KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace / 2019 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

Discourse Analysis: Strengths and Shortcomings*

Bahar Rumelili SANCAK
Senem AYDIN DÜZGİT
Sayfa
285–305
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

The concluding section focuses on thechallenges faced in the conduct of discourse analysis and the potential ways toovercome them, also drawing from the researchers’ own experiences in the field.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Discourse analysis is a much-favoured textual analysis method amongconstructivist and critically minded International Relations scholars interested inthe impact of identity, meaning, and discourse on world politics.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The first section of the article presents anoverview of the conceptual and epistemological underpinnings of discourseanalysis, while charting the evolution of discourse analysis in IR since the late1980s in three phases.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:The concluding section focuses on thechallenges faced in the conduct of discourse analysis and the potential ways toovercome them, also drawing from the researchers’ own experiences in the field.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Discourse analysis is a much-favoured textual analysis method amongconstructivist and critically minded International Relations scholars interested inthe impact of identity, meaning, and discourse on world politics. The aim of thisarticle is to guide students of Turkish IR in their choice and use of this method.Written by two Turkish IR scholars who have employed discourse analysis intheir past and present research, this article also includes a personal reflectionon its strengths and shortcomings. The first section of the article presents anoverview of the conceptual and epistemological underpinnings of discourseanalysis, while charting the evolution of discourse analysis in IR since the late1980s in three phases. The second section offers insight into the personal historyof the researchers in employing discourse analysis in their previous and ongoingresearch, while the third section provides a how-to manual by performingdiscourse analysis of an actual text. The concluding section focuses on thechallenges faced in the conduct of discourse analysis and the potential ways toovercome them, also drawing from the researchers’ own experiences in the field.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

SANCAK, B. R., DÜZGİT, S. A. (2022). Discourse Analysis: Strengths and Shortcomings*. All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 285–305. https://ajindex.com/articles/434987

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (18)

  1. Adler, E. “Seizing the Middle Ground: Constructivism in World Politics.” European Journal of International Relations 3, no. 3 (1997): 319–63.
  2. Ashley, K. Richard. “Foreign Policy as Political Performance.” International Studies Notes 13 (1987): 51–54.
  3. Ashley, K. Richard. “Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy Problematique.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 17, no. 2 (1988): 227–62.
  4. Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. Constructions of European Identity: Debates and Discourses on Turkey and the EU. London: Palgrave, 2012.
  5. Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. “Critical Discourse Analysis in Analysing European Foreign Policy: Prospects and Challenges.” Cooperation and Conflict 49, no. 3 (2014): 354–67.
  6. Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. “European Security and the Accession of Turkey: Identity and Foreign Policy in the European Commission.” Cooperation and Conflict 48, no. 4 (2013): 522–41.
  7. Aydın-Düzgit, Senem. “Foreign Policy and Identity Change: Analysing Perceptions of Europe among the Turkish Public.” Politics 38, no. 1 (2018): 19-34.
  8. Barnett, Michael, and Raymond Duvall. “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59, no. 1 (2005): 39–75.
  9. Barnutz, Sebastian. “The EU’s Logic of Security: Politics through Institutionalised Discourses.” European Security 19, no. 3 (2010): 377–94.
  10. Bennett, Andrew. “Found in Translation: Combining Discourse Analysis with Computer Assisted Content Analysis.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 43, no. 3 (2015): 984–97.
  11. Campbell, David. Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992.
  12. Cebeci, Münevver, and Tobias Schumacher. “The EU’s Constructions of the Mediterranean (2003–2017).” MEDRESET Working Papers no. 3, April 2017. http://www.medreset.eu/?p=13294.
  13. Chilton, Paul. Security Metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter Lang, 1996.
  14. Chilton, Paul, and George Lakoff. “Foreign Policy by Metaphor.” In Language and Peace, edited by Christina Schaffner and Anita L. Welden, 37–61. Aldershot: Dartmouth, 1995.
  15. Chouliaraki, Lilie. “Spectacular Ethics: On the Television Footage of the Iraq War.” Journal of Language and Politics 4, no. 1 (2005): 143–59.
  16. Diez, Thomas. “Europe as a Discursive Battleground.” Cooperation and Conflict 36 (2001): 5–38.
  17. Doty, Roxanne. Imperial Encounters. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996.
  18. Drulak, Petr. “Motion, Container and Equilibrium: Metaphors in the Discourse ab