Jonathan Potter – 1956 Present

Biography

The landscape of contemporary social science has witnessed few intellectual transformations as radical and methodologically consequential as the emergence of discursive psychology. Originating in the late twentieth century as a direct challenge to the cognitive, experimental, and mentalist paradigms that had long dominated mainstream psychology, discursive psychology fundamentally reconceptualized the relationship between language, social action, and human subjectivity. At the forefront of this epistemological revolution stands Jonathan Potter (born 1956), a British social scientist whose foundational writings, conceptual innovations, and institutional leadership have redefined how researchers across psychology, sociology, linguistics, and communication studies analyze the intricate mechanics of human conduct. Rather than treating spoken and written discourse as a mere conduit or neutral mirror reflecting interior cognitive architectures, Potter’s pioneering corpus establishes talk and text as the very medium of social life—an arena of active, situated, and consequential practice wherein identities, facts, motives, and mental states are continuously forged, negotiated, and contested.

Potter’s intellectual trajectory spans more than four decades of relentless inquiry into the sociology of scientific knowledge, ethnomethodology, rhetorical analysis, and conversation analysis. Beginning with his transformative collaboration with Margaret Wetherell in the 1980s, which culminated in the landmark publication of Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour (1987), and continuing through his long-standing work with Derek Edwards on the Discursive Action Model (DAM), Potter formulated an empirical alternative to experimental social psychology. His subsequent treatise, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction (1996), provided social theory with an exhaustive toolkit for analyzing the construction of epistemic authority, ontological objectivity, and the dilemmas of personal stake. Later collaborations with scholars such as Alexa Hepburn further grounded discursive psychology in the micro-analytic scrutiny of naturalistic institutional interactions, tracing the precise vocal and interactional contours of distress, advice-giving, and moral accountability across professional helplines and clinical environments.

Beyond his foundational role in establishing the Discourse and Rhetoric Group (DARG) at Loughborough University as a world-renowned epicenter of radical social psychology, Potter has profoundly influenced transatlantic scholarship. His tenure as Dean of the School of Communication and Information at Rutgers University expanded the reach of discursive psychology into North American communication studies, digital interaction, and institutional research. Today, Jonathan Potter’s body of work endures as an essential cornerstone of qualitative methodology and empirical philosophy, compelling the behavioral sciences to abandon abstract, detached cognitive models in favor of the rigorous, fine-grained examination of real-world human interaction.

1. Biographical Foundations and Academic Trajectory

1.1 Early Intellectual Formation and Educational Background

Jonathan Potter was born in 1956 in the United Kingdom, growing up during an era marked by deep intellectual ferment across the European human sciences. His early intellectual orientation was characterized by a profound fascination with philosophy, the philosophy of language, and the epistemological foundations of the social sciences. During an era when structuralism, ordinary language philosophy, and emerging critiques of positivism were transforming the humanities, Potter cultivated an abiding interest in how language mediates human understanding and social reality. Rather than accepting the conventional divide between formal linguistic abstraction and empirical social investigation, he sought out frameworks that could rigorously bridge conceptual philosophy with the direct observation of human affairs.

Potter pursued his undergraduate studies in psychology, a formative period during which he encountered the prevailing cognitive and experimental orthodoxies of the 1970s. The cognitive revolution, which had successfully displaced radical behaviorism by positing the mind as an information-processing system analogous to a computational program, formed the core curriculum of modern psychology departments. However, Potter rapidly developed a critical skepticism toward this computational model. He observed that experimental laboratory paradigms relied upon artificial, decontextualized tasks that stripped human participants of their natural social ecologies. The experimental methodologies that dominated the discipline treated human subjects as passive processors of isolated stimuli, transforming complex cultural and communicative practices into measurable, discrete variables. For Potter, this approach committed an error of reification, assuming that internal cognitive structures such as schemas, attitudes, and semantic networks could be cleanly isolated from the conversational matrices in which human beings actually conduct their daily lives.

This early dissatisfaction with cognitive orthodoxy propelled Potter toward postgraduate research that integrated linguistics, sociology, and social psychology. Undertaking doctoral research at the University of York, Potter completed his Ph.D. in 1983 under the supervision of the renowned sociologist of science Michael Mulkay. At York, Potter was immersed in the cutting-edge developments of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK), a movement that sought to demystify scientific objectivity by demonstrating that scientific facts, theories, and discoveries are social accomplishments negotiated through discourse, rhetoric, and interactional practices. Mulkay’s groundbreaking work, particularly his collaborative analyses with G. Nigel Gilbert examining how scientists strategically deploy empiricist and contingent linguistic repertoires, fundamentally shaped Potter’s developing methodological sensibility. Concurrently, Potter immersed himself in the ordinary language philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein and J. L. Austin, the speech act theory of John Searle, and the radical social phenomenology of Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology. These diverse intellectual currents converged to convince Potter that the central task of social psychology was not to construct speculative cognitive architectures hidden within the cranium, but to investigate how participants themselves construct, utilize, and make sense of psychological and factual realities through situated discourse.

1.2 The Loughborough University Era and DARG

Following the completion of his doctoral studies and initial academic appointments, Jonathan Potter joined the Department of Social Sciences at Loughborough University in the United Kingdom. During the late 1980s and throughout the 1990s, Loughborough became one of the most vibrant, intellectually daring centers for critical social science in the world. Within this fertile environment, Potter, alongside key colleagues including Derek Edwards, Michael Billig, and Margaret Wetherell, co-founded and cultivated the Discourse and Rhetoric Group (DARG). Conceived not merely as an administrative research cluster but as an intensive collaborative workshop, DARG established a transformative intellectual culture that challenged the fundamental tenets of mainstream psychology.

The collaborative culture cultivated within DARG was centered around the legendary “data session”—a rigorous, non-hierarchical, collective analytic meeting wherein researchers spent hours scrutinizing micro-transcripts and audio recordings of naturally occurring conversations. Within these sessions, theoretical speculation was systematically subordinated to empirical precision. Participants were challenged to demonstrate their analytic claims exclusively through the observable orientations and turn-by-turn conduct of the conversational participants. Under the stewardship of Potter and his colleagues, DARG evolved into a bustling intellectual sanctuary that attracted doctoral students, visiting scholars, and international researchers who felt alienated by the mechanical positivism of traditional psychological departments. Potter supervised a foundational cohort of doctoral candidates who would themselves go on to become leading figures in qualitative psychology, applied linguistics, and conversation analysis, establishing an intellectual lineage that rapidly disseminated across Europe, Australasia, and North America.

During his decades at Loughborough, Potter’s prolific output cemented his status as a premier global theorist of language and interaction. He played an instrumental role in fostering cross-disciplinary alliances that bridged social psychology, ethnomethodology, sociolinguistics, and communication studies. The Loughborough school distinguished itself by its unwavering refusal to compromise on empirical rigor; it rejected the speculative armchair theorizing common in certain branches of cultural theory while simultaneously exposing the ecological invalidity and conceptual incoherence of laboratory experimentation. Through DARG, Potter helped build an autonomous, highly organized paradigm that demonstrated how radical epistemological critiques could be coupled with an exacting, replicable empirical practice.

1.3 Transition to Rutgers University and Global Leadership

After decades of distinguished leadership at Loughborough University, Jonathan Potter embarked on an important new institutional and academic chapter in 2015 when he was appointed Dean of the School of Communication and Information (SC&I) at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. This move marked a significant transatlantic bridge, bringing one of the principal architects of British discursive psychology and conversation analysis into the upper echelons of North American academic leadership. As Dean, a position he held through 2021 before continuing his scholarship as a Distinguished Professor, Potter assumed responsibility for directing a complex, interdisciplinary school encompassing communication, journalism and media studies, and library and information science.

Potter’s appointment at Rutgers facilitated an unprecedented integration of discursive paradigms into North American communication departments, which historically had been divided between post-positivist behavioral research and critical cultural studies. Potter leveraged his institutional position to champion research cultures rooted in interactional analysis, multimodal studies, and naturalistic observation. He actively fostered interdisciplinary collaborations across departments, demonstrating how discursive psychology could illuminate fundamental communication problems, including digital interaction, crisis communication, health-care consultations, and institutional decision-making. His administrative leadership was characterized by a commitment to fostering intellectual pluralism, expanding graduate training in qualitative interactional methodologies, and strengthening the global profile of Rutgers as a premier hub for cutting-edge social science scholarship.

Remarkably, despite the burdensome administrative demands of university leadership during an era marked by rapid technological disruption and the institutional challenges of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Potter sustained an enviable record of peer-reviewed research output. He continued to publish influential papers, deliver keynote addresses at major international conferences, and mentor emerging scholars. By actively bridging European social theory, British social psychology, and American empirical traditions in conversation analysis and communication, Potter expanded the horizon of his original intellectual project, proving that discursive psychology remains a vital, adaptable, and indispensable paradigm for the twenty-first century.

