Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature
Author(s): Rebecca Rogers, Elizabeth Malancharuvil-Berkes, Melissa Mosley, Diane Hui and
Glynis O'Garro Joseph
Source: Review of Educational Research, Vol. 75, No. 3 (Autumn, 2005), pp. 365-416
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3515986 .
Accessed: 30/06/2013 19:47
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Review of Educational Research.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:47:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Reviewof EducationalResearch
Fall 2005, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 365416
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
Duringthepast decadeeducationalresearchersincreasinglyhave turnedto

CriticalDiscourseAnalysis(CDA)as a set of approachesto answerques-
tions about the relationships between language and society. In this article the
authors review thefindings of their literature review of CDA in educational
research. Thefindings proceed in thefollowing 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 CDAframeworksinto educational contexts, they are
reshapingthe boundariesof CDA.
KEYWORDS: critical discourse analysis, CriticalDiscourse Analysis, critical dis-
course studies,educationaldiscourse.
This year marksthe 25th anniversaryof the publicationof two seminal books:
Languageand Control,by RogerFowler,RobertHodge, GuntherKress,andTony
Trew, andLanguageAs Ideology, by RobertHodge andGuntherKress.These two
books have influencedthe way in which scholarsapproachquestionsof language
and society andhave become cornerstonesin what we know as CriticalDiscourse
Analysis (CDA). Of course, the history of the critical study of discourse can be
traced back much fartherto 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 attributedto the publication of
Fairclough'sLanguageand Power in 1989.
The emergenceof the interestin relatingthe studyof discourseto social events
did not takeplace in isolation.The 1970s were characterizedby the transformation
of linguistictheoriesandmethodsin the social sciences, fromtraditionallinguistics
to interactionallinguistics,to criticallinguistics.Indeed,duringthatdecade,linguists
became aware that traditionallinguistics needed to consider questions relatedto
society. MichaelHalliday's(1975, 1978) theoryof systemic functionallinguistics,
which informedcriticallinguisticsandthenCDA, emphasizedlanguageas a mean-
ing-makingprocess,completewith options;Halliday'stheorywas synergisticwith
the criticalstudyof language.At the same time, therewas dissentandrevolutionin
365

Rogers et al.
society at large. We can look to the Vietnam War and the peace movement, the
women's movement,the disabilitymovement,andthe civil rightsmovementin the
UnitedStates,to namejust a few examples.All of thiswas accompaniedby a broader
linguisticturnin the social sciences, a movementaway from methodologicalindi-
vidualism,andthe proliferationof post-structural andpost-moder theories.
Theintellectualworkof combiningsocialtheorieswithlinguisticworkwas, atfirst,
conductedby a disparategroupof scholars,each at theirown universities.However,
in theearly 1990sa groupof scholars(Fairclough,Kress,vanDijk,vanLeeuwen,and
Wodak)spenttwo days at a symposiumin Amsterdamdiscussingtheoriesandmeth-
ods specific to CDA. These scholarscame from somewhatdiverseacademicback-
grounds,andCDA reflectstheirinterdisciplinary approach(vanDijk, 2001).
Educationresearchersturnedto discourseanalysisas a way to make sense of the
ways in whichpeople makemeaningin educationalcontexts.Earlyexamplesof lin-
guistic analysis in education research grew out of the work of sociolinguistics
(Gumperz,1982;Labov, 1972;Sinclair& Coulthard,1976),linguisticanthropology
(Silverstein& Urban, 1996), and the ethnographyof communication(Gumperz&
Hymes, 1964; Hymes, 1972). Sinclairand Coulthard,for example, introducedan
elaborateframeworkfor coding teachers'and students'discourseacts in classroom
talk.Theirintentionwas to providean extensive structuralmodel of discourseorga-
nizationin classroominteractions.The classic workof Cazden(1988/2001)grewout
of such descriptiveanalysesof classroomtalk. Aroundthe same time that scholars
were describingthe micro-interactionsthatoccurredin classrooms,scholarsfrom
fields such as sociology and culturalstudies were also looking to classroomsand
schools to theorizeaboutthe ways in which social structuresarereproducedthrough
educationalinstitutions(Bourdieu,1979/1984;Bowles & Gintis,1976;Oakes,1986;
Willis, 1977).1Drawingon criticalsocial theory,these studiessoughtto examinethe
ways in whichmacro-structures play out in the interactions,rituals,andtraditionsof
the classroom.Culturaltheorists,however, do not often turnto a close analysis of
discoursestructures(see Bernstein,1971, for an exception).On the otherhand,lin-
guistic anthropologistsand conversationanalystsoften do not turnto social theory
or attemptto connecttheirmicro-levelanalyseswith broadersocial forces. Critical
Discourse Analysis was an attemptto bring social theory and discourse analysis
togetherto describe,interpret,and explainthe ways in which discourseconstructs,
becomes constructedby, represents,andbecomes representedby the social world.
Duringthe past decade, educationresearchersincreasinglyhave turnedto Crit-
ical Discourse Analysis as an approachto answeringquestionsaboutthe relation-
ships between language and society. This proliferation in scholarship, as we
demonstratein this review, poses a series of focused questions for education
researchersinterestedin CDA. Indeed,discourseanalysis of all types comes from
fields outsideeducation,andmuch of it is tied to linguisticsin one way or another.
As such work crosses into the boundaryof education,interestingand substantive
concerns arise about how it is applied to educationalissues, how it affects other
research and approaches in education, and how it might be reviewed in the
non-educationresearchtraditionsfrom which it came.
This articleprovidesa critical,integrativereview of CDA across five databases
in the social sciences. We presenta review of the literatureand we interrogatethe
theory, methods, and implicationsof the literaturereviewed. We intend that this
review of CDA in the field of educationbe viewed in the context of the original
366

CriticalDiscourse Analysis in Education
CDA founders.The following questions frame our review: What happens when
Critical Discourse Analysis crosses the boundariesinto education research?In
what ways do educationresearchersuse CDA? How can the use of CDA in edu-
cationalcontexts informus aboutmethodand theory?
Critical Discourse Analysis: Key Concepts
Critical discourse studies stem from three overlappingintellectual traditions,
each emphasizingthe linguisticturnin the social sciences. These traditionsaredis-
course studies (e.g., Benveniste, 1958/1971; Derrida,1974; Foucault, 1969/1972;
Pecheux, 1975), feministpost-structuralism(e.g., Butler, 1990;Davies, 1993), and
criticallinguistics (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 relationshipsof 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 distinctionbetween the capitalized term "CriticalDis-
course Analysis"(which the abbreviationCDA represents)and "criticaldiscourse
analysis"in lowercase letters,a distinctionthatis quite relevantto this review. He
argues that CDA refers to the brandof analysis that has been informedby Fair-
clough, Hodge, Kress, Wodak,van Dijk, van Leeuwen, and followers. Lowercase
"criticaldiscourseanalysis"includesa "widerarrayof approaches"(p. 20)-Gee's
own form of analysis (1992, 1994, 1996, 1999), that of Gumperz(1982), Hymes
(1972), Michaels (1981), andScollon, & Scollon (1981), andthe workof otherdis-
course analystsin the United States and elsewhere. These scholarsare conducting
criticallyorientedformsof discourseanalysisbut do not specificallycall theirwork
CDA. Gee (2004) points out that critical approachesto discourse analysis "treat
social practicesin termsof theirimplicationsfor things like status,solidarity,dis-
tributionof social goods, andpower"(p. 33). Because languageis a social practice
and because not all social practicesare createdand treatedequally, all analyses of
languageare inherentlycritical.
In the next section we discuss some foundationalprinciplesthatare relevantin
any discussionof CriticalDiscourse Analysis. The discussionis structuredaround
the key constructs:"critical,""discourse,"and "analysis"
What Is "Critical" About CDA?
The Frankfurtschool, the groupof scholarsconnectedto the Instituteof Social
Research at the University of Frankfurt,focused their attentionon the changing
natureof capitalismandits relationto Marxisttheoriesof economic determinism.
Adorno,Marcuse,andHorkheimer-the scholarsmost commonly connectedwith
the FrankfurtSchool-initiated a conversationwith the Germantraditionof philo-
sophical and social thoughtof Marx,Kant,Hegel, andWeber.While rejectingthe
strict economic determinism(the view that economic factors determineall other
aspects of human existence) associated with Marxism, they continued the view
that injustice and oppression shape the social world. The Frankfurtschool and
scholars from across disciplines engaged with critical theory and attemptedto
locate the multiple ways in which power and dominationare achieved (Kinchloe
& McLaren,2003).
367

Rogers et al.
Thus the Frankfurtschool and other neo-Marxistscholars of society and lan-
guage (e.g., the BakhtinCircle)openedthe debateaboutwhetherlanguagebelongs
to the economic base or the culturalsuperstructure,and whetherit is determined
by materialconditions or, in fact, determinesthese conditions (Ives, 2004). It is
importantto rememberthat at the same time that the Frankfurtschool 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 scholarlyparadigm.However, Horkheimer,Adoro, and Marcuse are
commonly associatedwith criticaltheory, whereasDuBois and Woodson remain
invisible in the scholarlycanon in criticaltheory (Ladson-Billings,2003). This is
importantbecause critical theory, a set of theories that attempt to locate and
confront issues of power, privilege, and hegemony, has also been critiquedfor
reproducingpower knowledge relationsand constructingits own regime of truth.
Or, as Yancy (1998) puts it, critical theory is often "the words of white men
engaged in conversationswith themselves"(p. 3). Evidence of this can be seen in
the strikingabsence of issues of race in much of criticaltheory.
Criticaltheoryis not a unifiedset of perspectives.Rather,it includescriticalrace
theory,post-structuralism, post-modernism,neo-colonialstudies,queertheory,and
so on. Criticaltheoriesaregenerallyconcernedwith issues of powerandjustice and
the ways thatthe economy, race, class, gender,religion,education,and sexual ori-
entationconstruct,reproduce,or transformsocial systems.Althoughtherearemany
different "moments"when research might be considered critical, the various
approachesto criticalresearchsharesome assumptions.Criticaltheorists,for exam-
ple, believe thatthoughtis mediatedby historicallyconstitutedpowerrelations.Facts
areneverneutraland are always embeddedin contexts.Some groupsin society are
privileged over others, and this privilege leads to differentialaccess to services,
goods, and outcomes.Anothersharedassumptionis thatone of the most powerful
forms of oppressionis internalizedhegemony, which includes both coercion and
consent (Gramsci,1973; Ives, 2004). Criticalresearchersare intenton discovering
the specificsof dominationthroughpower.However,powertakesmanyforms:ide-
ological,physical,linguistic,material,psychological,cultural.Criticaltheoristsgen-
erallyagreethatlanguageis centralin theformationof subjectivitiesandsubjugation.
Post-structuralism,the intellectual movement with which Michel Foucault is
often associated,was a rejectionof the structuralistmovementof the earlier20th
centuryandis intimatelyrelatedto criticaltheory.Structuralismassumedthatrela-
tionshipsexisted between structuresin systems and thatexaminingthose relation-
ships could help us to understand the entirety of a system. The theory of
structuralismpermeatedacross disciplines and could be seen in studies of the
economy (Marx),language (Saussure),psychology (Freud),and anthropology-
specifically,cultureandkinshiprelations(Levi-Strauss).Foucault,once himself a
structuralist,brokefrom structuralismand arguedthatwe cannotknow something
based on a system of binariesand static relationships.Post-structuralismpointed
out the inevitable slipperiness of social constructs and the language that con-
structedand representedsuch constructs (Peters & Burbules, 2004). Foucault's
(1969/1972) concept of discourse and power has been importantin the develop-
ment of CDA, as discussed in the next section.
Scholarswho situatethemselves within the CDA traditionoften separatetheir
work from otherforms of "non-critical"discoursesanalyses by arguingthattheir
368

analysesmove beyond descriptionand interpretationof the role of languagein the
social world, towardexplainingwhy andhow languagedoes the work thatit does.
Criticaldiscourseanalystsbegin with an interestin understanding,uncovering,and
transformingconditions of inequality. The startingpoint for the analysis differs
depending on where the critical analyst locates and defines power. Critical dis-
course analystslocate power in the arenaof language as a social practice.Power,
however, can take on both liberatingand oppressiveforms.
WhatIs Discourse in CDA?
Recentdevelopmentsin CriticalDiscourseAnalysisarerootedin muchlongerhis-
toriesof languagephilosophy(Austin,1962;Gramsci,1973;Searle, 1969;Wittgen-
stein, 1953); ethnomethodology(Garfinkel,1967; Cicourel, 1974), the functional
linguisticstraditionin theUnitedStates(Gumperz,1982;Silverstein& Urban,1996),
and SystemicFunctionalLinguisticsin England,Canada,andAustralia(Halliday&
Hasan,1976).2Therearemanysubsectionsof discourseanalysiswithinthe socialtra-
dition, includingspeech act theory(Goffman, 1959, 1971), genre theory(Bakhtin,
1981; Martin,1985;Hasan& Fries, 1995), intertextuality(Bakhtin,1981; Kristeva,
1980, 1986, 1989;Lemke, 1992), discursiveformations(e.g., Foucault,1972, 1979,
1981; Lemke, 1992), conversationanalysis(Collins, 1986; Gumperz,1982; Sacks,
Schegloff,& Jefferson,1974;Schegloff,Ochs,& Thompson,1996),narrativeanaly-
sis (Gee, 1992, 1994;Labov, 1972;Michaels,1981;Propp,1968;Scollon& Scollon,
1981; Wortham,2001), discursivepsychology (Davies & Harre,1990; Edwards&
Potter,1992), ethnographyof communication(Hymes, 1972), multi-modalanalysis
(Gee, 2003; Hodge& Kress,1988;Kress& vanLeeuween,1996;Scollon& Scollon,
2003), andcriticaldiscourseanalysis.
Theword"discourse"comes fromtheLatindiscursus,whichmeans"torunto and
fro."The word "current" comes from the same Latinroot.Withina CDA tradition,
discoursehasbeendefinedas languageuse as socialpractice.Thatis, discoursemoves
backandforthbetweenreflectingandconstructingthe socialworld.Seen in thisway,
languagecannotbe consideredneutral,because it is caughtup in political, social,
racial,economic,religious,andculturalformations.CDA is whatFairclough(1992)
has referredto as a textuallyorientedformof discourseanalysis(TODA).To develop
this textualanalysis,Faircloughbroughttogetherthe linguistictheoryof Systemic
FunctionalLinguistics(Halliday& Hasan,1976;Halliday,1985) withthe social the-
ory of discourseas it evolved in the workof Foucault(1969/1972, 1979, 1981).
Systemicfunctionallinguistics(SFL)explainslanguageuse in termsof the form
andfunctionof interactions.SFL theoristsposit thatevery interactioncan be under-
stood at threelevels: textually,interpersonally,and situatedin a widersocietalcon-
text.Furthermore, as languageuserswe choose fromthe meaning-makingpotentials
thatare availableto us to representand constructdialogue.Thus languageuse is a
creativepractice.Young and Harrison(2004) point out that SFL and CDA share
severalcharacteristics.First,both view languageas a social construction.Second,
bothview languagedialectically,whichmeansthatlanguageinfluencesthe contexts
in which it occurs and the contexts influencelanguageproduction.And third,both
emphasizethe culturalandhistoricalacts of meaningmaking.
Foucault's theoriesof discoursehave had a tremendousimpacton the social sci-
ences. Foucault ultimately rejected the tenets of structuralism(that there exist
binarydistinctionsbetween constructsand that we could remove ourselves from
369

