Discourse Analysis In Content and Action

Exploring Discourse in Content and Action.

The concept of exploring discourse in content and action fall under APPL910 in the study unit. This particular unit has a core objective on different discourse analysis such as spoken, written as well as multimodal discourse (Flowerdew, 2014). Collectively, the discourse analysis is based on a range of real-life situations, domains as well as settings. Typically, this type of discourse can be traced back in the historical, institutional as well as in domestic contexts (Locke, 2004). Many scholars and researchers have used discourse analysis research and practice so as to focus on explanatory, interpretivist along with descriptive analysis on the methodologies associated exploring discourse in content and action.

Critically, discourse analysis is based on interdisciplinary concept that involves semiotics, discourse as well as linguistics, analysis (Marylene, 2014). It main concern is articulated by theories and researches on social processes as well as in social change. By emphasizing so much on political analysis of policies along with many practices in the society, the aspects of critical discourse analysis indicate how scholars and researchers contribute to reproduction of dominant discourses (Maslow, 2013). This discourse analysis in content and action assert a desire for positive social, cultural economic as well as political change. From this particular point of view, a distinct understanding of what happens in a given interactional episode tend to be contingent as long as one is able to understand the most appropriate place in the desired macro societal context (Paltridge, 2012). Therefore, a lot of information concerning the concept of discourse in content an action has been analyzed by different researchers and scholars in relation to the focus of the research and the point of interest of that particular researcher.

The main focus of this particular paper is to critically review the relevant journal articles on exploring discourse in content and action (Rogers, 2011). The following journal articles will be used in this report.

1 Save Time On Research and Writing Hire a Pro to Write You a 100% Plagiarism-Free Paper. Get My Paper	Sarangi, S., Clarke, A. Bennett, K., & Howell, L. (2003). Categorization practices across professional genres: some analytical insights from genetic counselling. In S.Sarangi & T. Van Leeuwen (eds) Applied linguistics and communities of practice. London. Continuum (pp.150-168).
2	Roberts, C. & Campbell, S. (2005). Fitting stories into boxes. Journal of Applied Linguistics 2(1), (pp.45-72).
3	Sarangi, S. & Candlin, C. (2003). Categorization and explanation of risk: a discourse analytical perspective. Health, Risk & Society, 5(2), (pp.115-124).

In this case, the three peer reviewed journal articles for academic work will reviewed. (1) Categorization practices across professional genres: some analytical insights from genetic counselling. In S.Sarangi & T. Van Leeuwen (Eds) Applied linguistics and communities of practice by Sarangi, Clarke, Bannett & Howell. (2003), (2) Fitting stories into boxes. Journal of Applied Linguistics by Roberts & Campbell (2005) and (3) Categorization and explanation of risk: a discourse analytical perspective. Health, Risk & Society by Sarangi & Candlin (2003). The three articles have been selected so as to address the objectives on theme 2 in connection to exploring recourse in content and action. In that case, the three-academic peer reviewed journal articles indicated above have attempted to critically review, analyze and emphasize on the core concept of discourse in content and action in similar definition as well as with distinct general overview.

Critical Review of Journal Articles

To begin with, we review article (1). Categorization practices across professional genres: some analytical insights from genetic counselling. In S.Sarangi & T. Van Leeuwen (Eds) Applied linguistics and communities of practice by Sarangi, Clarke, Bannett & Howell. (2003). This article indicates the methods or models used to approach discourse analysis. According to the article, different analysts adopt the most appropriate methodologies and procedures. They focus on the topic and research questions along with their main point of focus. The researcher tends to justify their own methodologies so as to express the best point of views and interests (Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell, 2003). According to the assertions of this article there has been debate in discourse research. Discourse in content and action rumble on despite the many challenges. The proponents of the traditions tend to challenge the claims of other researchers and different viewpoints.

The author of this article focusses on debate raised by different researchers and theorists in their diverse nature of domains, disciples, nature of data along with discourse traditions. Based on the arguments of this article, the disciplines that diversify from discourse analysis include sociology, psychology, politics, social policy and cultural studies (Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell, 2003). In the same note, the domains in this case include social relation, sense making, culture, mind and social interaction. This implies that the relationship between these domains and disciplines has a perfect positive correlation. The research approach used in this article is mixed research approach. This is because it has applied both qualitative and quantitative data methods. The type of data considered in this article is gathered via interview, group focus, political speeches, conversations occurring naturally, media representations, documents as well as experimental records.

