Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 698

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies

Fairclough, Norman·2013·Critical Policy Studies

Abstract

This article presents the contribution that critical discourse analysis (CDA) can make to critical policy studies through comparison with two other approaches which also advocate a ‘discursive turn’ in policy studies and that have been discussed in the journal: cultural political economy (CPE), and poststructuralist discourse analysis (PDA). I suggest that there are significant differences between CDA, CPE and PDA in their view of the discursive turn, and that a version of CDA which integrates argumentation theory and analysis with CDA can add significantly to the contributions that CPE and PDA might make to policy analysis. In the Conclusion, I address a suspicion that using argumentation analysis entails a commitment to Habermasian/Rawlsian ‘deliberative democracy,’ suggesting that argumentation analysis is also not only consistent with but also necessary for Gramscian approaches to political and policy analysis, including CPE and PDA.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19460171.2013.798239

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 31 references

Metadata

Authors
Fairclough, N.
Venue
Critical Policy Studies
Published
2013-07
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
177-197
ISSN
  • 1946-0171 (ISSN-L)
  • 1946-018X
OpenAlex
W2052876428
Cited by
698
References
31
FWCI
62.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239
The paper
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis and critical policy studies. Critical Policy Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2013.798239

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.