Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data:

The Discourse Analytic Method

Sanna Talja
University of Tampere

The article presents discourse analysis as a method of analyzing qualita-

tive interview data. Using examples from a study of users’ library con-
ceptions, it is argued that participants’ interpretations are much more
context dependent and variable than normally recognized, and that this
has important implications for the use of interview data. Instead of pro-
ducing definitive versions of participants’ action or beliefs, interview
data may be used to reveal regular interpretative practices through
which participants construct versions of actions, cognitive processes,
and other phenomena. This method does not take the individual as the
principal unit of analysis, but strives to recognize cultural regularities in
participants’ accounts to examine the phenomena studied at a macroso-
ciologic level.

In 1993, Bradley and Sutton wrote that “the serious cultivation of the potential
of qualitative research has yet to emerge” (1993, p. 405). Four years later,
Vakkari (1997, p. 458) concluded that the development in library and informa-
tion studies (LIS) is methodologic proliferation: both quantitative and qualita-
tive techniques are applied, although qualitative techniques have become more
popular, at least for information needs and seeking research. A recent trend in
qualitative research in LIS is the shift of attention from data-gathering methods
to the methods of data description, analysis, and interpretation. Qualitative
methods are increasingly being understood as explicitly theory-dependent ways
of describing, analyzing, and interpreting data. Such approaches as discourse
analysis (Frohmann, 1994), frame analysis (Chelton, 1998), phenomenography
(Bruce & Klaus, 1998), conversation analysis (Solomon, 1997), and deconstruc-
tionism (Olson, 1997) require specific norms and guidelines for data analysis;
they do not use a generally descriptive, hermeneutic, or naturalistic method.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, methodologic discussion in the social sciences was
still essentially bound up in the contrasting of qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods. Although the contrastive model was “neither accurate nor particularly help-
ful” (Sutton, 1993, p. 411), it is the reason why assessments of the merits and weak-

Direct all correspondence to: Sanna Talja, Department of Information Studies, University of Tampere,
P.O. Box 607, FIN-33101, Tampere, Finland ,lisaka@uta.fi..
Library & Information Science Research, Volume 21, Number 4, pages 459–477.
Copyright © 1999 by Elsevier Science Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN: 0740-8188

459
460 Talja

nesses of qualitative research have been almost entirely connected to the data-
gathering phase, whereas the methods of data analysis and interpretation have
often not been discussed in similar detail. The contrastive model is based on the
concept that researchers have to choose between a “humanistic,” subject-centered
approach that aims to capture participants’ indigenous meanings and experiences,
or a “hard,” statistical approach that describes concrete facts or society’s larger
structural processes. In LIS, qualitative methods have mainly been viewed as a
welcome alternative to survey-dominated user studies conducted from the infor-
mation systems’ or institutional point of view (see, e.g., Dervin & Nilan, 1986).
This article introduces a method of qualitative analysis in which the basic ana-
lytic unit is the interpretative repertoire (see Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984; Potter &
Wetherell, 1987; Wetherell & Potter, 1988) and attempts to show the value of a
method of qualitative analysis that does not aim at capturing participants’ au-
thentic intentions, meanings, or experiences. In discourse analysis, interview data
are analyzed at a macrosociologic level, as social texts. Discourse analysis is an
approach that surpasses the dichotomy between subjective meanings and objec-
tive reality, as well as the dichotomy between user-centered and system-centered
research (see Talja, 1997). It concentrates on the analysis of knowledge forma-
tions, which organize institutional practices and societal reality on a large scale.
Discourse analysis is a part of the linguistic turn in the social sciences and the hu-
manities that emphasizes the role of language in the construction of social reality. It
is one of the dominant or mainstream research approaches in communication, soci-
ology, social psychology, and psychology. Although several articles have discussed
the application of discourse analysis in information studies (e.g., Budd & Raber,
1996; Frohmann, 1994; Talja, 1997; Talja et al., 1997; Tuominen & Savolainen,
1997), it has, thus far, been used relatively little as a concrete research method. This
article demonstrates, with examples from a study of library users’ library talk
(Talja, 1998), how the discourses existing in a particular field can be identified.
Some critics have argued that discourse analysis directs LIS researchers’ at-
tention to “private language use.” It should be noted, however, that the term
“discourse” is used within diverse research approaches that do not necessarily
have common theoretical footings. The version of discourse analysis described
in this article differs in focus from the interest in interaction and mundane talk
dominant in discursive social psychology and conversation analysis. As Froh-
mann (1994, p. 120) emphasized, Foucault-influenced discourse analysis does
not study the rules and conventions of mundane talk; rather, it examines “seri-
ous speech acts,” institutionalized talk or practices. This does not mean that the
participants of the study should be institutionally privileged speakers. Instead,
regardless of the roles and positions of the participants, talk is studied as an ex-
ample of more general interpretative practices.
Discourse analysis studies practices of producing knowledge and meanings
in concrete contexts and institutions - be they in library organizations, informa-
tion studies, information society strategies, database interfaces, or the Dewey
Decimal Classification. Discourse analysis systematizes different ways of talk-
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 461

ing to make visible the perspectives and starting points on the basis of which
knowledge and meanings are produced in a particular historical moment. It
pays attention to the way in which discourses produce and transform social re-
ality, and makes it possible to evaluate the practical consequences of different
ways of approaching a particular phenomenon.
The article introduces the basic research strategy of the analysis of interpreta-
tive repertoires: the systematic examination of context-dependent variability in
talk and texts. Second, it explains how the discourses existing in a particular field
can be identified. The terms “discourse” and “interpretative repertoire” are syn-
onyms. The identification of interpretative repertoires is the endpoint of dis-
course analysis, and a repertoire is a named discourse. Third, the article explains
how discourse analysis differs from the hermeneutic reading of qualitative data.
Fourth, the criteria of validity and reliability in qualitative research are discussed.
Finally, the article discusses the application of discourse analysis in LIS research.

