IRs are recognizable routines of arguments, descriptions, and evaluations found in people's talk that form relatively consistent language units. They highlight inconsistencies within different routines shared by groups and accumulate to form collective commonsense. IRs can be opposing or ideologically grounded, revealing cultural resources available for making sense of issues. They show how speakers draw on shared cultural knowledge to construct accounts.

Interpretive Repertoires

ECFs involve descriptions using extreme expressions like "nightmare," "horrific," "everything," or "total standstill" to strengthen claims and defend complaints. Speakers use ECFs to present behaviors as problematic due to their frequency or severity. These formulations legitimize complaints against potential skepticism and imply transgression of normal standards. ECFs are strategic rhetorical devices for accomplishing credibility and warranting concern.

Extreme Case Formulations

These are patterns of contrasts and contradictions that emerge when opposing interpretative repertoires clash in participants' talk. They reveal underlying ideological tensions that speakers must negotiate in conversation through strategic language choices. Dilemmas show how people manage competing cultural demands and expectations in their accounts. They highlight the complex rhetorical work required to navigate contradictory social positions.

Ideological Dilemmas 

These are conventionalized ideals or specific appearances of self that speakers cite or adopt in talk to construct subjectivity. Subject positions are not purely individual but represent conventional social identities available in cultural contexts. They can be stable and coherent or shifting and contested depending on interactional demands. Speakers strategically invoke positions to accomplish particular social actions and manage accountability.

Subject Positions when Constructing Subjectivity

This expands discourse definition beyond linguistic talk to include all perceivable forms of communication like gestures, eye gaze, and spatial positioning. For children with intellectual disabilities, multimodal actions include vocalizations, gross-motor movements, and augmentative communication use. The approach recognizes non-linguistic expressions as valid communicative endeavors deserving analytical attention. It challenges linguistic privilege in communication research.

Multimodal Communication

- Extreme Case Formulations
- Interpretative Repertoires
- Ideological Dilemmas
- Subject Positions
- Multimodal Communication

State University of New York at Binghamton

- Analytical Tools and Concepts in Discursive Psychology
- Discourse as Social Action
     - Discourse is Constructed
     - Discourse is Situated

Discursive Psychology as the Analytical Tool for Studying Discourse Empirically

Chapter 1 sets the stage for understanding Discursive Psychology (DP) as a rigorous, qualitative methodology that scrutinizes language and interaction to reveal how disability is not a static medical condition, but a fluid, socially constructed phenomenon.

Chapter 1: Introducing Discursive Psychology as Methodology to Understand Disability

Lester, J. N. (Ed.). (2021). Discursive Psychology and Disability. Palgrave Studies in Discursive Psychology. Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Reference For: Discursive Psychology and Disability

- Language as Action-Oriented Practice
- Constructed Nature of Discourse
- Situated Context of All Discourse
- Discursive Action Model (DAM)

Discursive Psychology (DP): Discourse as Social Action

- Disability as Biological vs. Cultural Construction
- Materialist Social Model
- Reification Critique
- Medicalization Processes

Challenging Traditional Disability Constructions

- DP as Empirical Tool for Real-Time Analysis
- Naturally-Occurring Data Preference
- Detailed Transcription Systems
- Conversation Analysis Influence
- Unmotivated Looking
- Next Turn Proof Procedure

Discursive Psychology (DP)'s Methodological Contributions

- Post-Cognitive Stance in Psychology
- Critical Discursive Psychology
- Disability Studies Framework

DP's Theoretical Foundations

The volume explicitly aims to bridge disciplinary gaps between DP and Disability Studies by generating intersectional scholarship. It seeks originality and renewal by combining insights from both fields through productive dialogue. The inclusion of DS scholar responses demonstrates commitment to rich, productive engagement across disciplines. This approach positions DP as providing concrete empirical evidence to inform disability debates.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After