P. 1
A Critical Review of Content Analysis

A Critical Review of Content Analysis

|Views: 943|Likes:
Published by Huey Tan

More info:

Published by: Huey Tan on Jan 02, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Swansea University, Student No: 570886 Word count (incl.

bibliography): 5,394

A CRITICAL REVIEW OF CONTENT ANALYSIS Language exerts hidden power, like the moon on the tides. Rita Mae Brown, Starting from Scratch1

Language in contemporary society is inextricably linked to technology. One can argue that the use of technology influences language in obvious and non-obvious ways as a part of everyday life. For example, the proliferation of emails, and the use of text messaging (or SMS i.e. short message service) on mobile phones, has changed language and communication beyond mere abbreviations or techno-speak, and lends to convergence of language, culture, technology and values. Conversely, one can also argue that language and communication exert a strong influence on the use of, and/or, the development of technology. A word like ³cyberspace´ inspires technological dreams to become a reality.2

The complexity and melding of modern day use of language, communication and technology has generated an urgency in the many fields of research to find ways to sort out the background noise, from the essence of why and how language or communication may have changed technology, or how technology may have changed language or communication. This background noise can be incoherent and loud, and have produced assumptions about who has power over what. Assumptions taken on face value can be the instruments of domination and liberation -

1 BROWN, R. M. (1988) Starting from scratch : a different kind of writer's manual, Toronto; New York, Bantam Books. Rita Mae Brown is an American who alludes to Foucault in her feminist writings and political support for gay, lesbian and transgender issues. 2 Discourse on rules of engagement in cyberspace, handbooks on online communities for example John Coate s Principles of Cyberspace Innkeeping AGRE, P. E. (1997) Reinventing technology, rediscovering community : critical explorations of computing as a social practice, Greenwich, Conn. [u.a., Ablex Publ., p. 188, Appendix A


Oxford. magical realism and science fiction works. p. 2005. life and the instrument of culture. p. and the heart of this paper. 14). Cited in BERTENS. 26). Blackwell. that Weber advocated the use of content analysis to understand the mass media is relatively unknown (Krippendorff. Angela Carter is an English novelist known for feminist. A Very Brief History of Content Analysis The systematic analysis of text can be traced as far back to the 17th Century. as representations of distinct and opposing approaches. H. The second. 2005. This was described by Sigmund Freud as the ³tyranny of suggestion´. The main thrust of this essay is the critique of content analysis using the framework known as critical linguistics study (CLS) or critical discourse analysis (CDA). 4). namely content analysis and critical discourse analysis. From the historical review. Max Weber proposed a large-scale content analysis of the press in 1911. but the actual use of the term content analysis did not appear in English until 1941 (Krippendorff. 1999. 3 2 . The first is to examine two research methods. but this never took off. preferred by this paper and the reasons behind these conclusions. 1999. J. & NATOLI. In mass media. and the media was seen as a set of all powerful tools for µcirculating effective symbols¶ akin to a hypodermic needle with its direct. as the willingness to give up individuality for the influence of suggestion by others in the pursuit of ³«being in harmony with them rather in opposition to them«´ (Mattelart and Mattelart. It is no coincidence that the term content analysis is closely associated with the rise of mass media and communications. p. (2002) Postmodernism : the key figures. undifferentiated impact on atomized individuals (Mattelart and Mattelart. this paper will provide a brief historical overview of the two research methods. Angela Carter in Notes from the Frontline 3 The objective of this paper is twofold. the instrument of domination and liberation.«language is power. the aim is to produce useful definitions of the two research methods. 3). we aim to arrive at some broad conclusions on the research methods. Finally. To start with. the audience was treated as a passive receptor. is to develop a critique of content analysis using critical discourse analysis as a point of reference for doing so. p.