CONTEXT-DEPENDENT VARIATION IN INTERVIEW TALK

The constructivist method of interpretation used in discourse analysis problema-

tizes some traditional approaches in qualitative analysis. Interview talk is ap-
proached with very different expectations from how we have learned, as mem-
bers of culture, to interpret people’s talk in everyday life. Participants’ accounts,
or verbal expressions, are not treated as descriptions of actual processes, behav-
ior, or mental events. Interview talk is by nature a cultural and collective phe-
nomenon. The meaning of an answer is not a straightforward matter of external
or internal reference, but also depends on the local and broader discursive sys-
tem in which the utterance is embedded (Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 169).
Qualitative analysis is often started by analyzing and counting the distribution
of answers in a question by question manner. The researcher selects some sec-
tions of participants’ discourse as providing the satisfactory answers to his or her
questions, whereas other parts of participants’ discourse are ignored or treated as
unimportant. It is assumed that this procedure will result in a logical and coherent
picture of the researched groups’ actions or views and can be generalized into
classes of social action (e.g., information-seeking behavior) and into whole
groups of actors (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984). The difficulty with taking a collection
of similar statements produced by participants as literally descriptive of social ac-
tion is the variability in participants’ statements about a particular topic. Not only
do different actors tell different stories, but over an entire interview, it is often ex-
ceedingly difficult to reconstruct or summarize the views of one participant, be-
cause each actor has many different voices (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984, p. 2). The
following illustrative example is from an interview with a user of a public library
music department. Participants were asked to give their views about the main
functions and principles of music library services (see Talja, 1998).
462 Talja

Example 1

Extract 1. Q: What do you think should be taken into account when

building the library collection?

A: Real people, quite simply. It should be the starting point that li-
brary services are for the ordinary people. Although I don’t listen to
mass music, to the Rolling Stones, or to Madonna, it does not mean
that I can deny others such music. If the majority of people like the
music, then the library should offer it. And if I want something spe-
cial, I can ask for it, and they can order it as a remote loan. The library
should take care of ordinary people and their needs, their cultural
needs, and recreational needs. It is the starting point that the library
should serve the majority of people, and it should not be turned into a
money machine, like our government is aiming to do. (Interviewee 8)

Extract 2. Q: Do you think this (music) department’s collection or pro-

file is different from the music you hear on the radio? Or, do you
think the profile should be somehow different?

A: I think the library should be an alternative to mass culture. It should

be an outlet, so that you can find—if you listen only to Radio City or
Radio One, you can’t get a picture of the world of music as a whole. I
think the library should definitely provide alternatives. The library
should be—it can be said that it is—the cradle of counter culture. If it
didn’t exist, people would be much poorer culturally and spiritually.
(Interviewee 8)

In the first interview extract, the interviewee’s response is formulated in the

context of public discussion about library fees, an issue that tends to surface es-
pecially in times of economic recession. In the second extract, the answer is
equally clearly a reaction to the contextualization of the question. The inter-
viewee’s views could naturally be summarized as “the respondent thinks that
the library must serve the majority of people, but that it is also important to
provide alternatives.” However, such summary solutions are problematic, be-
cause consistency is an achievement of the researcher rather than a feature of
the participant’s discourse, and the context-dependent nature and cultural logic
of the answers are missed. In different sections of the interview, the interviewee
approaches the topic from different angles and expresses mutually contradic-
tory views (“if I want something special, I can ask for it as a remote loan,” and
“the library should definitely provide alternatives”). In each section of talk, one
view is convincingly given as the participant’s authentic, fundamental view
about the topic in question, and powerful, persuasive arguments are presented
in support of that view (“the library should not be turned into a money ma-
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 463

chine,” “people would be much poorer culturally and mentally”). Let us take
another example.

Example 2

Extract 1. Q: In your opinion, what should be considered when select-

ing materials to the library collection? If you were a librarian, what
would you emphasize?

A: My starting point would be that the responsibility of the library

is not to represent—in my mind it absolutely may NOT represent—
any school or any direction in particular. To make acquisitions just
because we want to guide people’s tastes. It is not—it must be based on
the demand. It must answer to the USER’S needs. If I were a librarian,
I would register the queries. And then, of course, the ideal situation
would be that the computer system would do this. And one way would
be to conduct research on these users’ needs. (Interviewee 22)

Extract 2. Q: Is there any kind of music you think is not as necessary in

the library collection?

A: No, I think the collection must be balanced. But, of course, it is

quite a well-founded choice now, with all these local radio stations,
many of which function just as—the ether is full of rock and other
kinds of light music, there is so much of that available, from so many
channels, that in comparison to the general societal availability of
classical music, it is not balanced at all. Therefore, that group is in a
minority position when the general availability of music is considered.
And, therefore, in the name of impartiality, this unbalanced situation
could be balanced by investing in classical music. And, it must be con-
sidered that the collection in the library dictates to a considerable ex-
tent the general profile and atmosphere of the library. If, for instance,
some library specialized in rock music, the atmosphere there would
correspond to that. And, the library is, after all, an institution that is
above shopping centers. Yes, I think to offer classical music, in my
opinion the library could guide the person to reach for higher destina-
tions than what he or she might have at this moment, arouse curiosity.
(Interviewee 22)

In the first extract, the interviewee emphasizes that the library should not
strive to cultivate users’ tastes. Collection work should be systematically based
on demand or researched user needs. In the second extract, the library is an in-
stitution that encourages people to aim at higher goals and educates them by its
very atmosphere and the nature of its collections.
464 Talja