Rogerset al.
the structureof language) and began the intellectual movement known as post-
structuralism.Foucaulttheorized that the traditionaldistinction between speech
and language (parole and langue) did not provide explanatorypower. Rather,
Foucault sought to understandthe history and evolution of constructsthat were
considerednatural(normality,justice, intellect, and so forth) and how such con-
structsarea productof power/knowledgerelationships.Ordersof discourse,a key
constructin Foucault'sunderstandingof social practices,are the discursiveprac-
tices in a society or institutionand the relationshipsamong them. Faircloughdis-
tinguishesbetween Foucault's analysis of discourseand his own approach,which
he refersto as a textuallyorientedapproachto discourseanalysis (TODA).
Gee's (1996, 1999) theoryof discoursehas been particularlyimportantfor edu-
cation researchersin the United States. Gee's theoryis inherently"critical"in the
sense of assertingthatall discoursesare social and thus ideological, andthatsome
discoursesarevaluedmorethanothers.Gee distinguishedbetween ("littled") dis-
course and ("big D") Discourse. "Big D" Discourse refers both to language bits
and to the culturalmodels thatare associatedwith Discourses. For instance,there
is a universityDiscourse thatincludes certainlanguagebits thatmay be particular
to academia,and there are also associated ways of thinking,believing, and valu-
ing thatareconnectedwith membershipin the Discourseof the university."Littled"
discourserefers to the linguistic elements-the languagebits-that connect with
such Discourses.Of course,the languagebits (little d, discourse)andthe social and
culturalmodels (big D, Discourse) areconstitutiveand worktogetherto construct,
maintain,and transforminteractions.The importantthing to keep in mind about
Discourse (both big and little d) is that they are social and political and have his-
tories of participationthatare saturatedby power relations.
CDA brings togethersocial theory and textual analysis. To provide a succinct
overview of the sharedassumptionsaboutdiscourseheld by manywithinthe CDA
tradition,we turnto Faircloughand Wodak (1997), who outlinedcommon tenets
of discourseundera criticalumbrella,paraphrasedhere:
* Discourse does ideological work.

* Discourse constitutessociety and culture.
* Discourse is situatedand historical.
* Power relationsare partiallydiscursive.
* Mediationof power relationsnecessitates a socio-cognitive approach.
* CDA is a socially committedscientific paradigmthat addressessocial prob-
lems.
* Discourse analysis is interpretive,descriptive, and explanatoryand uses a
"systematicmethodology."
* The role of the analystis to study the relationshipsbetween texts and social
practices.
WhatIs 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), andmulti-modal
methods(Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress& van Leeuween, 1996). CDA departsfrom
370

discourseanalysisandsociolinguisticanalysesin its movementfromdescriptionand
interpretation to explanationof how discoursesystematicallyconstructsversionsof
the socialworld.Furthermore, criticalanalysespositionsubjectsin relationsof power
(bothliberatoryandoppressiveaspectsof power)ratherthananalyzinglanguageas
a way of explainingthe psychologicalintentions,motivations,skills, andcompeten-
cies of individuals(Luke, 1995/1996).Eachof these perspectiveson CDA has been
appliedto relevantsocial problemsin a wide rangeof disciplines,includingpolicy,
social work,linguistics,andeducation.Eachperspectivehas developedits own set
of analytictools thatmightbe broughtto bearon a set of problemsor questions.
Fairclough(1989, 1992, 1995) outlined a three-tieredframeworkthat is very
common among critical discourse analysts (see Fairclough, 1989, for a visual
heuristic of this framework).The frameworkincludes analysis of texts, interac-
tions, and social practices at the local, institutional,and societal levels. The first
goal of the analystis to describethe relationshipsamongcertaintexts, interactions,
and social practices(this is accomplishedby describingthe grammaticalresources
that constitutesuch relations,an issue to which we will return).A second goal is
to interpretthe configurationof discourse practices. A third goal is to use the
descriptionand interpretationto offer an explanationof why and how social prac-
tices are constituted,changed,and transformedin the ways thatthey are.
Fairclough'sanalyticframeworkis constitutedby three levels of analysis:the
text, the discursive practice, and the socioculturalpractice.In other words, each
discursiveevent has threedimensions:It is a spokenor writtentext, it is an instance
of discoursepracticeinvolving the productionand interpretationof texts, and it is
a partof social practice.The analysis of the text involves the studyof the language
structuresproducedin a discursive event. An analysis of the discursive practice
involves examining the production,consumption,and reproductionof the texts.
The analysis of socioculturalpracticeincludes an explorationof what is happen-
ing in a particularsocioculturalframework.
Analysis at the textual level involves use of Halliday's systemic functional
linguistics andthe threedomainsof ideational,interpersonal,and textualanalysis.
The ideationalfunctions include meta-narrativesthat circulatein society. Analy-
sis at this level includes transitivity,which involves the different processes, or
types of verbs, involved in the interaction.The interpersonalfunctions are the
meaningsof the social relationsestablishedbetweenparticipantsin the interaction.
Analysis of this domainincludes an analysis of the mood (whethera sentenceis a
statement,question, or declaration)and modality (the degree of assertivenessin
the exchange). The textualdomaininvolves the thematicstructureof the text.
Fairclough's second dimension, discursive practice, involves analysis of the
process of production,interpretation,distribution,and consumption.This dimen-
sion is concernedwith how people interpretand reproduceor transformtexts.
The third dimension, sociocultural practice, is concerned with issues of
power-power being a construct that is realized through interdiscursivityand
hegemony. Analysis of this dimension includes explorationof the ways in which
discoursesoperatein variousdomainsof society.
Proliferationof CDA in Educationresearch

Critical discourse analysts tend to work on applied topics in a wide range of
domains, including political discourse, ideology, racism, economic discourse,
371

Rogerset al.
advertisementwith promotionalculture,medialanguage,gender,institutionaldis-
course, education,and literacy (Blommaert& Bulcaen, 2000). This is seen in the
proliferatingnumber of journals, conferences, and special editions of journals
devotedto CDA. ThesejournalsincludeLanguageand Politics; CriticalInquiries
in Language Studies:An InternationalJournal; CriticalDiscourse 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-Land Language in the New Capital-
ism, to namejust two. The Linguist List (http://www.linguistlist.org/)maintained
at Wayne State University, is a very accessible website with many resourcesfor
discourse studies, including book reviews, majorconferences,journals, a list of
linguists,andlanguageresources.A studygroupof approximately20 people meets
regularlyat majorliteracyconferences.Thereareuniversityprogramsestablished
for the study of critical discourse at the University of Lancasterand a minor at
Alfred University. Two inauguralCriticalDiscourse Analysis conferences were
held in 2004. The firstInternationalConferencein CriticalDiscourseAnalysis was
held in 2004 (http://www.uv.es/cdaval/)in Valencia, Spain.The School of Educa-
tion at IndianaUniversity 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 workshopsfocused on methodology, and CDA was the focus of one of
the sessions (Burs & Morrell,in press). In the same year, the NationalCouncil of
Teachersof English held a pre-conferenceworkshopdevoted to CDA.
CDA has not gone withoutcritique,andthe critiquesarepartof the overall con-
text in which we intend this review to be read. The three most common critiques
are (a) thatpolitical and social ideologies arereadinto the data;(b) thatthereis 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 conductedin educationalcontexts hold up to these critiques?To answerthis
question,we reviewedthe proliferatingdatabaseof educationresearchusing CDA.
Methodology
Review of Databases
We reviewedfive databasesin the social sciences with the searchterm"critical
discourseanalysis"from the years 1980 through2003. The databaseswere Web of
Science, MLA, PsycINFO, ERIC, and ArticleFirst.We also used bibliographic
branchingand referralsfrom otherresearchers.We reviewed 1991-2003 abstracts
of articlesfromLinguisticsandEducation(Vols. 3-14), the tablesof contentsof Dis-
course & Societyfrom 1993 through2003, andthe abstractsin Languagein Society
from 1998 through2003. We reviewed only researchthat was publishedin peer-
reviewed journals.We requiredthat the authorsuse the terms "criticaldiscourse
analysis"somewherein the article.We did not review dissertationabstracts.
We integrated important books throughout the review where appropriate,
because emerging theories and researchoften appearin books first, and later in
articles. Examples of such books are Critical LanguageAwareness (Fairclough,
1992); An Introductionto Discourse Analysis (Gee, 1999);AnalyzingDiscourse:
Textual Analysis for Social Research (Fairclough, 2003); Discourse in Late
372

CriticalDiscourseAnalysisin Education
Modernity (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999); Classroom Discourse Analysis
(Christie, 2002); An Introductionto Critical Discourse Analysis in Education
(Rogers,2004); Literacyand Literacy:Texts,Power, and Identity(Collins & Blot,
2003); SystemicFunctional Linguisticsand Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies
in Social Change(Young & Harrison,2004); andA CriticalDiscourse Analysis of
Family LiteracyPractices (Rogers, 2003).
We reviewed only studies that were conducted in or that pertainedto 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).Ourrationalewas thatwe wantedto see the rangeof perspec-
tives, approaches,and theoriesin the pool of researchthat specifically referredto
CDA. The searchterm"CriticalDiscourse Analysis"resultedin a total of 803 ref-
erences. Many of these articlesinclude criticalperspectives,criticalthinking,and
discourse analysis. We read all of the abstractsto determinewhetherthe authors
were using CDA as a theoryor methodand not simply providingcriticalperspec-
tives on discourse analysis or critical thinking and discourse analysis. This next
level of analysisfound 284 works thatused CriticalDiscourse Analysis. Of these,
56 were situatedin the discipline of education.Of those 56 articles, 16 were over-
lappingreferencesacross the databases.Therefore,the original searchresultedin
a total of 40 articles that used CDA in the context of education.We collected an
additional6 referencesthroughbibliographicbranching.
AnalyticProcedures
We developeda codebookto standardizeourreviews(see AppendixA). We used
ourresearchquestionsandeachstudy'sfeaturesto developa codingscheme.We also
includedaspectsof CDA thatwere relevantto researchin education(theoryof dis-
course,implicationsfor education).Duringliteratureretrieval,we used samplestud-
ies to refinethe coding scheme.Afterreviewingand coding a subsetof the studies,
we selected10 studiesto determineinterrater reliability.We eachhighlightedpartsof
the articlethatdealt with the issues in the codebook.Each of the articleswas read
twice-once by the lead researcherandonce by a researchassistant.The codebooks
were comparedfor reliability.All disagreementswere discussedand resolved.Our
analysiswas ongoing,informedby the literature,andconstant-comparative. Thatis,
as we reviewedstudieswe soughtout similaritiesand differencesacrossthe studies
andmadenote of themes.Once all of the articleswere reviewedand the codebooks
filledout,we beganto summarizeeach of the articles(see AppendixB). This level of
analysishelped to clarify trendsin the data.Fromthere,we pulled out four major
themes(whichwe reporton below) thatranacrossall of the articles.In addition,we
askedtwo scholarswho workin CDA to reviewthe summarychart(AppendixB) and
tryto suggestotherwritingsthatwe mightincludein the review.
Limitations
We do not claim to have includedevery articleon CriticalDiscourse Analysis
and education, particularlyresearch published after 2003. We have taken on a
review of researcharticlesin educationthat explicitly define themselves as CDA
andareset in an educationalcontext.Because CDA is a relativelynew "discipline"
(whetherit might be or should be considereda discipline is open for debate), we
sought to bring togetherdiverse lines of educationresearchto 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 maintainthat the presentis a suitable
point in the historyof CDA in educationresearchfor such a synthesis.
In limiting our review to studies that have explicitly called themselves CDA
or Critical Discourse Analyses, we have inevitably left out importantlines 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 thatbringtogethervariouscriticaltheories and modes of discourse analy-
sis. Authorswho write within these traditionshave shapedthe 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 currenteducation researchthat is informed
by and informs CDA.
Organizationof the Review
In the following sections, we presentthe findings of the review. The first sec-
tion is a summaryof the findings across all of the reviews. Next, we presentfive
of the themes thatran across all of the studies.Table 1 is a summativetable of the
findings from the review. We provide a descriptionof the findings that emerged
from each theme and subset of the theme and identify studies that illustrateeach
particulartheme. To be as succinctas possible, we describeonly those studiesthat
best representthe findings.In some cases, studiesillustratedmore thanone theme;
thereforewe describe the study underthe theme it mostly illustrates.Finally, we
summarize all of the results in a discussion section, with particularattention
focused on implicationsand futureresearchwith CDA in education.
TABLE1
Findings by theme
Theme Findings
Articlesreviewed N= 46
Empiricalarticles N= 39
Theoretical
articles N= 7
(analysisof spoken
Modeof languagein empiricalarticles 66%(26/39)Interactional
language,or spoken and writtenlanguage)
Theoryof language 33%(13/39)Analysisof writtenlanguage
28%(11/39)No theoryof language
Context 85% (22/26) Took place in middle school, high
school, or highereducation
15%(4/26) Took place in elementaryschool or
with childrenunderthe age of 10
Analysis 20% (8/39) Empiricalarticlesdid not comment
on theiranalyticprocedures
374

