"Odla växter och människor" - En diskursanalys av naturunderstödd rehabilitering
(2014) SOPA63 20141School of Social Work
- Abstract
- The aim of this study was to examine how nature-supported rehabilitation is portrayed and
how the current discourses appear in a number of articles, reports and websites. The method
that we used was critical discourse analysis by Norman Fairclough’s reasoning. The empirics
were chosen from a targeted selection based on the purpose of the study. The distinguished
discourses we found in the material were the evidence-based discourse, the marketing
discourse, the questioning discourse and the given discourse. The discourses were interpreted
with the help of discourse analysis as a theory as well as social constructionism. We also used
the reasoning by Kerstin Engström about the effect of referring to research and the reasoning
by... (More) - The aim of this study was to examine how nature-supported rehabilitation is portrayed and
how the current discourses appear in a number of articles, reports and websites. The method
that we used was critical discourse analysis by Norman Fairclough’s reasoning. The empirics
were chosen from a targeted selection based on the purpose of the study. The distinguished
discourses we found in the material were the evidence-based discourse, the marketing
discourse, the questioning discourse and the given discourse. The discourses were interpreted
with the help of discourse analysis as a theory as well as social constructionism. We also used
the reasoning by Kerstin Engström about the effect of referring to research and the reasoning
by Anders Olsson about journalists’ focus to make headlines. This focus can result in them
having a low degree of criticism when receiving information from sources. One conclusion
we could draw in our analysis was that the discourses showed above all two sides where one
required evidence and legitimation while the other viewed nature-supported rehabilitation as
such an obviously functioning form of rehabilitation that the claim of evidence and
legitimation wasn’t necessary. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/4466439
- author
- Kjellner, Jenny LU and Borgman, Emily LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- SOPA63 20141
- year
- 2014
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- nature-supported rehabilitation, critical discourse analysis, social constructivism
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 4466439
- date added to LUP
- 2014-06-16 12:57:02
- date last changed
- 2014-06-16 12:57:02
@misc{4466439, abstract = {{The aim of this study was to examine how nature-supported rehabilitation is portrayed and how the current discourses appear in a number of articles, reports and websites. The method that we used was critical discourse analysis by Norman Fairclough’s reasoning. The empirics were chosen from a targeted selection based on the purpose of the study. The distinguished discourses we found in the material were the evidence-based discourse, the marketing discourse, the questioning discourse and the given discourse. The discourses were interpreted with the help of discourse analysis as a theory as well as social constructionism. We also used the reasoning by Kerstin Engström about the effect of referring to research and the reasoning by Anders Olsson about journalists’ focus to make headlines. This focus can result in them having a low degree of criticism when receiving information from sources. One conclusion we could draw in our analysis was that the discourses showed above all two sides where one required evidence and legitimation while the other viewed nature-supported rehabilitation as such an obviously functioning form of rehabilitation that the claim of evidence and legitimation wasn’t necessary.}}, author = {{Kjellner, Jenny and Borgman, Emily}}, language = {{swe}}, note = {{Student Paper}}, title = {{"Odla växter och människor" - En diskursanalys av naturunderstödd rehabilitering}}, year = {{2014}}, }