Critical Discourse Analysis in Education ... Rogers (2005)

Review of Educational
Research http://rer.aera.net
Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature

Rebecca Rogers, Elizabeth Malancharuvil-Berkes, Melissa Mosley, Diane Hui and
Glynis O'Garro Joseph
REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH 2005 75: 365
DOI: 10.3102/00346543075003365
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://rer.sagepub.com/content/75/3/365
Published on behalf of
American Educational Research Association
and
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Review of Educational Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts
Subscriptions: http://rer.aera.net/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.aera.net/reprints
Permissions: http://www.aera.net/permissions
Citations: http://rer.sagepub.com/content/75/3/365.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2005

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014
What is This?
3179-03_Rogers.qxd 9/2/05 2:04 PM Page 365
Review of Educational Research

Fall 2005, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 365–416
Critical Discourse Analysis in Education:

A Review of the Literature
Rebecca Rogers, Elizabeth Malancharuvil-Berkes,

Melissa Mosley, Diane Hui, and Glynis O’Garro Joseph
Washington University in St. Louis
During the past decade educational researchers increasingly have turned to

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as a set of approaches to answer ques-
tions about the relationships between language and society. In this article the
authors review the findings of their literature review of CDA in educational
research. The findings proceed in the following manner: the multiple ways in
which CDA has been defined, the theories of language included in CDA
frameworks, the relationship of CDA and context, the question of methods,
and issues of reflexivity. The findings illustrate that as educational
researchers bring CDA frameworks into educational contexts, they are
reshaping the boundaries of CDA.
KEYWORDS: critical discourse analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis, critical dis-

course studies, educational discourse.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the publication of two seminal books:
Language and Control, by Roger Fowler, Robert Hodge, Gunther Kress, and Tony
Trew, and Language As Ideology, by Robert Hodge and Gunther Kress. These two
books have influenced the way in which scholars approach questions of language
and society and have become cornerstones in what we know as Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA). Of course, the history of the critical study of discourse can be
traced back much farther to language philosophers and social theorists such as
Bakhtin (1981), DuBois (1903/1990), Pecheux (1975), Volosinov (1930/1973),
and Wittgenstein (1953), among others. We might also think of the history of
critical discourse studies in terms of the emergence or the evolution of the term
Critical Discourse Analysis, which has been attributed to the publication of
Fairclough’s Language and Power in 1989.
The emergence of the interest in relating the study of discourse to social events
did not take place in isolation. The 1970s were characterized by the transformation
of linguistic theories and methods in the social sciences, from traditional linguistics
to interactional linguistics, to critical linguistics. Indeed, during that decade, linguists
became aware that traditional linguistics needed to consider questions related to
society. Michael Halliday’s (1975, 1978) theory of systemic functional linguistics,
which informed critical linguistics and then CDA, emphasized language as a mean-
ing-making process, complete with options; Halliday’s theory was synergistic with
the critical study of language. At the same time, there was dissent and revolution in
365
Rogers et al.
society at large. We can look to the Vietnam War and the peace movement, the
women’s movement, the disability movement, and the civil rights movement in the
United States, to name just a few examples. All of this was accompanied by a broader
linguistic turn in the social sciences, a movement away from methodological indi-
vidualism, and the proliferation of post-structural and post-modern theories.
The intellectual work of combining social theories with linguistic work was, at first,
conducted by a disparate group of scholars, each at their own universities. However,
in the early 1990s a group of scholars (Fairclough, Kress, van Dijk, van Leeuwen, and
Wodak) spent two days at a symposium in Amsterdam discussing theories and meth-
ods specific to CDA. These scholars came from somewhat diverse academic back-
grounds, and CDA reflects their interdisciplinary approach (van Dijk, 2001).
Education researchers turned to discourse analysis as a way to make sense of the
ways in which people make meaning in educational contexts. Early examples of lin-
guistic analysis in education research grew out of the work of sociolinguistics
(Gumperz, 1982; Labov, 1972; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1976), linguistic anthropology
(Silverstein & Urban, 1996), and the ethnography of communication (Gumperz &
Hymes, 1964; Hymes, 1972). Sinclair and Coulthard, for example, introduced an
elaborate framework for coding teachers’ and students’ discourse acts in classroom
talk. Their intention was to provide an extensive structural model of discourse orga-
nization in classroom interactions. The classic work of Cazden (1988/2001) grew out
of such descriptive analyses of classroom talk. Around the same time that scholars
were describing the micro-interactions that occurred in classrooms, scholars from
fields such as sociology and cultural studies were also looking to classrooms and
schools to theorize about the ways in which social structures are reproduced through
educational institutions (Bourdieu, 1979/1984; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Oakes, 1986;
Willis, 1977).1 Drawing on critical social theory, these studies sought to examine the
ways in which macro-structures play out in the interactions, rituals, and traditions of
the classroom. Cultural theorists, however, do not often turn to a close analysis of
discourse structures (see Bernstein, 1971, for an exception). On the other hand, lin-
guistic anthropologists and conversation analysts often do not turn to social theory
or attempt to connect their micro-level analyses with broader social forces. Critical
Discourse Analysis was an attempt to bring social theory and discourse analysis
together to describe, interpret, and explain the ways in which discourse constructs,
becomes constructed by, represents, and becomes represented by the social world.
During the past decade, education researchers increasingly have turned to Crit-
ical Discourse Analysis as an approach to answering questions about the relation-
ships between language and society. This proliferation in scholarship, as we
demonstrate in this review, poses a series of focused questions for education
researchers interested in CDA. Indeed, discourse analysis of all types comes from
fields outside education, and much of it is tied to linguistics in one way or another.
As such work crosses into the boundary of education, interesting and substantive
concerns arise about how it is applied to educational issues, how it affects other
research and approaches in education, and how it might be reviewed in the
non–education research traditions from which it came.
This article provides a critical, integrative review of CDA across five databases
in the social sciences. We present a review of the literature and we interrogate the
theory, methods, and implications of the literature reviewed. We intend that this
review of CDA in the field of education be viewed in the context of the original
366
Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

CDA founders. The following questions frame our review: What happens when
Critical Discourse Analysis crosses the boundaries into education research? In
what ways do education researchers use CDA? How can the use of CDA in edu-
cational contexts inform us about method and theory?
Critical Discourse Analysis: Key Concepts
Critical discourse studies stem from three overlapping intellectual traditions,
each emphasizing the linguistic turn in the social sciences. These traditions are dis-
course studies (e.g., Benveniste, 1958/1971; Derrida, 1974; Foucault, 1969/1972;
Pecheux, 1975), feminist post-structuralism (e.g., Butler, 1990; Davies, 1993), and
critical linguistics (e.g., Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979; Halliday & Hasan,
1989; Hodge & Kress, 1979/1993; Pecheux, 1975; Pennycook, 2001; Willig,
1999). Critical Discourse Analysis focuses on how language as a cultural tool
mediates relationships of power and privilege in social interactions, institutions,
and bodies of knowledge (see, for example, Bourdieu, 1977; Davies & Harre,
1990; Foucault, 1969/1972; Gee, 1999; Luke, 1995/1996).
Gee (2004) makes the distinction between the capitalized term “Critical Dis-
course Analysis” (which the abbreviation CDA represents) and “critical discourse
analysis” in lowercase letters, a distinction that is quite relevant to this review. He
argues that CDA refers to the brand of analysis that has been informed by Fair-
clough, Hodge, Kress, Wodak, van Dijk, van Leeuwen, and followers. Lowercase
“critical discourse analysis” includes a “wider array of approaches” (p. 20)—Gee’s
own form of analysis (1992, 1994, 1996, 1999), that of Gumperz (1982), Hymes
(1972), Michaels (1981), and Scollon, & Scollon (1981), and the work of other dis-
course analysts in the United States and elsewhere. These scholars are conducting
critically oriented forms of discourse analysis but do not specifically call their work
CDA. Gee (2004) points out that critical approaches to discourse analysis “treat
social practices in terms of their implications for things like status, solidarity, dis-
tribution of social goods, and power” (p. 33). Because language is a social practice
and because not all social practices are created and treated equally, all analyses of
language are inherently critical.
In the next section we discuss some foundational principles that are relevant in
any discussion of Critical Discourse Analysis. The discussion is structured around
the key constructs: “critical,” “discourse,” and “analysis”
What Is “Critical” About CDA?
The Frankfurt school, the group of scholars connected to the Institute of Social
Research at the University of Frankfurt, focused their attention on the changing
nature of capitalism and its relation to Marxist theories of economic determinism.
Adorno, Marcuse, and Horkheimer—the scholars most commonly connected with
the Frankfurt School—initiated a conversation with the German tradition of philo-
sophical and social thought of Marx, Kant, Hegel, and Weber. While rejecting the
strict economic determinism (the view that economic factors determine all other
aspects of human existence) associated with Marxism, they continued the view
that injustice and oppression shape the social world. The Frankfurt school and
scholars from across disciplines engaged with critical theory and attempted to
locate the multiple ways in which power and domination are achieved (Kinchloe
& McLaren, 2003).
367
Rogers et al.
Thus the Frankfurt school and other neo-Marxist scholars of society and lan-
guage (e.g., the Bakhtin Circle) opened the debate about whether language belongs
to the economic base or the cultural superstructure, and whether it is determined
by material conditions or, in fact, determines these conditions (Ives, 2004). It is
important to remember that at the same time that the Frankfurt school was rising
in academic popularity, the works of W. E. B. DuBois (1903/1990) and Carter
Woodson (1933/1990) also mounted serious challenges to the dominant Euro-
American scholarly paradigm. However, Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse are
commonly associated with critical theory, whereas DuBois and Woodson remain
invisible in the scholarly canon in critical theory (Ladson-Billings, 2003). This is
important because critical theory, a set of theories that attempt to locate and
confront issues of power, privilege, and hegemony, has also been critiqued for
reproducing power knowledge relations and constructing its own regime of truth.
Or, as Yancy (1998) puts it, critical theory is often “the words of white men
engaged in conversations with themselves” (p. 3). Evidence of this can be seen in
the striking absence of issues of race in much of critical theory.
Critical theory is not a unified set of perspectives. Rather, it includes critical race
theory, post-structuralism, post-modernism, neo-colonial studies, queer theory, and
so on. Critical theories are generally concerned with issues of power and justice and
the ways that the economy, race, class, gender, religion, education, and sexual ori-
entation construct, reproduce, or transform social systems. Although there are many
different “moments” when research might be considered critical, the various
approaches to critical research share some assumptions. Critical theorists, for exam-
ple, believe that thought is mediated by historically constituted power relations. Facts
are never neutral and are always embedded in contexts. Some groups in society are
privileged over others, and this privilege leads to differential access to services,
goods, and outcomes. Another shared assumption is that one of the most powerful
forms of oppression is internalized hegemony, which includes both coercion and
consent (Gramsci, 1973; Ives, 2004). Critical researchers are intent on discovering
the specifics of domination through power. However, power takes many forms: ide-
ological, physical, linguistic, material, psychological, cultural. Critical theorists gen-
erally agree that language is central in the formation of subjectivities and subjugation.
Post-structuralism, the intellectual movement with which Michel Foucault is
often associated, was a rejection of the structuralist movement of the earlier 20th
century and is intimately related to critical theory. Structuralism assumed that rela-
tionships existed between structures in systems and that examining those relation-
ships could help us to understand the entirety of a system. The theory of
structuralism permeated across disciplines and could be seen in studies of the
economy (Marx), language (Saussure), psychology (Freud), and anthropology—
specifically, culture and kinship relations (Levi-Strauss). Foucault, once himself a
structuralist, broke from structuralism and argued that we cannot know something
based on a system of binaries and static relationships. Post-structuralism pointed
out the inevitable slipperiness of social constructs and the language that con-
structed and represented such constructs (Peters & Burbules, 2004). Foucault’s
(1969/1972) concept of discourse and power has been important in the develop-
ment of CDA, as discussed in the next section.
Scholars who situate themselves within the CDA tradition often separate their
work from other forms of “non-critical” discourses analyses by arguing that their
368

analyses move beyond description and interpretation of the role of language in the
social world, toward explaining why and how language does the work that it does.
Critical discourse analysts begin with an interest in understanding, uncovering, and
transforming conditions of inequality. The starting point for the analysis differs
depending on where the critical analyst locates and defines power. Critical dis-
course analysts locate power in the arena of language as a social practice. Power,
however, can take on both liberating and oppressive forms.
What Is Discourse in CDA?
Recent developments in Critical Discourse Analysis are rooted in much longer his-
tories of language philosophy (Austin, 1962; Gramsci, 1973; Searle, 1969; Wittgen-
stein, 1953); ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 1967; Cicourel, 1974), the functional
linguistics tradition in the United States (Gumperz, 1982; Silverstein & Urban, 1996),
and Systemic Functional Linguistics in England, Canada, and Australia (Halliday &
Hasan, 1976).2 There are many subsections of discourse analysis within the social tra-
dition, including speech act theory (Goffman, 1959, 1971), genre theory (Bakhtin,
1981; Martin, 1985; Hasan & Fries, 1995), intertextuality (Bakhtin, 1981; Kristeva,
1980, 1986, 1989; Lemke, 1992), discursive formations (e.g., Foucault, 1972, 1979,
1981; Lemke, 1992), conversation analysis (Collins, 1986; Gumperz, 1982; Sacks,
Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974; Schegloff, Ochs, & Thompson, 1996), narrative analy-
sis (Gee, 1992, 1994; Labov, 1972; Michaels, 1981; Propp, 1968; Scollon & Scollon,
1981; Wortham, 2001), discursive psychology (Davies & Harre, 1990; Edwards &
Potter, 1992), ethnography of communication (Hymes, 1972), multi-modal analysis
(Gee, 2003; Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress & van Leeuween, 1996; Scollon & Scollon,
2003), and critical discourse analysis.
The word “discourse” comes from the Latin discursus, which means “to run to and
fro.” The word “current” comes from the same Latin root. Within a CDA tradition,
discourse has been defined as language use as social practice. That is, discourse moves
back and forth between reflecting and constructing the social world. Seen in this way,
language cannot be considered neutral, because it is caught up in political, social,
racial, economic, religious, and cultural formations. CDA is what Fairclough (1992)
has referred to as a textually oriented form of discourse analysis (TODA). To develop
this textual analysis, Fairclough brought together the linguistic theory of Systemic
Functional Linguistics (Halliday & Hasan, 1976; Halliday, 1985) with the social the-
ory of discourse as it evolved in the work of Foucault (1969/1972, 1979, 1981).
Systemic functional linguistics (SFL) explains language use in terms of the form
and function of interactions. SFL theorists posit that every interaction can be under-
stood at three levels: textually, interpersonally, and situated in a wider societal con-
text. Furthermore, as language users we choose from the meaning-making potentials
that are available to us to represent and construct dialogue. Thus language use is a
creative practice. Young and Harrison (2004) point out that SFL and CDA share
several characteristics. First, both view language as a social construction. Second,
both view language dialectically, which means that language influences the contexts
in which it occurs and the contexts influence language production. And third, both
emphasize the cultural and historical acts of meaning making.
Foucault’s theories of discourse have had a tremendous impact on the social sci-
ences. Foucault ultimately rejected the tenets of structuralism (that there exist
binary distinctions between constructs and that we could remove ourselves from
369
Rogers et al.
the structure of language) and began the intellectual movement known as post-
structuralism. Foucault theorized that the traditional distinction between speech
and language (parole and langue) did not provide explanatory power. Rather,
Foucault sought to understand the history and evolution of constructs that were
considered natural (normality, justice, intellect, and so forth) and how such con-
structs are a product of power/knowledge relationships. Orders of discourse, a key
construct in Foucault’s understanding of social practices, are the discursive prac-
tices in a society or institution and the relationships among them. Fairclough dis-
tinguishes between Foucault’s analysis of discourse and his own approach, which
he refers to as a textually oriented approach to discourse analysis (TODA).
Gee’s (1996, 1999) theory of discourse has been particularly important for edu-
cation researchers in the United States. Gee’s theory is inherently “critical” in the
sense of asserting that all discourses are social and thus ideological, and that some
discourses are valued more than others. Gee distinguished between (“little d”) dis-
course and (“big D”) Discourse. “Big D” Discourse refers both to language bits
and to the cultural models that are associated with Discourses. For instance, there
is a university Discourse that includes certain language bits that may be particular
to academia, and there are also associated ways of thinking, believing, and valu-
ing that are connected with membership in the Discourse of the university. “Little d”
discourse refers to the linguistic elements—the language bits—that connect with
such Discourses. Of course, the language bits (little d, discourse) and the social and
cultural models (big D, Discourse) are constitutive and work together to construct,
maintain, and transform interactions. The important thing to keep in mind about
Discourse (both big and little d) is that they are social and political and have his-
tories of participation that are saturated by power relations.
CDA brings together social theory and textual analysis. To provide a succinct
overview of the shared assumptions about discourse held by many within the CDA
tradition, we turn to Fairclough and Wodak (1997), who outlined common tenets
of discourse under a critical umbrella, paraphrased here:
• Discourse does ideological work.

