Interpretive Discourse Analysis: The Methods Studio—Workshop and “Crit”

Session Submission Type: Wednesday Half-Day Short Course

Session Description

The Methods Studio Short Course has two parts: a workshop and a “crit,” described below. The focus of this year’s workshop (Part I) is “Interpretive Discourse Analysis.” Following that, the “crit” (Part II) will entail discussion of interpretive methods in two works in progress that were selected in advance via application.

Part I [1.30-3.45] Workshop: “Interpretive Discourse Analysis”
In the workshop part of the Methods Studio, Dr. Eric Blanchard (Assistant Professor of Political Science, SUNY-Oswego) will provide an introduction and assessment of the possibilities of discourse analysis as a way to conduct interpretive political analysis. Dr. Blanchard will first provide a brief overview of several leading discursive approaches, including narrative, metaphor and argument analysis, useful for researchers interested in exploring issues of meaning, representation, identity, interaction, and coercion in politics. He will then turn the discussion to the advantages, limitations and compatibilities of multiple, rich traditions of discourse analysis in order to prompt methodological reflection on the process of selecting and/or combining strategies.

References and planned course readings

Peter H. Feindt and Angela Oels, “Does Discourse Matter? Discourse Analysis in Environmental Policy Making,” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7.3 (2005): 161-173.

Giovanni Bettini, “Climate Barbarians at the Gate? A Critique of Apocalyptic Narratives on ‘Climate Refugees’,” Geoforum 45 (2013): 63–72.

Christopher Shaw and Brigitte Nerlich, “Metaphor as a Mechanism of Global Climate Change Governance: A Study of International Policies, 1992–2012,” Ecological Economics 109 (2015): 34–40.

Brigitte Nerlich and Rusi Jaspal, “Metaphors We Die By? Geoengineering, Metaphors, and the Argument from Catastrophe,” Metaphor and Symbol, 27 (2012): 131–147.

Jens E. Kjeldsen, “Strategies of Visual Argumentation in Slideshow Presentations: The Role of the Visuals in an Al Gore Presentation on Climate Change,” Argumentation 27 (2013): 425–443.

3.45-4.00 Break

Part II [4.00-5.30] “Crit”: Exploring research projects
Two researchers will present their projects, focusing on questions about the research methods they are using and/or the ways they have written their methods sections. Methods Studio leaders will lead off in response, to draw in comments and questions of others in attendance such that the discussion serves to educate all. The Crit enables more prolonged engagement with each research project and emphasizes supportive critique with an eye toward publication and reviewers’ reactions.

Researchers presenting their work for discussion, with respondent
Crystal Whetstone, PhD candidate, University of Cincinnati: Compares political motherhood movements in Argentina and Sri Lanka using visual, archival and interview data to understand why some movements are “remembered” while others are “forgotten”.
• RESPONDENT: Prof. Kevin Bruyneel, Babson College (politics of memory) https://www.babson.edu/academics/faculty/faculty-profiles/kevin-bruyneel.php

Philip Luke Johnson, PhD candidate, City University of New York: Discourse analysis of communication by organized crime in Mexico. Examines how organized crime (and state agents) use mass media and public spectacle to control and govern the public sphere.
• RESPONDENT: Prof. Sam Handlin, Swarthmore College (Comparative Politics, Latin American & Latino Studies) https://www.swarthmore.edu/profile/sam-handlin

Sub Unit

• APSA Panels and All Meetings and Receptions

Chairs

• Peregrine Schwartz-Shea University of Utah

• Rina Verma Williams University of Cincinnati

Presenter

• Eric M. Blanchard