In this episode we discuss some elements related to the practical side of research design. We’ll get into how Critical Discourse Analysis fits into the postmodern turn and how "mixed-methods" can potentially lead us into what I call the "pragmatic turn".

 EPISODE TRANSCRIPT

Good day, everyone! I hope you've all recovered from the Unit 10 discussion boards. This is our second last episode in our podcast series for SOSC 730! I hope you’re all enjoying these contributions. I definitely enjoy sharing my thoughts with you.

During our time together we've had the opportunity to tour a wide range of methodologies that have emerged as counterpoints to positivist paradigms in the social sciences. These methodologies, which include ethnography, grounded theory, case study, and PAR, are largely based on interpretivist and constructivist paradigms. Several themes run through these methodologies, in my opinion:

·      The importance of the everyday practical world;

·      The significance of reflexivity; and

·      The role of relationality and the growing centrality of language as formative.

We’ve explored how these methodologies offer perspectives on the "critical turn" towards "postmodern" epistemologies. In this episode I’ll discuss the practical side of things. We’ll get into how Critical Discourse Analysis, or CDA, fit into the postmodern turn and how "mixed-methods" can potentially lead us into what I call the "pragmatic turn".

Let’s go!

Let’s talk about the post-modern, post-structural, and post-colonial shifts that began in the late 60s and early 70s. This epistemological revolution has been critical in the social sciences, transforming our understanding of power relations and knowledge production. It has its roots deep in Marxist and Frankfurt School theories.

 One of its broad foci was the challenge of "revealing" or "un-veiling" a suspect invisible partnership between knowledge and politics or power in Western cultures. The Frankfurt School specifically "went after" positivist social sciences that claimed to be able to know and represent the world in a true and authoritative manner.

Alvesson identifies five key characteristics of this revolution:

First is the centrality of Discourse and an emphasis on the constitutive power of language and a focus on “textuality” - cue Derrida’s 1967 La Voix et le Phénomène.

Second is the idea of fragmented Identities and an emphasis on subjectivity as a process and the death of the individual as an autonomous, meaning-making subject- largely via R. Barthe’s 1967 text the Death of the Author.

The third is the critique of representation and an emphasis on the ‘undecidability” of language  to break down polarities/binaries and the assumption that language is a mirror of a reality and an avenue for the transport of unchanging pure or proper meanings – Again through the work of Derrida, in particular his text Monolingualism of the Other.

The fourth is the idea of the loss of foundations and the power of grand metanarratives – this is a nod to Nietzsche and the existentialists and championed by Lyotard’s 1984 text The postmodern condition  which emphasised the existence of multiple realities and local politics over meta-theoretical frameworks and large-scale political projects;

And five, finally, The Power-Knowledge Connection and its emphasis on the impossibilities of separating knowledge and power – this is largely via Foucault’s notion of power- where knowledge loses its sense of objective innocence and neutrality in favor of unveiling the multiple ways epistemological traditions are imbricated and maintained within a “politics of truth”.

Alright, lots of great post-modern jargon there in these five key characteristics of the revolution. I hope you’re still with me—that I haven’t lost you yet!  

Well this epistemological revolution's critical methodologies are used to generate and represent knowledge. The emphasis on revealing "power relations" or "ruling relations" is an important aspect of these approaches. Indeed, much of the postmodern methodological impact has been focused on exposing the specific power relations embedded in how we collect, analyze, and represent social science research. This has resulted in profound "ah-has" and major disciplinary "breakdowns" that have enabled us, on the one hand, to forge new paths and approaches to research that are inclusive, emancipatory, and based on local needs within a multi-vocal representational framework.

It has, however, also led us down a different path, one in which we are now suspicious of one another - can you speak for them – who can speak for them? And this whole rise of what we call “cancel culture".

It has also contributed to a sense of "analysis paralysis," in which we have become so deeply unravelled that we are unable to put ourselves back together and have lost touch with a collective path in which we can truly celebrate and honour differences.

This path has also led us to become overly focused on "text" or "textual" representations, particularly written and spoken language: this is where critical discourse analysis or CDA comes into play in this week's episode.

CDA has its roots in the critical linguistics of the 1980s. Critical linguistics sought to understand through systematic analysis how language use could lead to a de-mystification of social events.

The strong emergence in the 1990s of the postmodern, structuralist and colonial paradigms helped to shift critical linguistics into what we now know of as critical discourse analysis. This approach to research is characterized by an attempt to de-mystify ideologies and power through the systematic and retroductable investigation of semiotic data—written, spoken or visual).

