98 | Monika Grochalska Kultura i Edukacja 2020

No. 2 (128), pp. 98–112

DOI: 10.15804/kie.2020.02.06
www.kultura-i-edukacja.pl

Monika Grochalska

Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis:

Constraints and Challenges

abstract
The paper is an in-depth analysis of the constraints and challenges that the
researcher of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) faces in practices connected to
the research processes. To fully understand where that trouble derives from, we
need to examine the notion of discourse and the process of CDA itself. Then the
major issues will be exemplified by particular experiences gained in the proc-
ess of conducting the research project “Women in Intimate Relationships: The
Empirical and Critical Study” financed by the Polish National Science Centre
(NCN no 2011/01/D/HS6/02470). On one side, the text is an attempt to structure
and systematize the knowledge about difficulties caused by the CDA processes,
but on the other, it can be read as a kind of “warning notice” that can save
very young researchers from making significant mistakes before they start their
CDA investigations.
Keywords:
Critical Discourse Analysis, research practices, project design, common dif-
ficulties, researcher’s constraints

introduction

The author’s need to explore research practices within Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) appeared just after finishing the project “Women in Intimate Relationships:
The Empirical and Critical Study” financed by the Polish National Science Centre
(NCN no 2011/01/D/HS6/02470). Such insight was supposed to be the catharsis

 Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland.

e-mail:monika.grochalska@uwm.edu.pl orcid: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2942-3309
 Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis | 99

achieved through verbalization of the doubts and perceived mistakes as well as the
attempt to systematize major possible difficulties in order to avoid them in future
projects. From the perspective of early-stage CDA analyst, the analysis process
seems extremely complex and puzzling. Thus, starting from the very beginning
can ease and organize the whole reasoning about the causes of obstacles and limits
of CDA.

discourse and discourse analysis

Firstly, it is necessary to bear in mind that there is no one explicit and clear defini-
tion of the discourse. Clearly, it results in many different approaches to discourse
analysis. Michel Foucault cited 23 meanings of discourse during a lecture at Col-
lege de France, which does not make it easier to understand and synthesize this con-
cept. In general, there are two major ways of understanding the discourse. Firstly,
as a power tool, and secondly, as a cultural fact. According to Teun van Dijk (2001,
p. 12), discourse is a text in the context or a communication event. As an ambigu-
ous concept, its specification requires the use of additional terms, such as “medi-
cal discourse”, “political discourse”, or “scientific discourse”. Helena Ostrowicka
(2014, pp. 59–60) in the context of educational analyses distinguished: scientific
discourses (produced by scientists), public discourses (produced by politicians,
journalists), and practical discourses (produced by practitioners directly involved
in a particular social field). In Foucault’s view, the discourse refers to “ways of
constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity
and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and relations between them.
Discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning. They con-
stitute the ‘nature’ of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional
life of the subjects they seek to govern” (Weedon, 1987, p. 108). Interpreting the
theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe, the discourse can be defined as all
forms of social reality emerged against the background of discursive fields, fields
of discourse and discourses, which can be defined as differential relation systems
for the production of meanings (Gąsior-Niemiec, 2008, p. 296). In these systems,
semantic aspects of language and pragmatic aspects of action coexist. In Laclau’s
words, the discourse is a sensible whole that goes beyond the distinction between
linguistic and non-linguistic phenomena (Laclau, 2002, p. 560).
Moreover, three major spheres of discourse can be distinguished (Gąsior-Nie-
miec, 2008): text, discourse practice, and social practice. In discourse analysis, it
results in the constitution of three levels of analysis:
100 | Monika Grochalska

– study of vocabulary, grammar, structure and coherence of the text(s),

– the process of production, distribution and consumption of the text (who, for
whom, for what purpose did it?), the way of constructing and perceiving the
text,
– emphasizing the political, economic, cultural and ideological function of the
text(s).