2. The Genesis of Discursive Psychology: Critiquing Cognitive Orthodoxy

2.1 The Crisis in Traditional Social Psychology

To comprehend the intellectual revolution instigated by Jonathan Potter, one must contextualize his early work within the profound epistemological and methodological “crisis” that swept social psychology during the 1970s and 1980s. For decades, mainstream social psychology had sought to secure scientific legitimacy by modeling itself on the natural sciences, prioritizing controlled laboratory experiments, standardized psychometric scales, and statistical verification. However, critical scholars increasingly argued that this experimental paradigm suffered from fatal ecological invalidity. Laboratory experiments stripped social phenomena of their contextual, historical, and interactional meaning. Human participants were isolated in sterile rooms, exposed to contrived stimuli, and forced to choose between predetermined numerical ratings, generating data that reflected little more than the experimental demand characteristics manufactured by the researchers themselves.

Central to Potter’s critique was the discipline’s persistent tendency to reify internal mental entities. Mainstream social cognition treated concepts such as “attitudes,” “beliefs,” “attributions,” “traits,” and “schemas” as durable, autonomous cognitive structures lodged within the neuro-computational machinery of the brain. These hypothetical constructs were assumed to exist prior to and independent of language, functioning as the latent, causal drivers of outward behavioral expression. Experimental researchers routinely assumed that language operated as a neutral, transparent medium through which these internal mental states could be directly inspected. When a participant filled out an attitude questionnaire or answered an interviewer’s question, the resulting verbal utterance was treated as an unproblematic readout of internal cognitive processing.

Potter vehemently interrogated this representationalist and conduit model of language. He argued that the assumption that language neutrally conveys internal mental realities or mirrors external worldly states was a philosophical fallacy. Traditional social psychology had completely ignored the functional, active, and situated nature of human discourse. By treating talk as a transparent window into the mind, experimentalists failed to recognize that verbal descriptions are inherently variable, rhetorically organized, and meticulously designed to perform social actions within specific interpersonal contexts. Consequently, Potter positioned discourse analysis not merely as a supplementary qualitative technique to be added to the psychologist’s methodological toolbox, but as a radical, comprehensive epistemological intervention that challenged the foundational ontological claims of mainstream psychology.

2.2 Epistemological Shift: From Internal Cognition to Social Action

The philosophical revolution executed by Jonathan Potter rests upon an epistemological inversion: the respecification of psychological phenomena from hidden internal cognitions to publicly enacted, situated discursive practices. Drawing heavily upon the ordinary language philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, particularly his late philosophy in the Philosophical Investigations, and the conceptual analysis of Gilbert Ryle in The Concept of Mind (1949), Potter argued that psychological terminology does not derive its meaning from private introspective ostension. Concepts such as “remembering,” “believing,” “hoping,” “intending,” and “feeling” are not internal mental events that precede communication; rather, they are complex social vocabularies learned and deployed within public forms of life to accomplish pragmatic interactional work.

Wittgenstein famously demolished the Cartesian myth of a “private language,” demonstrating that for words to possess meaning, there must exist public, socially shared criteria for their correct and incorrect application. Ryle extended this critique by exposing the Cartesian doctrine of the “ghost in the machine” as a massive category mistake that treated mental concepts as occult inner causes rather than as dispositions, capacities, and public practices. Potter seized upon these philosophical insights to construct an anti-cognitivist social psychology. If mental concepts acquire their meaning and efficacy solely through their public, interactive use, then the primary task of psychological inquiry must be the empirical investigation of how psychological language is actually mobilized within human discourse.

This radical shift required researchers to completely abandon representationalist models of mind in favor of participant-oriented practices. Instead of asking how an internal cognitive mechanism generates an utterance, discursive psychology asks: What action does this utterance perform in this specific interactional sequence? How do speakers invoke memory to construct moral innocence? How do they deploy expressions of belief to manage consensus or deflect accusations of prejudice? By substituting social action for computational cognition, discursive psychology established itself as an autonomous and rigorous discipline. It demonstrated that what traditional psychologists had treated as interior, private mental phenomena were, in observable reality, collaborative interactional achievements thoroughly embedded in the social fabric.

2.3 Integrating Ethnomethodology and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge

The theoretical architecture of Potterian discursive psychology was decisively shaped by the cross-fertilization of two radical sociological traditions: Harold Garfinkel’s ethnomethodology and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge (SSK). From Garfinkel, Potter adopted the foundational insight that the social world is maintained through members’ practical reasoning, ordinary accountability, and localized methods for making sense of everyday interaction. Garfinkel insisted that social reality is not an external, coercive structure imposed from above upon passive actors, nor is it governed by hidden psychological drives; rather, social order is an ongoing, fragile, and practical achievement continuously produced and sustained through the interpretive practices of ordinary people. Ethnomethodology demanded that analysts focus on the endogenous logic of members’ practices, refusing to impose external sociological or psychological coding schemes onto human conduct.

From the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge—most notably the work of Michael Mulkay, G. Nigel Gilbert, and Bruno Latour—Potter absorbed a sophisticated understanding of fact-construction processes. SSK demonstrated that scientific facts, long venerated as objective truths directly revealed by nature, are in reality meticulously constructed linguistic and rhetorical accomplishments. Scientists utilize specialized discursive repertoires, manage conflicts of interest, and selectively deploy passive constructions to make their claims appear independent of human authorship, personal desire, or social bias. Scientific objectivity, SSK revealed, is an exquisite interactional artifact achieved through specific, identifiable literary and conversational devices.

Potter’s brilliant theoretical leap was to synthesize these two traditions and apply their constructivist critiques directly to everyday psychological explanations. Just as scientists must construct their empirical observations to appear objective and factual, ordinary human beings must routinely manufacture versions of reality, mental states, motives, and character that withstand skepticism and interactional challenge. Potter realized that the very methods scientists use to establish “objective facts” are mirrored in the conversational strategies of ordinary individuals navigating mundane disputes, workplace negotiations, and institutional cross-examinations. By applying SSK’s focus on fact-construction and ethnomethodology’s commitment to members’ practical accountability, Potter formulated an empirical approach that meticulously studies how people manufacture reality, objectivity, and psychological credibility in real time.

3. Seminal Publication: Discourse and Social Psychology (1987)

3.1 Collaborative Genesis with Margaret Wetherell

The turning point in the history of discursive psychology occurred in 1987 with the publication of the monumental volume Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviour, co-authored by Jonathan Potter and Margaret Wetherell. The partnership between Potter and Wetherell represented an extraordinary synthesis of complementary intellectual gifts. Wetherell, a New Zealand-born social psychologist based in the United Kingdom, brought deep expertise in social identity, post-structuralism, cultural theory, and the critique of ideology. Potter contributed his rigorous grounding in the sociology of scientific knowledge, ethnomethodology, and the mechanical micro-analysis of language. Together, they established a formidable intellectual alliance that challenged the core premises of British and international social psychology.

Working collaboratively through the mid-1980s, Potter and Wetherell synthesized insights from post-structuralist critiques of language, Michel Foucault’s analyses of discursive formations, speech act theory, and the emerging conventions of conversation analysis. Their goal was to write a text that would simultaneously serve as a theoretical manifesto, an epistemological critique of experimentalism, and a practical handbook for empirical qualitative research. When the volume was published by SAGE Publications in 1987, it immediately detonated a shockwave across the discipline. While orthodox experimentalists initially reacted with defensiveness, dismissing discourse analysis as unscientific, subjective, or anti-empirical, a vast contingent of students and younger scholars greeted the book with immense enthusiasm, recognizing it as a liberating paradigm shift that provided a robust, intellectually defensible alternative to the sterility of laboratory experimentation.

The immediate reception of the 1987 text ignited vigorous debates across academic journals and university seminars. Orthodox critics charged the authors with sliding into radical epistemological relativism, questioning how a discipline could survive if it abandoned the measurement of real mental attitudes and observable physical behaviors. In contrast, sympathetic scholars recognized that Potter and Wetherell had achieved something historic: they had dismantled the theoretical foundations of cognitive social psychology while simultaneously establishing an exacting, empirical, and replicable method for studying language-in-use. The book quickly achieved classic status, becoming one of the most cited monographs in modern social science and serving as the foundational constitution for the discursive psychological movement.

3.2 Core Tenets and Methodological Principles in the 1987 Work

In Discourse and Social Psychology, Potter and Wetherell formulated three interrelated, foundational components that characterize discourse: action orientation, situatedness, and variability. These three concepts operated as a devastating critique of orthodox attitude measurement scales. Standard psychometric methodologies assumed that an individual possessed a stable, enduring, and internally consistent “attitude” toward a given social topic—whether capital punishment, racial minorities, or environmental policy. Such scales relied on the premise that presenting a participant with a Likert scale or a fixed-choice questionnaire would yield a reliable index of this internal cognitive state.

Potter and Wetherell obliterated this assumption by exposing the radical indexical variability inherent in natural talk. Through detailed empirical demonstrations, they revealed that when an individual discusses a controversial social issue across different conversational contexts, their accounts vary dramatically. In one context, a speaker might articulate a highly progressive stance; in another, moments later, the same speaker might mobilize conservative, exclusionary arguments. Orthodox psychology dismissed such discrepancies as “measurement error” or cognitive inconsistency. Potter and Wetherell, however, demonstrated that variability is an intrinsic feature of human discourse because language is fundamentally action-oriented. A speaker does not articulate an abstract attitude in a vacuum; they construct a description to accomplish a specific, immediate interactional task—such as defending themselves against an implied accusation of prejudice, justifying an unpopular decision, or aligning with an interlocutor. Because the interactional demands shift from moment to moment, the linguistic formulations deployed must vary accordingly.

