Reflection for the third week

Hello everyone,

I would like to start this week’s blog from Wootfit chapter 3. I was struggling to understand the fact that discourse analysis has not made a significant impact within sociology in general as it made within the sociology of scientific knowledge. I am wondering whether or not one of the reason is that individuals do not usually realize what other people says. If so, I can basically argue that people do a quick discourse analysis during a conversation by constructing the meaning from other’s words. That is why I am still confused about this issue. On the other hand, I can understand how discourse analysis can make a significant impact within the sociology of knowledge.

Also, I am wondering why qualitative focus on discourse might be failed to engage within North American sociology. Wootfit claims that the reason is that North American sociology more focus on quantitative approaches to sociological research. Even if there is a difference between the foci, can’t we say that a radically qualitative focus on discourse cannot be applied to North America? Are those foci general or just applicable to certain places?

 

It is helpful for me to see that Gilbert and Mulkay’s and as followers of them Potter and Wetherell’s explanations of the root of discourse analysis. They pointed out some principles. I would like to focus on only one of them which is parallel to the point I made above. They claimed that the same phenomenon can be described in several different ways. At this point, I have another question:

What are difference between the Potter and Wetherell’s account principles of discourse analysis, especially for the first 5 principles? Because they look almost same to me.

I am also wondering what the relationship between discourse analysis and attribution theory is. Or, what is the state of discourse analysis within the attribution theory?

I also want to a little bit mention some important points for me from other readings this week. One of the discussions from last week was the difference between conversation analysis and discourse analysis. Potter starts with a brief explanation. I think this is the point what the difference is. According to Potter, discourse is “much of what we do with others we do by way of conversation, phone calls, letters and instructions. Potter, like Wootfit, is also pointing out that discourse analysis is a central task for social science. I think this is a very big claim. Does that mean the researchers in the field of social science should conduct discourse analysis? My other question from Potter’s reading is what “discourse is situated” means. Furthermore, I am challenging to understand the difference between “action-oriented” and “constructed”. To me, they seem quite similar.

Finally, I would like to share some points from Lester and Gabriel article. I think I am more clear than last week in terms of what discourse really means. I think one of main question I can ask is as follows:

Is there any relationship/what are the difference between “construct of intelligence” and “discourse of intelligence”? I am confused about these phrases because as we discussed last week, discourse can be thought as “constructing meaning”. It seems to me that there should be similarities between those two phrases.

I am really looking forward to discussing in class on Wednesday.

Thanks,