Without this kind of knowledge, it is hard to understand the attempts and struggles
of CDA practitioners. In their perspective, the nature of the whole social reality
is discursive. The essence of the social world is arbitrary, conflictual and wob-
bly (Gąsior-Niemiec, 2008, p. 291). At the same time, the constructivist research
perspective implying the perception of social facts as the meanings created by the
subject makes it possible to interpret everything social in terms of discourse.

the specificity of critical discourse analysis

Overall discourse analysis is interpretive and explanatory. The analysis process

is framed by exposing discursive structures that determine mental processes and
enable the creation of social representations. There are three main types of discourse
analysis highlighted by the theorists and researchers (Grzymała-Kazłowska, 2004):
linguistic analysis, sociological analysis, and critical analysis. Whereas linguistic
analysis is focused mainly on a written text and structural description of the dis-
course, the sociological analysis makes investigations of statements and texts in
the context of the major task. Sociological analysis is processual, descriptive and
explanatory. Likewise, it serves cognitive goals. Nonetheless, the critical analysis
extends the field of interests by adding to previously mentioned features also norma-
tive aims, socially engaged practices and making the change in a social world.
CDA is not a specific research direction and there is no one cohesive theo-
retical framework. The uniqueness of CDA lies in a fact that it functions as
“a bridge” between micro- and macro-level approaches. Micro-level is connected
to the particular language uses, the discourse structures and communication. But
the macro-level of analysis refers to power, domination and inequality. Signifi-
cantly, in the view of many discourse theorists, power manifests itself not only
in acts of oppression by dominant groups but in the “obviousness” of everyday
life (Foucault, 1988b). In consequence, two major CDA questions emerge. First
of them is: “How do dominant groups control discourse?”, and the second: “How
does such discourse control the minds and actions of people (and especially
 Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis | 101

less-privileged groups), and what are the consequences of this state?”. Because of
specific goals of CDA, the significant subject of analysis for CDA practitioners
are the ways of controlling the minds and actions of less-privileged groups in
society. However, the discourse controls not only the less-privileged, but also the
broader part of society, especially through processes of naturalization. Discourse
is a tool for shaping minds of not only the oppressed, but also shaping minds of the
shapers. In terms of Foucault, it is possible, because the power is “dispersed”. He
refers not to the Power “with a capital P, dominating and imposing its rationality
upon the totality of the social body” (Foucault, 1988a, p. 38). There are rather mul-
tiple power relations taking on different forms, penetrating all spheres – family
relations, institutions, administration (Foucault, 1988a). These questions organize
CDA around the topics connected to the perception of inequalities dependant on
the position in the social structure. Certainly, we can say that CDA is not a “direc-
tion”, “school” or “specialization” within discourse analysis, but rather a perspec-
tive, an approach or an attitude that may appear in conversation analysis as well as
in sociolinguistics or ethnography. This type of analysis is determined more by the
dispositions of the researcher than by the chosen methods or procedures.
Based on the work of researchers located in this perspective, one can distin-
guish various approaches developed by individual researchers, i.e. (Krzyżanowska,
2013):

– the Viennese school, developing the discourse-historical approach (DHA),

represented by Ruth Wodak, Martin Reisigl, Michał Krzyżanowski,
– Teun van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach,
– British systemic-functional school developed on the works of Norman Fair-
clough,
– psychologically oriented group from Loughborough University represented
by Michael Billig,
– socio-semiotic approach, developed by Teun van Leeuwen,
– a Duisburg school represented by Siegfried Jäger.

All facts cited suggest that within CDA it is possible to use various theories, descrip-
tions, and methods depending on the socio-political aims (Jabłońska, 2006), bearing
in mind that language is the “architect of all socialization processes” (Jabłońska,
2006). As such, it is demonic in its nature, because it hides the violent relations
of power, creates them and contributes to their consolidation (Bourdieu, 1991;
Foucault, 1988b). But at the same time, CDA does not reduce the social sphere only
to language (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). CDA examines the relations between what is
102 | Monika Grochalska

discursive (sphere of meanings) and what is non-discursive (sphere of materiality).

