Discourse Moves

I thought this was an interesting article. I’ve enjoyed reading about discourse and language, so this was no different. I think this starts a great conversation, especially since hybrid learning has become so much more prevalent since 2020. A lot of educators should’ve read this during the pandemic when we were doing discussion boards.

“Participants establish their online persona, building what Ashforth and Mael (1989) called a self-definition, of which a large proportion is their social identity.” (pg.2) In the framework of this educational setting, I think the idea of an online persona is interesting. This is not to say that it doesn’t happen naturally or intentionally, but I see this coming into play in more social or personal discourse settings.

“In their essay acknowledging identity as social, fluid, and recognized, Moje and Luke (2009) reviewed the different ways that researchers have dealt with the construct of identity by organizing these literature as five metaphors.” (pg.2) I loved the five metaphors. I thought they were so fitting to describe the dynamics and types of identity we engage with. For example, identity-as-position is where much of one’s identity can stem from. Whether you’re a doctor, spouse, parent, or anything, much of your identity can come from your positions in space or life.

“With their uniqueness theory, Snyder and Fromkin (1980) proposed that individuals are influenced by their needs to maintain a sense of moderate self-distinctiveness because they experience negative feelings when perceiving extreme similarity to or uniqueness from relevant others.” (pg.2) As someone who’s in a relationship with someone who isn’t American, I’m constantly being reminded of my Westernized views. The emphasis on uniqueness and individuality is a very Westernized/American thing, as many foreign cultures are community-based and don’t thrive on distinctness. It made me wonder what this study would look like if they leaned into the international students or even had all participants not be from America. “Other limi-tations include that we did not consider the international students’ English proficiency levels as a factor that might have played a role in their facility with the online discussion.” (pg.9) This truly hindered this study. I think it could’ve led to much more insightful results if they tapped into that sector.

“We found a trend between uniqueness-seeking levels and the proportion of cognitive to social moves: students with higher uniqueness needs made more cognitive than social moves, afinding in part explained by survey responses. Kyungmi (MM) explicitly noted that she sought to stand out in academic but not personal interactions.” (pg.9) In this setting, seeing cognitive moves more than social is expected. Them being graduate students, of course, they want to let their intelligence shine. Graduate programs are a smaller cohort, so naturally, you want to stand out more and establish yourself in the group. “Depending on situational factors, such as familiarity with and preference for topics that arose in discussion and group dynamics, students seemed to change in their tendency to stand out from or join others.”(pg.9) This also is an expected “result” of this study. Of course, comfort with a topic and group will lead to various levels of discourse and participation.

I forgot to include this in my last blog post, but here’s a small update on my research proposal. I completed a draft of my proposal last week, which wasn’t too bad. I have 14/15 sources for my literature review, so I’m almost there. My topic is very niche, so finding sources has been a struggle, but it’s coming along. I’m still deciding on a methodology since I don’t know which will feel right and leave me with much to say about it.

blog #11 mixed methods// more research proposal updates


Well, we’ve come a long way this spring semester. We have indulged in many research methods to assist us in our final thesis paper. This week, we have had the pleasure of being introduced to our last method! Mixed methods woohoo, which kind of plays out really well. Mixed methods are essentially a combination of two methods, which we have already learned about! So, at least it’s not new territory. Truth be told, before I started reading, I did not prepare myself for the reading to be about “Mixed Methods”. I figured it would be shown in the title. However, when I did start reading, I kept noticing the word “Discourse” which had me wondering if I was reading the completely wrong paper. I digress. I believe we spoke about mixed methods in the beginning of the semester. It’s a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis. Although the reading kept mentioning “Uniqueness-seeking theory”, which once gain kept me in a state of doubt. We start with a study that involves participants from a graduate level course with different needs of uniqueness within their online classroom discussions. Since mixed methods make up quantitative and qualitative approaches, case study and discourse analysis fill in those roles. The researchers use case study to collect data, create surveys, and develop transcripts. Whereas with discourse analysis, the researchers are studying their participants, comparing, social practices, and overall a qualitative finding. ONE THING I DO HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS READING IS THAT, THE MENTION OF DISCOURSE WAS A TAD CONFUSING. I UNDERSTAND WHY BUT FROM WHAT I REMEMBER ABOUT DISCOURSE ANALYSIS, IT WAS RESEARCH ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGES AND CULTURE IN A SENSE. I DON’T KNOW IF ITS JUST ME BUT I DON’T THINK THE MENTION OF DISCOURSE WORKED FOR THIS RESEARCH.

