29
30
world. Thus, discourse analysis can never be reliable or valid by stringent positivist standards.
As such, it is often criticised from a positivist perspective (Bratberg, 2017, pp. 62-63).
None of this is to say that discourse analysis as a method is not scientific. Rather, it is not scientific by strict positivist standards. If, however, the concept of validity is understood in a broader sense, it applies to discourse analysis as well. One way of achieving a form of validity is through the creation of an analytical pattern, a way of presenting the empirical data that the reader perceives as reliable and credible, or valid. In the analysis, I have done this by identifying discourses and showing the interaction between them throughout the period. According to Rosalind Gill (2000, p. 187), a way of ensuring strengthened validity in the analysis is through
“deviant case analysis”; understood here as a detailed investigation of observations that do not match the identified patterns in the analysis, which can either disconfirm or improve the pattern.
During the coding process, I have thus been conscious about possible examples that do not match my initial patterns, to remain unbiased and inductive. Transparency, coherency and clarity in the analysis are essential to achieve validity. It should be clarified how interpretations of the data are made, and what these interpretations are based on. These interpretations should then be sufficiently documented and illustrated by using relevant quotes and examples from the text. Furthermore, analytical claims made in the text should be coherent to be perceived as valid for the reader (Bratberg, 2017, p. 63; Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002, p. 125). Transparency and clarity are also essential in the selection of texts used as data material. In this thesis, it is imperative that I as a researcher am clear and transparent in my interpretation of the statements made in the chosen parliamentary debates.
4.4.2 Lost in translation?
Since discourse analysis can be described as the close study of language, it could be seen as a limitation that my data material is in Norwegian, while this thesis is written in English. As such, all quotes and excerpts are translated by me. This involves running a risk of losing certain linguistic nuances. It is not always possible to directly translate all the quotes, and some of them have to be slightly modified to make sense in English. This particular limitation of translation is addressed by being explicit about this issue so that the reader is aware that translations are made and interpreted by me. Furthermore, I have included precise references and citations throughout the text, as well as in the bibliography, so that the reader has easy access to the original material to see if they find the translations accurate and appropriate. In some cases, I have also included the original wording in parentheses, to remain clear about the intention of the translation throughout the analysis.
31 4.4.3 Potential for hypothesis-generation
An important strength of using discourse analysis as a research method is its hypothesis-generating potential. Nelson Phillips and Cynthia Hardy (2002, p. 16) argue that discourse analysis provides important contributions by increasing plurality in social scientific research and incorporating the linguistic turn that shifted focus more to the constructive role of language in the social world. As such, discourse analysis is an important part of applying the increased focus on the constructive role of language in social scientific research. Concerning this particular thesis, the underlying premises of the constructive role of language and its implications for social action provides an assumption that discourses on refugee and asylum policy have an impact on political action in this field. Parliamentary discourses are especially relevant, as the parliament is the institution where law and policy are suggested, debated and approved or dismissed. Investigating and revealing possible links between the use of language through discourses and the following implications in the form of social action can yield fruitful findings of how language, in this case political discourse, can shape political action. As such, a strength of discourse analysis is its hypothesis-generating potential. By challenging and revealing naturalised knowledge and truth claims, subsequent implications can be deduced.
However, it is important to repeat the fact that the goal of discourse analysis is not to explain social phenomena through causal relationships. Nevertheless, discourse analytical studies can provide useful hypotheses to build from (Bratberg, 2017, p. 59).
4.4.4 Cultural competence
According to Neumann (2008, p. 63), a helpful prerequisite when conducting discourse analysis is ‘cultural competence’, which is provided through existing knowledge about the topic at hand.
Being Norwegian, I have existing knowledge about the Norwegian parliament, how it functions as an institution, and what the political landscape looks like in terms of what the represented parties typically stand for in their policies. The more knowledge I have about the topic before starting the analysis, the more specific the research can be. However, there is a trade-off to the benefit of cultural competence. Since discourse analysis is about uncovering naturalised knowledge and truth in collective meaning-making, I run the risk of not seeing these naturalised facts as I am myself a part of the culture. I need to keep myself distanced from the discourses to avoid missing out on naturalised facts that I otherwise would take for granted. In order to mitigate this challenge, I have chosen textual tools for the analysis that are particularly useful for uncovering knowledge that is taken for granted, as well as how the arguments in the
32
statements are constructed through the use of certain adjectives and adverbs connected to nouns.
These textual mechanisms will be further elaborated in section 4.7.