My research approach builds upon several understandings of discourses and discourse analysis, as well as narratives and case studies. By using this discursive approach I am working with a conceptualisation of discourse which is wider than texts. This links to my use of a case study methodology, which also illuminates the importance of the context and practices surrounding the discourse of competitiveness.
In my research approach I am focusing particularly on the work of Hajer (1995), whose ‘brand’ of discourse analysis has proved popular in the social sciences, as well as Schön’s (1993) concept of ‘metaphors’, and a general narrative-based and case study approach (Throgmorton 1996; Flyvbjerg 1998; Jensen 2007;
Czarniawska 2010). These discursive approaches are then linked to a case study
methodology, which is complementary in terms of its focus on the context within which the competitiveness discourse is situated, and the range of data which is used as evidence.
‘Discourse’ is a term which requires some defining, as it has been a popular focus in social science in recent decades, however there is by no means one single discursive tradition or approach. Furthermore, matters are complicated by the term often being “used rather casually” (Hastings 1999:9). A crude division can be made between ‘discourse theory’ and ‘discourse analysis’, broadly as a theory and a method, although in practice these are intertwined. Discourse theory generally refers to the more ontological and epistemological understandings of what discourse is. Discourse analysis on the other hand has a greater connection to the methodological side of research, and this is perhaps where many can be tempted to employ discourse analysis without a grounding in discourse theory.
Phillips & Jørgensen generally define discourse as “a particular way of talking about and understanding the world” (2002:1). This is a fairly simple definition, but it does highlight that discourse is not ‘just’ a manner of speech, but it is also linked to understanding. This definition also points to the usefulness of a discourse approach for studying a turn of phrase such as ‘competitiveness’, as it provides a manner of uncovering the understandings linked to this use of language. Harvey places greater focus on the power relations which are embedded in discourse, stating that we “use discourse to persuade ourselves and others to a certain way of understanding (and acting towards) a subject matter we regard as important” (1996:77). Here Harvey is acknowledging the power aspect of discourse, highlighting that use of language is not neutral, and is used by certain actors to persuade other actors. Furthermore Harvey (1996), like Phillips
& Jørgensen (2002), is highlighting the link between the way one talks about the world and the way one understands the world, and also the way in which one acts.
Therefore it is important to emphasise that a discursive approach is not limited to the understanding of isolated uses of language within written documents, rather it is an approach which takes its point of departure in language in order to uncover the understandings of and actions within the world.
ÓTuathail (2002) conceptualises discourse analysis as being possible at three
‘levels’ - the macro, meso and micro levels. He himself acknowledges that these are fairly crude, and “do not capture the range and complexity of some theorists” (2002:606). They do however provide a useful way of thinking about the different modes of discourse analysis, as well as their differing connections to discourse theory. The macro-level perspective includes work of “philosophical ambition and wide historical sweep” (2002:606), such as Foucault’s work on genealogies of knowledge, subjectification, knowledge and power. Therefore this is a form of discourse analysis with a strong sense of discourse theory embedded within it, and ambitions to forward philosophical thinking about discourse and society. The meso-level perspective on the other hand has more modest ambitions, focusing on “the everyday working of discourse in public policy and social debate” (2002:606). Here the sense of discourse theory is not abandoned, however the aim of discourse analysis is somewhat different, focusing on connections to policy rather than philosophical considerations, in terms of “how discourse helps produce ‘common sense’ understandings and pragmatic
‘storylines’ that condition and enable routine policy practices” (2002:606). The final level of discourse analysis is more based in linguistics than the broader social sciences, in terms of investigating the linguistic minutiae of a text. Some researchers working in this tradition make links to the wider context and wider societal questions (e.g. Fairclough 2000), however many remain within the linguistic analysis of discourse.
The focus of the discourse approach in this thesis is situated at the meso-level. I am neither focusing on the linguistic construction of texts, nor on the wider historical, societal and philosophical implications of discourse. Rather this discourse approach is in between, starting from written and spoken texts but considering them in their wider context, and investigating how the discourse of competitiveness has become a ‘common sense’ part of policy-making. This relates to the fundamental interests of discourse theory, in terms of uncovering the way in which this discourse has shaped policy understanding and courses of action in planning. This also relates to the wider methodology of the case study, focusing on a variety of sources of evidence and recognising the ‘blurring’ between a
phenomenon and the context it is situated within. This latter point is one I will discuss later in this chapter.