Title: Methodological Irony and Media Analysis: On Textual Presentations in the Work of Theorising
Abstract: From the inception to the conclusion of research projects, researchers are ongoingly and unrelievedly involved in ordinary language practices. These language practices are constitutive of research practices, including writing up the research. In writingup their research, the researcher is engaged in the activities of claiming that extant work is (at least minimally) controvertible. In itself, the practical activities involved in establishing the controvertible nature of extant work claim a warrant for the researcher’s project, via the elaboration, clarication or refutation of extant literature. This paper examines the presentation of lines of argument in and through ordinary, linguistic activities. Academic products, such as books and journal articles, are worded accomplishments. The nature of material may differ, e.g. refereed articles or book chapters, monographs or textbooks, newsletter contributions or research proposals, primary, secondary or tertiary sources, but are all, in toto, linguistically and socially organised. They are socially organised in the sense that the natural language practices involved in writing and reading are knownin-common, intersubjective and socially shared practices. Membership of a culture, or ‘mastery’ of natural language, ‘includes the ability to understand more than is explicitly said’ (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992: 28)—including within academic presentations (Anderson, 1978; Stoddart, 1986). The core datum for my considerations is the account of the propaganda model (Herman & Chomsky, 1988), as outlined and illustrated in media presentations. Instead of producing a critique of the propaganda model, I shall subject the formulation of the propaganda model to a form of textual analysis. This results in an analysis that is of a different order from extant critiques of the propaganda model. That is, rather than a critique of the propaganda model per se, to which I remain indifferent, I introduce consideration of the logical entailments and epistemological position vis-a-vis the written presentation of theory. I do not set out to subvert Herman and Chomsky’s presentation, nor to propose an alternative interpretative schema through which their evidence may be appraised. Instead, a methodological policy of principled analytic neutrality, or ‘ethnomethodological indifference’ (Garnkel & Sacks, 1970: 345–346), provides access to the multiplicity of common-sense devices employed by Herman and Chomsky to realise their version, and how they authorise their version as the
Publication Year: 2002
Publication Date: 2002-07-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 6
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot