In the same line as we discussed semiotics as a research method in a precedent article, we will now analyze the concept of discourse analysis as a research technique. This article provides a summary of the concept of ‘discourse’ and ‘discourse Analysis I’. We will also examine discourse analysis as a research method in relation to Elliott’s study of Starbucks (2001).
The term ‘discourse’ is defined as a “written or spoken communication or debate” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). The concept of discourse is a key notion of Michel Foucault’s methodology; it forms an essential part of his theoretical arguments. Foucault’s radical work on discourse is particularly influential, and it considerably helped to our nowadays’ understanding of the concept He defines discourse as “a particular knowledge about the world which shapes how the world is understood and how things are done in it.” (Rose, 2001, p. 136). ‘Discourse’ thus refers to sets of claims that organize the way a ‘thing’ is understood, and the way we respond to those claims. It is directed at developing our perception and knowledge of how human beings interact with each other and with their environment. Discourses are communicated throughout all kinds of verbal and visual texts and images. The notion of intertextuality is crucial in order to understand the concept. Indeed, the significance of any discursive text or image is determined not only by that text or image, but also by the meaning conveyed by others texts and images because a discourse is always articulated by a great diversity of forms (Rose, 2001).
Michel Foucault
Furthermore, even if it is referred to as a theoretical concept denoting specific phenomena and observations, the concept of discourse has also been established as a proper research method. Rose (2001) claims that Foucault’s work gave birth to two different methods for critical analysis. ‘discourse analysis I’ and ‘discourse analysis II’ (even if she claims that this distinction is not clear-cut). In this article, we focus on the first form of discourse analysis, namely discourse analysis I. While discourse analysis II tends to focus more on the practices of institutions, discourse analysis I “tends to pay rather more attention to the notion of discourse as articulated through various kinds of visual images and verbal texts than it does to the practices entailed by specific discourses” (Rose, 2001, p. 140). This method uses the concept of discourse to discuss all forms of texts and talk. It focusses specifically on language and it is based on discursive developments and their output.
Discourse analysis I exploits the concept of discourse to expend on the rhetorical arrangement and social production of written, visual, and spoken data. It is essentially based on discerning the construction of social difference thanks to discursive statement to truth. Discourse analysis I implies that you look at your sources from a new perspective, with fresh eyes. Besides, if you decide to use discourse analysis as your research method, you should also ultimately immerse yourself in the sources and try to identify their major key themes. Another strategy of the method of discourse analysis I is to study the effects of truth of your sources. You should also definitely focus on their complexity and contradictions. Trying to read between the lines is also definitely important. You should not only pay attention to the ‘visible’, but look for the invisible as well. Lastly, you will have to pay attention to all the details in order to use the method of discourse analysis properly (Rose, 2001).
http://www.idmagazine.com.mx/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/franquicias-en-mexico-Starbucks-Coffee.jpg
Elliott’s article Consuming caffeine: The discourse of Starbucks and coffee may be used as an example to show how discourse analysis I may be used as a research method. Indeed, in that article, Elliott (2001) employs the notion of discourse and the method of discourse analysis in order to analyze the branding and marketing strategies of Starbucks. He studies the contemporary marketing of coffee and he explains how the notion of discourse permits to investigate how Starbucks creates, packages, and presents coffee as expressing global and consumer culture. He analyzes the cultural “text” of coffee and its multifaceted meaning because he is convinced that this meaning is inherent to the object and to the discourses surrounding it. He explores coffee market as a site for representation and discourse. Subsequently, Eliott exemplifies this with Starbucks, which is, according to him, the best market to study the discourse of coffee. Eliott is definitely following the steps that characterize discourse analysis I given by Rose (2001). For example, we clearly sea that he tries to discern the key themes of his chosen topic. The effects of truth produced by Starbucks are also analyzed: Starbucks somewhat became a ‘legend’ in the world of coffee, propagating its own truths. Besides, Eliott also tries to read between the lines and to look at the details of Starbucks’ discourse by analyzing the contradictions inherent to its discourse, like for example the fact that their coffees are sometimes referenced as coming from one specific country, while it is actually not the case. Thanks to discourse analysis, Eliott definitely manages to show how Starbucks changes coffee bean into something symbolically stimulating, and how a transborder product as coffee has been costumed for our consumption.
References:
Rose, G. (2001). Discourse Analysis I. Visual methodologies: An introduction to researching with visual materials. London: Sage.
Elliott, C. (2001). “Consuming caffeine: The discourse of Starbucks and coffee” In: Consumption, Markets and Culture, 4(4), pp. 369-382.
Recent Comments