These both are so mixed up and intertwined that it is impossible to separate them
in a social world. Discourse is constitutive and constituted at the same time (Fair-
clough, 1995). In Teun van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach, CDA is an analytical
study of discourse, unmasking power relations, revealing dominance and subordi-
nation of certain groups, and inequalities that are reproduced and perpetuated by
the text in a social and political context. The researcher’s task is to understand and
expose these relations as well as to stand against inequalities (van Dijk, 2009b).

technical aspects of critical discourse analysis

In CDA seen as a research approach (Wodak & Meyer, 2009), we can easily distin-
guish a few steps leading to reaching the research objectives. First is the selection
of phenomenon to be observed, for example, racism or sexism. In the second step,
one should explain the theoretical assumptions underlying the study. Then, using
different methods, the researcher should attempt to combine theory with observa-
tions. Here, it is possible to apply three levels of analysis:

– linguistic analysis – first only the surface of the text, then analysis of pronouns,
attributes, modes and tenses. According to van Dijk (2001), the complete anal-
ysis of discourse in CDA is impossible, so we are supposed to choose those
aspects that reflect best the power relations (intonation, accents, consistency,
choice of the topic, moments of hesitation, correcting statements, etc.);
– socio-cognitive analysis – here social representations are being taken into
consideration. Social representations are understood as “collective frames of
perceptions performing translation between external requirements and sub-
jective experience” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, p. 25) and a framework organis-
ing the acquisition of specific knowledge, which allows understanding the
“coded language”;
– analysis of intertextuality, interdiscursivity and context – at this stage we
investigate how the text is connected to other texts, other discourses existing
in the public sphere and how it is positioned in the context (we can achieve it
mainly through de-contextualisation).

It is important to acknowledge that data collection and analysis are not separated in
time, they occur simultaneously (similarly to grounded theory methodology). Sam-
pling – a selection of texts included in the corpus of data – is fully intentional.
 Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis | 103

There are numerous concepts and ideas of how the analysis can be lead. Van
Dijk (2001) points out six levels of analysis:

1. Analysis of semantic macrostructures (topics);

2. Analysis of local meanings, e.g., presuppositions, allusions, doubts;
3. Analysis of “subtle” formal structures;
4. Analysis of global and local forms of discourses;
5. Analysis of specific language implementations (e.g., hyperbola);
6. Context analysis.

Reisigl and Wodak (2001) write about only four phases:

1. Determining the content/topics of the discourse;

2. Discursive strategies (e.g., argumentation);
3. Linguistic measures;
4. Specific, context-dependent linguistic implementations (as symbols).

R. Scollon (2001) advocates the use of five-stage analysis:

1. Actions;
2. Practice;
3. Mediation measures;
4. Practice links;
5. Practice communities (and the identities they produce).

Whereas Fairclough (1995) applies four major steps in his version of CDA:

1. Focus on a specific social problem;

2. Identification of dominant styles, genres, discourses;
3. Considering the scope of diversity within styles, genres, discourses;
4. Identification of areas of resistance to colonization processes by dominant
discourses.

Then he suggests working on structural analysis of the context, interactive analy-

sis of linguistic aspects and analysis of interdiscursivity.
Those concepts differ, but they all may lead to valuable results and demystify-
ing power relations hidden within social structures. However, being the beginner
in the CDA field, it is extremely hard to choose the one specific approach.
104 | Monika Grochalska

the case of the research project on women’s intimacy

The specification of constraints and challenges will be presented on the basis of

experiences derived from the project “Women in Intimate Relationships: The
Empirical and Critical Study” financed by the Polish National Science Centre
(NCN no 2011/01/D/HS6/02470). In the presented project, the qualitative research
perspective was used. Data was collected through focus groups interviews and
individual in-depth interviews. Moreover, chosen public discourse messages were
analysed. The research sample consisted of women over 18 years old living in
permanent relationships – formal and informal, homo- and heterosexual for at
least two years. All collected data were analysed with the use of Critical Dis-
course Analysis as a global analytical frame. However, it is necessary to add that
in the research an unusual methodology was created, taken into consideration the
topic studied. In this case, discourse is one of the elements of the social practices
and every social practice involves such elements as productive activity, means of
production, social relations, social identities, cultural values, consciousness, and
semiosis (Fairclough, 2001). Innovative research approaches that allow joining
discourse analysis with other methodologies make also possible to keep in sight
both the role of discourse in the moments of practices and the dialectical relations
between them (Ottoni, 2018). Thus, the methodological concept was inspired by
van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach to CDA, but there were two major methodo-
logical choices that are rarely used in CDA:

– the use of interviews (IDI and FGI) as the source of research material (where
in CDA mostly media texts are being analysed),
– the use of social representations as the main analytical category (in CDA the
dominant category become usually discursive strategies).

