Loughborough University

Institutional Repository

Social representations and

discursive psychology
This item was submitted to Loughborough University's Institutional Repository
by the/an author.
Citation: POTTER, J. and EDWARDS, D., 1999, Social representations and
discursive psychology. Culture & Psychology, 5, pp.445-456.
Metadata Record: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/15074
Version: Accepted for publication
Publisher: c
Sage
Please cite the published version.
 This item was submitted to Loughborough’s Institutional Repository
(https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/) by the author and is made available under the
following Creative Commons Licence conditions.

For the full text of this licence, please go to:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/
___________________________________________________________________________

SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS & DISCURSIVE

PSYCHOLOGY – FROM COGNITION TO ACTION

___________________________________________________________________________

JONATHAN POTTER & DEREK EDWARDS

Discourse and Rhetoric Group Email: [email protected]

Department of Social Sciences [email protected]

Loughborough University Tel: 01509 223384

Loughborough Fax: 01509 223944

Leicestershire, LE11 3TU

Published as:

Potter, J. & Edwards, D. (1999). Social representations and discursive psychology, Culture &

Psychology, 5, 445-456.
 ABSTRACT

This article compares and contrasts the way a set of fundamental issues are treated in

social representations theory and discursive psychology. These are: action, representation,

communication, cognition, construction, epistemology and method. In each case we indicate

arguments for the discursive psychological treatment. These arguments are then developed

and illustrated through a discussion of Wagner et al. 1999 which highlights in particular the

way the analysis fails to address the activities done by people when they are producing

representations, and the epistemological troubles that arise from failing to address the role of

the researcher’s own representations.

Key words: social representations, discursive psychology, construction, action,

discourse
 Biography

JONATHAN POTTER is Professor of Discourse Analysis at Loughborough University.

After a BA in Psychology, an MA in Philosophy and a PhD in Sociology, he taught statistics

in the Psychology Department at St Andrews University. Since 1988 he has worked in the

Social Sciences Department at Loughborough. He has studied scientific argumentation,

descriptions of crowd disorder, current affairs television, racism, and relationship

counselling. His books include: Discourse and Social Psychology (Sage, 1987, with

Margaret Wetherell) which attempted to develop a discursive alternative to traditional social

psychological theories and methods; Mapping the Language of Racism (Columbia University

Press, 1992, with Margaret Wetherell) which studied the way racial inequalities are

discursively legitimated; and Discursive Psychology (Sage, 1992, with Derek Edwards)

which developed a discursive psychological reinterpretation of memory and attribution

research through a set of analyses of political controversies. In his most recent book

(Representing Reality, Sage, 1996) he attempts to provide a systematic overview, integration

and critique of constructionist research. He is co-editor of the journal Theory and

Psychology. ADDRESS: Discourse and Rhetoric Group, Department of Social Sciences,

Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK. [email:

[email protected]]

DEREK EDWARDS is Professor of Psychology in the Department of Social Sciences,

Loughborough University. His research has developed a ‘discursive’ approach to topics in

developmental, cognitive and social psychology. He began with ethnographic-linguistic

studies of child language and parent-child interaction, moved on to studies of classroom

education and collective remembering (in a variety of settings), and now focuses on the ways

in which common sense psychology is constructed and managed in everyday discourse,

ranging from telephone conversations to counselling sessions and media texts. His books

include Common Knowledge (Routledge, 1987, with Neil Mercer), Ideological Dilemmas

(Sage, 1988, with Michael Billig and others), Collective Remembering (Sage, 1990, with

David Middleton), Discursive Psychology (Sage, 1992, with Jonathan Potter), and Discourse

and Cognition (Sage, 1997). ADDRESS: as for Potter. [Email: [email protected]]

 Over the past fifteen years discourse and rhetorical analysts and discursive

psychologists have developed a connected set of critiques of social representations theory

(Billig, 1988, 1993; Litton & Potter, 1985; McKinlay & Potter, 1987; McKinlay et al., 1993;

Potter, 1996a, b; Potter & Billig, 1992; Potter & Litton, 1984; Potter & Wetherell, 1987,

1998). This critical work has appreciated the aims, scope and sophistication of social

representations theory while disagreeing with a number of its theoretical and analytic

assumptions. While we are impressed by Wolfgang Wagner, Gerard Duveen, Matthias

Thermel, and Jyoti Verma’s (1999) study, and interested by its findings, we believe it

continues to display the fundamental flaws in the current version of social representations

theory.