PARTICIPANTS’ INTERPRETATION WORK

The kind of variation and inconsistency seen in the extracts is not an exception,
nor is it a product of the interview situation (for similar examples, see Gilbert &
Mulkay, 1984; Machin & Carrithers, 1996; Potter & Mulkay, 1985; Potter &
Wetherell, 1987). Inconsistencies can also easily be found in the answers to sur-
vey questionnaires. However, such variation is usually managed by analytic strat-
egies of restriction, for instance categorization, coding, and selective reading, be-
cause researchers are accustomed to regarding the individual as a coherent,
consistent unit and as the natural starting point for their investigations (Potter &
Wetherell, 1987; Wetherell & Potter, 1988). Variability between the accounts
that people give is not part of this picture. Moreover, it is customary to assume
that the object of talk, for instance the library, exists as a permanent and coherent
whole of which different people simply have different opinions and experiences.1
In the discourse analytic approach, the researcher abandons the assumption
that there is only one truly accurate version of participants’ action and belief. In-
terview talk is, by nature, interpretation work concerning the topic in question. It is
reflexive, theoretical, contextual, and textual, because the objects of talk (e.g., the li-
brary) are not abstract, ideal entities everyone sees in the same way. When talking
about the library, participants do not solely produce a neutral description and ex-
press their opinion. They produce a version of the library (“a cradle of counter cul-
ture,” or “an institution above shopping centers”), and this version contains an
evaluation. As Wittgenstein (1971) has noted, in normal language each expression
not only states, but also evaluates. The nature and essence of the library institution
are defined in interview talk, and speakers’ opinions concern these specific formu-
lations, context-dependent versions of the library. Descriptions, evaluations, and
large-scale cultural models of accounting are inseparably bound together (Potter
& Wetherell, 1987). A third example represents a library professional’s talk.

Example 3

• Users make the library what it is through their own presence. They also se-
lect the library’s collections, if libraries are user-centered.
• At this moment we in the library have to consider very carefully what is
most important for our customers. Is it education, research, and study; is it
recreation and entertainment; or is it the everyday following of events?
We have come to the conclusion that the first consideration is, by far, the

1 This is particularly evident when considering the tradition of social surveys and opinion
polls, which is based on the assumption that neither the questionnaire’s formulation and con-
textualization of the topic nor the persuasiveness and cultural status of particular statements
in a specific moment in time and space significantly affect the answering. It is assumed that
people actually hold such one-dimensional and context-independent opinions as described
by the conclusions the research enabled.
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 465

most important. If we gave up investing in education and study, the conse-

quences would be serious.
• The diversity of the collection has not yet badly suffered. If the library
wants to function as a forum for alternative views, it should not eliminate
the alternatives. We must be able to explain to the customers why this
opinion magazine comes to the library, but not every ladies’ journal.
(From a librarian’s interview, see Verho, 1993, p. 131).
First, there is the user-centered library, then the institution supporting edu-
cation and study, and finally the forum for alternatives. The versions contain
mutually contradictory views about users’ position and influence (“users select
the library’s collections if libraries are user-centered,” and “we must be able to
explain to the customers why this opinion magazine comes to the library, but
not every ladies’ journal”). Again, the example shows that when the topic is ap-
proached from different angles, different aspects of it come into sight and
achieve a privileged position. The “truth” about the library is different and is
supported by different kinds of “facts” (“users make the library what it is,” “if
we gave up investing in education, the consequences would be serious,” and
“the diversity of the collection has not yet badly suffered”).
In discourse analysis, this kind of variability and inconsistency in explana-
tions is not seen as a potential source of error when trying to make coherent
sense of participants’ views. Interview talk is the resourceful, context-depen-
dent application of common interpretative resources. The variability of inter-
pretations does not mean that there is no regularity at all in participants’ dis-
course; it only signifies that regularity cannot be pinned at the level of the
individual speaker (Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 172). There are considerable
similarities in ways of making sense of the library as an institution (e.g., all
three examples contain the “user-centered” library version and the “forum of
alternatives”), but all interpretations and arguments are not equally logical and
acceptable in a particular speech situation. In similar conversational contexts,
similar arguments tend to be used.2
As seen in the extracts, the inconsistencies in answers are not necessarily ev-
ident or a problem for the speakers themselves because in a normal conversa-

2 When interpreting things it is always possible to bring up several different aspects. The
chosen or privileged interpretation depends on the context of talk and to whom the talk is di-
rected. For instance, if an adolescent reader is asked to give her opinion about a Nancy Drew
book, description to her best friend is likely to be different from the one offered to a teacher
in a classroom setting. Both interpretations are equally authentic, because the reading expe-
rience is, in itself, seldom unambiguous. Usually, it consists of multiple, both positively and
negatively experienced, impulses. In the linear process of reading, the reader and the text are
in symbiosis. The reader identifies with the implicit reader of the book (Vainikkala, 1989).
The spoken description of the reading experience is necessarily an afterward rationalization
in which some of all the manifold impulses are chosen as important, and the reading experi-
ence itself receives a form and a meaning.
466 Talja

tion, the speakers are simultaneously able to retain in memory only two or
three of their latest turns (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984). If, however, two different
viewpoints are taken into consideration in the same section of talk, the speak-
ers usually show an awareness of their possible inconsistencies and attempt to
resolve them.3 If this orientation toward resolving potential contradictions does
not appear when different versions of the topic are produced in different sec-
tions of talk, it is a clear sign of the existence of different interpretative reper-
toires (Gilbert & Mulkay, 1984; Wetherell & Potter, 1988).

THE IDENTIFICATION OF INTERPRETATIVE REPERTOIRES

The analysis of interpretative repertoires is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle.

