Discourse Analysis Advanced?...evidence for language based activities therefore must be found in...
Transcript of Discourse Analysis Advanced?...evidence for language based activities therefore must be found in...
6th ECPR General Conference, University of Iceland, 25th ‐ 27th Aug. 2011
The Argumentative Turn Revisited: Policy Discourse and Public Deliberation (Section 109)
Revisiting Language Based Approaches to Policy Analysis (Panel 357)
Discourse Analysis Advanced?
Antonia Graf, M.A. University of Muenster Scharnhorststrasse 100
48151 Muenster [email protected]
Work in progress – please do not cite or quote without permission.
ABSTRACT
Discourse analysis has become a wide spread method in social science. Aligned with this development, discourse analysis has emancipated from discourse theory and constitutes a field of discursive approaches emphasising the performance criteria on empirical research. The methodological approach in this paper is based on Jäger’s manual for analysis introduced in “Kritische Diskursanalyse” [Critical Discourse Analysis, 2001], who draws on the discourse theory of Foucault. He supplies a “tool box” for analysing discourses and highlights their impact on power (Jäger 2001). Beyond Jäger’s approach, discourse analysis as an empirical project has to explain the foci of attention the interpretation of a discourse is based on; especially when it is used in rather positivistic fields like International Political Economy (IPE). The research on the discursive power of Transnational Corporations (TNCs) requires a pragmatic perspective in discourse analysis. For that reason, I suggest a triple staged discourse analysis combining a hermeneutic and constructivist approach: 1) a content analytical step which generates the research design of the discourse analysis, 2) the discourse analysis itself and 3) the consolidation of step one and two, enabling me to ‘verify’ the categories I used for analysing the discourse.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Chilton and Schäffer are recurring on Aristotle when they describe the ability of
‘speech’ as a constituting act of mankind (Chilton and Schäffner 2002a, 1f) and state that
“[…] political activity does not exist without the use of language” (ibid., 3). The political
associations of speech are based on the “shared perceptions of values […]. And human
endowment for language has the function of ‘indicating’ ‐ signifying, communicating – what
is deemed according to such perceptions to be advantageous or not […]” (ibid., 2). Empirical
evidence for language based activities therefore must be found in form of text and talk (ibid.,
3).
Discourse analysis deals with such forms of text and talk. It clarifies how a specific
discourse is constituted and expressed. Discourse analysis shows how reality is perceived
and constructed by language. It serves for analysing the framing of an articulation and makes
visible where social status is attributed by power relations and vice versa how power
relations are constituted by social status. A good discourse analysis deconstructs everyday
language and mirrors how common terms normalize social relations and regulate the
participation in power. But discourse analysis comes to its limits when it shall show which
actor in which way influences a specific discourse across various forms of discourses.
Coming from an International Political Economy perspective this paper raises the
question how discourse analysis can integrate the actor’s role and its influence
systematically in its methodology without losing the virtues discourse analysis has. The
paper argues that discourse analysis should not only be able to answer the question how a
specific discourse is articulated but also answer the question what impact a specific actor‐
driven‐discourse has on other discourses. This question finally leads to a discourse analytical
perspective which asks why a specific discourse is constituted in a specific way and opens a
research perspective on the formation of discourses across different types of discourses. For
that reason, I suggest a triple staged discourse analysis combining a hermeneutic and
constructivist approach: 1) a content analytical step which generates the research design of
the discourse analysis, 2) the discourse analysis itself and 3) the consolidation of step one
and two, enabling me to ‘verify’ the categories I used for analysing the discourse.
2
To explain where to look on and why in the discourse analytical proceedings is more
than just legitimizing the research perspective – it streamlines furthermore the important
point of the researcher’s discourse position and offers an entry point to make the process of
re‐signification of knowledge by the researcher more transparent. Furthermore the
combination of methods offers an explainable starting point for analysis in the circular
process of signification and re‐signification. Also methodological constraints by combining
discourse analysis with other methods are often downplayed or even silenced. (Re)newed
methodological questions brought up by the further development of discourse analysis as a
method instead of a paradigm (Hammersley 2003) are beside their challenging character
also the possibility for a fruitful conscious dialogue between different epistemological and
ontological assumptions.
The paper is subdivided into six parts. After this introduction a reflection on discourse
analytical approaches in political science follows. It discusses the need for the orientation on
common methods in qualitative social science to ground the basis of the different
approaches and to enable for more similar vocabulary which might lead to synergies caused
by a better communication between the different approaches. The third section briefly
introduces the case – the analysis of Transnational Corporation’s (TNCs) discursive Power ‐
to show where the triple staged methodology should be applied for. In the fourth section I
will present the triple staged discourse analysis by combining a content analytical step based
on Mayering (2000; 2010) with a discourse analysis based on Jäger (2001). Jäger’s ‘toolbox’
for analysing discourses belongs to the field of critical discourse analysis and recurs on the
Foucauldian discourse theory. The conclusion in the fifth section discusses the surplus of the
triple staged methodology due to methodological concerns and due to the research
question.
2. REFLECTION ON (CRITICAL) DISCOURSE ANALYTICAL APPROACHES
Already in 1952 the term Discourse Analysis is used to analyse linguistic structures
beyond single sentences (Keller 2004, 14). Since that time a multiplicity of different
discourse analytical approaches has developed in social science. Especially since the
linguistic and cultural turn in sociology, political science, anthropology and history scholars
have become more aware of the “intricacies of textual materials and are searching for
more adequate methodologies (Wodak 2008, 2).
3
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS – MORE ORIENTATION REQUIRED?