We do not see the power which is in speech because we forget that all speech is a classification. 2009. that is to an instance of language use spoken or written´ (Danesi and Rocci. data. The choice words of quantitative. 1986.com/dictionary/discourse 5 Merriam Webster Online Dictionary definition .3 a : formal and orderly and usually extended expression of 4 thought on a subject b : connected speech or writing c : a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence 3 . ideology. speech is its code. 1999. ethnic group. p. sub-culture. 1986. 55). etc´ (Danesi and Rocci. an interpretation which is reinforced by Bernard Berelson: Content analysis is a research technique for the objective. Its basic meaning ³refers to a speech or to a text. social class. and that all classifications are oppressive (Barthes and Sontag. 2009. 55). p. 201). Discourse is an area of linguistics not limited by the total sum of its linguistic subunits or its sentence5 and it is a focus on ³the particular way in which language is used in a certain social group. and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication (cited in Harris and Lee. community.merriam-webster. A Very Brief History of Discourse Analysis Language is legislation. to the Middle English discours and from Medieval Latin discursus4. 1983). 201 ) (Mattelart and Mattelart. institution. The use of the term discourse dates back to the 14th Century. systematic. in terms of a system of categories devised to yet data relevant to specific hypotheses concerning that content (cited in Harris and Lee. 28). p. p. This definition of discourse was accessed from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary on 23 Dec 2009 at http://www. hypotheses and classification denotes a scientific and objective-based approach inspired by the natural sciences. generation. p.The oft-cited definition from Kaplan and Goldsen in 1943 provides an insight as to why content analysis resonated in an era of mass media: The content analyst aims at a quantitative classification of a given body of content.

Some academics such as Van Djik have devoted an entire book to answering the question what is discourse (Phillips and Hardy. p. philosophy. 2002). 4) and the aim of discourse analysis is to question the use of language in a given time and place to construct meaning (Gee and NetLibrary.In its secondary meaning. social interactions cannot be made sense of without fully understanding the discourse that give them meaning (Phillips and Hardy. As a research methodology. discourse analysis is inter-disciplinary taking elements from literary analysis. 55). One of the strongest recurring themes in discourse analysis is around the social construction epistemology. originally limited to the study of linguistics. 2002). p. 2002. cultural or historical viewpoints (Blommaert. p. 2009. 4 . p. 93 and p. Therefore. p. 1996. discourse is the interaction of text and context (Reynolds. John Fiske¶s approach with speech and non-speech. practices and social rules which account for these particular ways of using language to produce texts and speech´ (Danesi and Rocci. 2005). p. 1987. 1987. anthropology and sociology. as a ³focused attention on the processes whereby the social world is constructed and maintained´ (Phillips and Hardy. has become popular in the social sciences due to Norman Fairclough and Michel Foucault. there are preexisting meanings and uses of discourse in practice that is worthy of closer study since ³we do not speak our discourse but our discourse speaks us´ (Fiske. 14) smacks of this secondary discourse. and it is a product of a social context or construction. semiotics. social construction has no reality in itself ± an empty signifier ± and it is made real through discourse. 1999. In studying television culture. 15). 110) and to make sense of the context or text. doing discourse has come to mean the analysis of speech and text (used in the broadest terms) to ³reveal the values.2). Because of the fact that any discourse is not the sole creation of an individual. This secondary meaning of discourse. to name a few and it is multi-faceted because of social. or textual and non-textual elements ³so that one can talk of discourse of the camera or of lighting´ (Fiske. sub-text or non-text. With construction comes context as a recurrent and repeated theme. For discourse analysts.

