The value of sourcing social work journals for critical discourse analysis

Critical discourse analysis

Research employing critical discourse analysis involves studying and analyzing the use of language in an array of data sources, including conversations, interview or focus group transcripts, media, and web-based materials as well as published literature (Leotti et al., 2022; Moffat, 2019). As a postmodern method, such analysis identifies discursive regimes and draws out the meaning and constructs conveyed through language to illustrate how discourses legitimate various phenomena in the social world (Moffat, 2019). Hence, discourses shape social reality and the world while reflecting how issues are conceptualized or constructed (Leotti et al., 2022). Critical discourse analysis attends to power and examines how it functions to reinforce or silence particular discourses. Such analysis therefore “ventures past considering what the text says to questioning what the text does” (Leotti et al., 2022: 261). Critical discourse analysis is thus (1) grounded in broad socio-political and historical contexts; (2) concerned with the issues of dominance and subordination, privilege and oppression, power, and social inequality; and (3) cognizant of the discursive function to both construct and reflect social reality (Leotti et al., 2022).

Critical social work and critical discourse

Critical social work has a close relationship to critical discourse analysis (Webb, 2019). Critical social work claims different ontological and epistemological roots to mainstream Western social work (Webb, 2019). As such, critical social work recognizes macro social process, emphasizes a collaborative approach, and aims for transformation in the experience of those oppressed (Webb, 2019). As an emancipatory and rights-based approach, critical social work adopts a political stance that embraces justice and empowerment regarding social issues, geographies, and local ecologies (Shaik et al., 2022; Webb, 2019). In addition, critical social work promotes self-reflexivity and the notion of praxis, a dialogical process of action and reflection and of theory and practice (Shaik et al., 2022; Webb, 2019). Critical social work thus positions social work practice as discursive practice and interprets mainstream social work as reinforcing and replicating dominant societal discourses (Chapman and Withers, 2019). The analysis of discourse not only illuminates silenced or forgotten discourses but also, through a focus on language, makes “the familiar visible” (Chambon, 1999: 51; Harris and Shergill, 2020; Hoppstadius, 2020; Leigh et al., 2020; Patrick, 2020). Research centered on critical discourse analysis is thus an essential tool in revealing relations of power in social work. Leotti et al. (2022) suggest critical discourse analysis can be used for “research on direct social work practice and practice contexts, policy analysis, and research on social work as a discipline and a profession” (p.265). Healy (2000) similarly argues that critical discourse analysis “can enrich progressive social work practices by demonstrating how the language practices through which organizations, theorists, practitioners and service users express their understanding of social work also shape the kinds of practices that occur...” (p. 67).

Historiography and histories of the present

Consequently, a critical social work approach suggests that social work research should consider the prevailing context and social factors impacting social work policies and practices at any historical point. However, researchers and practitioners often focus on the here and now, social work being characterized as a “present-centered profession” (Danto, 2008: 8). Indeed, despite historical review of the young profession of social work being common in the 1950s, this dwindled through the 1960s and 1970s becoming almost absent by the 1990s—mainly due to the increasing emphasis on statistics and quantification in social work research (Fisher and Dybicz, 1999). Existing historical accounts often are descriptive, and outside of social welfare and policy discussions, typically overlook the social forces operating at the time or suggest that how people acted was simply a reflection of their time (Massing, 2017), thus potentially straying into apologist territory. Shaw (2019) has though observed that “[t]here has been a recent interest in a more critical approach to social work history, partly through some interest in applying emerging research methods from the humanities and social sciences (e.g., archival research, visual methods), partly through developments in technology, and partly through the general influence of social theorists such as Foucault and Marx” (p.195).

Hence, from a critical social work perspective, a historiographic approach is important. Historiography explores historical events for the ways in which these have been written and represented, by whom the account has been offered, and what has been said about a situation (Danto, 2008; Gregory, 2021). Historiography further assumes that “historiographical analysis proceeds with sensitivity to the fact that no single social work text should bear the burden of providing a comprehensive history, but each can still be held accountable for its social, cultural, and political implications” (Gregory, 2021: 32). Earlier academics suggested that such an approach provided a wider lens of understanding and contextualization of a subject in its time and place; was critical for self-understanding of a profession; and expanded the profession’s knowledge base (Reisch, 1988; Fisher and Dybicz, 1999).

