Developments in discursive psychology

EDITORIAL

595

Developments in discursive psychology

ALEXA HEPBURN L O U G H B O RO U G H U N I V E R S I T Y

S A L LY W I G G I N S U N I V E R S I T Y O F S T R AT H C L Y D E

Discourse & Society Copyright © 2005 SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi) www.sagepublications.com Vol 16(5): 595–601 10.1177/ 0957926505054937

Discursive psychology is the broad title for a range of research done in different disciplinary contexts – communication, language, sociology and psychology. It moves the theoretical and analytic focus from individual cognitive events and processes to situated interaction. This work is critical of, and developing a progressive, analytically based alternative to, mainstream cognitive social psychology. Discursive psychology (occasionally DP) also counters the social psychological view of the individual as part of a matrix of abstract social processes, and replaces it with a focus on people’s everyday practices in various institutional settings. This entails an important change in analytic focus; rather than whether, or how accurately, participants’ talk reflects inner and outer events, DP investigates how ‘psychology’ and ‘reality’ are produced, dealt with and made relevant by participants in and through interaction. Articles in this Special Issue will, therefore, take various social and psychological categories and consider their role in specific interactional settings. Our aim here is to set out three main strands of contemporary discursive psychology as a way of emphasizing some of the exciting and progressive features of the collection presented in this volume. The first important strand of discursive psychology comes from its critique of traditional ways of doing psychology. DP has provided some of the most rigorous and thorough-going critiques of the methods psychology uses, the ways its theories are sustained, and the way notions of individuality are built into methods and theory at a very deep level. This has been backed up by analyses that flesh out a new vision of psychology by explicating participants’ displayed deployment of psychological resources. These analyses include studies of memory and attribution (Edwards and Potter, 1992); emotions (Edwards, 1999; Hepburn, 2004; Locke and Edwards, 2003); cognition and mind (Billig, 1999; Edwards, 1997; te Molder and Potter, 2005); stress (Hepburn and Brown, 2001); and beliefs, attitudes and evaluations (Billig, 1992; Burningham, 1995; Puchta and Potter 2004; Wiggins and Potter, 2003). In each case, the topic is respecified in terms of situated practices.

596 Discourse & Society 16(5)

A second important focus in DP has been on constructions of accountability and versions of reality both as topic in themselves (e.g. Potter, 1996; Wooffitt, 1992) and also in the context of broader areas such as political disputes (Edwards and Potter, 1992; MacMillan and Edwards, 1999), racism and prejudice (Buttny, 1999; Edwards, 2002; LeCouteur et al., 2001; Wetherell and Potter, 1992), nationalism (Billig, 1995), and gender and sexuality (Clarke et al., 2004; Speer and Potter, 2000; Speer, in press; Stokoe and Smithson, 2001). This strand of DP encompasses specific work on accountability and fact construction as well as work on broader analytic constructs such as discourses, ideologies and repertoires. The latter research typically aims to provide a better understanding of how social organizations are sustained through a weave of variable and often dilemmatic constructions. Building on conversation analytic work that focuses on institutional interaction (e.g. Drew & Heritage, 1992; Heritage, 1998), discursive psychology is increasingly moving to consider interaction in institutional settings. This includes family conversations with young children (Bonaiuto and Fasulo, 1997); therapeutic and medical sessions (Antaki et al., forthcoming; Auburn and Lea, 2003; Peräkylä, 1995); parapsychology experiments (Wooffitt, forthcoming); market research focus groups (Puchta and Potter, 2004); psychiatric assessment for gender reassignment (Speer and Parsons, forthcoming); and child protection helpline interaction (Hepburn, 2004; Potter and Hepburn, 2003). This focus on institutional interaction has thrown up exciting new issues and themes such as the relationship between psychology and institutions and the way in which both everyday and work practices are organized. It also moves beyond or at least manages many of the problems that are endemic in the use of open-ended interviews in discourse research (for a summary, see Potter and Hepburn, in press). Auburn (2005, this volume) provides a clear demonstration of the value of taking a DP perspective on cognition, as well as showing how documenting institutional interaction in this way can facilitate engagement with practitioners – mainly illustrating the ‘respecifying cognition and institution’ strands. Auburn analyses sex-offender therapy interactions, in which the offenders are often called upon to describe their crimes. Auburn identifies the recurrent use of a device he terms ‘narrative reflexivity’, where the teller of the narrative shifts from describing past events to the current context of the therapy session. An example of this switch from prior to current context from Extract 3 is ‘she was petrified I know that now’, where the teller had previously been constructing his story as if sex had occurred between two consenting adults. Auburn suggests that this type of device can be employed to defend against challenges from the group that the offender is employing ‘cognitive distortions’. He also shows the skilful ways in which speakers can divert their audience away from certain inferences, substituting them with inferences that do not damage their group status. Hepburn and Wiggins (2005, this volume) set out to develop a discursive psychology of institutional talk, by examining how body size is evoked in a particular institutional context – the NSPCC child protection helpline. The hope was