• Discourse constitutes society and culture.
• Discourse is situated and historical.
• Power relations are partially discursive.
• Mediation of power relations necessitates a socio-cognitive approach.
• CDA is a socially committed scientific paradigm that addresses social prob-
lems.
• Discourse analysis is interpretive, descriptive, and explanatory and uses a
“systematic methodology.”
• The role of the analyst is to study the relationships between texts and social
practices.
What Is the “Analysis” in CDA?
There are many approaches to CDA, including French discourse analysis
(Foucault, 1969/1972; Pecheux, 1975), social semiotics (Hodge & Kress, 1988;
Kress, 2003), sociocognitive studies (van Dijk, 1993), the discourse historical
method (Wodak, 1996; Wodak, Meyer, Titscher, & Vetter, 2000), and multi-modal
methods (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress & van Leeuween, 1996). CDA departs from
370

discourse analysis and sociolinguistic analyses in its movement from description and
interpretation to explanation of how discourse systematically constructs versions of
the social world. Furthermore, critical analyses position subjects in relations of power
(both liberatory and oppressive aspects of power) rather than analyzing language as
a way of explaining the psychological intentions, motivations, skills, and competen-
cies of individuals (Luke, 1995/1996). Each of these perspectives on CDA has been
applied to relevant social problems in a wide range of disciplines, including policy,
social work, linguistics, and education. Each perspective has developed its own set
of analytic tools that might be brought to bear on a set of problems or questions.
Fairclough (1989, 1992, 1995) outlined a three-tiered framework that is very
common among critical discourse analysts (see Fairclough, 1989, for a visual
heuristic of this framework). The framework includes analysis of texts, interac-
tions, and social practices at the local, institutional, and societal levels. The first
goal of the analyst is to describe the relationships among certain texts, interactions,
and social practices (this is accomplished by describing the grammatical resources
that constitute such relations, an issue to which we will return). A second goal is
to interpret the configuration of discourse practices. A third goal is to use the
description and interpretation to offer an explanation of why and how social prac-
tices are constituted, changed, and transformed in the ways that they are.
Fairclough’s analytic framework is constituted by three levels of analysis: the
text, the discursive practice, and the sociocultural practice. In other words, each
discursive event has three dimensions: It is a spoken or written text, it is an instance
of discourse practice involving the production and interpretation of texts, and it is
a part of social practice. The analysis of the text involves the study of the language
structures produced in a discursive event. An analysis of the discursive practice
involves examining the production, consumption, and reproduction of the texts.
The analysis of sociocultural practice includes an exploration of what is happen-
ing in a particular sociocultural framework.
Analysis at the textual level involves use of Halliday’s systemic functional
linguistics and the three domains of ideational, interpersonal, and textual analysis.
The ideational functions include meta-narratives that circulate in society. Analy-
sis at this level includes transitivity, which involves the different processes, or
types of verbs, involved in the interaction. The interpersonal functions are the
meanings of the social relations established between participants in the interaction.
Analysis of this domain includes an analysis of the mood (whether a sentence is a
statement, question, or declaration) and modality (the degree of assertiveness in
the exchange). The textual domain involves the thematic structure of the text.
Fairclough’s second dimension, discursive practice, involves analysis of the
process of production, interpretation, distribution, and consumption. This dimen-
sion is concerned with how people interpret and reproduce or transform texts.
The third dimension, sociocultural practice, is concerned with issues of
power—power being a construct that is realized through interdiscursivity and
hegemony. Analysis of this dimension includes exploration of the ways in which
discourses operate in various domains of society.
Proliferation of CDA in Education research
Critical discourse analysts tend to work on applied topics in a wide range of
domains, including political discourse, ideology, racism, economic discourse,
371
Rogers et al.
advertisement with promotional culture, media language, gender, institutional dis-
course, education, and literacy (Blommaert & Bulcaen, 2000). This is seen in the
proliferating number of journals, conferences, and special editions of journals
devoted to CDA. These journals include Language and Politics; Critical Inquiries
in Language Studies: An International Journal; Critical Discourse Studies; Text;
Linguistics and Education; Language and Society; Discourse & Society; Dis-
course Studies; and Discourse. In addition, there are many online resources for
critical discourse studies, including Critics-L and Language in the New Capital-
ism, to name just two. The Linguist List (http://www.linguistlist.org/) maintained
at Wayne State University, is a very accessible website with many resources for
discourse studies, including book reviews, major conferences, journals, a list of
linguists, and language resources. A study group of approximately 20 people meets
regularly at major literacy conferences. There are university programs established
for the study of critical discourse at the University of Lancaster and a minor at
Alfred University. Two inaugural Critical Discourse Analysis conferences were
held in 2004. The first International Conference in Critical Discourse Analysis was
held in 2004 (http://www.uv.es/cdaval/) in Valencia, Spain. The School of Educa-
tion at Indiana University held the first U.S. conference devoted to CDA in June
of 2004. In December of 2004, the National Reading Conference (NRC) held a
series of workshops focused on methodology, and CDA was the focus of one of
the sessions (Burns & Morrell, in press). In the same year, the National Council of
Teachers of English held a pre-conference workshop devoted to CDA.
CDA has not gone without critique, and the critiques are part of the overall con-
text in which we intend this review to be read. The three most common critiques
are (a) that political and social ideologies are read into the data; (b) that there is an
imbalance between social theory, on the one hand, and linguistic theory and
method, on the other; and (c) that CDA is often divorced from social contexts
(Flowerdew, 1999; Price, 1999; Schegloff, 1999; Widdowson, 1998). How does
CDA conducted in educational contexts hold up to these critiques? To answer this
question, we reviewed the proliferating database of education research using CDA.
Methodology
Review of Databases
We reviewed five databases in the social sciences with the search term “critical
discourse analysis” from the years 1980 through 2003. The databases were Web of
Science, MLA, PsycINFO, ERIC, and ArticleFirst. We also used bibliographic
branching and referrals from other researchers. We reviewed 1991–2003 abstracts
of articles from Linguistics and Education (Vols. 3–14), the tables of contents of Dis-
course & Society from 1993 through 2003, and the abstracts in Language in Society
from 1998 through 2003. We reviewed only research that was published in peer-
reviewed journals. We required that the authors use the terms “critical discourse
analysis” somewhere in the article. We did not review dissertation abstracts.
We integrated important books throughout the review where appropriate,
because emerging theories and research often appear in books first, and later in
articles. Examples of such books are Critical Language Awareness (Fairclough,
1992); An Introduction to Discourse Analysis (Gee, 1999); Analyzing Discourse:
Textual Analysis for Social Research (Fairclough, 2003); Discourse in Late
372

Modernity (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999); Classroom Discourse Analysis
(Christie, 2002); An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education
(Rogers, 2004); Literacy and Literacy: Texts, Power, and Identity (Collins & Blot,
2003); Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies
in Social Change (Young & Harrison, 2004); and A Critical Discourse Analysis of
Family Literacy Practices (Rogers, 2003).
We reviewed only studies that were conducted in or that pertained to formal
education (in classrooms) or informal education (e.g., after-school programs,
museums, family literacy programs) or that pertained to an educational issue
(policy documents). Our rationale was that we wanted to see the range of perspec-
tives, approaches, and theories in the pool of research that specifically referred to
CDA. The search term “Critical Discourse Analysis” resulted in a total of 803 ref-
erences. Many of these articles include critical perspectives, critical thinking, and
discourse analysis. We read all of the abstracts to determine whether the authors
were using CDA as a theory or method and not simply providing critical perspec-
tives on discourse analysis or critical thinking and discourse analysis. This next
level of analysis found 284 works that used Critical Discourse Analysis. Of these,
56 were situated in the discipline of education. Of those 56 articles, 16 were over-
lapping references across the databases. Therefore, the original search resulted in
a total of 40 articles that used CDA in the context of education. We collected an
additional 6 references through bibliographic branching.
Analytic Procedures
We developed a codebook to standardize our reviews (see Appendix A). We used
our research questions and each study’s features to develop a coding scheme. We also
included aspects of CDA that were relevant to research in education (theory of dis-
course, implications for education). During literature retrieval, we used sample stud-
ies to refine the coding scheme. After reviewing and coding a subset of the studies,
we selected 10 studies to determine interrater reliability. We each highlighted parts of
the article that dealt with the issues in the codebook. Each of the articles was read
twice—once by the lead researcher and once by a research assistant. The codebooks
were compared for reliability. All disagreements were discussed and resolved. Our
analysis was ongoing, informed by the literature, and constant-comparative. That is,
as we reviewed studies we sought out similarities and differences across the studies
and made note of themes. Once all of the articles were reviewed and the codebooks
filled out, we began to summarize each of the articles (see Appendix B). This level of
analysis helped to clarify trends in the data. From there, we pulled out four major
themes (which we report on below) that ran across all of the articles. In addition, we
asked two scholars who work in CDA to review the summary chart (Appendix B) and
try to suggest other writings that we might include in the review.
Limitations
We do not claim to have included every article on Critical Discourse Analysis
and education, particularly research published after 2003. We have taken on a
review of research articles in education that explicitly define themselves as CDA
and are set in an educational context. Because CDA is a relatively new “discipline”
(whether it might be or should be considered a discipline is open for debate), we
sought to bring together diverse lines of education research to take stock of what
373
Rogers et al.
had been done so far. In doing so, we have inevitably made the field seem more
synthesized than it really is. However, we maintain that the present is a suitable
point in the history of CDA in education research for such a synthesis.
In limiting our review to studies that have explicitly called themselves CDA
or Critical Discourse Analyses, we have inevitably left out important lines of
scholarship—lines that include discourse analyses conducted from critical
perspectives and those that assume that all language is ideological and thus crit-
ical. Many articles have multiple perspectives and draw on social semiotics,
hermeneutics, intertextuality, post-structuralism, popular culture, and media
studies that bring together various critical theories and modes of discourse analy-
sis. Authors who write within these traditions have shaped the types of analyses
that have been conducted. We also did not review studies in intertextuality,
though we realize that important work has been done in this subset of CDA
(Beach & Anson, 1992; Fairclough, 1992; Hartman, 1992; Kamberelis & Scott,
1992; Lemke, 1992; Short, 1992). We recognize that what we have offered in
this review is a modest synthesis of current education research that is informed
by and informs CDA.
Organization of the Review
In the following sections, we present the findings of the review. The first sec-
tion is a summary of the findings across all of the reviews. Next, we present five
of the themes that ran across all of the studies. Table 1 is a summative table of the
findings from the review. We provide a description of the findings that emerged
from each theme and subset of the theme and identify studies that illustrate each
particular theme. To be as succinct as possible, we describe only those studies that
best represent the findings. In some cases, studies illustrated more than one theme;
therefore we describe the study under the theme it mostly illustrates. Finally, we
summarize all of the results in a discussion section, with particular attention
focused on implications and future research with CDA in education.
TABLE 1
Findings by theme
Theme Findings
Articles reviewed N = 46
Empirical articles N = 39
Theoretical articles N=7
Mode of language in empirical articles 66% (26/39) Interactional (analysis of spoken
language, or spoken and written language)
Theory of language 33% (13/39) Analysis of written language
28% (11/39) No theory of language
Context 85% (22/26) Took place in middle school, high
school, or higher education
15% (4/26) Took place in elementary school or
with children under the age of 10
Analysis 20% (8/39) Empirical articles did not comment
on their analytic procedures
374
Findings
Appendix B is a descriptive chart of the findings from the 46 articles reviewed,
organized by the main sections of each of the articles (definition of CDA, research
focus, context, data sources, and data analysis). There is an interdisciplinary group
of scholars using CDA to analyze and theorize about educational issues. We have
designated the geographic location of the authors next to their names in this chart.
The type of article is abbreviated as either “E” (empirical) or “T” (theoretical).
The chart demonstrates that while all of the articles we reviewed were situated
within an educational context or pertained to educational issues, there was a great
deal of diversity in the focus of the articles. The research focus of these articles var-
ied from exploring the relationship between personhood and literacy, to how his-
tory standards are presented to the public, to how knowledge is constructed in
chemistry classrooms.
In what follows we report on the major themes across the articles. We begin by
exploring the multiple ways in which CDA has been defined in education research.
Next, we explore whether and how education researchers using CDA have over-
come the written language bias that historically has characterized CDA. From
there, we explore the context in which CDA work is situated and the relationship
of CDA to context. We then turn to the question of methods and the ways in which
education researchers using CDA have taken up the methodological aspects of
CDA. Reflexivity is an important aspect of any critical work, and in the next sec-
tion we illustrate the ways in which education researchers have dealt with issues
of reflexivity. Finally, in the discussion, we turn to the findings of the articles
reviewed to answer the question, What do we know as a result of CDA work done
in education research?
The Multiple Meanings of CDA

