Discursive Psychology post for 7.14.13

Discursive Psychology – Edwards and Potter - p. 1-76

 You weren’t kidding when you said this reading was tough – Yikes!  I did lots of rereading of the material and am hoping discussion on Monday will help me better understand the information.

Defining Discursive Psychology and Discourse Analysis

Throughout the course so far, I have been trying to understand what “discursive psychology” IS.  In class one day your definition of DP as “the psychology of discourse” provided the much needed larger umbrella under which I can place other aspects of DP.  On pages 2- 4, Potter and Edwards offer those other aspects.  Social action and interaction take place through talk and is the focus of DP. The authors explain, “The focus of discursive psychology is the action orientation of talk and writing” (p. 2).     Potter and Edwards see this book as being concerned with epistemological issues; namely what knowledge and reality are, how “facts” are relayed, and how various mental or cognitive states are explained.   DP does not view talk as a reflection of internal cognitive states; a window into the “black box” of an individual’s mind, rather talk is analyzed in the context in which it occurs for the actions it prompts.  DP is concerned with how an individual accounts for something.   Potter and Edwards say, “ … we address the way in which a report of past events, which formulates or implies accountability for those events, can be constructed and deployed to manage issues of accountability in the current interactions being performed in the talking” (p. 4).  In the case of Paula Dean, she accounts for her offensive comment by pointing to the historical context in which they occurred (more than 30 years ago when she was a different person) and as connected to a traumatic event (the man with the shaking gun). 

Memory is memoir.  It is shaped by our perceptions, our beliefs, and our identity.  As a third grade teacher years ago, I had students and their parents write separate pieces about the same event (a birthday party, Christmas morning, a trip to the park) as a way of explaining the genre of memoir to students.  Through this activity, they were able to see that memoir is a genre where people explain THEIR “truth” and not THE “truth” of events.  I was reminded of this as I read page 21.

Memory is constructed/reconstructed based on the setting and context of the present.  A version of “the truth” told to a best friend would be different from the same “truth” conveyed to a judge in a court room.  The context has an impact on the ‘truth’ being recounted.

The authors offer a “preliminary account” of discourse analysis. DA is rooted in sociology and has connections to linguistic philosophy.   DA views language as the means by which reality is constructed.  DA analyses versions or recollections of events in the context in which the version occurs and looks at the action those versions are connected to.  Potters and Edwards offer 5 features of discourse analysis (p. 28 and 29).  

1)      DA is concerned with naturally occurring text and talk

2)      DA is concerned with the social organization of talk

3)      Action, construction, and variability are central concerns of DA. 

4)      DA is concerned with the arguments (the rhetoric) of talk.

5)      DA looks at how knowledge, belief, facts and truth are dealt with.

 

Ulric Neisser’s Memory

Neisser looked at John Dean’s recollections during the Watergate testimony to analyze the “workings” of Dean’s memory and investigate memory in a broader sense.  Edwards and Potter argue that Neisser’s accounts did not focus enough on “the nature of discourse itself” and specifically “its pragmatic organization” (p. 33).

Neisser defines 3 types of memory: verbatim recall or literal memory, gist, and repisodic memory.  

Verbatim recall is what we typically think of as the “Truth”.  It is unproblematic, assumed and repeated (3x3=9).  Gist recall is a general summary or account of an event.   Repisodic memory is an account gleaned from numerous experiences.  It contains the essence of “truth” but doesn’t offer specific details or context.   In his final analysis of Dean’s testimony, Neisser acknowledges that Dean did not offer accurate verbatim recall or gist recall, but that he did relay repisodic memory and get to the deeper truth of the matter.    Edwards and Potter discuss how both the function and context of Dean’s talk were neglected in Neisser’s analysis.  They point to his cross examination to illustrate their point – “In Gurney’s hostile examination, we see Dean’s versions criticized, cut off and variously undermined; while in Inouye’s sympathetic questioning Dean is given free reign to organize blamings and mitigations” (p. 45).

On page 51, I was reminded of what you said in class about the words people chose to use to explain a situation.  The prosecutor in the rape case referred to the venue as a place “where girls and fellas meet” which has all kinds of implications and associations.  He could have been more technical in his description of the place by offering the name and location.  His labeling of the establishment had a specific function in the case.

On page 52, the authors are talking about “preferred responses” which you referenced in class.  I was reminded of something a kindergarten teacher I worked with told me.  She said that whenever the kids asked a question, she tried to always answer with a “qualified yes” instead of “no”.  For example, if a student asked to use the bathroom, she would say, “Yes, as soon as Johnny gets back” instead of “No, Johnny is in the bathroom”.   Of all the kindergarten classes I visited, I found hers to be the most relaxed and positive.  I often wondered how much of this could be attributed to her “qualified yeses” (I know she made a million other decisions in the operation of her classroom, but this one struck me as very critical).

Lawson’s Memory

I found the description of this event to be really interesting.  A man makes statements in front of many journalists and then denies their similar versions of the statements the next day.   Ultimately, all involved agree on the “words” but not on the “interpretations” of the words.

On page 63, the authors discuss how Lawson referred to the notes of the journalists.  On one hand, he talked about them being accurate and even suggested the journalists reread their notes to see what was said.  On the other hand, he refers to them as ‘garbage’.  This reminded me of the Gilbert and Mulkey piece, where the scientists simultaneously claimed that empirical evidence could never really be enough to validate theories and at the same time they pointed to empirical evidence to support their theories. 

This sentence from Latour  (p. 71) stood out to me  “reading the sentences of the paper without imagining the reader’s objections is like watching only one player’s strokes in the tennis final” .  It emphasizes the importance of looking at the entire interaction and not just a narrow slice of the interaction.   In Reading Recovery, we are always looking at the interaction between teacher and student.  What a teacher does is never considered “wrong” or “right” independent of how a child responded to the action.   This is hard for many teachers to come to terms with.  They want to know the “right way” to get a child to consistently write a letter, or read with fluency, or monitor their own process.  It is difficult for them to accept that there are multiple paths to an efficient process and it is up to the teacher to find the path for the individual child.

At the conclusion of the chapter (p. 75/76), the authors make a number of important summarizing statements:

-          “we need to examine discourse for what it reveals about participants’ own orientations to fact and cognition”

-          “Everyday conversational remembering often has this as its primary concern – the attempt to construct an acceptable, agreed or communicatively successful version of what happened”.

-          “…discursive remembering, factual reporting, descriptions of events and so on are socially occasioned phenomena, sensitive to their placing within contexts of communicative action and rhetoric.”

I feel like the more I read and the more we discuss, the better handle I am getting on what discursive psychology IS.  On the way home Wednesday night, I was scanning radio channels and landed on a program with a woman named “Delilah”.  It was a call in show where people describe their situations and she chooses a song (sometimes a dedication to someone) that fits the situation.  This man called in and was describing a woman he had met and their “fairy tale” romance.  I found myself thinking about how he was “displaying” himself through his words, and how Delilah was buying into his displays with her responses.   After taking this class, I am sure I will look at every human interaction differently!