Heburn and Wiggins: Editorial 597

to illustrate a new way of doing psychological research into body size and shape that moves away from the traditional focus on measuring ‘perceptions’ of body size as distinct cognitive objects. The article showed that descriptions of body size were bound up with the institutional tasks being performed by both caller (reporting abuse) and call-taker (assessing claims about abuse). For example, in Extract 4 the caller paints a vivid picture of her daughter as ‘emaciated’ with ‘jutting cheekbones’ as a central feature of her claim that her ex-partner is neglecting her. This focus on institutional tasks was continued in Stokoe and Hepburn (2005, this volume). In a productive fusion of two large datasets – neighbour dispute mediation and the NSPCC helpline – it focused on the similarities and contrasts in the activities performed by neighbours when they describe noise. As with size, traditional psychological researchers have typically treated noise as a self-evident, straightforwardly measurable, non-discursive category. In contrast, the article shows the value of exploring the detailed way that noise descriptions coordinate with the different institutional tasks in the two different contexts. For example, noise is treated as a problem for people involved in neighbour mediation, but is treated, not as a problem in itself, but as symptomatic of other problems, in NSPCC data. Sneijder and te Molder (2005, this volume) build on the strand of discursive psychological work focused on ideology and responsibility. They provide an excellent template for examining online discussions, identifying a recurrent practice used by participants to manage possible problems with veganism. The practice employs both a ‘conditional formulation’, which has an ‘if x then y’ structure plus a ‘modal’ such as ‘should’ or ‘can’. One of their examples is the claim ‘if you eat a varied diet, there shouldn’t be any problems’. They argue that the combination of these two devices allows advice givers to fudge whether they are basing their utterance on logic, morality or both. The structure also allows the responsibility for problems to be delicately shifted to the recipient of the advice. Sneijder and te Molder conclude that the identification of such constructions could have important implications for our understanding of how ideologies are built up, oriented to, challenged and defended. Tileagaˇ (2005, the volume) provides a sophisticated and up-to-date take on the analysis of interviews. His work provides a bridge between ‘critical’/discourse analysis, and discursive psychology as we have set it out. Tileagaˇ attempts to show that in the talk of middle class Romanians, Romanies are portrayed as beyond nationhood, difference and comparison, and therefore beyond the normative moral order – he terms this ‘extreme prejudiced discourse’. As well as the focus on the discursive and rhetorical features of the interview talk, Tileagaˇ displays the value of developing reflexive attention to the role of the interview context, where the interview questions are just as much the focus of analysis as the responses given. Like Tileagaˇ, Eriksson and Aronsson (2005, this volume) focus on ethnicity. They provide a wonderful demonstration of the tensions and dilemmas associated with teachers’ attempts to provide positive images of people from other cultures