In this commentary we will first overview general problems with social

representations theory (SRT) as identified by discursive psychology (DP) and then highlight

the way these problems are displayed in Wagner et al.’s paper. We will highlight a range of

fundamental differences in an attempt to counter the increasingly common view that DP is

merely ‘enlarging and detailing’ or ‘complementing and deepening’ central aspects of SRT

(Flick, 1998: 6; Moscovici, 1998: 246). We believe contrasting rather than merging the

perspectives will lead to more clarity in theory and analysis.

SOME PROBLEMS WITH SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS THEORY

Perhaps the clearest way to overview problems with social representations theory is

to list a set of basic concepts where there are disagreements with discursive psychology, and

indicate the arguments for the discursive psychological approach.

1. Action. One of the primary differences between SRT and DP lies in the way they

characterize action, and in the relative importance they place on it. In DP, action is
 2

conceptualized in terms of the enormous range of practical, technical and

interpersonal tasks that people perform while living their relationships, doing their

jobs, and engaging in varied cultural domains. Action (practices, getting stuff done –

the precise term is not meant to carry weight here) is central to people’s lives, and

therefore central to understanding those lives. We are not the first to observe that

SRT does not provide any elaborate account of action (cf. Wagner, 1998). This

failure to theorise action is at the heart of a range of problems; in particular, it leads to

methodological blind-spots, it encourages the drift towards cognitive reductionism,

and it places crucial limitations on the way the central concept of representation is

theorized.

2. Representation. Representation is an important notion in both SRT and DP.

However, it has almost the opposite role in each perspective. In SRT representations

are primarily cognitive phenomena (although they are sometimes considered as

cultural objects) which enable people to make sense of the world. The collective

nature of this sense-making is taken to enable intra-group communication and to

provide a technical definition of the boundaries of social groups. In DP

representations are discursive objects which people construct in talk and texts.

Analysis has not concentrated on the sense-making role of representations (although

this is not excluded in principle), but on the way the representations are constructed as

solid and factual, and on their use in, and orientation to, actions (assigning blame,

eliciting invitations, and so on). Representations are treated as produced, performed

and constructed in precisely the way that they are for their role in activities. For this

reason, discursive psychologists treat understanding activity as the key to

understanding representations (Potter, 1996).

 3

3. Communication. In SRT, one of the primary roles of social representations is to

facilitate intra-group communication. In DP, the communication metaphor is

rejected as inadequate for dealing with the complexities of action and interaction.1

We doubt that SRT researchers would have much success if they attempted to make

sense of a transcript of conversational interaction, say, if they try to discern

‘messages’ and places where they are ‘transferred’ from speaker to speaker.2 Indeed,

SRT researchers have simply avoided that problem by ignoring interaction and

disparaging conversation as ‘babble’ (Moscovici, 1985). Conversation thus has the

anomalous position of being at the heart of SRT as the engine for the generation and

refinement of representations, and yet being a topic which has received no analytic

attention, and where the relevant literature in conversation analysis (Hutchby &

Wooffitt, 1998; Sacks, 1992) has been ignored.

4. Cognition. One of the features of SRT which has attracted mainstream social

cognition workers has been its retention of central elements of perceptual-

cognitivism. Perceptual-cognitivism treats people as perceivers of incoming

perceptual information which they process in various ways (Edwards & Potter, 1992).

In SRT representations are, mostly, treated as cognitive structures or grids which

make sense of information, particularly about unfamiliar social objects. DP rejects

perceptual-cognitivism in favour of a systematic reformulation of cognition as a

feature of participants’ practices, where it is constructed, described and oriented to as

people perform activities. Cognition is thereby moved from being an explanatory

resource to a topic of study. This facilitates the study of practices and avoids a range

of confusions that arise from the cognitive analysis of talk and texts (Edwards, 1997;

Potter, 1998a).
 4

5. Construction. It is commonplace now to characterise both SRT and DP as

constructionist. Social representations are not treated simply as devices for people to

perceive (or misperceive) their social worlds – they construct the nature and value of

those worlds. Where SRT and DP sharply differ, however, is in the nature and scope

of this construction. While in SRT it is primarily a perceptual-cognitive process

