Discourse Analysis: Strengths and Shortcomings

Yıl 2019, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 285 - 305, 01.07.2019

Senem Aydın-düzgit Bahar Rumelili

https://doi.org/10.20991/allazimuth.477300

Cited By: 12

Öz

Discourse analysis is a much-favoured textual analysis
method among constructivist and critically minded International Relations
scholars interested in the impact of identity, meaning, and discourse on world
politics. The aim of this article is to guide students of Turkish IR in their
choice and use of this method. Written by two Turkish IR scholars who have employed
discourse analysis in their past and present research, this article also
includes a personal reflection on its strengths and shortcomings. The first
section of the article presents an overview of the conceptual and
epistemological underpinnings of discourse analysis, while charting the
evolution of discourse analysis in IR since the late 1980s in three phases. The
second section offers insight into the personal history of the researchers in
employing discourse analysis in their previous and ongoing research, while the
third section provides a how-to manual by performing discourse analysis of an
actual text. The concluding section focuses on the challenges faced in the
conduct of discourse analysis and the potential ways to overcome them, also
drawing from the researchers’ own experiences in the field. 

Anahtar Kelimeler

Discourse analysis, international relations, qualitative methods, constructivism, critical discourse analysis

Kaynakça

• Adler, E. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (1997): 319–63.
• Ashley, K. Richard. “Foreign Policy as Political Performance.” International Studies Notes 13 (1987): 51–54.
• ———. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17, no. 2 (1988): 227–62.
• Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. Constructions of European Identity: Debates and Discourses on Turkey and the EU. London: Palgrave, 2012.
• ———. “Critical Discourse Analysis in Analysing European Foreign Policy: Prospects and Challenges.” Cooperation and Conflict 49, no. 3 (2014): 354–67.
• ———. “European Security and the Accession of Turkey: Identity and Foreign Policy in the European Commission.” Cooperation and Conflict 48, no. 4 (2013): 522–41.
• ———. “Foreign Policy and Identity Change: Analysing Perceptions of Europe among the Turkish Public.” Politics (2017). doi:10.1177/0263395717729932. Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59, no. 1 (2005): 39–75.
• Barnutz, Sebastian. “The EU’s Logic of Security: Politics through Institutionalised Discourses.” European Security 19, no. 3 (2010): 377–94.
• Bennett, Andrew. “Found in Translation: Combining Discourse Analysis with Computer Assisted Content Analysis.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43, no. 3 (2015): 984–97. Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
• Cebeci, Münevver, and Tobias Schumacher. “The EU’s Constructions of the Mediterranean (2003–2017).” MEDRESET Working Papers no. 3, April 2017. http://www.medreset.eu/?p=13294.
• Chilton, Paul. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang, 1996.
• Chilton, Paul, and George Lakoff. “Foreign Policy by Metaphor.” In Language and Peace, edited by Christina Schaffner and Anita L. Welden, 37–61. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1995.
• Chouliaraki, Lilie. “Spectacular Ethics: On the Television Footage of the Iraq War.” Journal of Language and Politics 4, no. 1 (2005): 143–59. Diez, Thomas. “Europe as a Discursive Battleground.” Cooperation and Conflict 36 (2001): 5–38.
• Doty, Roxanne. Imperial Encounters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
• Drulak, Petr. “Motion, Container and Equilibrium: Metaphors in the Discourse about European Integration.” European Journal of International Relations 12, no. 4 (2006): 499–532.
• Dunn, Kevin, and Iver B. Neumann. Undertaking Discourse Analysis for Social Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2016.
• Epstein, Charlotte. “Who Speaks? Discourse, the Subject, and the Study of Identity in International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 17, no. 2 (2011): 327–50. Hansen, Lene. Security as Practice: Discourse Analysis and the Bosnian War. London: Routledge, 2006.
• Hardy, Cynthia, Bill Harley, and Nelson Phillips. “Discourse Analysis and Content Analysis: Two Solitudes?” Newsletter of the American Political Science Association’s Organized Section on Qualitative Methods 2, no. 1 (2004): 19–22.
• Holzscheiter, Anna. “Between Communicative Interaction and Structures of Signification: Discourse Theory and Analysis in International Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 15 (2014): 142–62.
• Hopf, Ted. “Identity Relations and the Sino-Soviet Split.” In Measuring Identity: A Guide for Social Scientists, edited by Rawi Abdelal, Yoshiko M. Herrera, Alastair Iain Jonston, and Rose McDermott, 279–315. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
• Hopf, Ted. Social Construction of Foreign Policy: Identities and Foreign Policies, Moscow, 1955, 1999. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002.
• Hopf, Ted, and Bentley B. Allan. Making Identity Count: Building a National Identity Database. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
• Hülsse, Rainer. Metaphern der EU-Erweiterung als Konstruktionen Europäischer Identität. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2003.
• Jackson, Richard. “Constructing Enemies: ‘Islamic Terrorism’ in Political and Academic Discourse.” Government and Opposition 42, no. 3 (2007): 394–426.
• ———. “Knowledge, Power and Politics in the Study of Political Terrorism.” In Critical Terrorism Studies: A New Research Agenda, edited by Richard Jackson, Marie Breen Smith, and Jeroen Gunning, 66–84. London and New York: Routledge, 2009.