power and control (Wodak. my Brother and Sister. dramatist. politics. discourse methods are ³unavoidably reflexive because the strong social constructivist epistemology that forms its foundation applies equally to the work of academic researchers (Phillips and Hardy. p. In effect. in other words. lying. and as a result. bisexual writers of the twentieth century. It is not a reaction to power alone. 2005. 204). has become a stand-alone research method. (Jordan. groups. unspoken and the repressed. sexuality. Because.An important part of discourse analysis is to reveal the underlying assumptions. of what power does to people. or the powerful will destroy you ± you and our children. and societies. journalist. war. She is widely regarded as one of the most significant and prolific Black. By focusing on underlying structural relationships of dominance. and human rights. but rather the focus is the role of language as part of the machinery of power and the way this may create inequality in society: 6 June Millicent Jordan (July 9. novelist. discrimination. and those who are the powerless (you and me) better shape up ± mimic/ape/suck ± in the very image of the powerful. 1). CDA is ³an analysis of power effects. barbarous. white speech and writing habits that the schools lay down like holy law.June 14. of the outcome of power. gender. they mean to keep that power. CDA is able to change the status quo by exposing abuse of power. 2002)´. Critical Discourse Analysis Language is political. 5 . teacher and committed activist in the construction of race. 2005. That¶s why you and me. violence. 1973)6 June Jordan sums up the essence of critical discourse analysis. biographer. It represents the voice of the unheard. p. the powerful don¶t play. It is easy to understand how critical discourse analysis or CDA. 2002) was a Caribbean American poet. unreal. 1936 . that¶s why we supposed to choke our natural self into the weird. increasing transparency and empowering the powerless with a voice to remedy social wrongs. and of how this impact comes about´ (Blommaert. Discourse analysts are themselves part of the reality being constructed using criteria. frameworks and themes can create certain assumptions which affect meaning and how we make sense of the discourse. What is meant by critical in critical discourse analysis? It is critical because it analyses what is µhidden¶ as opposed to the obvious in discourse.

p. 259 6 . to make transparent any structures that are legitimizing power relations. to subvert it. 1973). It is defined as ³any technique for making inferences by objectively and systematically identifying specified characteristics of messages´ (Holsti. p. 10) This goes to Habermas¶ claim that ³language is also ideological´ (Wodak and Meyer. p. 1952. abuse. It is related to the use of language because ³language indexes and expresses power. 25) due to the fact that in a modern contemporary society. So the purpose of CDA is to make visible the effects of language that hide ideological domination.Power belongs to those who can determine the use. p. Power is central to CDA. to alter distributions of power in the short and the long term´ (Wodak and Meyer. 1969. and is involved where there is contention over and challenge to power«language can be used to challenge power. Critical is to produce and convey knowledge for enlightenment and emancipation ± achieved through self-reflection. 2009. 14) and the ³«objective. 2009). 2005. A Critique of Content Analysis To summarize the key characteristics of content analysis ± it involves a quantitative method. Its most influential voice is Norman Fairclough and his landmark publication ³Language and Power´ (Fairclough. 7 Citing Habermas (1967) Erkenninis and Interesse (Knowledge and Interest). the rejection. 2001). semantic and quantitative description of the manifest content of communication´ (Berelson. definition/re-definition of the words ± the messages ± we must try and send each other (Jordan. CDA is ³socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned´ (Blommaert. As opposed to social construction. disguised by language and metaphor. 2009)7 as ideology is hidden in everyday beliefs and values. and to eliminate delusion (Wodak and Meyer. p. discourse or the language of use is an increasingly important instrument of power. its aim is scientific objectivity and it uses a systematic method towards the classification of content being examined or described. and to effect change in society.18).

that the simple method of ³counting and measuring fact´ ignoring ³whether facts indeed had any independent existence apart from the social situation which structured them and the class perceptions which defined them«´(Harris and Lee. videos. McNabb suggests that content analysis works best where the communication being analyzed is ³clear. any implied meanings in a text cannot be captured since the interpretive (hermeneutic) aspect of the analysis is lost in the systematic approach (McNabb. For example in political science. phrases or themes. phrases or specified topics in large bodies of text. This is because content analysis is helpful to ³describe attributes of messages. at the least. p. 2004. 7 . obvious and simple´ and does not work well on a text with ³subtle and/or intricate meanings´. There are various assumptions about content analysis . the character of the communicator is somehow shown by objective representation of the content.quantifying content somehow reveals the objective of the communication. from written documents. you can somehow reveal the effects of the content on the recipients. and ³«the contextual meaning is often lost or. McNabb. 1969. without reference to the intentions of the message sender or effect of the message on the receiver´ (McNabb. 27). occurrence or recurrence of selected words.g. It requires an organized and structured approach. argues that this creates two separate but related issues. it is rooted in the belief that scientific methods would provide an objective analysis. The structured approach tends to be inherently inflexible and lacks creativity within the method. These are widely recognized problems in the discipline ± firstly. you can count the frequency of certain words or phrases that appear in a political speech (e. straightforward. 2004. applying a coding system to identify common and repeatable words. p. made problematic´. secondly.Content analysis is a quantitative method to analyze the frequency. p. transcripts of films. the use of the word ³change´ in Obama¶s election campaign). in his analysis of research methods in political science. 470) (Holsti. 202). 1986. Correspondingly. 470). p. speeches and other types of written communication.

