We find some people want to know about the ‘science bit’; others don’t care, as long as it works. We’re happy to tell you as much or as little as you like about the methods we’ll use to solve your problem. For those who want it, here’s a bit of theory:

The discourse analysis (DA) we use is adapted from academic social science. There are lots of different flavours of DA, but they share a couple of key ideas.

One key idea is that language is not a neutral, transparent channel through which people communicate about ‘real’ things. Instead, DA sees language as constructing that reality.

Another key idea is that language is action - that using language is a way of doing things, not just describing things.

But how can language construct reality? Of course, ‘real’ concrete things do exist in the world - this is easy to see and feel. But it’s also easy to see that different groups of people talk about the same things in different, sometimes conflicting, ways. And that the consequences of these differences are also ‘real’ - they perform different actions and lead to different effects.

For example, do you have ‘ME’ or ‘yuppie flu’? Are they ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘terrorists’? Was it harmless ‘office banter’ or criminal ‘sexual harassment’? Definitions like these make a material difference to people’s lives.

In practice, every day, we recognise that what something is called really matters, that it actually changes the way things are. And this is one way of thinking about DA.

Discourse analysis methods in academic research are hugely varied. They range from enormous, macro-scale cultural and historical analyses to unbelievably micro-level dissection of conversation.