Then, only the goal of analysis locates it in critical discourse studies, but meth-
odological procedures are eclectic and derived from the specificity of the research
questions.
It is in line with van Dijk’s perspective who stresses the role of cognition in
mediation between discourse structures and social structures. One of aims was to
show how real language users produce and understand discourse, how their per-
sonal and socially shared beliefs affect discourse production and how these are in
turn affected by discourse (van Dijk, 2009a, p. 79). The project followed van Dijk’s
concept of social cognition understood as the beliefs or social representations that
people share with others of their groups or community (van Dijk, 2009a, p. 78).
 Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis | 105

In the aforementioned project, those shared social representations of intimacy and

relationships which include knowledge, attitudes, ideologies, values and norms
were being analysed. At the same time, language is treated as an important part
of social reality and it is harnessed to the processes of reproducing inequality. It is
not uncommon for language to have an active role in reproducing inequalities, but
inequalities themselves have a different reality than just linguistic, and language
is used to naturalize them. The researcher’s task is to bring to light the traps hidden
in the language that communication participants are not aware of (Bielecka-Prus
& Horolets, 2013). Also other researchers recognize the possibility of conducting
research on discourse within the framework of the Theory of Social Representa-
tions in broader perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis (Zbróg, 2017).
In CDA researchers often try to multiply the techniques of collecting and
analyzing data that become the basis for formulated conclusions (Wodak, 2001,
p. 65). This is also the case in the analysed project. Selection of research methods
was premised on the discourse theory. The discourse in the aforesaid project was
defined as a relatively persistent map of meanings or ways of speaking that make
objects or practices significant. The arrangement of the sphere of meanings recon-
structed in the project is a consequence of the influence that power exerts on the
area of ​​social practice. The objective of research was reconstruction of women’s
experiences related to functioning in intimate relationships through the prism of
the practical discourses they produce (Ostrowicka, 2014, p. 60), as well as recon-
struction of discourses about intimate relationships that coexist in public sphere
and an attempt to determine the area of mutual interpenetration of discourse with
everyday experience using achievements of the theory of social learning, in par-
ticular, based on the phenomenon of social cognition and S. Moscovici’s theory of
social representations. The final result was the proposal of interpretative frame-
works of the phenomenon of intimacy in a relationship different from existing
ones (cf. Kopciewicz, 2011, pp. 112–113).
The main research question was formulated as How do nowadays women
experience “being in intimate relationships” and what is the role and significance
of cultural premises and expectations towards women for these experiences? As
mentioned above, besides using the secondary data (Rubacha, 2008) such as popu-
lar handbooks and TV series, there were two additional data sources:

– FGI – focus groups interviews (or an interview with the thematic group
according to K. Rubacha), in particular, the affinity groups (groups with simi-
lar interests; Gawlik, 2012),
106 | Monika Grochalska

– IDI – semi-structured individual interviews, in the form of an episodic inter-

view, which is recommended by U. Flick (2006) to examine social representa-
tions.

The analysis was computer-assisted by using Open Code 4.02 – the tool designed
for analyzing qualitative data under a freeware license. In the collected material
such elements as: i) social representations of intimacy, relationships and feminin-
ity, ii) strategies of being in a relationship, iii) strategies of dealing with the oppres-
sion, iv) topos of discourse, v) rituals (practices) in relationships, were analysed.