To analyze this dynamic phenomenon, Potter and Wetherell introduced the concept of interpretative repertoires. They defined interpretative repertoires as culturally available, systematically related clusters of terms, metaphors, idioms, and figures of speech that individuals draw upon to construct versions of actions, cognitive states, and events. Unlike rigid cognitive schemas or totalizing Foucauldian discourses, interpretative repertoires are flexible discursive building blocks that speakers dynamically weave together to manage local interactional contingencies. Crucially, the authors also provided the first practical, step-by-step guidelines for conducting discourse analysis on both interview transcripts and naturally occurring texts, outlining procedures for data selection, coding, cyclical reading, and validating analytic interpretations through participant-oriented evidence.

3.3 Long-Term Impact on Empirical Inquiry

The long-term impact of Potter and Wetherell’s 1987 text cannot be overstated. It permanently redefined empirical rigor within qualitative psychology, demonstrating that qualitative research did not have to be an impressionistic, unsystematic exercise in thematic summary. Instead, by focusing on the precise mechanics of discourse, researchers could conduct analyses that were as meticulous, transparent, and replicable as any quantitative study, while retaining full ecological validity. The book unleashed a torrent of innovative empirical studies across diverse international contexts, fundamentally revitalizing the social psychological study of prejudice, institutional power, gender relations, and personal identity.

A prime example of this empirical maturation was Potter and Wetherell’s subsequent collaborative investigation into the linguistic mechanisms of racism, culminating in their major 1992 study, Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. Analyzing naturalistic discourse and interviews concerning relations between Pākehā (white New Zealanders) and the indigenous Māori population, they demonstrated that modern racism rarely operates through crude, overt assertions of racial inferiority. Instead, contemporary discriminatory practices are justified through sophisticated, highly reasonable, and liberal-sounding interpretative repertoires centered on notions of equality, practical fairness, individual merit, and national unity. The study proved that discursive psychology was uniquely capable of exposing how subtle discursive practices systematically legitimize institutional inequality and social oppression under the veneer of democratic common sense.

Furthermore, Discourse and Social Psychology served as the primary catalyst for subsequent theoretical diversification within qualitative psychology. While the field would eventually witness fruitful internal debates and divergences—most notably between Margaret Wetherell’s critical discursive psychology and Potter’s increasing alignment with pure conversation analysis—the 1987 text remained the common ancestral root for both traditions. It succeeded in establishing discourse analysis as a recognized, institutionalized curriculum in psychology, linguistics, and sociology departments across the globe, forever dismantling the intellectual monopoly of experimental behaviorism.

4. Core Theoretical Tenets: Action, Construction, and Rhetoric

4.1 Action Orientation of Discourse

At the very heart of Jonathan Potter’s theoretical architecture is the principle that discourse is primarily and fundamentally oriented toward social action. Traditional linguistic and psychological models have historically treated language as an informative medium whose main function is to describe the world, convey abstract ideas, or transfer cognitive thoughts from the head of one speaker to the head of another. Potter explicitly rejects this referential and informational reductionism. Drawing on the foundational work of J. L. Austin, who observed that uttering words often amounts to “doing things with words,” Potter asserts that discourse must be analyzed as an active, consequential mode of human conduct.

Every conversational turn, written utterance, or communicative gesture is designed to perform social actions within an unfolding matrix of interaction. Speakers do not merely speak; they construct compliments, deliver invitations, articulate complaints, allocate blame, offer excuses, build solidarity, assert authority, and justify controversial behaviors. When an individual produces a statement such as “It is cold in here,” cognitive psychologists might analyze the utterance as an informational report regarding ambient temperature or a reflection of sensory perception. Discursive psychology, by contrast, examines how this description functions as a situated action—for example, as an indirect request for someone to close an open window, an implicit criticism of a host’s hospitality, or a pre-sequence initiating a dispute.

To analyze the action orientation of discourse requires prioritizing sequential interaction over abstract semantic content. Conversation does not consist of isolated sentences floating in ether; it proceeds through sequentially organized turns-at-talk, where each turn visibly displays the speaker’s understanding of the prior turn and projects a specific range of appropriate next actions. Potter demonstrated that human beings perform the vast majority of their psychological and moral work not through explicit psychological proclamations, but through the delicate, turn-by-turn management of everyday descriptions. By establishing action orientation as a non-negotiable premise, Potter shifted the analytical gaze from what words “mean” in the dictionary to what words “do” in the social arena.

4.2 Constructed and Constructive Dimensions of Language

The second pillar of Potter’s framework is the dual conceptualization of language as both constructed and constructive. This dialectical formulation captures the recursive nature of social reality. On the one hand, discourse is thoroughly constructed: whenever people speak or write, they do not invent a private language from nothing. Instead, they assemble their accounts out of pre-existing, culturally shared linguistic resources, including idioms, conventional metaphors, rhetorical devices, specialized vocabularies, and interpretative repertoires. Every description is an engineered product, manufactured out of an available historical toolbox of discursive components.

On the other hand, discourse is profoundly constructive: through the very act of assembling these linguistic components, speakers construct specific, coherent versions of the world, presenting them as solid, objective reality. There is no unmediated access to raw, uninterpreted reality; every attempt to describe an event, an emotion, a political crisis, or a personal relationship inevitably builds a particular version of that phenomenon while simultaneously marginalizing alternative formulations. For example, describing an industrial labor action as an “illegal strike” constructs an entirely different moral and social reality than describing the exact same event as a “worker protest against unsafe conditions.” The descriptions do not merely reflect a pre-existing state of affairs; they construct the ontological and moral status of the event itself.

A crucial conceptual tool developed within this domain is the notion of ontological gerrymandering, a term Potter adopted and refined from the sociology of social problems. Ontological gerrymandering refers to the rhetorical practice whereby speakers selectively draw boundaries around certain aspects of reality, bringing specific issues into sharp, problematized focus while carefully occluding, minimizing, or setting aside other contradictory domains. By strategically framing what is relevant and what is irrelevant, speakers actively manage moral accountability, delineate who is to be blamed, and determine what actions are deemed rational and necessary. Discourse, therefore, is not an innocent reflection of a pre-given world, but an active, world-making practice whose architecture requires continuous empirical deconstruction.

4.3 Rhetorical Organization and Argumentative Context

The third defining tenet of Potterian discursive psychology is the recognition that discourse is inherently rhetorical and argumentative. Heavily influenced by his Loughborough colleague Michael Billig, whose classic work Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology (1987) demonstrated that human thought is modeled on rhetorical debate, Potter emphasized that no account exists in isolation. Discourse is always situated within an argumentative context, designed both defensively to protect the speaker’s claims against potential discounting, and offensively to undermine competing, alternative versions of reality.

Whenever a person describes an event, they are not merely presenting a neutral fact; they are implicitly or explicitly entering an argumentative terrain where counter-claims are possible or anticipated. Potter demonstrated that speakers routinely exhibit an acute, anticipatory rhetorical awareness in everyday interaction. Even in the absence of an overt adversary, speakers design their descriptions to disarm potential accusations of bias, incompetence, irrationality, or prejudice before those accusations can even be voiced. For instance, preface formulations such as “I don’t normally judge people, but…” or “I might be mistaken, but…” are meticulously crafted defensive maneuvers designed to inoculate the upcoming statement against immediate rhetorical disqualification.

This rhetorical lens extends into the analysis of ideological dilemmas—a concept developed collaboratively by Billig, Potter, Edwards, and their Loughborough colleagues. They argued that common sense is not a harmonious, uniform system of beliefs, but is riddled with opposing, contradictory maxims (for example, “look before you leap” versus “he who hesitates is lost”). Everyday social thinking is inherently dilemmatic, forcing social actors to constantly choose between, negotiate, and rhetorically reconcile competing cultural values. By integrating Billig’s rhetorical insights into discursive psychology, Potter established that human speech is fundamentally contentious, pragmatic, and designed for social combat, requiring analysts to constantly ask: What counter-version is this specific formulation designed to ward off?

5. Methodological Innovations: Naturalistic Interaction and Transcription

5.1 The Rejection of Contrived Data and Traditional Interviews

As discursive psychology matured throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, Jonathan Potter championed a radical methodological shift that set the paradigm apart from conventional qualitative approaches: the decisive rejection of contrived, researcher-provoked data in favor of naturally occurring interaction. Traditional social science methodologies—including laboratory experiments, structured focus groups, and semi-structured qualitative interviews—rely upon settings fabricated entirely by the researcher. In an interview, for instance, the investigator establishes the research agenda, formulates the questions, controls turn-taking, and compels the participant to formulate abstract reflections on topics they might never otherwise discuss in that manner.

Potter launched a sustained critique of the qualitative interview, arguing that it represents an artificial interactional arena whose demand characteristics are largely unrecognized by researchers. When an interviewee speaks, they are not providing an unadulterated glimpse into their inner psyche, their domestic life, or their institutional practices. Instead, they are engaged in the immediate, local business of answering an interviewer’s question, managing their self-presentation as a competent, moral human being, and orienting to the perceived scholarly expectations of the academic encounter. The interview does not capture how people talk to their spouses, how doctors interact with patients, or how social workers handle emergencies; it captures only how interviewees talk to an academic researcher.