(1981) The impact of feminism on media studies just another commercial break? appearing in SPENDER. and this does not overweigh the advantages of being able to mobilize content analysis to support through quantifying the prevalence of masculine points of view in popular culture. New York. content analysis is limited to ³large-scale. and ³their significance cannot always be reduced to their manifest. 1988. Advertisements are part of a cultural communication. 1988). Pergamon Press. (1981) Men's studies modified : the impact of feminism on the academic disciplines. In adverting where content analysis is widely used. it has also come under scrutiny for the blind faith in linking frequency of text and the interest or intent of the producer with the response of the audience (Dyer. content analysis as a method influences the questions asked and the conclusions drawn to work against the interests of feminism (Strinati. So much for the objectivity of content analysis. D. this means ³«it does not have an explanation of the relationship between the popular cultural text being analysed and the social structural context ± including the underlying power relations ± in which it can be located´ (Strinati. This argument is based on the claim that content analysis is not linked to an explanatory theoretical framework (Strinati. 1995. 1995)8. 111). Citing Baehr H. 108). 175). Dyer has strong reservations that ³the counting or quantification of isolated elements in a piece of content [can] tell us everything about how meaning is produced in a text nor how the audience understand«´ (Dyer. studies of sexist content does not contribute to the understanding of why and how social structures produce such content (Strinati. 1995). 8 8 . 1995. objective content´ (Dyer. p. For Baehr. p. Feminists such as Helen Baehr are critical of content analysis producing studies of men and women ³represented performing particular roles rather than asking questions about how and why representations occur´(Strinati. For example. The feminist critique of content analysis has therefore argued that it only serves to provide a snapshot and static picture of social and gender relations. 1988. Thurs. p.It is no surprise for social scientists to be critical of content analysis. p. 175). objective and systematic surveys of manifest content using the counting of content as the basis for later interpretation´ (Dyer. 111). p. 1995). In cultural studies. Oxford. and the feminist critique supports the argument of this paper that content analysis can be and has been mired in its own politics and its own research agenda. 1988.

80) To avoid computer-aided content analysis from being relegated to a glorified form of data mining highlights the inherent problem of content analysis. 2001).Moving to another discipline. these concerns may be somewhat alleviated but it is replaced by the enormous volume of data retrieval and the fact that the researcher often does not see the original data. This raises the possibility of invalid data or inaccurate or incomplete data being included in the samples taken or not taken as the case may be. This is because ³it need not require retheorizing of either discourse data or of discourse analysis´(Grant et al.´ (West. computer scientists rank content analysis as ³the least appealing of the several research methodologies available to the communication researcher´. the critique of content analysis as mindless empiricism is closer to the truth than we might like to admit. without any serious effort to justify the contention through rigorous application of prior theoretical arguments. or the lack thereof. West concurs and extrapolates on this sentiment - ³The tendency of many content analytic studies to count. 9 . 2001. p. where the researcher has to be careful in laying how assumptions are made. because of ³the limits of the method itself and the drudgery required to carry it out´ (Stevenson. Computerization may improve efficiency but it does not overcome the inherent limitations of content analysis as a research methodology (Stevenson. 225). the basis for making these assumptions and the derivation of meaning from the text(s) as a whole and not the sum of the parts. 2001. Content analysis is popular with organizational researchers and audiences due to the positivist research framework and computer-aided analysis of large µcorpus¶ has become more feasible and easy to process as a result. has been decried by numerous commentators. 2001). West. and then to report the frequency of various constructs with the suggestion that they have some sort of obvious meaning. There have been too many studies in which some depiction of some entity is described as appearing on television so many times. Often. p. In the age of computer-aided content analysis. 2004. and that number then described as indicating some sort of bias..