major constraints and challenges of the cda analysis

The most important and at the same time the most frustrating for the young
researchers is the fact that the variety of options available through the numerous
traditions of discourse analysis can make issues of methodology problematic. As
long as each tradition has its epistemological position, concepts, procedures, and
a particular understanding of discourse and discourse analysis, it is difficult to
choose and use the exact approach to the chosen research topic. Innovative research
strategies developed for the needs of a particular project very often face criticism
from the researchers embedded in more traditional approaches. The less experi-
enced researchers have to choose between sticking to the less flexible but safe
traditional modes and creating their eclectic methodology but expose themselves
to the criticism. Similarities and differences between concepts may cause confu-
sion. When the confusion spreads, an explanation of concepts and justification for
their use seems to be the proper way of dealing with this. In the above-mentioned
project, an innovative approach was developed, but each step of the analysis was
carefully explained and rationalized. The general lack of explicit techniques for
researchers to follow has been indicated as a hindrance (Morgan, 2010).
The other issue in the CDA mixed studies is the fact that meaning is never
fixed and everything is always open to interpretation and negotiation. Such a way
of thinking may disrupt longstanding notions of gender, autonomy, identity, choice.
Such disruption can be very disturbing, but at the same time is interesting and
challenging. Each tradition within discourse analysis has been once critiqued. For
example, conversation analysis is said to be narrow, but Foucauldian discourse
analysis is said to be too broad (Mogashoa, 2014).
Most of the CDA critics agree that texts are arbitrarily selected and limited in
length, which leads to concerns over the representativeness of the texts selected.
 Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis | 107

There are also very serious limitations and difficulties in drawing any conclu-
sion. In the above-mentioned project, this issue was partly eliminated by choosing
some of the texts based on the results of interviews with women. Basically, they
indicated the texts being their most common source of knowledge about intimate
relationships. The study aiming for credibility should be being as truthful and
transparent as possible in giving sufficient details about the data source. The data
should be obtained systematically and great emphasis should be put on the descrip-
tion of the methodology to clearly explain how the data has been collected to
make the analysis transparent so that the reader can trace and understand in-depth
textual analysis (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, p. 11). Moreover, the issue of making
much interpretation out of little evidence can be resolved by carefully addressing
potential criticisms (Sriwimon & Zilli, 2017).
To address the criticism of prioritizing context over text, a CDA study should
start from textual analysis. Only then the results can be interpreted and discussed
against the sociopolitical context. To do it properly, the texts’ production and con-
sumption should be discussed. In the presented project, the influence of ideolo-
gies found in the textual analysis on everyday practices was shown (Sriwimon &
Zilli, 2017). Since CDA is a problem-oriented research approach, that is mainly
motivated by a social or political problem rather than a linguistic issue (Wodak,
2001). In this case, it is necessary to adopt an eclectic approach to improve the
analysis incorporating the knowledge about the historical, political, and social
contexts of the problem under investigation and to explain how social phenomena
are interconnected, and how power structures and ideologies are hidden behind
discourse (van Dijk, 2001).
CDA is interpretive and subjective. The CDA analysts may have their subjec-
tive influence on the analysis and usually cannot separate their own values and
beliefs from the research they are doing. The only way of dealing with this is
using their preconceptions and personal beliefs as an advantage shaping and giv-
ing meaning to the production of discourse basing on them and openly confess on
them (Wodak, 2009).
According to Nguyen (2014), CDA should also include interviews with pro-
ducers and consumers of discourse and not just base on the analyst’s view. The
critical discourse analysts should be aware of their position because CDA can
neither prove the author’s intentions, nor the audience’s interpretation. The pre-
sented project aims also at examining the role of the audience (women living in
relationships) in the consumption and interpretation of discourse, not just simply
relying on the analyst’s interpretation of the texts.
108 | Monika Grochalska

However, the analysed project is not a typical CDA study because there are
additional sources of data taken into consideration, so the researcher faced also
some challenges which are connected to qualitative research in general. The
researcher’s constraints and challenges in this matter were connected to three
main dichotomies:

– theory versus practice,

– opportunities versus requirements,
– project management versus life issues.

