Negotiating borders and blame: social work with returnees in the shadow of the European Union

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) examines the relationship between language and power in society. By linking micro, mezzo, and macro environments, examining the impact of language on marginalized communities, and providing a lens for critical reflection, CDA aligns with the frameworks and values of social work as a profession. Yet this method has been underutilized in social work research. This paper provides an orientation for social work scholars seeking to use CDA through discussion of four key “signposts” or decision-making points: 1) theoretical framing and rationale, 2) sampling and data generation, 3) data analysis, and 4) dissemination of findings. Drawing on examples from the authors’ experiences with CDA studies addressing diverse research topics and methodological decisions, this paper offers a wide range of research design strategies for conducting similar projects. Examples are varied in terms of theoretical framing, research questions, data sources, analytic strategies, and audience. They include analyses of neoliberal discourse in refugee policy, discourses of culture in international development research documents, constructions of bisexuality among older women, and representations of intimate partner violence in young adult novels and tweets. Along the way, attention is given to communicating about CDA for social work audiences, particularly those less familiar with the epistemological foundations of CDA and its implications for practice.

Critical discourse analysis is a rapidly growing, interdisciplinary field of inquiry that combines linguistic analysis and social theory to address the way power and dominance are enacted and reproduced in text. Critical discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the construction of social phenomena and involves a focus on the wider social, political, and historical contexts in which talk and text occur, exploring the way in which theories of reality and relations of power are encoded and enacted in language. Critical discourse analysis moves beyond considering what the text says to examining what the text does. As an interdisciplinary and eclectic field of inquiry, critical discourse analysis has no unifying theoretical perspective, standard formula, or essential methods. As such, there is much confusion around what critical discourse analysis is, what it is not, and the types of projects for which it can be fruitfully employed. This article seeks to provide clarity on critical discourse analysis as an approach to research and to highlight its relevance to social work scholarship, particularly in relation to its vital role in identifying and analyzing how discursive practices establish, maintain, and promote dominance and inequality.

Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme is part of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). As such, it aims to contribute to the NIHR's mission of improving the health and wealth of the nation by funding evaluative research projects that have the potential to improve the quality, accessibility and organisation of health and social care services by providing useful outputs for decision-makers, staff, service users, academic, and public audiences. More information about the programme can be found on the NIHR website. A logic model is a visual way of showing how an activity, programme or intervention is expected to work and bring about the benefits and changes it intends to achieve. By summarising the core elements, a logic model can be used to support programme planning, implementation, and evaluation. NIHR logic models presentin a linear flow diagramthe key activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts of each funding programme as a series of logical steps.

Critical Policy Discourse Analysis bridges the literature on critical discourse analysis (CDA) and critical policy analysis to provide a practical guide on how to combine these major approaches to critical social science. The volume gives a clear introduction to concepts and analytical procedures for critical policy discourse analysis. Utilising ten international case studies, the authors explain and critically reflect upon the methods and theories that they have used to successfully integrate CDA with critical policy studies across a diverse range of policy issues. Case studies are used to explore issues in economics, health, education, crisis management, the environment, language and energy policy. Analysing these through discursive methodological approaches in the traditions of CDA, social semiotics and discourse theory, this book connects this discursive methodology systematically to the field of critical policy studies. This is an essential read for researchers wishing to practically combine methods of CDA with critical policy studies. It provides key insights for politics scholars looking to gain a more in-depth understanding of the impact and analysis of discourse.

How do return migrants’ experiences of legality abroad influence their attitudes and practices toward the law in their country of origin? Theoretically, I advance an argument that return migrants’ legal consciousness could be considered a form of social remittance. However, in response to valid criticisms of the concept, I innovate upon it in three ways. First, I give the social remittances a narrower focus by empirically examining the values, attitudes and practices of legality, both positive and negative. Secondly, to ensure that the social remittances could indeed be traced to migration-related transfers, I base my analysis on in-depth interviews with return migrants and family members of Ukrainian migrants regarding their personal experiences of legality abroad and ‘at home’. I thereby reveal the nuances and subtle differences in the collective ‘Ukrainian’ legal consciousness beyond the ‘national mainstream’: where return migrants’ fatalism about law’s potential for upholding justice coexists with a sense of agency about capacity to achieve change outside the formal state law. Thirdly, I posit that legal consciousness not only reflects how certain socio-legal practices flow across borders, but also the ways in which the migrants themselves (and their families) innovate upon and interpret such ‘remittances’ in different ways. The results elaborate upon Levitt’s and Lamba-Nieves’ (2010) observations that social remittances work in both directions and are thus shaped not only by people’s experiences prior to migration and in their respective host countries, but are also adapted to the conditions they encounter upon their return.