Findings
AppendixB is a descriptivechartof the findingsfrom the 46 articlesreviewed,
organizedby the main sections of each of the articles(definitionof CDA, research
focus, context,datasources,anddataanalysis).Thereis an interdisciplinarygroup
of scholarsusing CDA to analyze and theorizeabouteducationalissues. We have
designatedthe geographiclocation of the authorsnext to theirnames in this chart.
The type of articleis abbreviatedas either"E"(empirical)or "T"(theoretical).
The chartdemonstratesthatwhile all of the articleswe reviewed were situated
within an educationalcontext or pertainedto educationalissues, therewas a great
deal of diversityin the focus of the articles.The researchfocus of these articlesvar-
ied from exploringthe relationshipbetween personhoodand literacy,to how his-
tory standardsare presented to the public, to how knowledge is constructedin
chemistryclassrooms.
In what follows we reporton the majorthemes across the articles.We begin by
exploringthe multipleways in which CDA has been definedin educationresearch.
Next, we explore whetherand how educationresearchersusing CDA have over-
come the written language bias that historically has characterizedCDA. From
there, we explore the context in which CDA work is situatedand the relationship
of CDA to context.We thenturnto the questionof methodsandthe ways in which
education researchersusing CDA have taken up the methodological aspects of
CDA. Reflexivity is an importantaspect of any criticalwork, and in the next sec-
tion we illustratethe ways in which educationresearchershave dealt with issues
of reflexivity. Finally, in the discussion, we turn to the findings of the articles
reviewed to answerthe question,Whatdo we know as a resultof CDA work done
in educationresearch?
TheMultipleMeanings of CDA
As Fairclough and Wodak (1997) pointed out, there are many different
approachesto CDA, including Frenchdiscourse analysis (Foucault, 1969/1972;
Pecheux, 1975), social semiotics (Hodge & Kress, 1988; Kress, 2003), sociocog-
nitive studies(van Dijk, 1993), andthe discoursehistoricalmethod(Wodak, 1996;
Wodak,Meyer, Titscher& Vetter,2000). Each of these perspectiveson CDA has
been appliedto relevantsocial problemsin a wide range of disciplines including
policy, social work, linguistics, and education. Despite the many different per-
spectives of CDA, most of the researchwe reviewed drew mainly on Fairclough
(1989, 1991, 1993, 1995). We were surprisedthatdespiteWodak'scontributionto
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 directorof the WittgensteinResearchCenteron Discourse, Politics,
andIdentity,therewere very few referencesto her (see Corson,2000, andRogers,
2003, for exceptions).
The articlesreviewed here definedCDA in four ways. First,they definedCDA
in relationto post-structuralism.It is clear that CDA work in educationresearch
continues to draw on the relationshipbetween CDA and post-structuralism,par-
ticularlypost-structuralistfeminism and Foucault.While CDA drawsheavily on
post-structuraltheory, Fairclough (1995) made a distinction between CDA and
Foucault's theory of language. He aimed for CDA to be a textually oriented
375

Rogerset al.
discourse analysis (TODA), whereas post-structuralanalyses were often lacking
in close textualanalysis.
Second, the articlesdefinedCDA in termsof its goals, aims, or functions.The
articlesthat defined CDA in such terms assertedthat aims of CDA are to disrupt
discourses, challenge restrictivepedagogies, challenge passive acceptanceof the
status quo, and reveal how texts operate in the constructionof social practices.
More researchtendedto define anduse CDA as a tool of critiquethanas a tool for
re-imaginingthe social world. A thirdgroupof authorsdefinedCDA on the basis
of its associationwith SystemicFunctionalLinguistics,criticallinguistics,or inter-
actional sociolinguistics. A fourthset of authorsdefined CDA througha descrip-
tion of the analyticframeworkthatthey employed. Each of the authorsreferredto
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 authorsseem to agree
thatthe frameworkbringstogethera microandmacroanalysisandoffers a descrip-
tion, interpretation,and explanation of social events. Three articles mentioned
CDA but did not define it.
Mode of LanguageAnalyzedand Theoriesof Language:
OvercomingWrittenLanguageBias
CDA sets out to describe,interpret,and explain the relationshipsbetween lan-
guage, social practices, and the social world. Languageindexes social relations,
expresses social relations,constitutessocial relations,and challenges social rela-
tions. Language,in this framework,is dialogic, intertextual,andhistoricallybased.
CDA has been seriously critiquedfor failing to addressinteractionalor dialogic
texts andfocusing insteadprimarilyon writtentexts (newspapers,lists, policy doc-
uments, health care documents).Teo (2000) wrote, "CDA typically concentrates
on data like news reporting,political interviews, counseling, andjob interviews
that describe unequal encounters, or embody manipulativestrategies that seem
neutralor naturalto most people" (p. 12). Similarly,Rampton(2001) pointed out
thatinteractionand dialogism are rarelybroughtout in CriticalDiscourse Analy-
sis. We wondered, as we began this review, if this critique would hold up with
analyses conductedin educationalcontexts. It did not. It appearsas if education
researchersusing CDA are beginning to overturnthis critiqueas more and more
studies are using CDA with interactional data. Of the 39 empirical articles
reviewed,26 (or 66%)used interactionaldata(eitherjust interactionaldataor inter-
actional data and writtendata). See Appendix B for a descriptionof articles that
includedeitherwrittenor interactionaldata.
While an impressivenumberof studiesfocused on analysesof interactionaldata
(ratherthan on writtentexts), the analystsdid not frametheir analyses within the
historyof discourseanalysis and socio-linguistic analysis.CDA has also been cri-
tiqued for not paying attentionto socio-linguistic predecessors(Schegloff, 1993;
Sawyer, 2002). A few studies mentioned the relationshipbetween different dis-
course analytictraditions.Peace (2003), for example, discussed the pros and cons
of "top-down"(critical discourse analysis that draws on post-structuralism)and
"bottom-up"(ethnomethodologyand conversationanalysis) theories of language
and assertedthat "bothapproachescan be problematic"(p. 164). While it is true
thatthe two approachesto discourseanalysishave some incompatibletenets, most
376

CriticalDiscourseAnalysisin Education
criticalanalyses drawon elements of earlierdiscourseanalyses but do not explic-
itly mentionCDA's connectionwith otherforms of discourseanalysis (for excep-
tions, see Collins, 2001; Heller, 2001; Moje, 1997; Rampton,2001).
We then wondered about the relationshipsbetween the type of text analyzed
(written,interactionalor a combinationof writtenand interactional)and the the-
ory of language broughtto bearon the analysis. We learnedthat emphasisplaced
on theoriesof languagevariedwidely acrossthe studiesfrom a carefuldescription
of post-structuraltheoriesof discourseand SFL to a descriptionof post-structural
discoursetheory or a descriptionof SFL, to no descriptionof language at all. We
found this surprisingbecause CDA is a discursively based framework,and we
expected there to be more careful attention to and description of theories of
language.
A numberof studies, particularlythose conductedin 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 brandof 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 principalsacross two schools, explore the interplayof dis-
courses, or living dialogues, in their neighborhood)classify Fairclough, (1989,
1992), Gee (1996), and Lemke (1995) togetherundercritical discourse theories.
Furthermore,Johnson(2001), in a studyof pre-serviceteachers' 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% (1 lof 39) do not addresslanguage 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
criticaldiscourseanalystsneed to be more conscious of is thatthe theoriesof lan-
guage thatarebeing used arepredominantlybased on Europeanlanguages.This is
importantbecause, as we will demonstratein the next section, CDA is often used
in workwith historicallymarginalizedgroupsof people, and such groupsarelikely
to have linguistic variation at the syntactic and morphological level as well as
discourse patternsthat may not be accountedfor in a European-language-based
discourseframework.We returnto this point in the discussion.
CriticalDiscourse Analysis in Context
An ongoing discussion in the journalDiscourse & Society has focused on the
relationshipbetween conversation analysis and CDA (Billig, 1999; Schegloff,
1999). The big questionis how much of the context-beyond the here and now of
the interaction-is important,or necessary,to understandingthe interaction.Crit-
ical discourse analysts pay attentionto the macro context-the societal and the
institutionalas well as the local level of a text and the grammaticalresourcesthat
make up the text. Conversationanalysts, on the other hand, believe all that is
377

Rogers et al.
relevantis the "hereand now" of the interaction,not what came before or afterit.
This groupof scholarsarguesthatCDA does not attendclosely enough to the lin-
guistic resourcesthatconstituteinteractionsbut insteadfocus on how macrorela-
tions are mapped onto micro interactions (Billig, 1999; Widdowson, 1998).
Contextalso has been importantbecause CDA has often been critiquedas "outof
context," meaning that bits of texts and talk are analyzed outside the context of
theirproduction,consumption,distribution,and reproduction.
CDA has also been critiquedby anothergroupof scholars(primarilylinguistic
anthropologists)for not paying enough attentionto ethnographiccontexts-the
criticism being that the analyses are often based on decontextualized texts
(speeches, policy documents,excerpts of talk) ratherthan on grounded,interac-
tional datathatoccurwithin a largerframeof interactions(see Critiqueof Anthro-
pology, volume 21, issues 1-2 for an in-depthdiscussion of this issue). It appears
that CDA conductedin educationalcontexts may offer a way out of this theoreti-
cal and methodologicalquagmire.As we describe in the following sections, edu-
cation researchersare bringing CDA frameworksinto a variety of educational
settingsand askingquestionsthatdemandattentionboth to the linguistic details of
the interactionand to the larger social, historical, and culturalcontexts in which
the interactionsemerge.
As was mentionedearlier,33% (13 of 39) of the studies reviewed for this arti-
cle were analyses of writtentexts where the context was the text itself, for exam-
ple, policy documents, newspaper articles, textbooks, and transcriptsof videos
(Ailwood & Lingard,2001; Barnard,2001; Collins, 2001; Hays, 2000; Luke, 1997;
Pitt, 2002; Stevens, 2003). However, all of the studieswere located in educational
contexts (meeting,classroom,interviews,writingclub). Of the interactionalstud-
ies, 85% took place in middle school, high school, or higher education settings.
Only 15% (4 of 26) took place in elementaryschools (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 educationcontext
(Corson, 2000; Fairclough, 1993; Fox & Fox, 2002) or in university classrooms
(Bartu,2001; Bergvall & Remlinger, 1996; Heberle, 2000).
We found thatthe 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 educationmeetings
(Rogers, 2002b), administrativeschool meetings (e.g., Corson, 2000; Orellana,
1996), or written documents (e.g., Ailwood & Lingard,2001; Anderson, 2001;
Davis, 1997).
All of the empiricalstudies(100%)used some formof anthropologicalor ethno-
graphicmethod(participant-observation recordedin fieldnotes,documentcollec-
tion, and debriefing)(Chouliaraki,1998; Comber,1997; Hughes, 2001; Hinchman
& Young, 2001; Egan-Robertson,1998;Rogers,Tyson, & Marshall,2000; Rogers,
2002a; Young, 2000), interviewsor focus groups(Brown & Kelly, 2001; Collins,
2001; Nichols, 2002; Peace, 2003; Johnson & Avery, 1999; Young, 2000). The
studies varied in the detail and descriptionprovidedabout fieldwork(length and
duration),datasources (writtentexts, interactionaltexts, interviews),andresearch
participants(ethnicity,how they were selected). Some studiesprovideda clear and
378

detaileddescriptionof their data sources (Comber, 1997; Egan-Robertson,1998;
Hughes, 2001; Hinchman& Young, 2001; Moje, 1997; Rogers, 2002a; Rogers,
Tyson, & Marshall,2000; Young, 2000). Otherslacked such descriptions.
Some authors had innovative ways of including context in their analyses.
Nichols (2002), in a study thatexploredthe genderednatureof parents'accounts
of theirchildren,builtthreecontextsinto the interviewprotocol(memoriesof their
own literacyexperiences,descriptionsof home literacypractices,andobservations
of their children's literacy related behaviors). While Hays (2000) situated her
analysis primarily on newspaper texts covering educational conditions in
Botswana in SouthernAfrica, she did make reference to the ethnographicfield-
work that she had conductedthere in her explanationof the newspapertexts (ref-
erences of this kind are rare in the analysis of writtentexts). Similarly, Stevens
(2003), in a study of how the federal governmentdefined reading,combined her
observationsof the ReadingLeadershipAcademy in 2002 with a textual analysis
of the documents from that conference. Other studies (Bergvall & Remlinger,
1996; Chouliaraki,1998; Fox & Fox, 2002; Peace, 2003) recordedinteractional
datain classroomsthroughparticipantobservationor conductedinterviewsbut did
not specify the amountor the durationof fieldwork.Peace (2003) also reportedthat
someone else had collected the interviewsthathe analyzed.
The diversityof the researchparticipantsrepresentedin these studieswas quite
broad.As mentionedearlier,the vast majorityof articles focused on participants
of middle school age or older. Furthermore,most of the researchparticipantswere
students(with the exception of Comber's 1997 analysis of a teacher).The ethnic-
ity of the participantsvaried as widely as the contexts in which the studies
occurred.See AppendixB for the diversityof the researchparticipantsacross the
articles.Overall,the researchersdefinedcontext in termsof the field of study and
participantsand did not theorizethe role of context in conductingCDA. Whatwe
learnis that CDA is being "putto work"in context, but the multiplemeaningsof
context have not yet been theorized.
The Questionof Methods
Van Dijk (2004) has proposedchangingthe name CriticalDiscourse Analysis
to CriticalDiscourseStudiesbecause the term"analysis"suggests thatresearchers
are interestedmainly in analysis, without much theory-when, in fact, CDA is a
combinationof theoryand method(van Dijk, 2004). As reviewed in the introduc-
tion, there are many ways of approachingCDA in the social sciences, from semi-
otic, to historical,to multi-modalanalyses.The problemor object of studymay be
shared,but the authorsare eclectic in theirmethods;thatis, they use methodsthat
they thinkwill help themlearnmoreaboutthe problemunderstudy.Analystsbring
a rangeof theoreticalandmethodologicaltools to bearon theirresearchproblems
and perspectives.
Researchersand scholarsof CDA vary on the questionof whetherthe analytic
proceduresof CDA shouldbe more standardizedacross researchor whetherstan-
dardizationrunscounterto the epistemologicaland ontological tenets of a critical
paradigm.Verschueren(2001) and Martin(2000), for example, arguedthat CDA
shouldbe appliedmore systematicallyand more rigorously.Those who arguefor
more systematicanalyticproceduresaretryingto countercriticswho say thatCDA
researcherssearchtheirdatafor examples of what they aretryingto prove, instead
379

