Weaknesses of Discourse Analysis

In social sciences, discourse analysis has many benefits, especially in

explaining the existence of power relations through the disclosure of the
hidden meaning behind the text and spoken words (Jacobs). There are at
least two influential approaches in discourse analysis. The first aproach is
critical discourse analysis which was developed by Fairclough, the later is
discourse analysis inspired by Michael Foucault.
Critical discourse analysis emphasizes thought on the importance of ideology
and discursive strategies used to achieve political objectives. Analytical
tradition of CDA uses three frameworks that bridge between policy texts and
the wider political changes in three areas, ie: in micro domain which
emphasizes on linguistics, meso interpretation that emphasizes the social
production of the text, and macro analysis associated to the social theory.
Although claimed as the most widely used discourse analysis, methodology
and theoretical frameworks of CDA has a disadvantage affirms that to be able
to reveal the power relations, CDA should be used with care and
systematically.
The treatment of the context on the micro and macro level is the biggest
methodological weakness of CDA. First, the micro-level discourse analysis is
slightly unable to give a satisfactory analysis because it does not use the
concepts in a more dynamic context. The second is, in macro level the limited
attention on distribution and availability and access to various sources of
communication.
Besides methodological weaknesses, theoretical weakness of CDA derived
from the linguistic perspective fixated on it. Hence discourse analysis is less
able to bridge the linguistic and non-linguistic dimensions of semiosis.
However Fairclough deny such criticisms by stressing the importance of
mastering a variety of linguistic theory, because a variety of linguistic theory
can be used as the basis for the textual analysis.
Discourse analysis developed by Foucault emphasizes that discourses are
contested. According to Foucault, discourse analysis is used to open up the
conflict meaning associated to power, so that discourse analysis which
inspired by Foucault attempted to expose history, make it explicit in the
context where the discourse occurs. The weakness of this discourse analysis
is it is not as systematically as CDA because it does not provide practical
steps guidance to perform the discourse analysis. The second weakness is
related to the obsession to dismantle the deeper meaning of a text resulting
in a reluctance to reveal the plural and superficial meaning of the text.
In Foucault-inspired discourse analysis, the change is not considered as a

mere rational cause and effect event but it is seen as a result of the conflict
of interest between the owners of the political agenda. Thereby, the
challenge to the users of this discourse analysis is to become much more
cautious in reading a text, identify linkages of one text to another and
examine the ideology, strategy and the rhetoric that is used to produce a
meaning that goes along with its political objectives.
In general, both CDA and Foucault's discourse analysis have fundamental
flaws related to the methods. Discourse analysis is oftenly considered unclear
in determining the methods and specify which text to be analyzed and which
text to be excluded. Secondly, related to the focus on linguistic, so often
neglect the material existence which independent to diskusive elements.
Third, discourse analysis is considered often ignores the complex structural
factors. Fourth, lack of clarity in research step, and how text is selected lead
to a point where discourse analysis considered less scientific.