Multiple documents outline social workers' professional obligations, such as the Global Definition of Social Work, laws, and codes of ethics. But how do practitioners themselves understand and perceive their professional obligations? In this critical discourse analysis study, authors examined closely what social workers talk about when they talk about the things they "have to do" or "must do." Authors conducted interviews with 24 social workers working in a social services department in Israel. Focusing on linguistic analysis, authors isolated all tokens of "must" and "have to" and analyzed these excerpts using critical discourse analysis. Findings show that social workers perceive professional obligations on two axes. Under the first axis, "things you have to be," authors found that personal characteristics and qualities, such as humility and diligence, were perceived as necessities in order to perform well as a social worker. Under the second axis, "things you have to do," two kinds of obligations were identified: administrative obligations and professional obligations; the latter include an obligation to negotiate professional boundaries and to build helping relationships with service users. Authors showcase how participants' linguistic choices reflect complex perceptions of professional obligations and carry significant implications for the profession of social work.

This research aims to investigate the relationship between critical reading abilities and critical discourse analysis (CDA) competencies among future 21st century educators, emphasizing the critical necessity for these educators to possess such skills in today's demanding educational landscape. A sample of 70 prospective teachers was analyzed to determine the interconnection between their abilities in critical reading abilities and CDA, with an exploration into how one skill may influence the other. Additionally, the study examines the role of cognitive style—specifically, field-independent and field-dependent thinking—as a moderating factor in this relationship. Findings indicate a significant positive impact of CDA capabilities on critical reading abilities, suggesting that proficiency in analyzing discourse critically enhances one's ability to read with a critical eye. Furthermore, the study reveals no significant difference in CDA and critical reading abilities between participants categorized as field-independent thinkers versus those identified as field-dependent thinkers. These outcomes highlight the need for further research to explore additional factors that may affect the development of critical reading and discourse analysis skills. The study concludes with a call for educational strategies that integrate both critical reading and CDA competencies, considering the varied cognitive styles of learners.

Aims: In 2021–2022, 10.5% of UK citizens provided unpaid informal care, saving the government £162 bn annually. Many carers reside in high-deprivation areas, where access to appropriate health and social care services is limited. Previous studies indicate that carers are more prone to depression, anxiety, and physical symptoms, and these negative outcomes are higher among socio-economically disadvantaged carers. The shift of some health and social care services online, combined with ‘digital poverty’ (having no suitable electronic devices with Internet access or limited access or skills concerning the Internet), may exacerbate difficulties with accessing health and social care support, potentially increasing unmet needs and burdens among socioeconomically disadvantaged carers. The aim is to understand how informal carers with marginalised socioeconomic status (SES) access existing health and social care services and how this impacts their mental health. The second aim of the project is to explore how potential digital poverty may shape a carer’s mental health outcomes.Methods: A systematic literature review will identify barriers and facilitators of accessing health and social care by informal carers, the impact of access/non-access on mental health, stratified by carer SES and care-recipient’s health conditions. Followed by a qualitative photovoice study to explore carers’ experiences of accessing health and social care and the effects of digital poverty, analysed through critical discourse analysis. Thirdly a survey (N >300) examining how factors underpinning access to health and social care are related to informal carers’ mental health as moderated or mediated by the caregiver SES, carers’ perceptions of access to health and social care and of digital poverty analysed by structural equation modelling.Results: We will identify if and how informal carers with a marginalised socioeconomic background access health and social care services. Which will allow us to develop an evidence-based health promotion model.Conclusion: This study will offer us a unique opportunity to develop an evidence-based health promotion model for these carers that shows how to mitigate existing pathways of health inequalities. Based on key findings, recommendations will be generated and shared with researchers, clinicians, and policymakers via academic publications, conferences, exhibitions of carers’ photographs, and carer forums with NHS Trust(s).

This paper contributes to the development of a critical realist approach to discourse analysis by combining aspects of ‘critical discourse analysis’ (CDA) and ‘the morphogenetic/morphostatic approach’ (M/M). Unlike poststructuralist discourse theory, CDA insists on the maintenance of two distinctions: (i) between discourse and other aspects of social reality; (ii) between structure and agency. However, CDA lacks clarity on these distinctions. M/M, on the other hand, offers a coherent modelling of these distinctions that can underpin the application of CDA. The paper begins by introducing CDA, M/M and the existing literature on critical realist discourse analysis. It then establishes the M/M model of social change within CDA’s existing social theory by focusing on ‘analytical dualism’ and ‘social practice’. Finally, the paper locates the concept of discourse within M/M’s model of social change by theorizing discourse as one of four objective structures of meaning.