The Foucauldian “history of the present” is an example of critical discourse analysis and historiography because it focuses on issues of power, on discourse, and on the constitution of self and subjectivity (Moffat, 2019). It illuminates the historical forces that operate, the knowledge claims made, and the associated discursive regimes employed (Moffat, 2019). As such, a history of the present provides not only insight into what occurred and how this occurred but also considers where discourses have been reinforced over time, silenced, or ruptured, and how discourses echo into current practice (Skehill, 2007). This approach uncovers how disciplining discourses of governmentality—an implicit and explicit control of people to maintain order in society—construct subjectivities of individuals and groups (Foucault, 1994). Discourses are examined to understand how they shape and discipline the ways that individuals and institutions think, speak, and/or conduct themselves. Understanding which discursive regimes exist and their interaction may identify where dominant discourses are fragile and can be challenged and resisted—and thus potentially creates opportunities for change (Moffat, 2019). Skehill (2007) suggests that for the social work profession, developing a history of the present is “a critical and effective methodology for problematizing the nature and form of social work in the present by recourse to its past” (p. 449). A history of the present names historical and contemporary discourses revealing what has allowed these to be sustained, interrupted, or disrupted. In particular, it illuminates the ways in which social work processes and practices reflect dominant belief systems and state-sanctioned ideologies and policies over time and consequently facilitates an understanding of social work’s practice with marginalized persons and communities and the mechanisms by which domination is exercised (Chapman and Withers, 2019; Gregory, 2021).

The value of a critical historical perspective

Developing critical historical analysis is especially important given the rising critique of mainstream social work, the need for critical self-reflection, and the challenging of ahistorical professional identities—what Gregory (2021) named the “necessity of reckoning with a suppressed history” (p.18) or Chambon (2003)— “making visible the historical tensions between the language and the profession’s overt claims” (p.225). Aspects of social work history have been made invisible in several ways. There is, for example, the tendency toward professional imperialism particularly toward the Global South (Midgley, 1981) and the dominance of Anglophone social work, which silences or marginalizes other social work accounts and experiences. Shaw (2019), for example, believes that archival research can support historical accounts of social work outside of the United States because American origin stories of the discipline often, for example, obscure European initiatives. A response is also timely in colonized contexts, where critical historical reflection is essential in identifying the “truth” in Truth and Reconciliation processes (TRCC, 2015). The example we offer next in this text highlights how a history of the present demonstrates how Indigenous knowledges have been both vilified and erased, and in the act of presenting this historiographic work, serves to remind social workers of the knowledges that have persisted.

Journals are usually produced over several years, if not decades. Unlike any other social work document (except perhaps for organizational annual reports), journal archives provide a perspective of systematic, legitimated disciplinary thinking over time. Such data are invaluable in developing critical historical analyses of social work discourses around a specific theme or topic.

Example: Interrogating settler social work practice with Indigenous persons in Canada—Canadian Social Work

We offer this example to illustrate not only the value of critical historical analysis in social work but also to illuminate and evaluate the methodology used. The content of the article is thus not pertinent to our argument here (for the article, see Morgenshtern et al. (2022)).

The intent of this study was to identify how Canadian social work positioned its engagement with Indigenous people in the country. Seeing ourselves as professionally accountable and wishing to contribute to decolonization, we therefore aimed to name “the strategies and styles used to capture and canonize particular versions of social work history” (Gregory, 2021: 32). Canadian Social Work (previously known as The Social Worker) was published from 1932 to 2019. Due to its publication history and acting as a forum for professional debate and information exchange (Novik and Schmidt, 2018), it provided an ideal repository of disciplinary knowledge for the creation of a history of the present on this topic.