Interviews are not interpreted as stories having a clear and distinguishable mes-
sage and meaning; instead, all the accounts produced by the participants are
taken into consideration and analyzed to identify significant patterns of consis-
tency and variation in them. Thereafter, the researcher starts to ask: What is the
starting point behind this account? On what kinds of limitations of perspective is
this particular description based? What other statements in participants’ inter-
view talk are based on the same perspective? The endpoint of analysis is the sys-
tematic linking of descriptions, accounts, and arguments to the viewpoint from
which they were produced and the naming of the different interpretative reper-
toires—usually by concepts that repeatedly occur in participants’ talk and that
tend to be used when the topic is approached from a particular angle.
The discourses existing in a particular field can be discerned on the basis of
the interpretative conflicts, or points of incompatibility, present in the texts un-
der study (Foucault, 1972, p. 65; Parker, 1992, p. 13). The search for the pattern
of repertoires includes three phases. The first phase consists of the analysis of in-
consistencies and internal contradictions in the answers of one participant. The
second phase consists of the identification of regular patterns in the variability of
accounts: repeatedly occurring descriptions, explanations, and arguments, in dif-
ferent participants’ talk (Potter & Wetherell, 1987). The third phase consists of
identifying the basic assumptions and starting points (in Foucauldian language,
“statements”), that underlie a particular way of talking about a phenomenon.

3 For instance, “the library is a supporter of education”—discourse, the general education

repertoire, and the user-centered demand repertoire are linked together by compromise talk:
the library should make compromises between demand and quality not to exclude any user
group from library services. It is noteworthy that this emphasis does not neutralize the differ-
ences between the two repertoires. The general education repertoire assumes that “demand”
mainly consists of adolescent users’ requests for light pop music, which is not to be acquired
because of its short-lived character. In the demand repertoire, “demand” is defined as the in-
terest structure of the local user community, something to be systematically researched for
the collection work to be successful and economical (Talja, 1998).
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 467

In discourse analysis, inconsistencies in participants’ accounts are inter-

preted as differences between relatively internally consistent interpretative rep-
ertoires. What is, then, an interpretative repertoire? Wetherell and Potter
(1988, p. 172) defined interpretative repertoires as “bounded language units”
constituted out of a restricted range of terms used in a specific stylistic and
grammatical fashion. These terms are derived from one or more key meta-
phors, and the presence of a repertoire will be signaled by certain trophes or
figures of speech (e.g., “cradle of counter culture” and “reach for higher desti-
nations”) (Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 172). Foucault (1972, p. 49), however,
defined a discourse as a practice that systematically forms the objects of which
it speaks. He emphasizes that discourses do not consist merely of single mean-
ings or interpretations: they are knowledge formations, entities that provide an
effective and limited lens for producing knowledge about a topic.
According to Foucault (1972), the internal coherence of a discourse is not based
on: (1) the object of talk, (2) the style or manner of speech, (3) a coherent and log-
ical system of terms, or (4) established themes. When it is possible to discern a lim-
ited viewpoint on the basis of which the objects, style, and themes of talk are selected
and common concepts are defined, one can speak of a discourse (Foucault, 1972).
Interpretative repertoires cannot be “bounded language units” consisting of a
restricted range of terms, because the same terms are used in different discourses
in which their meanings are constituted differently (see Foucault, 1972, pp. 34–35;
1981, pp. 100–101). Language contains only a limited number of concepts, and
distinctions like “alternative,” “commercial,” or “mainstream,” are widely used
in different fields and contexts. Words are many-accented: words having strong
positive connotations, such as “knowledge,” “quality,” or “diversity,” receive di-
vergent social meanings in different discourses and contexts of speaking (Volosi-
nov, 1986). Discourses interpret common concepts (like “demand”; see footnote
3) in a way that corresponds to the viewpoint on which the discourse is based.
Thus the different starting points of discourses are discernible from the way
common concepts are understood and defined. Terms that have been linked to-
gether on the basis of a particular background assumption lose their link on the ba-
sis of a different assumption and are linked to other words. Discourses are also clas-
sification practices: analyzing discourses involves analyzing the selection, linkage,
and ordering of terms.4 Words are articulated with other words differently in dis-
courses, and they implicate different ideas and ideologies. As Volosinov (1986) put

4 Saussure (1983) has noted that the signs of language describe values, not real and permanent
“essences.” Language is basically a system of distinctions in which the meaning of a single word
depends on its difference from other words. Language consists of distinctions, but, in permanent
use, a word can become cemented as one-accented, so that it seems to have only one unchange-
able meaning (Volosinov, 1986). That is why it is not necessarily noted that talk about “quality,”
for instance, can be meaningful only if it has opposites, entities that are not considered to repre-
sent quality. However, “quality” must also be linked with attributes, which specify the meaning of
the term by their presence. One significant point of incompatibility in library talk can be found in
interpretations of what kinds of entities represent and which attributes define “quality.”
468 Talja

it, all the minuscule and passing moments of social changes are crystallized in
words.
There are simultaneously several more-or-less conflicting discourses existing
in a particular field of knowledge or a particular institution at a certain point in
time, because novel or alternative interpretations emerge as corrections to
prior discourses. These earlier discourses appear in some respects erroneous or
one sided. Changes in social experiences and possibilities slowly render histori-
cally strong discourses less valid and accurate. These discourses seem to misin-
terpret some of the essential features or the “true nature” of the discussed phe-
nomenon. Established ways of conceptualizing and approaching phenomena do
not, however, vanish as their validity begins to be questioned. Novel interpreta-
tions gradually become established, and alternative discourses exist side by side
in the same field of knowledge. That is why discourses are internally relatively
coherent, but mutually contradictory and alternative.