As Fairclough and Wodak (1997) pointed out, there are many different
approaches to CDA, including French discourse analysis (Foucault, 1969/1972;
Pecheux, 1975), social semiotics (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress, 2003), sociocog-
nitive studies (van Dijk, 1993), and the discourse historical method (Wodak, 1996;
Wodak, Meyer, Titscher & Vetter, 2000). Each of these perspectives on CDA has
been applied to relevant social problems in a wide range of disciplines including
policy, social work, linguistics, and education. Despite the many different per-
spectives of CDA, most of the research we reviewed drew mainly on Fairclough
(1989, 1991, 1993, 1995). We were surprised that despite Wodak’s contribution to
the development of CDA as a theory, method, and research program (Wodak,
1996; Wodak, Meyer, Titscher, & Vetter, 2000, Wodak & Reisigl, 2001) and her
work as the director of the Wittgenstein Research Center on Discourse, Politics,
and Identity, there were very few references to her (see Corson, 2000, and Rogers,
2003, for exceptions).
The articles reviewed here defined CDA in four ways. First, they defined CDA
in relation to post-structuralism. It is clear that CDA work in education research
continues to draw on the relationship between CDA and post-structuralism, par-
ticularly post-structuralist feminism and Foucault. While CDA draws heavily on
post-structural theory, Fairclough (1995) made a distinction between CDA and
Foucault’s theory of language. He aimed for CDA to be a textually oriented
375
Rogers et al.
discourse analysis (TODA), whereas post-structural analyses were often lacking
in close textual analysis.
Second, the articles defined CDA in terms of its goals, aims, or functions. The
articles that defined CDA in such terms asserted that aims of CDA are to disrupt
discourses, challenge restrictive pedagogies, challenge passive acceptance of the
status quo, and reveal how texts operate in the construction of social practices.
More research tended to define and use CDA as a tool of critique than as a tool for
re-imagining the social world. A third group of authors defined CDA on the basis
of its association with Systemic Functional Linguistics, critical linguistics, or inter-
actional sociolinguistics. A fourth set of authors defined CDA through a descrip-
tion of the analytic framework that they employed. Each of the authors referred to
the CDA framework as a three-tiered framework and made reference to
Fairclough’s work. Some authors merged Fairclough’s description with other
frameworks (Chouliaraki, 1998; Collins, 2001). All of the authors seem to agree
that the framework brings together a micro and macro analysis and offers a descrip-
tion, interpretation, and explanation of social events. Three articles mentioned
CDA but did not define it.
Mode of Language Analyzed and Theories of Language:
Overcoming Written Language Bias
CDA sets out to describe, interpret, and explain the relationships between lan-
guage, social practices, and the social world. Language indexes social relations,
expresses social relations, constitutes social relations, and challenges social rela-
tions. Language, in this framework, is dialogic, intertextual, and historically based.
CDA has been seriously critiqued for failing to address interactional or dialogic
texts and focusing instead primarily on written texts (newspapers, lists, policy doc-
uments, health care documents). Teo (2000) wrote, “CDA typically concentrates
on data like news reporting, political interviews, counseling, and job interviews
that describe unequal encounters, or embody manipulative strategies that seem
neutral or natural to most people” (p. 12). Similarly, Rampton (2001) pointed out
that interaction and dialogism are rarely brought out in Critical Discourse Analy-
sis. We wondered, as we began this review, if this critique would hold up with
analyses conducted in educational contexts. It did not. It appears as if education
researchers using CDA are beginning to overturn this critique as more and more
studies are using CDA with interactional data. Of the 39 empirical articles
reviewed, 26 (or 66%) used interactional data (either just interactional data or inter-
actional data and written data). See Appendix B for a description of articles that
included either written or interactional data.
While an impressive number of studies focused on analyses of interactional data
(rather than on written texts), the analysts did not frame their analyses within the
history of discourse analysis and socio-linguistic analysis. CDA has also been cri-
tiqued for not paying attention to socio-linguistic predecessors (Schegloff, 1993;
Sawyer, 2002). A few studies mentioned the relationship between different dis-
course analytic traditions. Peace (2003), for example, discussed the pros and cons
of “top-down” (critical discourse analysis that draws on post-structuralism) and
“bottom-up” (ethnomethodology and conversation analysis) theories of language
and asserted that “both approaches can be problematic” (p. 164). While it is true
that the two approaches to discourse analysis have some incompatible tenets, most
376

critical analyses draw on elements of earlier discourse analyses but do not explic-
itly mention CDA’s connection with other forms of discourse analysis (for excep-
tions, see Collins, 2001; Heller, 2001; Moje, 1997; Rampton, 2001).
We then wondered about the relationships between the type of text analyzed
(written, interactional or a combination of written and interactional) and the the-
ory of language brought to bear on the analysis. We learned that emphasis placed
on theories of language varied widely across the studies from a careful description
of post-structural theories of discourse and SFL to a description of post-structural
discourse theory or a description of SFL, to no description of language at all. We
found this surprising because CDA is a discursively based framework, and we
expected there to be more careful attention to and description of theories of
language.
A number of studies, particularly those conducted in the United States and in
literacy studies, collapsed Gee’s theories of discourse under that of critical dis-
course analysis (Brown & Kelly, 2001; Egan-Robertson, 1998; Hinchman &
Young, 2001; Rogers, Tyson, & Marshall, 2000; Johnson, 2001; Orellana, 1996;
Young, 2000). While Gee’s discourse theory and analysis assumes language is
political and social and thus “critical,” he does not refer to his brand of discourse
analysis as CDA, a point that he made specifically in Gee (2004). Nevertheless,
Rogers, Tyson, and Marshall (who, in a 2000 study of three children, their
families, teachers, and principals across two schools, explore the interplay of dis-
courses, or living dialogues, in their neighborhood) classify Fairclough, (1989,
1992), Gee (1996), and Lemke (1995) together under critical discourse theories.
Furthermore, Johnson (2001), in a study of pre-service teachers’ visual narratives
of a student teaching experience, draws on Gee’s theory of discourse in his
definition of CDA. Egan-Robertson (1998), in a study of how personhood is
communicated through writing in a community writing program, cites Gee’s
theory of discourse.
Of the studies reviewed, 28% (11of 39) do not address language theory at all.
Bartu (2001), Bergvall and Remlinger (1996), Comber (1997), Collins (2001),
Kumaravadivelu (1999), Thomas (2002), Stevens (2003), Johnson and Avery
(1999), and Fox and Fox (2002) all lack a discussion of language. One area that
critical discourse analysts need to be more conscious of is that the theories of lan-
guage that are being used are predominantly based on European languages. This is
important because, as we will demonstrate in the next section, CDA is often used
in work with historically marginalized groups of people, and such groups are likely
to have linguistic variation at the syntactic and morphological level as well as
discourse patterns that may not be accounted for in a European-language-based
discourse framework. We return to this point in the discussion.
Critical Discourse Analysis in Context
An ongoing discussion in the journal Discourse & Society has focused on the
relationship between conversation analysis and CDA (Billig, 1999; Schegloff,
1999). The big question is how much of the context—beyond the here and now of
the interaction—is important, or necessary, to understanding the interaction. Crit-
ical discourse analysts pay attention to the macro context—the societal and the
institutional as well as the local level of a text and the grammatical resources that
make up the text. Conversation analysts, on the other hand, believe all that is
377
Rogers et al.
relevant is the “here and now” of the interaction, not what came before or after it.
This group of scholars argues that CDA does not attend closely enough to the lin-
guistic resources that constitute interactions but instead focus on how macro rela-
tions are mapped onto micro interactions (Billig, 1999; Widdowson, 1998).
Context also has been important because CDA has often been critiqued as “out of
context,” meaning that bits of texts and talk are analyzed outside the context of
their production, consumption, distribution, and reproduction.
CDA has also been critiqued by another group of scholars (primarily linguistic
anthropologists) for not paying enough attention to ethnographic contexts—the
criticism being that the analyses are often based on decontextualized texts
(speeches, policy documents, excerpts of talk) rather than on grounded, interac-
tional data that occur within a larger frame of interactions (see Critique of Anthro-
pology, volume 21, issues 1–2 for an in-depth discussion of this issue). It appears
that CDA conducted in educational contexts may offer a way out of this theoreti-
cal and methodological quagmire. As we describe in the following sections, edu-
cation researchers are bringing CDA frameworks into a variety of educational
settings and asking questions that demand attention both to the linguistic details of
the interaction and to the larger social, historical, and cultural contexts in which
the interactions emerge.
As was mentioned earlier, 33% (13 of 39) of the studies reviewed for this arti-
cle were analyses of written texts where the context was the text itself, for exam-
ple, policy documents, newspaper articles, textbooks, and transcripts of videos
(Ailwood & Lingard, 2001; Barnard, 2001; Collins, 2001; Hays, 2000; Luke, 1997;
Pitt, 2002; Stevens, 2003). However, all of the studies were located in educational
contexts (meeting, classroom, interviews, writing club). Of the interactional stud-
ies, 85% took place in middle school, high school, or higher education settings.
Only 15% (4 of 26) took place in elementary schools (Gebhard, 2002; Orellana,
1996; Rogers, Tyson, & Marshall, 2000; Young, 2000). Of all of the empirical
studies (39), 15% (6 of 39) of the studies were set in a higher education context
(Corson, 2000; Fairclough, 1993; Fox & Fox, 2002) or in university classrooms
(Bartu, 2001; Bergvall & Remlinger, 1996; Heberle, 2000).
We found that the studies covered a wide range of contexts, including science
classes (Moje, 1997; Myers, 1996), a social studies class (Brown & Kelly, 2001);
literature classes (Hinchman & Young, 2001), after-school programs (Egan-
Robertson, 1998; Rogers, 2002c), home schooling experiences (e.g., Young,
2000), interviews (e.g., Collins, 2001; Nichols, 2002), special education meetings
(Rogers, 2002b), administrative school meetings (e.g., Corson, 2000; Orellana,
1996), or written documents (e.g., Ailwood & Lingard, 2001; Anderson, 2001;
Davis, 1997).
All of the empirical studies (100%) used some form of anthropological or ethno-
graphic method (participant-observation recorded in fieldnotes, document collec-
tion, and debriefing) (Chouliaraki, 1998; Comber, 1997; Hughes, 2001; Hinchman
& Young, 2001; Egan-Robertson, 1998; Rogers, Tyson, & Marshall, 2000; Rogers,
2002a; Young, 2000), interviews or focus groups (Brown & Kelly, 2001; Collins,
2001; Nichols, 2002; Peace, 2003; Johnson & Avery, 1999; Young, 2000). The
studies varied in the detail and description provided about fieldwork (length and
duration), data sources (written texts, interactional texts, interviews), and research
participants (ethnicity, how they were selected). Some studies provided a clear and
378

detailed description of their data sources (Comber, 1997; Egan-Robertson, 1998;
Hughes, 2001; Hinchman & Young, 2001; Moje, 1997; Rogers, 2002a; Rogers,
Tyson, & Marshall, 2000; Young, 2000). Others lacked such descriptions.
Some authors had innovative ways of including context in their analyses.
Nichols (2002), in a study that explored the gendered nature of parents’ accounts
of their children, built three contexts into the interview protocol (memories of their
own literacy experiences, descriptions of home literacy practices, and observations
of their children’s literacy related behaviors). While Hays (2000) situated her
analysis primarily on newspaper texts covering educational conditions in
Botswana in Southern Africa, she did make reference to the ethnographic field-
work that she had conducted there in her explanation of the newspaper texts (ref-
erences of this kind are rare in the analysis of written texts). Similarly, Stevens
(2003), in a study of how the federal government defined reading, combined her
observations of the Reading Leadership Academy in 2002 with a textual analysis
of the documents from that conference. Other studies (Bergvall & Remlinger,
1996; Chouliaraki, 1998; Fox & Fox, 2002; Peace, 2003) recorded interactional
data in classrooms through participant observation or conducted interviews but did
not specify the amount or the duration of fieldwork. Peace (2003) also reported that
someone else had collected the interviews that he analyzed.
The diversity of the research participants represented in these studies was quite
broad. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of articles focused on participants
of middle school age or older. Furthermore, most of the research participants were
students (with the exception of Comber’s 1997 analysis of a teacher). The ethnic-
ity of the participants varied as widely as the contexts in which the studies
occurred. See Appendix B for the diversity of the research participants across the
articles. Overall, the researchers defined context in terms of the field of study and
participants and did not theorize the role of context in conducting CDA. What we
learn is that CDA is being “put to work” in context, but the multiple meanings of
context have not yet been theorized.
The Question of Methods
Van Dijk (2004) has proposed changing the name Critical Discourse Analysis
to Critical Discourse Studies because the term “analysis” suggests that researchers
are interested mainly in analysis, without much theory—when, in fact, CDA is a
combination of theory and method (van Dijk, 2004). As reviewed in the introduc-
tion, there are many ways of approaching CDA in the social sciences, from semi-
otic, to historical, to multi-modal analyses. The problem or object of study may be
shared, but the authors are eclectic in their methods; that is, they use methods that
they think will help them learn more about the problem under study. Analysts bring
a range of theoretical and methodological tools to bear on their research problems
and perspectives.
Researchers and scholars of CDA vary on the question of whether the analytic
procedures of CDA should be more standardized across research or whether stan-
dardization runs counter to the epistemological and ontological tenets of a critical
paradigm. Verschueren (2001) and Martin (2000), for example, argued that CDA
should be applied more systematically and more rigorously. Those who argue for
more systematic analytic procedures are trying to counter critics who say that CDA
researchers search their data for examples of what they are trying to prove, instead
379
Rogers et al.
of letting the data “speak.” These critics recommend that critical discourse analysts
examine actual language patterns with some degree of explicitness and reconnect
these patterns with the social and political themes that inform their work. In
response to the issue of a more systematic CDA, Bucholtz (2001) wrote:
Any attempt to foolproof guidelines in an acceptable critical discourse analy-
sis will be defeated by its own universalistic urge. . . . It is difficult to imag-
ine what might constitute adequate formal analysis in advance of actually
carrying it out: must all analyses attend to phonetic detail? To syntactic
structure? (p. 176)
Others (Bucholtz, 2001; Gee, 1999) argue that there needs to be a diversity of
approaches and that such diversity strengthens the framework and the method.
Our review of the literature indicated that the actual analytic procedures of CDA
were carried out and reported on (or not reported on) in a vast range of ways. The
authors used Fairclough’s three-tiered framework, post-structural discourse frame-
works, or discourse analysis (not CDA, despite calling their procedures CDA), or
did not specify their analytic procedures. See Appendix B for a summary of the
analysis carried out in each of the articles.
Although all of the articles claimed to conduct a Critical Discourse Analysis,
some presented a discourse analysis, not particularly a Critical Discourse Analy-
sis. Brown and Kelly (2001), in a study of the narratives of African Canadian high
school students who discussed the relevancy of the social studies curriculum in
their classrooms, argued that “their goal is to highlight and examine discourse pro-
duction and interpretation as it intersects with the ‘life-worlds’ of a particular sub-
ject grouping, i.e., the high-school student of African descent” (p. 503). The
authors provided conversations between students but did not include a discourse
analysis of the conversations. Rather, they presented themes or social narratives
rather than an analysis of the discursive construction of texts (either written or spo-
ken). Discourse analysis in this sense seems to be interpreted at the social rather
than the textual level and does not attempt to move beyond description to inter-
pretation and explanation.
One cluster of studies presented broad themes from their analyses and then used
examples of discourse to support the themes (Bergvall & Remlinger, 1996; Rogers,
Tyson, & Marshall, 2000; Nichols, 2002; Peace, 2003; Tunstall, 2001). Rogers,
Tyson, and Marshall described their analysis as categorizing utterances into three
broad themes. There was no mention of what constitutes an utterance or how the
themes were determined. Nichols (2002) analyzed the parents’ interview using the
broad themes and the research literature to demonstrate the themes. Similarly,
Peace (2003), in a study that explored the ways in which women socially construct
masculinities through cross-gender undergraduate student group discussions, used
a grounded approach to discourse analysis. He wrote: “[T]the interview transcripts
were read repeatedly; as broad categories began to emerge they were increasingly
related to the literature and analyzed in terms of what they may achieve” (pp.
165–166). He does not include for what specific linguistic properties he analyzed
the texts.
The question that these analyses raise is, Why did the author choose certain
parts of the text to analyze and not others? It appears from the analytic sections of
these articles that the authors assumed that, if they had a critical orientation and
380