The growing importance of discourse analytical approaches in social science and
humanities and the independence of approaches in the (sub)disciplines (ibid., 3) poses the
question if CDA needs a re‐positioning in qualitative social science between the poles of
methodological arbitrariness and methodological inflexibility. Does the growing number of
CDA approaches mean, that CDA should emancipate from discourse theory? And this
movement towards an orientation on rather common understandings of methods in
qualitative social science – would it be an improvement for discursive studies or would
discursive approaches lose their critical impetus? The following part elaborates on these
questions and offers some reflections on this topic.
Ruth Wodak published an awesome well‐informed body of literature about the field of
CDA. And despite the growing number of common assumptions CDA‐approaches share
(Wodak 2008, 3f; Wodak and Meyer 2001, 6), she also states the difficulties to map the field
(Wodak 2008, 1).(Wodak and Meyer 2001, 5). The difficulties to map the field and thus the
need for more orientation format along the variety of potential ‘cleavages’ in the field.
Discourse analytical approaches recur on different theoretical origins. Conversation analysis
inspired by Habermas, psychological discourse analysis inspired by Lacan, post‐structuralist
discourse analysis recurring on Foucault and Derrida and post‐marxist discourse analysis
based on Laclau and Mouffe.
Critical Discourse analysis itself – like the other approaches as well of course – has to
be divided into different schools. The question which approach belongs to which school
depend on the definition of ‘critical’ of cause. As far as I understand critical there are at least
five major schools of CDA shaped by their particular senior researchers. Fairclough’s
approach with its basis on Foucault and Halliday, Wodak’s and van Dijks approach recurring
on Frankfurt School and third what Wodak calls the Duisburg School (ibid., 9) of Jäger
recurring on Foucault, Leontjew and Link. I think also Keller would name his approach critical
even when his Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse bases on Berger / Luckmann
and Foucault. Furthermore Howarth and Glynos’ work is also ‘critical’ – even or precisely for
that reason ‐ when their theoretical basis must be rather seen in post‐marxist tradition.1
On an ontological dimension CDA approaches position between hermeneutical,
constructivist and post‐structuralist assumptions. As far as I understood the different CDAs I
1 Of course this typology does not claim to be complete. Also the classification must be seen as an active process of re‐signification ‐ it contains the subjective view of the researcher.
4
would call Fairclough and Wodak / van Dijk rather hermeneutical, Keller rather a
constructivist and Jäger and Howarth / Glynos rather post‐structuralistic. On an
epistemological base the different CDA approaches as well differ. The differences between
the approaches get another dimension when it comes to disciplines – CDA is relevant to all
disciplines in social science and humanities. Hence the research questions and perspectives
vary.
Another dimension can be seen in methodological concerns. Ethnographic approaches
for example ask similar questions to discursive approaches. Last but not least and a long with
this methodological dimension the conceptual dimension provides a set of different research
objects. Data generating concepts such like norms, values, emotions, myths, ideas, practices,
believes, logics, narratives, storylines and frames serve as empirical objects, tend to have
overlaps with each other and are hard to define. Also ‘discourse’ offers a variety of different
meanings that differ from critical linguistics to technology studies. Even within the schools of
CDA the understanding of conceptual phrases such like context, intertextuality,
interdiscursivity and so forth seem to vary greatly.
All these dimensions develop different understandings on how to connect theory with
empirical data and hence produce a variety of methods with different attributes for
analysing discourses. I see three major implications of this desirable great variety of
concepts that would reason a need for systematisation: 1) new scholars in the field and non‐
or semi‐scientific persons try hard to orientate in the field and to find the approach fitting
best for their concerns, 2) it is difficult for epistemological synergies to enter the field and
drive forward what CDA often names its political purpose: the emancipation of subjects.
Thirdly the variety of concepts can easily be interpreted as arbitrariness and thus provides a
gateway for (quantitative) critique.
FLEXIBILITY VS. SYSTEMATISATION?
When Wodak points out what different approaches in CDA have in common, she
emphasizes that not only individuals but also institutions and social groupings have values
expressed in language in systematic ways (ibid., 6). Nevertheless CDA is mostly applied for
cases of discrimination and social inequalities (Forchtner 2011, 1; Meyer 2001, 15; Wodak
and Meyer 2001, 10). The focus of analysis in CDA often lays on the affection of people by
‘ideology’ materialized in text. More seldom CDAs study the influence from an actor‐driven
5
discourse on another one. The underlying ideology ‘normalizing’ people by the exertion of
power must be uncovered by “normatively rich theories like the Frankfurt School”
(Forchtner 2011, 1).
In contrast rather post‐structuralist informed approaches of critical discourse analyses,
like, for example, applied in gender or cultural studies, give important advices on identity
formation but it is not their task do not say which actor influences the construction in which
way. And this is not surprisingly, because discourse analysis as a critique on objectivity and
truth in science blocks the exposition of mono‐dimensional, linearly cause and effect
relations. It is not the aim of discourse analysis to find out how ‘reality really is’ ‐ far from it
discourse analysis’ scientific program aims on questioning the (discursive) structures which
make people believe and / or institutions incorporate specific certainties concealing that
reality is only accessible via language.
The implications of these discourse theoretical groundings of can be summed in three
different regards: theoretically, politically and practically. In theoretical regards the fluid
concepts of (post) structural discourse theory avoid the definite fixation of terms. In short
the generating understanding of power in discourse theory together with the assumption of
no genuine ontological basis outside of discourse allow for a perception of reality in terms of
social construction; things are constructed by language, they are not only representations
(Bublitz 1999, 25). In political regards discourse theory needs the maximum of freedom in
thinking to denaturalize its social surroundings; most discourse theoretical approaches have
an emancipating claim (Hay 2002). In research practical terms finally the methodological
requirements and constraints of discursive approaches make discourse analytical
approaches prefer to analyse the text – not the impact of the text. Together with the
important role the researcher’s own discourse position (Chilton and Schäffner 2002b, 27)
plays in this field as a basis for interpreting a discourse one can note that the main focus of
analysis rather lays on the articulation itself as an empirical project not on the impact of the
articulation and its influence on other discourses.
