Journal Review: Discourse Analysis and Reflexivity

Title                 :	Discourse Analysis and Reflexivity
Author             :	Ellsworth R. Fuhrman and Kay Oehler
Journal            :	Social Studies of Science
Publication      :	Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1986), pp. 293-307
Abstract           :	There have been several attempts in the past decade and a half to redirect and invigorate the course of science studies in the United States, Great Britain, and Western Europe.1 The claims and shortcomings of one of these areas in the sociology of science- discourse analysis (hereafter DA) - is the focal point of this Note. Recent comments by Shapin and Collins have laid out many of the problems faced by DA.2 In addition to the types of weaknesses to which the existing literature has pointed, the discussion here centres on the relationship between DA and reflexivity. Specifical-ly, we follow the direction in which DA is taking science researchers, into the recurring issue of reflexivity and its role in the sociology of science.3 In its strongest form the argument presented is that DA could not succeed as its supporters originally envisioned it, because they did not deal adequately with the issue of reflexivity. Even now that attention has turned to questions of reflexivity, recent work may be leading researchers in the wrong direction. Mulkay's interpretation of reflexivity in relation to DA is revealed, among other places, in a recent paper by Mulkay, Potter and Yearley (hereafter MPY).4 In this article, MPY analyze two existing pieces of research which rely upon scientists' discourse for a major portion of their argument. MPY first critique a paper by White, Sullivan and Barboni (WSB), which uses empirical information from particle physics (concerning weak interactions) for a critical examination of Lakatosian research programmes. MPY secondly discuss an article by Collins and Pinch (CP), which examines the ways in which parapsychologists and orthodox scientists present and evaluate parapsychology research. We focus our critique of DA on three main points elaborated by MPY.
Goals               :	the discussion here centres on the relationship between DA and reflexivity
Problems         :	The general thrust of MPY's opening remarks is that previous  work using scientists' discourse has been inadequate. The ability to  make such a broad and self-confident claim is based upon two  textual manoeuvres. On the one hand, they dismiss as inadequate,  or as an illegitimate form of sociological enquiry, studies which use  scientists' discourse as a resource (rather than as a topic of study).  This dismissal includes both of the articles which they have chosen  to critique. On the other hand, MPY ignore articles which have  taken discourse to be problematic - a topic of study.5 Both of the  papers examined by MPY use scientists' texts and conversations as  a source of data, or further information, to address the issue of  how new ideas become accepted in a scientific discipline.
Theories          :	Throughout their text, WSB move frequently and unreflexively [our emphasis] between analysts' and participants' categories.15 But when CP take the term [parapsychologist] from participants' discourse and proceed to use it in a similarly unreflexive [our emphasis] manner, then it becomes an issue of analytical significance.16 There are two points worth noticing about these quotes. One point, to which we will return shortly, is that MPY are comfortable judging particular actions to be either 'reflexive' or 'unreflexive'. Second, they also rely entirely upon the text which they are reading in order to make that judgement
Findings           :	In dealing with reflexivity, discourse analysts have gone beyond the A. Gouldner of The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, where Gouldner believed it was possible to be reflexive by adding a biographical addendum to the text. In contrast, discourse analysts attempt to integrate reflexivity in whatever job is being handled. However, they neglect the later and more subtle Gouldner of The Dialectic of Ideology and Technology, where reflexivity is not something accomplished by textual (technical) manoeuvres or by self-declarations. A reflexive sociological study of science (and social life) depends on exploring the limits of the sociologists' self-understanding of the sociological project.
Conclusion       :	A reflexive sociological study of science must simultaneously reach a self-understanding of how sociologists qua researchers arrive at the beliefs they do as well as focusing on scientists' beliefs. Reflexivity in science studies must pay attention to the social structures and processes under which knowledge is produced and legitimated; such a focus precludes analyzing texts alone. Important as they are, the sociological scrutiny of texts may be a caricature rather than a painting of the larger scientific establishment. Important as caricatures are, they should not be mistaken for a 'Mona Lisa'