To overcome this limitation, Potter formulated the imperative of studying naturalistic data—defined as recordings of interactions that would have occurred in precisely the same manner had the researcher never been born. This methodological gold standard includes recordings of emergency telephone helplines, family dinner conversations, business board meetings, primary care consultations, mediation hearings, and casual telephone calls between friends. By capturing interactions in their native habitats, researchers preserve the delicate interactional ecologies of human life without the distorting contamination of experimental interventions. Naturalistic data forces the analyst to be modest: instead of imposing speculative concepts onto participants, the researcher must grapple with the messy, unpredictable, and highly complex realities of real-world human conduct.

5.2 Adoption and Extension of Jeffersonian Transcription

The empirical rigor of discursive psychology is inextricably tied to its adoption and sophisticated refinement of the transcription system originally pioneered by conversation analyst Gail Jefferson. In standard sociological and psychological research, transcriptions of spoken talk are typically treated as mere “scripts,” where speech is cleaned up, punctuation is imposed according to literary conventions, and non-standard pronunciations, pauses, and speech disruptions are systematically omitted as irrelevant noise. Potter vehemently opposed this practice, arguing that reducing spoken interaction to cleaned-up prose strips away the very mechanical infrastructure through which social action is accomplished.

Under the Jeffersonian system, talk is transcribed with micro-analytic precision, capturing not only what words were spoken, but exactly how they were delivered in temporal sequence. The system records:

• The exact duration of pauses and silences measured in tenths of a second (e.g., (0.6));
• Overlapping speech denoted by square brackets (e.g., [ ]);
• Vocal pitch changes, rising and falling intonation, and cut-off words indicating sudden self-repair;
• Speech rate variations, including rushed talk marked by greater-than/less-than symbols (e.g., >faster talk<) and drawn-out sounds marked by colons (e.g., wo::rd);
• Vocal volume variations, ranging from whispered speech flanked by degree signs (e.g., °quiet°) to emphatic loudness indicated by capitalization;
• Non-lexical vocalizations, including audible inhalations, exhalations, coughing, laughter particles, and the subtle physiological acoustics of weeping and emotional distress.

Potter demonstrated that the micro-details of interaction—a 0.4-second silence before answering a question, a subtle delay in responding, a microscopic breath intake—are not meaningless behavioral epiphenomena. Rather, they are the primary communicative resources participants systematically use to project alignment, display hesitation, enact disaffiliation, or manage face-threatening interactions. The rigorous management of audiovisual recordings and Jeffersonian transcripts transformed discursive psychology into an exacting observational science, enabling researchers to uncover the precise mechanics governing social accountability.

5.3 Validation Criteria in Discursive Psychological Research

By rejecting both the quantitative measurement paradigms of positivist psychology and the subjective, impressionistic interpretations of post-structuralist hermeneutics, Jonathan Potter found it necessary to formulate new, rigorous criteria for validating discursive psychological research. In mainstream psychology, validity and reliability are secured through statistical sampling, control groups, and inter-rater reliability scores. Because discursive psychology works with naturalistic qualitative recordings of talk, it requires an alternative epistemological framework to establish the objectivity and trustworthiness of its analytic claims.

Potter articulated several key validation criteria rooted in the ethnomethodological principle of orderliness in detail:

1. Participant Orientation: The primary criterion for any analytic claim is that it must be demonstrable in the observable orientations of the participants themselves. The analyst cannot simply assert that a speaker is exercising power, displaying anxiety, or manifesting prejudice based on theoretical preconceptions. Instead, the analyst must point to specific evidence in the transcript showing that the recipient of the turn treated the prior action as powerful, anxious, or prejudicial. The participants’ own sequential interpretations serve as the ultimate empirical anchor for the analysis.
2. Sequential Coherence and Next-Turn Proof Procedure: Borrowed from conversation analysis, the “next-turn proof procedure” dictates that how a conversational partner responds in the subsequent turn provides direct, real-time proof of how the initial utterance was understood. If an utterance was ambiguously phrased, the next turn demonstrates whether it was received as a request, a joke, an insult, or an information query, constraining the analyst’s interpretive freedom.
3. Collective Data Sessions: Reliability is reinforced through collaborative, non-hierarchical data sessions. Within these meetings, multiple researchers collectively listen to recordings and dissect transcripts, subjecting proposed interpretations to intense peer interrogation. Any analytic assertion that cannot survive the collective scrutiny of the data session is discarded.
4. Public Transparency of Data: Discursive psychological publications do not rely on summary statistics or isolated, uncontextualized quotes. Instead, researchers reproduce full, unabridged Jeffersonian transcripts alongside their analytical prose. This practice allows readers to independently evaluate the validity of the author’s claims against the empirical data, achieving a level of scientific transparency that is rarely matched in experimental publications where raw laboratory data is withheld from the reader.

6. Representing Reality (1996) and Epistemological Fact-Construction

6.1 The Architecture of Fact-Construction

In 1996, Jonathan Potter published his magnum opus of social and epistemological theory, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. This seminal work represented the culmination of more than a decade of intensive research into how language, rhetoric, and interaction manufacture truth. In Representing Reality, Potter moved beyond the immediate critiques of social psychology to provide a grand, systematic analysis of the architecture of fact-construction across human society. The central question animating the volume was breathtakingly ambitious: How do human beings, using the fragile, contingent medium of language, assemble descriptions that successfully present themselves as objective, solid, and utterly independent of the speaker who produced them?

Potter explored the techniques through which accounts achieve what he termed ontological “out-there-ness.” When individuals make factual claims—whether in a court of law, a scientific laboratory, a journalistic report, or a domestic dispute—they must overcome the perpetual suspicion that their account is merely a personal opinion, an optical illusion, a subjective fantasy, or a manipulative lie. To establish “out-there-ness,” speakers utilize an array of sophisticated discursive devices that systematically erase the presence of the author. By portraying the external world as forcing the description upon them, the speaker recedes into the background, becoming a mere recording device reporting brute facts that exist independently in reality.

Deconstructing the rigid epistemological boundary between reality and representation, Potter showed that “reality” is not something that sits passively on one side of a philosophical divide while “words” sit on the other. Rather, reality is continuously constructed, stabilized, and defended through discursive practices. Through a comparative analysis spanning scientific papers, television documentaries, political speeches, and ordinary gossip, Potter revealed that the structural mechanics of fact-construction remain astonishingly consistent across cultural domains: whether an astrophysicist is reporting a new stellar phenomenon or a teenager is reporting a playground altercation, both must negotiate the same structural dilemmas of credibility, stake, and epistemic authority.

6.2 Stake Management and Epistemic Authority

A cornerstone of Potter’s theory in Representing Reality is the concept of the Dilemma of Stake. In any interaction, a speaker faces the pervasive risk that their report, claim, or evaluation may be discounted, undermined, or dismissed on the grounds that they have a personal, political, or financial interest (a “stake”) in having their version believed. If a politician praises a policy, their evaluation is readily dismissed as partisan propaganda; if an employee complains of being overworked, their complaint risks being branded as personal laziness. To make an account stick as an objective fact, the speaker must successfully manage the dilemma of stake.

Potter identified and analyzed several pervasive interactional devices used to navigate this dilemma:

• Stake Inoculation: A preemptive rhetorical maneuver whereby a speaker explicitly acknowledges and heads off a potential charge of bias before an interlocutor can deploy it. Formulations such as “I don’t have a horse in this race, but…” or “I’m not a fan of this company, but their new safety regulations are exceptional” function to inoculate the speaker against accusations of partiality, thereby framing their subsequent claim as disinterested, reluctant, and driven purely by factual evidence.
• Stake Confession: The deliberate, overt admission of a personal interest or bias, strategically deployed to demonstrate absolute transparency and honesty, paradoxically enhancing the speaker’s moral credibility on other dimensions of their testimony.
• Category Entitlement: The mobilization of social category memberships to claim unproblematic, legitimate epistemic access to specific domains of knowledge. As Potter observed, certain social categories—such as “doctor,” “licensed engineer,” “eyewitness,” or “mother”—carry culturally embedded rights to speak authoritatively about specific phenomena. When a speaker introduces their description with “Speaking as a pediatrician…” or “As someone who stood three feet from the collision…”, they mobilize category entitlement to neutralize challenges to their credibility, presenting their report as privileged, authoritative, and direct.
• Corroboration and Consensus: Presenting an observation not as an isolated personal judgment, but as an identical conclusion reached independently by multiple, disparate observers, thereby transforming a subjective impression into an undeniable external reality.
• Active Voicing: The strategic use of direct quotation and verbatim dialogue to present an account of an event as an unmediated, authentic reproduction of what transpired, subtly effacing the interpretive filter of the current narrator.

6.3 Empiricist and Contingent Discursive Repertoires

Building upon the foundational work he conducted with Michael Mulkay in the sociology of scientific knowledge, Potter’s Representing Reality provided an exhaustive analysis of the linguistic demarcation between empiricist discourse and contingent discourse. In scientific writing, legal cross-examination, and investigative reporting, human actors must constantly navigate the tension between objective scientific revelation and human fallibility. Potter demonstrated that these domains are governed by two distinct, functionally specialized discursive repertoires.