This thesis reports on findings from a critical qualitative study exploring and challenging normative notions of what it means to be a social worker. Throughout this thesis, I investigate how practicing social workers in Alberta negotiate their personal and professional identities. Drawing on 22 transcripts from semi-structured interviews with 11 unique participants, I analyze discursive strategies that are used to define and categorize what social work is and who social workers are expected to be. Grounded in critical and anti-oppressive theories and methodologies -namely Critical Disability Studies and Critical Discourse Analysis -I critique how dominance and power are woven into narratives of identity, belonging, and pride within the interview data. In particular, I critically illustrate how being a social worker is constructed in opposition to being a client. I conclude by reflecting on what social work could become when the rigid exclusionary boundaries of the profession are unraveled and reimagined. I would like to gratefully acknowledge the enormous contributions of my supervisor, Dr. Pamela Grassau, and my committee member, Dr. Kelly Fritsch. You have carved out and protected space for me to bring so much of myself to this work. Kellythank you for broadening my knowledge and understanding of disability and for pushing this work far beyond the expanses I ever imagined possible

Language and cinema make use of distinctive tools to interpret and reflect external reality. While signs in language consist of signifiers and signified(s), in cinema they are fiction, sound, image, and most importantly, discourses within the screenplay. A discourse is a unit of communication value that, for the most part, includes the social and production conditions of language beyond utterances. Examinations of discourse can be done from a linguistic perspective that engages grammar, sentence structures, and voice, or from a non-linguistic perspective. Critical discourse analysis approaches its object of study from a broad perspective. It aims to critically examine texts and speeches on subjects such as racism, sexism, colonialism, and other forms of social inequality. Critical feminist discourse analysis focuses on the complex structures of hidden power relations and the ideologies that support gender regulations in discourse, though it is separate from critical discourse analysis in various ways. In this study, the film Marriage Story, written and directed by Noah Baumbach, undergoes critical feminist discourse analysis. By constructing the character Nicole, the female protagonist who attempts to exist in a masculine public sphere and, in the process, becomes a liberated individual who makes a series of decisions in line with her desires and needs and self-expression, Baumbach criticizes the dominant ideology of his own cinematic making.

In the United States today, there are 2.3 million people behind bars in jails and prisons. Mass incarceration has swept up the United States to such a degree that we are known globally for holding more people in correctional facilities than any other country in the world. Although women have always, and still do, reflect a smaller proportion of the correctional population, over the last 40 years, their rates of criminalization and imprisonment have far outpaced that of men's. Drastic increases in the criminalization of women are intimately connected to the entrenchment of social disadvantage enabled under neoliberal globalization. Neoliberal transformations in the economy have contributed to women's poverty across the globe and have brought an increasing number of women into contact with the criminal justice system. The rising incarceration rate of women, and the disproportionate rate of women of color in U.S. prisons is a timely and urgent issue and one that social work is poised to address. Indeed, some of our most prominent national organizations recognize mass incarceration as an urgent issue that merits the attention of social workers. As such, it is prudent to examine social work's engagement with this issue. This study employed a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) of social work scholarship in order to: 1) explore current constructions of criminalized women in social work; 2) understand the knowledge produced through such constructions; and 3) explore how that knowledge supports/shapes practice with criminalized women. Specifically, this study draws on Jäger and Maier's framework for performing a Foucauldian-inspired CDA. This approach centers Foucault's conceptualizations of discourse and the workings of power and builds on the work of Jurgen Link (1982) to examine the function of discourse in legitimizing and securing dominance. Data include a sample of 49 articles published in social work high impact journals from 2000-2018. A keyword search was performed to locate articles with an explicit focus on incarcerated/criminalized women. Only articles dealing with a U.S. context were included. Analysis occurred on two levels consisting of a structural analysis to identify initial coding schema and a detailed analysis of select articles. Detailed analysis attended to: context of text; surface of text; rhetorical means; content and ideological statements. These two levels of analysis lead to an overall synoptic analysis, or final assessment of the overall discourse. Multi-racial feminism, discourse theory, and Foucault's concept of governmentality anchored the research and provided the theoretical framework for analysis. The

