How can researchers ensure that all voices are heard—especially in politically charged settings such as U.S. congressional hearings on military intervention? This case study outlines an inclusive discourse analysis of congressional debates on proposed actions and interventions in Iraq and Iran. Navigating a polarized elite context, we developed a methodologically transparent and ethically reflexive approach that captured both dominant and dissenting voices. By analyzing frames, metaphors, and intertextual references, we traced how interventionist and noninterventionist narratives were constructed and contested. Particular attention was paid to speaker identity, institutional role, and rhetorical style. This Case Study offers practical insights for scholars and students conducting discourse analysis in elite political environments, demonstrating how inclusive design enhances both analytic depth and ethical accountability.
jointly written with Nikolaos Lampas and published in Sage Research Methods: Inclusive Research Methodologies.
Leave a Reply