The empiricist repertoire is characterized by passive grammatical constructions, impersonal prose, and the systematic minimization of the human investigator. In an empiricist formulation, researchers do not write, “I decided to heat the chemical because I was curious.” Instead, they write, “The solution was heated to 100 degrees Celsius, whereupon the reaction occurred.” In this discursive universe, nature is cast as the active, autonomous agent; the physical data directly dictates the scientific conclusions, while the human researcher is rendered invisible, functioning as a neutral, interchangeable instrument. The empiricist repertoire is systematically deployed when a claimant wishes to establish the universal validity, objectivity, and unassailable authority of their findings.

Conversely, the contingent repertoire is mobilized when scientists or institutional actors need to explain away errors, failed replications, or opposing scientific theories. In the contingent repertoire, descriptions are saturated with references to human subjectivity, psychological bias, professional rivalries, technical incompetence, and social contingency. While an author’s own successes are constructed via the empiricist repertoire as the direct revelation of natural law, an opponent’s conflicting findings are deconstructed via the contingent repertoire as the unfortunate consequence of flawed methodology, confirmation bias, or careerist desperation. Potter extended this analysis far beyond scientific literature, proving that the alternating deployment of empiricist and contingent devices constitutes a fundamental, universal grammar of human dispute, leveraged identically in courtroom battles, political scandals, and marital arguments.

7. The Loughborough Discourse and Rhetoric Group (DARG)

7.1 Key Collaborators and Intellectual Coalitions

Throughout the late 1980s, 1990s, and into the early 2000s, the Discourse and Rhetoric Group (DARG) at Loughborough University functioned as an intellectual powerhouse, generating a transformative body of scholarship that reshaped social scientific research methodologies worldwide. The remarkable success of DARG was driven by an extraordinary coalition of brilliant, intellectually uncompromising scholars who shared a commitment to linguistic analysis while contributing distinct methodological and theoretical strengths. Central to this coalition, alongside Jonathan Potter, were Derek Edwards, Michael Billig, Charles Antaki, Alexa Hepburn, and Elizabeth Stokoe.

The collaboration between Jonathan Potter and Derek Edwards was particularly foundational. Together, they forged discursive psychology into an autonomous, formalized intellectual discipline. While Billig infused the group with a deep appreciation for classical rhetoric, philosophical argumentation, and ideological dilemmas, Edwards and Potter developed an empirical engine for analyzing cognitive vocabulary in interaction. Charles Antaki contributed brilliant analyses of conversational explanation, formulation, and institutional identities, while later collaborators like Alexa Hepburn and Elizabeth Stokoe brought unprecedented sophistication to the transcription and micro-analysis of naturalistic crisis lines, police interrogations, and neighborhood dispute resolution. DARG was defined by an ethos of fearless intellectual cross-pollination, where psychology, sociology, conversation analysis, and applied linguistics dissolved their disciplinary boundaries to confront the empirical reality of talk-in-interaction.

Within DARG, internal debates were common, intellectually fierce, and vital to the paradigm’s evolution. In particular, productive tensions frequently arose between scholars who advocated for a broader, culturally oriented discursive psychology infused with ideological critique, and those—led increasingly by Potter and Edwards—who insisted upon a rigorous, radical alignment with ethnomethodology and pure conversation analysis. Far from fracturing the group, these internal debates sharpened their collective methodologies, ensuring that every concept developed within DARG was forged through relentless peer critique and empirical testing.

7.2 Divergence from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

As discourse analysis expanded globally during the 1990s, Jonathan Potter and the Loughborough school found it necessary to clearly delineate their participant-oriented discursive psychology from the burgeoning movement of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), championed by scholars such as Norman Fairclough, Teun van Dijk, and Ruth Wodak. While both paradigms shared a broad commitment to examining language as a vehicle of power, ideology, and social reproduction, their epistemological and methodological approaches were diametrically opposed.

Potter launched a powerful, systematic critique of CDA’s methodological architecture. He argued that CDA was fundamentally a “top-down,” politically motivated framework that imposed external sociological and ideological categories onto texts without demonstrating that those categories were demonstrably relevant to the participants themselves. In CDA studies, an analyst typically approaches a political speech or news article with pre-conceived Marxist, feminist, or post-colonial theories, selectively highlighting linguistic features (such as nominalization or passive voice) to prove that the text reinforces hegemonic domination, social oppression, or elite interests. Potter argued that this approach suffered from severe analytic circularity: the political conclusions of the analyst were smuggled into the analysis prior to the empirical examination of the data, treating the text merely as an illustrative canvas for the analyst’s pre-existing political convictions.

In contrast, Potter defended the radical participant-oriented criterion of discursive psychology. He maintained that analysts must maintain rigorous methodological humility: researchers have no epistemic right to declare that an interaction is characterized by “patriarchal power,” “class oppression,” or “institutional racism” unless they can point to specific, observable empirical evidence within the sequential interaction showing that the participants themselves are orienting to those categories. If power, inequality, and ideology are genuine social realities, Potter argued, they must leave visible fingerprints on the turn-by-turn mechanics of the talk. By prioritizing what is demonstrably salient to the participants rather than projecting the analyst’s theoretical and political agenda, Potter preserved empirical granularity and scientific rigor, demonstrating that one could investigate social injustice without sacrificing methodological integrity.

7.3 Institutionalization and Global Pedagogical Spread

The institutional legacy of the Loughborough Discourse and Rhetoric Group was cemented through its development of innovative pedagogical structures that disseminated discursive psychology to hundreds of scholars across the globe. Recognizing that the micro-analysis of talk required specialized, hands-on training that could not be acquired through passive textbook reading, DARG established dedicated Master’s and doctoral training programs at Loughborough. These programs immersed students directly in data analysis from day one, training their ears to hear the micro-mechanics of conversation and their eyes to read fine-grained transcripts with clinical precision.

DARG pioneered intensive international workshops, residential summer institutes, and visiting fellowships that attracted doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and senior academics from across Europe, North America, Latin America, and Australasia. In these workshops, participants brought their own audio-visual field recordings to undergo collective data sessions led by Potter, Edwards, Billig, and their colleagues. Through this immersive pedagogy, visitors internalized the DARG ethos: the refusal of speculative coding, the meticulous attention to conversational sequentiality, and the rigorous grounding of every analytic assertion in participant orientation.

Furthermore, DARG played an essential role in democratizing qualitative social science by creating open educational resources, standardizing Jeffersonian transcription guidelines for psychological research, and establishing shared repositories of naturalistic interactional data. Decades after its inception, DARG stands as one of the most successful exemplars of sustained, collaborative academic inquiry in modern social science history. Its alumni now occupy chairs, direct research institutes, and lead major academic departments globally, ensuring that Potter’s vision of a naturalistic, interactional psychology continues to thrive across successive generations of scholars.

8. Discursive Psychology of Mind, Emotion, and Cognition

8.1 Re-specifying Memory and Attribution

The definitive theoretical formalization of discursive psychology as an alternative to cognitive science occurred through the collaborative partnership of Jonathan Potter and Derek Edwards, culminating in their groundbreaking volume Discursive Psychology (1992). In this work and a series of companion papers, Edwards and Potter introduced the Discursive Action Model (DAM), an empirical framework designed to respecify the classical cognitive domains of memory and attribution theory into situated, accountability-oriented discursive practices.

For decades, cognitive social psychology had treated attribution theory—championed by theorists such as Fritz Heider and Harold Kelley—as a universal mental calculus. Orthodox cognitive theory claimed that when individuals observe an event, their brains automatically process information regarding consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness to arrive at an internal causal judgment: deciding whether an event was caused by internal personal dispositions or external situational constraints. Edwards and Potter dismantled this model. They demonstrated that in natural human affairs, causal attributions are never calculated in an abstract, disinterested mental vacuum. Instead, attributions are performative speech acts manufactured in real-time sequences of social accountability, specifically within exchanges of blaming, excusing, defending, and accusing.

To demonstrate this respecification empirically, Edwards and Potter conducted a brilliant re-analysis of the famous Watergate hearings, specifically examining the testimony of former White House counsel John Dean. Cognitive psychologist Ulric Neisser had previously analyzed Dean’s testimony against the secret Oval Office tape recordings, treating Dean’s discrepancies as evidence of cognitive memory distortion and egocentric biases. Edwards and Potter demonstrated that Dean’s “memory” was not a faulty mental tape recorder; it was an extraordinary interactional and rhetorical achievement. Under hostile cross-examination, Dean’s verbal recollections of conversations were meticulously designed to manage two concurrent levels of accountability: establishing the criminal culpability of President Richard Nixon while simultaneously constructing his own moral innocence and conscientious legal conduct. By analyzing data from marital counseling, commercial mediation, and public inquiries, Edwards and Potter proved that “remembering” and “forgetting” are not passive cognitive readouts, but functional social practices mobilized to negotiate culpability, moral character, and interpersonal liability.