NOW, ONTO THE DRAFT OF OUR RESEARCH PROPOSAL. I HAVE DEFINITELY COMPLETED MORE THAN LAST WEEK. I HAVE 6 SUPPORTING ARTICLES SO FAR, BUT IM HAVING TROUBLE FINDING MORE. I TOOK FRAN’S SUGGESTION AND CHANGED UP MY THESIS QUESTION BECAUSE MY PREVIOUS PROPOSAL SEEMED QUITE BROAD. I THINK THATS WHY IVE BEEN A LITTLE BEHIND TRULY… I SPENT SO MUCH TIME MAKING SURE THIS RESEARCH QUESTION ISN’T TOO BROAD, OR EVEN TOO VAGUE AT THAT. FURTHERMORE, I’M MENTIONING THIS IN MY PROPOSAL. BUT ARTICLES ON MY TOPIC ARE REALLY LACKING! I ALSO have already finished my 2-3 page introduction,, but i still have more tweaks, as this is still a draft. the only thing thats worrying me is the lack of supporting articles out there. my new research question is: “The goal of this study is to understand how educators in American public and private schools balance the demands of their profession with their own mental health struggles. And what coping mechanisms and support systems do they use to maintain their well-being in this challenging environment”. Now, how will I achieve this goal? A qualitative practice, as well as a personal connection would work best with this research. I will use case study to investigate and collect data from participants of this study. With a combination of autoethnography, due to my personal real life experiences from me being a former educator. As a result of my connections, I am surrounded by all kinds of educators in my Graduate Program, along with my former colleagues in the field. I have written out a lot more but this is more progress than i had last week. i appreciate all of the help from my peers. it has made this whole process a lot less anxiety ridden.

The Last Post: Mixed Methods

After reading the last article, “When students want to stand out: Discourse moves in online classroom discussion that reflect students’ needs for distinctiveness,” I started thinking about the journey I’ve been on, learning about all of the different research methods we have covered in this class. I certainly know more now than I did when the class began, and it was interesting to see how the authors of this study chose to mix together two methods with which we are familiar, discourse analysis and constant comparison. The purpose of the study was “to explore how students with different needs for uniqueness participated in online classroom discussion and to examine their collaborative interaction in the dialogic process of the discussion” (Yu et al. 1).

The reasons that a person might seek uniqueness or avoid it and the ways that a person might express that need in an online discussion can be so varied that I wondered how the researchers would attempt to measure students’ uniqueness needs. It does seem like the methods that they chose were appropriate for the task, and including surveys in the design of the research makes sense to me. But the researchers did express that it was impossible for them to account for all potential variables: “The dynamic nature of online discussion entailed that more factors than simply uniqueness-seeking needs seemed involved in explaining students’ contributions” (Yu et al. 1). I can easily think of many variables that would influence my own participation in online discussions and have nothing to do with my interest in uniqueness (energy level, comfort and/or history with the other group members, my command of or interest in the reading, personal situations, events immediately preceding class, illness, uncertainty about the goal of the exercise, etc.), and I’m surprised that none of these occurred to the researchers. For me, this study was a lesson in how careful consideration of the set-up of a study in its early stages is essential to its success. This study took up a lot of the researchers’ time and involved a great deal of effort and, unfortunately, their lack of foresight prevented them from getting a clear answer to their research inquiry.

I wrote a blog post earlier in the semester in which I echoed Fran’s concern about going down a wrong path in one’s research. These researchers used discourse analysis (in part) and, in the end, had little to show for their efforts. Because I also intend to use discourse analysis, that old fear crept back into my mind. I’m trying to focus on the fact that I am following a different line of inquiry than theirs and I can learn from their mistakes. I’m feeling cautious but hopeful.

Mixed Methods – When Students Want to Stand Out

Hey guys,

~~ Whatever thoughts came to mind while reading, I recorded ~~

MIXED METHODS ARTICLE REACTION:

After skimming through this week’s assigned research article, “When students want to stand out: Discourse moves in online classroom discussion that reflect students’ needs for distinctiveness” by Li-Tang Yu, et al., I definitely felt a personal connection to the objective of the study, exploring how students with different needs for uniqueness participated in online classrooms, or virtual learning experience. My first question before delving into the introduction section was, “What constitutes a student to have ‘different needs for uniqueness?’