attended to some aspects of language in their analysis, then they would be con-
ducting a critical discourse analysis. CDA, in a Faircloughian tradition, draws on
SFL that assumes that linguistic form is related to linguistic function and that cer-
tain categories of linguistic functions do particular social “work.” However, the
authors are not clear on how an analysis of transitivity relates to the ideological
commitment of a text. They are also not clear about how over-lexicalization (the
availability of many words for one concept) relates to the representation of the his-
tory standards in one way but not in another. Several studies combine social theo-
ries with the CDA framework (Chouliaraki, 1998; Collins, 2001; Woodside-Jiron,
2004). Collins merged the Natural Histories of Discourse framework (referential,
interactional, and metadiscursive levels) with Fairclough’s three-tiered framework
(textual, discursive, and society-wide).
In general, the authors used aspects of Fairclough’s three-tiered framework but
failed to specify what linguistic resources accompany which set of functions. This
may be, in part, because Fairclough did not specify in his earlier work (1992, 1995)
what grammatical resources correspond to each level of analysis. However, Chou-
liaraki and Fairclough (1999) and Fairclough (2003) moved closer to the SFL
framework and described the specific linguistic resources that may be used for
analysis at each of the corresponding CDA levels. Overall, there was lack of con-
nection between linguistic practices, social practices, and wider social formations.
Twenty percent (8 of 39) of the empirical articles did not describe their analytic
procedures at all (Ailwood & Lingard, 2001; Barnard, 2001; Bartu, 2001; Brown
& Kelly, 2001; Fox & Fox, 2002; Hughes, 2001; Pitt, 2002; Thomas, 2002). We
return to discuss this in the concluding section.
Reflexivity and Role of the Researcher
Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) cited reflexivity as an important agenda for
CDA research. Similarly, Bucholtz (2001) called for a heightened self-awareness
in discourse analysis. She called for a reflexivity where, “the analyst’s choices at
every step in the research process are visible as a part of the discourse investiga-
tion, and critique does not stop with social processes, whether macro-level or
micro-level, but rather extends to the analysis itself” (p. 166). Reflexivity includes
at least three aspects: participatory construction of the research design, reciproc-
ity, and turning the analytic frame back on the researcher.
Reflexive intentions vary from building rigor in the research to questioning the
authenticity of the researcher (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000). The intention of
reflexivity depends on whether researchers view their aim as strengthening the
rigor of social science research or questioning the epistemological and ontological
foundations of the knowledge claims that can be made. For example, Myerhoff and
Ruby (1982) define reflexivity as “structuring communicative products so that the
audience assumes the producer, process and product are a coherent whole . . . sci-
entists have also been engaged in reflexive activities . . . scientists continuously test
their own assumptions and procedures” (pp. 6–9). This statement implies that
being reflexive is synonymous with being scientific. While Bourdieu and Wac-
quant (1992) call into question the ideological nature of “monitoring” one’s own
thoughts and actions, their reflexive intention is to “strengthen the epistemologi-
cal moorings” of the research (p. 46). This intention might be viewed in much the
same way as are traditional claims to validity, which often safeguard researchers
381
Rogers et al.
from a self-reflexive research paradigm. That is, if we triangulate our data,
member-check with participants, engage in peer review, establish and maintain a
paper trail of our theorizing and analytic moves, we can claim that our Critical Dis-
course Analysis is valid—or an accurate representation of “reality.” Such a view
is problematic, especially in a Critical Discourse Analysis framework that rejects
the view of an objective and neutral science.
Reflexivity within a CDA framework arises from a concern about the stabiliza-
tion of knowledge claims and the slipperiness of language. That is, the fundamen-
tal nature of language hinders empirical research that is aimed at establishing the
“truth.” Indeed, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) assert that reflexivity is caught
up in social struggle and that reflexivity assumes a discursive element that posits
that researchers are part of the language practices they study. The intention of the
reflexive stance depends on the claims to knowledge and reality of the researcher
and the extent to which the researchers turn these frameworks on themselves, either
methodologically or theoretically.
Reflexivity is crucial in research agendas involving Critical Discourse Analy-
sis in education research. Education researchers are often researchers of familiar
educational settings. As members and ex-members of the school communities that
we study, we bring with us (often successful) histories of participation in those
institutions as students, teachers, and parents. Thus we have embodied what
Fairclough (1992) refers to as “members’ resources,” or what Gee (1999) refers to
as “cultural models” around our participation in school that includes beliefs,
assumptions and values within these contexts. Thus the classic tension between
distance and closeness in the research setting is often blurred in education research.
To turn back to the articles reviewed and the issue of reflexivity, most of the analy-
ses that dealt primarily with written texts did not include a high degree of researcher
reflexivity (Ailwood & Lingard, 2001; Anderson, 2001; Barnard, 2001; Bloome &
Carter, 2001; Fairclough, 1993; Johnson & Avery, 1999; Luke, 1997; Pitt, 2002;
Thomas, 2002). In these studies, the researchers often positioned themselves as if
they were outside the texts. Of course, we know that this is not true—and that any
discourse analysis is a process of constructing meaning. Hays (2000) was a notable
exception to this rule (see below). Although some studies involved interactional
analyses, the researchers still did not locate themselves in the research (Bergvall &
Remlinger, 1996; Chouliaraki, 1998; Fox & Fox, 2002; Johnson, 2001; Moje, 1997).
In a number of studies, the researchers positioned themselves mainly as text
analysts, even though they were clearly the data collection instruments (Anderson,
2001; Baxter, 2002; Corson, 2000; Hinchman & Young, 2001; Peace, 2003;
Nichols, 2003; Hughes, 2001; Stevens, 2003). In her 2003 study, Stevens does not
address her role in the research other than naming herself as the state reading spe-
cialist; however, in another publication she does deal closely with matters of CDA
and reflexivity (Stevens, 2004).
In other studies (Brown & Kelly, 2001; Collins, 2001; Young, 2000; Egan-
Robertson, 2000; Rogers, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c), the authors do position them-
selves in the research and comment on issues of reflexivity. Collins (2001), in a
study of how teachers take up (or resist) the discourses of educational standards
and the ways in which the standards echo larger socio-political educational
reforms, presents himself as a text analyst or researcher and also as a member of
the educational community within the district that he is writing about and a parent
382

of a child in the same district. Young (2000), in a study that explores how critical
literacy activities in a home schooling setting sustain or transform the participants’
awareness of gendered identities and inequities in texts, writes the following:
As a middle and high school literacy teacher, I explored many alternative lit-
eracy practices and instructional options in an effort to find ways to encour-
age students to become readers, writers, and learners. As a mother, I have
often longed for my sons’ school literacy experiences to be different from tra-
ditional textbook methods. (p. 312)
Young (2000) squarely positions herself in her research as a mother and teacher,
one aspect of reflexivity. She does not, however, turn the critical discourse analy-
sis framework back on herself to analyze how her participation in the research
contributed to the reproduction or disruption of power relations. Overall, we found
very few examples of this type of reflexivity in the studies that we reviewed—an
issue to which we return in the conclusion. At present we move to summarize our
findings and point to implications and future research.
Discussion and Conclusion

What do we know as a result of CDA conducted in education research? The stud-
ies reviewed provide education researchers with a closer look at the ways in which
educational issues are constructed and represented at micro and macro levels
through public documents, speeches, interactions in classrooms, informal sites of
learning, and across the lifespan. The emphasis on interactional data gives us insight
into the ways in which the micro and macro contexts are linked together and the
ways in which competing discourses come into play. Indeed, in this corpus of stud-
ies we have seen how discourses of education draw on hybrid and intertextual dis-
courses, such as business and management (Anderson, 2001; Comber, 1997).
A strong thread running through many of the findings was the identification of
unintended consequences of educational decisions, policies, and social practices.
That is, educators often intended to open up liberatory spaces in meetings, poli-
cies, teaching decisions, and classroom lessons; but a closer analysis revealed that
their actions had unintended consequences that resulted in further oppression (Ail-
wood & Lingard, 2001; Chouliaraki, 1998; Corson, 2000; Comber, 1997; Fox &
Fox, 2002). Along the same line, the analyses that we reviewed provided a detailed
investigation of the subtleties of power and privilege, the ways in which power is
linked to histories of participation in various contexts, and how power is internal-
ized rather than reinforced from above. With that said, most of the analyses focused
on the ways in which power is reproduced rather on how it is changed, resisted,
and transformed toward liberatory ends. Luke (2004) argues that, historically, most
critical analyses have focused on uncovering the discursive places where oppres-
sion and domination occur rather than on places of liberation. Luke (2004) stated:
We need more research and scholarship that documents and analytically
explicates analyses that focus on affirmative, emancipating and redressive
texts and discourse practices—turning our attention to instances where dis-
course appears to lead systematically to the redistribution of wealth and
power. (p. xi)
We concur with this assertion.
383
Rogers et al.
Overall, this review has outlined the major areas of emphasis, as well as the
strengths and weaknesses, of CDA in education research. We can also return to the
common critiques of CDA (political and social ideologies are read into the data;
there is unequal balance between social theory and linguistic theory; and CDA is
often divorced from social contexts) and ask, How do education researchers using
CDA fare with these critiques?
It appears that CDA that is conducted in educational settings is moving toward
overcoming written language bias. Indeed, 66% of the empirical articles ana-
lyzed interactional language. Much of the research that has been conducted with
CDA outside the field of education has analyzed written texts (e.g., speeches,
policy documents, letters, textbooks). In the context of education research, we
have seen a shift from the analysis of written texts to the analysis of spoken texts.
This shift could potentially reshape each of the levels of the CDA framework
(“critical,” “discourse,” and “analysis”). As a result of bringing CDA into
dynamic learning settings, researchers change, modify, and adjust the framework
to suit the needs of their research designs and particular questions. We might
reflect on how researchers are shaped to think in certain ways because of the
frameworks that exist and how the research that we are conducting is, in fact,
reshaping the framework itself. This analytic move keeps CDA as a usable,
reflexive framework, open to adjustments and adaptations, given the demands of
the research questions, the contexts, and the theoretical frameworks that are
brought into line with it.
While 66 % of the articles focused on interactional data, many of the articles
did not provide a clear description of their linguistic framework—an oddity given
that CDA is a discourse-based framework. Such unbalanced attention to language
theory in CDA in education research may be due, in part, to the lack of training that
education researchers receive in language studies. A real problem for education
researchers who are interested in Critical Discourse Analysis is their relative lack
of experience in dealing with the micro-structure of texts. This is compounded by
the relative lack of attention to SFL in the American context.
All of the studies that focused on interactional data used ethnographic methods
of participant observation recorded in fieldnotes, interviews, document collection,
and debriefing with participants. Some studies included data across time and con-
texts (Moje, 1997; Rogers, 2002a). All of the studies attended to both ethnographic
and linguistic contexts, although the weight placed on one or the other varies. The
attention paid to local, institutional, or societal contexts varied as well. The
research in this review did not theorize the role of context beyond the field of study
and the participants in the study. More theorization of the role of context in criti-
cal discourse studies would be an important next step.
Although most of the studies focused on what Luke (2004) calls the “decon-
structive” rather than the “reconstructive” aspects of power, the focus on classroom
discourse and interactional data opens up possibilities for investigating the ways
in which people resist and transform social relations toward emancipatory ends.
Interactional data tend to be more hybrid (or less stable) than written texts and thus
open to the possibility of change. More analyses of the intricacies of classroom
talk, within a democratic framework, could offer descriptions, interpretations, and
explanations of how agency, productive literate identities, and a sense of commu-
nity are formed and sustained.
384