(involving the mechanisms of anchoring and objectification), in DP construction is

done in talk and texts as specific versions of the world are developed and rhetorically

undermined. In DP, then, construction is more analytically tractable, because the way

representations are constructed, established and undermined can be studied using a set

of materials.3

6. Epistemology. SRT has been developed as a theory of knowledge, including an

account of differences between the consensual and reified universes (roughly common

sense vs. scientific knowledge). DP has not developed a theory of knowledge as such;

rather it has developed a relativistic and reflexive approach to knowledge, where what

counts as knowledge in different social and cultural settings is part of what is at stake

in discourse practices. Particularly striking here is the wide range of recent, and not

so recent, work in the sociology of scientific knowledge which makes problematic the

distinction between the reified and consensual universe (e.g. Ashmore, 1989; Knorr

Cetina, 1998; Latour, 1987). At another level, whereas discursive psychologists have

attended to the reflexive relationship between their own categories, claims and textual

forms, and those of their participants (Ashmore, et al. 1995; Edwards, 1997; Mulkay,

1985), social representations theorists have not concerned themselves with the status

of their own representational practices. Problems arising from this inattention have

been highlighted in a number of DP discussions of SRT (e.g. Potter, 1996; McKinlay,

et al. 1993).
 5

7. Method. SRT research has utilized a range of different social science methods,

including surveys, interviews, experiments and ethnography. However, the major

point of conflict with DP is not over the selection of a particular method, but in

SRT’s failure to conceptualize the activities that are being done, and oriented to, when

participants develop representations in their talk or texts in any of these methods. The

action orientation of accounts, descriptions and versions is systematically overlooked

in the attempt to use social science methods to reach hypothetical underlying, yet

shared, cognitive representations. This may be the reason why SRT researchers have

shied away from critical work on method in sociology and anthropology which

problematizes language use and representation (e.g. Atkinson, 1990; Cicourel, 1974).

Most importantly, SRT is overwhelmingly perceptual-cognitive in its theorizing,

while its analytic materials are overwhelmingly discursive.

These points are linked together around SRT’s perceptual-cognitivism with its sense-making

account of representations, which provide a code for communication, and construct mental

versions of the world, and can be researched using a range of social science methods. The

DP alternative takes a systematically contrastive position for the reasons indicated above.

These reasons can be fleshed out through considering Wagner et al.’s (1999) article on

different notions of madness in Indian discourse.

MADNESS AND INDIAN SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS

Wagner et al. concern themselves with representations of madness, in the standard

SRT manner, as mentally encoded templates for sense-making. They do not ask the kinds of

questions that discursive psychologists might ask, such as how particular descriptions of

‘madness’ are used to do particular things. They are not concerned with the way a
 6

construction of madness might be used as part of a relationship conflict, when accounting for

absence from work, or in criticising the behaviour of a neighbour. Not only do they not

address these questions, their methodology makes it very hard to address them; for it provides

participants with only a pre-formed vignette in which madness is a textual fait accompli.4

Moreover, participants are recruited to act as quasi-psychologists, theorizing about how they

might act or might think in a generic situation in which they have no stake or interest. Thus,

despite the use of qualitative, conversational interviews, the materials are dealt with using the

epistemological frame of traditional social cognition.5

What the authors do not study is the way descriptions, avowals, accounts and

explanations of and using ‘madness’ might figure in their participants’ everyday discursive

practices. What kind of cultural ecology are we dealing with? We don’t know, and can’t

know from this study, how these people speak about madness in their families, with doctors

and healers, when gossiping with their friends, and so on. The method separates participants

from such an ecology, and what may be locally organized, action-oriented descriptions are

forced into participants’ heads as cognitive objects.