8.2 Emotion Categories as Discursive Devices

Having revolutionized the study of memory and attribution, discursive psychology turned its analytic gaze toward the domain of human emotion. Mainstream psychology and affective neuroscience have overwhelmingly conceptualized emotions as interior, involuntary, biological eruptions—visceral states triggered deep within the limbic system that involuntarily leak out through facial expressions, physiological changes, and subjective feelings. While not denying human physiological embodiment, Jonathan Potter, alongside Derek Edwards and later Alexa Hepburn, launched a comprehensive critique of this purely biological essentialism, showing that emotion categories operate primarily as flexible, potent discursive resources for managing moral accountability.

In interaction, emotion words (such as “angry,” “jealous,” “terrified,” “depressed,” or “grief-stricken”) are not merely descriptive labels pinned onto pre-existing internal biological states. Instead, emotion discourse is deployed to accomplish crucial interactional work. For example, if a speaker justifies punching another person by asserting, “I was blinded by rage,” they are mobilizing an emotion category to frame their violent behavior as an involuntary, irrational reaction triggered by an intolerable external provocation, thereby mitigating their premeditated moral culpability. Conversely, describing someone else’s political protest as “irrational hysteria” functions to delegitimize the substance of their grievance, reducing legitimate political dissent to emotional pathology. Edwards and Potter demonstrated that in legal cross-examinations, domestic disputes, and workplace conflicts, participants constantly deploy a binary contrast between rational, deliberate calculation and uncontrollable emotional impulse to strategically assign or evade legal and moral blame.

In later collaborative work with Alexa Hepburn, Potter advanced this paradigm by examining the actual interactional acoustics of emotion through naturalistic audiovisual recordings. Moving beyond emotion vocabulary to the physical manifestation of distress, they analyzed the precise mechanics of crying, weeping, and sympathetic uptake on child protection helplines. By transcribing the exact physiological perturbations of crying—including aspiration, trembling pitch, sobbing inhalations, and speech disruptions—Hepburn and Potter demonstrated that crying is an exquisitely coordinated, interactionally responsive social action. Callers systematically deploy crying at precise sequential junctures to display overwhelming moral distress, manage interactional resistance, and signal helplessness, while call-takers utilize specialized conversational techniques to manage that distress without compromising their institutional duties.

8.3 Attitudes Reconsidered as Evaluative Practices

Perhaps no concept is more sacred to orthodox social psychology than the “attitude.” For nearly a century, the discipline defined itself as the scientific study of attitudes, building an enormous methodological industry around psychometric surveys, Likert scales, and semantic differentials designed to measure individuals’ internal favorable or unfavorable orientations toward social objects. In a sustained series of essays and empirical interventions, Jonathan Potter systematically demolished the theoretical and methodological assumptions underpinning standard attitude testing, urging social science to replace the mentalist concept of “attitude” with the empirical study of evaluative practices.

Potter demonstrated that standard attitude measurement commits an egregious epistemological error by treating evaluative utterances as stable, context-free reflections of an interior cognitive state. When an individual checks a box indicating they “strongly agree” with a statement on a survey, the psychometrician assumes that a pre-existing mental entity has been measured. In reality, the survey is a highly peculiar, coercive interactional setting where the participant is stripped of all ordinary conversational resources and forced to fit their nuanced, context-dependent thoughts into crude, decontextualized categories. Naturalistic interaction reveals that in real life, people do not possess single, uniform attitudes toward complex social objects. Instead, their evaluations are inherently context-bound, sequence-dependent social actions that shift dynamically across conversational turns.

By studying natural conversations, Potter demonstrated that evaluative statements—praising, complaining, condemning, appreciating—are intricately coordinated with conversational preference organization, alignment, and affiliation. A speaker does not articulate an evaluation simply because an internal attitude compelled them to do so; they produce an evaluation to accomplish immediate interactional business, such as affiliating with a friend’s compliment, rejecting an institutional proposal, or negotiating stance in an unfolding debate. By tracking how evaluative formulations are designed, upgraded, downgraded, and retracted across minute temporal sequences in naturally occurring talk, discursive psychology replaced the static, artificial fiction of internal attitudes with a dynamic, highly accurate science of human evaluative conduct.

9. Applied Discursive Psychology: Institutional and Workplace Interactions

9.1 Child Protection and Helplines

While discursive psychology began as a radical epistemological critique of academic social psychology, Jonathan Potter and his collaborators rapidly proved that their micro-analytic framework possessed immense practical, applied value for high-stakes institutional settings. The most prominent and impactful demonstration of applied discursive psychology is found in Potter’s long-term collaborative research program with Alexa Hepburn, investigating emergency telephone helplines, most notably the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) in the United Kingdom.

Analyzing thousands of hours of naturalistic recordings of real-world emergency calls, Hepburn and Potter examined the complex, high-stakes interactional dilemmas faced daily by call-takers and callers. Callers to the NSPCC are frequently in severe emotional distress, grappling with intense guilt, fear of state intervention, or hostility toward the authorities. Hepburn and Potter conducted micro-analyses of how call-takers skillfully manage caller distress, navigate conversational resistance, and gather legally mandated forensic evidence regarding child abuse without alienating the caller. Their work exposed the delicate mechanics of advice-giving sequences, showing that standard, unmodulated advice is almost invariably met with caller resistance (“Yes, but I’ve already tried that”). Instead, effective call-takers utilize specific conversational pre-sequences and collaborative formulation techniques that guide callers toward arriving at solutions themselves, dramatically increasing compliance.

Crucially, Potter and Hepburn’s research was not confined to academic journals. Their empirical findings were translated directly into national practitioner training programs, conversational guidelines, and policy reforms within the NSPCC and other international emergency helplines. By playing micro-transcripts and audio recordings back to the professionals themselves, the researchers enabled call-takers to see the exact interactional consequences of specific word choices, pause lengths, and question designs. This groundbreaking applied work demonstrated that the micro-analytic scrutiny of naturalistic interaction could directly save lives, improve institutional outcomes, and revolutionize professional communication training.

9.2 Medical Consultations and Healthcare Communication

Another major institutional domain where Jonathan Potter’s discursive framework has yielded transformative insights is healthcare communication. Working alongside clinical researchers and applied conversation analysts, Potter contributed to the systematic investigation of doctor-patient communication across primary care, oncology clinics, psychiatric consultations, and psychotherapy. Traditional medical communication research had long relied upon post-consultation satisfaction surveys or superficial coding schemes that categorized doctor-patient interaction into broad, abstract styles (such as “patient-centered” versus “doctor-centered”). Potter’s approach radically superseded these crude frameworks by examining the actual, turn-by-turn sequential mechanics of clinical encounters.

Discursive psychological research has illuminated the subtle, complex methods patients use to formulate their medical complaints. When presenting symptoms to a physician, patients face a delicate interactional dilemma: they must convince the doctor that their physical distress is severe enough to warrant medical intervention while simultaneously avoiding being categorized as a hypochondriac, a complainer, or someone seeking illegitimate sick leave. Potter and his colleagues demonstrated that patients systematically design their descriptions to manage this moral accountability, employing objective fact-construction devices, detailing failed home remedies, and presenting their symptoms as external, involuntary disruptions to their normal, productive lives.

Furthermore, discursive studies have exposed how the precise design of a doctor’s questions profoundly influences clinical outcomes and patient compliance. For example, research into how doctors inquire about additional patient concerns revealed that asking “Is there something else you want to address today?” versus “Is there anything else?” produces dramatically different clinical results due to the subtle grammatical polarity and preference organization embedded in the words “some” versus “any.” Discursive psychology showed that medical authority, diagnostic consensus, and patient compliance are not static attributes of professional status, but are continuous, interactional achievements manufactured through conversational design. These insights have been integrated into medical school curricula across the globe, fundamentally improving clinical training and reducing diagnostic miscommunication.

9.3 Conflict Resolution, Mediation, and Legal Settings

The institutional application of discursive psychology has also fundamentally reshaped research into legal proceedings, courtroom cross-examinations, and alternative dispute resolution. In mediation hearings—whether involving community disputes, neighborhood conflicts, or contentious divorce settlements—mediators are formally required to maintain absolute institutional neutrality. Traditional conflict resolution literature treated neutrality as an internal mental disposition, an ethical commitment to fairness that the mediator possesses in their mind. Jonathan Potter and his colleagues overturned this psychological fiction, demonstrating that neutrality is a continuous, fragile interactional performance accomplished entirely through specialized conversational techniques.

Through empirical analyses of real-world mediation transcripts, discursive researchers showed that mediators sustain neutrality by systematically employing neutralistic question formatting and strategic reformulations. When a disputant launches a toxic, personalized accusation at their opponent, an effective mediator does not endorse or reject the claim; instead, they reformulate the toxic statement, stripping it of its personalized venom and converting it into a neutral, manageable topic of mutual concern. Discursive psychology revealed the exact linguistic mechanics through which mediators prevent escalations, deflect accusations of favoritism, and nudge polarized disputants toward legally binding settlements.

Concurrently, Potter’s framework has illuminated the tactical mobilization of fact-construction strategies by disputants themselves. In dispute contexts, participants operate under intense scrutiny, where every claim regarding who broke a fence, who initiated a physical altercation, or who violated a contract is contested. Disputants deploy stake inoculation, category entitlement, and empiricist repertoires to establish their own moral innocence while constructing their opponent as irrational, aggressive, and dishonest. By providing a fine-grained anatomy of how facts, blame, and justice are manufactured in legal and mediation arenas, Potter’s work has informed professional mediation accreditation, courtroom procedural guidelines, and judicial training worldwide.

