). Diskursforschung. ine Ein

fuhrung ?rSozialwissenschaftlerlnnen 66paragraphs]. orum Qualitative Sozi

alforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 4(3), Art. 1, URL:

<http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-03/3-03review-diazbone-d.htm>

[last access: 08.11.07].

Diaz-Bone, Rainer (2006a). Zur Methodologisierung der Foucaultschen Diskurs

analyse [48 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research,

7(1),Art. 6, URL:

<http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/l-06/06-l-6-d.htm> [last access: 08.11.07].

24



Diaz-Bone, Rainer (2006b). OperativeAnschl?sse: Zur Entstehungder Foucault

schenDiskursanalyse in derBundesrepublik. J?rgen ink imGespr?chmit RainerDiaz-Bone [38 paragraphs].Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 7(3), Art. 20, URL: <http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/3-06/06-3-20-d.htrn> [last access: 15.05.07].

Diaz-Bone, Rainer (2007). Die franz?sische Epistemologie und ihre Revisionen.

Zur Rekonstruktion des methodologischen Standortes der Foucaultschen Dis

kursanalyse [65paragraphs]. orum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 24, URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/

fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-24-d.htm> [last access: 28.05.07].

Dosse, Francois (1994).New history n rance. The triumphf theAnnales. Urbana:UniversityofChicago Press.

Dreyfuss,Hubert& Rabinow, Paul (1983).Michel Foucault. Beyond structuralismand hermeneutics 2nd edition).Chicago: UniversityofChicago Press.

Ehlich,Konrad (Ed.) (1994). Diskursanalyse inEuropa. Frankfurt:eterLang.Fein, Elke & Florea,Marie-laure (2007). InnenundAussen inWissenssoziologie

undDiskursanalyse. Tagungsbericht:Diskursanalyse inDeutschland und Frankreich: Aktuelle Tendenzen in den Sprach- und Sozialwissenschaften [19 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Re

search, 8(\), Art. 22, URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/l-07/07-l-22-d.htm> [last access: 24.05.07].

Foucault,Michel (1970). The orderof things. ew York: Pantheon.

Foucault,Michel (1972a). The archaeology ofknowledge.New York: Pantheon.

Foucault,Michel (1972b). Discourse on language. InMichel Foucault,The archaeology ofknowledge (pp.215-238).Mew York: Pantheon.

Foucault,Michel (1977).Discipline andpunish.New York: Pantheon.

Foucault, Michel (1978). The history of sexuality, Vol.1: The will to knowledge.New York: Pantheon.

Foucault,Michel (1988). The history f sexuality, ol.3: The care of theself.Vancouver/WA: Vintage.

Foucault,Michel (1990). The history f sexuality, ol. 2: The use of thepleasure.Vancouver/WA: Vintage.

Foucault,Michel (2005). The hermeneuticsof the subject. Basingstoke: Pal

grave/MacMillan.

Gubrium,Jaber &

Holstein,James A.

(2000). Analyzing interpretative practices.In

Norman Denzin & Yvonna S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbookof qualitativeresearch (2nd edition, p.487-508). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Guilhaumou, Jacques (2003). Geschichte und Sprachwissenschaft Wege undStationen (in) der ?analyse du discours". InReiner Keller, Andreas Hirseland,

Werner Schneider& Willy Vieh?fer (Eds.),Handbuch SozialwissenschaftlicheDiskursanalyse. Band 2: Forschungspraxis (2nd edition,pp. 19-65).Wiesbaden:

VS-Verlag Budrich.

Guilhaumou, Jacques (2005). O? va l'analyse du discours?Autour de lanotiondeformation discursive. Marges linguistiques, 9, 95-114.

Guilhaumou, Jacques;Maldidier, Denis & Robin, Regine (1994). Discours et archive.

Liege: Mardaga.Gutierrez Rodriguez, Encarnaci?n (1999). Intellektuelle Migrantinnen. Subjektivit?ten m eitalter vonGlobalisierung. Opladen: Leske & Budrich.

25



Gutierrez Rodriguez, Encarnaci?n & Pieper, Marianne (Eds.) (2003). Gouverne

mentalit?t. Einsozialwissenschaftliches Konzept

in Anschluss an Foucault.

Frankfurt/M.: Campus.