Rogerset al.
of lettingthe data"speak."These criticsrecommendthatcriticaldiscourseanalysts
examine actuallanguagepatternswith some degree of explicitness and reconnect
these patterns with the social and political themes that inform their work. In
responseto the issue of a more systematicCDA, Bucholtz (2001) wrote:
Any attemptto foolproofguidelinesin anacceptablecriticaldiscourseanaly-
sis will be defeatedby its own universalisticurge.... It is difficultto imag-
ine whatmight constituteadequateformalanalysisin advanceof actually
carryingit out: must all analyses attendto phoneticdetail?To syntactic
structure?(p. 176)
Others (Bucholtz, 2001; Gee, 1999) argue that there needs to be a diversity of
approachesand that such diversity strengthensthe frameworkand the method.
Ourreview of the literatureindicatedthatthe actualanalyticproceduresof CDA
were carriedout and reportedon (or not reportedon) in a vast rangeof ways. The
authorsused Fairclough'sthree-tieredframework,post-structuraldiscourseframe-
works, or discourseanalysis (not CDA, despite calling theirproceduresCDA), or
did not specify their analytic procedures.See Appendix B for a summaryof the
analysis carriedout in each of the articles.
Although all of the articles claimed to conduct a CriticalDiscourse Analysis,
some presenteda discourse analysis, not particularlya CriticalDiscourse Analy-
sis. Brown and Kelly (2001), in a studyof the narrativesof AfricanCanadianhigh
school studentswho discussed the relevancy of the social studies curriculumin
theirclassrooms,arguedthat"theirgoal is to highlightandexaminediscoursepro-
ductionandinterpretationas it intersectswith the 'life-worlds' of a particularsub-
ject grouping, i.e., the high-school student of African descent" (p. 503). The
authorsprovidedconversationsbetween studentsbut did not include a discourse
analysis of the conversations.Rather,they presentedthemes or social narratives
ratherthanan analysisof the discursiveconstructionof texts (eitherwrittenor spo-
ken). Discourse analysis in this sense seems to be interpretedat the social rather
than the textual level and does not attemptto move beyond descriptionto inter-
pretationand explanation.
One clusterof studiespresentedbroadthemesfromtheiranalysesandthenused
examplesof discourseto supportthe themes(Bergvall& Remlinger,1996;Rogers,
Tyson, & Marshall,2000; Nichols, 2002; Peace, 2003; Tunstall, 2001). Rogers,
Tyson, and Marshalldescribedtheir analysis as categorizingutterancesinto three
broadthemes. There was no mention of what constitutesan utteranceor how the
themeswere determined.Nichols (2002) analyzedthe parents'interviewusing the
broad themes and the research literatureto demonstratethe themes. Similarly,
Peace (2003), in a studythatexploredthe ways in which women socially construct
masculinitiesthroughcross-genderundergraduatestudentgroupdiscussions,used
a groundedapproachto discourseanalysis.He wrote:"[T]theinterviewtranscripts
were readrepeatedly;as broadcategoriesbegan to emerge they were increasingly
related to the literatureand analyzed in terms of what they may achieve" (pp.
165-166). He does not include for what specific linguistic propertieshe analyzed
the texts.
The question that these analyses raise is, Why did the authorchoose certain
partsof the text to analyze and not others?It appearsfrom the analyticsections of
these articles that the authorsassumed that, if they had a critical orientationand
380

attendedto some aspects of language in their analysis, then they would be con-
ductinga criticaldiscourseanalysis. CDA, in a Faircloughiantradition,drawson
SFL thatassumes thatlinguistic form is relatedto linguistic functionand thatcer-
tain categories of linguistic functions do particularsocial "work."However, the
authorsare not clear on how an analysis of transitivityrelates to the ideological
commitmentof a text. They are also not clear abouthow over-lexicalization(the
availabilityof manywordsfor one concept)relatesto the representationof the his-
tory standardsin one way but not in another.Several studies combine social theo-
ries with the CDA framework(Chouliaraki,1998; Collins, 2001; Woodside-Jiron,
2004). Collins mergedthe NaturalHistoriesof Discourse framework(referential,
interactional,andmetadiscursivelevels) with Fairclough'sthree-tieredframework
(textual,discursive,and society-wide).
In general,the authorsused aspectsof Fairclough'sthree-tieredframeworkbut
failed to specify what linguisticresourcesaccompanywhich set of functions.This
may be, in part,becauseFaircloughdid not specify in his earlierwork(1992, 1995)
whatgrammaticalresourcescorrespondto each level of analysis.However,Chou-
liaraki and Fairclough (1999) and Fairclough (2003) moved closer to the SFL
frameworkand described the specific linguistic resources that may be used for
analysis at each of the correspondingCDA levels. Overall,there was lack of con-
nectionbetween linguisticpractices,social practices,and wider social formations.
Twenty percent (8 of 39) of the empiricalarticles did not describe their analytic
proceduresat all (Ailwood & Lingard,2001; Barnard,2001; Bartu,2001; Brown
& Kelly, 2001; Fox & Fox, 2002; Hughes, 2001; Pitt, 2002; Thomas, 2002). We
returnto discuss this in the concludingsection.
Reflexivity and Role of the Researcher

Chouliarakiand Fairclough(1999) cited reflexivityas an importantagendafor
CDA research.Similarly,Bucholtz (2001) called for a heightenedself-awareness
in discourse analysis. She called for a reflexivity where, "the analyst's choices at
every step in the researchprocess are visible as a partof the discourse investiga-
tion, and critique does not stop with social processes, whether macro-level or
micro-level,butratherextendsto the analysisitself' (p. 166). Reflexivityincludes
at least three aspects: participatoryconstructionof the researchdesign, reciproc-
ity, and turningthe analyticframeback on the researcher.
Reflexive intentionsvary from buildingrigorin the researchto questioningthe
authenticityof the researcher(Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2000). The intention of
reflexivity depends on whether researchersview their aim as strengtheningthe
rigorof social science researchor questioningthe epistemologicalandontological
foundationsof the knowledgeclaims thatcan be made.Forexample,Myerhoffand
Ruby (1982) define reflexivityas "structuringcommunicativeproductsso thatthe
audienceassumes the producer,process and productare a coherentwhole ... sci-
entistshave also been engagedin reflexiveactivities... scientistscontinuouslytest
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 questionthe ideological natureof "monitoring"one's own
thoughtsand actions, their reflexive intentionis to "strengthenthe epistemologi-
cal moorings"of the research(p. 46). This intentionmight be viewed in much the
same way as are traditionalclaims to validity, which often safeguardresearchers
381

Rogers et al.
from a self-reflexive research paradigm. That is, if we triangulate our data,
member-checkwith participants,engage in peer review, establish and maintaina
papertrailof ourtheorizingandanalyticmoves, we can claim thatourCriticalDis-
course Analysis is valid-or an accuraterepresentationof "reality."Such a view
is problematic,especially in a CriticalDiscourse Analysis frameworkthat rejects
the view of an objective and neutralscience.
Reflexivity within a CDA frameworkarisesfrom a concernaboutthe stabiliza-
tion of knowledge claims and the slipperinessof language.Thatis, the fundamen-
tal natureof languagehindersempiricalresearchthat is aimed at establishingthe
"truth."Indeed,ChouliarakiandFairclough(1999) assertthatreflexivityis caught
up in social struggleand thatreflexivity assumes a discursive element that posits
thatresearchersare partof the languagepracticesthey study. The intentionof the
reflexive stance dependson the claims to knowledge and reality of the researcher
andthe extentto which the researchersturnthese frameworkson themselves,either
methodologicallyor theoretically.
Reflexivity is crucial in researchagendasinvolving CriticalDiscourse Analy-
sis in educationresearch.Educationresearchersare often researchersof familiar
educationalsettings.As membersandex-membersof the school communitiesthat
we study, we bring with us (often successful) histories of participationin those
institutions as students, teachers, and parents. Thus we have embodied what
Fairclough(1992) refersto as "members'resources,"or what Gee (1999) refersto
as "culturalmodels" around our participationin school that includes beliefs,
assumptionsand values within these contexts. Thus the classic tension between
distanceandcloseness in the researchsettingis often blurredin educationresearch.
To turnbackto thearticlesreviewedandtheissue of reflexivity,mostof the analy-
ses thatdealtprimarilywith writtentexts did not includea high degreeof 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 researchersoften positionedthemselves as if
they were outsidethe texts. Of course, we know thatthis is not true-and that any
discourseanalysisis a processof constructingmeaning.Hays (2000) was a notable
exception to this rule (see below). Although some studies involved interactional
analyses,the researchersstill did not locate themselvesin the research(Bergvall&
Remlinger,1996;Chouliaraki,1998;Fox & Fox, 2002; Johnson,2001; Moje, 1997).
In a numberof studies, the researcherspositioned themselves mainly as text
analysts,even thoughthey were clearlythe datacollection 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
addressher role in the researchotherthannamingherself as the statereadingspe-
cialist;however, in anotherpublicationshe does deal closely with mattersof CDA
and reflexivity (Stevens, 2004).
In other studies (Brown & Kelly, 2001; Collins, 2001; Young, 2000; Egan-
Robertson, 2000; Rogers, 2002a, 2002b, 2002c), the authorsdo position them-
selves in the researchand comment on issues of reflexivity. Collins (2001), in a
study of how teacherstake up (or resist) the discourses of educationalstandards
and the ways in which the standardsecho larger socio-political educational
reforms,presentshimself as a text analystor researcherand also as a memberof
the educationalcommunitywithin the districtthathe is writingaboutand a parent
382

of a child in the same district.Young (2000), in a study that explores how critical
literacyactivitiesin a home schooling settingsustainor transformthe participants'
awarenessof genderedidentitiesand inequitiesin texts, writes the following:
As a middleandhighschoolliteracyteacher,I exploredmanyalternativelit-
eracypracticesandinstructionaloptionsin an effortto findways to encour-
age studentsto become readers,writers,and learners.As a mother,I have
oftenlongedformy sons' schoolliteracyexperiencesto be differentfromtra-
ditionaltextbookmethods.(p. 312)
Young (2000) squarelypositions herself in her researchas a motherand teacher,
one aspect of reflexivity. She does not, however, turnthe criticaldiscourseanaly-
sis frameworkback on herself to analyze how her participationin the research
contributedto the reproductionor disruptionof powerrelations.Overall,we found
very few examples of this type of reflexivity in the studies that we reviewed-an
issue to which we returnin the conclusion. At presentwe move to summarizeour
findingsand point to implicationsand futureresearch.
Discussion and Conclusion

Whatdo we know as a resultof CDA conductedin educationresearch?The stud-
ies reviewedprovideeducationresearcherswith a closer look at the ways in which
educational issues are constructedand representedat micro and macro levels
throughpublic documents,speeches, interactionsin classrooms,informalsites of
learning,andacrossthe lifespan.The emphasison interactionaldatagives us insight
into the ways in which the micro and macro contexts are linked togetherand the
ways in which competingdiscoursescome into play. Indeed,in this corpusof stud-
ies we have seen how discoursesof educationdrawon hybridand intertextualdis-
courses, such as business and management(Anderson,2001; Comber,1997).
A strongthreadrunningthroughmany of the findingswas the identificationof
unintendedconsequencesof educationaldecisions, policies, and social practices.
That is, educatorsoften intendedto open up liberatoryspaces in meetings, poli-
cies, teachingdecisions, and classroomlessons; but a closer analysisrevealedthat
theiractionshad unintendedconsequencesthatresultedin furtheroppression(Ail-
wood & Lingard,2001; Chouliaraki,1998; Corson, 2000; Comber, 1997; Fox &
Fox, 2002). Along the same line, the analysesthatwe reviewedprovideda detailed
investigationof the subtletiesof power and privilege, the ways in which power is
linked to historiesof participationin variouscontexts, and how power is internal-
ized ratherthanreinforcedfromabove.Withthatsaid, most of the analysesfocused
on the ways in which power is reproducedratheron how it is changed, resisted,
andtransformedtowardliberatoryends. Luke (2004) arguesthat,historically,most
critical analyses have focused on uncoveringthe discursiveplaces where oppres-
sion and dominationoccur ratherthanon places of liberation.Luke (2004) stated:
We need more researchand scholarshipthat documentsand analytically
explicatesanalysesthatfocus on affirmative,emancipatingand redressive
texts anddiscoursepractices-turningour attentionto instanceswheredis-
course appearsto lead systematicallyto the redistributionof wealth and
power.(p. xi)
We concurwith this assertion.
383