• Keohane, Robert. “International Institutions: Two Approaches.” International Studies Quarterly 44, no. 1 (1988): 83–105.
• Krzyzanowski, Michal. “European Identity Wanted! On Discursive and Communicative Dimensions of the European Convention.” In A New Research Agenda in CDA: Theory and Multidisciplinarity, edited by Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton, 137–65. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2005.
• Krzyzanowski, Michal, and Florian Oberhuber. (Un)doing Europe: Discourse and Practices in Negotiating the EU Constitution. Brussels: P.I.E.-Peter Lang, 2007.
• Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. “Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 2 (1997): 193–237.
• Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1980.
• Lapid, Yosef. “The Third Debate: On the Prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era.” International Studies Quarterly 33, no. 3 (1989): 235–54.
• Larsen, Henrik. “Discourses of State Identity and Post-Lisbon National Foreign Policy: The Case of Denmark.” Cooperation and Conflict 49, no. 3 (2014): 368–85.
• Litfin, Karen. Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in Global Environmental Cooperation. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
• Little, Richard. The Balance of Power in International Relations: Metaphors, Myths, and Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
• Milliken, Jennifer. “Discourse Study: Bringing Rigor to Critical Theory.” In Constructing International Relations: The Next Generation, edited by Karin M. Fierke and Knud Erik Jorgensen, 136–60. New York: M.E. Sharpe, 2001.
• ———. “Prestige and Reputation in American Foreign Policy and American Realism”. In Post-realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations, edited by Francis Beer and Robert Hariman, 217–38. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 1996.
• ———. “The Study of Discourse in International Relations: A Critique of Research and Methods.” European Journal of International Relations 5, no. 2 (1999): 225–54.
• Musolff, Andreas. Metaphor and Political Discourse: Analogical Reasoning in Debates about Europe. Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
• Neumann, Iver B. “Discourse Analysis.” In Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, edited by Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash, 61–77. Houndsmills: Palgrave, 2009.
• ———. “Returning Practice to the Linguistic Turn: The Case of Diplomacy.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 31, no. 3 (2002): 627–51.
• ———. Russia and the Idea of Europe: A Study in Identity and International Relations. London and New York: Routledge, 1995.
• ———. “To Be a Diplomat.” International Studies Perspectives 6 (2005): 72–93.
• ———. Uses of the Other: The East in European Identity Formation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998.
• Price, Richard. “A Geneaology of the Chemical Weapons Taboo.” International Organization 49, no. 1 (1995): 73–103.
• Reisigl, Martin. “Wie man eine Nation herbeiredet. Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung zur sprachlichen Konstruktion österreichischen Nation und österreichischen Identität in politischen Fest- und Gedenkreden.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Vienna, 2004.
• Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.
• Rumelili, Bahar. “Constructing Identity and Relating to Difference: Understanding EU’s Mode of Differentiation.” Review of International Studies 30 (2004): 27–47.
• ———. Constructing Regional Community and Order in Europe and Southeast Asia. Palgrave, 2007.
• ———. “Liminality and Perpetuation of Conflicts: Turkish-Greek Relations in the Context of Community Building by the EU.” European Journal of International Relations 9, no. 2 (2003): 213–48.
• ———. “Producing Collective Identity and Interacting with Difference: The Security Implications of Community-Building in Europe and Southeast Asia.” Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Minnesota, 2002.
• Schaffner, Christina. “The ‘Balance’ Metaphor in Relation to Peace.” In Language and Peace, edited by Christina Schaffner and Anita L. Wenden, 75–92. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1995.
• Tekin, Beyza Ç. Representations and Othering in Discourse: The Construction of Turkey in the EU Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2010.
• Van Dijk, Teun A. Prejudice in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1984.
• Waever, Ole. “Discursive Approaches.” In European Integration Theory, edited by Thomas Diez and Antje Wiener, 163–81. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
• ———. “Securitisation and Desecuritisation.” In On Security, edited by Ronnie D. Lipschutz, 46–87. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995.
• Walker, Rob B. J. Inside/Outside: International Relations as Political Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Wendt, Alexander. “Anarchy Is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics.” International Organization 46, no. 2 (1992): 391–425.
• ———. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Wigen, Einar. “Two-Level Language Games: International Relations as Interlingual Relations.” European Journal of International Relations 21, no. 2 (2015): 427–50.
• Wodak, Ruth. “The Discourse-Historical Approach.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 63–95. London: Sage, 2001.
• ———. “Introduction: Discourse Studies - Important Concepts and Terms.” In Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences, edited by Ruth Wodak and Michal Krzyzanowski, 1–29. London: Palgrave, 2008.
• Wodak, Ruth, et al. The Discursive Construction of National Identity, 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.