Critical discourse analysis sees “language as social practice” and preoccupies itself with exploring the context of language use and its potential in constituting and transmitting knowledge, in organizing social institutions or in exercising power. Essentially, Critical discourse analysis provides us with the tools for analyzing how the social world is interpreted, reproduced, and even transformed through language.

Brock’s article using critical discourse analysis for examining technology practices, and the Gibson, Lee, and Crab study that employs it for analyzing Australian breast cancer websites. Both these studies underscore the value of critical discourse analysis in navigating our complex, power-laden social world.

Consider for example, how our current reality may be discursively constructed via the language, symbols and authority of something like a global pandemic. And also the enormous impact on how this discourse may be influencing our decisions. What happens when you pause and question or critically examine the choice of language and/or symbols associated with the pandemic and their authority over us?

Now, let's talk about the "pragmatic turn." I believe that combining critical theory with a more pragmatic approach using mixed methods can maybe create a "super-methodology."

What do I mean by this? Well the social 'so what' of social inquiry is pragmatic inquiry or PI. PI has the potential to unpack and reveal some of our work's ethical elements that critical theory cannot—or will not—touch. Critical theory has empowered and liberated us in many ways, but it has also contributed to—and maybe unnecessarily so— significant ruptures and discord in the social sciences, supported a sense of "analysis paralysis" among social scientists—or cancel culture— and contributed to increasing knowledge inaccessibility.

Is it necessary for us to remain so "critical"? Who does it benefit? And how much will it actually cost? We also need to think about our ethical responsibilities as researchers, which we’ll explore in the final episode of our lecture series in Unit 12.

Well mixed Methods Research and the theory and practice of combining qualitative and quantitative approaches to social research is very much connected to PI. In their opening editorial in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, Creswell and his co-author,  for example, acknowledge the lack of consensus around whether it’s “mixed methods”, a combination of types of data, or whether its “Mixed Methods Research” a distinct methodology, or whether it implies a different paradigm of social inquiry.

You’ll find that the phrase “mixed methods” is consistently used in different ways. Most frequently, it is used to describe the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods in one study. This “conventional” approach is illustrated in the Creswell video posted in this Unit, where there is a clear divide between qualitative and quantitative. 

Some scholars, however, use the phrase more broadly to describe other combinations of designs; the term “multimethod” tends to be preferred for such work. In chapter 11 of our course text, Plowright’s “integrated matrix” is another example of a mixed-methods approach that seeks to go beyond the qualitative and quantitative binary.

Personally, I hear a lot of the mixed methods debate as quantitative researchers discovering the advantages of qualitative methods and then engaging in some of the epistemological and methodological debates we've been studying throughout our SOSC 730 learning journey together.

In some ways, this debate appears to be breaking free from the binary of qualitative and quantitative. And perhaps pragmatic inquiry  provides us with a third space in which to apply the crucial philosophical lessons of post-positivist paradigms to the practical tangible "reality" of modernity.

Well Snelson makes some insightful observations about integrated "mixed methods" approaches to research design that aim to go beyond "mixing" and into integration. These are some examples:

Convergent Parallel Design: In this design, data is collected simultaneously from people and social media content (or any other type of content) and combined for data analysis. In my own research, I frequently employ this method.

The second is what we call an explanatory sequential design: In this design, quantitative data is gathered first, and then qualitative data is gathered to supplement the quantitative findings;

And the third example is called exploratory sequential design: In this design, qualitative data is collected first, followed by quantitative analysis to explore specific findings (typically to test or generalize findings).And  I believe that a few of you in the class are employing explanatory and or exploratory sequential design in your research.

Well I truly believe that combining the emancipatory potential that critical epistemologies demand of us—recognizing and addressing issues of power in particular—with the practical and tangible benefits of pragmatic inquiry may result in a "super-methodology."

The concept of relationality and "building deep trust" has become a critical "post-modern takeaway" for me, and it is something I constantly think about and work on in my own "academic practice." Building trust, for me, extends beyond the initial postmodern projects to address unequal power across gender, race, and class; it also embraces the importance of building trust withinside ourselves, that we have the capacity to "do the right thing" and do "good work." This speaks directly to the deep-ethics that emerges when we recognize that our research always has an impact, and that we are always engaged in pragmatic inquiry in many ways.

I can't believe we're almost in the final week of class! I have one more episode to share with you all next week. Remember that your your final assignment is due at the end of next week. Remember I’m just a phone call or email away if you have any questions!

We are almost at the end of our journey, and I hope you're all pumped up for the last episode, where we'll reflect on Research Ethics and Beyond in the social sciences. Until then, happy learning and stay curious!