The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1352-2752.htm

COMMENTARY

A discourse analytical approach

to qualitative marketing research
Per Skalen

A discourse
analytical
approach
103

The Service Research Center, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to introduce to marketing a discourse analytical framework on which
future qualitative marketing research can draw.
Design/methodology/approach The methodology is to utilize Michel Foucaults works and the
discourse theory of Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe.
Findings A discourse analytical framework for qualitative marketing research consisting of six
central concepts turning points, problematizations, articulations, nodal points, hegemony and
deconstruction is outlined.
Originality/value The discourse analytical framework outlined can be used in future qualitative
marketing research. It is mainly of value to marketing researchers.
Keywords Marketing, Research, Situation analysis
Paper type Viewpoint

Introduction
Marketing research is little influenced by discourse analysis. Therefore, the aim of this
paper is to introduce to marketing a discourse analytical framework which future
qualitative marketing research can draw on. Following the broad definition of Phillips
and Jrgensen (2002, p. 1), discourse is defined as a particular way of talking about
and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world). Accordingly, from a
discourse analytical perspective, behaviour and action is always mediated by
discourse implying that a discourse analytical perspective on marketing research
studies all type of practices discursive, cognitive or social through discourse. The
framework presented in the present paper draws on the work of Michel Foucault (see,
e.g. 1981, 1985a, b) and on the discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe (1985). Foucault
has received much attention in management studies during the last 20 years (see
Alvesson and Willmott, 2003 for an overview), with the work of Laclau and Mouffe
also having been acknowledged (Willmott, 2005).
The paper is structured around presenting the key notions of the suggested
discourse analytical framework which are: turning points; significant changes of
marketing discourse, problematizations; the occurrences that lead to a turning point,
articulations; which redirects the meaning of marketing discourse, nodal points; the
privileged signs of marketing discourse that give it coherent meaning, hegemony; the
world-view inherent in an articulation that dominates marketing discourse and,
deconstruction; the activity of displaying that the hegemony of marketing discourse is
contingent and that it can be articulated differently.

Qualitative Market Research: An

International Journal
Vol. 13 No. 2, 2010
pp. 103-109
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1352-2752
DOI 10.1108/13522751011032566

QMRIJ
13,2

104

Turning points and problematizations

The notion of turning points has been used as a periodization principle in research into
marketing history. Hollander et al. (2005, p. 37) argues that marketing historians have
relied on identifying important turning points in the material itself under review
which can include significant changes in marketing methods, in economic conditions,
and so on. Foucault (see, e.g. 2000) uses the notion of turning points not as a
periodization principle but to refer more generally to changes in the discourses and
practices that he studied. In line with Foucaults understanding of turning points the
notion in the present paper is defined as all kind of changes of marketing discourse.
Examples of turning points are the introduction of the marketing concept which gave
marketing research a new direction or changes in marketing strategy from transaction
to relationship marketing in an organization.
Defining turning points as significant changes, however, is a rather imprecise
definition. The general nature of a turning point has to be given a more precise
meaning. Why does the direction of marketing discourses change? What is needed in
order for this to happen? In order to answer these questions, the notion of
problematization will be introduced. Problematizations can be considered to be
Foucaults concept signifying the reasons and occurrences that lead to a change of
marketing discourses and practice, i.e. to a turning point (see, e.g. Foucault, 1981,
1985a, b). By problematizations, Foucault (1981) more precisely meant the way a
discourse is associated with questioning and interrogating the past and/or present.
Consequently, problematizations refers to the questioning of the discursive order such
as the questioning of previous marketing research in the 1950s that lead to the
introduction of the marketing concept or the questioning of transaction orientated
marketing in a firm introducing relationship marketing.
Discourse theory
Identifying the problematizations and turning points of marketing discourse is thus the
starting point for the discourse analytical scheme outlined here. But problematizations
and turning points can be considered methodologically empty concepts. Merely
saying that the analysis should focus on turning points and problematizations of
discourse is not sufficient. We also need to explicate how turning points and
problematizations should be described and analyzed more specifically. In this section,
the aim is to develop a more precise discourse analytical position by drawing on the
discourse theory of Laclau and Mouffe (1985).
Discourse and its parts
In elaborating an understanding of discourse in general, and marketing discourse in
particular, as well as how to analyze it, the point of departure is a much cited passage
from Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, the most pivotal work of Laclau and Mouffe:
. . .we will call articulation any practices establishing a relation among elements such that
their identity is modified as a result of the articulatory practice. The structured totality
resulting from the articulatory practice, we will call discourse. The differential positions,
insofar as they appear articulated within a discourse, we will call moments. By contrast, we
will call element any differences that is not discursively articulated (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985,
p. 105; emphasis in the original).

