PDF (Whole Thesis) - USQ ePrints - University of Southern ...

creating a glossed-over and incomplete understanding for the reader of the discursive
formations of the particular text section being analysed. Doing so potentially also ignores the
complexities of categories and discourses that emerge from thorough analysis. With a variety
of texts selected from each era investigated, this provides less opportunity for separating text
from its context and original purpose.
Bias in reporting data in some ways can be linked with under-analysis. Under-analysing data
can occur by only selecting an isolated segment of text, rather than being analysed within its
larger context. This isolated text, then, could be selected as it fits within a particular
perspective a researcher has, or fits within an argument a researcher is trying to make relating
to the data. Therefore, it is important to put measures in place to both avoid taking sides in
the analysis of data and to avoid being seen to take sides. This is a difficult aspect of analysis
to overcome, because just as no text is neutral, the perspective of the researcher analysing the
text can never be neutral either. Conscious of this and one way to avoid accusations of bias is
for the analyst to be explicit about their perspectives. What is particularly difficult is to avoid
taking sides when discussing issues or events where a particular group has been discriminated
unfairly against (Antaki et al., 2003), partly because it is easy for readers to also have
sympathy for the oppressed group and quality of analysis can be overshadowed as a result of
this sympathy (Widdowson, 1998; Blommaert, 2001). As part of a larger criticism of CDA,
Widdowson writes,
If you can persuade people by an appeal to moral conscience, you do not need good
arguments. But such persuasion deflects attention from questions of validity. It thus
inhibits intellectual enquiry and ultimately undermines its integrity… (1998, p. 150).
This is especially the case, if the discrimination represented in the text being analysed is part
of a larger discrimination in society.
Steps taken to avoid this, other than through disclosures, are to ensure that multiple data
sources are used to support claims made in the analysis of representations of groups. As
explained by Antaki et al., taking sides is a form of under-analysis and “…can produce a
flattening of discursive complexity, as the analyst selects quotations for the rhetorical effect
of appealing to the readers as co-sympathisers or co-scolders. The result is enlistment, not
analysis” (2003, p. 10). This sentiment is aligned with historical research practices, as it
95