Foucault’s methods

Wow! This is very difficult information to process. I would have to supplement (in the future) the assigned readings for this week with reading Foucault’s The Archaeology of Knowledge, Madness and Civilization, The Birth of the Clinic for I am far away from understanding Foucault’s methods. I have a very vague general idea about his archaeology, genealogy and practices of the self.

The archaeological method (which is not o be understood as the discipline of archaeology) includes a set of complex concepts; for example the concepts of “savoir” and “connaissance” as they relate to knowledge refer to implicit knowledge-the “savoir” (the practices, the activities, institutional praxis), while “connaissance” refers to bodies of knowledge as provided in science books and philosophical and religious theories. Linguistically speaking, the French term of savoir is connected to action and the knowing how to (applied knowledge), while connaitre/connaissance refers to knowing about, (theoretical bodies and disciplines). As noted in Scheurich and McKenzie (in), “archaeology [as in Foucault method] is the study of savoir as the conditions of possibility of connaissance...[in other words] formal knowledges emerge more ‘irrationally’ from savoir, which includes not only the formal and rational but also the much broader ‘irrationality’ of politics, institutional practices, popular opinions, and so on”(p. 321).

The genealogical method study the relations and tactics of power, and include the “four general rules” for analysis: 1. usage of power to punish, repress, exclude, but also to produce, 2. usage of punitive methods as tactic of power to control souls not just behavior, 3. technologies of power, 4. leniency or humanization of power techniques (Denzin and Lincoln, 2008, pp330-335).


I was wondering if there are some good studies out there using Foucault’s methods. I would have to search.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Analyzing visuals and visual images of any kind, whether photos, videos, sketches, graffiti, artwork, engravings, newspaper images, and so on, is an attractive and daunting task at the same time. All depends on the research question, the intended audience, the researcher’s positionality, the historical and cultural context, the researcher/participants’ ability to deconstruct / reconstruct, present/represent, and define/ redefine. This kind of data could provide tremendous information, especially if coupled with other data (narratives, biographies, histories, etc).

I am hoping to take a class that will focus on visuals and documentaries as a way to do research or document contexts, realities, truths, and questions/issues. Particularly since, nowadays our growing audience is more and more into strong visuals...(thinking of young generations that document their fleeting lived moments through ‘selfies’, instagram, and so on).

Visual interpretation research is so connected to film/documentary criticism, art criticism, archaeology/iconography symbolism , that I don’t even dare to think that I could ever produce a powerful vibrant piece to speak for generations.

Qualitative Content Analysis

As a novice researcher it is daunting to figure out the differences between research methods (data collection and data analysis)-even though those differences may be crystal clear for more experienced researchers. Such is the example of grounded theory and qualitative content analysis. I particularly liked the article discussing similarities and differences between these two methodologies (Cho & Lee, 2014).
While they are similar in their inquiry approach (identifying themes, patterns, and rigorous coding) they differ in method of collecting data and analyzing data.

In content analysis, data analysis can be driven by both deductive and inductive approaches, where deductive “starts with preconceived codes or categories derived from prior relevant theory, research, , or literature”(Cho &Lee, 2014, p. 4) if the objective of research is to test existing data in a new given context, while the inductive approach is used when prior knowledge is limited, therefore codes, themes and patterns come straight from data.

I liked the point of manifest and latent meaning of text, and the freedom of interpretation that content analysis method offers. I understand now that in ground theory , theory is driven from the relationship between categories of data, while content analysis is focused on finding themes emerging from categories of data.

I absolutely recommend reading Cho and Lee article- it has opened new doors to better understanding.

Cho, J. Y., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1-20. Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR19/cho64.pdf

exploring conversations

I am a bit disappointed with the readings for this section, for I see the direction of the discussion and research conclusions do not take into account anything related to culture or culture within culture. For example, even within native speakers of English, there are differences in communication cues and how people take turns or present delays, mitigations and delays based on what region they are from or even educational background they belong to. It is even more important so when the conversation takes place between native speakers of English and non native speakers of English. Some cultures are characterized by “high power distance” while others are not. Even to this day, I am not able to accept a compliment without cringing. I cringe when I have to say (according to the American cultural rules) “thank you” to an innocent compliment. In my culture, one does not readily accept a compliment... there is always some sort of mitigation on the meaning of the compliment, and a readily acceptance of a compliment is in the least extremely rude and selfish. Even the simple question of “how are you” is answered or taken differently based on the cultural background (and/or level of connection between participants).

In other words, I think conversation analysis is very interesting; however the researcher must consider the cultural (educational) background of each participant to the conversation before venturing to make any assumptions or draw conclusions. It is a slippery slide...

discourse analysis

On a personal level, discourse analysis seems to be a very controversial method of research, mainly because there are many factors to consider when making sense of meaning, when meaning is related to language and culture ( where culture could be situational, geographical, political, personal, and so on) ; that is, according to Gee (1999, p. 85-86), we use language to build meaning related to : 1. semiotic/communicative building, 2. world building (what and where as reality), 3. activity building (specific actions), 4. socioculturally (identities and relationships, ways of being), 5. political building (social “goods”), 6. connection building (connections between present past and future).

To me it looks like a researcher would have to be very connected to the discourse(and people producing it) he/she analyses- either through extensive study (historical study, study of various documents, etc.) or through personal cultural and sociolinguistic participatory understanding (where participation can be subjective, or quasi-subjective through personal involvement to an extent of different degrees). For example, how can a researcher perform discourse analysis on Mexican immigrant students, without knowing (at least peripherally) the language (Mexican Spanish), the culture(Mexican-with geographical varieties), and the experience of being in an ‘immigrant ‘status (either through prolonged exposure to immigrant students, or through personal experience of the immigrant status as a student).

As a ‘green’ researcher with a strong linguistic background, I would be interested in such studies, but I would not venture on any ‘fields’ outside of what I feel I know culturally, linguistically, socially, politically, and so on.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.