content analysis is widely employed and its practical usefulness is assumed within and outside the industry. p. 2006. 189). 189). Public relations practitioners are acutely aware of the concerns regarding inference and the temptation to make use of content studies to draw conclusions and interpretations of wider application than possible from the content itself (Austin and Pinkleton. As we described above. Validity is another characteristic of content analysis. The ³lost´ context is the hidden or embedded cultural and social sub-texts of relationship. 473). 2001. 189). in contrast. 2006. The researchers. not in the content of media messages´ (Austin and Pinkleton. This was discussed above (Stevenson. analysts and practitioners are however careful in the use of this method since it can be error prone and not an easy to employ correctly. 10 . structure and societal discourse. This would necessitate the examination of language to determine why a certain message or text is being used. Discourse analysis. content analysis is a quantitative method of analysis has an innate built-in bias to isolate bits of information from their context. it is difficult to achieve a high degree of reliability with negative political advertising. 2006. p. West. and it is usually determined by examining whether the researcher is measuring what is supposed to be measured. while at the same time. and the degree to which the researcher is successful in doing so. For example. is about the analysis of oral or written communications ³to identify the formal structure of the message. This negates the main aim of content analysis ³to provide a precise description of communication content´ and the problem arises that ³when a company equates content analysis with public opinion analysis«public opinion resides in the perceptions of the public. 2004. validity and inference.In public relations. p. since ³determining whether an ad is negative or positive often involves making judgment calls´ (Austin and Pinkleton. p. 2001). The primary concerns are reliability. keeping a use-of-the-language purpose in mind´ (McNabb. The subject matter in consideration is the same as content analysis but the approach is to put the subject matter in its context as a social practice. as opposed to how it is used.

p. disseminated and consumed. socio-linguistics. 225). as it is in content analysis. Fairclough uses a broad range of methods related to the subject matter of discourse ± using interviews. but the starting point is different since it is based on the linguistic concept of a ³corpus´. language and society: Faircloughs work offers not only a menu of possible methods but an insistence that the researcher must be aware of the complex relationships between language and social processes in collecting and analyzing discourse as data (Grant et al. 10). Data collection is also used in critical discourse analysis. 227)... 2004.. 2002).. being a focus on language in use for discourse analysis. 11 . These factors ³are adjudged to influence and shape the way a text is produced. which takes into consideration historical and social factors that go beyond the text (Grant et al. Examples of these context-sensitive approaches include studies that draw on pragmatics. Since content analysis is about revealing its ³manifest content´. p. 2001) and the language of new capitalism (Fairclough. studying the mass media and reviewing policy documents ± putting them in contemporary society. scrutinizing pamphlets and advertisements. 2004). 2000. for example the discourse of New Labour (Fairclough.Critical discourse analysis takes this approach one step further by placing messages or texts in the context of changes in a broader discourse of politics. systemics and critical discourse analysis´ (Grant et al. institutional dialogue.. the determines the presence of certain words and contents in text (Grant et al. 2004. the approach of critical discourse analysis is in sharp contrast to content analysis in terms of revealing the complex relationships between discourse. basically. p. The key differentiator between critical discourse analysis and content analysis is the ³context-sensitive´ approach. being a carefully selected sample of discourse which is usually extensive and subject to detailed linguistic analysis ± but focused on moments of crisis to highlight power struggles or points of change (Grant et al. 2004. 2004). economics or in contemporary society. Chiapello and Fairclough.