At first guess, I assumed this specified group of students to each have either a learning disability, mental illness, or some form of cognitive impairment. Perhaps, students with physical-limitations due to chronic disease or sudden injury, or maybe those who have neurodivergent qualities found on the autism spectrum disorder. Harnessing the motivation to participate in an online class is a challenging task, especially for the students who lack the confidence in themselves to speak up and ask for help. As I continued on reading this study, I was continually bombarded with zoom university flashbacks. What a wild and eerie time ~~

 I remember, although I struggled to adjust at first, I enjoyed the time spent learning in online classroom platforms. In the comfort of my own home. Bathroom break on my command. Time felt slower, and I felt more in control of my learning and weekly time-planning. My difficulties adjudging (or “assimilating”) to and back from the online learning world to the physical classroom, in a way, supports what Brewer (1991) had said about Synder and Fromkin’s (1980) Uniqueness Theory, which is that social identity is derived from two opposing forces, assimilation, and differentiation form others. This makes total sense – humans carry with them an embedded biological need or want to belong, to be a part of a safe community with like-minded individuals. Yet, humans also want an occasional ego-boost so that they feel different, noticed, and perhaps, appreciated.

I will end this blog post with this quote, “Because individuals are said to vacillate between wanting to belong and wanting to stand out and be recognized for their unique contribution to a group, Kreiner, Hollensbe, and Sheep (2006) suggested that one’s need to be unique is likely to affect identity work, which in turn seems essential to the internalization of academic discourse (Duff, 2010)” (by Li-Tang Yu, et al., 1). This quote emphasizes the unfolding connection between the need and want to belong, and yet to also feel uniquely different is a defining identity characteristic, which will inevitably influence or impact the internalization of academic discourse. By the way, I don’t know, if what I’m saying or trying to articulate here in this blog post, even makes sense ~~

UPDATE ON RESEARCH PROPOSAL DRAFT:

Okay, so now I’ll try and sum up what’s going on with my research proposal drafting process, in which I obviously plan to work on more so later today. I have a lot of words and ideas on pages right now, which is good yet overwhelming me with how easily I can lose track of my own thought-writing-planning process. As for the sources for my literature review, I have accumulated 14 solid research articles so far, and have annotated seven of them [in which are still considered in the drafting citation phase]. The seven annotated articles were thoroughly skimmed through several of times and chosen to be cited within my introduction section because of their closer relevance to my inquiry question, similar participant demographic, or thoughtful discussion on the different thinking styles and states of human consciousness.

My introduction is still a mess; paragraphs with great detail and quality content sporadically placed throughout my document. I’m a messy writer, and often write what comes to mind or feels write, then go back to read some of the research articles in hopes to revisit my messy draft for refinement, deleting paragraph-ideas that no longer serve the direction of where my research inquiry question is intending to go. I have refined my research question multiple times, and now feel satisfied with it. I feel fine in terms of finding research article sources, annotating, and finding connections within and between them.

However, I am struggling with the construction and organization of my methodology section. I’ve planned out some draft ideas of data collection methods based on the phenomenological approach to research design. I’m definitely researching a phenomenon – the emergence of cognitive creative functioning and influence on self-identity amongst Kean University students.

I’m choosing to do a small focus group sampling size of ten students, who each leisurely practice a form of artistic-creative expression. The ten students can be from either an undergraduate or graduate program at Kean. I would like to plan for only two students to engage in the same form of artistic-creative expression. This means 10 different students but only 5 different forms of creative expression will be analyzed in my study. This way I can conduct deep cross-comparative analysis between the creative processes of students engaging in the same form of creativity (e.g., two students painting or drawing as a form of creative expression) and between those engaging in different forms of creative expression (e.g., dancing as a form of creative expression vs. writing).

I plan on implementing structured and unstructured interviews with participants before, during, and after their engaged experience of creative production. For this to happen, there will need to be three separate phases or stages of the interview process. The first stage will be a structured individual interview, with some open-ended questions with each participant. The second stage will involve unstructured, conversational questions while directly observing and note taking the engagement and production of creativity at hand (individually, not as a group). And the third stage will be the reflective focus group gathering, where I pose questions as a frame of guidance but will ultimately let the participants lead the discuss on their creative experience, associated feelings or attitudes all throughout, setbacks or unforeseen challenges, insights, or revelations of any kind. My observational notes on the creative productions and the reflective focus group discussion will count as data for this study, and I will use thematic analysis to identify common themes, or patterns of meaning that come up repeatedly.