To develop a history of the present, we first scoured all the issues, some of which were available digitally, but others only in print form. We developed a set of relevant search words and reviewing content pages, reading all abstracts, and then examining articles that contained the search terms, picked out appropriate articles, commentaries, and association branch reports.

To identify dominant, marginalized, and silent discourses we used Foucault’s archaeology; and to generate themes and develop relationships of reinforcement or disruption between discourses, we utilized genealogy (Rabinow, 1984). These together created a history of the present regarding settler social work practice with Indigenous persons in Canada. We viewed the articles identified as units of data or artifacts, and as such chose not to identify these in the text or reference list by author or name—though we were then required to do so in the submission process.

Our history of the present allowed us to identify two clusters of articles (10 published in the period of 1932–1960 and 20 from 1976 to 2019), and to draw inferences on the period of silence. Our themes highlighted that professional discourses—in congruence with dominant societal discourses—tended to position Indigenous peoples as inherently inferior to settlers, these contrasting with some later discussion that identified the harms of colonization. We noted the individualized nature of discourses that accompanied deficit-based subjectivities. We were able to go beyond the discourses illuminated, to understanding how these acted to support paternalistic social work intervention and how social workers therefore justified particular actions, placing themselves at the center even where human rights and the impact of social conditions were understood. We concluded that while social work rhetoric may have shifted, the journal until 2019 offered only limited alternative understandings of Indigenous experience and positionality vis-a-vis social work.

Was there value in using this journal archive as our source of data? Having a publication available that had printed for almost 90 years allowed us to systematically track developments in legitimized disciplinary thinking and in the construction of Indigenous people as social work subjects. Such accessibility to data in a central repository tends to be rare. It proved invaluable in developing a critical historical analysis of social work discourses regarding practice with Indigenous persons. We could compare and contrast the emergent discourses with each other and with familiar dominant societal discourses to identify meaningful relationships. Such analysis made visible that in the more recent years of its publication a counter-narrative was beginning to be articulated, even as certain gaps in interrogating social work positionality remained. By offering a further perspective, our analysis supported the critique put forward by Indigenous scholars (Blackstock, 2009).

Research process

There are several steps in using journal archives as sources of data. These are not linear but loop back on each other in an iterative process. Alvesson and Sköldberg (2018) have emphasized the value of such a circular process that allows further finessing of the steps which in turn allows greater nuance and complexity to emerge at each level of the process.

A first step in this methodology is to choose a journal and to have a clear rationale for doing so. Then, as with other document analysis, systematic literature reviews, or literature scoping, it is important to identify clear search terms. Next, one might determine the period of publication to be examined, again with an appropriate motivation. In choosing critical discourse analysis and the particular method of a history of the present, researchers should also identify any assumptions and be reflexive about their social locations. A logical next step is then going through titles in the index with search words in mind, then proceeding to the abstracts, and then going on to looking more fully at the articles.

As with other qualitative methods, the intent is to analyze the content by lifting out categories and themes. We advocate for a critical approach that includes discourse analysis (Leotti et al., 2022; Moffat, 2019) with the intent of excavating predominant and more marginal discourses. Such information might be used toward constructing a history of the present (Foucault, 1994), where, as indicated previously, analysis is built around archaeology and genealogy (Rabinow, 1984).

As with other research processes, trustworthiness needs to be considered (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). For dependability, it is important to ensure that the process of identifying relevant artifacts is systematic, that analysis and interpretation are consistent with a critical paradigm, and that what constitutes data-gathering under archaeology or genealogy is recorded. Discourse analysis as a heuristic process benefits from having more than one researcher so that interpretations can be checked against one another. This process of peer debriefing is helpful in ensuring the “truth” value of the findings (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Providing quotes from the chosen articles would speak to the accuracy of interpretations, linking findings to the data, further enhancing the credibility, as well as determining the reasonableness of the themes that have evolved (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). These quotations would also serve the purposes of enabling readers to assess transferability of the findings—how identified discourses echo into current practice and shape the ways that individuals and institutions construct themselves (Skehill, 2007), and thus contextualizing the subject in the time and place and contributing to the self-understanding of the profession (Reisch, 1988). Finally, it is necessary to ensure that the analysis adheres to the critical tradition by identifying the nature/source of inequalities in historical and value contexts and increasing consciousness about injustice (Patton, 2002). The focus on inequity and inequality is important because these aspects of our society are often not explicitly discussed (Ziskin, 2019).

