Home page
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Introduction
Method
Analysis
References
Appendixes
Discussion
Contact me

Design

A form of discourse analysis was employed in this study to examine the social construction of relationship discourses; specifically those discourses pertaining to issues of ‘infidelity’ and ‘monogamy’ in relationships. To complement this adoption of a discourse analytic approach a more detailed conversational analysis approach was also implemented; a conversational analysis approach locates negotiations of such issues as ‘power’ and ‘normality’ firmly within the interactional speech of the participants. To collate a body of ‘data’ deemed suitable for such analysis, interviews were arranged with people to talk about relationship issues and ‘media texts’ relating to issues of infidelity and monogamy were opportunely gathered. These texts were thought to be appropriate as discourses can be viewed as ‘linguistic sets of a higher order than the sentence (while often reducible to a sentence) and carried out or actualised in or by means of texts’ (Marin 1893:162, cited in Parker 1992:7) and therefore would be located in the material gathered.  
 

Procedure

A search for variability, consistency and ‘narrative coherence’ (Willig 2001) in the accounts (both interview and mediated texts) took place. Discourses were speculated and located with the body of texts, with reference to the ‘seven criteria for distinguishing discourses’ (Parker 1992:6-21). Furthermore in accordance with Gergen’s (1999:65-77) assertions about the constructive components of narratives, the texts were also examined in terms of metaphors, narrative realities and narrative forms. The ‘consequence’ and ‘function’ of the discourses were speculated, this was directed by Potter & Wetherell’s (1987:165) guidance notes on data analysis. Furthermore the accounts were examined for ‘interpretative repertoires’; as defined by Potter & Wetherell (1987:138) as ‘a lexicon or register of terms and metaphors drawn upon to characterize and evaluate actions and events’. Finally the way relationship discourses were rhetorically constructed and deployed by participants in the management of certain conversational and narrative constructional dilemmas (Speer 2001: 114) was examined.  
 

Participants

Many friends and colleagues were approached with the aim of getting them to take part in an informal interview. It was assumed (rightly or wrongly) that everyone would be able to formulate and share their opinions concerning issues of ‘infidelity’ and ‘monogamy’ in relationships. Personally approaching people was able to yield ten interviews in total, nine one-to-one interviews and one small group discussion involving two participants and myself. Three of the participants were male (all of whom took part in one-to-one interviews) and eight of the participants were female. The ages of the participants varied from eighteen to forty-nine.  
 

Interviews

The aim of the ‘interviews’ was to make them as informal as possible in order to elicit a discussion and to enable the participants to relate any issues and experiences that they deemed appropriate and important. Specific questions were planned in advance (appendix) which were used as a memory prompt for myself and were intentionally deployed so as not to provide a rigid structure to the interviews. In some cases it was unnecessary to refer to the pre-set questions as some of the participants spoke freely and (unwittingly) covered the question topics. The interviews were tape recorded and latter transcribed (see appendix 2 for transcription conventions), interviews 1-10 (appendixes).  
 

Complementary Texts

The following media ‘texts’ were opportunely gathered: A documentary titled ‘Adultery of Therapy?’ that was aired on ITV during August 2000 was recorded and later transcribed (appendix). Episode IV, season II of the drama ‘Sex in the City’ was recorded and later transcribed (appendix). An article entitled ‘Men come clean: High Infidelity’, published in ‘More!’ magazine, issue 321 July 12^th-25^th 2000 (appendix). An extract from ‘The Good Relationship Guide’ (appendix 16) and an article entitled ‘Are you heading for an affair?’, published in ‘Real’ magazine, 17-30^th April 01 (Appendix 17).  
 

Reflexive Note

‘The social scientist is not some autonomous being standing outside society. No one is outside society, the question is where he (sic) stands within it’ (C. Wright Mills 1959:204, cited in Gill 1998:18), to ignore or deny my subjective position within this body of research would seek to render my influence as the researcher invisible. The approach that I have taken allows an elaboration of the role of the researcher in the research process and the research product (Coyle 2001), the aim of such research is to make explicit the role my own ‘subjective’ experience has played in the entirety of the research process. The gathering of complementary texts, extract selection and the complete body of research produced is as much a reflection of my own personal interests and research aims as it is a reflection of the participant’s own cultural, social and historical background.