That’s all I got for this week ~~ my brain feels heavy, and my eyes now hurt but hey, we are almost to the finish line ~~

Xoxo,

Francesca Di Fabio 🙂

When students want to stand out: Discourse moves in online classroom discussion that reflect students’ need for distinctiveness

Are we saving the best for last?????

I really enjoyed this week’s reading. I think the topic was interesting, I liked the use of discourse analysis as the choice of methodology, and I was genuinely looking to forward to seeing what time of results the researchers were going to end up with.

The research is aiming to find out if students’ uniqueness-seeking needs are related to their discourse moves, which is how they interact within online class discussions. They conducted their research using a graduate level group where they monitored and then analyzed and coded their contributions to the online discussion and also distributed a survey that depicted the students’ desire for “uniqueness”, which they also did at the end. For the coding they created categories for all possible contributions from the students. As for results, they were able to compare the students from the beginning of the semester and the end, while also comparing them to each other.

I thought the research was done well. I think doing a deep dive of the participants is better than having more participants but less specific information. Seeing discourse analysis in this study makes me want to incorporate the methodology in my own proposal. This reading clarified the method for me dramatically. Even the coding was super clear. With my research question, essentially I would get information from younger children, so I guess I am struggling with what type of response I`d pose to them. Also, I really appreciated how the researchers organized the coding. I think that was the best way to ensure the least possible amount of bias.

Discourse Analysis

If “discourse” is the way we use language to communicate with each other in social situations, then it is certainly something to think about when it comes to establishing (or negotiating) shared ideas and values. We use discourse to build relationships and establish culture and sub-culture(s). We use discourse to influence others, and co-create meaning in our world. “Discourse analysis” is a research methodology that provides a lens through which we can view the many functions of language. This includes understanding the way language is involved in power and ideological understanding between people. How does certain use of language shape prevailing power structures, construct societal narratives, or influence our everyday interactions? This kind of inquiry is the terrain of the discourse analysis researcher, who seeks to explore the structure and expression of language in order to understand meaning-making processes within a social and cultural context. I think this qualitative methodology will be useful to some of you as you move forward with your own work in Writing Studies. Thanks Thuy for providing thorough summary slides for the article Discourse Analysis: Making Complex Methodology Simple. I believe it is clear to all of you now that the discourse analysis method might help a researcher plan questions that delve beneath the surface of shared language use, so that one may uncover subtleties, and start to comprehend the power and influence of text and oral forms of communication within a community.

Our class slides:

In class I addressed refining your research question further (remember not to ask “leading questions”). I also shared with you the “Lit Review” funneling concept for narrowing the scope and scale of your research inquiry by establishing a “tighter” vision of scholarly influences that inform the research you propose to do. At this stage you should be collecting a lot of sources, but then you must narrow down (through some review) the key work that is important to your own research inquiry. This process involves reading scholarly abstracts and skimming articles in order to ascertain what is truly influential to your own work. In other words, you should be “winnowing down” your citation selections (selecting 15 key sources from a much bigger collection). This process is critical to good research because you alone can identify the previously established scholarly work that is more pertinent to your own research plans.

In the last phase of class, we followed another “liberating structure” protocol called “Appreciative Interviews” which gave each peer reviewer the chance to share their progress with their research proposal draft thus far. Peer partners each took notes (in our slides). This process was intended to support you in the work necessary for the coming week ahead. You will all complete a written peer review protocol in class next week. What is needed to do that work is your Research Proposal Draft which you will bring to class in hard copy (printed out). You will be exchanging drafts, reading them during workshop time, and then writing a Peer Review in person during class.

Your to-do list

Please read: Yu et al. (May 2016) When students want to stand out: Discourse moves in online classroom discussion that reflect students’ needs for distinctiveness. Computers in Human Behavior 58:1-11

Blog 11 due 4/18. Please write a blog reflection on our Mix Methods article above, and provide some comments on your draft process for your research proposal. Max will lead our discussion on Mix Methods in class. Directly afterward, there will be a “Peer Review” workshop. Your Research Proposal draft (in printed hard copy) will be required in class next week. **Please print out a hard copy of your proposal draft to share with your peer review partner in class.

See you next week in CAS 308! …And have a lovely Springtime weekend.

We’re Almost at the End!!!!