This short quote summarizes four of the most pivotal concepts of the discursive theory
of Laclau and Mouffe articulation, discourse, moment, and element and also says
something about the basic relationship between them. Based on Laclau and Mouffe,
discourse is thus understood as the fixation of meaning within a particular domain
(Phillips and Jrgensen, 2002, p. 26). Moments are the building blocks of discourse.
They are signs whose meaning is fixed due to their distinctness in relation to other
moments. It is the practice of articulating that establishes this distinct relationship
between moments and gives them their meaning. It is thus the total structure and
network of relationships between moments established by articulations which fixates
the meanings of moments constituting a particular discourse.
Even though this definition of discourse is theoretically distinct, it is also something
of an ideal type of definition since such fixed structures seldom exist. Laclau and
Mouffe (1985) acknowledge this and argue that the fixation of meaning is always
contingent. Their understanding of contingency is based on the introduction of the
notion of element, defined as the signs which lack a fixed meaning and which are,
accordingly, ambiguous. By introducing the notion of element, Laclau and Mouffe
(1985) thus relax the structuralism that is inherent in their definition of discourse. But
this does not mean that they have completely broken with structuralism or that their
definition of discourse should be understood as entirely idealistic. In the above quote,
for example, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) define elements as not discursively
articulated. In order to account for the articulation of meaning outside a particular
discourse, e.g. meanings that signs have had previously and meanings that signs are
given in other discourses, Laclau and Mouffe (1985) introduce the field of discursivity.
A discourse is always constituted in relation to what it excludes and, consequently, in
relation to the signs that are situated outside the discourse. But this also implies that a
discourse might be undermined by the element in the field of discursivity: its unity of
meaning is in danger of being disrupted by other ways of fixing the meaning of the
signs (Phillips and Jrgensen, 2002, p. 27). Therefore, a particular discourse tries to
turn elements into moments, thus appropriating signs.
Nodal points
Where does this take us? Laclau and Mouffes position should be understood thus: it
can be productive to picture and perceive discourse as a temporary closure of
meaning-giving. But this closure the transformation of elements into moments is
never complete; it is always contingent. Accordingly, discourse can always be opened
up and its meaning re-defined. Exactly how closed the language of a particular
domain has to be in order to constitute a discourse about the domain it refers to is not
determined by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) and of course it is hard, and possibly not
constructive, to set up such a rule. However, they claim that Any discourse is
constituted as an attempt to dominate the field of discursivity, to arrest the flow of
differences, to construct a centre. We will call the privileged discursive points of this
partial fixation nodal points (Laclau and Mouffe, 1985, p. 112, emphasis in original).
To interpret Laclau and Mouffe, discourse exists when meaning is structured around
and given meaning by one or several nodal points (Phillips and Jrgensen, 2002). Nodal
points are moments that have a heuristic position in the structure of the moments that
constitute discourse. The implication is that discourse, in the present paper, is defined

A discourse
analytical
approach
105

QMRIJ
13,2

106

as a relatively closed fixation of signs referring to a particular domain where no more