Rogers et al.
Overall, this review has outlined the major areas of emphasis, as well as the
strengthsandweaknesses,of CDA in educationresearch.We can also returnto the
common critiquesof CDA (political and social ideologies are read into the data;
there is unequalbalance between social theory and linguistic theory;and CDA is
often divorcedfrom social contexts) and ask, How do educationresearchersusing
CDA fare with these critiques?
It appearsthatCDA thatis conductedin educationalsettings is moving toward
overcoming written language bias. Indeed, 66% of the empirical articles ana-
lyzed interactionallanguage. Much of the researchthathas been conductedwith
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 writtentexts 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
dynamiclearningsettings, researcherschange, modify, and adjustthe framework
to suit the needs of their research designs and particularquestions. 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 adjustmentsand adaptations,given the demandsof
the research questions, the contexts, and the theoretical frameworks that are
broughtinto line with it.
While 66 % of the articles focused on interactionaldata, many of the articles
did not providea clear descriptionof theirlinguistic framework-an oddity given
thatCDA is a discourse-basedframework.Such unbalancedattentionto language
theoryin CDA in educationresearchmay be due, in part,to the lack of trainingthat
educationresearchersreceive in language studies. A real problem for education
researcherswho are interestedin CriticalDiscourse Analysis is theirrelativelack
of experiencein dealing with the micro-structureof texts. This is compoundedby
the relativelack of attentionto SFL in the Americancontext.
All of the studiesthatfocused on interactionaldataused ethnographicmethods
of participantobservationrecordedin fieldnotes,interviews,documentcollection,
and debriefingwith participants.Some studies includeddataacross time and con-
texts (Moje, 1997; Rogers,2002a). All of the studiesattendedto bothethnographic
and linguistic contexts, althoughthe weight placed on one or the othervaries. The
attention paid to local, institutional, or societal contexts varied as well. The
researchin this review did not theorizethe role of contextbeyond the field of study
and the participantsin the study. More theorizationof the role of context in criti-
cal discoursestudies would be an importantnext step.
Although most of the studies focused on what Luke (2004) calls the "decon-
structive"ratherthanthe "reconstructive" aspectsof power,the focus on classroom
discourse and interactionaldata opens up possibilities for investigatingthe ways
in which people resist and transformsocial relations towardemancipatoryends.
Interactionaldatatendto be morehybrid(or less stable)thanwrittentexts andthus
open to the possibility of change. More analyses of the intricacies of classroom
talk, within a democraticframework,could offer descriptions,interpretations,and
explanationsof how agency, productiveliterateidentities,and a sense of commu-
nity are formedand sustained.
384

The focus on interactionsin classroomsin the studiesreviewed also resultedin
a discussionof the role of criticaldiscoursestudies in learning.Severalof the arti-
cles discussed viewing learning in terms of changing discourse practices across
time (Rogers, 2002b). Furthermore,An Introductionto CriticalDiscourse Analy-
sis in Education (Rogers, 2004), provides a collection of empiricalchaptersthat
illustratethe ways in which CDA can illuminatelearningby studyingshifts in dis-
course practicesacross time and contexts. More researchis needed to investigate
how shifts in discourse patternscan provide educators insight into the ways in
which people of variousages learn.
An overwhelming85% of the studies involved participantswho were of mid-
dle school age or older. Only 15%of the studiesincludedparticipantswho were in
elementaryschool and under 10 years old. Ideologies are reproducedand trans-
formed at very young ages. Therefore,descriptionsand explanationsof how this
occurs and, more important,how the acquisitionof counterproductiveideologies
is interrupted,are necessary. This suggests the importanceof extending CDA
inquiriesto primarygrades.It also raisesthe questionwhetherthe critiquesof inte-
gratingcritical literacy into primarygrades extend to the usefulness of CDA as a
theoreticaland methodologicalframeworkin primarygradeclassrooms.
It was not surprisingto see in this review thatCDA was mostly used with par-
ticipantswho have historicallybeen oppressed(e.g., women, AfricanAmericans,
the poor and workingclasses). As Wodak & Reisigl (2001) pointedout:
Languageis not powerfulon its own-it gains powerby the use powerful
peoplemakeof it. This explainswhy CriticalLinguisticsoften chooses the
perspectiveof those who suffer,andcriticallyanalyzesthe languageuse of
thosein power,who areresponsibleforthe existenceof inequalitiesandwho
also havethe meansandopportunities to improveconditions.(p. 10)
What was refreshing is that researchersin education also looked closely at the
language of those who suffer (students,parentsin meetings, teachers)and found
places of agency, creativity,and resistance.We need to proceed cautiously with
conductingresearchon groupsof people who have been oppressedhistorically,as
opposed to conductingresearchwith these people (an issue discussed earlier).The
majorityof the studiesreviewedhere took the formerapproach.Luke (1995/1996)
writes, "[W]hatis needed is a systematicattemptto build on minoritydiscourses
in schools, classrooms,andotherpublic institutions"(p. 39). We mightextend our
analyses beyond verbaldata to the nonlinguisticand 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 educationresearch(Greene& Abt-Perkins,2003; Tate, 2003). Critical
discourseanalyses should more consciously drawon the historyof scholarshipin
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 importantbecause CDA frameworkstraditionally
drawon Euro-Americanepistemologicaltraditions,bothin theoreticalandanalytic
frameworks.Such frameworkshave continuedto silence and oppresshistorically
marginalizedgroupsof people.
385

Rogers et al.
The studies that we reviewed included multiple analytic methods. However,
they surprisinglyuniformin terms of the frameworkthat the analysts drew upon
in theiranalysis.None of the studiesthatwe reviewed drewon multi-modalanaly-
ses. The use of CDA as a methodology is rapidlygrowing in educationresearch.
Manyof the studiesdrawon Fairclough's approach-ratherthanon the approaches
of van Dijk, Wodak, Kress and Van Leeuwen, and so forth.This homogeneity in
approachis 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
approachesthatcan help to bring fresh insights to educationalquestions.
The weakestlink in all of these studies seems to be the connectionbetween lin-
guisticresourcesandsocial practices.Thatis, althoughsome of the authorsfocused
on the linguistic details of interactionsand made social claims, they failed to rep-
resentthe relationshipbetweenthe grammaticalresourcesandthe social practices.
Not even the studies that provided an analysis of the micro-linguisticaspects of
texts gave a rationalefor why those aspects were includedor explainedhow they
are connected to social practices. On the other hand, researcherswere equally
inclined to point out social practicesthroughbroadthemes or discourses without
indicatinghow such discourses were constructedor constrainedby grammatical
resources.Clearly,establishinga link betweenthe two levels is necessary.Indeed,
Meyer (2001) arguedthat often a range of linguistic indicatorsand variablesare
used to analyze texts with no theoreticalcoherenceor grammartheory supporting
the analysis.
It seems importantto be clear about what grammaticalresources are being
inquiredinto (pronounsor modality)andwhy.Thatis, SFL arguesthatevery utter-
ance performsthree simultaneousfunctions:It presentsideas, it positions people
in certainways, and it performsa textualfunction of organizingthe coherence of
talkingand/orwriting.It is importantto clarify which aspectsof languageperform
which functionsto avoid being criticizedfor readingideologies into the data.Ana-
lysts can takeresponsibilityfor adoptinga moregroundedapproachandlettingthe
ideologies appear-as networksof practices-and be read from the data.Educa-
tion researchersshould spendmore time incorporatingSFL theoryandmethod(or
compatiblelinguistic models) into theiranalyses.
Therewas alarminglylittle reflexivityin the articlesthatwe reviewed. Some of
the articlesdid include a researcherrole section-a rhetoricalstrategythatis com-
monplacein publishingqualitativeresearch.However,many of the authorsdid not
move from reflection to reflexivity. This is a problem, especially in education
research,whereresearchersoftenhave successfulhistoriesof participationwithinthe
educationcontextswherethey are conductingresearch.Therewere some surprises.
Hays (2000), for example,includeda momentof reflexivityin her analysisof news-
paperarticles.This is the only reflexive section in a writtenlanguageanalysisthat
we found. Despite not using reflexivityto its full potential,some authorsoutlined
theiranalyticdecisions very carefully,thusallowingthe readerto assess them.
We reportedthatvery few of the articlesreviewed here moved towardemanci-
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 researchersalso worked as a literacy tutorand plannedcritical
interventionswith the people with whom he or she was working.The lack of action
in the rest of the studiesis surprising,given thatmany of the authorsdefinedCDA
386

in termsof its liberatorygoals andaims (as was discussedearlier).Bucholtz(2001)
assertedthat it is not possible for scholars who do critical work to separatetheir
researchfrom theirpolitical positions. Similarly,van Dijk (2001) referredto CDA
as "discourseanalysis with an attitude"(p. 96). What is importantfor continued
workin CDA is a methodologythatallows politicalpositionsto arisefromthe data
ratherthanbeing readinto them. The twin goals of a rigorousanalysis and a social
justice agendaneed not be incompatible.
Bucholtz (2001) points out that CDA should not strive to enforce stricter
methodological guidelines, because more rigorous and scientific methodologies
would inevitablymove researchersaway fromrecognizingthe constructionof their
discourse analysis. Instead,researchersshould closely attendto the specific con-
ditions that shape peoples' lives and bringthe researcher'srole more clearly into
vision. Based on the review of CDA in education,we would agree with Bucholtz
(2001) thata formalizedset of methodologicalcriteriafor CDA will not silence the
critiquesof the theoryand method.Indeed,CDA, by design, is a hybridset of the-
ories and methodologies. The continued work within and across frameworks
allows CDA to adaptand respondto ever-changingconditions in a late capitalist
society. We departfrom her assertion,however, afterthis review of CDA in edu-
cation. As we have demonstratedin this review, many studieshave not reportedan
analyticproceduressection. Many studies included a linguistic analysis but were
not clear aboutwhy certainaspectsof texts were chosen. Still othersmade sweep-
ing explanatorystatements-of the type thatareoften easy to stateeven before the
analysishas been conducted-without attentionto the links betweenthe microand
the macro.If CDA as a theoryandmethodis to move beyond the presentcritiques,
researchersmight attendto the following: (a) the links between the micro and the
macro;(b) explainingwhy certainlinguisticresourcesareanalyzedandnot others,
and (c) clear analyticproceduresoutliningthe decision makingof the researcher.
Directionsfor FutureResearch
Despite this robust collection of literature,there are areas where theories of
learningareunderdevelopedor not attachedat all to "critical"discourse theoryand
social transformation.CDA offers a synergisticframeworkwith social construc-
tivist and communityof practicemodels of learning.Indeed,CDA can be used to
trace changes in discourse patternsover 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 researchis needed in primary
grade classrooms, particularlywith interactionaltexts. There is also a need for
researchanalyzing multi-modaltexts (Web surfing,hypertexts,channel surfing,
network communication).We might also study genre mixing within and across
researchsites and projects.
An issue not exploredin this article,but which may be of considerableinterest
to educationresearchersinterestedin CDA, is the representationof the analysis
and the findings. Clearly, given the space constraintsof publishing in academic
journals,it is not possible to representall aspectsof multi-vocaland 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
journalsas the primaryoutlet for work in CDA. Researchersmight considerother
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-
eratingaims were relatedto the researchparticipantsandthe role of the researcher.
Future studies might offer descriptions of the nuances of learning described
througha CDA framework(productive,constructiveCDA approaches)ratherthan
simply a criticalframework.This last recommendationfor researchoften seems to
be placedlast on the agendaof scholarsin educationwho areusing CDA. We hope
thatmoreactionwill be takenas a resultof the CDA studies.Perhapsmultiplestud-
ies conductedwith CDA can be used to help shape constructiveinterventionsin
policy and practicein educationalcontexts.
Notes
Thisreviewof CDA in educationresearchstartedas a projectin a doctoralseminar
in discourseanalysisthatthefirstauthor(RebeccaRogers)taughtin 2001.Earlierdrafts
of the articlewere presentedat the CDA Conferencein Bloomington,Indiana(June
2004); the first annualCDA Conferencein Valencia, Spain (May 2004); and the
Universityof Albany(November2004). We wouldlike to thankmembersof the audi-
ence at these workshopsfor theirhelpfulcomments,questions,andfeedback.We are
also gratefulto the CDA study groupthatmeets regularlyat the NationalReading
Conference,forprovidinganongoingconversationabouttheoreticalandmethodolog-
ical issues involvedwith CDA. And, finally,we thankCynthiaLewis andthe anony-
mousreviewersfor helpfulfeedbackon earlierdraftsof this article.
1 See Seigel and Fernandez,2002, for an overview of critical approachesin
education.
2 An in-depthtreatment of the historyof discourseanalysisand its sociolinguistic
rootsis beyondthe scope of this article.However,manyarticlesandbookshavebeen
writtenthat focus on that history (e.g., Coupland& Jaworski,1997; Jaworski&
Coupland,1999).In addition,Stef Slembrouck'swebsiteanswersthe question"What
is meant by discourse analysis?" (http://bank.rug.ac.be/da/da.htm). The site includes
a detailedhistoryof discourseanalysis,withbibliographicreferences.
References
Ailwood,J., & Lingard,B. (2001). Theendgamefor nationalgirls' schoolingpolicies
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). Discipliningleaders:A criticaldiscourseanalysisof the ISLLC
NationalExaminationand PerformanceStandardsin educationaladministration.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 199-216.
Austin,J. (1962).How to do thingswithwords.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Bakhtin,M. (1981). The dialogic imagination:Four essays byM. M. Bakhtin(C. Emerson
& M. Holoquist,Trans.).Austin:TexasUniversityPress.
Barnard,C. (2001). Isolatingknowledgeof the unpleasant:The rapeof Nankingin
Japanese high-school textbooks. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4),
519-530.
Bartu,H. (2001).Can'tI readwithoutthinking?Readingin a ForeignLanguage,13(2),
593-614.
dis-
Baxter,J. (2002). Competingdiscoursesin the classroom:A Post-structuralist
courseanalysisof girls' andboys' speechin publiccontexts.Discourse& Society,
13(6), 827-842.
388