Even using interviews, Wagner et al. could have considered the way description

production is related to particular activities. Instead, the participants are treated in the

traditional manner as disinterested people doing their best to answer questions. There is no

sense of interview talk as an arena where a range of issues to do with stake, identity,

justification, morality, and so on can and do become relevant (see Widdicombe & Wooffitt,

1995). This is shown most simply in the way the talk is overwhelmingly treated as owned

by, and inferable back to, the interviewee, rather than a co-construction of both parties. In

the majority of cases the interviewer’s question is not quoted; instead we are given segments

of participants’ talk isolated from what might have occasioned them, with little choice but to

interpret them as free-standing participants’ views. This stripping off of the action
 7

orientation of talk is reinforced by presenting it in cleaned up ‘playscript’ form which

systematically removes action-indicative features of delivery such as stress, intonation, delay,

pace and volume.

Another way in which Wagner et al. disattend to the action orientation of their

materials is a consequence of their failure to theorise their specifically ‘interview’ nature; that

is, the way that the participants ‘do’ interview talk, and what they are accomplishing when

they speak in such a way.6 The mixture of social representations ‘expressed’ in the interview

may reflect the participants’ sensitivity to the interviewer’s concerns, as they talk to people

from a very topic relevant university-based domain of psychological science. Moreover,

when the interviewer emphasises that they are ‘not interested in factual or school knowledge,

but in what the interviewee believed’ (ms. 13), they are providing the participants with a

criterion for how to speak which embodies the very dichotomy that they then discover in their

materials. Interactional dynamics of this kind, which are grist to the mill of DP, make it

difficult to accept participants’ talk as an expression of largely ready-made, all-purpose views

of life.

From the point of view of DP, then, the treatment of representations in terms of

cognitive sense-making, rather than activities, is accomplished by analytic fiat. Cognitive

sense-making is not discovered in the materials, it is defined into them. Conversely, the

absence of action is not discovered in the materials, it is gerrymandered out of them, by the

methods of data collection and analysis.

The SRT distinction, between the expression of the representation in talk and its

existence in some mental space, provides considerable analytic elasticity and makes it

difficult to assess the adequacy of particular claims. It discourages the researcher from

attending to the precise details of the talk which might be of interest in a DP analysis with its

action focus. For example, the term ‘adjust’ is discussed (ms.: 20-1), and it is noted that the
 8

use of English rather than Hindi by participants might signal a critical view towards

‘adjustment’ among Westernized middle-class respondents. Yet the one extract that is quoted

does not provide evidence of this ‘critical view’ (the speaker claims that they would ‘adjust’

if appropriate without constructing it as an accountable matter), but it does indicate the way

that the notion of ‘adjustment’ might be used to assign blame. The woman described in the

narrative is treated as having the problem of ‘adjustment’; the battering husband is not treated

as at fault.

The Wagner et al. study illustrates some of the reflexive and epistemological troubles

that are characteristic of SRT research. At its simplest, the issue is this: what is the

representation-free framework through which participants’ representations can be

understood? Or, more pithily, whose representations are privileged, the researchers’ or the

participants’?7

The trouble becomes most acute with respect to the distinction between ‘traditional

healing’ and ‘modern psychiatry’. Is this distinction found in the material by the analyst

identifying utterances as traditional or modern, using their own judgement on these matters?

Or is it a dichotomy that is demonstrably relevant for the participants themselves? In other

words, as well as moving between what the analyst judges to be different kinds of social

representations, do the participants display a concern for that difference, an orientation to it?

Do they, for instance, treat the invocation of traditional ideas, when talking to a psychologist-

interviewer, as accountable (requiring justification, etc.)? In fact, the data and analysis

includes both kinds of observations (analysts’ categorizations and participants’ orientations),

but both are treated in the same way. Indeed, participants’ orientations to the analytic

framework may even be suppressed. Note the way on (ms.) page 13, where the respondent

says, ‘Now we have modern times. Initially in our society…’, the interviewer interrupts with

‘You are slightly deviating…’

 9

This discursive distinction between ‘traditional healing’ and ‘modern psychiatry’ is

treated as a surface manifestation of two cognitive representations underlying the discourse.

The analysis does not attend to any business that might be being done by this specific

formulation in the discourse. For example, we can imagine it being used by a psychiatrist in

Patna to encourage a client to act in particular ways – to take medication, to resist certain

sorts of advice, and so on. After all, the epithet ‘modern’ can be a powerful rhetorical device

(for analysis of ‘modern’ in persuasive political discourse, see Wetherell & Potter, 1992).