In the first area, the main concern of the researcher conducting CDA for the first
time is that discourse analysis is something disparate from Critical Discourse
Analysis. CDA is much more complex and extensive. The multiplicity of meth-
odological concepts causes confusion and the difficulty of choosing the right pro-
cedure. There occurs also the need to adapt chosen procedures to the undertaken
social problem. All this requires a lot of research awareness.
The innovative and untypical methodology demanded using also the brico-
lage technique in combining different methods of collecting data and analysing
them. The use of this technique also causes a lot of trouble. Bricolage as creating
the representations system of many different pieces that match a specific, complex
situation, gives the researcher a lot of freedom and flexibility, but on the other
hand, it is very demanding. The bricolage itself changes, takes on new forms, and
the bricoleur adds new tools, methods, techniques of representation and interpreta-
tion (Denzin & Lincoln, 2009, p. 24). By adopting such a role in research, new
tools and techniques can be even invented or combined, without having to decide
in advance which interpretive practice will be used. These types of issues emerge
during the analyses which is both releasing and paralyzing. The theory is compel-
ling, but in practice, conducting such unstructured analysis can be tough.
The second mentioned area, opportunities versus requirements, is mainly con-
nected to a lack of experience and competence of the early-stage researcher. In
the case of the social science researcher, especially linguistic skills are often the
weakness. For the researcher who is unexperienced in CDA, it is a totally novel
approach. Without the right attitude oriented to constant learning, valuable analy-
sis is impossible. Another challenge is dealing with a lot of information/data. For
very young researchers it can be quite frightening. Surely, there are some tools
which can be efficient support in the process of analysis, but using professional
software can be also difficult. Definitely, again the researcher should be prepared
for learning. Another obstacle is choosing the right technique of transcriptions.
 Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis | 109

In the considered project Jefferson’s technique was used, but it turned out to be hard to
implement and also to read. There occurred severe difficulties with translating those
transcripts into English, which is necessary when one wants to publish the research
results in international high-impact journals. Due to the purposes of translation into
English, transcription was simplified (transcription marks were omitted). Only very
well skilled researchers are able to construct less extensive texts deriving from the
whole analysis, which remain fully understandable and clear to the readers.
Last but not least is the role of the “human factor”. Focus group interviews
organization was very demanding. There were a lot of difficulties in constructing
the appropriate groups. Even when the groups were complete, the participants did
not attend the meetings. One of the ways of dealing with such issues is finding
and including into groups more people than is really needed. Another method to
overcome these constraints is allocating the remuneration for participants. But we
have to keep in mind that not every project is fully financed by the external entities.
Writing the grant proposal with the usage of FGI technique, the remuneration as the
part of the planned budget is certainly worth taking into account. Also, the role of
a moderator/facilitator in the group is not easy. To manage this task and collect the
information needed, it is necessary to have certain communication skills. The audio
and video recordings are impossible to eradicate and at the same time quite safe
from the researcher’s perspective. Despite that, the interviewees often see this as a
threat. Sometimes it is difficult to get informed consent. Moreover, technical aspects
and tools can be unreliable. The researcher should be prepared for even the most
unexpected situations. Individual in-depth interviews also become troublesome in
practice. The selection of appropriate “cases” according to the sample construction,
then obtaining their informed consent, as well as ensuring appropriate conditions
and environment (a good place to talk) is a very demanding process. During the inter-
view, it is crucial to overcome the resistance and fully understand the language and
concepts used by every respondent. Again communication skills become crucial.
In the third dichotomic distinction, the major problem is to reconcile the
project management process, living conditions and unpredictable events. Unpre-
dictability is inevitable in the qualitative research process. During the research
process, in fact, the time becomes your worst enemy, because CDA is really chal-
lenging and time-consuming. Usually, it takes more time than you assume at
the beginning. Bearing in mind that typically reconstruction of initial concepts,
the research approach and adaptation of methods to the specificity of the study
are unavoidable, better allocate more time and resources than you think in the begin-
ning. The antidote can be good and systematically repeated planning throughout
the whole research process and a large experience of the researcher in qualitative
110 | Monika Grochalska