Beach,R. (1997). Criticaldiscoursetheoryandreaderresponse:How discoursescon-
stitutereaderstancesandsocial contexts.Reader,37, 1-26.
Beach, R., & Anson, C. (1992). Stanceandintertextualityin writtendiscourse.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).Subjectivityin language.In E. Meek (Ed.),Problemsin
generallinguistics(pp.223-230). CoralGables,FL:Universityof MiamiPress.
Bergvall,V., & Remlinger,K.(1996).Reproduction, resistance,andgenderin educational
discourse:Theroleof criticaldiscourseanalysis.Discourse& Society,7(4),453-479.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes, and control. London: Paladin.
Billig, M. (1999). Conversationanalysisandthe claimsof naivety.Discourse& Soci-
ety, 10(4), 572-576.
Blommaert,J., & Bulcaen,C. (2000). CriticalDiscourseAnalysis.AnnualReviewof
Anthropology, 29, 447-466.
Bloome, D., & Carter,S. P. (2001). Lists in readingeducationreform.Theoryinto
Practice, 40(3), 150-157.
Bourdieu,P. (1977). Outlineof a theoryof practice.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUni-
versityPress.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice,
Trans.).London:Routledge.(Originalworkpublishedin 1979)
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago:
Universityof ChicagoPress.
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). Curriculumand the classroom:Privateand public
spaces. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4), 501-518.
Bucholtz,M. (2001).Reflexivityandcritiquein discourseanalysis.CritiqueofAnthro-
pology, 21(2), 165-183.
Burs, L., & Morrell,E. (in press). Criticaldiscourseanalysisin literacyresearch.
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:HarvardUniversityPress.(Originalworkpublished1988)
Chouliaraki,L. (1998). Regulationin progressivistpedagogicdiscourse: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: Afunctional perspective. New York:
ContinuumPress.
Cicourel, A. (1974). Cognitive sociology: Language and meaning in social interaction.
Harmondsworth, UK:PenguinEducation.
Collins,J. (1986).Differentialinstructionin readinggroups.InJ. Cook-Gumperz
(Ed.),
The Social Constructionof Literacy(pp. 117-137). Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Collins, J. (2001). Selling the market:Educationalstandards,discourseand social
inequality. Critique ofAnthropology, 21(2), 143-163.
Collins, J., & Blot, R. (2003). Literacy and literacies: Texts,power, and identity. Cam-
bridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Comber,B. (1997).Managerialdiscourses:Trackingthelocal effectson 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'sPress.
Crenshaw,K. (1988). Racereform,retrenchment:
Transformation andlegitimationin
anti-discrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331-1387.
Davies, B. (1993). Shards of Glass: Children Reading and WritingBeyond Gendered
Identities.Cresskill,NJ:HamptonPress.
Davies,B., & Harre,R. (1990).Positioning:Thediscursiveproductionof selves.Jour-
nalfor the Theory of Social Behavior, 20(1), 43-63.
Davis,J. (1997).Educationalreformandthebabel(babble)of culture:Prospectsforthe
standardsof foreign language learning. Moder Language Journal, 81(2), 151-163.
Delgado,R. (1995). Legal storytelling:Storytellingfor oppositionistsand others:A
plea for narrative. In R. Delgado (Ed.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge (pp.
60-70). Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.
Derrida,J. (1974). Ofgrammatology.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress.
DuBois,W. E. B. (1990). Thesouls of blackfolks.New York:VintageBooks. (Origi-
nal workpublished1903)
Edwards,D., & Potter,J. (1992).Discursivepsychology.London:Sage Publications.
Egan-Robertson,A. (1998). Learningaboutculture,language,and power:Under-
standingrelationshipsamongpersonhood,literacypractices,and intertextuality.
Journal of Literacy Research, 30(4), 449-487.
Fairclough,N. (1989). Languageandpower.London:Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1991). Discourse processes and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Press.
Fairclough,N. (1992).Discourseandsocial change.Cambridge,UK:PolityPress.
Fairclough,N. (1993). Criticaldiscourseanalysisandthe marketization
of publicdis-
course:Theuniversities.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). Criticaldiscourseanalysis.In T. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258-284). London: Sage.
Figueriredo,D. (2000).Criticaldiscourseanalysis:Towardsa new perspectiveof EFL
reading. Illha do Desterro: A Journal of Language and Literature, 38, 139-154.
Flowerdew,J. (1999). Descriptionand interpretationin criticaldiscourseanalysis.
Journal of Pragmatics, 31(8), 1089-1099.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge and the discourse on language.
New York:PantheonBooks. (Originalworkpublished1969)
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Harmondsworth,
UK:PenguinBooks.
Foucault,M. (1981). History of sexuality(Vol. 1). Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin
Books.
Fowler,R., Hodge,B., Kress,G., & Trew,T. (1979). Languageand control.London:
Routledge.
Fox, R., & Fox, J. (2002). Thepower-discourserelationshipin a Croatianhigheredu-
cation setting. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(5), 1-16.
Garfinkel,H. (1967). Studiesin ethnomethodology.
New York:PrenticeHall.
Gebhard,M. (2002).Fastcapitalism,schoolreform,andsecondlanguageliteracyprac-
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).Firstlanguageacquisitionas a guidefortheoriesof learningandped-
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). Whatvideo games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New
York:PalgraveMacmillan.
Gee, J. P. (2004).Whatis criticalaboutcriticaldiscourseanalysis?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). Lettersfrom the prison notebooks (L. Lawner, Trans.). New York:
Harper& Rowe.
Greene, S., & Abt-Perkins, D. (2003). Making race visible: Literacy research for cul-
turalunderstanding.New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Gumperz,J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Ameri-
Gumperz,J. & Hymes,D. (Eds.)(1964). The ethnographyof communication.
can Anthropologist, 66(6), 1-34.
Halliday,M. A. K. (1975). Learninghowto mean.London:EdwardArnoldPress.
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-
versityPress.
Halliday,M. A. K., & Hasan,R. (1976). Cohesionin 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). Intertextualityand reading.Linguisticsand Education,4(3/4),
295-311.
Hasan, R., & Fries, P. (Eds.). (1995). On subject and theme: A discourse functional
perspective.Amsterdam:BenjaminsPress.
Hays,J. (2000). Anguishedlaments:A criticaldiscourseanalysisof education,repre-
sentation,anddevelopmentof the Sanof Botswana.Journalof theAfricanActivist
Association, 28(3), 23-41.
Heberle,V. (2000). Criticalreading:Integratingprinciplesof criticaldiscourseanaly-
sis and gender studies. Illha do Desterro: A Journal of Language and Literature, 38,
115-138.
Heller, M. (2001). Critiqueand sociolinguisticanalysis of discourse. Critiqueof
Anthropology, 21(2), 117-141.
Hinchman,K., & Young,J. P. (2001). Speakingbutnotbeingheard: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:PolityPress.
Hughes,G. (2001).Exploringthe availabilityof studentscientistidentitieswithincur-
riculumdiscourse:An anti-essentialistapproachto gender-inclusivescience. Gen-
der and Education, 13(3), 275-290.
Hymes,D. (1972).Modelsof theinteractionof languageandsociallife. InJ. Gumperz
& D. Hymes (Eds.),Directionsin 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
Frankfurtschool.Toronto,Ontario,Canada:Universityof TorontoPress.
Johnson,G. (2001). A cautionarytale: A dialogic re-readingof a studentteacher's
visual narrative.Narrative Inquiry, 11(2), 451-478.
Johnson,T., & Avery,P. G. (1999). The powerof the press:A contentanddiscourse
analysisof the UnitedStateshistorystandardsas presentedin selectednewspapers.
Theory and Research in Social Education, 27(4), 447-471.
of texts
Kamberelis,G., & Scott,K. (1992). Otherpeople'svoices:The coarticulation
and subjectivities. Linguistics and Education, 4(3), 359-404.
Kinchloe,J., & McLaren,P. (2003).Rethinkingcriticaltheoryandqualitativeresearch.
In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories
and issues (2nded., pp. 433-488). ThousandOaks: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:BlackwellPublishing.
Kristeva,J. (1986).Word,dialogue,andthenovel.InT. Moi (Ed.),TheKristevareader
(pp.35-61). New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Kristeva, J. (1989). Language-The unknown: An initiation into linguistics (A. M.
Menke,Trans.).New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
B. (1999). Criticalclassroomdiscourseanalysis.TESOLQuarterly,
Kumaravadivelu,
33(3), 453-484.
of experiencein narrativesyntax.In W. Labov
Labov,W. (1972). The transformation
(Ed.), Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English Vernacular (pp.
354-396). Universityof PhiladelphiaPress.
Ladson-Billings,G. (2003). Racializeddiscoursesand ethnicepistemologies.In N.
Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and
issues (2nded., pp. 398-432). ThousandOaks:Sage.
Ladson-Billings,G., & Tate,W. (1995). Towardsa criticalracetheoryof education.
Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47-68.
Lemke,J. (1992). Intertextuality
andeducationalresearch.LinguisticsandEducation,
4(3), 257-268.
Lemke, J. (1995). Textualpolitics: Discourse and social dynamics. London: Taylor &
Francis.
to criticaldis-
Luke,A. (1995-1996).Textanddiscoursein education:An introduction
course analysis. Review of Research in Education, 21, 3-48.
Luke,A. (1997). The materialeffects of the words:Apologies,"stolenchildren"and
public discourse. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3),
343-368.
Luke,A. (2004). Notes on the futureof criticaldiscoursestudies.CriticalDiscourse
Studies, 1(1), 149-152.
Martin, J. (1985). Factual writing: Exploring and challenging social reality. Geelong,
UK: DeakinUniversityPress.
Martin,J. (2000). Close reading.In L. Unsworth(Ed.), Researchinglanguage in
schools and communities. Washington, DC: Cassell.
Meyer,M. (2001).Betweentheory,method,andpolitics:Positioningof theapproaches
to CDA. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis
(pp. 14-31). London:Sage.
Michaels,S. (1981)."Sharingtime":Children'snarrativesstylesanddifferentialaccess
to literacy. Language and Society, 10(4), 423-442.
Moje, E. B. (1997). Exploringdiscourse,subjectivity,and knowledgein 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: Universityof PennsylvaniaPress.
Myers,G. (1996). Outof the laboratoryanddownto the bay:Writingin science and
technology studies. WrittenCommunication, 13(1), 5-43.
Nichols, S. (2002). Parents'constructionof theirchildrenas gendered,literaturesub-
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
UniversityPress.
Orellana,M. (1996).Negotiatingpowerthroughlanguagein classroommeetings.Lin-
guistics and Education, 8(4), 335-365.
Peace,P. (2003). Balancingpower:The discursivemaintenanceof genderinequality
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:LawrenceErlbaum.
Peters, M., & Burbules, N. (2004). Poststructuralism and educational research. New
York:Rowman& LittlefieldPublishers.
Pitt,K. (2002). Being a new capitalistmother.Discourse& Society,13(2), 251-267.
Price,S. (1999). Criticaldiscourseanalysis:Discourseacquisitionanddiscourseprac-
tices. TESOLQuarterly, 33(3), 581-595.
Propp,V. (1968). Morphologyoffolk tale. Austin:Universityof TexasPress.
Rampton,B. (2001). Critiquein interaction.Critiqueof Anthropology,21(1), 83-107.
Rogers,R. (2002a).Betweencontexts:A criticalanalysisof familyliteracy,discursive
practices,andliteratesubjectivities.ReadingResearchQuarterly37(3), 248-277.
Rogers,R. (2002b). A CriticalDiscourseAnalysisof the specialeducationprocess.
Anthropology and Education Quarterly 33(2), 213-237.
Rogers,R. (2002c). "That'swhatyou'reherefor, you'resupposedto know":Teach-
ing and learning critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 45(8),
772-787.
Rogers, R. (2003). A critical discourse analysis offamily literacy practices: Power in
and out ofprint.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. Mah-
wah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Rogers,T., Tyson,C., & Marshall,E. (2000). Livingdialoguesin one neighborhood:
Movingtowardunderstanding acrossdiscourseandpracticesof literacyandschool-
ing. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(1), 1-24.
Sacks,H., Schegloff,E., & Jefferson,G. (1974). A simplestsystematicsfor the orga-
nizationof turn-takingfor conversation.Language,50, 696-735.
Sawyer,K. (2002). A discourseon discourse:An archeologicalhistoryof an intellec-
tual concept. Cultural Studies, 16(3), 433-456.
Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflectionson quantificationin the study of conversation.
Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26(1), 99-128.
Schegloff,E. (1999). "Schegloffs texts"as "Billig'sdata":A criticalreply.Discourse
& Society, 10(4), 558-572.
Schegloff,E., Ochs,E., & Thompson,S. (1996).Interactionandgrammar.Cambridge,
UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. (1981). Narrative, literacy, andface 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 thephilosophy of language. Cambridge,UK:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
393