In contrast to the limits of discourse analysis set by its theoretical groundings there are
numbers of factors supporting the further development of approaches breaking up
limitations. One way of further development is to strengthen research on the origin of an
articulation and the impact of discourses on other (forms of) discourses beyond
6
interdiscursivity, intertextuality and context. These factors can also be framed in theoretical,
political and research practical regards. In theoretical regards one can state that the
diffusion of discourse theory as a method in qualitative social science needs the
enhancement of its methodological basis. CDA is seen as research perspective on the specific
topic and the classification of the approach depends on the discipline and the theoretical
embedding (Keller 2004, 8; Meyer 2001, 14). CDA is not “single method” (Reisigl 2008, 100)
it provides a set of different ways of analysis and “The subjects under investigation differ for
the various departments and scholars who apply CDA” (Wodak and Meyer 2001, 3). Hence
scholars emphasize that there is no silver bullet of discourse analysis (Jäger 2001, 147; Keller
2001, 136). But Discourse analysis in mainstream political science is measured with the
scales of qualitative social science. Hence the field should be open for the question, if there
is a need for research working on this equivalent.
This would mean an on‐going emancipation of discourse analysis from discourse
theory. Hammersley suggests “[…] that discourse analysis can and should be detached from
constructionism” (Hammersley 2003, 772) when he asks if “[…] these forms of analysis
should be treated as methods […] or as paradigms […] (ibid., 751) because he fears that “[…]
they lead us in the wrong directions: away from the search for general knowledge of social
forces and institutions that structure human social life (ibid., 772). Coming from another
perspective but for similar reasons Keller divides discourse theory from discourse analysis
and states that discourse theory provides general insights on the social construction of
reality while discourse analysis aims on the empirical analysis of discourse (Keller 2004, 8).
At the same time the further development of post‐positivist approaches in the
disciplines of International Political Economy (IPE) and International Relations (IR) leads to
more attention paid on the actor’s role. On one hand the integration of discourse analysis in
new fields broadens the possibilities for critique. On the other hand discourse analysis has to
answer the question whom to criticise for what on which basis?
In political regards one has to discuss how the emancipative claim of discourse analysis
might be transformed to new fields of application beyond the field of discrimination which
typically forms the subject of interest in CDA. The spread of discourse analytical approaches
in political science involves furthermore a different perspective on discourse analysis which
7
might have research practical implications concerning the organization of the analysis; also
with regard to publication strategies and jobs.
Methods in Qualitative Social Science and their application depend on the object of
interest and hence cannot be standardised (Lamnek 1995, V). Discourse analytical research
on the financial crisis for example has to work on rating agencies as articulators in global
financial markets. The influence of rating agencies lies in the impact of their articulation not
only in their articulation itself. Of course one can study the reception of their articulation for
example in newspaper articles – but to trace the exertion of influence of an actor on a
discourse empirically is much harder when the distance between articulation and actor
increases. Additionally a multiplicity of factors like the journalist’s ‘opinion’, the position of
the newspaper, the country where the newspaper is published and so forth are part of the
articulation and the relation between articulation and actor becomes more complex. The
dilemma is marked by this situation: discourse analysis rightly cannot be standardized easily
on one hand, but on the other hand there are good reasons for a higher level
standardization. This dilemma situation evokes two conclusions: firstly the normative
conclusion states that field would overcome the dilemma situation when paying more
attention on systematization of methods. Secondly the question if an orientation on the
grammar of qualitative social science might offer a framework adaptable for discourse
analytical standardization needs.
The relevance for a revisit of discourse analytical purposes hence depends on the
particular research question and therewith on the background of the accordant discipline.
The example applied in this paper is the analysis of the discursive power of Transnational
Corporations (TNCs). As actors in Global Governance their discursive resources must be seen
in the light of their material and structural resources that enable TNCs to effectively exert
discursive power. Thus the impact of their articulation ‐ in that case of sustainability
concerns – needs to be considered.
3. ANALYSING TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION’S (TNCS) DISCURSIVE POWER – TRACING THE
PROCESS OF RE‐SIGNIFICATION
This section aims on presenting the research project the triple staged methodology
(which will be presented in the fourth section) is applied for. The project aims on
8
elaborating the discursive power of TNCs2. The central question is: Does the engagement of
TNCs in sustainability activities, as political actors in Global Governance, lead to a rather
one‐sided design of the discourse on sustainability (homogenisation of the discourse) in
the food sector that brings about a crowding‐out of discourses not in line with the basics of
liberal institutionalism? In the following I will briefly outline the argumentation.
ADAPTION OF AN EXISTING DISCOURSE
TNCs have the possibility to influence the discourse on sustainability, since in light of
globalisation; they are playing a major politically role (Brand and Brunnengräber 2000;
Cutler, Haufler, and Porter 1999; Korten 2003; Oels 2005). At the same time, TNCs have
gained an expert status in the area of sustainability through e.g. Corporate Social
Responsibility Initiative, Self‐regulation or Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) (Beisheim,
Liese, and Ulbert 2008; Hall 2002; Vogel 2008). This expert status is reflected in the
invitation of representatives of TNCs to scientific and political conferences where they are
invited to report on their experience in the field and best practice examples. In the same
manner, TNCs that stand out through their social commitment often cooperate on an equal
footing with nation states, non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) or quasi‐governmental
organizations (QGOs) in development policy (Altenburg and Chahoud 2003; BMZ 2007). To
put it differently, TNCs increase their credibility as political actors by showing social
responsibility (Fuchs 2007) and therefore also increase their chances of influencing the
discourse on sustainability.