STATEMENTS AND ABSENCES

According to Foucault (1972), each discourse is based on a few background as-

sumptions that he calls statements. Statements are unspoken theories about the
nature of things, and they are the necessary and implicit starting points behind
a particular way of speaking about a topic. On the basis of the statements, a
particular state of things is assumed (e.g., “if we gave up investing in education,
the consequences would be serious”). The statements building a discourse pro-
vide a particular angle from which a topic is approached, and they limit other
ways in which the topic could be constructed (Hall, 1992, p. 291).5 This limiting
effect of statements leads to absences. Some possible interpretations or expla-
nations are not voiced or even thought of when the topic is approached from a
particular viewpoint (Foucault, 1972). The perspective that builds a discourse
involves, above all, strategic selection of meanings. Discourses differ from one
another in what kinds of (factual) statements about the nature of things they le-
gitimize and in what kinds of meanings are absent or ignored.
In the examples, the speakers legitimized their views by appealing to gener-
ally accepted “facts”: “the ether is full of rock and other kinds of light music,”
“you can’t get a picture of music as a whole by listening only to the radio,” and
“if we gave up investing in education, the consequences would be serious.” It
could equally well be claimed that there are radio channels (at least in Finland)
that only play classical music, that the supply of publicly funded radio channels

5 For instance, the “guide for higher destinations” library metaphor is based on the state-
ment that there are cultural products that educate, or lead to spiritual growth, and that
merely entertain. The “cradle of counter culture” metaphor is based on the classification of
cultural products to commercial and conventional “mainstream” and noncommercial, devi-
ant “counter culture” or “alternatives.”
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 469

aims at broadness, and that the function of school and academic libraries is to
support education and study. However, the facts legitimizing a particular ver-
sion of reality are rarely ever simply true or false (Foucault, 1972). The variabil-
ity in participants’ accounts results from the fact that even generally accepted
facts or empirically supported truths, and logical, well-founded opinions can be
in conflict with one another (Billig et al., 1988). The constitution, interpreta-
tion, and weighing of facts always depend on what is considered important,
valuable, or desirable. Volosinov (1986) emphasized it is always a particular
viewpoint, or horizon of evaluation, that brings “the facts” into speakers’ sight.
When made visible, the statements building a discourse are always relative,
susceptible to dispute and denial (Foucault, 1972). However, because statements
are a part of an established and naturalized way of speaking, they are not nor-
mally, in themselves, taken under scrutiny. The utterances produced on the basis
of established discourses are normally received simply as “grammatical,” that is,
as logical and believable descriptions of “how things are” (Foucault, 1972).
Discourses, in the context of their rules and conceptualizations, provide the
space in which things can be talked about (Hall, 1992, p. 291). On one hand,
they limit the ways in which it is possible to make sense of things, but on the
other hand, they provide conflicting and variable viewpoints. As discourses
provide the language for talking about a topic, for presenting knowledge and
views, in a profound sense, they construct the lived reality (Hall, 1992; Wether-
ell & Potter, 1988). The perspectives and horizons of interpretation that give
structure to social action, practices, and relationships are not normally con-
sciously reflected, because they are part of the everyday order of things. The
choices of perspectives also have practical consequences, but analyzing these
consequences does not mean speculating about individual speakers’ intentions.
It means exploring the connotations, allusions, and implications that particular
discursive forms evoke (Foucault, 1972, 1980; Parker, 1992). Discourses are not
individuals’ creations: they have taken their shape with the passage of time,
they reflect the whole history of the societal form, and they have effects that no
one has consciously intended.

INTERVIEWS AS SOCIAL TEXTS

Discourse analysts are not interested in processes taking place either in individ-
uals’ minds or in reality. They concentrate on the regularities of language use:
what kinds of descriptions and accounts of a topic are possible, what kinds of
evaluations are they based on, how do different modes of accounting construct
different versions of the topic or produce different kinds of truths, and what do
these versions accomplish (Wetherell & Potter, 1988). It is seen that discourses
are “historical facts,” but the speakers using them, topics to which they are ap-
plied, and attitudes toward them can, and do, change continuously (Foucault,
1972; Machin & Carrithers, 1996).
470 Talja

The basic assumption of discourse analysis is that interview answers are

manufactured out of preexisting linguistic resources with properties of their
own, “much as a bridge is put together using girders, concrete and cable”
(Wetherell & Potter, 1988, p. 171). Historically formed discourses are reposito-
ries of starting points, definitions and themes that position the speakers as they
give meanings to phenomena (Hall, 1982; Parker, 1992). Many researchers find
this idea objectionable because it seems to render individuals into “opinion au-
tomats.” If people change their attitudes from moment to moment and from
setting to setting, what is left to give direction to their actions? When looked at
more closely, the idea that discourses produce both the objects of which they
speak and the speaking subjects, is no more objectionable than Wittgenstein’s
(1971) well-taken critique of private languages. For example, the interview ex-
tracts showed how the speakers used culturally strong interpretations about the
societal function of the library institution in a way that enabled them to present
their views, argue for them, and defend them in an effective and convincing
way. In this process, the participants allowed themselves to embody different
kinds of persons, or, to put it more precisely, the subject positions offered by
discourses provided them with varying identities. In the first section of Extract
2, the interviewee first aligned herself against librarians wanting to guide tastes.
In the second section, the same interviewee aligned herself with librarians who
could encourage people to reach for goals higher than their present aspirations.
Similarly, the library professional first established distance from a library-cen-
tered perspective by saying that it is users who make the library what it is. This
person then talked about “we in the library” who must make the important de-
cisions and be able to explain them to the users.
This kind of navigation between different subject positions, or temporary
identities and categories of person, strongly clashes with the traditional view
that qualitative research should aim at capturing the speakers’ authentic inten-
tions, experiences, meanings, or behavior. This aim is based on a conception of
individuals holding a static set of attitudes, values, or knowledge structures
across different occasions, unaffected by local conversational settings or cul-
tural resources of interpretation. Discourse analysis emphasizes that subjects
are not as unidimensional, sovereign, and static as is commonly assumed, be-
cause in different social contexts and speech situations, the individual uses vari-
able linguistic resources and moves between different discourses quite naturally
and skillfully (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
The starting point of discourse analysis is that meanings, values, and ethical
principles are not individual creations, but entities that people create together
in communication and social action. This view of language, mind, meaning, and
selfhood is dialogic, emphasizing that we are not “self-contained” (Sampson,
1993) selves, but “owe our character as the individuals we are to our living, em-
bodied relations to the others and othernesses around us” (Shotter, 1998, p. 1).
As Bakhtin (1984, p. 287) put it: “To be means to communicate. . . . To be
means to be for another, and through the other, for oneself. A person has no in-
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 471