In this article, we explore and problematize the coming out discourses of Ricky Martin and Tiziano Ferro’s through a creative (critical) discourse analysis. We first contextualize the historicity of Ricky Martin and Tiziano Ferro’s artistic careers and argue that their coming out process is a privileged laboratory to understand the ways strategies and tactics of discourses are deployed. Second, through a Critical Discourse Analysis and collaborative writing inquiry approach, we present a creative fictional dialogue to showcase our analysis. This can be called creative (critical) discourse analysis. Third, we further reflect and theorize about these coming out discourses using Queer Theory, Governability, and the concept of Glory and the Media as privileged spaces for power. This will lead us to question the centered subject or a solid identity, the manifestations of coming out discourses, and the role of Glory and the Media in the socialization process.

Accessible yet theoretically rich, this landmark text introduces key concepts and issues in critical discourse analysis and situates these within the field of educational research. The book invites readers to consider the theories and methods of three major traditions in critical discourse studies � discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis and multimodal discourse analysis -- through the empirical work of leading scholars in the field.

This book is divided into two parts, "Argumentation in Critical Discourse Analysis" and "Questions and Doubts about Visual Argumantation", each part containing two chapters. In the first chapter, "Topoi in Critical Discourse Analysis", I am concerned with how topoi are used (and misused) in the Discourse-Historical Approach. The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA), pioneered by Ruth Wodak (see Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl, Liebhart 1999; Wodak, van Dijk 2000; Wodak, Chilton 2005; Wodak, Meyer 2006; Wodak 2009), is one of the major branches of critical discourse analysis (CDA). In its own (programmatic) view, it embraces at least three interconnected aspects (Wodak 2006: 65): 1. 'Text or discourse immanent critique' aims at discovering internal or discourse-internal structures. 2. The 'socio-diagnostic critique' is concerned with the demystifying exposure of the possibly persuasive or 'manipulative' character of discursive practices. 3. Prognostic critique contributes to the transformation and improvement of communication. CDA, in Wodak's view, is not concerned with evaluating what is 'right' or 'wrong'. CDA ... should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and should make these choices transparent.1 It should also justify theoretically why certain interpretations of discursive events seem more valid than others. One of the methodical ways for critical discourse analysts to minimize the risk of being biased is to follow the principle of triangulation. Thus, one of the most salient distinguishing features of the DHA is its endeavour to work with different approaches, multi-methodically and on the basis of a variety of empirical data as well as background information. (Wodak ibid.) One of the approaches DHA is using in its principle of triangulation is argumentation theory, more specifically the theory of topoi. In the first chapter, I am concerned with the following questions: how and in what way are topoi and, consequentially, argumentation theory, used in DHA as one of the most influential schools of CDA? Other approaches (e.g., Fairclough (1995, 2000, 2003) or van Leeuwen (2004, 2008; van Leeuwen, Kress 2006)) do not use topoi at all. Does such a use actually minimize the risk of being biased, and, consequentially, does such a use of topoi in fact implement the principle of triangulation? Judging from the works we analysed in the first chapter, there are no rules or criteria how to use topoi or how to detect topoi in the discourse/text; the only methodological precept seems to be, »anything goes«! If so, why does CDA need triangulation? And what happened to the principle stipulating that CDA »should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and should make these choices transparent? « We have seen identical and similar bundles of topoi for different purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for identical and similar purposes or occasions; we have seen different bundles of topoi for different occasion; and we have seen pretty exotic bundles of topoi for pretty particular and singular purposes. Which leads us to a key question: can anything be or become a topos within DHA? And, consequentially, what actually, i.e., historically, is a topos? If a topos is supposed to connect an argument with a conclusion, as all the relevant DHA publications claim, one would expect that at least a minimal reconstruction would follow, namely, what is the argument in the quoted fragment? What is the conclusion in the quoted fragment? How is the detected topos connecting the two, and what is the argumentative analysis of the quoted fragment? Unfortunately, all these elements are missing; the definition and the quoted fragment are all that there is of the supposed argumentative analysis. And this is the basic pattern of functioning for most of the DHA works. At the beginning, there would be a list of topoi and a short description foreach of them: first, a conditional paraphrase of a particular topos would be given, followed by a short discourse fragment (usually from the media) illustrating this conditional paraphrase (in Discourse and Discrimination, pp. 75-80), but without any explicit reconstruction of possible arguments, conclusions, or topoi connecting the two in the