p. 2004. when and why. 1994. 2001. 262 featured in T. critical discourse analysis enables us to ³appreciate the importance of µwho uses language. Taken from article called Critical Discourse Analysis by Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak 1997. ideology and language are used to manufacture consent or at least. Power relations depend on both. Fairclough argues that in a contemporary society. p. 1997)9. citing Dijk 1997. 9 12 . the discursive elements used to communicate meanings and beliefs ± and it considers the social content where discursive events takes place (Grant et al. p.. combining several research methods that examines ±the content. how. and the exercise of power through the manufacture of consent to or at least acquiescence towards it. it is used to secure the acquiescence to the exercise of power: I am not suggesting that power is just a matter of language«It is perhaps helpful to make a broad distinction between the exercise of power through coercion of various sorts including physical violence. 189). While content analysis is the simple examination of verbal and written interaction. discursive and social practice is sorely missing in content analysis research. and facilitates more satisfactory bridging the gap between texts and contexts´ (Fairclough. Van Dijk book. This three-dimension theoretical framework of text. rather it is ³a link in a chain of texts. structure and meaning of text. Critical discourse analysis can rely on intertexuality so that text are not treated as separate and disjointed discursive units. drawing in and transforming other texts´ (Dijk. Ideology is the primary means of manufacturing consent (Fairclough. why and when¶(Grant et al. by its focus on the sum of the parts. power and socio-cultural change. p.Critical discourse analysis is the most influential context-sensitive approach to the study of organizational discourse. It reveals the role of language in relation to ideology.. 2004. Furthermore. and the particular ends which are ³critical´ is the inter-relations between language and power in society. It is multi-disciplinary. p. 11). Critical discourse analysis is therefore able to address not only who uses language but how. though in varying proportions. 2)´. 3). Intertexuality acts as the bridge and the value add is ³it mediates the connection between language and social context. reacting to. content analysis misses the big picture.

13 . 2001. and the convergence of language. communication and technology make it more difficult to discern and decipher hidden texts. Conclusion Language has power to dominate and liberate. how is it sustained?. This power remains hidden from us. not only to raise our own consciousness but also to be able to take action through resistance or to enable changes. how ± in terms of the development of social relationships of power ± was the existing sociolinguistic order brought into being?. through the social constructions of modern contemporary life. p. The research results may intentionally or unintentionally lend legitimacy to the facts asserted and their underlying power relations (Fairclough. The rise of mass media and communications. p. or may in fact change the original conditions.It is therefore critical to understand how language maintains or changes power relations. messages or debates. 6). 7). 2001. and the way to do this is to analyze the language to reveal the structures and processes ³hidden´ by the language. and how might it be changed to the advantage of those who are dominated by it?) (Fairclough. Fairclough was also critical of the tendency to focus on observation and presentation of facts without regard to the social conditions that created the conditions in the first place. Fairclough is critical of scientific methods or objective based approaches such as content analysis because it obscures the why and how questions due to the positivist conceptions of social science ± Sociolinguistics is strong on µwhat?¶ questions (what are the facts of variation?) but weak on µwhy?¶ and µhow?¶ questions (why are the facts as they are.

is problematic when it yields to the temptation of drawing conclusions of a wider application than possible from the content itself.place texts in a broader discourse of politics. 14 . producing separate outcomes. and yet serve different ends. These shortcomings of content analysis are overcome by critical discourse analysis because it is able to . highlight power struggles of points of change.is blind to the implied meaning in any text.Content analysis and critical discourse analysis are research methods that started with different historical origins. the critique developed in this paper makes the argument that content analysis . and taking full advantage of elements such as being interdisciplinary and social construction epistemology. to make transparent any structures that are legitimizing power relations and to change the status quo through critical observation and conveyance of knowledge. occurrence or recurrent of selected words. is not sensitive to cultural texts not reducible to manifest content. The purpose of critical discourse analysis is to make visible the effects of language to hide the ideological domination. is not a context-sensitive methodology. Critical discourse analysis started as a secondary limb of discourse analysis. view the whole picture not just the parts due to intertextuality. is apt to present a static picture of social and gender relations. it has been transformed into stand-alone research methodology by Norman Fairclough. reveal complex relationships between discourse. is unable to generate a high degree of validity without narrow and well-defined assumptions. Content analysis is a quantitative method to analyze the frequency. a context-sensitive approach. discourse analysis in linguistics. Content analysis is historically rooted in the natural sciences. is not reliable when analyzing content such as negative political advertising. To summarize. place a theoretical framework around a data research methodology. phrases or topics in large bodies of text. language and society.e. is not objective since it is mired in its own politics and research agenda. when and why. focus on carefully selected samples of discourse (the 'corpus'). address not only who uses language but how. economics or contemporary society i.

