Interpretive analysis of spoken discourse: Dealing with the limitations of quantitative and qualitative methods

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Quantitative and qualitative methods of analyzing discourse, while producing some pertinent findings, suffer from a number of limitations. Such limitations have become apparent in studies of doctor‐patient communication but also manifest themselves in research on other forms of spoken, interpersonal communication. Quantitative methods alone do not deal with complexities of discourse, usually are not helpful in analyzing the social context in which discourse arises, do not clarify underlying themes and structures, and are costly and tedious to use. With qualitative methods, the selection of discourse for analysis is not straightforward, quality of interpretation is difficult to evaluate, and textual presentation is not clear‐cut. Several criteria of an appropriate method offer reasonable compromises in dealing with these limitations: a) discourse should be selected through a sampling procedure, preferably a randomized technique; b) recordings of sampled discourse should be available for review by other observers; c) standardized rules of transcription should be used; d) reliability of transcription should be assessed by multiple observers; e) procedures of interpretation should be decided in advance, should be validated in relation to theory, and should address both content and structure of texts; f) reliability of applying interpretive procedures should be assessed by multiple observers; g) a summary and excerpts from transcripts should accompany the interpretation, and full transcripts should be available for review; and h) texts and interpretations should convey the variability of content and structure across sampled texts. An ongoing study applies these criteria to research on ideology and social control in medical encounters, as illustrated by excerpts from two encounters between older patients and their physicians.