ternal, sovereign territory, he is wholly and always on the boundary; looking in-
side himself, he looks into the eyes of another or with the eyes of another.”
It may seem irrelevant whether the research object is defined as the subject’s
sensemaking or linguistic practices. Surely, talk expresses what is in an individ-
ual’s mind. In normal life people do have to act on the basis of the assumption
that language straightforwardly and accurately describes both mental events
and the outside reality. However, language is not just a tool to be taken up and
put down at will, when we have something to communicate (Williams, 1977).
Language is also an indispensable part of the subject’s self-understanding, be-
cause words are present in every act of interpretation (Volosinov, 1986).
According to Bakhtin (1981), the words of language are always half someone
else’s: when individuals use words, they formulate themselves and their
thoughts from the point of others, from the point of view of their community.
Words become speakers’ “own” as they use them for their own purposes, in-
clude their own intentions in them (Bakhtin, 1981). Individuals cannot, how-
ever, invent new words to express their intentions. They have to use the same
expressions that have been used countless times before (Volosinov, 1986). For
instance, libraries are routinely defined as providers of education and recre-
ation, even if at closer reflection people probably do not think that serious
reading could not be entertaining, or that entertainment could not educate. It is
as if the words called for quotation marks to be set around them. “Language’s
own talk” is, however, supreme in its power compared with individual speakers’
views, because preexisting conceptualizations and ways of classifying phenom-
ena have to be used even by speakers whose conscious intention it is to oppose
them (Hall, 1982). Individuals are not able to modify the resources of interpre-
tation freely because they are limited by the episteme of a specific cultural and
historical phase. However, discourses, like individuals, are variable, conflicting,
and continuously changing and developing.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY IN DISCOURSE ANALYTIC RESEARCH

Alasuutari (1995) distinguishes between two different approaches in the analy-

sis of qualitative interview data, the factist and specimen perspectives. In the
factist approach, researchers want to find out about the actual behavior or atti-
tudes of the participants. The analysis concentrates on the contents of interview
answers, which reveal something about phenomena or processes occurring ei-
ther in participants’ inner realities or in external reality. These phenomena or
processes are the true object of study, and therefore the factist perspective
makes a clear distinction between research data and the reality about which it
gives information (Alasuutari, 1995, p. 54). If the object of study is information-
seeking behavior, for instance, it is seen that observation or self-observation
provides more direct and reliable research data than interviews. Interviews pro-
vide secondary, interpreted data, which can be influenced by the research situa-
472 Talja

tion and participants’ ability to remember past information-seeking situations.

In the factist perspective, the reliability of research results depends on how un-
biased and accurate is the information the interview answers provide about the
phenomenon studied.
The criteria of validity and reliability are very different in the specimen per-
spective. Interview answers are analyzed as linguistic expressions, not as facts
about how users think or behave. Participants’ expressions are examined from
not only the point of view of their content and meaning, but also from their im-
plications and effects in constructing different versions of reality. The reliability
of research results does not depend on the trustworthiness of participants’ an-
swers, because even a speaker who lies applies cultural forms and interpretative
resources that, in themselves, are neither true or false, but simply exist (Silver-
man, 1985). In the specimen perspective, no research data are in themselves
more authentic, unbiased, or accurate description of reality. All forms of talk
and texts represent situated speech that provides evidence of the various ways
in which a particular phenomenon can be approached. Research data do not
describe reality; rather, they are specimens of interpretative practices.
In the specimen perspective, the validity and reliability of research results do
not depend on the empirical level, the nature of research materials, or on the
nature of researcher–researched interactions. The reliability of findings de-
pends on the verifiability of the researcher’s interpretations. The interpreta-
tions must, in a consistent and identifiable way, be based on the research data.
In discourse analysis, extracts from the texts studied have a different role in the
research report than in the factist perspective. The texts are not descriptions of
the object of research; they are the object of research. Text extracts are a neces-
sary basis for the researcher’s argumentation in the research report, and they
also provide the linguistic evidence for the researcher’s interpretations (Potter
& Wetherell, 1987).
In the factist perspective, research results are usually more generalizable
when the quantity of data is large. In the specimen perspective, the question of
generalizability is approached from a different direction: a key concept is possi-
bility (Peräkylä, 1997). Social practices that are possible, that is, possibilities of
language use, are the central objects of analysis. The possibility of a particular
model of interpretation can be considered generalizable even when it cannot be
shown how widely the model is used across different settings. Usually, there is
no logical reason to doubt that a particular model of argumentation could not
be used by any competent member of society. The research results are not gen-
eralizable as descriptions of how things are, but as how a phenomenon can be
seen or interpreted.
The aim of discourse analysis is to produce interpretations that are intrinsi-
cally macrosociologic. This does not mean the quantity of research data should
be large. Even one interview may suffice to indicate what kinds of interpreta-
tions are possible. Because discourse analysis is very labor intensive, it makes
sense to start with a thorough analysis of a few interviews. The model of inter-
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 473

pretative repertoires identified is then tested against a larger set of data. In this
process, the model also becomes more detailed and rich, and the researcher’s
understanding of the starting points and statements behind different ways of
talking increases.
In the factist approach, the reliability of research findings can be increased
by methodologic triangulation using multiple data-gathering methods (e.g., ob-
servation, interviews, and diary techniques). In the study of interpretative prac-
tices, the reliability and generalizability of research findings can be enhanced
by combining different types of research materials, interviews, and written
texts, and by contextual triangulation. According to Foucault (1972), one crite-
rion for the existence of a “discourse” is that it is used in a variety of contexts
and that it can be applied in the handling of a variety of themes. If the analysis
of interviews can be extended by making explicit comparisons between differ-
ent settings or contexts of discussion, the research does not comprise a case
study with restricted generalizability.
In the study used as an example in this article, the interpretative repertoires
found in users’ library talk were compared with handbooks of music library ac-
tivity and library professionals’ writings. The themes and concepts that were
disputed in professional discourse were also themes of discussion in users’ talk.
Next, library talk was compared with texts outlining broadcasting and radio
politics, as well as official reports outlining governmental cultural policy. All
these texts contained the same conflicting viewpoints (which were called the
general education repertoire, the alternative repertoire, and the demand reper-
toire). In this way, it could be shown how the formation of the library institu-
tion, often viewed as a product of library professionals’ action, depends on
more general, historical knowledge formations.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS AS A RESEARCH METHOD IN LIS