New York. FAIRCLOUGH. Black World/Negro Digest. this paper has established that content analysis has limited and specific application as a research method when compared to the more flexible. E. (2004) SAGE handbook of organizational discourse. Fairleigh Dickinson University Press . & LEE.a. J. S. Rutherford. & FAIRCLOUGH. Methuen. I. R. Routledge.. BARTHES. Calif. DIJK. NJ. Toronto. (2005) Discourse : a critical introduction. C. GEE. Inc. (2006) Strategic public relations management : planning and managing effective communication programs. (2009) Global linguistics : an introduction. M. Mass. J. New York. & SONTAG. Oxford. G. N. London {u. HOLSTI. Fontana. FISKE. (1988) Starting from scratch : a different kind of writer's manual. New York. BLOMMAERT. Cambridge [u. rediscovering community : critical explorations of computing as a social practice.. London. E. Sage Publications. August 1973 ed. Routledge. Ablex Publ. W. AUSTIN.. DYER. Communication Abstracts. BERELSON. E. (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Inc. Reading. 15 . Free Press. new language?.. J. N.]. M. (1987) Television culture. (1999) An introduction to discourse analysis theory and method. AGRE. Bantam Books. (1988) Advertising as communication. London. M. BROWN. (2000) New Labour. N. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.J. C.]. O. FAIRCLOUGH. [u. J. Longman. (2001) Language and power.a. New York. & OSWICK. & NETLIBRARY. 25. (1997) Discourse studies : a multidisciplinary introduction. J. D. Cambridge.. & NATOLI. B. Greenwich. T. N.In conclusion. DANESI. SAGE. Cambridge Univ. (2002) Postmodernism : the key figures. [u. (1994) Discourse and social change. Polity Press. FAIRCLOUGH. (1986) The Press in English society from the seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. Glencoe. Thousand Oaks. 755-909. (1973) White English. New York. Conn. Blackwell. (1997) Reinventing technology. Associated University Presses. & PINKLETON. A. A. P. Johnson Publishing Company. New York.a. London. N. (1952) Content analysis in communication research. Routledge. creative and theoretical based framework of critical discourse analysis. Mahwah. HARDY. V. R.a. (2002) Understanding the new management ideology: a transdisciplinary contribution from critical discourse analysis and new sociology of capitalism. B. R. GRANT. P. (1983) Barthes : selected writings. The Politics of Language. Mouton de Gruyter. & ROCCI. E. JORDAN. Press. CHIAPELLO. HARRIS. Harlow. H. Ill. Berlin. A. London. Cranbury. [London].. BERTENS. J.

Pergamon Press. M.. E. (2009) Methods of critical discourse analysis.. WEST. method. REYNOLDS.a. SPENDER. SAGE.a. Thousand Oaks. (2001) Theory. (2005) A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis theory.a. WODAK. MCNABB. M. Amsterdam [u. Calif. STEVENSON. 127. 16 .a. Sage. R. (2002) Discourse analysis : investigating processes of social construction. Ablex Pub.KRIPPENDORFF. NY [u. Oxford. (2001) In Praise of Dumb Clerks: Computer-Assisted Content Analysis. SAGE.]. Los Angeles. M. Sharpe. methodology and interdisciplinarity. & MATTELART. Westport. D. Benjamins. Thousand Oaks [u. PHILLIPS. K. 17. (2005) Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology. WODAK. Routledge. D. M. London. Progress in communication sciences. (2004) Research methods for political science : quantitative and qualitative methods.E. Armonk. (1999) Theories of communication : a short introduction. M. D. Applied linguistics. L. C. (1981) Men's studies modified : the impact of feminism on the academic disciplines. and practice in computer content analysis.a. A. & HARDY. [u. London [u. Sage Publ. & MEYER.]. (1996) Guy Cook: The Discourse of Advertising. New York. MATTELART. STRINATI. London. R. New York. R.]. 3-12. (1995) An introduction to theories of popular culture. D.. CT.]. N.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->