Haidar, Victoria (2007). El an?lisis de discursos que hacen partede un regimende

pr?cticas de gobiemo: una aproximaci?ndesde la perspectivade los estudiosdela gubemamentalidad [57paragraphs].Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ orum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 8, URL: <http://www.qualitative

research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-8-s.htm> [last access: 28.05.07].

Hak, Tony& Helsloot, Niels (Eds.) (1995).Michel Pecheux. Automaticdiscourse

analysis. Amsterdam: Rodopi.

Haraway, Donna (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women. The reinvention of nature.

New York: Routledge.

Helsloot,Niels & Hak, Tony& (2007). Pecheux's contribution odiscourse analysis [47paragraphs]. orum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 1,URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-l-e.htm> [last access: 28.05.07].

Holstein, JamesA. & Gubrium, Jaber (2005). Interpretative ractice and socialaction. In Norman Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln, Yvonna (Eds.), The SAGE hand

book ofqualitativeresearch (3rdedition, p.483-505). Thousand Oaks: Sage.J?ger,Siegfried (2004). KritischeDiskursanalyse (4th edition).Marburg: Unrast

Verlag.

Keller, Reiner (2004).Diskursforschung. ine Einf?hrung ?r Sozialwissenschaftlerlnnen. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.

Keller,Reiner

(2005). Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse. Grundlegungeines

Forschungsprogramms. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag mr Sozialwissenschaften.

Keller, Reiner (2007). Diskurse undDispositive analysieren. ie Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse als Beitrag zu einer wissensanalytischen Profilierung der

Diskursforschung [46 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum:

Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 19, URL: <http://www.qualitative

research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-19-d.htrn> [last access: 28.05.07].

Keller, Reiner & Schneider, Werner (2007). Research report: Arbeitskreis ?Sozial

wissenschaftliche Diskursforschung". Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Fo

rum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), URL: <http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-P5-d.htrn> [last access: 28.05.07].

Keller, Reiner;Hirseland, Andreas; Schneider,Werner & Vieh?fer,

Willy (Eds.)(2003) . andbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche iskursanalyse. Band 2: Forschungspraxis (2nd edition).Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag Budrich.

Keller, Reiner; Hirseland,Andreas; Schneider,Werner & Vieh?fer,Willy (Eds.)(2004) . andbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche iskursanalyse. Band 1: Theorien und

Methoden (2nd edition).Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.Keller, Reiner; Hirseland,Andreas; Schneider,Werner & Vieh?fer,Willy (Eds.)

(2005). ie diskursive Konstruktion von Wirklichkeit. Konstanz: UVK.

Kendall, Gavin (2007).What is criticaldiscourse analysis?RuthWodak inconver

sationwithGavin Kendall [38paragraphs]. orum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 29, URL: <http://www.

qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-29-e.htm> [last access: 28.05.07].

Kendall, Gavin & Wickham, Gary (1999). Using Foucault's methods. London:

Sage.

26



Kerchner,Brigitte& Schneider,Silke (Eds.) (2006). Foucault: Diskursanalyse derPolitik. Wiesbaden:

VS-Verlag.Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The structureof scientific evolutions.Chicago: ChicagoUniversity Press.

Laclau, Ernesto & Mouffe, Chantal (2001). Hegemony and socialist strategy. To

wards a radical democratic politics. London: Verso.

Laclau, Ernesto;Howarth,David R.; Norvel,Aletta J. Stavrakakis, annis (Eds.)(2000). Discourse theoryndpolitical analysis: Identities, egemonies and social

change. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Lemke, Thomas; Krasmann, Susanne& Br?ckling,Ulrich (Eds.) (2000). Gouvernementalit?t der Gegenwart. Studien zur ?konomisierung des Sozialen. Frank

furt/M.: Suhrkamp.

Link, J?rgen Parr,Rolf

(2007).Research

report:diskurs-werkstattnd kultuR

Revolution. Zeitschrift f?r angewandte diskurstheorie. Forum Qualitative Sozial

forschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-Pl-d.htrn> [last access: 28.05.07].

Maingueneau, Dominique (1984). Geneses du discours. Paris: Mardaga.

Maingueneau, Dominique (1994). Die ?franz?sischeSchule" derDiskursanalyse. InKonrad Ehlich (Ed.),Diskursanalyse inEuropa (pp.187-195). Frankfurt/M.:eterLang.