Whether TNCs are accepted as political actors depends on the reception of their
political legitimacy (Fuchs 2005). An increase in their credibility through activities, which
show social responsibility, leads to their word weighing more in the political process
(Bowman 1996; Cashore 2002) – the ‚weight of the word’ reflects the discursive mediation in
this context. This increase in credibility allows TNCs to involve their discursive power in the
2 Discursive power of TNCs is explored based on its importance as an influential component of global governance,
and areas requiring further research are proposed (Fuchs 2007, 140; Kollman 2008, 401). The discursive power of TNCs is defined as a capacity to shape the policies and the policy processes as such by influencing norms and ideas (Fuchs 2007, 139). This definition does not only entail the characterization of power but also says something about its consequences by addressing its capacities to influence politics. The definition of soft power is of a similar matter, as “[it] rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others“ (Nye 2004). The channels of effectiveness of discursive factors are even clearer in Lukes’ description of the third dimension of power: “the power to shape, influence or determine others’ beliefs and desires, thereby securing their compliance” (Lukes 2005). He clearly highlights the aspect of ’compliance’. All these characteristics of dimensions of power describe ‘channels of effects’ – preferences, beliefs, desires, ideas, norms ‐ but not discursive power per se.
9
political process, to exert this power and to expand their power, by influencing the
composition and spread of ideas and norms (Fuchs 2007, 139).
‚Knowledge’ in this context depicts a central source of credibility of companies who
come forward as experts in the political process in general and in the discourse on
sustainability in particular (Junge 2008; Nullmeier and Rüb 1993, 48). Due to limited public
(and scientific resources) this knowledge frequently appears to be without alternatives.
Furthermore, the expected self‐interest of TNCs is often intertwined in the political debate
on social interests in light of an intensifying global competition (BMU 2009). In short: the
provision of expertise increases the TNCs’ credibility as a political actor, which in turn is
fundamental for an adaption of the existing discourse.
RE-SIGNIFICATION
If TNCs are able to legitimize themselves as credible political actors through
investments in sustainable development, they are also given the opportunity to (re)cast the
discourse pursuing their own interest and therefore working towards a re‐signification of the
term. This re‐signification of the sustainability concept – meaning the ‘filling’ of the concept
through TNCs – frequently happens along the lines of the rules of formation (Foucault and
Köppen 1983) of the ‘growth paradigm’3. Adaption of the discourse therefore means
creating the signifiers in a de Saussurian sense (Linke et al. 2004, 31f; de Saussure et al.
2001, 136f) along the antagonistic concept of ‘sustainability by (green) economic growth
despite the preservation of resources’.
The course of the discourse on sustainability in this growth paradigm offers a
congruent focus on a limited spectrum of social aims and political instruments and therefore
shapes an ‘action‐guiding dimension’ (Ulbert 2005, 6). Thus for example instruments for
environmental protection which function through the market as the trading of emissions
certificates or organic labels are favourable thanks to the regulating competition forces
(Bernstein 2002). After all, economic growth and the increase in societal consumption (and
3 The growth paradigm here refers to the bases of liberal institutionalism and provides a set of signifiers (Edkins and
Pin‐Fat 1999, 7): (1) The market, led by an ‘invisible hand’, determines supply and demand through pricing. (2) The ‘homo oeconomicus’ pursuit of selfish particular interests benefits the common good and creates wealth. (3) International trade with its gain‐maximising market participants creates a positive‐sum‐game and benefits all participants. (4) International division of labour in production increases levels of welfare (Bieling 2007).
10
the required production) are a central prerequisite of sustainable development prior to
economic and social goals (Goldin and Winters 1995).
RECOURSE ON ESTABLISHED NORMS
The previous section showed that a re‐signification of the concept of sustainability can
occur with elements of the growth paradigm as far as the linkage with elements of
environmental protection is concerned. Not only does the growth paradigm express the self‐
interests of the TNCs in this case, but it is also an example for the recourse on established
norms. Addressing established norms therefore is one of TNCs scopes for shaping
sustainability. The following can show that the areas of the ‘sensible’ and the ‘useful’ can be
defined through the recourse on established norms. TNCs’ recourse on established models
of economic growth influences the formation of rules (Foucault and Köppen 1983, 83ff) of
the discourse on sustainability. These norms are questioned on the one hand – especially in
light of the financial crisis – but on the other hand have become the tone‐setting model of
the modern economy since the increasing measures of privatization and deregulation in the
1970s (Bieling 2007).
One example for the recourse on established norms is the address on a ‘sustainable
lifestyle’ which has a sensual approach and is situated at the individual’s level of experience.
An example here is the commercialisation of organic products which promise a better quality
of life. ‘Sustainability to live’ becomes a sensual experience whose success is not primarily
dependent on environmental protection but can rather be satisfied though ‘sustainable’
consumption (Maniates 2001). The staging on an organic kiwi as a sustainable food is
independent of the emissions which are generated by its import. This way sustainable
development becomes compatible with the image of rational and sovereign consumers in
liberal institutionalism of whom no painful changes in behaviour are expected. The
institutionalization of these sensual experiences through established policies, e.g. eco‐
labeling, creates a canalization of ideas and actions.
MARGINALIZATION OF OTHER DISCOURSES?