The focus on interactions in classrooms in the studies reviewed also resulted in
a discussion of the role of critical discourse studies in learning. Several of the arti-
cles discussed viewing learning in terms of changing discourse practices across
time (Rogers, 2002b). Furthermore, An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analy-
sis in Education (Rogers, 2004), provides a collection of empirical chapters that
illustrate the ways in which CDA can illuminate learning by studying shifts in dis-
course practices across time and contexts. More research is needed to investigate
how shifts in discourse patterns can provide educators insight into the ways in
which people of various ages learn.
An overwhelming 85% of the studies involved participants who were of mid-
dle school age or older. Only 15% of the studies included participants who were in
elementary school and under 10 years old. Ideologies are reproduced and trans-
formed at very young ages. Therefore, descriptions and explanations of how this
occurs and, more important, how the acquisition of counterproductive ideologies
is interrupted, are necessary. This suggests the importance of extending CDA
inquiries to primary grades. It also raises the question whether the critiques of inte-
grating critical literacy into primary grades extend to the usefulness of CDA as a
theoretical and methodological framework in primary grade classrooms.
It was not surprising to see in this review that CDA was mostly used with par-
ticipants who have historically been oppressed (e.g., women, African Americans,
the poor and working classes). As Wodak & Reisigl (2001) pointed out:
Language is not powerful on its own—it gains power by the use powerful
people make of it. This explains why Critical Linguistics often chooses the
perspective of those who suffer, and critically analyzes the language use of
those in power, who are responsible for the existence of inequalities and who
also have the means and opportunities to improve conditions. (p. 10)
What was refreshing is that researchers in education also looked closely at the
language of those who suffer (students, parents in meetings, teachers) and found
places of agency, creativity, and resistance. We need to proceed cautiously with
conducting research on groups of people who have been oppressed historically, as
opposed to conducting research with these people (an issue discussed earlier). The
majority of the studies reviewed here took the former approach. Luke (1995/1996)
writes, “[W]hat is needed is a systematic attempt to build on minority discourses
in schools, classrooms, and other public institutions” (p. 39). We might extend our
analyses beyond verbal data to the nonlinguistic and emotional aspects of suffer-
ing, oppression, hope, and liberation.
In the corpus of studies we reviewed, there were more analyses of gender
(Bergvall & Remlinger, 1996; Pitt, 2002; Young, 2000) than of race (Brown &
Kelly, 2001). The difference seems to be related to the ways in which race is
silenced in education research (Greene & Abt-Perkins, 2003; Tate, 2003). Critical
discourse analyses should more consciously draw on the history of scholarship in
Critical Race Theory (Bell, 2004; Crenshaw, 1988; Delgado, 1995; Ladson-
Billings & Tate, 1995; Tate, 1997), especially when engaging issues of race,
racism, and anti-racism. This is important because CDA frameworks traditionally
draw on Euro-American epistemological traditions, both in theoretical and analytic
frameworks. Such frameworks have continued to silence and oppress historically
marginalized groups of people.
385
Rogers et al.
The studies that we reviewed included multiple analytic methods. However,
they surprisingly uniform in terms of the framework that the analysts drew upon
in their analysis. None of the studies that we reviewed drew on multi-modal analy-
ses. The use of CDA as a methodology is rapidly growing in education research.
Many of the studies draw on Fairclough’s approach—rather than on the approaches
of van Dijk, Wodak, Kress and Van Leeuwen, and so forth. This homogeneity in
approach is a trend that van Dijk (2001) warned against because of the multi-
disciplinary nature of CDA. Future studies should pull from a hybrid set of
approaches that can help to bring fresh insights to educational questions.
The weakest link in all of these studies seems to be the connection between lin-
guistic resources and social practices. That is, although some of the authors focused
on the linguistic details of interactions and made social claims, they failed to rep-
resent the relationship between the grammatical resources and the social practices.
Not even the studies that provided an analysis of the micro-linguistic aspects of
texts gave a rationale for why those aspects were included or explained how they
are connected to social practices. On the other hand, researchers were equally
inclined to point out social practices through broad themes or discourses without
indicating how such discourses were constructed or constrained by grammatical
resources. Clearly, establishing a link between the two levels is necessary. Indeed,
Meyer (2001) argued that often a range of linguistic indicators and variables are
used to analyze texts with no theoretical coherence or grammar theory supporting
the analysis.
It seems important to be clear about what grammatical resources are being
inquired into (pronouns or modality) and why. That is, SFL argues that every utter-
ance performs three simultaneous functions: It presents ideas, it positions people
in certain ways, and it performs a textual function of organizing the coherence of
talking and/or writing. It is important to clarify which aspects of language perform
which functions to avoid being criticized for reading ideologies into the data. Ana-
lysts can take responsibility for adopting a more grounded approach and letting the
ideologies appear—as networks of practices—and be read from the data. Educa-
tion researchers should spend more time incorporating SFL theory and method (or
compatible linguistic models) into their analyses.
There was alarmingly little reflexivity in the articles that we reviewed. Some of
the articles did include a researcher role section—a rhetorical strategy that is com-
monplace in publishing qualitative research. However, many of the authors did not
move from reflection to reflexivity. This is a problem, especially in education
research, where researchers often have successful histories of participation within the
education contexts where they are conducting research. There were some surprises.
Hays (2000), for example, included a moment of reflexivity in her analysis of news-
paper articles. This is the only reflexive section in a written language analysis that
we found. Despite not using reflexivity to its full potential, some authors outlined
their analytic decisions very carefully, thus allowing the reader to assess them.
We reported that very few of the articles reviewed here moved toward emanci-
patory action with the results of their analyses. There were exceptions, such as
Rogers, Tyson, and Marshall (2000), Young (2000), and Rogers (2002a, 2002c),
where each of the researchers also worked as a literacy tutor and planned critical
interventions with the people with whom he or she was working. The lack of action
in the rest of the studies is surprising, given that many of the authors defined CDA
386

in terms of its liberatory goals and aims (as was discussed earlier). Bucholtz (2001)
asserted that it is not possible for scholars who do critical work to separate their
research from their political positions. Similarly, van Dijk (2001) referred to CDA
as “discourse analysis with an attitude” (p. 96). What is important for continued
work in CDA is a methodology that allows political positions to arise from the data
rather than being read into them. The twin goals of a rigorous analysis and a social
justice agenda need not be incompatible.
Bucholtz (2001) points out that CDA should not strive to enforce stricter
methodological guidelines, because more rigorous and scientific methodologies
would inevitably move researchers away from recognizing the construction of their
discourse analysis. Instead, researchers should closely attend to the specific con-
ditions that shape peoples’ lives and bring the researcher’s role more clearly into
vision. Based on the review of CDA in education, we would agree with Bucholtz
(2001) that a formalized set of methodological criteria for CDA will not silence the
critiques of the theory and method. Indeed, CDA, by design, is a hybrid set of the-
ories and methodologies. The continued work within and across frameworks
allows CDA to adapt and respond to ever-changing conditions in a late capitalist
society. We depart from her assertion, however, after this review of CDA in edu-
cation. As we have demonstrated in this review, many studies have not reported an
analytic procedures section. Many studies included a linguistic analysis but were
not clear about why certain aspects of texts were chosen. Still others made sweep-
ing explanatory statements—of the type that are often easy to state even before the
analysis has been conducted—without attention to the links between the micro and
the macro. If CDA as a theory and method is to move beyond the present critiques,
researchers might attend to the following: (a) the links between the micro and the
macro; (b) explaining why certain linguistic resources are analyzed and not others,
and (c) clear analytic procedures outlining the decision making of the researcher.
Directions for Future Research
Despite this robust collection of literature, there are areas where theories of
learning are underdeveloped or not attached at all to “critical”discourse theory and
social transformation. CDA offers a synergistic framework with social construc-
tivist and community of practice models of learning. Indeed, CDA can be used to
trace changes in discourse patterns over time and across contexts—changes that
we might refer to as learning. Future research might focus on bringing socio-
cognitive models to bear on CDA. Clearly, more research is needed in primary
grade classrooms, particularly with interactional texts. There is also a need for
research analyzing multi-modal texts (Web surfing, hypertexts, channel surfing,
network communication). We might also study genre mixing within and across
research sites and projects.
An issue not explored in this article, but which may be of considerable interest
to education researchers interested in CDA, is the representation of the analysis
and the findings. Clearly, given the space constraints of publishing in academic
journals, it is not possible to represent all aspects of multi-vocal and multi-layered
analyses. Authors make choices, and it is hoped that they are clear about their
choices. This issue speaks to the need to consider the limitations of print-based
journals as the primary outlet for work in CDA. Researchers might consider other
multi-modal outlets for their work, such as electronic journals and books.
387
Rogers et al.
We might also look more closely at how studies that defined CDA as having lib-
erating aims were related to the research participants and the role of the researcher.
Future studies might offer descriptions of the nuances of learning described
through a CDA framework (productive, constructive CDA approaches) rather than
simply a critical framework. This last recommendation for research often seems to
be placed last on the agenda of scholars in education who are using CDA. We hope
that more action will be taken as a result of the CDA studies. Perhaps multiple stud-
ies conducted with CDA can be used to help shape constructive interventions in
policy and practice in educational contexts.
Notes
This review of CDA in education research started as a project in a doctoral seminar
in discourse analysis that the first author (Rebecca Rogers) taught in 2001. Earlier drafts
of the article were presented at the CDA Conference in Bloomington, Indiana (June
2004); the first annual CDA Conference in Valencia, Spain (May 2004); and the
University of Albany (November 2004). We would like to thank members of the audi-
ence at these workshops for their helpful comments, questions, and feedback. We are
also grateful to the CDA study group that meets regularly at the National Reading
Conference, for providing an ongoing conversation about theoretical and methodolog-
ical issues involved with CDA. And, finally, we thank Cynthia Lewis and the anony-
mous reviewers for helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article.
1
See Seigel and Fernandez, 2002, for an overview of critical approaches in
education.
2
An in-depth treatment of the history of discourse analysis and its sociolinguistic
roots is beyond the scope of this article. However, many articles and books have been
written that focus on that history (e.g., Coupland & Jaworski, 1997; Jaworski &
Coupland, 1999). In addition, Stef Slembrouck’s website answers the question “What
is meant by discourse analysis?” (http://bank.rug.ac.be/da/da.htm). The site includes
a detailed history of discourse analysis, with bibliographic references.
References
Ailwood, J., & Lingard, B. (2001). The endgame for national girls’ schooling policies
in Australia? Australian Journal of Education, 45(1), 9–22.
Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for quali-
tative research. London: Sage.
Anderson, G. (2001). Disciplining leaders: A critical discourse analysis of the ISLLC
National Examination and Performance Standards in educational administration.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 199–216.
Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (C. Emerson
& M. Holoquist, Trans.). Austin: Texas University Press.
Barnard, C. (2001). Isolating knowledge of the unpleasant: The rape of Nanking in
Japanese high-school textbooks. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4),
519–530.
Bartu, H. (2001). Can’t I read without thinking? Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(2),
593–614.
Baxter, J. (2002). Competing discourses in the classroom: A Post-structuralist dis-
course analysis of girls’ and boys’ speech in public contexts. Discourse & Society,
13(6), 827–842.
388

Beach, R. (1997). Critical discourse theory and reader response: How discourses con-
stitute reader stances and social contexts. Reader, 37, 1–26.
Beach, R., & Anson, C. (1992). Stance and intertextuality in written discourse. Lin-
guistics and Education, 4(3), 335–358.
Bell, D. (2004). Silent covenants: Brown vs. Board of Education and the unfulfilled
hopes for racial reform. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Benveniste, E. (1958/1971). Subjectivity in language. In E. Meek (Ed.), Problems in
general linguistics (pp. 223–230). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Bergvall, V., & Remlinger, K. (1996). Reproduction, resistance, and gender in educational
discourse: The role of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 7(4), 453–479.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes, and control. London: Paladin.
Billig, M. (1999). Conversation analysis and the claims of naivety. Discourse & Soci-
ety, 10(4), 572–576.
Blommaert, J., & Bulcaen, C. (2000). Critical Discourse Analysis. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 29, 447–466.
Bloome, D., & Carter, S. P. (2001). Lists in reading education reform. Theory into
Practice, 40(3), 150–157.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice,
Trans.). London: Routledge. (Original work published in 1979)
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist society: Educational reform
and the contradictions of economic life. New York: Basic Books.
Brown, D., & Kelly, J. (2001). Curriculum and the classroom: Private and public
spaces. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4), 501–518.
Bucholtz, M. (2001). Reflexivity and critique in discourse analysis. Critique of Anthro-
pology, 21(2), 165–183.
Burns, L., & Morrell, E. (in press). Critical discourse analysis in literacy research.
National Reading Conference Yearbook, 56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. London:
Routledge.
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning (2nd
ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1988)
Chouliaraki, L. (1998). Regulation in progressivist pedagogic discourse: Individual-
ized Teacher-pupil talk. Discourse & Society, 9(1), 5–32.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999) Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking Crit-
ical Discourse Analysis. Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional perspective. New York:
Continuum Press.
Cicourel, A. (1974). Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Education.
Collins, J. (1986). Differential instruction in reading groups. In J. Cook-Gumperz (Ed.),
The Social Construction of Literacy (pp. 117–137). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Collins, J. (2001). Selling the market: Educational standards, discourse and social
inequality. Critique of Anthropology, 21(2), 143–163.
Collins, J., & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts, power, and identity. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Comber, B. (1997). Managerial discourses: Tracking the local effects on teachers’ and
students’ work in literacy lessons. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 18(3), 389–407.
389
Rogers et al.
Corson, D. (2000). Emancipatory leadership. International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 3(2), 93–120.
Coupland, N., & Jaworski, A. (1997). Sociolinguistics: A reader. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1988). Race reform, retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in
anti-discrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331–1387.
Davies, B. (1993). Shards of Glass: Children Reading and Writing Beyond Gendered
Identities. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Davies, B., & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Jour-
nal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43–63.
Davis, J. (1997). Educational reform and the babel (babble) of culture: Prospects for the
standards of foreign language learning. Modern Language Journal, 81(2), 151–163.
Delgado, R. (1995). Legal storytelling: Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A
plea for narrative. In R. Delgado (Ed.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (pp.
60–70). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Derrida, J. (1974). Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
DuBois, W. E. B. (1990). The souls of black folks. New York: Vintage Books. (Origi-
nal work published 1903)
Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage Publications.
Egan-Robertson, A. (1998). Learning about culture, language, and power: Under-
standing relationships among personhood, literacy practices, and intertextuality.
Journal of Literacy Research, 30(4), 449–487.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1991). Discourse processes and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public dis-
course: The universities. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 138–168.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New
York: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. New
York: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258–284). London: Sage.
Figueriredo, D. (2000). Critical discourse analysis: Towards a new perspective of EFL
reading. Illha do Desterro: A Journal of Language and Literature, 38, 139–154.
Flowerdew, J. (1999). Description and interpretation in critical discourse analysis.
Journal of Pragmatics, 31(8), 1089–1099.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language.
New York: Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth,
UK: Penguin Books.
Foucault, M. (1981). History of sexuality (Vol. 1). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Books.
Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. London:
Routledge.
Fox, R., & Fox, J. (2002). The power-discourse relationship in a Croatian higher edu-
cation setting. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(5), 1–16.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. New York: Prentice Hall.
Gebhard, M. (2002). Fast capitalism, school reform, and second language literacy prac-
tices. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59(1), 15–52.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.
390