than a few nodal points have a heuristic meaning-giving position. If this closure does
not exist for a specific domain, then there will not be a discourse for this domain,
implying that the domain itself is arbitrary and blurred.
The discussion hitherto enables the refinement of the notion of problematizations
and turning points introduced above. Expressed in the language of Laclau and Mouffe
(1985), problematizations include two operations; they open up discourse and they
attempt to close it. Problematizations thus turn the moments of a discourse into
elements. If the problematization does not successfully accomplish this, it cannot be
considered a problematization, merely an attempt to problematize discourse. When
opened up, the specific articulatory practice inherent in all problematizations tries to
turn the elements into moments, as well as to reconstitute the relationship between
moments relative to how this relationship was arranged before the problematization.
This second move is thus an attempt to reconstitute the meaning of the discourse.
Problematizations directed toward nodal points have greater power to establish the
new relationship between the moments which are immanent to the inherent
articulatory practice of the problematization since it targets the core of the discourse.
Even though problematizations always involve articulatory practices these do not need
to be successful or realized in order for the problematization to be seen as a
problematization. The attempt might be meet by other articulatory practices aimed at
securing the status quo or changing the discourse in other ways. But, if the articulation
of the problematization rearranges the discourse, we will have experienced a turning
point. Thus, problematizations are the occurrences that lead to a turning point but this
is not necessarily always the case.
In order to return to the examples used in the previous section the marketing
concept in the language of discourse theory managed to open up managerial marketing
theory, re-articulate it, and close it again securing that marketing management became
the dominant school of marketing thought. In a similar manner a successful
replacement of transaction marketing by relationship marketing in an organization
implies that relationship marketing opens up the transaction orientated marketing
discourse, re-articulate it along the lines of the central meaning of relationship
marketing and close it.
Hegemony
Even though the framework outlined here understands discourse to be contingent, the
struggles for meaning might eventually end almost completely, which may lead to a
closure where the fixation of meaning becomes taken for granted to the degree that it is
perceived to be given by nature. Discourses whose contingency has in this way been
hidden it is called objective, in contrast to those that are contingent, which it is called
political (see Laclau, 1990; Phillips and Jrgensen, 2002). The movement from political
to objective discourse is mediated by hegemonic interventions, which are certain ways
of perceiving the world leading to the establishment of hegemony, meaning that the
worldview that a hegemonic intervention embeds will come to dominate a particular
discourse. When a particular discourse is dominated by one such worldview, we call it
hegemonic or objective.

If we again reflect on the notions of turning points and problematizations, from the
perspective of discourse theory, we will conceive of hegemonic interventions as
representing one important type of problematization. As argued previously,
problematizations open up and attempt to close discourse. A hegemonic intervention
is a problematization which, by definition, always manages to close discourse in a way
that is in line with its inherent articulatory practice(s). It is thus a problematization that
redirects the meaning of discourse and hence problematizations leads lead up to a
turning point.
This discussion can also be related to the marketing concept which managed to
make marketing management the dominating school of marketing thought and thus
constituted a hegemonic intervention. It can also be related to successful
implementation of relationship marketing in an organization which requires that
relationship marketing get a hegemonic position in the local marketing discourse.
Thus, successful implementation of relationship marketing can be seen as a hegemonic
intervention.
It must, however, be noted that objective discourse and hegemonic discourse are not
the same thing. Even though hegemonic discourse is dominated by one way of framing
the world, its hegemony has not completely institutionalized it. Struggles over meaning
still take place. As long as its hegemony is intact, these struggles will never succeed in
challenging the existing order. However, hegemonic discourse is always open to such
challenges. When discourse is objective, its hegemony is completely taken-for-granted,
meaning that alternative articulations of its central meaning are impossible to
articulate inside the discourse. The hegemonic should thus be situated between the
political and the objective, and hegemony should be understood to be operating
between the hegemonic and the objective: it determines the degree of impact that the
dominant worldview has on a particular discourse.
Deconstruction
However, the analysis of marketing discourse, in accordance with discourse theory, not
only aims to display its hegemony, it also aims to critically evaluate it. When objective
and/or hegemonic discourse are analyzed, the objective of discourse analysis,
according to Laclau (1993) and Phillips and Jrgensen (2002), is deconstruction. If
hegemonic intervention is the process that establishes hegemony, deconstruction will
be the activity showing that the closure of discourse is temporal and, thus, that the
specific network of relationships between its moments could have been articulated
differently. Deconstruction seeks to show that objective and hegemonic discourse are
contingent. In technical language, this means that deconstruction seeks to turn the
moments of a particular discourse into elements. In more common sense language, it is
to question that which is treated as taken for granted, self-evident, and given by nature.
Deconstruction realizes the critique inherent to the approach to discourse analysis that
has been described here. Deconstruction can thus be thought of as a problematization
of problematizations or as reflexive problematizations.
Deconstruction can be exemplified by a critique of the marketing management
school of thought arguing that it not only prescribe that organizations should adapt
themselves to the customers wants and needs but also that it outlines ways of
affecting or shall we say manipulating the customers wants and needs. In a similar