In conclusion, the content of this article focusses on improving social and health care services, it has expounded on critical thinking based on different views of social aspects (Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell, 2003). It is therefore appropriate to select the most appropriate research methodologies by explicitly applying the concepts of discourse, discourse analysis and discourse in content and action demonstrated from the traditions of discourse analysis.

By reviewing article (2), fitting stories into boxes. Journal of Applied Linguistics by Roberts & Campbell (2005), the growth of critical discourse analysis is the main focus. By the assertion of this article, discourse analysis affirm itself as an aspect of social science as well as humanity which has been applied to offer scientific approaches to language study since it has been manifested across the different cohorts of people (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). According to Roberts and Campbell, discourse analysis is close to intellectual orthodoxy.  The article assert that critical discourse analysis is a theory that need to be utilized in inclusive sense. However, discourse analysis has been subjected to risk of over-generalization but this article aims at exploring the specific usefulness of critical discourse analysis and prove its necessity to researchers and other scholars (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). This has been demonstrated by a close relationship between content and action with discourse analysis as well as from the aspects of power such as inequality, dominance and political struggle.

Article 1: Categorization Practices Across Professional Genres: Some Analytical Insights from Genetic Counselling

The article is about how critical discourse analysis relate to language and power. It also indicates in small extent the relationship between struggle and conflict. The article indicates how critical discourse analysis incorporate the concept of microanalysis of texts. This has been achieved by application of linguistic tools, semantic tools along with literacy analysis (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). Finally, the article indicates the concept of microanalysis as well. This has been achieved by critically analyzing discourse in content and action in the process of social formation, power and institutional operations.

The research approach in this article is descriptive research approach that incorporate the qualitative data methods. This is because, the concepts addressed in this article are traced back in the history of critical discourse analysis such as Marxist and neo-Marxist traditions. The findings of this article are that the authors attempt to situate critical discourse analysis (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). This is to situate the analysis in a longer linguistic tradition. However, in conclusion, there are tendencies taken with critical discourse analysis that tend to counter traditions in linguistic this rejecting critical discourse analysis as a social science.

By reviewing article (3), Categorization and explanation of risk: a discourse analytical perspective. Health, Risk & Society by Sarangi & Candlin (2003), we realize that the authors mainly focused on methodology of discourse analysis on how it has been utilized in health care and social care improvement (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003). It also indicates the concept of discourse analysis as one of the research methodology and the extent by which researchers have used discourse analysis in their work. It focusses on the merits and demerits of discourse research and the latest overview of the article in the field of discourse analysis.

Again, the authors of this article explore discourse analysis by how tradition have attempted to analyze. Discourse analysis handle the concept of objectives, observable as well as knowledge reality. This also combine the multiple versions of reality (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003). There is exploration on power relations in a given critical standpoint that attempt to express sense of social aspects of life. The article term discourse analysis as a philosophy since it possesses the concept of continuum of epistemology ranging from realistic to relativist positions. The authors focus on competing traditions in discourse analysis that can be applied in epistemology position by the researcher and in the research questions.

The main aim of the authors of this article is to analyze the six traditions of discourse analysis so as to determine their application in the different aspects of social care and health care so as to eliminate the risks that are likely to arise from neglect of these traditions (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003). These traditions include foucauldian research, bakhtinian research, critical discourse analysis, discursive psychology, conversation analysis as well as interactional sociolinguistics (Gogu, 2017). Therefore, this article is about the importance of discourse analysis in critically analyzing the evaluating the numerous aspects of social care, wellbeing as well, as general health care (Sarangi & Candlin, 2003). The research approach that have been applied in this article is quantitative research approach. Hence, by analyzing the population in discourse content and action, the article is able to gather findings where service improvement, innovative strategies, leadership, capacity building, capacity of the workforce along with interventions have become very clear in power analysis (Clardy, 2013). In conclusion, the article has proved that discourse analysis in content and action along with discourse analytical work has been terminated in numerous health related areas such as medical discourse as well as in doctor patient communication about diabetic management.

Article 2: Fitting Stories Into Boxes

Critique section of the articles.