A successful examination of discursive power of TNCs might lead to a re‐signification of
existing discourses and thereby shapes the spectrum of useful and wise activities within
sustainability discourse. The question which follows then is: Do even critical discourses use
11
the established phrases of sustainability in line with economic growth to be heard in
sustainability discourse? Discourses not in line with economic growth would be ‘unsayable’
because they do not refer to spectrum of useful and wise activities within the established
discourse. This could be the case for discourses referring to waiving, subsistence, care or
deceleration.
SUMMING UP: COURSE OF RE-SIGNIFICATION PROCESS
Literature on power theoretical approaches in IPE shows, that TNC’s discursive power
detracts itself from analysis – it becomes observable through its ‘channels of effect’.
Research on this dimension has to focus on its examination via the ‘channels of effect’. The
channels of effect in turn addressed in the articulation process need the ‘comprehending
reception’ (Graf 2009) to unfold their potential. The process of re‐signification suggests how
a successful process of discursive power examination could look like: TNCs invest in
sustainability activities and thereby influence policy processes (political actors in Global
Governance). TNCs’ investment in sustainable development can be subject to their own
agenda (adaption of the sustainability discourse). The linkage between elements of
sustainability with the interests of TNCs can lead to a distortion of what we understand as
‘sustainable development’ (re‐naming of specific discourse fragments). A significant factor
for the re‐signification is the ‘citing’ of contents which the individual is familiar with and
appreciates (recourse on established norms). In the context of the exertion of a potential
governmental capacity by TNCs, the question of whether the commitment of TNCs in the
field leads to a rather one‐sided structuring of the discourse on sustainability which results in
a suppression of other discourses, is a vital one. It is the research question the triple staged
discourse analytical approach is needed for.
4. TRIPLE STAGED METHODOLOGY
The approach first has to clarify how a TNC articulates sustainability to get information
about the signifiers used. The approach then has to clarify what signifiers the critical
discourses use (both content analytical step). The outcome of these analyses must be
applied on the public discourse to find out how the sustainability discourse changes over
time (discourse analysis). This consolidation of step one and two has to clarify, if the critical
discourses and the discourses in line with the paradigm of economic growth merge and
which fragments of (‘original’) discourses still can be found in the public discourse. For that
12
reason the coming section presents an approach combining a content analytical step with a
discourse analysis and its consolidation.
DISCOURSE THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL ORIENTATION
Foucault is attributed a special role in the area of discourse theory (Angermüller,
Bunzmann, and Nonhoff 2001, 12). Discourses are the “expression and configuration
conditions of the social at the same time” and this constitutive character is what makes
Foucault so special (Bublitz 1999, 13). They “define the area of the true and through this
exercise societal power” (ibid., 25). Keller, too, refers to Foucault when referring to
discourses as practices, which “systematically form objects, of which they are talking” (Keller
2006, 10).
Foucault distinguishes between four basis moments of discourse in “The Archaeology
of Knowledge” (1974): first, the formation of objects: which rules bring about a discourse?
Second, the formulation of modalities of statements: how are discourses exhibited? Third,
the formation of concepts: to which other statements is the discourse connected? And
fourth, the formation of strategies: what are the themes and strategies inherent in the
discourse (Foucault and Köppen 1983, 48ff)?
The methodological approach is based on Jäger’s manual for analysis introduced in
“Kritische Diskursanalyse” (2001), who draws from the discourse theory of Foucault. He
supplies a “tool box” for analysing discourses and highlights the impact of power (Jäger
2001, 120f). The following five steps are the themes of the detailed analysis: (1) institutional
context, (2) text surface, (3) linguistic‐rhetorical instruments, 4) ideological expressions, (5)
interpretation (ibid., 175).
The third step of the approach uses the empirical findings of the discourse analysis.
The step refines the analytical matrix und reviews the research design of the discourse
analysis. This last content‐analytical step bridges the previous two steps and serves as a
verification of the analytical matrix designed in the beginning. It will enrich the knowledge
about the discursive power of TNCs as actors in global governance and will clarify if the
central thesis ‐ a homogenization of the sustainability discourse is accelerated by TNCs ‐ can
be held.
13
CONTENT ANALYTICAL STEP
Although a qualitative social science perspective depends on the object of interest and
cannot be standardized easily (Lamnek 1995, V), content analytical approaches aim to
systematically and traceable contribute to generate and to evaluate contents of
communication (Häder 2010, 321; Kromrey and Strübing 2009, 23). Content analysis covers a
lot of different approaches (Atteslander and Cromm 2006, 192). The research carried out in
this paper belongs to the structuralistic‐reconstructive approaches (Garz 1991, 9). According
to the means of objective hermeneutics it serves to capture social practices in text first to
then uncover and interpret its underlying structures (Reichertz 2009, 514). The content
analysis aims to spotlight how sustainability is articulated by specific actors (here TNCs and
NGOs).
To uncover structures in articulations textural routines needs to be fixed for the
purpose of generating categories. Due to the background of the structuralistic‐
reconstructive approach, a textual routine means semantic descriptions of social situations
addressing previous knowledge by evoking implications transported by language [own
translation; „die semantische Beschreibung von Situationen, bei der über den unmittelbar
gegebenen sprachlichen Input hinausgegangen wird, indem durch Schlußfolgerungsprozesse
die vorgegebenen Informationen mit bereits vorhandenem Wissen integriert werden“]
(Christmann and Groeben 2006, 153). In other words: the content analysis wants to show
how Sustainability of TNCs is articulated and which signifiers are carried out at the same
time. The aim of the content analysis is to generate categories; hence the paper uses an
inductive approach of building categories (Mayring 2000) and develops them out of the text
material. The units of analysis serve as tentative points of orientation to manage the process
of analysis (Diekmann 2010, 588; Gläser and Laudel 2010, 193f).
