Once again, I am at a bit of a disadvantage in that I missed class and hence the related exercise. Nonetheless, I will attempt to offer a few thoughts concerning content and discourse analysis and how they might be applicable in my continued adventures in IS…
Based on the work I have been doing this semester in the iSensor Lab concerning linguistic analysis and language-action cues, I firmly believe that “information” and cues that are available in a F2F setting (such as, for example, an in-person interview) are in large part lacking when we have only the raw “text” itself. Just as an example, the appearance, body language and even tone of voice of the speaker are lost (at least for the most part – the cool thing about linguistic analysis is that it attempts to supply some of these cues from within the text itself by way of examining word choice, phraseology, length of communication, wordiness (ahem…) and syntax … but I digress). That is to say, the information gained in F2F interactions includes both verbal and non-verbal components, and it is difficult at best to “replace” the information – especially the non-verbal information – that is missing when only the “written” evidence of the interaction is available (even if originally in a F2F environment). So, how much can we really extract from a writing? It seems it would depend upon what we are attempting to look at in reviewing the writing. The example of being able to observe court testimony “live”, or even watch a video recording of it, versus reading the transcript comes to mind. In reading the transcript, we can read the (supposedly) exact words of the parties – But, unless the judge or counsel ask for a specific notation to be made in the transcript concerning the facial expressions or gestures of the witness being interviewed, these are lost when only the text remains. Inflection and tone are also lost. For us Rumpole of the Bailey fans, this is specifically dealt with in “Rumpole and the Show Folk, where Rumpole gives several different “readings” of the same “line” from his client’s (an actress) statement concerning the shooting of her husband. As you can probably imagine, her words themselves – “I shot him. What could I do with him. Help me.” – were quite incriminating, on the page (you will note, there isn’t even any punctuation to supply tone or emphasis). However, with his customary style, Rumpole deftly illustrates that those words could be imbued with considerably different meaning(s), and considerably different information (or data?) is imparted, depending on tone and emphasis. Same applies to the “Delicious Death” quotation in this week’s lecture notes – When Miss Murgatroyd tries to tell Miss Hinchcliffe what she saw the night of the shooting at Little Paddocks, meaning (or at least interpretation) follows inflection/ emphasis: She wasn’t there, she wasn’t there, she wasn’t there. All this to say, if the objective is just to verify “what” was said (or written…) – without interpretation or looking for meaning – then content analysis is great. It’s a fairly straightforward, unobtrusive means of collecting data and deriving inferences from writings through the process of coding various aspects of the text. Taking a holistic view of the writing (or body of writings) being explored can even provide a certain degree of context as well. If, on the other hand, the intent is to interpret or derive “meaning” in an objective sense, it’s a bit problematic. Bottom line, I think, is that it is important to keep in mind the kinds of “information” that get lost just in looking at text or writing. Providing these are not what you are looking for, then CA is fine.
Discourse analysis is a bit more challenging – but it does seem to get at some of the linguistic analysis I mention above, which is of interest to me. As I understand it, it seeks to take a very holistic view of the communications (i.e. writings) in question – and considers both the internal context of the writings (i.e. the context or sense in which certain words or phrases were used) but also the external context of the writing (i.e. the historical/ socio-political factors shaping who was writing, what they wrote, and why). Not sure this is a good example, but I have in mind how the socio-political circumstances in 17th century England (i.e. English Civil War) informed the writings of Hobbes and Locke – and influenced not only what they wrote about but how the approached/ treated it. Just as meaning and information can be lost in the absence of the facial expressions, body language etc. available in F2F interactions, and having only the written account of it to go on , I firmly believe also that a good deal of meaning (and information) can be lost if we are not mindful of the broader “context” of the communication in this sense. I guess in this sense, I see CA and DA as potentially being complimentary to each other- particularly depending upon the topic of investigation – with CA looking at the “micro” level of the writing and DA looking at it from a “macro” level.