This article has described a method of analyzing qualitative interview data in

which the basic analytic unit is an interpretative repertoire and which system-
atizes the discourses existing in a particular field or institutional context. Dis-
course analysis differs significantly from the hermeneutic and factist methods of
reading qualitative interview data because it is, in a way, indifferent toward in-
dividual speakers’ intentions. However, the hermeneutic research approach
that aims at capturing the speakers’ authentic meanings can sometimes be quite
univocal, dominated by the authorial voice of the researcher (Gilbert &
Mulkay, 1984). Discourse analysis focuses on the variability of interpretations
and brings out the starting points and background assumptions that are rarely
voiced but that are implicitly a part of a particular way of talking about things
(Parker, 1992). It makes visible “ongoing conversations,” important debates,
and interpretative conflicts existing in the society, and the genuine ambivalence
of many social questions and issues.
474 Talja

Looking at the constitution of discursive practices is a more practical re-

search interest than what it may seem, because discourses mediate nearly all
understandings of the world. It is not possible to produce meanings that are ul-
timately realized as practices other than by the linguistic tools and conceptual-
izations provided by discourses. Discourses do not only express, for instance,
the library institution’s meanings, they in fact make it possible to produce
meanings about the library. That is why the way in which meanings are orga-
nized is also the way in which a particular organization is organized (Taylor &
Van Every, 1993).
What, then, is the value of this research approach for LIS? Like all meth-
odologies, discourse analysis is, to some extent, a research program of its
own. It directs the researchers’ attention to particular questions and phenom-
ena. Most discourse analytic studies in LIS have, thus far, concentrated on the
professional discourse of LIS (e.g., Budd & Raber, 1998; Frohmann, 1992;
1997; Radford & Radford, 1997; Tuominen, 1998). Frohmann (1994) empha-
sized that studies of information users form a major component in LIS re-
search, and therefore the single most important task for discourse analysts is
to study the ways in which information, its users, and its uses are constructed
in LIS theories. Although this is indeed an important area for research, this
article has suggested that discourse analysts study interpretative practices in
general. To study serious speech acts and institutionalized talk, the speakers
of the study need not be institutionally privileged speakers. For instance, in-
formation-seeking narratives, reading narratives, information society narra-
tives, Internet narratives, and library narratives can be studied from a variety
of texts. The combination of interviews and written texts, or texts represent-
ing different contexts of discussion, enhance the generalizability of research
results.
Discourse analysis is, in a way, a most traditional research approach because
it has a close relationship to rhetoric, which was the established form of critical
analysis from the ancient world to the 18th century. Rhetoric examined the way
in which texts are woven together to achieve particular effects. No difference
was made between talk and writing, or philosophy and fiction, as objects of
study. All texts were analyzed in the same way as forms of social action, power,
and public persuasion.
Similarly, the aim of discourse analysis is not only to identify interpretative
repertoires, but to point out the power and influence of particular narratives
and to analyze their potential societal and institutional functions and effects.
This is not to say that discourse analysts should argue that some discourses are
inherently more truthful and valuable than others. The uses and effects of dis-
courses are context dependent. However, it is a central feature of discourses,
knowledge formations, that they organize social reality at a large scale. The aim
of discourse analysis is to make it possible for the readers to weigh the practical
consequences of different discourses and to show the problems and possibilities
created by their existence (Potter & Wetherell, 1987).
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 475

REFERENCES

Alasuutari, Pertti. (1995). Researching culture: Qualitative method and cultural

studies. London, England: Sage.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin, TX: University of
Texas Press.
Bakhtin, Mikhail. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Billig, Michael, Condor, Susan, Edwards, Derek, Gane, Mike, Middleton,
David, & Radley, Alan. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology
of everyday thinking. London, England: Sage.
Bradley, Jana, & Sutton, Brett. (1993). Reframing the paradigm debate. Li-
brary Quarterly, 63, 405–409.
Bruce, Christine, & Klaus, Helmut. (1998). Phenomenography: Opening a new
territory for LIS research. New Review of Library and Information Science
Research (in press).
Budd, John M., & Raber, Douglas. (1996). Discourse analysis: Method and ap-
plication in the study of information. Information Processing & Manage-
ment, 32, 217–226.
Budd, John M., & Raber, Douglas. (1998). The cultural state of the Fin de Mil-
lenaire library. Library Quarterly, 68, 55–79.
Chelton, Mary K. (1998). The “overdue kid”: A face-to-face library service encoun-
ter as ritual interaction. Library & Information Science Research 19, 387–399.
Dervin, Brenda, & Nilan, Michael. (1986). Information needs and uses. In Mar-
tha E. Williams (Ed.), Annual review of information science and technology,
Vol. 21 (pp. 3–33). White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry.
Foucault, Michel. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London, England:
Routledge.
Foucault, Michel. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writ-
ings 1972–77. Brighton: Harvester Press.
Foucault, Michel. (1981). The history of sexuality: An introduction. Harmond-
sworth, England: Penguin.
Frohmann, Bernd. (1992). Knowledge and power in library and information
service: Toward a discourse analysis of the cognitive viewpoint. In Pertti
Vakkari & Blaise Cronin (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information
science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives (pp. 135–148).
London, England: Taylor Graham.
Frohmann, Bernd. (1994). Discourse analysis as a research method in library and
information science. Library & Information Science Research, 16, 119–138.
Frohmann, Bernd. (1997). “Best books” and excited readers: Discursive ten-
sions in the writings of Melvil Dewey. Libraries & Culture, 32, 349–371.
Gilbert, N. Nigel, & Mulkay, Michael. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box. A socio-
logical analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
476 Talja