Blog Notes

  • Hi Everyone! First an update on my research proposal.
    • To quote Dr. Zamora “This is where the rubber hits the road”. It is full steam ahead.
    • I have begun to annotate my sources and I have 5 sources annotated so far. I will do 4 more tomorrow which will bring me to 9 annotated sources out of 14. We are getting there!
      • Something that has helped tremendously is that I have found 30 sources that I will narrow down to 14. 
      • I have the 30 sources in my Google Doc so that I don’t have to go back to the database and search.
      • I can just annotate the sources that I choose to use from the list of 30.
    • I have a very nice outline of my research proposal in my Google Doc.
      • I have found that outlines are my go to method.
      • I make sections in the outline and fill them in with bits of information. This way I am already putting some of what will go into my first draft, but it is only a small bit so it doesn’t take up a lot of time while the ideas are not fully fleshed out. It’s kinda like dropping a jellybean to follow on the way back.
    • I have figured out my research question almost! I have 3 questions and I just need to pick one or combine elements from each one to form my question.
    • I know what will be the interesting hook that opens up my introduction.
    • I know what methodology I am going to use, but have not worked too much on that section. I am thinking about it when I go about my day and thinking about it in the background.
    • I will have a nice draft ready on Thursday. I probably won’t have all 14 sources annotated by Thurs, but I will have an intro, a methods section, and an annotated bibliography. It’s so nice to have this project started and coming to life before my eyes. 
    • At the beginning of the semester, this project seemed to big to tackle. But now I know that it’s a lot of work, but it’s doable. It’s like when it’s dark and the clothes on the chair look like a scary monster, but you turn on the light and it’s just a pile of clothes. Remember people, this research proposal is just a pile of clothes on a chair!
  • Mixed Methods Notes
    • This study is interesting because it is studying students who seek uniqueness. I found this interesting because uniqueness seems like something that would be hard to measure, but the authors mention that Lynn and Harris’ came up with a uniqueness-seeking scale in 1997 and they adapted it for their study. This just goes to show that everything can be measured and when we consider our methods section of the research proposal, we can find ways to measure concepts that may seem abstract.
    • The authors note that they are going to analyze data both quantitatively and qualitatively. This seems like a task that could be super hard and overwhelming. I didn’t know that it was an option to analyze data both quantitatively and qualitatively and that could be one of the reasons that the authors are going to use mixed methods.
    • We’re gotten to the methods section! This is where the mixed methods are revealed! Drumroll please!
    • The authors use a discourse analytic approach and constant comparison coding.
      • I assume that one method will measure the data qualitatively while another method will measure the data quantitatively.
    • An interesting thing I found in the discussion at the end was that the need for uniqueness did not effect students participation in online discussions. I thought that students with a higher need to be unique would be more engaged in online discussions in order to showcase their point of view and how it is unique to others.
    • Another interesting finding was that student’s uniqueness levels varied across the semester. This indicates that even though everyone has different needs for uniqueness, they may equal out over time to due to uniqueness needs rising and falling throughout the semester.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

THUY NGUYEN

KATIE

Bình luận về bài viết này

Discourse Analysis: Making Complex Methodology Simple

As far as readability, this reading was a little confusing as far as the jargon. However, I did feel like the the structure and sections of the reading made a lot of sense and made the content easier to understand.

Discourse is considered a form spoken dialogue and in contrast to written texts. The document discusses how discourse analysis can be used in the IS reattach field. The author emphasizes the idea that the field of IS is changing and moving evolving from a positivistic view to one of that is defined more by the relationship between variables . The reading includes steps of how to analyze these type of texts.

I found discourse analysis to be really interesting. I like the idea of our words have meaning based on the experiences we’ve had. That also makes me question how accurate our interpretation of ANYTHING is. In the reading it says, “The main issue of hermeneutics is that the true interpretation has simply not yet been found, but rather that there is no such final interpretation”. First, I did have to look up what “hermeneutics” is and after reading the definition I am now questioning not only discourse analysis, but also philosophy and anything else that requires one to rely on ones interpretation.

Did You Know?