Rogers et al.
Short,K. (1992). Researchingintertextuality
withincollaborativeclassroomlearning
environments. Linguistics and Education, 4(3), 313-334.
Siegel,M., & Fernandez,S. L. (2000).Criticalapproaches.InM. Kamil,P. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson,& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbookof reading research (Vol. 3, pp.
141-152). Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Silverstein,M., & Urban.G. (Eds.).(1996).NaturalHistoriesof Discourse.Chicago:
Universityof ChicagoPress.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1975). Toward an analysis of discourse. Oxford, UK:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Stamou,A.G. (2002). The representationof non-protestersin a studentand teacher
protest:A criticaldiscourseanalysisof mewsreportingin a Greeknewspaper.Com-
munication Abstracts, 25(2), 143-181.
Stevens, L. (2003). Readingfirst:A criticalpolicy analysis.The ReadingTeacher,
56(7), 662-668.
Stevens,L. (2004). Locatingthe role of the criticaldiscourseanalyst.In R. Rogers
(Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 207-224).
Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.
Tate,R. (2003). The "race"to theorizeeducation:Who is my neighbor?Qualitative
Studies in Education, 16(1), 121-126.
Tate,W. (1997). Criticalracetheoryandeducation:History,theory,andimplication.
Review of Research in Education, 22, 191-243.
Teo, P. (2000). Racismin the news:A CriticalDiscourseAnalysisof news reporting
in two Australian newspapers. Discourse & Society, 11(1), 7-49.
Thomas,S. (2002). Contestingeducationpolicy in the publicsphere:Mediadebates
over policies for the Queenslandschool curriculum.Journalof EducationPolicy,
17(2), 187-198.
Tunstall,P. (2001). Assessmentdiscourseandconstructionsof social realityin infant
classrooms. Journal of Education Policy, 16(3), 215-231.
vanDijk,T. (1993).Principlesof criticaldiscourseanalysis.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 AnnualInternationalConferenceof CriticalDiscourseAnalysis, Valencia,
Spain.
Verschueren,J. (2001). Predicamentsof criticism.Critiqueof Anthropology,21(1),
59-81.
Volosinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Berkeley: University
of CaliforniaPress.(Originalworkpublishedin 1930)
Widdowson,H. G. (1998). The theory and practiceof critical discourseanalysis.
Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 136-151.
Willig, C. (Ed.). (1999). Applied discourse analysis: Social and psychological inter-
ventions.Buckingham,UK:OpenUniversityPress.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labor: How working class kids get working class jobs.
New York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Wittgenstein,L. (1953). Philosophicalinvestigations(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).Methodsof textanddiscourse
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 criticaldis-
courseanalysisto makesense of publicpolicy. In R. Rogers(Ed.),An introduction
to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 173-206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Woodson,C. (1990).Themis-educationof theNegro.Trenton,NJ:AfricaWorldPress.
(Originalworkpublished1933)
Wortham,S. (2001).Narrativesin action.New York:TeachersCollegePress.
Yancy, G. (Ed.). (1998). African American philosophers: Seventeen conversations.
New York:Routledge.
Young,J. P. (2000). Boy talk:Criticalliteracyandmasculinities.ReadingResearch
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
REBECCAROGERSis an AssistantProfessorof LiteracyEducationin the Depart-
mentof Educationat WashingtonUniversityin St. Louis,CampusBox 1183, One
BrookingsAvenue, St. Louis, MO 63130; rogers3948@aol.com.Her research
focuses on the discursiveconstructionof literatesubjectivitiesacrossthe lifespan,
with a particularinterestin teacherandstudentlearningwithinanti-racistlearning
contexts.
ELIZABETHMALANCHARUVIL-BERKES is a doctoralstudentin theDepartment
of EducationatWashingtonUniversityin St. Louis,CampusBox 1183,OneBrook-
ings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130; eberkes@wustl.edu.She uses a graduate-level
background bothin educationandin molecularandcellulargeneticsto examinesci-
entificdiscoursepracticesin classroomsfromkindergarten to college andin infor-
mal science settings, with a particularinterest in understandinghow specific
pedagogicalpracticesaffectpersistencein scientificcommunities.
MELISSAMOSLEYis a doctoralstudentin the Departmentof Educationat Wash-
ingtonUniversityin St. Louis,OneBrookingsDrive,CampusBox 1183, St. Louis,
MO 63130;mrmosley@wustl.edu. She uses CDA andotherqualitativemethodsto
analyzeteacherandstudentdiscoursein the fieldof literacyandurbaneducation.
DIANEHUIis a doctoralstudentin the Departmentof Educationat WashingtonUni-
versityin St Louis,OneBrookingsDrive,CampusBox 1183,St. Louis,MO63130;
diane.hui@wustl.edu. Hercurrentresearchexaminesthepossibilitiesandconstraints
of online communitiesin supportingteacherlearningfor both experiencedand
noviceteachers.
GLYNISO'GARROJOSEPHis a doctoralstudentin theDepartmentof Educationat
WashingtonUniversityin St. Louis, One BrookingsDrive, CampusBox 1183, St.
Louis, MO 63130; gogarro@wustl.edu. In her currentresearchshe focuses on the
socialandacademicexperiencesof Blackgirlsin a suburbanelementaryschool;she
employsethnographicresearchproceduresto examinethe interconnectionof race
andgender.
395

APPENDIX A
Code Bookfor CDA
Publicationdate for study:
Authors'names and institutionalaffiliation/location:
Whattype of articleis this? (e.g., empiricalstudy, theoreticalpaper,review of literature,
position paper)
How is CDA defined?Use the author'swords to define CDA.
What theorists/researchersare cited in referenceto CDA?
What mode of languageis studied?(spoken, written,interactional)
Whattheoreticalframeworksdoes the researcheruse in the paper?List the theoretical
frameworksand cite all theoristsreferenced.
Whattheoriesof languageare used? Use the author'swords to describethe theoryof
languageand cite linguists and discourseanalyststhe authorreferences.
Who are the researchpopulation/participants?
Whatis the ethnicityof the researchparticipantsif applicable?
What is the gradelevel of the participantsif applicable?
What is the geographiclocation of the study?
What is the context of the study?(communityagency, newspaper,school)
Whatis the researchquestion?
How is learningaddressed(intertextualityreferences)?
How is the analysis conducted?(e.g., what aspects of CDA are used) [Specifically
describethe methodof conductingcriticaldiscourseanalysis.]
What are the datasources?
What is the role of the researcher(e.g., text analyst,participantobserver)?
Is therea theoryof learningin the research?
What are the noted limitationsof the work? [the author'swords]
Whatare critiquesof the work?
How does this articlerelateto otherarticles?
396

APPENDIX B
Summaryof studies reviewed
Context of
Publication Definitionof CDA Researchfocus/question study
Ailwood & "Theanalysis providedhere aims "The analysis providedhere Policy
Lingard to disruptthis broaddiscourse aims to disruptthis broad document
(2001), of genderequity ... considering discourse of gender equity as
Australia the ways in which it is it is evident in the Gender
[E] historicallyand contextually Equitytext, consideringthe
situatedin relationto broader ways in which it is
social and political historicallyand contextually
discourses"(p. 11). situatedin relationto broader
social and political discourses"
(p. 1).
Anderson,G. "Faircloughsuggests a three- There is a set of unexamined Written
(2001), dimensionalapproachto theories in use that are standards
USA [E] discourseanalysis. The most embeddedin the ambiguities and test
immediatelevel is textual of the standardsfor school document
analysis ... [next is the level of] leaders, which become visible
discursivepractices... [and] throughan examinationof
finally, he suggests analysis of various linguistic strategies.
the text as social practice"
(p. 202).

: APPENDIX B (Continued)
00
Contextof
Barnard,C. "As with many applicationsof "To what extent, then, can we Study of
(2001), systemic functionalgrammar, elucidate the relationship textbooks
Japan one of the aims is to use this between texts themselves, the
[E] model of grammarto relate the meanings createdby the
text being analyzedto its wider language of such texts, and
social and culturalcontext. One the texts as they exist
way this can be achieved is to embeddedin their social and
investigate the range of culturalcontexts? In this
meaning-makingpotential paper,I shall show that we
possessed by language and, by can seek to answer this
seeking to identify the specific question by adoptinga
choices made in any particular linguistically grounded
communicativesituation, analysis of the languageof
question why such choices have textbooks"(p. 520).
been made, and suggest what
otherchoices could have been
made and what different
meanings would have been
producedby these alternative
choices" (p. 519).
Bartu,H. "Accordingto Fairclough... This is a position paperon the College
(2001), every instanceof language use role of CDA in a critical studentsin
Turkey has three dimensions:it is a readingcourse. a universi
[T] spoken or writtenlanguage text, classroom
it is an interaction... and it is in Turkey
also a social action. CDA itself
also has three dimensions:the

description... interpretation...
and the explanationof how the
texts and the interaction
processes relate to the social
action"(pp. 595-596).
Baxter,J. CDA is definedin comparisonto People have arguedthat girls are Secondary
(2002), UK PDA. Both CDA and PDA are often silenced by boys/men as students
[E] interestedin the workings of speakersin public contexts. If (mixed-se
power throughdiscourse, this is really the case, would class of
thoughconceptualizedrather girls find it more difficult than 14- and
differently.CDA assumes boys to meet the new GCSE 15-year-
discourseto work dialectically assessmentrequirements? olds) in a
in so far as the discursive event high Briti
is shapedby and thereby school.
continuouslyreconstructs
events. CDA emphasizes social
theory on behalf of dominated
and oppressedgroups.
Beach, R. "CDA provides a useful None stated. NA
(1997), theoreticalperspectivefor
USA understandinghow these
[T] competing discourses constitute
the meaningof social practices
in discoursecontexts. These
theoristsexamine the 'common
sense' presuppositionsor
ideological assumptions
operatingwithin a particular
discoursecontext"(p. 3).

- APPENDIX B (Continued)
Contextof
Bergvall,V., & "CDAaimsto revealhow texts Whatis the role of talkthathelps College class
Remlinger,K. operatein the constructionof continueinstructionaltalkand of 18-35
(1996), socialpracticeby examining talkthatdivergesfromit in students,
USA the choicesthatdiscourse reproducingor challenging 40%fema
[E] offers"(Kress,1991,p. 454). genderroles in the classroom? American
a universi
in Michiga
class
discussion
Bloome, D., & "CDAexaminespower relations "Questionshave not been raised University
Carter,S. P. and ideologies embeddedin aboutthe consequencesof colleges of
(2001), texts throughcarefuland using a 'list' for framing education
USA [E] systematicanalysis" educationalpolicies and studying
(p. 151-152). practices,regardlessof the texts abou
contentof the list or type of education
item on the list. The purpose reform.
of this articleis to raise such
questions"(p. 151).
Brown, D., & "CDA providesan example of... "Thegoal is to highlight and 12th-grade
Kelly, J. recenttheorization.... This examine discourse production studentsof
(2001), type of study can be and interpretationas it African
Canada[E] differentiatedfrom other intersectswith the origin

analysis of curriculumcontent "life-worlds"of a particular living in
given its tendenciesto merge subjectgrouping,i.e., the Alberta,
post-structuralorientationswith high-school studentof African Canada,in
the criticaland interpretive" descent"(pp. 503). a social
(p. 502). studies
class.
Chouliaraki,L. Draws connectionsbetween How does the genre of Secondary
(1998), Bernstein'stheoretical individualizedtalk organize school in
UK [E] frameworkand Fairclough's its linguistic options and in the UK,
methodology (p. 10). which ways does it privilege class
certaindiscourses over others? discussion
Collins, J. "[Faircloughproposes]three "How can discourse analysis, in The call for

(2001), analytic levels, one of which particularcritical and national
USA [E] derives from traditionsof anthropologicalframeworks, and state-
linguistic analysis, the other contributeto our level
two from contemporarysocial understandingof the natureof education
analysis. Althoughthe terms the appeal of standards,the standards
have shifted over the years, diffusion of influential
Fairclough'sschema calls for argumentsand the resonance
analysis of the textual, the of standardsrhetoricwith
discursiveand the society-wide" broadsocio-political
(p. 144). developments?"(p. 144).
0
1.-

4 APPENDIX B (Continued)
C_
Context of
Comber,B. FoucauldiananalysisandCDA "Howdo managerialist Case studyof
(1997), areusedinterchangeably. discoursesconstitute'the an Italian
Australia "CDAcan be productiveand disadvantagedchild' as the teacherin
[E] positivework,whichcan subjectfor school literacy a school in
contribute,in Foucault'sterms, programsandwhatlimitsand South
to people seeingthatthey are possibilitiesdo such discursive Australia
'muchfreerthanthey feel' andinstitutionalpractices with a
(Foucault,1988,p. 10)" createfor studentsandtheir social
(p. 390). teachers?"(p. 390). justice
agenda.
Corson,D. "CDA goes beyond other forms of "TheCDA asks about the A monthly
(2000), discourse analysis by focusing distortinginfluence that meeting of
Canada[E] directlyon macro and micro ideology has on the a boardof
power factorsthat operatein a proceedingsin a formal school trusteesin
given discursivecontext" meeting. And it asks how that a seconda
(p. 98). distortionshows up in the school in

discourse itself" (p. 98). New
Zealand.
Davis, J. No definition. "Whydo we as language B<oardof

(1997), educatorsand as membersof trustees
UK [E] other social groupsreact to meeting,
reformistagendas in the ways New
that we do? Whatqualities of Zealand
the socioculturalcontext into secondary
which these proposalsare school.
introducedcondition our
reactions?"(p. 152).
Egan- "Fairclough(1989) developed "Thegoal of the analysiswas to 3 adolescent
Robertson,A. a... rubric... thatinvolves explorethe relationships girls (8th
(1998), threecomponents:textual amongpersonhoodand grade),of
USA [E] analysis,interpretation of the literacypractices,using the Puerto-
interactionalprocessesinvolved constructof intertextuality.... Rican and
in text productionand I attemptto make visible the African
consumption,andexplanation ways in which discursive American
of 'how interactionprocess practicesconstructedin the descent,
relatesto social action' (p. 11)" writingclub providedan in a
(p. 454). opportunityfor studentsto communit
"Textualanalysisincludes exploreissues of personhood writing
ideational,or content,analysis based on constructingan program.
of social identities; analysisof intertextual The schoo

z
Context of
interactionalanalysiscombines links between issues of is a worki
textualanalysiswith culture,language,andpower class New
interpretiveanalysis,and andtheirpersonalexperiences" England
explanatoryanalysisbrings (p. 455). urban
togetherthese two types of school.
analyseswith analysisof
socio-culturalpracticeat the
situational,institutional,and
societallevels" (p. 454).
Fairclough,N. A social-theoreticallyinformed Whatis happeningto the UK, Higher

(1993), UK mode of discourseanalysis. authorityof academic Education
[E] CDA views discourseas social institutions,academics,andto
practice-both shapedand authorityrelationsbetween
shapingsocial relations.CDA academicsand students,
drawsfromthe linguistic academicinstitutionsandthe
resourcesof SFL. public?Whatis happeningto
the professionalidentitiesof
academicsandto the collective
identitiesof institutions?