From the three articles reviewed in the above context, each of the article has linked different concepts, philosophies along with theories based on discourse, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis as well as concepts in linguistic in research methodologies. From articles (1), and (3), there were some similarities concerning the traditions of discourse analysis and relationship in social and health care that were based on the wider concept of discourse analysis. These articles distinctly asserted that the underlying aspect of discourse analysis is based on the underlying methodology applied researchers and scholars (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). This is highly associated to the reflection traditions of discourse analysis along with corresponding domains and principles. These articles have similar topic on focus which link the audience addressed by the concepts in these articles. The issue of how discourse analysis need to be employed have been spelt out very clearly. Article (1) has attempted to review how different researchers and theorists have applied traditions of discourse analysis to improve social care and health care. In article (2) discourse analysis has been subjected to risk of over-generalization but this article aims at exploring the specific usefulness of critical discourse analysis and prove its necessity to researchers and other scholars (Roberts & Campbell, 2005). Finally, in article (3), by analyzing the population in discourse content and action, the article is able to gather findings where service improvement, innovative strategies, leadership, capacity building, capacity of the workforce along with interventions have become very clear in power analysis. In conclusion, the article has proved that discourse analysis in content and action along with discourse analytical work has been terminated in numerous health related areas such as medical discourse as well as in doctor patient communication about diabetic management. Thus, the articles are written to the researchers, scholars, medical staffs and the general public (Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell, 2003). These are very appropriate to be audience of the articles since they need to determine the most appropriate methodologies in discourse analysis. Medical staff and general public will form the smaller cohort of researchers and scholars when they need to gather detailed concepts of discourse in content and action.

Article (1) and (3) assume the researcher will be a positivist. A positivist researcher may apply qualitative or quantitative researcher approach or both which become a mixed research approach. This is very important to note for the two articles. This assumption tends to strengthen the arguments of these article. This is because, a positivist researcher believes in the concept of testing statistical hypothesis in the data (Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell, 2003). With hypothesis being tested, the assertions underlying the arguments of the article will proved to be true or wrong. Accepting the null hypothesis on usefulness of discourse analysis will make article (1) and (3) more vivid than article (2). On the other hand, article (2) assume that the researcher will be interepretivist. This implies that, a general view on discourse analysis will be subjected to the research without testing statistical hypothesis. Therefore, these assumptions will remain assumptions without proof (Heranz, 2010). In that case, that assumption weaken the arguments of article (2). The conceptual understanding along with critical interpretation applied by the researchers and scholars in the articles will indicate distinct identity that is likely to influence their values as well as their moral development.

Article 3: Categorization and Explanation of Risk: A Discourse Analytical Perspective

Furthermore, the two-academic works (1), & (3) were analyzed critically, well explained, critically interpreted and based on discourse analysis research methodologies. These academic work peer reviewed journal articles involved reviewing of research methodologies which were very applicable in explaining the arguments asserted by the authors of each article. The claims made by article (1) are to focus on the research topic and research questions along with their main point of view. The researcher tends to justify the research methodologies in discourse analysis so as to express the best point of views and interests (Kanungo & Manuel, 2014). According to the claims of this article, there has been a lot of heating arguments on the application of discourse research by scholars and researchers. Discourse in content and action rumble on despite the numerous drawbacks. The proponents of the traditions tend to challenge the claims of other researchers and different viewpoints (Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell, 2003). The author of this article focusses on debate raised by different researchers and theorists in their diverse nature of domains, disciples, nature of data along with discourse traditions. In that case, the hypothesis under argument in this article is whether the concept of discourse in content and action can find necessary usefulness in the researcher methodology by both positivist and interpretivist researchers. The same claims are laid down on article (3). The core objective of the authors of this article is to critically analyze the six traditions of discourse analysis so as to determine their application in the different aspects of social care and health care so as to eliminate the risks that are likely to arise from neglect of these traditions (Sarangi, Clarke, Bennett & Howell, 2003). The claims asserted in this article is on application of six traditions of discourse analysis by researchers and theorists. In that case, the hypothesis is whether the concept of six traditions of discourse analysis would in any way influence the methodology used by the researcher or not (Gaston, 2014). This hypothesis need to be tested so as to come into a decision. Lastly, on article (2), the article focusses on how critical discourse analysis relate to language and power. It also indicates in small extent the relationship between struggle and conflict (Cocca &Alberti, 2012). The article indicates how critical discourse analysis incorporate the concept of microanalysis of texts as well as microanalysis of discourse process. In this article, the researcher is interpretivist. Thus, no hypothesis that can be tested (Poole, 2011). In this case we rely on assumptions.