Yes, It’s True. When an unanticipated ER visit over the weekend interrupts your assignment flow, you discover something new. In other words, did you know that Discourse Analysis: Making Complex Methodology Simple by Bondarouk and Ruel ties into (aligns with) medicine as Discourse Analysis is a useful methodology for healthcare system research? Well, according to an article written in the National Library of Medicine, as interesting as it might be, I uncovered some detailed information alluding to said matter, such as:

Discourse analysis (DA) is an interdisciplinary field of inquiry and is becoming an increasingly popular research strategy for researchers in various disciplines, which healthcare researchers have little employed. The methodology involves a focus on the sociocultural and political context in which text and talk occur. DA adds a linguistic approach to an understanding of the relationship between language and ideology, exploring the way in which theories of reality and relations of power are encoded in such aspects as the syntax, style, and rhetorical devices used in texts. DA is a useful and productive qualitative methodology but has been underutilized within healthcare system research. Without a clear understanding of discourse theory and DA it is difficult to comprehend important research findings and impossible to use DA as a research strategy. To redress this deficiency, this article represents an introduction to concepts of discourse and DA, DA history, Philosophical background, DA types and analysis strategy. Finally, it discusses how it affects the ideological dimension of such phenomena discourse in the healthcare system, health beliefs and intra-disciplinary relationships in the healthcare system.

For at least three years now, “discourse” and “discourse analysis (DA)” have been fashionable terms. Usually, in scientific research and debates, it is used indiscriminately without being defined. Without a clear understanding of discourse theory and DA, it is difficult to comprehend important research findings and impossible to use DA as a research strategy. Hence, the article aims to help healthcare practitioners employ DA as an effective research strategy.

There are many explanations and definitions of discourse and DA. Discourse has been defined as “a group of ideas or patterned way of thinking which can be identified in textual and verbal communications, and can also be located in wider social structures.” In other definition “discourse is a belief, practice or knowledge that constructs reality and provides a shared way of understanding the world.” In a broad sense, discourses are defined as systems of meaning that are related to the interactional and wider sociocultural context and operate regardless of the speakers’ intentions. DA is a broad and diverse field, including a variety of approaches to the study of language, which derive from different scientific disciplines and utilize various analytical. DA examines language in use. As suggested by Fairclough, “Discourse is the use of language as a form of social practice, and DA is an analysis of how texts work within the sociocultural practice.” DA focuses on the ways that language and symbols shape interpretations of negotiators’ identities, instrumental activity, and relationships.

DA is both an old and a new discipline. Historically, DA path a way from linguistic approaches to socialistic approaches. Its origins can be traced back to the study of language, public speech, and literature more than 2000 years ago. One major historical source is undoubtedly classical rhetoric, the art of good speaking. Then, A new cross-discipline of DA began to develop in most of the humanities and social sciences concurrently with and related to other disciplines, like anthropology, semiology, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. Many of these approaches, especially those influenced by the social sciences, favor a more dynamic study of oral talk-in-interaction. 

Mainly, DA’s philosophical base is a social constructionist approach. Social constructionism is an umbrella term for a range of new theories about culture and society. DA is just one among several social constructionist approaches, but it is one of the most widely used approaches within social constructionism.

Social linguistic analysis is constructivist and focuses on individual texts. It gives insight into the organization and construction of these texts and how they work to construct and organize other phenomena. The focus is not on the exploration of the power dynamics in which the texts are implicated.

Similar to social linguistic analysis, these discourse analyses are interested in the way in which broader discursive contexts come into being. They are not directly concerned with power. Individual texts are more important as background material.

Critical linguistic analysis shares with social linguistic analysis its focus on individual texts, but its main concern is the dynamics of power surrounding the text. Examining individual texts is for understanding how the structures of domination of the proximal context are implicated in the text.

Discursive psychology is part of the general movement of critical psychology, which has been reacting against mainstream social psychology, especially the sort of experimental psychology. The aim of discursive psychologists is not so much to analyze the changes in society’s “large-scale discourses,” which concrete language use can bring about, as to investigate how people use the available discourses flexibly in creating and negotiating representations of the world and identities in talk-in-interaction and to analyze the social consequences of this.

DA, as a qualitative approach, has an important role in the healthcare system because the healthcare system needs to be knowledgeable across the multiple paradigms and perspectives that inform an understanding of the biological, psychological, social, cultural, ethical, and political dimensions of human lives. Practice in this area is a political, cultural, and social practice and needs to be understood as such to improve the quality of care provided. Effective clinical reasoning relies on employing several different kinds of knowledge and research that draw on different perspectives, methodologies, and techniques to generate the breadth of knowledge and depth of understanding of clinical practices and patients’ experiences of those practices. DA can contribute to the development of this knowledge (Yazdannik, Yousefy, Mohammadi, 2017) and so on. Thanks Everyone! 🤗