Gee, J. P. (1994). First language acquisition as a guide for theories of learning and ped-
agogy. Linguistics and Education, 6, 331– 354.
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (2nd ed.).
London: Taylor & Francis.
Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis. New York: Routledge.
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004). What is critical about critical discourse analysis? In R. Rogers (Ed.),
An introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday
Anchor.
Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York:
Harper & Rowe.
Gramsci, A. (1973). Letters from the prison notebooks (L. Lawner, Trans.). New York:
Harper & Rowe.
Greene, S., & Abt-Perkins, D. (2003). Making race visible: Literacy research for cul-
tural understanding. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Gumperz, J. & Hymes, D. (Eds.) (1964). The ethnography of communication. Ameri-
can Anthropologist, 66(6), 1–34.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1975). Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold Press.
Halliday, M.A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of
language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). Spoken and written language. Geelong, UK: Deakin Uni-
versity Press.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context and text: Aspects of lan-
guage as a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hartman, D. (1992). Intertextuality and reading. Linguistics and Education, 4(3/4),
295–311.
Hasan, R., & Fries, P. (Eds.). (1995). On subject and theme: A discourse functional
perspective. Amsterdam: Benjamins Press.
Hays, J. (2000). Anguished laments: A critical discourse analysis of education, repre-
sentation, and development of the San of Botswana. Journal of the African Activist
Association, 28(3), 23–41.
Heberle, V. (2000). Critical reading: Integrating principles of critical discourse analy-
sis and gender studies. Illha do Desterro: A Journal of Language and Literature, 38,
115–138.
Heller, M. (2001). Critique and sociolinguistic analysis of discourse. Critique of
Anthropology, 21(2), 117–141.
Hinchman, K., & Young, J. P. (2001). Speaking but not being heard: Two adolescents
negotiate classroom talk about text. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2), 243–268.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1979/1993). Language as ideology (2nd ed.). London:
Routledge.
Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Hughes, G. (2001). Exploring the availability of student scientist identities within cur-
riculum discourse: An anti-essentialist approach to gender-inclusive science. Gen-
der and Education, 13(3), 275–290.
Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz
& D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35–71). New York: Black-
well Press.
391
Rogers et al.
Ives, P. (2004). Gramsci’s politics of language: Engaging the Bakhtin circle and the
Frankfurt school. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Johnson, G. (2001). A cautionary tale: A dialogic re-reading of a student teacher’s
visual narrative. Narrative Inquiry, 11(2), 451–478.
Johnson, T., & Avery, P. G. (1999). The power of the press: A content and discourse
analysis of the United States history standards as presented in selected newspapers.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 447–471.
Kamberelis, G., & Scott, K. (1992). Other people’s voices: The coarticulation of texts
and subjectivities. Linguistics and Education, 4(3), 359–404.
Kinchloe, J., & McLaren, P. (2003). Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research.
In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (2nd ed., pp. 433–488). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the New Media Age. London: Routledge.
Kress, G., & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design.
London: Routledge.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art.
Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Kristeva, J. (1986). Word, dialogue, and the novel. In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader
(pp. 35–61). New York: Columbia University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1989). Language—The unknown: An initiation into linguistics (A. M.
Menke, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly,
33(3), 453–484.
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In W. Labov
(Ed.), Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (pp.
354–396). University of Philadelphia Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2003). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues (2nd ed., pp. 398–432). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Towards a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Lemke, J. (1992). Intertextuality and educational research. Linguistics and Education,
4(3), 257–268.
Lemke, J. (1995). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor &
Francis.
Luke, A. (1995–1996). Text and discourse in education: An introduction to critical dis-
course analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3–48.
Luke, A. (1997). The material effects of the words: Apologies, “stolen children” and
public discourse. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3),
343–368.
Luke, A. (2004). Notes on the future of critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse
Studies, 1(1), 149–152.
Martin, J. (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong,
UK: Deakin University Press.
Martin, J. (2000). Close reading. In L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching language in
schools and communities. Washington, DC: Cassell.
Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches
to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis
(pp. 14–31). London: Sage.
Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narratives styles and differential access
to literacy. Language and Society, 10(4), 423–442.
Moje, E. B. (1997). Exploring discourse, subjectivity, and knowledge in chemistry
class. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32(2), 35–44.
392

Myerhoff, B., & Ruby, J. (1982). A crack in the mirror: Reflexive perspectives in
anthropology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Myers, G. (1996). Out of the laboratory and down to the bay: Writing in science and
technology studies. Written Communication, 13(1), 5–43.
Nichols, S. (2002). Parents’ construction of their children as gendered, literature sub-
jects: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(2),
123–144.
Oakes, J. (1986). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. Connecticut: Yale
University Press.
Orellana, M. (1996). Negotiating power through language in classroom meetings. Lin-
guistics and Education, 8(4), 335–365.
Peace, P. (2003). Balancing power: The discursive maintenance of gender inequality
by wo/men at university. Feminism and Psychology, 13(2), 159–180.
Pecheux, M. (1975). Language, semantics and ideology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Peters, M., & Burbules, N. (2004). Poststructuralism and educational research. New
York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Pitt, K. (2002). Being a new capitalist mother. Discourse & Society, 13(2), 251–267.
Price, S. (1999). Critical discourse analysis: Discourse acquisition and discourse prac-
tices. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 581–595.
Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of folk tale. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Rampton, B. (2001). Critique in interaction. Critique of Anthropology, 21(1), 83–107.
Rogers, R. (2002a). Between contexts: A critical analysis of family literacy, discursive
practices, and literate subjectivities. Reading Research Quarterly 37(3), 248–277.
Rogers, R. (2002b). A Critical Discourse Analysis of the special education process.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 33(2), 213–237.
Rogers, R. (2002c). “That’s what you’re here for, you’re supposed to know”: Teach-
ing and learning critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 45(8),
772–787.
Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis of family literacy practices: Power in
and out of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rogers, T., Tyson, C., & Marshall, E. (2000). Living dialogues in one neighborhood:
Moving toward understanding across discourse and practices of literacy and school-
ing. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(1), 1–24.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the orga-
nization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Sawyer, K. (2002). A discourse on discourse: An archeological history of an intellec-
tual concept. Cultural Studies, 16(3), 433–456.
Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study of conversation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99–128.
Schegloff, E. (1999). “Schegloff’s texts” as “Billig’s data”: A critical reply. Discourse
& Society, 10(4), 558–572.
Schegloff, E., Ochs, E., & Thompson, S. (1996). Interaction and grammar. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, and face in interethnic commu-
nication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world.
London: Routledge.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
393
Rogers et al.
Short, K. (1992). Researching intertextuality within collaborative classroom learning
environments. Linguistics and Education, 4(3), 313–334.
Siegel, M., & Fernandez, S. L. (2000). Critical approaches. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp.
141–152). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Silverstein, M., & Urban. G. (Eds.). (1996). Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Toward an analysis of discourse. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Stamou, A.G. (2002). The representation of non-protesters in a student and teacher
protest: A critical discourse analysis of mews reporting in a Greek newspaper. Com-
munication Abstracts, 25(2), 143–181.
Stevens, L. (2003). Reading first: A critical policy analysis. The Reading Teacher,
56(7), 662–668.
Stevens, L. (2004). Locating the role of the critical discourse analyst. In R. Rogers
(Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 207–224).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tate, R. (2003). The “race” to theorize education: Who is my neighbor? Qualitative
Studies in Education, 16(1), 121–126.
Tate, W. (1997). Critical race theory and education: History, theory, and implication.
Review of Research in Education, 22, 191–243.
Teo, P. (2000). Racism in the news: A Critical Discourse Analysis of news reporting
in two Australian newspapers. Discourse & Society, 11(1), 7–49.
Thomas, S. (2002). Contesting education policy in the public sphere: Media debates
over policies for the Queensland school curriculum. Journal of Education Policy,
17(2), 187–198.
Tunstall, P. (2001). Assessment discourse and constructions of social reality in infant
classrooms. Journal of Education Policy, 16(3), 215–231.
van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2),
249–283.
van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage
van Dijk, T. (2001). Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In R. Wodak & M.
Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 95–120). London: Sage.
van Dijk, T. (2004, May). Critical Discourse Analysis and context. Presentation at the
First Annual International Conference of Critical Discourse Analysis, Valencia,
Spain.
Verschueren, J. (2001). Predicaments of criticism. Critique of Anthropology, 21(1),
59–81.
Volosinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Berkeley: University
of California Press. (Original work published in 1930)
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). The theory and practice of critical discourse analysis.
Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 136–151.
Willig, C. (Ed.). (1999). Applied discourse analysis: Social and psychological inter-
ventions. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labor: How working class kids get working class jobs.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.).
New York: MacMillan.
Wodak, R. (1996). Disorders of discourse. London: Longman.
Wodak, R., Meyer, M., Titscher, S., & Vetter, E. (2000). Methods of text and discourse
analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetoric of racism
and anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.
394

Woodside-Jiron, H. (2004). Language, power, and participation: Using critical dis-
course analysis to make sense of public policy. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction
to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 173–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Woodson, C. (1990). The mis-education of the Negro. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
(Original work published 1933)
Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action. New York: Teachers College Press.
Yancy, G. (Ed.). (1998). African American philosophers: Seventeen conversations.
New York: Routledge.
Young, J. P. (2000). Boy talk: Critical literacy and masculinities. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35 (3), 312–337.
Young, L., & Harrison, C. (Eds.). (2004). Systemic functional linguistics and critical
discourse analysis: Studies in social change. New York: Continuum Press.
Authors
REBECCA ROGERS is an Assistant Professor of Literacy Education in the Depart-
ment of Education at Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1183, One
Brookings Avenue, St. Louis, MO 63130; rogers3948@aol.com. Her research
focuses on the discursive construction of literate subjectivities across the lifespan,
with a particular interest in teacher and student learning within anti-racist learning
contexts.
ELIZABETH MALANCHARUVIL-BERKES is a doctoral student in the Department
of Education at Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1183, One Brook-
ings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130; eberkes@wustl.edu. She uses a graduate-level
background both in education and in molecular and cellular genetics to examine sci-
entific discourse practices in classrooms from kindergarten to college and in infor-
mal science settings, with a particular interest in understanding how specific
pedagogical practices affect persistence in scientific communities.
MELISSA MOSLEY is a doctoral student in the Department of Education at Wash-
ington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1183, St. Louis,
MO 63130; mrmosley@wustl.edu. She uses CDA and other qualitative methods to
analyze teacher and student discourse in the field of literacy and urban education.
DIANE HUI is a doctoral student in the Department of Education at Washington Uni-
versity in St Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1183, St. Louis, MO 63130;
diane.hui@wustl.edu. Her current research examines the possibilities and constraints
of online communities in supporting teacher learning for both experienced and
novice teachers.
GLYNIS O’GARRO JOSEPH is a doctoral student in the Department of Education at
Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1183, St.
Louis, MO 63130; gogarro@wustl.edu. In her current research she focuses on the
social and academic experiences of Black girls in a suburban elementary school; she
employs ethnographic research procedures to examine the interconnection of race
and gender.
395
APPENDIX A
Code Book for CDA
Publication date for study:
Authors’ names and institutional affiliation/location:
What type of article is this? (e.g., empirical study, theoretical paper, review of literature,
position paper)
How is CDA defined? Use the author’s words to define CDA.
What theorists/researchers are cited in reference to CDA?
What mode of language is studied? (spoken, written, interactional)
What theoretical frameworks does the researcher use in the paper? List the theoretical
frameworks and cite all theorists referenced.
What theories of language are used? Use the author’s words to describe the theory of
language and cite linguists and discourse analysts the author references.
Who are the research population/participants?
What is the ethnicity of the research participants if applicable?
What is the grade level of the participants if applicable?
What is the geographic location of the study?
What is the context of the study? (community agency, newspaper, school)
What is the research question?
How is learning addressed (intertextuality references)?
How is the analysis conducted? (e.g., what aspects of CDA are used) [Specifically
describe the method of conducting critical discourse analysis.]
What are the data sources?
What is the role of the researcher (e.g., text analyst, participant observer)?
Is there a theory of learning in the research?
What are the noted limitations of the work? [the author’s words]
What are critiques of the work?
How does this article relate to other articles?
396
APPENDIX B
Summary of studies reviewed
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
Publication Definition of CDA Research focus/question study Data sources Data analysis
Ailwood & “The analysis provided here aims “The analysis provided here Policy [W] Gender There are no
Lingard to disrupt this broad discourse aims to disrupt this broad documents. Equity: A specific analytic
9/2/05
(2001), of gender equity . . . considering discourse of gender equity as Framework procedures given.
Australia the ways in which it is it is evident in the Gender for Australian The authors name
[E] historically and contextually Equity text, considering the Schools. two themes and
situated in relation to broader ways in which it is then analyze the
2:04 PM
social and political historically and contextually text for those

discourses” (p. 11). situated in relation to broader themes.
social and political discourses”
(p. 1).
Anderson, G. “Fairclough suggests a three- There is a set of unexamined Written [W] Standards Conducts textual
Page 397
(2001), dimensional approach to theories in use that are standards and test analysis,
USA [E] discourse analysis. The most embedded in the ambiguities and test documents discursive
immediate level is textual of the standards for school documents from ETS; analysis, and
analysis . . . [next is the level of] leaders, which become visible responses to social practice
discursive practices. . . [and] through an examination of the tests. analysis. For
finally, he suggests analysis of various linguistic strategies. textual analysis
the text as social practice” the author focuses
(p. 202). on vocabulary,
grammar,
cohesion, and text
structure. For

discursive
practices he
focuses on
“force”
“coherence,” and
“intertextuality.”
397
(continued )
APPENDIX B (Continued)
398
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
Barnard, C. “As with many applications of “To what extent, then, can we Study of [W] 88 high- No specific analytic
(2001), systemic functional grammar, elucidate the relationship textbooks. school history procedures given.
Japan one of the aims is to use this between texts themselves, the textbooks The authors show
9/2/05
[E] model of grammar to relate the meanings created by the approved for the following
text being analyzed to its wider language of such texts, and use in specific patterns
social and cultural context. One the texts as they exist Japanese high of language use:
way this can be achieved is to embedded in their social and schools in (1) Absence of
investigate the range of cultural contexts? In this 1995. Perpetrators;
2:04 PM
meaning-making potential paper, I shall show that we (2) Objects of

possessed by language and, by can seek to answer this Criticism;
seeking to identify the specific question by adopting a (3) Location of
choices made in any particular linguistically grounded Knowledge of
communicative situation, analysis of the language of Nanking
Page 398
question why such choices have textbooks” (p. 520). (pp. 522–523).
been made, and suggest what
other choices could have been
made and what different
meanings would have been
produced by these alternative
choices” (p. 519).
Bartu, H. “According to Fairclough . . . This is a position paper on the College NA No specific analytic
(2001), every instance of language use role of CDA in a critical students in procedures
Turkey has three dimensions: it is a reading course. a university discussed.

