Contextualising accounts of illness:Notions of responsibility and blame in white and South Asian respondents' accounts of diabetes causation

We undertook a secondary analysis of in-depth interviews with white (n = 32) and Pakistani and Indian (n = 32) respondents who had type 2 diabetes, which explored their perceptions and understandings of disease causation. We observed subtle, but important, differences in the ways in which these respondent groups attributed responsibility and blame for developing the disease. Whereas Pakistani and Indian respondents tended to externalise responsibility, highlighting their life circumstances in general and/or their experiences of migrating to Britain in accounting for their diabetes (or the behaviours they saw as giving rise to it), white respondents, by contrast, tended to emphasise the role of their own lifestyle 'choices' and 'personal failings'. In seeking to understand these differences, we argue for a conceptual and analytical approach which embraces both micro- (i.e. everyday) and macro- (i.e. cultural) contextual factors and experiences. In so doing, we provide a critique of social scientific studies of lay accounts/understandings of health and illness. We suggest that greater attention needs to be paid to the research encounter (that is, to who is looking at whom and in what circumstances) to understand the different kinds of contexts researchers have highlighted in presenting and interpreting their data. © 2007 Foundation for the Sociology of Health & Illness/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Feminist Post-structuralist discourse analysis: a new theoretical and methodological approach?

This chapter serves three very important functions within this collection. First, it aims to make the existence of FPDA better known to both gender and language researchers and to the wider community of discourse analysts, by outlining FPDA’s own theoretical and methodological approaches. This involves locating and positioning FPDA in relation, yet in contradistinction to, the fields of discourse analysis to which it is most often compared: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and, to a lesser extent, Conversation Analysis (CA). Secondly, the chapter serves a vital symbolic function. It aims to contest the authority of the more established theoretical and methodological approaches represented in this collection, which currently dominate the field of discourse analysis. FPDA considers that an established field like gender and language study will only thrive and develop if it is receptive to new ways of thinking, divergent methods of study, and approaches that question and contest received wisdoms or established methods. Thirdly, the chapter aims to introduce some new, experimental and ground-breaking FPDA work, including that by Harold Castañeda-Peña and Laurel Kamada (same volume). I indicate the different ways in which a number of young scholars are imaginatively developing the possibilities of an FPDA approach to their specific gender and language projects.