Moreover, the assumption made in Wagner et al.’s analysis is that (‘modern’) ‘Western’

psychiatry is unified and scientific. This is not discovered in the interviewee’s

representations, but assumed as an analytic presupposition.

These points, while being generically at issue for SRT are, of course, especially

pertinent for the current study as it claims to address differences in cultural representations.

The risk is that they start with (a version of) Western psychiatry and then understand Indian

cultural practices in Western psychiatry’s basic terms. The authors gloss their study as

discovering ‘the way in which a particular reality is simultaneously represented in two

fundamentally different ways’ (ms.: 34). However, this plays down how these different kinds

of representations may ‘constitute their objects’ very differently. What is this ‘particular

reality’ that exists outside of representational practices? Do traditional and modern (etc.)

representations cover, and restrict themselves to, the same phenomena? Surely not. They

collect different things together, and place them under different descriptions and

categorizations and contrasts. The assumption, that what the traditional representations are

representations of is basically the collection of things studied by ‘modern psychiatry’, is at

least a partial alignment with one of the representations under investigation. It begs the

deepest cultural-psychological questions. For DP these questions will require serious analytic

attention to the situated practices which such questions relate to.

 10

SOCIAL REPRESENTATIONS OR DISCURSIVE PSYCHOLOGY

Moscovici has recently responded to DP criticisms of SRT by suggesting that to ask

‘whether language or representation is the better model can have no more psychological

meaning than asking the question: “Does a man walk with the help of his left leg or his right

leg?”’ (1998: 246). We agree that it misleading to make an opposition between language and

representation. However, we have argued that an adequate study of representation (either in

talk or cognition) requires attention to situated discourse practices. SRT research continues

to fail to do this, and continues to be flawed as a consequence.

 11

ENDNOTES

1
It is not merely the term communication itself. Moscovici draws on the entire tropology of
communication terminology when characterizing SRT. Consider the following, where Moscovici is
offering reasons for looking beyond ‘linguistic forms’:
The richness and originality of meanings, this is indeed what we try to communicate to one
another. But in this communication linguistic forms are not enough to explain how the
communicated message is received and then understood. Why? Because we perform many
more practical operations on it before transmitting it or in order to receive it.... Too often the
communication of a message does not coincide with linguistic communication properly
speaking. (1994: 164-5)
2
The difficulty in providing a clear specification of even such an apparently straightforward notion as
‘conversational topic’ illustrates this (Jefferson, 1993).
3
Recent SRT commentators have suggested that the strong constructionism and relativism of discursive
psychology is self refuting and allows no possibility for political commitment (Wagner, 1998;
Moscovici & Markova, 1998). There is not space to tackle these points in full here. Suffice it to say
that we view both of these claims as mistaken. Weak constructionism, with its islands of epistemic
privilege is less coherent in our view; and political commitment follows no more obviously from
realism or weak constructionism than strong constructionism. For developed arguments to this effect
see: Edwards et al. 1995; Potter, 1998b.
4
Contrast this to Smith (1978) and Palmer (1998), in which the category madness and how it is made
objective is analytically topicalized.
5
Discursive psychologists are not critical of research methods because they involve experimentation,
manipulation or some other technique. The critique is specifically directed against the (largely
inexplicit) theory of discourse that is used in many research and analytic methods. For further
discussion of this point, see Edwards, 1997; Potter, 1997.
6
See, for example, Heritage & Greatbatch (1991) on some of the ‘institutional’ features of interview
talk.
7
For a highly pertinent debate on this topic (which ought to be of interest to all cultural psychologists),
see Schegloff (1997, 1998) and Wetherell (1998).

REFERENCES

Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrighting sociology of scientific knowledge.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ashmore, M., Myers, G., & Potter, J. (1994). Discourse, rhetoric and reflexivity: Seven days

in the library. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, T. Pinch & J. Petersen (Eds.), Handbook of

science, technology and society (pp. 321-342). London: Sage.

 12

Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London:

Routledge.

Billig, M. (1988). Social representations, objectification and anchoring: A rhetorical analysis.

Social Behaviour, 3, 1-16.

Billig, M. (1993). Studying the thinking society: Social representations, rhetoric and attitudes.

In G. Breakwell & D. Cantor (Eds.), Empirical approaches to social representations

(pp. 39-62). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cicourel, A.V. (1974). Theory and method in a study of argentine fertility. New York:

Wiley.

Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London and Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Edwards, D. & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. London: Sage.

Edwards, D., Ashmore, M. and Potter, J., (1995) Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics

and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism, History of the Human

Sciences, 8, 25-49.

Flick, U. (1998) Introduction: social representations in knowledge and language as

approaches to a psychology of the social. In U. Flick (Ed.). The psychology of the

social (pp. 1-14). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heritage, J.C. & Greatbatch, D.L. (1991). On the institutional character of institutional talk:

The case of news interviews. In D. Boden & D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social

structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 93-137).

Oxford: Polity.

Hutchby, I., & Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation analysis: Principles, practices and

applications. Cambridge: Polity.

Jefferson, G. (1993). Caveat speaker: Preliminary notes on recipient topic-shift implicature.

Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26, 1-30.

 13

Knorr Cetina, K.D. (1998). Epistemic cultures: How scientists make sense. Chicago: Indiana

University Press.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Litton, I., & Potter, J. (1985). Social representations in the ordinary explanation of a ‘riot.’

European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 371-88.

McKinlay, A., & Potter, J. (1987). Social representations: A conceptual critique. Journal for

the Theory of Social Behaviour, 17, 471-87.

McKinlay, A., Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1993). Discourse analysis and social

representations. In G. Breakwell & D. Cantor (Eds.) Empirical approaches to social

representations (pp. 134-56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moscovici, S. (1985). Comment on Potter and Litton. British Journal of Social Psychology,

24, 91-3.

Moscovici, S. (1994). Social representations and pragmatic communication. Social Science

Information, 33, 163-77.

Moscovici, S. (1998). The history and actuality of social representations. In U. Flick (Ed.),

The psychology of the social (pp. 209-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moscovici, S., & Markova, I. (1998). Investigation into ideas: Dialogue with Serge

Moscovici. Culture & Psychology, 4, 371-410.

Palmer, D. (1997). The methods of madness: Recognizing delusional talk. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, University of York.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and

behaviour. London: Sage.

Potter, J. (1996a). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction.

London: Sage.
 14

Potter, J. (1996b). Attitudes, social representations, and discursive psychology. In M.

Wetherell, (Ed.) Identities, groups and social issues (pp. 119-173). London: Sage.

Potter, J. (1997). Discourse analysis as a way of analysing naturally occurring talk. In D.

Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative analysis: Issues of theory and method (pp: 144-60).

London: Sage.

Potter, J. (1998a). Cognition as context (whose cognition?). Research on Language and

Social Interaction, 31, 29-44.

Potter, J. (1998b). Fragments in the realization of relativism. In I. Parker (Ed.), Social

Constructionism, discourse and realism (pp. 27-45). London: Sage.

Potter, J., & Billig, M. (1992). Re-representing representations. Ongoing Production on

Social Representations, 1, 15-20.

Potter, J., & Litton I. (1985). Some problems underlying the theory of social representations.

British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 81-90.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1998). Social representations, discourse analysis and racism. In

U. Flick (Ed.), The psychology of the social (pp. 138-55). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on conversation. Vols. I & II, edited by G. Jefferson. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

Schegloff, E.A. (1997). Whose text? Whose context? Discourse and Society, 8 (2), 165-187.

Schegloff, E.A. (1998). Reply to Wetherell. Discourse and Society, 9 (3), 413-416.

Smith, D. (1978). K is mentally ill: The anatomy of a factual account. Sociology, 12, 23-53.

Wagner, W. (1998). Social representations and beyond: Brute facts, symbolic coping and

domesticated worlds. Culture & Psychology, 4, 297-329.

Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and

post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse and Society, 9 (3), 387-412.

 15

Wetherell, M. and Potter, J. (1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the

Legitimation of Exploitation. Brighton: Harvester/Wheatsheaf, New York: Columbia

University Press.

Widdicombe, S., & Wooffitt, R. (1995). The language of youth subcultures: Social identity

in action. Hemel Hempstead, UK: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.

Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Thermel, M., & Verma, J. (1999). The modernization of tradition:

Thinking about madness in Patna, India. Culture & Psychology, 5, 413-445.