[T] spoken or written language text, classroom
it is an interaction . . . and it is in Turkey.
also a social action. CDA itself
also has three dimensions: the
description . . . interpretation . . .
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
and the explanation of how the

texts and the interaction
processes relate to the social
action” (pp. 595–596).
9/2/05
Baxter, J. CDA is defined in comparison to People have argued that girls are Secondary [I] Public “Denotative micro-
(2002), UK PDA. Both CDA and PDA are often silenced by boys/men as students speeches in analysis of two
[E] interested in the workings of speakers in public contexts. If (mixed-sex the secondary extracts from
power through discourse, this is really the case, would class of classroom group discussion
2:04 PM
though conceptualized rather girls find it more difficult than 14- and were recorded and a connotative
differently. CDA assumes boys to meet the new GCSE 15-year- and analyzed. analysis of the
discourse to work dialectically assessment requirements? olds) in a The researcher data” (p. 833).
in so far as the discursive event high British focused on 4
is shaped by and thereby school. of the 24 stu-
Page 399
continuously reconstructs dents in the

events. CDA emphasizes social classroom.
theory on behalf of dominated
and oppressed groups.
Beach, R. “CDA provides a useful None stated. NA NA NA
(1997), theoretical perspective for
USA understanding how these
[T] competing discourses constitute
the meaning of social practices
in discourse contexts. These
theorists examine the ‘common

sense’ presuppositions or
ideological assumptions
operating within a particular
discourse context” (p. 3).
(continued )
399
400
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
Bergvall, V., & “CDA aims to reveal how texts What is the role of talk that helps College class [I]Classroom The analysis
Remlinger, K. operate in the construction of continue instructional talk and of 18–35 interactions presented is a
(1996), social practice by examining talk that diverges from it in students, between discourse
9/2/05
USA the choices that discourse reproducing or challenging 40% female, students and analysis, not
[E] offers” (Kress, 1991, p. 454). gender roles in the classroom? American, at teachers. particularly a
a university CDA. It analyzes
in Michigan; interactions as
class either “task-
2:04 PM
discussions. continuative” or
“task-divergent.”
Bloome, D., & “CDA examines power relations “Questions have not been raised University [W] Four lists The authors analyze
Carter, S. P. and ideologies embedded in about the consequences of colleges of from four four texts in terms
(2001), texts through careful and using a ‘list’ for framing education policymaking of the following:
Page 400
USA [E] systematic analysis” educational policies and studying levels; an type of list;
(p. 151–152). practices, regardless of the texts about article from a nominalization;
content of the list or type of education metropolitan exclusivity and
item on the list. The purpose reform. newspaper. inclusivity;
of this article is to raise such transitivity;
questions” (p. 151). reading content;
intertextuality.
Brown, D., & “CDA provides an example of . . . “The goal is to highlight and 12th-grade [I] Two gender- CDA is described in
Kelly, J. recent theorization. . . . This examine discourse production students of based focus the theory, but no
(2001), type of study can be and interpretation as it African groups in specific analytic

Canada [E] differentiated from other intersects with the origin each of the procedures used.
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
analysis of curriculum content “life-worlds” of a particular living in schools, which

given its tendencies to merge subject grouping, i.e., the Alberta, convened
post-structural orientations with high-school student of African Canada, in three times
the critical and interpretive” descent” (pp. 503). a social (8–10
9/2/05
(p. 502). studies students).

class.
Chouliaraki, L. Draws connections between How does the genre of Secondary Transcripts of [I] Student
(1998), Bernstein’s theoretical individualized talk organize school in teacher–pupil interactions in a
UK [E] framework and Fairclough’s its linguistic options and in the UK, interactions. self-evaluation
2:04 PM
methodology (p. 10). which ways does it privilege class lesson;

certain discourses over others? discussions. ethnographic data
from larger study
is also drawn on.
Page 401
Collins, J. “[Fairclough proposes] three “How can discourse analysis, in The call for [I/W] Articles in The author uses a
(2001), analytic levels, one of which particular critical and national American three-part CDA
USA [E] derives from traditions of anthropological frameworks, and state- Educator. schema from
linguistic analysis, the other contribute to our level Interviews Fairclough
two from contemporary social understanding of the nature of educational with 6 White (textual level,
analysis. Although the terms the appeal of standards, the standards. teachers. discursive level,
have shifted over the years, diffusion of influential and society-wide
Fairclough’s schema calls for arguments and the resonance level) and merges
analysis of the textual, the of standards rhetoric with it with the
discursive and the society-wide” broad socio-political Silverstein and
(p. 144). developments?” (p. 144). Urban schema

(referential,
interactional, and
metadiscursive
levels).
(continued )
401
402
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
Comber, B. Foucauldian analysis and CDA “How do managerialist Case study of [I/W] Written “By reading these
(1997), are used interchangeably. discourses constitute ‘the an Italian texts data sets with and
Australia “CDA can be productive and disadvantaged child’ as the teacher in (newspaper against each
9/2/05
[E] positive work, which can subject for school literacy a school in articles, policy other, I explored
contribute, in Foucault’s terms, programs and what limits and South documents, the contradictory
to people seeing that they are possibilities do such discursive Australia and academic nature of
‘much freer than they feel’ and institutional practices with a texts); teachers’ work. . . .
(Foucault, 1988, p. 10)” create for students and their social documents I considered the
2:04 PM
(p. 390). teachers?” (p. 390). justice produced at recurring

agenda. the school; vocabulary,
and oral texts including terms
(fieldnotes such as ‘work,’
and transcripts, ‘quality,’
Page 402
staff meetings ‘behavior,’

and classroom ‘standards.’ These
literacy lessons) words appeared
(p. 392). repeatedly across
the corpus of
policy documents,
newspapers. . . . ”
(p. 392).
Corson, D. “CDA goes beyond other forms of “The CDA asks about the A monthly [I/W] Tape “Key verbal and
(2000), discourse analysis by focusing distorting influence that meeting of recordings of prosodic

Canada [E] directly on macro and micro ideology has on the a board of meetings, contributions that
power factors that operate in a proceedings in a formal school trustees in meeting ‘scaffold’ the
given discursive context” meeting. And it asks how that a secondary minutes, and discourse in such
(p. 98). distortion shows up in the school in interviews a way as to make
discourse itself ” (p. 98). New with Board opposition seem
Zealand. members. unwise or risky,
and to encourage
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
collusion in a
conspiracy of
distorted
communication
9/2/05
into which those

around the table
are drawn”
(p. 109).
2:04 PM
Davis, J. No definition. “Why do we as language Board of [W] Policy No analytic

(1997), educators and as members of trustees documents. procedures
UK [E] other social groups react to meeting, specified.
reformist agendas in the ways New
that we do? What qualities of Zealand
Page 403
the sociocultural context into secondary

which these proposals are school.
introduced condition our
reactions?” (p. 152).
Egan- “Fairclough (1989) developed “The goal of the analysis was to 3 adolescent [W/I] Fieldnotes, “To make visible the
Robertson, A. a . . . rubric . . . that involves explore the relationships girls (8th videotapes of social positioning
(1998), three components: textual among personhood and grade), of writing club occurring on a
USA [E] analysis, interpretation of the literacy practices, using the Puerto- activities, line to line basis
interactional processes involved construct of intertextuality. . . . Rican and conversations, in the transcripts
in text production and I attempt to make visible the African and interviews of conversations, I
consumption, and explanation ways in which discursive American collected over use three type of

of ‘how interaction process practices constructed in the descent, 41⁄2 months; markings in the
relates to social action’ (p. 11)” writing club provided an in a collection of right hand
(p. 454). opportunity for students to community written columns of the
“Textual analysis includes explore issues of personhood writing artifacts, transcript charts:
ideational, or content, analysis based on constructing an program. student bold faced words
of social identities; analysis of intertextual The school writing; 8 that emphasize
403
(continued )
404
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
interactional analysis combines links between issues of is a working- months of intertextual

textual analysis with culture, language, and power class New participant processes,
interpretive analysis, and and their personal experiences” England observation. italicized words
9/2/05
explanatory analysis brings (p. 455). urban that highlight

together these two types of school. intertextual
analyses with analysis of substance, and
socio-cultural practice at the underlined words
situational, institutional, and that mark explicit
2:04 PM
societal levels” (p. 454). discursive

dimensions of
personhood and
identity” (p. 467).
Fairclough, N. A social-theoretically informed What is happening to the UK, Higher [W] Draws on “Three dimensional
Page 404
(1993), UK mode of discourse analysis. authority of academic Education data from framework of
[E] CDA views discourse as social institutions, academics, and to higher analysis . . . it is a
practice—both shaped and authority relations between education. spoke or written
shaping social relations. CDA academics and students, language text, it is
draws from the linguistic academic institutions and the an instance of a
resources of SFL. public? What is happening to discourse practice
the professional identities of . . . and it is a
academics and to the collective piece of social
identities of institutions? practice . . . any
text can be

regarded as
interweaving
ideational,
interpersonal, and
textual meanings”
(p. 136).
Figueriredo, D. Equates CDA with critical Review of literature and plan of A group of NA NA
(2000), linguistics. Offers a description reading class EFL
USA [E] of its basis in SFL and then students at
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
points out its aims: “to make the college

available, through the analysis level.
of language as social practice,
a critique of discourse that
9/2/05
might lead to consciousness

raising, emancipation, and
empowerment” (p. 141).
Fox, R., & Cites Fairclough. “[Sy]stematically explore the Croatia, [I] Fieldnotes No specific analytic
2:04 PM
Fox, J. ‘opaque relationships of higher and minutes procedures are

(2002), causality and determination’ education of the higher mentioned.
Croatia between (a) the council council education
[E] members discursive practices meetings. council
and (b) wider social and meetings.
Page 405
cultural structures, relations

and processes in the Croatian
higher education system and
Croatia itself” (p. 3).
Gebhard, M. Not defined. “How do second language 3rd-4th-grade [I/W] Fieldnotes Three phases of
(2002), learners assume, negotiate, ESL from analysis.
USA [E] and resist the role assigned to students observations; Grounded theory
them by the discourses of (Hispanic) interviews analysis followed
school reform at Web and with students, by CDA.
Magnet?” (p. 18) teachers in parents, “Attention was
an urban teachers; and given to the

magnet relevant lexicon, the
school. documents. syntax, the
structures of texts,
and nonlinguistic
images”
(pp. 21–24).
405
(continued )
406
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
Hays, J. (2000), “(Critical) discourse analysis “My goal is to illustrate the ways NA [W] One Fairclough’s (1995)
USA [E] becomes a locus of hegemonic that social hierarchies are newspaper three-dimensional
struggle. By exposing hidden perpetuated and contested text of an framework: the
9/2/05
layers of meaning, then, we can through a multitude of open forum text, the discourse
pose a challenge to the existing mundane and seemingly in Ghanzi that practice, and
hegemonic order” (p. 26). straight-forward texts, and to allowed social practice.
explore the relevance of school children Wording and
discourse analysis and to voice their phrasing choices;
2:04 PM
ethnography to understanding opinions organization of

and addressing problems about formal the text; names
surrounding the development schooling. used to describe
of formal education” (p. 27). Draws on people in the
ethnographic story. Draws on
Page 406
fieldwork. ethnographic
analysis.
Heberle, V. Author links CDA to critical The purpose . . . is to offer a University NA NA
(2000), linguistics in general. conceptualization of how students in
Brazil “Two of the main purposes of reading can be looked at from Brazil
[T] these studies are to make the perspective of CDA, taking
people aware of how language focusing also on issues of reading
is used to dominate or language and gender. courses in
reinforce social inequalities, English.
such as those between people

of different ethnic, economic,
social or intellectual groups,
and to analyze changes
taking place in social
organizations” (p. 117).
Heller, M. CDA is defined in relation to Why are there competing visions French [I] 400 The author does not
(2001), North American and European at this moment of what it Canadian interviews, use CDA,
Canada approaches, the former means to speak and be French? leaders in observations specifically. But
[E] attending to linguistic What kinds of people the political of meetings, she looks at the
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
anthropology and the latter participate in redefining this sphere; text and spoken language
attending to isolated sections basic social category, and what one visual that is studied as a
of texts. The author argues for kinds of people find themselves policy documents discourse and the
attention to language as well as marginalized, voluntarily or document, produced by struggles over
9/2/05
to social theory. otherwise? In other words, who newspaper francophone domination of

gets to decide what speaking clippings, and anti- discursive space.
and being French mean in these recorded francophone
contexts? narratives, associations,
interviews. organizations.
2:04 PM
Hinchman, K., “CDA investigates the “What is the nature of Colin’s Colin (10th [I/W] Interviews, “Three dimensions
Peyton relationships among particular and Desuna’s participation in grade, small group of CDA—
Young, J. discourse events, discourse classroom talk about the text White discussions description,
(2001), norms, and social and historical over the course of one school male), that were interpretation, and
Page 407
USA [E] contexts, and how that language, year? How, and to what end, Desuna videotaped, explanation. . . .
in turn, shapes these were situational, institutional, (8th grade, fieldnotes We coded each
relationships and contexts. As and societal contexts Black describing interchange
Fairclough describes it, CDA constituted in their female)— observations. involving Colin
makes visible traces of participation?” (p. 248). both verbal and Desuna for
discourses operating and the students such text features
asymmetries in power relations chosen as participants’
that are constituted in their from a choice of words
operation” (p. 246). group of and sentence
20 students structures, turn-
at various taking, and ‘ways

sites. in which one
Literature participant
classes in controls the turns
middle and of others’
high (Fairclough,
schools. 1989)” (p. 251).
407
(continued )
408
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
Hughes, G. “Fairclough (1992) developed a “This article presents discourse Middle and [I] Interviews No specific analytic
(2001), UK [CDA] which combines the analysis of interviews with 3 secondary with three procedures are
[E] micro-analysis of text mixed gender pairs of students schools as groups of mentioned. The
9/2/05
production and interpretation from the study to illustrate well as a mixed-sex author writes
with the macro-public- how different subjectivities college. and mixed- generally about
knowledge and social practice can interact within the race self- the CDA
that construct entities such as constraints and contradictions selected procedures
‘curriculum science’ or gender of these competing discourses students. outlined by
2:04 PM
which frame the micro level of science to produce different Fairclough.

discourse” (p. 279). outcomes” (p. 276).
Johnson, G. “[CDA] is a ‘top down’ Re-reading one student teacher’s University [W/I] A picture The authors “focus
(2001), approach in the sense that text to extend and critique her pre-service book and an on relative posture
Australia Discourses or ways of being in commonsense interpretation teacher’s interview and position and
Page 408
[E] the world—as opposed to from a social interaction and reflective with a pre- visually mediated
discourse as forms of political perspective (p. 451). assignment service gaze and
language—[ . . .] that are known teacher. exchange glances.
by the researcher to operate in . . . [T]he view of
the world outside of the picture narrative analysis
book, are imposed on as social practice
membership categorizations and as political
found to operate inside the data” praxis is
(p. 456). paralleled with
CDA” (p. 453).

