Discourse Analysis

In Bondarouk and Ruel’s research they followed Hardy’s discourse definition that states discourse is “a system of texts that brings objects into being” (2001, p. 26). Therefore in their research discourse analysis for them was not only studying language but exploring the relationship between discourse and reality, being able to interpret any hidden meanings and mediate the meaning between the past and the present. Bondarouk and Ruel’s research was based on IS (information systems) studies and their research is an attempt to build a framework that bridges the philosophical foundations with the theoretical implications of discourse analysis. They then use their framework and research and create this essay as a sort of a blueprint on how to apply their framework to the IS field. Their concern was based on the social context of the use of technology and discourse that supported it. The approach they used was “interpretive structuralist discourse analysis”.

Before being able to fully understand the research conducted here, I needed to gain some background information on what information systems are. I used this website: https://bus206.pressbooks.com/chapter/chapter-1/ and the video underneath, to help me understand.

Some key phrases discussed in this research paper include: discourse analysis, information systems, hermeneutics/interpretation and more. The theory of discourse analysis was interesting to read. The main issue surrounding hermeneutics is that no final interpretation can exist, but in my opinion, I don’t see this as a flaw or issue. They way in which people interact with a given text or texts is based on their own experiences, knowledge, time, culture, history etc. Because people are different and have different backgrounds their interpretations of texts will be different. Therefore, it makes sense that there can be no final interpretation. One problem/issue I do see from this is how can one determine who’s interpretation is correct? I don’t think there is a way to be able to do this which is why there are so many different interpretations available, like the Bible for example.

When using discourse analysis there is a variety of methods to chose from. Bondarouk and Ruel decided to use methods of text analysis that are broadly used in the IS field of research which include: content analysis, ethnographic text analysis, and grounded theory techniques. They used a sample of 50 users to conduct their research on a SAP system at a large Dutch University. I questioned the size and diversity of their sample group. Bondarouk and Ruel claimed that large variations in linguistic patterning can emerge from a small group of people and that a larger sample size may make the analytical task unmanageable. I’m not sure if I agree with this, especially in terms of the research they conducted. While I’m sure large variations can come from a small sampling group, I question if it would be better to use a larger sampling group. Is it fair to take the variations from a small sampling group and try to create large theories or conclusions based on this small group? In addition, linguistic research is slightly different from IS research. Bondarouk and Ruel were researching how people interacted with a SAP system. If they only focus on the 50 users, from the same university, in their sample group, can they make a fair claim/theory in regards to the SAP system for anyone who interacts/uses it? I would think that 50 users is a good start, but just like with hermeneutics, everyone’s experience with the SAP system will be different. Therefore if Bondarouk and Ruel want to make a large conclusion about the SAP system, wouldn’t they need to interview more people in different places about their interaction and experience with the system?

Another thing I found interesting was the way Bondarouk and Ruel conducted their interviews. Instead of conducting traditional interviews Bondarouk and Ruel became participants in the discussion with the interviewee and I understand the logic and reasoning they used for doing this. They argued that traditional interviews, because of their consistency, produce a “colourless” interaction. Bondarouk and Ruel used a “snowballing” technique in their interviews that made each interview different. I wonder if they had at least a few questions that were the same in each interview or if every single interview had completely different questions and discussions.

I approve of member check step where the interviewees had a chance to check the transcripts from the interviews. I question what kind of changes the interviewees made as well as how any additional talk time come into play for the research (how did Bondarouk and Ruel use this additional data). The discussions and conclusions revealed that Bondarouk and Ruel found discourse analysis to be a useful methodology for studying information systems. However, I would have liked to know more about how their research led them to their conclusion. I also want to know what kind of conclusions and theories did Bondarouk and Ruel make about the SAP system.

In their concluding paragraph I found a slight inconsistency. Bondarouk and Ruel claimed that critics who review their interpretation have a responsibility to reach an understanding of their interpretations. I question if this can always be possible. Earlier in their essay they stated that a reader brings their own knowledge and experience to a text in order to help them interpret it. If this is true, how can one reader who has no insight into the interpreter’s experiences even begin to understand how they arrived at their interpretation? One could acknowledge the interpretation made, but may not always understand it, no matter how hard they try to.

I don’t think I could use discourse analysis for my particular research topic but it was interesting to read and learn about. I also appreciate the way Bondarouk and Ruel delved into and broke down discourse analysis, giving us a background on the hermeneutic circle and dilemma.