Where are mixed methods going?

In this talk, Prof. Bartlett will outline some of potential limitations of supposedly mixed methods work in (critical) discourse analysis.

The questions to be addressed in the talk:

What are qual and quant supposed to contribute to each other?

Is quant just background to qual?  Is qual just an example of quant?

Is “digging down” really qual analysis or just testing quant data?

Is charting change in quant trends explanatory? What are the mechanisms of change? How  do speakers move between quant and qual?

What are the relations between qual and quant: micro/macro? system/instance? corpus/item? context/text?

What scales of interaction do we need to look at, individually and in terms of the relations between them?

Is quant shallow?  Is qual unrepresentative?  Do they need to be?


Critical reflections on organizational discourse analysis

Organizational discourse has emerged as a large research field and references to discourse are numerous. As with all dominating approaches problematizations of assumptions are important. This article, partly a follow up of the authors’ frequently cited 2000 Human Relations article, provides a critical and perhaps provocative overview of some of the more recent work and tendencies within the field. It is argued that discourse continues to be used in vague and all-embracing ways, where the constitutive effects of discourse are taken for granted rather than problematized and explored. The article identifies three particular problems prevalent in the current organizational discourse literature: reductionismoverpacking, and colonization and suggests three analytical strategies to overcome these problems: counter-balancing concepts — aiming to avoid seeing ‘everything’ as discourse — relativizing muscularity — being more open about discourse’s constitutive effects — and disconnecting discourse and Discourse through much more disciplined use of discourse vocabulary.