You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
If You Use a Screen ReaderThis content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Broader outside social discourses, embodiment, and technism in James Cresswell's critique of discourse analysis methodology
Eugene Matusov and Katherine von Duyke
Discourse & Society
Vol. 23, No. 5 (September 2012), pp. 609-618
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43496408
Page Count: 10
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
Preview not available
In our judgment, Cresswell's theoretical discussion of the two main concerns with CDA methodology and the conceptual ways to deal with them is most interesting and promising. However, we found his empirical illustration of how to deal with these two concerns unconvincing, problematic, and apparently contradicting of his overall theoretical framework, but also instructional and thought-provoking. We see the main shortcoming of Cresswell's application of his theoretical ideas to empirical research in his technism, a belief that there are methodological techniques detached from investigators' research goals and subjectivity - a belief likely rooted in positivism. In our commentary, we want to justify our judgment and offer our own illustrations of his fruitful theoretical and methodological ideas.
Discourse & Society © 2012 Sage Publications, Ltd.