The Generalizability of Discursive Research

Abstract

This paper shows how the accepted notion that discourse analytic findings must compromise generalizability to gain a detailed understanding of the area being investigated need not be the case. Instead, I show how such findings can be considered generalizable to the extent that they can show how a particular discursive strategy will often bring about the same interactional results. This means that discourse analysts can, and arguably should, claim that a discursive strategy that they have identified will accomplish similar rhetorical effects in a variety of interactions. This paper discusses what is meant by generalizability and then uses existing conversation analytic and discursive findings and examples from my own data where existing prejudice is used to justify further prejudice to illustrate the generalizability of such findings. I conclude by discussing the extent to which generalizations are possible and the implications of being able to make claims of generalizability for the discipline.