research. The challenge is also to deal with a lot of information/data, which in tech-
nical terms is meant to be facilitated by the use of the CAQDAS (Computer-Assisted
Qualitative Data Analysis Software) which is a group of programmes such as NVivo,
Weft QDA, or OpenCode. Learning to handle a variety of software features nowadays
can be done online, through tutorials available on the YouTube platform. But also
CAQDAS applications training can be helpful and ensure the necessary knowledge
and skills to manage the analysis process. Difficulties in project implementation
may also arise from the conditions of working with people. Acquiring interview-
ees can be cumbersome. Besides, difficulties are usually related to the process of
interviewing. Breaking down resistance, providing appropriate conditions/environ-
ments, using an understandable language are communicational challenges. On this
issue also the researcher’s experience can be a significant advantage.
Concluding, CDA can be highly challenging, especially to inexperienced,
early-stage researchers, but overcoming constraints is possible mainly due to tak-
ing advantage of reading texts and listening to more experienced analysts. CAQ-
DAS training and interpersonal competence training would also be eligible. With
such preparation, CDA and qualitative research, in general, can be an exception-
ally satisfying activity.

References
Bandura, A. (2007). Teoria społecznego uczenia się. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Bielecka-Prus, J., & Horolets, A. (2013). Rekonstrukcja praktyk analizy dyskursu na pod-
stawie wybranych anglojęzycznych czasopism dyskursywnych. Przegląd Socjologii
Jakościowej, 9(1), pp. 152‒185. Retrieved from: www.przegladsocjologiijakosciowej.org,
[access date: 12.04.2020].
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, P. (2009). Rozum praktyczny. O teorii działania. Kraków: Wydawnictwo UJ.
Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of ‘Sex’. New York: Routledge.
Charmaz, K. (2009). Teoria ugruntowana. Praktyczny przewodnik po analizie jakościowej.
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Denzin, N.K, & Lincoln, Y.S. (2009). Wprowadzenie. Dziedzina i praktyka badań jakościowych.
In: N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Metody badań jakościowych. Vol. 1 (pp. 19‒57).
Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Erikson, E.H. (2004). Tożsamość a cykl życia. Poznań: Zysk i S-ka.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London:
Longman.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In:
R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 121–138).
London: Sage.
 Research Practices in Critical Discourse Analysis | 111

Flick, U. (2006). An Introduction to Qualitative Research. London–Thousand Oaks–New

Delhi: Sage Publications.
Foucault, M. (1978). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1988a). Critical Theory/Intellectual Theory: Interview with Gerard Raulet. In:
L. Kritzman (Ed.), Michel Foucault: Politics, Philosophy, Culture: Interviews and Other
Writings, 1977–1984 (pp. 20–47). London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1988b). Technologies of the Self. In: L.H. Martin, H. Gutman, & P.H. Hutton
(Eds.), Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault (pp. 16–49). Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Foucault, M. (1995). The Birth of the Clinic: An Archeology of Medical Perception. Transl.
A.S. Smith. New York: Vintage Books.
Gawlik, K. (2012). Badania fokusowe. In: D. Jemielniak (Ed.), Badania jakościowe. Metody
i narzędzia. Vol. 2 (pp. 131–162). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Gąsior-Niemiec, A. (2008). Teoria dyskursu Laclau i Mouffe jako narzędzie analizy socjo-
logicznej – przypadek dyskursu „osiedli grodzonych”. In: A. Horolets (Ed.), Analiza
dyskursu w socjologii i dla socjologii (pp. 291–316). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Adam Mar-
szałek.
Ghachem, I. (2015). A Sociocognitive Approach to Agency Framing in David Cameron’s 2010
Pre-election Discourse. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines,
7(2), pp. 263–282.
Grzymała-Kazłowska, A. (2004). Socjologicznie zorientowana analiza dyskursu na tle współ-
czesnych badań nad dyskursem. Kultura i Społeczeństwo, 48, pp. 13–34.
Hensel, P., & Glinka, B. (2012). Teoria ugruntowana. In: D. Jemielniak (Ed.), Badania
jakościowe. Podejścia i teorie. Vol. 1 (pp. 89–113). Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe
PWN.
Jabłońska, B. (2006). Krytyczna analiza dyskursu: refleksje teoretyczno-metodologiczne.
Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 2(1), pp. 53–67.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In: G.H. Lerner
(Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing. DOI: 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef.
Kopciewicz, L. (2011). Nauczycielskie poniżanie. Szkolna przemoc wobec dziewcząt. Warszawa:
Difin.
Krzyżanowska, N. (2013). (Krytyczna) analiza dyskursu a (krytyczna) analiza gender: zarys
synergii teoretycznej i metodologicznej. Przegląd Socjologii Jakościowej, 9(1), pp. 62‒84.
Retrieved from: www.przegladsocjologiijakosciowej.org, [access date: 12.04.2020].
Laclau, E. (2002). Dyskurs. In: R.E. Goodin, & P. Pettit (Eds.), Przewodnik po współczesnej
filozofii politycznej (pp. 555–562). Warszawa: Książka i Wiedza.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Demo-
cratic Politics. London: Verso.
Mogashoa, T. (2014). Understanding Critical Discourse Analysis in Qualitative Research.
International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education (IJHSSE), 1(7), pp.
104-113.
Morgan, A. (2010). Discourse Analysis: An Overview for the Neophyte Researcher. Journal of
Health and Social Care Improvement, 5(1), pp. 1–7.
112 | Monika Grochalska

Moscovici, S. (2000). Social Representations: Explorations in Social Psychology. Cambridge:

Polity Press.
Nguyen, H.K. (2014). Critique on Critical Discourse Analysis. Unpublished manuscript.
Ostrowicka, H. (2014). Kategoria dyskursu w języku i w badaniach edukacyjnych – w poszu-
kiwaniu osobliwości pedagogicznie zorientowanej analizy dyskursu. Forum Oświatowe,
26(2), pp. 47–68.
Ottoni, M.A.R. (2018). Critical Discourse Analysis and Ethnography [Review of I. Magalhães,
A.R. Martins, & V. de M. Resende, Análise de Discurso Crítica: um método de pesquisa
qualitativa. Brasília: Ed. da UnB, 2017. 259 p. Transl. I.A. Lourenço da Silva.]. Alfa:
Revista de Linguística (São José do Rio Preto), 62(2), pp. 411–415. DOI: 10.1590/1981-
5794-1807-8.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and
Antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Rubacha, K. (2008). Metodologia badań nad edukacją. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Akademi-
ckie i Profesjonalne.
Scollon, R. (2001). Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice. London: Routledge.
Sękowska, M. (2000). Neopsychoanalityczna koncepcja rozwoju psychospołecznego Erika
H. Eriksona. In: P. Socha (Ed.), Duchowy rozwój człowieka. Fazy życia, osobowość,
wiara, religijność. Stadialne koncepcje rozwoju w ciągu życia (pp. 101–143). Kraków:
Wydawnictwo UJ.
Sriwimon, L., & Zilli, P.J. (2017). Applying Critical Discourse Analysis as a Conceptual
Framework for Investigating Gender Stereotypes in Political Media Discourse. Kasetsart
Journal of Social Sciences, 38(2), pp. 136–142. DOI: 10.1016/j.kjss.2016.04.004.
Trutkowski, C. (2004). Wybór czy konieczność – o potrzebie wykorzystania analizy dyskursu
w socjologii. Kultura i Społeczeństwo, 48(1), pp. 35‒50.
van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Critical Discourse Analysis. In: D. Tannen, D. Schiffrin, & H. Hamilton
(Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 352–371). Oxford: Blackwell.
van Dijk, T.A. (2009a). Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach. In: R. Wodak,
& M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 62–86). London: Sage.
van Dijk, T.A. (2009b). Society and Discourse: How Context Controls Text and Talk. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In: R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Meth-
ods of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 63-94). London: Sage.
Wodak, R. (2009). The Discourse of Politics in Action. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and
Methodology. In: R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis
(pp. 1–33). London: Sage. http://www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/publications/criti-
cal-discourse-analysis-history-agenda-theory-and-methodology(d30211d8-a9e4-48ca-
bce6-f5c067d3fffa)/export.html
Wojciszke, B. (2010). Psychologia miłości. Gdańsk: GWP.
Zbróg, Z. (2017). Teoria reprezentacji społecznych w interdyscyplinarnych badaniach nad dys-
kursem edukacyjnym – potencjał zbiorowego pisania biografii. Kultura–Społeczeństwo–
Edukacja, 12(2), pp. 225–243. DOI: 10.14746/kse.2017.12.11.