Discussion

In that case, the three articles were in a clear point to display practical and theoretical implications based on the results along with discussions contained in each article. However, the peer reviewed academic journal article (1) demonstrate promising and substantial information on the concept of discourse in content and action. The academic literature discussed in vivid and detailed form the conceptual aspects of discourse and discourse analysis. But all in all, the evidence demonstrated by each peer reviewed academic journal article provide matching evidence to the claims being asserted.

The other aspect of these articles is how systematic and well displayed are the arguments. From article (1) and (3), they arguments are perfectly positively correlated (Fairclough, 2010). This makes their argument very systematic. Both articles attempt to connect discourse analysis to real situation. This is well displayed because there is review of various researchers and scholars who tend to justify their methodologies in discourse analysis (Tuen, 2008). In that case, the different researcher will contribute their views on the best approaches to be integrated. This makes the arguments systematic when a positive decision is attained from different hypothesis that need to be tested. On the other hand, article (2) has a theoretical concept to audience in the field of social, cultural, and political field. It is therefore systematic in linguistic and language. It is well displayed from the qualitative data on the records. This will assist in strengthening arguments in that particular field.

The other concept for the article is based on methodology that would be incorporated in case of experimental study. To start with, it is important to note that the three articles literature works (1), (2) and (3) try to give more details on the desirable methodology to be incorporated (Kayi-Aydar, 2013). This has been indicated by certain qualities of outcome each researcher aims at attaining by the end of the experiment. These qualities have been emphasized through application of appropriate approach in research ranging from qualitative research approach, descriptive researcher approach and mixed research approach so as to achieve a positive psychological capacity (Lee, 2016).  In that case, if an individual researcher aims at applying experimental study, then he need to shift the research approach because the methodology applied by these articles are clearly displayed in adequate extent. Again, these articles have the capability to influence the different approaches used by static researchers and scholars (Christopher, Jonathan & Moore, 2017). This is because a researcher need to be dynamic to be able to use different methodologies in order to satisfy the objective of a given research. The authors were able to address the same topic of discourse in content and action. However, this was achieved via application of different research approaches (Jones, 2012). This implies that, if the researchers need to have experimental study, they just need to replicate the methodology of discourse analysis into a desirable concept.

Conclusion

Just like in experimental study, it is also possible to have a qualitative study in data. This will depend on both the primary and secondary data applied in the qualitative study that would influence and warrant the claims being made. Articles (1) and (3) would fit very well in qualitative study due to their vast nature of research approach. By the virtual of article (1) applying the mixed research approach, then the data will fit automatically and warrant of the claims of being made is guaranteed (Rymes, 2015). For article (3), the quantitative approach used can be shifted to qualitative approach by changing the sources of data. In that case, the claims on discourse analysis will be meet via qualitative study. On the other hand, the reliability of data for article (2) is in question since no hypothesis can be conducted (Shamir, 2008). Relying on assumptions has a range of changes when dealing with data. Thus, the methodology in article (2) does not warrant the claims being made.

From the three academic articles, the underling discussions on discourse analysis indicate a very strong correlation to the findings, conclusion and the hypothesis considered by each article. From article (3), the article has proved that discourse analysis in content and action along with discourse analytical work has been terminated in numerous health related areas such as medical discourse as well as in doctor patient communication about diabetic management (Johnstone, 2007). This is a direct application of the arguments provided by this article. From the arguments of article (2), there are tendencies taken with critical discourse analysis that tend to counter traditions in linguistic this rejecting critical discourse analysis as a social science. This has contributed in shifting the methodologies that have been used by static researchers who can now appreciate the dynamic nature of research (DeTombe, 2012).  Finally, from the arguments of article (1), In conclusion, the article focusses on improving social and health care services, it has expounded on critical thinking based on different views of social aspects. It is therefore appropriate to select the most appropriate research methodologies by explicitly applying the concepts of discourse, discourse analysis and discourse in content and action demonstrated from the traditions of discourse analysis. Thus, the article is applicable in medical sector (Bouvier, 2016). In summary, it is clear that the articles adequately present other relevant studies in other areas. Their arguments are applicable in many other areas such as political field, social interaction, international relation and psychological relations.

