Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Data: Transcription, Ethics and Anonymisation
- List of Figures and Tables
- Introduction
- PART I Approaches
- Chapter 1 Theorising Discourse and Identity
- Chapter 2 Conversational Identities
- Chapter 3 Institutional Identities
- Chapter 4 Narrative Identities
- PART II Contexts
- References
- Index
Chapter 3 - Institutional Identities
from PART I - Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2013
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Data: Transcription, Ethics and Anonymisation
- List of Figures and Tables
- Introduction
- PART I Approaches
- Chapter 1 Theorising Discourse and Identity
- Chapter 2 Conversational Identities
- Chapter 3 Institutional Identities
- Chapter 4 Narrative Identities
- PART II Contexts
- References
- Index
Summary
In this chapter, we consider how to define and analyse ‘institutional identities’, This is a less straightforward task than might initially seem the case. Does ‘institutional identity’ refer to fixed, pre-discursive and complementary pair roles, such as ‘doctor and patient’? Does it refer to any identity that is displayed in talk oriented to institutional goals or activities? Is it possible to identify ‘institutionality’ linguistically? Do we need prior knowledge of institutional encounters to understand them?
We discuss two main approaches to understanding the links between institutions, discourse and identity. Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic (CA) approaches argue that ‘institutionality’ or institutional identities are emergent properties of talk-in-interaction. In contrast, critical discourse analytic (CDA) accounts argue that the way people interact in social situations reflects existing macro-social forces. Any analysis of institutional interaction starts with a critique of institutions as structures that embed power relations within them. Institutional identity is therefore a function of these existing relations. The tension between these two approaches is summarised usefully by Mäkitalo and Saljö (2000: 48):
Analysts interested in institutional talk … face an interesting dilemma when it comes to the problem of how to account for the relationship between structural and enduring features of institutions and interactional dynamics. At a general level, this issue concerns how talk is occasioned by organizational structure, and precisely what is ‘institutional’ about talk. This relation between stable communicative practices and in situ talk is often understood as a matter of trying to connect ‘macro’ (social structure) with ‘micro’ (talk) or, alternatively, the ‘present’ with the ‘historical’.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Discourse and Identity , pp. 87 - 128Publisher: Edinburgh University PressPrint publication year: 2006