Hall, Stuart. (1982). The rediscovery of “ideology”: Return of the repressed in

media studies. In Michael Gurevich, Tony Bennett, James Curran, & Janet
Woollacott (Eds.), Culture, society and the media (pp. 56–90). London, En-
gland: Methuen.
Hall, Stuart. (1992). The West and the rest: Discourse and power. In Stuart Hall
& Bram Gieben (Eds.), Formations of modernity (pp. 275–320). Cam-
bridge, England: Polity Press/Open University.
Machin, David, & Carrithers, Michael. (1996). From “interpretative communi-
ties” to “communities of improvisation.” Media, Culture & Society, 18, 343–
352.
Olson, Hope A. (1997). The feminist and the emperor’s new clothes: Feminist
deconstruction as a critical methodology for library and information stud-
ies. Library & Information Science Research, 19, 181–198.
Parker, Ian. (1992). Discourse dynamics: Critical analysis for social and individ-
ual psychology. London, England: Routledge.
Peräkylä, Anssi. (1997). Reliability and validity in research based on tapes and
transcripts. In David Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method
and practice (pp. 201–220). London, England: Sage.
Potter, Jonathan, & Mulkay, Michael. (1985). Scientists’ interview talk: Inter-
views as a technique for revealing participants’ interpretative practices. In
Michael Brenner, Jennifer Brown, & David Canter (Eds.), The research in-
terview: Uses and approaches. (pp. 247–271). London, England: Academic
Press.
Potter, Jonathan, & Wetherell, Margaret. (1987). Discourse and social psychol-
ogy. Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London, England: Sage.
Radford, Marie L., & Radford, Gary P. (1997). Power, knowledge, and fear:
Feminism, Foucault, and the stereotype of the female librarian. Library
Quarterly, 67, 250–266.
Sampson, Edward. (1993). Celebrating the other: A dialogic account of human
nature. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. (1983). Course in general linguistics. London, England:
Duckworth.
Shotter, John. (1998, in press). Life inside the dialogically structured mind: Ba-
khtin’s and Volosinov’s account of the mind as out in the world between us.
In John Rowan & Mick Cooper (Eds.), The plural self: Polypsychic
perspectives. London, England: Sage. ,http: www.massey.ac.nz/zAlock/
virtual/rowan.htm..
Silverman, David. (1985). Qualitative methodology and sociology. Describing
the social world. Aldershot, England: Gower.
Solomon, Paul. (1997). Conversation in information-seeking contexts: A test of
an analytic framework. Library & Information Science Research, 19, 217–
248.
Sutton, Brett. (1993). The rationale for qualitative research: A review of princi-
ples and theoretical foundations. Library Quarterly, 63, 411–430.
 Analyzing Qualitative Interview Data 477

Talja, Sanna. (1997). Constituting “information” and “user” as research objects.

A theory of knowledge formations as an alternative to the information man-
theory. In Pertti Vakkari, Reijo Savolainen, & Brenda Dervin (Eds.), Infor-
mation seeking in context (pp. 67–80). London, England: Taylor Graham.
Talja, Sanna. (1998). Musiikki, kulttuuri, kirjasto: Diskurssien analyysi. Tam-
pere, Finland: Taju.
Talja, Sanna, Heinisuo, Rami, Pispa, Kirsi, Luukkainen, Sinikka, & Järvelin,
Kalervo. (1997). Discourse analysis in the development of a regional infor-
mation service. In LIS research and professional practice: 2nd British Nor-
dic conference on library and information studies (pp. 109–128). London,
England: Taylor Graham.
Taylor, James R., & Van Every, Elizabeth J. (1993). The vulnerable fortress:
Bureaucratic organization and management in the information age. Tor-
onto, Canada: University of Toronto, Ontario.
Tuominen, Kimmo. (1998). User-centered discourse: An analysis of the subject
positions of the user and the librarian. Library Quarterly, 67, 350–371.
Tuominen, Kimmo, & Savolainen, Reijo. (1997). A social constructionist ap-
proach to the study of information use as a discursive action. In Pertti
Vakkari, Reijo Savolainen, & Brenda Dervin (Eds.), Information seeking in
context (pp. 81–98). London, England: Taylor Graham.
Vainikkala, Erkki. (1989). Concretization and connotation: Metaphorical and
ideological structures in the process of reception. In Erkki Vainikkala &
Katarina Eskola (Eds.), Literature as communication (pp. 73–90).
Jyväskylä: Nykykulttuurin tutkimusyksikön julkaisuja 18.
Vakkari, Pertti. (1997). Information seeking in context: A challenging metathe-
ory. In Pertti Vakkari, Reijo Savolainen, & Brenda Dervin (Eds.), Informa-
tion seeking in context (pp. 451–464). London, England: Taylor Graham.
Verho, Seppo. (1993). Diversity is critical. Kirjastolehti, 5, 130–131.
Volosinov, Valentin. (1986). Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wetherell, Margaret, & Potter, Jonathan. (1988). Discourse analysis and the
identification of interpretive repertoires. In Charles Antaki (Ed.), Analysing
everyday experience: A casebook of methods (pp. 168–183). London, En-
gland: Sage.
Williams, Raymond. (1977). Marxism and literature. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. (1971). Philosophical investigations. Oxford, England:
Basil Blackwell.