Finally, the practical relevance of these articles would include improvement of social aspect and amenities by governing the usefulness of discourse analysis (Benwell, 2006).  The audience to benefit from the findings include the scholars, researchers, political leaders, social beings and international community.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the three articles that have been reviewed express in a great extent their importance in achieving a promising discourse in content and action (Arnold, 2010). By using different research approaches, they have in a unique way expressed their concerns on discourse in content and action. Thus, it is important to retain their positive arguments and discard on their negative arguments.

References

Books

Arnold, J. (2010). Coaching Skills for Leaders in the Workplace: How to Develop, Motivate and Get the Best from Your Staff. How to Books.

Benwell, B. (2006). Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh University Press.

Bouvier, G. (2016). Discourse and Social Media. Routledge.

Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge.

Flowerdew, J. (2014). Discourse in Content: Contemporary Applied Linguistics Volume 3. Bloomsbury Academic.

Gaston, L. (2014). Hypothesis Testing Made Simple. Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.

Johnstone, B. (2007). Discourse Analysis. Wiley-Blackwell.

Jones, R.H. (2012). Discourse Analysis: A Resource Book for Students (Routledge English Language Introductions). Routledge.

Kanungo, R.N., & Manuel, M.  (2014). Work Motivation: Models for Developing Countries. Sage Publication put.

Locke, T. (2004). Critical Discourse Analysis (Continuum Research Methods). BookSurge Publishing.

Marylene, G. (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation and Self-Determination Theory. OUP USA.

Maslow, A.H. (2013). A Theory of Human Motivation. Start publishing LLC.

Paltridge, B. (2012). Discourse Analysis: An Introduction (Continuum Discourse). Continuum.

Rogers, R. (2011). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Routledge.

Rymes, B. (2015). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical Reflection, Second Edition. Routledge.

Shamir, I. (2008). Masters of Discourse. BookSurge Publishing.

Tuen, A.V. (2008). Discourse and Content: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge University Press.

Tuen, A.V. (2008). Discourse and Power. Palgrave.

Journal articles.

Christopher, N.C., Jonathan, C., & Moore, S.H. (2017). Introduction. Exploring Discourse in content and in Action. Pgs. 1-13. Doi. 10.1057/978-1-137-31506-9_1.

Christopher, N.C., Jonathan, C., & Moore, S.H. (2017). Research and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Exploring Discourse in Context and in Action. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language. Pgs. 120-123.

Clardy, A. (2013). A General Framework for Performance Management Systems: Structure, Design, and Analysis. Performance Improvement, 52(2), 5-15.

Cocca, P., &Alberti, M. (2012). A framework to assess performance measurement systems in SMEs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(2), 186-200.

DeTombe, D. (2012). Complex Societal Problems in Operational Research. European Journal of Operational Research, 140(2), 232-240.

Gogu, M. (2017). Emergency situations, adaptive management and national health strategies. Global Journal of Sociology: Current Issues, 6(2), 29.

Heranz, J. (2010). Network Performance and Coordination. Public Performance & Management Review, 33(3), 311-341.

Kayi-Aydar, H. (2013). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. ELT Journal. Pgs. 268-270. Doi. 10.1093/elt/cct004.

Lee, S.S. (2016). Critical analysis of the educational community discussion: Focusing on the conceptualization. Journal of Educational Innovation Research, 26(1), 45-69.

Poole, B. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. System Journal. Pgs. 573-575. Doi. 10.1016/j.system.2011.10.004. 

Roberts, C. & Campbell, S. (2005). Fitting stories into boxes. Journal of Applied Linguistics 2(1), (pp.45-72).

Sarangi, S. & Candlin, C. (2003). Categorization and explanation of risk: a discourse analytical perspective. Health, Risk & Society, 5(2), (pp.115-124).

Sarangi, S., Clarke, A. Bennett, K., & L. Howell (2003). Categorization practices across professional genres: some analytical insights from genetic counselling. In S.Sarangi & T. Van Leeuwen (Eds) Applied linguistics and communities of practice. London. Continuum (pp.150-168).