Maingueneau, Dominique & Angerm?ller, Johannes 2007). Discourse analysis inFrance. A conversation [48 paragraphs].Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 21, URL: <http://www.

qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-21-e.htm> [lastaccess:

28.05.07].Martin, JohnLevi (2003).What is field theory? merican Journal of Sociology,

109(\), 1-49.

Meyer, Michael & Wodak, Ruth (Eds.) (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage.

Pecheux, Michel (1975). Language, ideology and sematics. London: MacMillan.

Reisigl,Martin (2007). Research report: er Wiener Ansatz der KritischenDis

kursanalyse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Re

search, 8(2), URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-P7d.htm> [last access: 31.05.07].

Ringoot, Roselyne & Robert-Demontrond,Philippe (Eds.) (2004). L 'analysedediscours. Rennes: Editions Apogee.

Robin,Regine (1973).Histoire et linguistique. aris: Armand Colin.Roman Brugnoli, JoseAntonio (2007). Lo que las met?foras obran furtivamente:

discursoy sujeto [152 paragraphs]. orum Qualitative Sozialforschung/ orum:

Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 12, URL: <http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-12-s.htrn> [last access: 31.05.07].

Said, Edward (1978). Orientalism: Western conceptions of the orient. London:

Routledge& Kegan Paul.

Scheurich,JamesJoseph McKenzie, KathrynBell (2005). Foucault's methodolo

gies: Archeology and genealogy. InNorman Denzin & Yvonna Lincoln, Yvonna

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd edition,pp.841-868).Thousand Oaks: Sage.

27



Schneider,Werner (1999). ?So totwie n?tig- so lebendigwie m?glich!" Sterben

und Tod in der fortgeschrittenen Moderne. Eine Diskursanalyse der ?ffentlichenDiskussion um den Hirntod inDeutschland. M?nster: Lit-Verlag.

Schneider,Werner & Hirseland,Andreas (2005).Macht -Wissen -gesellschaftli

che Praxis.Dispositivanalyse undWissenssoziologie. InReinerKeller, Andreas

Hirseland,Werner Schneider& Willy Vieh?ver (Eds.),Die diskursive onstruktionvonWirklichkeit. um Verh?ltnisvon Wissenssoziologie undDiskursforschung (pp.251-275).Konstanz: UVK.

Schwab-Trapp,Michael (2004). Diskurs als soziologischesKonzept. Bausteine fureine soziologisch orientierte Diskursanalyse. In Reiner Keller, Andreas Hirse

land,Werner Schneider& Willy Vieh?ver (Eds.),Handbuch SozialwissenschaftlicheDiskursanalyse. Band 1: TheorienundMethoden (2nd edition, p.263-285).

Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1987). In other worlds: Essays in culturalpolitics.New York: Routledge.

T?te, ShirleyAnne (2007). Foucault, Bakhtin,Ethnomethodology:Accounting for

hybridityin talk-in-interaction44 paragraphs].Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 10,URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-10-e.htrn> [last access: 28.05.07].

Ten Have, Paul (1999). Doing conversational analysis. London: Sage.

Tirado, Francisco (2007). Research report:El an?lisis del discurso de tradici?nfoucaultianaen algunos grupos de investigaci?n espanoles. Forum QualitativeSozialforschung /Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(1), URL: <http://www.

qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-P3-s.htm> [last access: 28.05.07].Tirado, Francisco & G?lvez, Ana (2007). Positioning theorynd discourse analysis:

Some tools for social interaction analysis [88 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative

Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), Art. 31, URL:

<http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-3 l-e.htm> [last access:

31.05.07].Van Dijk, Teun A. (Ed.) (1985).Handbook ofdiscourse analysis.Vol. 1-4.London:

Academic Press.

Van Dijk, Teun A. (Ed.) (1997a). Discourse as structure and process. Discourse

studies 1. London: Sage.Van Dijk, Teun A. (Ed.) (1997b).Discourse as social interaction.iscourse studies

2. London: Sage.Williams, Glyn (1999). French discourse analysis. The method of post

structuralism. London: Routledge.

Zimmermann,Jens (2007). Research report:Gegen den Strich: Das DuisburgerInstitutf?rSprach- und Sozialforschung (DISS). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(2), URL: <http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-07/07-2-P2-d.htrn> [last access: 28.05.07].

28

Bone - The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis Structures, Developments and Perspectives

Documents

Transcript of Bone - The Field of Foucaultian Discourse Analysis Structures, Developments and Perspectives