598 Discourse & Society 16(5)

to their pupils. A close analysis of teacher-led discussions about books that thematize unfamiliar cultures revealed that contrasts between ‘them’ and ‘us’ are imbued with subtle forms of evaluation. The analysis demonstrates the value of examining issues of groups and otherness in real-life settings in which the tensions and dilemmas are brought to life, and the consequences for young people picking up on the teachers’ subtle moral agendas are more apparent. This collection has its origins in a set of symposia where the presenters met and exchanged ideas (the International Conference of Language and Social Psychology, the International Communication Association conference, and most recently the International Conference of Critical Psychology). The articles here are designed to be a companion to a volume to be published soon (Hepburn and Wiggins, forthcoming) in which we explore the theme of institutional talk and the application of discursive research in more detail. As well as showcasing some contemporary research, our aim in this Special Issue is to show what discursive psychology has to offer other critical approaches in the social sciences. As the contributions in this collection illustrate, discursive psychology continues to develop a distinctive position on a wide range of critical concerns – anti-cognitivism, embodiment, the construction and defence of ideologies, racism and sexism, spatiality and exclusion, context, engagement with practitioners – all based on studies in real-world settings. Cognitivist notions of the individual can encourage a static and determinist notion of human action, making it seem resistant to change, and promoting a conservative, fatalist approach to life. These more traditional constructions of the person are still common among ‘critical’ approaches. They imply that explanations for action need to consider features of individuals, as do programmes for change, rather than seeing actions in relation to the situated construction of social, ideological and political arrangements. Our aim is to encourage alternatives to these more traditional constructions of both the ‘psychological’ and the ‘social’ (see Hepburn, 2003, for further argument). By taking practices rather than cognition as primary, we can start to consider issues that arise as important for people in the settings in which they live their lives. AC K N OW L E D G E M E N T S

We would like to thank Teun van Dijk for supporting the publication of this Special Issue. We are also grateful for the assistance and support of the following people: Charles Antaki, Martha Augoustinos, Richard Buttny, Paul Dickerson, Derek Edwards, Clare MacMartin, Pirjo Nikander, Jonathan Potter, Mark Rapley and Robin Wooffitt. EEFERENCES

Antaki, C., Leudar, I. and Barnes, R. (forthcoming) ‘Members’ and Analysts’ Interests: “Formulations” in Psychotherapy, in A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins (eds) Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heburn and Wiggins: Editorial 599 Auburn, T. (2005) ‘Narrative Reflexivity as a Repair Device for Discounting “Cognitive Distortions” in Sex Offender Treatment’, Discourse & Society 16: **–**. Auburn, T. and Lea, S. (2003) ‘Doing Cognitive Distortions: A Discursive Psychology Analysis of Sex Offender Treatment Talk’, British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 281–98. Billig, M. (1992) Talking of the Royal Family. London: Routledge. Billig, M. (1995) Banal Nationalism. London: Sage. Billig, M. (1999) Freudian Repression: Conversation Creating the Unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bonaiuto, M. and Fasulo, A. (1997) ‘Rhetorical Intentionality Attribution: Its Ontogenesis in Ordinary Conversation’, British Journal of Social Psychology 36: 511–37. Buttny, R. (1999) ‘Discursive Construction of Racial Boundaries and Self-Segregation on Campus’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18: 247–68. Burningham, K. (1995) ‘Attitudes, Accounts and Impact Assessment’, The Sociological Review 44: 100–22. Clarke, V. Kitzinger, C. and Potter, J. (2004) ‘“Kids are just cruel anyway”: Lesbian and Gay Parents’ Talk About Homophobic Bullying’, British Journal of Social Psychology 43: **–**. Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) (1992) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, D. (1997) Discourse and Cognition. London: Sage. Edwards, D. (1999) ‘Emotion Discourse’, Culture & Psychology 5: 271–91. Edwards, D. (2002) ‘Analysing Racial Discourse: The Discursive Psychology of Mind–World Relationships’, in H. Van den Berg, M. Wetherell and H. HoutcoupSteenstra (eds) Analysing Interviews on Racial Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, D. and Potter, J. (1992) Discursive Psychology. London: Sage. Eriksson, K. and Aronsson, K. (2005) ‘“We’re Really Lucky”: Co-Creating “Us” and “The Other” in School Booktalk’, Discourse & Society 16: **–**. Hepburn, A. (2003) An Introduction to Critical Social Psychology. London: Sage. Hepburn, A. (2004) ‘Crying: Notes on Description, Transcription And Interaction’, Research on Language and Social Interaction 37: 251–90. Hepburn, A. and Brown, S.J. (2001) ‘Teacher Stress and the Management of Accountability’, Human Relations 54: 531–55. Hepburn, A. and Wiggins, S. (2005) ‘Size Matters: Constructing Accountable Bodies in NSPCC Helpline Interaction’, Discourse & Society 16: **–**. Hepburn, A. and Wiggins, S. (eds) (forthcoming) Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heritage, J. (1998) ‘Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analysing Data’, in D. Silverman (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. London: Sage. LeCouteur, A., Rapley, M. and Augoustinos, M. (2001) ‘This Very Difficult Debate About Wik: Stake, Voice and the Management of Category Memberships in Race Politics’, British Journal of Social Psychology 40: 35–57. Locke, A. and Edwards, D. (2003) ‘Bill and Monica: Memory, Emotion and Normativity in Clinton’s Grand Jury Testimony’, British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 239–56. MacMillan, K. and Edwards, D. (1999) ‘Who Killed the Princess? Description and Blame in the British Press’, Discourse Studies 1: 151–74. Peräkylä, A. (1995) AIDS Counselling: Institutional Interaction and Clinical Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