Figueriredo,D. EquatesCDA with critical Review of literatureand plan of A group of
(2000), linguistics. Offers a description readingclass EFL
USA [E] of its basis in SFL and then studentsa
points out its aims: "to make the college
available,throughthe analysis level.
of language as social practice,
a critiqueof discoursethat
might lead to consciousness
raising, emancipation,and
empowerment"(p. 141).
Fox, R., & Cites Fairclough. "[Sy]stematicallyexplore the Croatia,
Fox, J. 'opaquerelationshipsof higher
(2002), causality and determination' education
Croatia between (a) the council council
[E] membersdiscursive practices meetings.
and (b) wider social and
culturalstructures,relations
and processes in the Croatian
higher education system and
Croatiaitself" (p. 3).
Gebhard,M. Not defined. "How do second language 3rd-4th-grad
(2002), learnersassume, negotiate, ESL
USA [E] and resist the role assigned to students
them by the discoursesof (Hispanic
school reformat Web and
Magnet?"(p. 18) teachersin
an urban
magnet
school.

APPENDIX B (Continued)
Cx
Contextof
Hays, J. (2000), "(Critical)discourseanalysis "My goal is to illustratethe ways NA
USA [E] becomes a locus of hegemonic that social hierarchiesare
struggle.By exposing hidden perpetuatedand contested
layers of meaning,then, we can througha multitudeof
pose a challenge to the existing mundaneand seemingly
hegemonic order"(p. 26). straight-forwardtexts, and to
explore the relevance of
discourse analysis and
ethnographyto understanding
and addressingproblems
surroundingthe development
of formal education"(p. 27).
Heberle,V. Authorlinks CDA to critical The purpose ... is to offer a University

(2000), linguistics in general. conceptualizationof how studentsin
Brazil "Two of the main purposesof readingcan be looked at from Brazil
[T] these studies are to make the perspectiveof CDA, taking
people awareof how language focusing also on issues of reading
is used to dominateor language and gender. courses in
reinforcesocial inequalities, English.
such as those between people
of differentethnic, economic,
social or intellectualgroups,
and to analyze changes
takingplace in social
organizations"(p. 117).

Heller,M. CDA is definedin relationto Why are therecompetingvisions French
(2001), NorthAmericanand European at this momentof what it Canadian
Canada approaches,the former means to speak and be French? leadersin
[E] attendingto linguistic What kinds of people the politic
anthropologyand the latter participatein redefiningthis sphere;
attendingto isolated sections basic social category,and what one
of texts. The authorarguesfor kinds of people find themselves policy
attentionto languageas well as marginalized,voluntarilyor document
to social theory. otherwise?In otherwords, who newspape
gets to decide what speaking clippings,
and being Frenchmean in these recorded
contexts? narrative
interview
Hinchman,K., "CDA investigatesthe "Whatis the natureof Colin's Colin (10th
Peyton relationshipsamong particular and Desuna's participationin grade,
Young, J. discourseevents, discourse classroomtalk aboutthe text White
(2001), norms,and social and historical over the course of one school male),
USA [E] contexts, and how thatlanguage, year?How, and to what end, Desuna
in turn,shapesthese were situational,institutional, (8th grade
relationshipsand contexts. As and societal contexts Black
Faircloughdescribesit, CDA constitutedin their female)-
makes visible tracesof participation?"(p. 248). both verba
discoursesoperatingand the students
asymmetriesin power relations chosen
thatare constitutedin their from a
operation"(p. 246). groupof
20 studen
at various
sites.
Literature
classes in
middle an
high
schools.

00
Context of
Hughes, G. "Fairclough(1992) developed a "Thisarticlepresentsdiscourse Middle and
(2001), UK [CDA] which combines the analysis of interviews with 3 secondary
[E] micro-analysisof text mixed genderpairs of students schools as
productionand interpretation from the study to illustrate well as a
with the macro-public- how differentsubjectivities college.
knowledge and social practice can interactwithin the
that constructentities such as constraintsand contradictions
'curriculumscience' or gender of these competing discourses
which framethe micro level of science to producedifferent
discourse"(p. 279). outcomes"(p. 276).
Johnson,G. "[CDA]is a 'top down' Re-readingone studentteacher's University
(2001), approachin the sense that text to extend and critiqueher pre-servic
Australia Discoursesor ways of being in commonsenseinterpretation teacher's
[E] the world-as opposedto from a social interactionand reflective
discourseas forms of politicalperspective(p. 451). assignmen
language-[...] thatare known
by the researcherto operatein
the worldoutsideof the picture
book, areimposedon
membershipcategorizations
foundto operateinside the data"
(p. 456).
Johnson,T., "The aim of CDA is to uncover "How was the history standards US
& Avery, how languageworks to debatepresentedto the public newspape
P. G. (1999), constructmeaningsthat signify in selected US newspapers?"
USA [E] people, objects, and events in (p. 448).

the world in specific ways"
(p. 452).
Kumarava- CDA is definedas an educational The purposeis to conceptualize NA

divelu, B. applicationof post-structuralism. a frameworkfor conducting
(1999), "Ideologyand power that critical classroom discourse
USA [T] constitutedominantdiscourses analysis.
are hiddenfrom ordinary
people; criticallinguists seek to
make these discourses visible
by engaging in a type of CDA
that is 'more issue orientedthan
theoryoriented"'(p. 466).
Luke, A. Defined in contrastto traditional What counts as discourse Variety of
(1997), linguistics. "CDA offers an analysis in educational public
Australia alternativeapproachto the research?(p. 10) speeches.
[T] analysis of educational
disenfranchisement,enabling
us to trackthe governmental,
institutionaland professional
constructionof deficit,
disadvantageand deviance
(e.g., Comber, 1996)" (p. 347).
Luke, A. "CDA is a political act itself, an "Withthe official recognitionof Theoretical

(1995/1996), interventionin the apparently the educationalclaims of paper
Australia naturalflow of talk and text in culturalminoritiesand
[T] institutionallife that attemptsto indigenouspeoples and of
0 "interrupt"everydaycommon girls and women,... the
o1

o
Context of
sense.... Such an analysis classical questions of
destabilize[s]authoritative sociology and psychology of
discourses and foreground[s] educationhave more relevance
relationsof inequality, thanever: Who succeeds and
domination,and subordination. who fails in schools? How and
In its constructivemoment, why?" (p. 7).
CDA sets out to generate
agency (pp. 12-13).
Moje, E. B. "Accordingto Luke (1995), CDA Whatcounts as knowledgein Whitehigh
(1997), makesvisible how teachers' science withinthe oral and school
USA [E] and students'spokenand writtendiscoursesof one students
writtentexts shapeand high school chemistry andtheir
constructpolicies and rules, classroom? teacherin
knowledge,and indeed, chemistry
'versionsof successful and class.
failing students'(pp. 11)"
(p. 36).

Myers, G. "Analysis of ideology in texts, This articles draws on CDA to Lancaster,
(1996), UK within a theory of discourse show how we might read noun newspape
[E] practicesand social phrases,clause structure, articles on
practices.... CDA startswith discourse representation,and the
the social categories of discourse discoursepracticesin terms of Heysham
and genre and applies them to a combined CDA and actor nuclear
an understandingof clauses" networktheory approach. power
(p. 27). stations.
Nichols, S. The authorexplicitlystatesthat How do interactionsbetween Middle-clas

(2002), the interviewswere analyzed discoursesof genderand Australia
Australia by using CDA. But thereis no discoursesof childhoodin parents
[E] realanalyticsectionor formal parents'accountscome to talking
definitionof CDA. constructthe male andfemale aboutthe
child as differentkindsof literacy
genderedandliteratesubjects? developm
of their
children.
Orellana,M. "An analysis of language and Inquiresinto power relationsin Latino/a

(1996), power. Power may be primarygrade meetings. primary-
USA [E] manifestedin discourse,by grade
powerful participants ... [I]t students
may also be manifestedbehind (Grades 1
discourse. [C]riticalanalysts 2, 3);
examine implicit assumptions problem-
embeddedin discourse, and posing
considerhow coherence is meetings
achieved"(p. 337). in an urba

t,o
Context of
bilingual
elementar
school
classroom
Peace, P. "The 'top-down'criticaldiscourse "How do women socially Second-year

(2003), analytictradition... drawson constructmasculinitiesand under-
UK [E] post-structuralismand play a partthroughtheir graduate
emphasizesthe structuringof discursiveactivities,in psycholog
speech andconstitutionof bolsteringgenderrelations studentsat
subjectivitiesby culturally thatultimatelyoppressthem? Yorkshire
availablediscourses"(p. 164). How do they resistthese University
discursivelyconstructed England.
masculinities?"(p. 160).
Pitt, K. (2002), Not defined. The goal of this articleis to Interviews

UK [E] analyzethe pedagogic with
discourseof family literacy. 14 parents
from
England
andWales

Price, S. No formal definitionof CDA is Aims to point out the inadequacy NA
(1999), given. The authorwrites that of Fairclough'sCDA and
Australia CDA is concernedwith a Widdowson's discourse
[T] reconstructionof the discourse analysis.
at the meta-discursivelevel.
Rampton,B. "CDA focuses on the None stated. Adolescent
(2001), naturalizationof inequalityin studentsin
UK [T] everyday common sense, on the London;
way in which established twenty
ideologies, institutionalizedin 14-year-o
the workingsof the lexico- in two
grammar,recruitpeople to a multi-
particularview of the world ethnic
withouttheirreally realizing it" schools,
(p. 97). one
suburban
one urban
Rogers, "Criticaldiscoursestudiesfocus "Whathappenswhen personal An African
(2002a), on how languageas a cultural literaciescome in conflict with American
USA [E] tool mediatesrelationshipsof institutionalliteracies?What family in
power and privilegein social makes it possible for June a city in
interactions,institutions,and (and her daughter)to New York
bodies of knowledge"(p. 251). experience school literacy
failurewhile simultaneously
demonstratingconsiderable
literacycompetencein other
contexts?"(p. 248).

4"
Context of
Rogers, "CDA ... offers a theory of How was it that Vicky consented CSE
(2002b), language as a system (building to her placementin special meetings,
USA [E] on systemic functional educationwhen, as her 6th-grade
linguistics [SFL]), combined opening quote suggested, she African
with a social theory of language had been determinedto come American
use (discourse).... Ordersof out of special education? girl, CSE
discourse have a roughly (p. 222). team,
parallelstatusto the parent.
grammaticalaspects embedded
in SFL" (p. 220).
Rogers,T., "Faircloughalso arguedthat "Wearguethatunderstanding 3 African
Tyson, C., languageis a domainof who we are andhow we are American
& Marshall, ideology andthereforea site of connectedor disconnectedcan children
E. (2000), strugglesfor power.Discourse best be understoodthrough (in 4th
USA [E] is shapedby powerrelationships criticaldiscoursetheories" grade),
and social institutionsin society (p. 2). acrosstwo
as a whole, anddiscourseboth schools;
affects social structuresandis low-SES
affectedby them,contributing Midwester
to social continuityandsocial communit
change"(p. 4). observatio

in homes
and
communit
of childre
Stamou,A.G. CDA sees language-all semiosis This articleexamines the Non-
(2002), -as discourse,that is, a form depiction of non-protestersin protesters
Greece [E] of social practice.... In order the in the AthensNews, an at a studen
to uncover the way discourse English-languageGreek -teacher
operatesin society, CDA newspaper,in the light of the protesttha
proceeds to a systematic significantimpact that most took place
textual analysis, since texts of those depictions could have in Greece
constitutethe medium through on their readersand thus on
which discourseis enacted" theirreceptionof the protest.
(p. 657).
Stevens,L. "Thiscriticalpolicy analysis, "Withsuch high-stakes Reading
(2003), drawingmethodsand discoursesand ideologies at Leadershi
Australia techniquesfromthe work of work,how was the federal Academy
[T] Gee (1996), Fairclough(1989, governmentdefining in 2002,
1992), Luke (1997), recognizes reading?... How would this sponsored
and worksfromthe situated informationboth supportand by U.S.
meaningsof texts, and it constrainthem in shaping Departme
documentsthe time-space literacypolicy and practicein of
hybridizationsof local, theirstates?"(p. 662). Education
institutional,and societal
discourses"(p. 663).
Thomas, S. "CDA seeks an understandingof Investigatethe discursive Newspaper

(2002), how 'discourseis implicatedin constructionsof curriculum articles
Australia relationsof power'.... It duringone policy initiative. about
[E] provides a useful analyticaland Analysis focuses on newspaper physical
0- political tool talkingback to debates over the inclusion of education
(.A
discourse"(p. 189). Health and Physical Education in

C\
Contextof
in the secondaryschool Queenslan
curriculum(p. 187). secondary
schools.
Tunstall,P. "CDA was developed to try to "Itexamines the various Childrenwh
(2001), UK put to work practicallyin the constructionsof personaland were 6-7
[E] field of assessmentsome social reality and their years of
ideas
critical/poststructuralist associatedpower relations age in six
about languageand practice within infant classrooms and schools in
and theirrelationshipwith discusses the results of the London.
social reality"(p. 216). analysis in terms of policy
contestationand effect"
(p. 216).
Young,J. P. "CDAconsiderslanguageas a How do criticalliteracy Fourmale,
(2000), social practiceandassumes activitiesin a home-schooling middle-
USA [E] asymmetricalpower settingsustainor transform class,
distributionswithinand among the participants'awareness White
threedifferentsocial contexts- of genderedidentitiesand students
an immediatelocal context,a inequitiesin texts? (ages 10,
widerinstitutionalcontext,and 11, and
the institutionalcontext.It seeks 13 years)
to uncoverandunderstandthese who
unequalpowerrelations" participat
(p. 319). in home
schooling.
Note: E = empiricalarticles,T = theoreticalarticles,W = writtentexts, I = interactionaltexts, I/W = comb

NA = not applicable.


Critical Discourse Analysis in Education

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Discourse Analysis in Education: A Review of the Literature

This content downloaded from 141.213.236.110 on Sun, 30 Jun 2013 19:47:22 PM