Considerations in data presentation

It is the article and the themes or discourse that are excavated from the journal contents that constitute the artifact or the unit of data. The artifacts in journal data mining are typically therefore the articles that make up each issue that is being reviewed and any quotes that might be drawn from the articles. This interpretation of what constitutes data does not entirely conform to typical social science research understandings and leads to ethical considerations. Conventionally, when citing articles, one is reflecting the knowledge that has been generated by the authors of such scholarly literature. Formal referencing acknowledges these knowledge sources. We offer several reasons why authorship is not considered in the same light when sourcing data in journal archives.

First, in journal data exploration the purpose in using the articles is not to develop a literature review or to support findings. Rather it is to make discursive meaning of these contents as a whole. Noting that therefore the articles and the discourses highlighted within each constitute the artifacts considered, the authors are not cited in the textual references made. Rather the articles, as collective units of data or artifacts, or in the cases of quotations as individual pieces of data, reflect patterns and do not represent what articles normally cited in research do. Additionally, it is the journal that stands in the foreground, and it must be made clear that this is the repository that is being examined. However, we rely extensively on quotes to reflect author voice and tenor.

Second, the author of any article in the journal that is selected for review is thus not equivalent to a research participant. Hence, any quotes or excerpts are associated with the article rather than the author. These should be acknowledged in a way that the reader is able to see patterns within individual articles in addition to larger patterns, and thus, should be designated, for example, as A1 and A2 and so on, just as an interview participant might be identified as P1 or P2.

A third consideration is practical. If the number of selected articles is small, these can conceivably be presented in a tabular form. This is, however, not possible where more than a handful of relevant articles have been identified. Trying to accommodate such a list of articles either in the text or reference list becomes particularly problematic where the list of selected articles then begins to substitute for analysis and discussion in the text. Further, including such articles and their authors in a reference list confuses the research artifacts/materials with scholarly work that is used to provide context or interpret findings.

Advantages and limitations

Sourcing journal archives presents a valuable repository of disciplinary knowledge, knowledge that is used to support and challenge subsequent knowledge generation. It is clear that because of the peer review process this knowledge is acclaimed as having been rigorously researched. It is also evident from journal mandates what type of knowledge is curated by the journal.

However, prospective journal data researchers may know the dominant canon, but cannot know which voices were excluded and why, and might be able only to speculate. Manuscripts that did not meet Western publication standards may have been actively excluded. In Anglophone publications, which are the most common, this might include those that did not reflect adequate facility and fluency in English (Politzer-Ahles et al., 2016) and who could not pay for the page fees or demonstrate English editing where this has been required. Further, prospective authors may have disqualified themselves. For example, Indigenous or African authors may not have submitted their work assuming that reviewers in dominant or Northern journals would not find it acceptable. An examination of journal content thus suggests a review of dominant perspectives, inferences needing to be made regarding what has been potentially omitted and an awareness of global inequalities being required.

The way forward

The sourcing of journal archival data opens up a less explored avenue for researching disciplinary knowledge. Journal archives can be important, valuable resources for critically identifying and analyzing social work trends in education and practice, even as researchers might only speculate about silenced or obscured discourses. Excavating journal archives through a lens of critical discourse analysis allows for a discussion of social work practice and knowledge in relation to its use of power in developing and legitimizing knowledge and practices and can facilitate critical understandings of current practice and insight into how contemporary discourses replicate and reproduce or disrupt historical discourses—and where the transformation of discourse is possible.

Social work has existed as a formal profession for around a hundred years. Many journals have been available for several decades. We thus are at a historical juncture that adds value to critical exploration and reflection. Examining journal archives allows us as social work researchers to understand quite systematically how our conceptualization of issues has shifted—within the discipline, within national contexts and inter-nationally, and accordingly where change is needed.