The archaeology of knowledge
Citations
69 citations
Cites background from "The archaeology of knowledge"
...Ultimately, certain knowledges are privileged in planning institutions because they fit the rules of what counts as ‘‘true’’ knowledge production (Foucault, 1972, 1980)....
[...]
...Ultimately, certain knowledges are privileged in planning institutions because they fit the rules of what counts as ‘‘true’’ knowledge production ( Foucault, 1972, 1980 )....
[...]
69 citations
Cites background or methods from "The archaeology of knowledge"
...Archaeology as Discourse Analysis Foucault presents archaeology as the analysis of discourse....
[...]
...If discourse is synonymous with narrative then a critical reflection on the role of the individual within this narrative makes sense, but an archaeological understanding of discourse, following Foucault, deprives the subject of the role of the originator of meaning. Critical reflection would within this archaeological framework become a nonsensical analytical method. Deconstruction can likewise be understood as a very different form of analysis. Fook (2002) does not make explicit from where she has taken this term, but it is commonly associated with Derrida who describes deconstruction as reversing the hierarchy within a binary in order to displace the existing system:...
[...]
...The Use of Discourse in Current Social Work Literature This section examines some of the varying uses and meanings attributed to discourse, including language, narrative, and framework, and discourse analysis, including deconstruction and critical reflection, in the writings of Healy and Fook, in order to highlight the implications this has for social work research....
[...]
...However, even within a discipline the term ‘discourse’ has no stable meaning: Habermas and Foucault are not referring to the same social phenomena in their separate discussions of the concept of discourse. Rather, whereas Habermas’s conception of discourse involves a focus on communication and intersubjectivity, Foucault’s archaeological description of discourse is not concerned with what is being said, but how it is possible to speak of anything at all. Similarly, discourse analysis within the social sciences spans a variety of disciplines and research activities. Thus, a range of approaches to discourse analysis have developed in line with various research concerns, underpinned by different conceptions of ‘discourse’, varying emphases on language and text within the analyses, and divergences in the treatment of the role (and importance) of the speaker. Taylor (2001) outlines four general approaches to discourse analysis with these variations in mind, noting that discourse analysis may refer to the close analysis of language as a system; an analysis of language as a form of interaction; an interest in a topic or activity analysed through language or text; or an interest in wider social and cultural processes identified through language/text, leading to an analysis of what social effects these might have....
[...]
...Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change....
[...]
69 citations
69 citations
69 citations
References
6,407 citations
5,588 citations
4,480 citations
3,660 citations
1,126 citations