The sustainability reports of the six biggest retailer in the world (Deloitte 2010, 14f)
and the mission statements of international NGOs working in the food sector serve as text
material to capture the articulations on sustainability. Sustainability reports are available on
the homepages of the retailers. The retail sector including food has been chosen for
developing categories on TNCs sustainability articulations, because it has a long tradition of
sustainability, contains a multitude of sustainable means (e.g. food security and food safety),
and often addresses the customer directly (Feindt and Kleinschmit 2007). The analysis of
14
international NGO’s mission statements, working in the food sector, is needed for
contrasting the TNC discourse. It is expected to find critical elements regarding the discourse
on ‘economic growth despite the preservation of resources’. Mission statements and
selected publications of food security and food safety are usually available on the
homepages of the NGOs.
The content analytical step is supported by MaxQda. MaxQda is a software package for
qualitative and quantitative data analysis. It provides different tools for the work on texts
and its analysis. The texts were read in the software as pdf files and can be processed. The
units of analysis were set as the first codes. During the process they have become more and
more differentiated. Two viability tests lead to revisions of the units of analysis. The code
memories have been adjusted and not fitting code‐fragments have been removed or
switched to a better fitting unit. The three units of analysis which serve as starting points for
setting up the categories are 1) Argumentations 2) Functions and 3) Associations.
‘Argumentations’ ask how sustainability is challenged or supported in the sustainability
report. ‘Functions’ aim to map how sustainability is expected to work and ‘Associations’
highlight in which context sustainable belongings are carried out.
DISCOURSE-ANALYTICAL STEP
The main focus of the examination should lie on investigating how the discourse on
sustainability exerts discursive power by TNCs and how the concept of sustainable
development is occupied by “economic growth despite a preservation of resources”. The
aim of this discourse analytical examination is to show in historical perspective how the
discourse on sustainability has changed over time and in which way. After the content
analytical step I know how the discourse is led by specific actor. In the discourse analysis the
categories get ‘interlinked’ with the public discourse on sustainability. The discourse
analytical step aims on analysing how discursive power of Transnational Corporations
materializes in public discourse.
The categories developed in the content analytical step serve as ‘dependent variables’.
They are points of reference for the discourse analytical step of the analysis. The “tool box”
of Jäger’s discourse analytical concept contains five steps: (1) Exploring the institutional
frame, (2) Examining the text surface, (3) Analysing linguistic and rhetoric instruments, (4)
Scanning for ideological declarations and (5) Interpretation (Jäger 2001, 175f). The discourse
15
analysis will cover a period of 40 years by using reference years (1979, 1989, 1999 and
2009). The German weekly Der Spiegel will provide the text material. All articles in the
magazine dealing with the ‘umbrella term’ sustainability will be used to generate data. A
subject catalogue will be set up to make sure to get the relevant articles.
CONSOLIDATION
The consolidation of the content analytical step and the discourse analytical step
mainly lies within the conjunction of the two different discourses. The content analytical
step provides the information on how sustainability is articulated and the discourse
analytical step shows how these articulations of TNCs behave due to the public discourse. In
this regard the content analysis legitimises where to look on analysing the public discourse.
Consolidation further more means hence means to structures the previous knowledge and
provide the methodological traceability of the foci of attention. This means also a reflection
of the researchers discourse position in an early stage of analysis.
A systematic analysis of sustainability reports identifies the important signifiers used to
articulate sustainability. It helps to evaluate the research hypotheses which will be ‘tested’
qualitatively and empirically in the discourse analysis. Thus the common research design in
International Relations (Gschwend and Schimmelfennig 2007; King and Keohane 1994) will
be a reference point for the discourse analysis and provides a pragmatic perspective. Along
with evaluating the research hypothesis the independent variables (x) are specified as well.
The independent variables explore the influence of TNCs on the public sustainability
discourse (y). Contrasting the TNC articulation with the NGO discourse on sustainability can
thus be seen as creating control variables. Of course the variables in the discourse analysis
will not justify explicit causalities; rather, they are weaving a net for analysing the discourse
as mentioned above. They are bench marks for interpretation, building the bridge between
content analysis and discourse analysis.
16
Triple Staged Methodology
5. CONCLUSION
The systematic content analysis of sustainability reports concerning TNCs private
regulation prepares the discourse analysis and generates its research design. It aims to build
up an analytical matrix, which is the base for the discourse analysis. It will not be a problem
to identify the norms associated with economic growth in the public discourse. It is a lot
more difficult to show that TNCs are strong supporters of economic growth within the
sustainability discourse. The content‐analytical embedment, with the analytical matrix, is a
tool to integrate the perspective on the actor TNC on one hand and the exercise of their
discursive power on the other. The important question is: what is the surplus of combining a
content analytical step with a discourse analysis? The answer can be given by highlighting
two different perspectives; firstly due to the research question and secondly with regards to
the methodological challenges in the field of CDA.
I. The aim of the project is to elaborate on the discursive power of TNCs. The research
question that shall be answered with this methodological approach is: Does the engagement
of TNCs in sustainability activities, as political actors in Global Governance, lead to a rather
one‐sided design of the discourse on sustainability (homogenisation of the discourse) in the
17
food sector that brings about a crowding‐out of discourses not in line with the basics of
liberal institutionalism?
Discursive power of TNCs is a rather new field where normally traditional IPE
approaches are applied for. There is research on the material and structural levels of TNCs
power but IPE methodologies normally cannot cover the discursive dimension of power. Also
because the empirical understanding in this field blocks approaches which are needed to
elaborate on such a question. Nevertheless this rather positivistic empirical understanding of
the field shapes the perspective applied for methodological approaches. To discover how
sustainability concerns are articulated by TNCs and to state that they are constructed in line
with the neoliberal growth paradigm would evoke critical statements. The warrantable
demur would state that TNCs of course report on their sustainability concerns along the
attributes of neoliberal institutionalism – what is the surprise and where is the impact?