A discourse
analytical
approach
107

QMRIJ
13,2

108

manner, deconstruction of relationship marketing can position it not as empowering

employees as sometimes is claimed but as aiming to control the actions and thought of
employees in particular ways.
Implications and conclusions
The aim of the present paper is to introduce to marketing a discourse analytical
framework which future qualitative marketing research can draw on. In summary, the
presented framework embarks from the notion of turning points which are significant
changes of marketing discourse. Problematizations are the occurrences that lead to a
turning point. More particularly problematizations are articulatory practices that aim
to turn the moments of marketing discourse into elements and to thus rearticulate it
and provide it with a new meaning. Often, problematizations are directed toward nodal
points of marketing discourse since they provide the discourse with its central
meaning. Thus, according to this perspective, marketing discourse is always
contingent. But problematizations try to hide this contingency and make marketing
discourse hegemonic or objective. Hegemonic marketing discourse is mediated by
hegemonic interventions, problematizations which, by definition, lead to a turning
point in marketing discourse. In discourse theory, it is the researchers duty to make
this contingency visible by deconstructing marketing discourse. By drawing on this
framework, we may better be able to understand, describe and analyze both stability
and change of marketing discourse and the practices it give rise to.
In addition to presenting the framework, the paper has contributed to qualitative
marketing research in at least two other ways. First, it has introduced discourse
analysis, discourse theory in particular, to marketing research. This is certainly a very
ambitious undertaking and it by no means reaches completion with the present paper.
However, this paper has at least introduced an alternative methodology for researching
marketing. Second, discourse theory provides researchers with a critical tool via the
concept of deconstruction. Usually, marketing researchers are preoccupied with
prescribing marketing to practitioners, but very few have focused on critically
evaluating these prescriptions and the effects it has on practice. For a discipline as
involved in shaping society as marketing, the latter kind of reflexive project is truly
important.
References
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (2003), Introduction, in Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (Eds),
Studying Management Critically, Sage, London, pp. 1-22.
Foucault, M. (1981), The Will to Knowledge: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1, Penguin, London.
Foucault, M. (1985a), The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 2, Vintage Books,
New York, NY.
Foucault, M. (1985b), The Care of the Self: The History of Sexuality, Vol. 3, Penguin, London.
Foucault, M. (2000), The subject and power, in Faubion, J.D. (Ed.), Power: The Essential Works
of Foucault, Vol. 3, The Free Press, New York, NY, pp. 326-48.
Hollander, S.C., Rassuli, K.M., Jones, D.G.B. and Farlow Dix, L. (2005), Periodization in
marketing history, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 32-41.
Laclau, E. (1990), New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time, Verso, London.

Laclau, E. (1993), Power and representation, in Poster, M. (Ed.), Politics, Theory and
Contemporary Culture, Columbia University Press, New York, NY, pp. 277-96.
Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985), Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic
Politics, 2nd ed., Verso, New York, NY.
Phillips, L. and Jrgensen, M.W. (2002), Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method, Sage, London.
Willmott, H. (2005), Theorizing contemporary control: some post-structuralist responses to
some critical realist questions, Organization, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 747-80.
About the author
Per Skalen is Associate Professor of Business and Administration based at the Service Research
Center, Karlstad University, Sweden. His research revolves around marketing as practice and
critical marketing. His papers on these topics have appeared in the Scandinavian Journal of
Management and Journal of Organizational Change Management. Pers most recent book is
Marketing Discourse A Critical Perspective, (Routledge, co-authored). His next book which was
published during 2009 is: Managing Service Firms: The Power of Marketing in Action
(Routledge). Per Skalen can be contacted at: per.skalen@kau.se

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

A discourse
analytical
approach
109