chosen fragment. After this short "theoretical" introduction, different topoi would just be referred to by names throughout the book, as if everything has already been explained in these few introductory pages. It is quite surprising that none of the quoted DHA works even mention the origins of topoi, their extensive treatment in many works and the main authors of these works, namely Aristotle and Cicero. Even the definition, borrowed from Kienpointner (mostly on a copy-paste basis), does not stem from their work either: it is a hybrid product, with strong input from Stephen Toulmin's work The Uses of Argument, published in 1958. All this is even more surprising because today it is almost a commonplace that for Aristotle a topos is a place to look for arguments (which is true), a heading or department where a number of rhetoric arguments can be easily found (which is true as well), and that those arguments are ready for use – which is a rather big misunderstanding. According to Aristotle, topoi are supposed to be of two kinds: general or common topoi, appropriate for use everywhere and anywhere, regardless of situation, and specific topoi, in their applicability limited mostly to the three genres of oratory (judicial, deliberative, and epideictic). With the Romans, topoi became loci, and Cicero literally defines them as “the home of all proofs” (De or. 2.166.2), “pigeonholes in which arguments are stored” (Part. Or. 5.7-10), or simply “storehouses of arguments” (Part. Or. 109.5-6). Also, their number was reduced from 300 in Topics or 29 in Rhetoric to up to 19 (depending on how we count them). Although Cicero's list correlates pretty much, though not completely, with Aristotle's list from the Rhetoric B 23, there is a difference in use: Cicero's list is considered to be a list of concepts that may trigger an associative process rather than a collection of implicit rules and precepts reducible to rules, as the topoi in Aristotle's Topics are. In other words, Cicero's loci mostly function as subject matter indicators and loci communes. Which brings us a bit closer to how topoi might be used in DHA. In the works analysed in the first chapter, the authors never construct or reconstruct arguments from the discourse fragments they analyse – despite the fact that they are repeatedly defining topoi as warrants connecting arguments with conclusions; they just hint at them with short glosses. And since there is no reconstruction of arguments from concrete discourse fragments under analysis, hinting at certain topoi, referring to them or simply just mentioning them, can only serve the purpose of »putting the audience in a favourable frame of mind. « »Favourable frame of mind« in our case – the use of topoi in DHA – would mean directing a reader's attention to a »commonly known or discussed« topic, without explicitly phrasing or reconstructing possible arguments and conclusions. Thus, the reader can never really know what exactly the author had in mind and what exactly he/she wanted to say (in terms of (possible) arguments and (possible) conclusions). In Traité de l'argumentation – La nouvelle rhétorique, published in 1958 by Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca, topoi are characterised by their extreme generality, which makes them usable in every situation. It is the degeneration of rhetoric and the lack of interest for the study of places that has led to these unexpected consequences where »oratory developments«, as Perelman ironically calls them, against fortune, sensuality, laziness, etc., which school exercises were repeating ad nauseam, became qualified as commonplaces (loci, topoi), despite their extremely particular character. By commonplace- es, Perelman claims, we more and more understand what Giambattista Vico called »oratory places«, in order to distinguish them from the places treated in Aristotle's Topics. Nowadays, commonplaces are characterised by banality which does not exclude extreme specificity and particularity. These places are nothing more than Aristotelian commonplaces applied to particular subjects, concludes Perelman. And this is exactly what seems to be happening to the DHA approach to topoi as well. Even more, the works quoted in the first part of the articlegive the impression that DHA is not using the Aristotelian or Ciceronian topoi, but the so-called »literary topoi«, conceptualized by Ernst Robert Curtius in his Europaeische Literatur und Lateinisches Mittelalter (1990: 62- 105, English translation). What is a literary topos? In a nutshell, oral histories passed down from pre-historic societies contain literary aspects, characters, or settings which appear again and again in stories from ancient civilisations, religious texts, art, and even more modern stories. These recurrent and repetitive motifs or leitmotifs would be then labelled literary topoi. The same year that Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca published their New Rhetoric, Stephen Toulmin published his Uses of Argument, probably the most detailed study of how topoi work. Actually, he does not use the terms topos or topoi, but the somewhat judicial term “warrant”. The reason for that seems obvious: he is trying to cover different “fields of argument”, and not all fields of argument, according to him, use topoi as their argumentative principles or bases of their argumentation. According to Toulmin (1958/1995: 94-107), if we have an utterance of the form, “If D then C” – where D stands for data or evidence, and C for claim or conclusion – such a warrant would act as a bridge and authorize the step from D to C. But warrant may have a limited applicability, so Toulmin introduces qualifiers Q, indicating the strength conferr