Hence IPE logics require an approach focussing on the impact the articulation has.
Analysing TNCs impact on the (public) sustainability discourse requires rather ‘pure’
information on their activities. Rather the signifiers used – not the underlying ideologies
applied in the articulation are needed. It would also be a different project to elaborate on
the question where TNCs normalise people by re‐signifying (hegemonic) values when they
report on their sustainability activities. The content analytical step offers the right tools to
gather the information needed. The examination of the discursive power together with the
material and structural resources of this specific actor creates a pool of potential influences.
Discursive Power of TNCs is defined as the capacity to influence policies and the policy
process as such by the shaping of norms and ideas via channels of effect which need the
cognition‐process of the individual. To capture this way of influence a discourse analytical
step is needed. It can show how the articulations of TNCs are gripped in public discourse and
formulate in which way norms and ideas are shaped in public discourse.
II. Fixing discourse analytical findings means finally to position outside the discourse for
being ‘objective’. This antagonism becomes even heavier when approaches with rather
conflicting ontological assumptions (hermeneutical vs. constructivist) are combined. The
paper is aware of this problem facing discourse theory, but connects both approaches,
however. Which methodological concerns hence support an integration of triple staged
methodology with an orientation on the framework of qualitative social science?
18
Due to the spread of discourse analytical approaches in social science and the advance
of post‐positivist approaches in IPE, there is a need for a functional perspective in critical
discourse analysis. In contrast, the potential of discourse analysis is their openness, which is
essential to reconstruct the constitution of discourses and practices. The paper aims to
integrate a pragmatic perspective in the discourse analysis, especially by the content‐
analytical embedding, which structures the previous knowledge, reflects the discourse
position and prepares the research design for the discourse analysis, without losing the
openness of the discourse analytical approach.
As elaborated in the reflections on discourse analytical approaches (2), a plea for more
research‐synergies in the interpretive field and in CDA has a comprehensible basis; especially
when these synergies would lead to an expanded basis for critique. The combination of
approaches with rather different ontological understandings as applied here could lead to
synergies concerning a fruitful epistemological dialog within the field. To lean on the
framework of qualitative social science to formulate a research design within the field of
discourse analysis evokes on one hand a relatively high level of standardization which might
have negative implication for the openness of the method. On the other hand synergies here
could lay in a rather similar vocabulary which would facilitate the possibilities for
communication within the field. This is especially important for approaches applied in a
rather positivistic filed. The on‐going spread of discourse analytical approaches generates
new challenges for established methods and might lead to re‐formulation of methodologies.
The triple staged methodology, however, applied in this paper, fits for a specific question in
a specific discipline and might have positive effects on the further development of discursive
approaches as a method in qualitative social science.
19
References
Altenburg, Tilmann, and Tatjana Chahoud. 2003. "Public‐Private Partnerships. Bilanz der ersten Jahre." Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit 44 (4): 144–7.
Angermüller, Johannes, Katharina Bunzmann, and Martin Nonhoff. 2001. Diskursanalyse: Theorien, Methoden, Anwendungen. 1st ed. Hamburg: Argument‐Verl.
Atteslander, Peter, and Jürgen Cromm. 2006. Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 11th ed. Berlin: Schmidt.
Beisheim, Marianne, Andrea Liese, and Cornelia Ulbert. 2008. "Transnationale öffentlich‐private Partnerschaften. Bestimmungsfaktoren für die Effektivität ihrer Governance‐Leistungen." Politische Vierteljahresschrift (Sonderheft 41): 452–74.
Bernstein, Steven. 2002. The Compromise of Liberal Environmentalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Bieling, Hans‐Jürgen. 2007. Internationale Politische Ökonomie. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
2009. Umweltwirtschaftsbericht. Berlin.
2007. Jahresbericht Entwicklungspartnerschaften mit der Wirtschaft. Bonn.
Bowman, Scott R. 1996. The modern corporation and American political thought. Law, power, and ideology /. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.
Brand, Ulrich, and Achim Brunnengräber. 2000. Global Governance. Alternative zur neoliberalen Globalisierung? ; eine Studie von Heinrich‐Böll‐Stiftung und WEED. 1st ed. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.
Bublitz, Hannelore, ed. 1999. Das Wuchern der Diskurse. Perspektiven der Diskursanalyse Foucaults. Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verl.
Cashore, Benjamin. 2002. "Legitimacy and the Privatization of Environmental Governance. How Non–State Market–Driven (NSMD) Governance Systems Gain Rule–Making Authority." Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Institutions 15 (4): 503–29.
Chilton, Paul A., and Christina Schäffner. 2002a. "Introduction. Themes and Principles in the Analysis of Political Discourse." In Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, eds. Paul A. Chilton, and Christina Schäffner. Amsterdam ;, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Chilton, Paul A., and Christina Schäffner, eds. 2002b. Politics as Text and Talk. Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse. Amsterdam ;, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Christmann, Ursula, and Norbert Groeben. 2006. "Psychologie des Lesens." In Handbuch Lesen, eds. Bodo Franzmann, and Georg Jäger. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider‐Verl. Hohengehren, 145–223.
Cutler, Claire, Virginia Haufler, and Tony Porter, eds. 1999. Private Authority and International Affairs. Albany: New York Press.
Deloitte. 2010. Emerging from the Downturn. Global Powers of Retailing 2010. London.
Diekmann, Andreas. 2010. Empirische Sozialforschung. Grundlagen, Methoden, Anwendungen. 2007th ed. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt‐Taschenbuch‐Verl.