10. Theoretical Dialogues, Methodological Debates, and Internal Critiques

10.1 The Split with Critical Discursive Psychology

As discursive psychology flourished throughout the late 1990s, the paradigm experienced a famous and highly consequential internal debate that resulted in a theoretical divergence between two distinct branches: the conversation-analytic discursive psychology championed by Jonathan Potter and Derek Edwards, and the critical discursive psychology championed by Margaret Wetherell. This intellectual debate, which unfolded across a series of landmark articles in journals such as Discourse & Society, centered on the fundamental relationship between micro-interaction, institutional power, and post-structuralist social theory.

Margaret Wetherell argued that by increasingly restricting its analytical gaze to the strict, micro-sequential turn-taking conventions of conversation analysis, discursive psychology risked intellectual impoverishment. Wetherell insisted that analysts must not ignore the broader, overarching historical, political, and ideological formations that shape social life. She advocated for a “synthetic” model of discourse analysis that combined the micro-technical precision of conversation analysis with post-structuralist concepts of power, subjectivity, and cultural history drawn from Michel Foucault, Louis Althusser, and cultural studies. For Wetherell, focusing solely on localized participant orientations risked missing the invisible, structural inequalities—such as patriarchy, systemic racism, and capitalist hegemony—that dictate which participants have the cultural capital to speak in the first place.

Jonathan Potter, alongside Derek Edwards, responded with a robust defense of strict, ethnomethodological participant orientation. Potter argued that bringing macro-sociological concepts like “hegemony,” “patriarchy,” or “discursive power” into the analysis prior to empirical observation represented an unprincipled, premature interpretive leap. If an analyst declares that an interaction is governed by patriarchal power without pointing to specific empirical evidence in the turn-taking showing that the participants themselves are orienting to gender hierarchy, the analyst is merely projecting their own political theories onto the data. Potter maintained that the greatest strength of discursive psychology lay precisely in its methodological discipline: by anchoring all claims in observable interactional conduct, the researcher avoids theoretical dogma and discovers how power and ideology are actually constructed, sustained, or subverted in practice. This intellectual split clarified two productive trajectories within qualitative research: one emphasizing cultural critique and ideological history, the other advancing an exacting, naturalistic science of human interaction.

10.2 Responses to Mainstream Cognitive and Experimental Critics

Throughout his career, Jonathan Potter has engaged in sustained, rigorous intellectual combat with mainstream experimental psychologists and cognitive scientists who viewed discursive psychology as a threat to the scientific credibility of the discipline. Traditional psychologists frequently charged discursive psychology with anti-realism, epistemological nihilism, unscientific relativism, and an utter lack of methodological generalizability. Critics claimed that by focusing exclusively on language, Potter was denying the material existence of the physical world, ignoring the biological reality of the human brain, and abandoning the scientific search for universal cognitive mechanisms.

Potter systematically debunked these criticisms in numerous theoretical publications. First, he repeatedly clarified that discursive psychology does not deny the existence of the physical world, neurobiology, or human anatomy. The argument is not an ontological denial of material reality, but an epistemological critique of how claims about reality acquire social currency, validity, and moral force. Discursive psychology studies descriptions of the world because it is through descriptions that human beings coordinate action, allocate resources, wage war, and pass laws. Potter pointed out that even if a cognitive mechanism or neurobiological state exists, the moment it is articulated, debated, or acted upon in society, it must enter the interactional matrix of language, where it is governed by the structural laws of discourse, not the laws of neurology.

Second, Potter turned the charge of a “lack of generalizability” back upon his experimental critics. He demonstrated that mainstream laboratory psychology suffered from a massive crisis of ecological generalizability. An experiment conducted on a convenience sample of university undergraduates performing artificial tasks in a sterile room tells researchers virtually nothing about how human beings act in their families, workplaces, or political institutions. In contrast, by discovering fundamental interactional structures—such as preference organization, repair mechanics, and stake management devices—discursive psychology uncovers robust, highly generalizable organizational principles of human conduct that replicate across diverse naturalistic settings worldwide.

10.3 Debates Concerning Reflexivity and Relativism

Another profound theoretical frontier navigated by Jonathan Potter concerns the reflexive dilemma inherent in social constructionism. In the wake of the “Science Wars” and the rise of post-modern theory, critics and philosophers frequently posed a foundational challenge to constructivist scholars: If all factual accounts, scientific truths, and objective descriptions are socially constructed discursive artifacts, is not discursive psychology itself merely another socially constructed text? If all claims to objective truth are deconstructable as rhetorical maneuvers designed to manage stake and epistemic authority, on what epistemological ground does the discursive psychologist stand when publishing their research?

Potter addressed this reflexive dilemma directly, most notably in Representing Reality, rejecting both naive epistemological realism and nihilistic post-modern paralysis. Drawing upon the sociological debates surrounding reflexivity in the sociology of scientific knowledge, Potter distinguished between philosophical relativism as an abstract moral stance and methodological relativism as a rigorous analytical tool. Methodological relativism does not require a researcher to declare that all moral claims are equal or that empirical truth does not exist; rather, it demands that when analyzing how participants construct reality, the researcher must suspend their own personal convictions regarding who is “right” and who is “wrong” in order to objectively study the interactional machinery being used by both sides.

Potter embraced a pragmatic, reflexively vigilant stance. He acknowledged that discursive psychological research is itself a specialized form of literary and academic production, complete with its own rhetorical devices, category entitlements, and fact-construction practices. However, this reflexivity does not invalidate the enterprise; rather, it strengthens it. By making its raw data (Jeffersonian transcripts and recordings) publicly available alongside its analytical claims, discursive psychology provides a degree of empirical transparency that allows its own findings to be challenged, tested, and refined by the global academic community. Potter proved that one could maintain sophisticated reflexive awareness without abandoning the pursuit of rigorous, cumulative social scientific knowledge.

11. Academic Leadership, Mentorship, and Institutional Influence at Rutgers

11.1 The Deanship at Rutgers School of Communication and Information

Jonathan Potter’s appointment in 2015 as Dean of the School of Communication and Information (SC&I) at Rutgers University inaugurated a transformative six-year period of institutional modernization, strategic expansion, and academic elevation. As an administrative leader, Potter brought the same intellectual clarity, systemic rigor, and uncompromising standards that had characterized his scholarship to the complex governance of a major American research institution. Leading a diverse school comprising three distinct departments—Communication, Journalism and Media Studies, and Library and Information Science—Potter formulated a strategic vision centered on interdisciplinary collaboration, digital innovation, and methodological excellence.

Under his deanship, SC&I experienced unprecedented departmental growth, strategic faculty recruitment, and institutional renewal. Potter recognized early that the traditional boundaries separating communication, journalism, and information science were dissolving in the face of the global digital revolution. He actively championed research initiatives that explored the intersections of social interaction, algorithmically mediated platforms, digital health communication, and information equity. Potter restructured administrative processes to support faculty grant procurement, elevated research infrastructure, and fostered an institutional climate that celebrated methodological pluralism, ensuring that qualitative, interactional, and computational approaches operated in productive synergy rather than academic isolation.

Furthermore, Potter’s leadership was characterized by a deep commitment to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within academic hiring, curriculum development, and institutional culture. He navigated the university through periods of intense social upheaval and the unprecedented operational crisis precipitated by the COVID-19 pandemic, successfully transitioning hundreds of courses and research laboratories to digital environments while fiercely protecting the welfare of students, staff, and faculty. His tenure as Dean demonstrated that an uncompromising, critical social theorist could successfully lead a major, multi-million-dollar academic enterprise, leaving SC&I substantially elevated in national and international rankings upon his return to full-time research in 2021.

11.2 Mentorship and the Generation of Next-Wave Scholars

Beyond his written corpus and administrative achievements, Jonathan Potter’s lasting impact on the social sciences is powerfully embodied in his exceptional legacy as a mentor, teacher, and doctoral advisor. Throughout his careers at Loughborough and Rutgers, Potter cultivated a pedagogical style that was demanding, intellectually generous, and fiercely committed to rigorous empirical training. He rejected the traditional hierarchical model of doctoral supervision, preferring to treat graduate students as junior colleagues invited into the collective workshop of real-time data analysis.

Potter’s pedagogical strategy centered on cultivating “interactional literacy.” In graduate seminars and advanced data workshops, he trained students to strip away abstract theoretical assumptions and listen to the raw temporal mechanics of human talk. He taught emerging scholars how to identify the subtle interactional work occurring within a 0.2-second pause, a slight breath intake, or an overlapping turn. He instilled in his mentees an intellectual humility that placed the participants’ own orientations above the researcher’s theoretical ego, demanding that every interpretive claim be defended with surgical precision through empirical transcript evidence.

The global dispersal of Potter-trained researchers represents one of the most successful intellectual networks in modern social science. His former doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows now occupy prestigious professorships and chair departments across the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and continental Europe. Even as senior scholars, many continue to actively publish with Potter, demonstrating the enduring intellectual vitality of the collaborative research culture he established. Through his tireless mentorship, Potter ensured that the foundational principles of discursive psychology would not remain static historical concepts, but would continue to evolve, adapt, and challenge new disciplinary terrains across successive generations.

