Methodical and Analytical Framework

Abstract

There have been a number of earlier attempts to solve the PDA’s methodological deficit.1 The so-called “logics approach” to discourse analysis by Jason Glynos and David Howarth (e.g. 2008, 2007) and the analytical approach to analysis of “hegemonic strategies” by the German political scientist Martin Nonhoff (e.g. 2007, 2006a, b) are — up to this point — the most advanced and elaborate efforts to operationalize research related to PDA.2 No doubt, both the logics approach and the analysis of hegemonic strategies bring empirical discourse analysis associated with post-foundational discourse theory a substantial step forward. However, both approaches suffer from a number of methodological shortcomings that limit their application in concrete research projects. None of these approaches can therefore fully solve the PDA’s methodological deficit. Nonhoff’s approach to analyzing hegemonic strategies is methodologically more sophisticated and methodically more elaborate than the logics approach because it is grounded on a rich set of heuristic concepts — such as ideal typical discursive relations and hegemonic strategies (e.g. Nonhoff, 2006a, pp. 238ff.) — which allow the analyst to render visibility to more or less hegemonic politico-ideological formations. However, the general applicability of Nonhoff’s approach is limited by its focus on political struggles and political ideologies. As a consequence of its narrow phenomenal focus, Nonhoff’s work does little to elevate PDA to a transdisciplinary research framework that can be applied in the empirical analysis of a wide range of themes and issues.