20
Feindt, Peter, and Daniela Kleinschmit. 2007. "Mediatisierung der Agrarpolitik? Die Rolle der Medien in der deutschen BSE‐Krise." In Medien und Policy. Neue Machtkonstellationen in ausgewählten Politikfeldern. Frankfurt: Lang, 121–42.
Forchtner, Bernhard. 2011. "Critique, the Discourse–Historical Approach, and the Frankfurt School." Critical Discourse Studies 8 (1): 1–14.
Foucault, Michel, and Ulrich Köppen. 1983. Archäologie des Wissens. 1st ed. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Fuchs, Doris. 2005. Understanding Business Power in Global Governance. Baden‐Baden: Nomos.
–––. 2007. Business Power in Global Governance. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Garz, Detlef. 1991. Qualitativ‐empirische Sozialforschung. Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen. Opladen: Westdt. Verl.
Gläser, Jochen, and Grit Laudel. 2010. Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Als Instrumente rekonstruierender Untersuchungen. 4th ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.
Goldin, Ian, and Alan Winters. 1995. The Economics of Sustainable Development 1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Graf, Antonia. 2009. "Die Konzeption Diskursiver Unternehmensmacht als Einflussfaktor im Nachhaltigkeitsdiskurs." Presentation held at the DVPW–Kongress "Politik im Klimawandel. Keine Macht für gerechte Lösungen?", 21 September, Kiel.
Gschwend, Thomas, and Frank Schimmelfennig. 2007. Forschungsdesign in der Politikwissenschaft. Probleme ‐ Strategien ‐ Anwendungen. Frankfurt/Main [u.a.]: Campus.
Häder, Michael. 2010. Empirische Sozialforschung. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.
Hall, Rodney Bruce. 2002. The emergence of private authority in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Hammersley, Martyn. 2003. "Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms?" Discourse & Society 14 (6): 751–81.
Hay, Colin. 2002. Political analysis. [a critical introduction]. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Jäger, Siegfried. 2001. Kritische Diskursanalyse. Eine Einführung. 3rd ed. Duisburg: DISS.
Junge, Torsten. 2008. Gouvernementalität der Wissensgesellschaft. Politik und Subjektivität unter dem Regime des Wissens. Bielefeld: transcript‐Verl.
Keller, Rainer. 2001. "Wissenssoziologische Diskursanalyse." In Handbuch Sozialwissenschaftliche Diskursanalyse. Theorien und Methoden, ed. Reiner Hirseland Andreas Schneider Werner Viehöver Willy Keller. Band 1. Opladen: Leske Budrich, 113–45.
Keller, Reiner. 2004. Diskursforschung. Eine Einführung für SozialwissenschaftlerInnen. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.
–––. 2006. Theorien und Methoden. Wiesbaden: VS Verl. für Sozialwiss.; VS, Verl. für Sozialwiss.
King, Gary, and Robert Owen Keohane. 1994. Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Kollman, Kelly. 2008. "The regulatory Power of Business Norms: a call for a new research agenda." International Studies Review 10 (3): 397–419.
21
Korten, David C. 2003. When corporations rule the world. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Berrett‐Koehler Publ. [u.a.].
Kromrey, Helmut, and Jörg Strübing. 2009. Empirische Sozialforschung. Modelle und Methoden der standardisierten Datenerhebung und Datenauswertung. 12th ed. Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.
Lamnek, Siegfried. 1995. Methodologie. 3rd ed. Weinheim: Psychologie‐Verl.‐Union.
Linke, Angelika, Markus Nussbaumer, Paul R Portmann‐Tselikas, Urs Willi, and Simone Berchtold. 2004. Studienbuch Linguistik. 5th ed. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Lukes, Steven. 2005. Power. Aradical view /. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Maniates, Michael. 2001. "Individualization: Plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world?" Global environmental politics 1 (3): 31.
Mayring, Philipp. 2000. "Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse." Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung. 1 (2): 1–10.
–––. 2010. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Weinheim: Beltz.
Meyer, Michael. 2001. "Between Theory, Method and Politics. Positioning of the Approaches to CDA." In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, eds. Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer. London: SAGE.
Nullmeier, Frank, and Friedbert Rüb. 1993. Die Transformation der Sozialpolitik. Vom Sozialstaat zum Sicherungsstaat. Frankfurt/Main: Campus‐Verl.
Nye, Joseph S. 2004. Soft power. The means to success in world politics. 1st ed. New York: Public Affairs.
Oels, Angela. 2005. "Rendering climate change governable: from biopower to advanced liberal government." Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 7 (3): 185–207.
Reichertz, Jo. 2009. "Objektive Hermeneutik und hermeneutische Wissenssoziologie." In Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch, eds. Uwe Flick, Ernst von Kardorff, and Ines Steinke. 7th ed. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt‐Taschenbuch‐Verl., 514–24.
Reisigl, Martin. 2008. "Analysing Political Rhetoric." In Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. Ruth Wodak, and Michał Krzyżanowski. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England] ;, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Saussure, Ferdinand de, Charles Bally, Albert Riedlinger, Herman Lommel, and Peter Ernst. 2001. Grundfragen der allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Ulbert, Cornelia. 2005. Konstruktivistische Analysen der internationalen Politik: Von den Höhen der Theorie in die methodischen Niederungen der Empirie. Papier für die Sektion Internationale Politik der DVPW. Mannheim 6.‐7. Oktober 2005.
Vogel, Catherine. 2008. Capacity Development. Konkret. Das Beispiel des Common Code for the Coffee Community (4C). Eschborn.
Wodak, Ruth. 2008. "Introduction. Discourse Studies ‐ Important Concepts and Terms." In Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. Ruth Wodak, and Michał Krzyżanowski. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England] ;, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer, eds. 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE.