{"title":"A faircloughian approach to cda: Principled eclecticism or a method searching for a theory?","authors":"R. Henderson","doi":"10.1080/17508480509556422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For researchers wanting to take up critical discourse analysis (CDA) as an analytical tool, Norman Fairclough's (1989) early work provided a step‐by‐step approach that he called ‘a guide not a blueprint’. In response to calls for a more explicit theoretical justification, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) attempted to theoretically ‘ground’ CDA and to spell out its underpinning theories ‘explicitly and systematically’. Their recommendation for a ‘shifting synthesis’ of theoretical sources, however, has been criticised, raising significant questions about the extent to which this work is method‐driven and theoretically‐framed. This article explores some of the issues, considerations and advantages that surfaced as the author drew on a Faircloughian approach to CDA, its theory and method in researching literacy learning.","PeriodicalId":347655,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne Studies in Education","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"57","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne Studies in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17508480509556422","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 57
Abstract
Abstract For researchers wanting to take up critical discourse analysis (CDA) as an analytical tool, Norman Fairclough's (1989) early work provided a step‐by‐step approach that he called ‘a guide not a blueprint’. In response to calls for a more explicit theoretical justification, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) attempted to theoretically ‘ground’ CDA and to spell out its underpinning theories ‘explicitly and systematically’. Their recommendation for a ‘shifting synthesis’ of theoretical sources, however, has been criticised, raising significant questions about the extent to which this work is method‐driven and theoretically‐framed. This article explores some of the issues, considerations and advantages that surfaced as the author drew on a Faircloughian approach to CDA, its theory and method in researching literacy learning.