1. A Fuzzy Logic Approach to Grounded Theory Methodology:
A Preliminary Application to the Analysis of the Rhetorics of Political Journalism
Luis Botella (Universitat Ramon Llull)
Fuzzy set theory (FST) has been repeatedly proposed as a potentially useful approach to PCP (e.g., Adams-Webber, 2001). FST allows incorporating the nuances of everyday communication to computational language. The link between FST and language makes qualitative approaches to discourse analysis a promising tool to assess fuzziness. The method of analysis used in this work is based on Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) combined with the use of the QSR-NUD·IST computer software for qualitative analysis. Hypotheses were proposed following fuzzy IF… THEN… rules, where both IF and THEN are common language expressions of the relations between fuzzy classes (Dimitrov, 1997; Kosko, 1999). FST terms used in the study include:
Truth value (x)
Truth value (not x) = 1 - truth value (x)
Truth value (x and y) = min (truth value (x), truth value (y))
Truth value (x or y) = max (truth value (x), truth value (y))
(where x and y are fuzzy expressions)
The truth value of any given hypothesis is calculated by dividing the positive evidence (all cases that confirm the hypothesis) by the total evidence (all cases).
METHOD
A piece of political journalism published in “El Pais” (the Spanish newspaper with a largest readership) was analysed so as to test Dimitrov & Hodge’s (1999) theory about the use and likely abuse of fuzziness by politicians and the media so as to disguise their “hidden agendas” and to blur political responsibilities.
The procedure was the following:
Text lines were numbered and identified as units of analysis (UA).
UAs were coded in one or more of the following categories: objectivist discourse, ambivalence, direct style, expert language, totalising discourse, trascendentalization, personalization, overgeneralization, confrontation, cooperation, war-like metaphors, and/or market metaphors.
Categories were hierarchically arranged under two superordinate nodes (1) argumentative rhetoric (constructions that legitimate the author’s version of “what is the case”) and (2) narrative rhetoric (constructions that describe the character’s traits and the characteristics of their actions).
UAs were assigned to as many categories as possible (since they are not mutually exclusive).
Finally, relationships between categories were analysed using the QSR-NUD·IST computer software for qualitative analysis.
RESULTS
IF the author wants to blur actor’s responsibility, THEN ambivalence or authorial transference is used. (Truth value = 1).
IF the author wants to concentrate actor’s responsibility, THEN objectivist discourse or totalising discourse or authorial transference is used. (Truth value = 1).
IF action is described by means of war-like metaphors, THEN objectivist discourse or totalising discourse is used. (Truth value = .86).
IF the author wants to emphasize the actors’ confrontational intention THEN objectivist discourse or authorial transference is used. (Truth value = .85).
IF the author wants to overgeneralize representativeness, THEN ambivalence and expert language is used. (Truth value = 1).
DISCUSSION
Our method allowed us to progressively refine our initial assertions so as to increase their truth value, being thus able to reveal what are the rhetorical devices used by the journalist when writing the piece of news so as to achieve a given narrative effect.
Our results confirm Dimitrov & Hodge’s (1999) theory that the fuzziness inherent to language and discourse can be voluntarily increased so as to “disguise” reality. Both politicians and the media seem thus to use fuzziness in order, among other things, to disguise their “hidden agendas” and to blur political responsibilities.
Different rhetorical strategies were identified according to their main discursive goal: (a) contention strategies that reduce fuzziness by presenting only the version of facts that is taken as the true one (objectivist discourse, totalising discourse), and (b) blurring strategies that increase the natural fuzziness of language (ambivalence).
Our method of analysis seems especially useful in order to increase awareness of the rhetorical devices used by the media, and allows us to make a more fine grained critical judgement of journalistic information.
REFERENCES
Adams-Webber, J.R. (2001). Prototipicality of self and evaluating others in terms of “fuzzy” constructs. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 14,
Dimitrov, V. (2000). Fuzziology. Internet paper available at:
Dimitrov, V. & Hodge, B. (1999). Virtual Meaning: Problems of Intepretation in the Social Sciences. In L. Zadeh & J. Kacprzyk (Eds.) Computing with Words in Systems Analysis. Physica-Verlag.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Sstrategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Kosko, B. (1995). Pensamiento borroso. La nueva ciencia de la lógica borrosa. Barcelona: Crítica.