Johnson, T., “The aim of CDA is to uncover “How was the history standards US [W] 31 Analysis of
& Avery, how language works to debate presented to the public newspapers descriptive headlines. Focus
P. G. (1999), construct meanings that signify in selected US newspapers?” articles in 10 on over-
USA [E] people, objects, and events in (p. 448). metropolitan lexicalization and
the world in specific ways” or national natural
(p. 452). newspapers reformulation.
in the US. Ethnographic
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
content analysis.
Kumarava- CDA is defined as an educational The purpose is to conceptualize NA NA NA
divelu, B. application of post-structuralism. a framework for conducting
9/2/05
(1999), “Ideology and power that critical classroom discourse

USA [T] constitute dominant discourses analysis.
are hidden from ordinary
people; critical linguists seek to
make these discourses visible
2:04 PM
by engaging in a type of CDA

that is ‘more issue oriented than
theory oriented’” (p. 466).
Luke, A. Defined in contrast to traditional What counts as discourse Variety of [W] Speeches “[Analyzes] the
(1997), linguistics. “CDA offers an analysis in educational public Prime Minister’s
Page 409
Australia alternative approach to the research? (p. 10) speeches. speech acts . . .
[T] analysis of educational representation of
disenfranchisement, enabling government
us to track the governmental, policy as a
institutional and professional narrative story
construction of deficit, grammar . . .
disadvantage and deviance examine[s]
(e.g., Comber, 1996)” (p. 347). sentence-level
transitivity
structures”

(pp. 356–357).
Luke, A. “CDA is a political act itself, an “With the official recognition of Theoretical NA NA
(1995/1996), intervention in the apparently the educational claims of paper
Australia natural flow of talk and text in cultural minorities and
[T] institutional life that attempts to indigenous peoples and of
“interrupt” everyday common girls and women, . . . the
409
(continued )
410
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
sense. . . . Such an analysis classical questions of

destabilize[s] authoritative sociology and psychology of
discourses and foreground[s] education have more relevance
9/2/05
relations of inequality, than ever: Who succeeds and

domination, and subordination. who fails in schools? How and
In its constructive moment, why?” (p. 7).
CDA sets out to generate
agency (pp. 12–13).
2:04 PM
Moje, E. B. “According to Luke (1995), CDA What counts as knowledge in White high [I] Audio- and The author “focused
(1997), makes visible how teachers’ science within the oral and school videotaped on (a) how the
USA [E] and students’ spoken and written discourses of one students classroom wordings or
written texts shape and high school chemistry and their activities and ‘namings’ . . . in
construct policies and rules, classroom? teacher in interviews the discourse
Page 410
knowledge, and indeed, chemistry with constructed

‘versions of successful and class. participants. particular
failing students’ (pp. 11)” meanings; (b)
(p. 36). how discursive
practices
positioned the
participants, . . .
(c) what subject
positions drove
these discourses,

and (d) how these
conditions . . .
shaped
assumptions about
. . . science”
(p. 38).
Myers, G. “Analysis of ideology in texts, This articles draws on CDA to Lancaster, [W] Analysis of CDA starts with the
(1996), UK within a theory of discourse show how we might read noun newspaper newspaper social categories
[E] practices and social phrases, clause structure, articles on articles. of discourse and
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
practices. . . . CDA starts with discourse representation, and the genre and applies
the social categories of discourse discourse practices in terms of Heysham them to clauses.
and genre and applies them to a combined CDA and actor nuclear The author
an understanding of clauses” network theory approach. power focuses on
9/2/05
(p. 27). stations. argument, clause,

and inscription
and compares
three textual
2:04 PM
approaches.
Nichols, S. The author explicitly states that How do interactions between Middle-class, [I] Interviews General themes
(2002), the interviews were analyzed discourses of gender and Australian with 56 from the
Australia by using CDA. But there is no discourses of childhood in parents middle-class interviews and
[E] real analytic section or formal parents’ accounts come to talking Australian from the research
Page 411
definition of CDA. construct the male and female about the parents. literature.
child as different kinds of literacy Analyzed parts of
gendered and literate subjects? development the talk that
of their demonstrated
children. each of the
themes.
Orellana, M. “An analysis of language and Inquires into power relations in Latino/a [1] Eight “Identified common
(1996), power. Power may be primary grade meetings. primary- classroom patterns of talk
USA [E] manifested in discourse, by grade meetings, across meetings
powerful participants. . . . [I]t students fieldnotes and then looked
may also be manifested behind (Grades 1, during all of in detail at

discourse. [C]ritical analysts 2, 3); the sessions, individual
examine implicit assumptions problem- other sessions. . . . [The
embedded in discourse, and posing ethnographic next step was to]
consider how coherence is meetings data from describe,
achieved” (p. 337). in an urban, across the interpret, and
(continued )
411
412
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
bilingual school year. explain . . . [and]

elementary attend to local,
school institutional, and
9/2/05
classroom. societal
dimensions of
context” (p. 339).
Peace, P. “The ‘top-down’ critical discourse “How do women socially Second-year [I] Transcriptions “The interview
(2003), analytic tradition . . . draws on construct masculinities and under- of the group transcriptions
2:04 PM
UK [E] post-structuralism and play a part through their graduate discussions were read
emphasizes the structuring of discursive activities, in psychology with the repeatedly. . . .
speech and constitution of bolstering gender relations students at students. [A]s broad
subjectivities by culturally that ultimately oppress them? Yorkshire categories began
available discourses” (p. 164). How do they resist these University, to emerge, . . .
Page 412
discursively constructed England. they were

masculinities?” (p. 160). increasingly
related to
the literature . . .
and analyzed in
terms of what
they may achieve”
(pp. 165–166).
Pitt, K. (2002), Not defined. The goal of this article is to Interviews [W] 30-minute No specific analytic
UK [E] analyze the pedagogic with television procedures

discourse of family literacy. 14 parents programs mentioned. The
from entitled author “base[s]
England “Developing the analysis on
and Wales. Family Basil Bernstein’s
Literacy.” conception of the
pedagogic device”
(p. 251).
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
Price, S. No formal definition of CDA is Aims to point out the inadequacy NA NA NA

(1999), given. The author writes that of Fairclough’s CDA and
Australia CDA is concerned with a Widdowson’s discourse
[T] reconstruction of the discourse analysis.
9/2/05
at the meta-discursive level.

Rampton, B. “CDA focuses on the None stated. Adolescent [I/W] Interviews, Macro-social
(2001), naturalization of inequality in students in participant- analysis; micro-
UK [T] everyday common sense, on the London; observation. analysis; author
2:04 PM
way in which established twenty brings together

ideologies, institutionalized in 14-year-olds aspects of
the workings of the lexico- in two interactional
grammar, recruit people to a multi- sociolinguistics
particular view of the world ethnic with CDA.
Page 413
without their really realizing it” schools,

(p. 97). one
suburban,
one urban.
Rogers, “Critical discourse studies focus “What happens when personal An African [I/W] Participant “Following
(2002a), on how language as a cultural literacies come in conflict with American observation Fairclough’s
USA [E] tool mediates relationships of institutional literacies? What family in data (500 (1995) method of
power and privilege in social makes it possible for June a city in hours), analysis, [the
interactions, institutions, and (and her daughter) to New York. interviews author] attended
bodies of knowledge” (p. 251). experience school literacy (300 hours), to three
failure while simultaneously participants’ intersecting

demonstrating considerable journals, domains of
literacy competence in other informal analysis:
contexts?” (p. 248). surveys, and description,
documents. interpretation, and
explanation, as
well as three
413
(continued )
414
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
domains of
discourse: the
local, the
9/2/05
institutional, and
the societal”
(p. 257).
Rogers, “CDA . . . offers a theory of How was it that Vicky consented CSE [I] 2 special Tri-part schema . . .
(2002b), language as a system (building to her placement in special meetings, education that foregrounds
2:04 PM
USA [E] on systemic functional education when, as her 6th-grade meetings and intertextual and
linguistics [SFL]), combined opening quote suggested, she African ethnographic interdiscursive
with a social theory of language had been determined to come American data taken in analyses. The
use (discourse). . . . Orders of out of special education? girl, CSE the home and analysis includes
discourse have a roughly (p. 222). team, community. genre, discourse,
Page 414
parallel status to the parent. and style (p. 221).

grammatical aspects embedded
in SFL” (p. 220).
Rogers, T., “Fairclough also argued that “We argue that understanding 3 African [I/W] 7 The utterances were
Tyson, C., language is a domain of who we are and how we are American audiotaped categorized into
& Marshall, ideology and therefore a site of connected or disconnected can children tutoring three broad
E. (2000), struggles for power. Discourse best be understood through (in 4th sessions; themes
USA [E] is shaped by power relationships critical discourse theories” grade), interviews
and social institutions in society (p. 2). across two with children;
as a whole, and discourse both schools; collection of

affects social structures and is low-SES work samples;
affected by them, contributing Midwestern observations
to social continuity and social community; in their homes
change” (p. 4). observations and
in homes communities.
and
communities
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
of children.
Stamou, A.G. CDA sees language—all semiosis This article examines the Non- [W] 59 Topical analysis;
(2002), —as discourse, that is, a form depiction of non-protesters in protesters articles, 30 analysis of
9/2/05
Greece [E] of social practice. . . . In order the in the Athens News, an at a student news stories transitivity and
to uncover the way discourse English-language Greek –teacher from Athens ergativity
operates in society, CDA newspaper, in the light of the protest that News. (p. 660).
proceeds to a systematic significant impact that most took place
textual analysis, since texts of those depictions could have in Greece
2:04 PM
constitute the medium through on their readers and thus on

which discourse is enacted” their reception of the protest.
(p. 657).
Stevens, L. “This critical policy analysis, “With such high-stakes Reading [W/I] “Throughout the
(2003), drawing methods and discourses and ideologies at Leadership Observations analysis, samples
Page 415
Australia techniques from the work of work, how was the federal Academy at the Reading were chosen
[T] Gee (1996), Fairclough (1989, government defining in 2002, Leadership largely on the
1992), Luke (1997), recognizes reading? . . . How would this sponsored Academy in basis of their
and works from the situated information both support and by U.S. 2002, representation of
meanings of texts, and it constrain them in shaping Department fieldnotes and converging and
documents the time-space literacy policy and practice in of artifacts from compatible points,
hybridizations of local, their states?” (p. 662). Education. the academy. their coverage of
institutional, and societal both oral and print
discourses” (p. 663). discourses from
the meetings”

(p. 663).
Thomas, S. “CDA seeks an understanding of Investigate the discursive Newspaper [W] Newspaper No analysis section.
(2002), how ‘discourse is implicated in constructions of curriculum articles articles.
Australia relations of power’. . . . It during one policy initiative. about
[E] provides a useful analytical and Analysis focuses on newspaper physical
political tool talking back to debates over the inclusion of education
415
discourse” (p. 189). Health and Physical Education in
(continued )
416
Context of
3179-03_Rogers.qxd
in the secondary school Queensland

curriculum (p. 187). secondary
schools.
9/2/05
Tunstall, P. “CDA was developed to try to “It examines the various Children who [I/W] Classroom Categorization of
(2001), UK put to work practically in the constructions of personal and were 6–7 observations, types of feedback
[E] field of assessment some social reality and their years of semi- as either
critical/poststructuralist ideas associated power relations age in six structured evaluative or
about language and practice within infant classrooms and schools in interviews descriptive,
2:04 PM
and their relationship with discusses the results of the London. with concentrating on
social reality” (p. 216). analysis in terms of policy 8 teachers what the forms of
contestation and effect” and feedback did.
(p. 216). 49 children.
Young, J. P. “CDA considers language as a How do critical literacy Four male, [I/W] Audio- The author combines
Page 416
(2000), social practice and assumes activities in a home-schooling middle- and CDA with
USA [E] asymmetrical power setting sustain or transform class, videotapes ethnographic
distributions within and among the participants’ awareness White of sessions, analysis. “[First,] I
three different social contexts— of gendered identities and students fieldnotes. examined the local
an immediate local context, a inequities in texts? (ages 10, Questionnaires, interactions
wider institutional context, and 11, and written carefully. . . .
the institutional context. It seeks 13 years) reflections Second, I used the
to uncover and understand these who of three dimensions
unequal power relations” participated participants, of CDA—
(p. 319). in home artifacts, and description,

schooling. parent interpretation, and
interviews. explanation”
(p. 319).
Note: E = empirical articles, T = theoretical articles, W = written texts, I = interactional texts, I/W = combination of interactional and written texts,
NA = not applicable.

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education ... Rogers (2005)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education ... Rogers (2005)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review of Educational

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature

The online version of this article can be found at:

American Educational Research Association

Email Alerts: http://rer.aera.net/alerts

>> Version of Record - Jan 1, 2005

Review of Educational Research

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education:

Rebecca Rogers, Elizabeth Malancharuvil-Berkes,

During the past decade educational researchers increasingly have turned to

KEYWORDS: critical discourse analysis, Critical Discourse Analysis, critical dis-

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

• Discourse does ideological work.

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

The Multiple Meanings of CDA

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Discussion and Conclusion

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

social and political historically and contextually text for those

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

meaning-making potential paper, I shall show that we (2) Objects of

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

and the explanation of how the

continuously reconstructs dents in the

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

analysis of curriculum content “life-worlds” of a particular living in schools, which

(p. 502). studies students).

methodology (p. 10). which ways does it privilege class lesson;

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

(p. 390). teachers?” (p. 390). justice produced at recurring

staff meetings ‘behavior,’

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

into which those

Davis, J. No definition. “Why do we as language Board of [W] Policy No analytic

the sociocultural context into secondary

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

interactional analysis combines links between issues of is a working- months of intertextual

explanatory analysis brings (p. 455). urban that highlight

societal levels” (p. 454). discursive

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

points out its aims: “to make the college

might lead to consciousness

Fox, J. ‘opaque relationships of higher and minutes procedures are

cultural structures, relations

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

ethnography to understanding opinions organization of

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

to social theory. otherwise? In other words, who newspaper francophone domination of

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

which frame the micro level of science to produce different Fairclough.

Downloaded from http://rer.aera.net at MEMORIAL UNIV OF NEWFOUNDLAND on August 2, 2014

(1999), “Ideology and power that critical classroom discourse

by engaging in a type of CDA