11.3 Bridging Discursive Psychology and Global Communication Studies

Potter’s presence at Rutgers University catalyzed a historic convergence between European social psychological theory and American communication studies. Historically, North American communication departments had developed along distinct intellectual trajectories, often dominated by media effects paradigms, quantitative survey research, or literary cultural critique. Discursive psychology, with its roots in British social psychology and European sociology of science, had developed largely in parallel to these American communication traditions.

During his leadership at Rutgers, Potter acted as an intellectual ambassador, harmonizing these disparate fields. He demonstrated to American communication scholars that discursive psychology and conversation analysis offered the ideal empirical methodology for answering central communication questions. Whether investigating interpersonal conflict, organizational decision-making, journalistic interviews, or public relations discourse, Potter showed that communication is not an abstract process of “transmitting messages,” but is constituted entirely through situated interactional practices.

Potter actively facilitated transatlantic academic exchanges, organizing international symposia, hosting visiting European scholars, and establishing joint research initiatives that connected Rutgers with leading interactional research centers across the globe. By embedding naturalistic interaction analysis, Jeffersonian transcription, and fact-construction theory directly into the core curricula of American graduate communication programs, Potter profoundly broadened the methodological horizon of global communication research. His work helped establish a truly international, transdisciplinary science of human communication that transcends historical national divides.

12. Legacy and Future Trajectories of Potterian Discursive Psychology

12.1 The Multimodal and Embodied Turn

As the social sciences entered the twenty-first century, discursive psychology embarked on an extraordinary theoretical and methodological evolution: the multimodal and embodied turn. While early discursive psychology focused primarily on audio recordings and spoken discourse, Jonathan Potter, alongside contemporary collaborators such as Alexa Hepburn and leading conversation analysts like Charles Goodwin and Lorenza Mondada, recognized that human social action is not an exclusively vocal phenomenon. In real-world interaction, spoken words are inextricably synchronized with bodily conduct, eye gaze, facial expressions, physical gestures, bodily posture, and the manipulation of material objects in the physical environment.

Discursive psychology expanded its analytic apparatus to incorporate high-definition, multi-angle video recordings, developing sophisticated transcription conventions capable of capturing the simultaneous coordination of talk and bodily action. Analysts trace how a speaker’s shifting gaze coordinates turn-taking, how an eyebrow raise manages epistemic authority, or how the physical handling of a medical tool or legal document operates as an integral component of a speech action. This shift transformed discursive psychology into a comprehensive science of embodied social action.

This embodied expansion has yielded profound breakthroughs in understanding the physical and material infrastructures of human interaction. In surgical operating rooms, family kitchens, commercial aviation cockpits, and veterinary clinics, researchers apply Potter’s core principles of action orientation, accountability, and fact-construction to explore how human beings seamlessly synchronize bodily movements with verbal discourse to accomplish complex, collaborative tasks. By demonstrating that the body, material artifacts, and language constitute a single, unified ecology of action, Potter’s legacy continues to expand the frontiers of contemporary interactional science.

12.2 Discursive Psychology in the Digital Age

In an era defined by the ubiquitous presence of the internet, smartphones, algorithmic platforms, and artificial intelligence, Jonathan Potter’s theoretical toolkit has proven astonishingly adaptable and prescient. The digital age has radically transformed how human beings communicate, migrating massive proportions of daily social interaction from face-to-face vocal exchanges to text-based, asynchronous, and algorithmically curated environments. Far from rendering discursive psychology obsolete, the rise of digital interaction has expanded the urgent necessity of its methods.

Researchers today apply discursive psychology to analyze social media interactions on platforms such as X (formerly Twitter), Reddit forums, messaging apps, and online customer support chats. Potter’s concepts of stake inoculation, category entitlement, and ontological gerrymandering have become indispensable tools for investigating online misinformation, the viral proliferation of conspiracy theories, political polarization, and digital trolling. In text-based online environments, users lack vocal intonation and physical embodiment; consequently, they must rely entirely upon specialized textual devices—such as emojis, capitalization, hyperlinking, and sequential tagging—to perform actions, manage moral accountability, and establish epistemic credibility.

Furthermore, discursive psychology is playing a pioneering role in the critical examination of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) and interactions with conversational Artificial Intelligence systems, such as large language model chatbots and voice-activated virtual assistants. By examining transcripts of interactions between human users and AI systems, researchers analyze how people project agency, intentionality, and moral accountability onto artificial machines, and how automated natural language systems fail or succeed in negotiating conversational repair and preference organization. Discursive psychology provides the essential conceptual frameworks needed to deconstruct how digital platforms and automated systems reconfigure human reality in the twenty-first century.

12.3 Enduring Contributions to the Philosophy of Social Science

Looking back across more than four decades of relentless intellectual labor, Jonathan Potter’s enduring contributions to the philosophy of social science assume monumental proportions. He stands as one of the pivotal intellectual figures of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries who successfully challenged and fundamentally dismantled the computational, mentalist, and experimental monopolies that had constrained the human sciences for generations. By demonstrating that the internal cognitive architecture posited by traditional psychology was an ungrounded reification of cultural language games, Potter returned psychology to the living, breathing social world where it belongs.

Potter provided the social sciences with an intellectually rigorous, empirically unassailable alternative to mentalist reductionism. His conceptual innovations—from the Discursive Action Model and interpretative repertoires to stake inoculation, ontological out-there-ness, and category entitlement—have become permanent, foundational concepts woven into the fabric of contemporary sociology, psychology, communication, and qualitative methodology. He demonstrated that rigorous scientific inquiry does not require the artificial sterilization of the laboratory or the numerical reductionism of psychometric scales; rather, genuine empirical rigor consists of preserving the delicate, complex ecologies of natural human interaction and holding analytic claims accountable to the observable orientations of human participants.

Jonathan Potter’s legacy is fundamentally a philosophy of intellectual liberation and empirical humility. He taught scholars to cease imposing their private theoretical systems onto human beings and instead to listen—with absolute technological precision, patience, and conceptual clarity—to the extraordinary, intricate methods ordinary people use to construct their worlds, defend their truths, and navigate the moral dilemmas of life. As long as human beings continue to talk, argue, comfort, blame, and represent reality to one another, the brilliant insights of Jonathan Potter will remain an indispensable guide to understanding the human condition.

Conclusion

The scholarly journey of Jonathan Potter, from his formative doctoral work under Michael Mulkay in York to his transformative deanship at Rutgers University, exemplifies a rare and profound intellectual coherence. Across four decades, Potter has operated not merely as a critic of traditional psychological models, but as an architect of an entirely new way of conceptualizing social reality. Discursive psychology, as conceived and nurtured through his prolific writings and collaborative networks, has permanently altered the disciplinary landscape, demonstrating that language is not an innocent, passive window into an interior cognitive theater, but the active, foundational medium through which social life, moral accountability, and human knowledge are constructed.

By wedding the philosophical insights of Wittgenstein and Garfinkel with the exacting, micro-analytic mechanics of conversation analysis and the sociology of scientific knowledge, Potter established a paradigm that unites theoretical radicalism with empirical precision. His classic monographs—most notably Discourse and Social Psychology with Margaret Wetherell, Discursive Psychology with Derek Edwards, and Representing Reality—continue to serve as vital masterclasses in social theory and qualitative method. Through his leadership of the Discourse and Rhetoric Group at Loughborough and his deanship at Rutgers, he has mentored generations of international scholars, ensuring the global dissemination of interactional literacy.

In our contemporary world, characterized by rapid digital transformation, fraught institutional crises, and pervasive ideological polarization, the analytical toolkit forged by Jonathan Potter has never been more vital. Discursive psychology offers researchers a rigorous, transparent compass for navigating the complex mechanics of fact-construction, epistemic authority, and human interaction. In restoring discourse to its rightful status as social action, Jonathan Potter has secured an enduring place in the pantheon of modern social science, forever transforming how we listen to, analyze, and understand the profound architecture of human communication.

References

Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/arguing-and-thinking/391A25E80F9DFF149CFB6E5EE47B5A65

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1992). Discursive psychology. SAGE Publications. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/discursive-psychology

Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100(1), 23–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.23

Gilbert, G. N., & Mulkay, M. (1984). Opening Pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of scientists’ discourse. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/opening-pandoras-box/D25D329BC1783FA8DB56EBF49F60B08E

Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2007). Crying: Notes on description, transcription, and interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 40(1), 89–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351810701331299

Hepburn, A., & Potter, J. (2011). Designing the recipient: Managing advice resistance on helplines. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices (pp. 42–64). Palgrave Macmillan.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://benjamins.com/catalog/z.125

Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. SAGE Publications. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/representing-reality

Potter, J. (2010). Contemporary discursive psychology: Issues, prospects, and problems. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49(4), 657–678. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X513486

Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 103–118). John Wiley & Sons.

Potter, J., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Qualitative interviews in psychology: Problems and possibilities. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(4), 281–307. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp045oa

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. SAGE Publications. https://methods.sagepub.com/book/discourse-and-social-psychology

Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. Hutchinson.

Wetherell, M. (1998). Positioning and interpretative repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 9(3), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926598009003005

Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. Harvester Wheatsheaf & Columbia University Press.

Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Blackwell.