Discourse Analysis

Thematic analysis identifies themes or patterns in content across texts; it answers 'what is being talked about?' Discourse analysis examines how language constructs meaning and power; it answers 'how is it being talked about and what are the effects?' Both analyze qualitative text, but they ask different questions. Thematic analysis might find 'themes of resilience' in patient interviews; discourse analysis would examine what language choices construct resilience (active vs. passive voice, metaphors used) and what ideological work that language performs. Discourse analysis is more interested in language mechanisms and effects; thematic analysis is more interested in content and meaning.

Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough) explicitly aims to reveal how language reflects and reproduces ideology and power; it has an emancipatory goal—to critique inequality and expose hidden ideologies. Other discourse analysis approaches (e.g., conversation analysis, discursive psychology) may be more descriptive, analyzing language mechanisms without necessarily a critical-emancipatory agenda. Both are rigorous; CDA explicitly names its critical orientation.

Yes. Interview transcripts are discourse. You can analyze how participants use language, what metaphors they employ, how they position themselves and others. However, interview discourse is shaped by the interview context (what the interviewer asked, the relationship dynamic, the setting). When analyzing interview discourse, acknowledge these contextual factors. You might also distinguish between thematic content (what they said) and discourse (how they said it and what linguistic choices reveal).

This is a real challenge. All analysis reflects the analyst's positionality. To manage bias: (1) Ground interpretation in text evidence—be specific about linguistic features and their effects. (2) Acknowledge alternative readings—can the text be interpreted differently? (3) Practice reflexivity—reflect on your own assumptions and how they shape what you notice. (4) Peer debriefing—discuss interpretations with colleagues to identify blind spots. (5) Distinguish between description (what the language does) and critique (judgment about its social effects); critique should be transparent and justified.

Yes. Some researchers combine discourse analysis with quantitative analysis: e.g., counting frequency of particular words or metaphors, then analyzing what those patterns mean linguistically or ideologically. This is sometimes called mixed-methods discourse analysis. The quantitative element provides breadth; the qualitative discourse analysis provides depth. Be clear about how the two methods inform each other and ensure qualitative analysis is not subordinated to quantitative summary.