600 Discourse & Society 16(5) Potter, J. (1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage. Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. (2003) ‘“I’m a Bit Concerned” – Call Openings on a Child Protection Helpline’, Research on Language and Social Interaction 36: 197–240. Potter, J. and Hepburn, A. (in press) ‘Qualitative Interviews in Psychology – Problems and Possibilities’, Qualitative Research in Psychology. Puchta, C. and Potter, J. (2004) Focus Group Practice. London: Sage. Sneijder, P. and te Molder, H. (2005) ‘Moral Logic and Logical Morality: Attributions of Responsibility and Blame in Online Conversations on Veganism’, Discourse & Society 16: **–**. Speer, S. and Parsons, C. (forthcoming) ‘When Did You First Realise You Have a Gender Problem? How Psychiatrists Position Transsexual Clients in Initial Assessments in a Gender Identity Clinic’, in A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins (eds) Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Speer, S. and Potter, J. (2000) ‘The Management of Heterosexist Talk: Conversational Resources and Prejudiced Claims’, Discourse & Society 11: 543–72. Speer, S.A. (in press) Gender Talk: Feminism, Discourse and Conversation Analysis. London: Routledge. Stokoe, E.H. and Hepburn, A. (2005) ‘You Can Hear a Lot Through The Walls: Noise Formulations in Neighbour Complaints’, Discourse & Society 16: **–**. Stokoe, E.H. and Smithson, J. (2001) ‘Making Gender Relevant: Conversation Analysis and Gender Categories in Interaction’, Discourse & Society 12: 217–44. Te Molder, H. and Potter, J. (eds) (2005) Conversation and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tileagaˇ, C. (2005) ‘Accounting for Extreme Prejudice and Legitimating Blame in Talk About the Romanies’, Discourse & Society 16: **–**. Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. Brighton: Harvester/Wheatsheaf. Wiggins, S. and Potter, J. (2003) ‘Attitudes and Evaluative Practices: Category vs. Item and Subjective vs. Objective Constructions in Everyday Food Assessments’, British Journal of Social Psychology 42: 513–31. Wooffitt, R. (1992) Telling Tales of the Unexpected. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Wooffitt, R. (forthcoming) ‘Describing Consciousness: Parapsychology and the Social Organisation of Reports of Mental States’, in A. Hepburn and S. Wiggins (eds) Discursive Research in Practice: New Approaches to Psychology and Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

is a Lecturer in Social Psychology in the Social Sciences Department at Loughborough University. She has had a long-standing interest in children’s rights, and has published on constructions of authority, control and bullying in school situations. This emphasis on the construction of young people and their rights and competences has continued in her current research into the NSPCC helpline. She was recently awarded a Leverhulme fellowship for this work. Her research has also developed a critical perspective on more traditional forms of psychology, reflected in her recently published book An

ALEXA HEPBURN

Heburn and Wiggins: Editorial 601 Introduction to Critical Social Psychology, in which she highlights taken-for-granted assumptions about the person and society in psychology, and argues for a greater focus on everyday social contexts and applied work. Her publications reflect the dual focus on methodological innovation in psychology, and a call for greater theoretical sophistication. Her most recent work has focused on emotion in interaction, and in particular crying and its reception. A D D R E S S : Department of Social Sciences, Loughborough University, Brockington Building, Epinal Way, Loughborough LE11 3TU, UK. [email: [email protected]] S A L L Y W I G G I N S is a Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Strathclyde. Her main research interests are in discursive psychology as applied to issues of food, eating and body weight. She is currently co-editing a book with Alexa Hepburn that focuses on examples of discursive research in practice. A D D R E S S : Department of Psychology, University of Strathclyde, Graham Hills Building, 40 George Street, Glasgow G1 1QE, UK. [email: [email protected]]