LAB ASSIGNMENT 6: CODING AND ANALYSIS

LAB ASSIGNMENT 6: CODING AND ANALYSIS

Introduction:
In this lab you will have a chance to code and analyze some of the raw data that you collected this semester. You have collected three forms of data so far this semester, and now you will finally have the chance to analyze some of it in order to begin identifying an answer to your research question(s).

This Lab will proceed in three parts. In part one, you will decide which data you will analyze. In part two, I’ll will introduce three major analytic strategies employed by qualitative sociologists today: grounded theory (basically inductive naturalistic analysis), discourse analysis, and narrative analysis. In part three, I will demonstrate the use of grounded theory methods to analyze different types of data including examples of visual and textual content, fieldnotes, and interview transcripts.

Objectives:
This lab as three objectives: First, you will become familiar common coding and analysis process in contemporary qualitative sociology. Second, you will be trained in the process of grounded-theory-style (inductive) qualitative coding and will produce “initial” (1st round) and “focused” (2nd round) codes for your data. (NOTE: You are permitted to instead produce equivalent 1st and 2nd round codes for narrative or discourse analysis instead of grounded theory). Third, you will produce a sample “codebook” and a sample “analytic memo” discussing 3-5 of your main codes and their relevance to your question.

Assignment overview:

Choose some data to analyze. It must be qualitative, it must be something original that you collected for this course, and it must be ONE of the following forms of data: visual/textual content, OR a set of fieldnotes, OR an interview transcript. (approximately 3-5 double-spaced pages worth of data)
Choose an analytic strategy. You must select ONE of the three analytic strategies discussed above. EITHER grounded theory (naturalistic analysis), OR narrative analysis, OR discourse analysis. While they are not mutually exclusive, I want you to focus on only one for this assignment. If you don’t know which to use, use grounded theory (i.e. the coding examples in this assignment above).
Copy table one and paste it below. Copy and paste your data into the cell under the word data (yes, put the whole set of fieldnotes or the whole transcript into one cell of the table!).
Using table one, the examples above, and the Charmaz reading, code your data for initial. Labeling them in the appropriate column next to the appropriate section of text in your data. Then, still using table one, generate focused codes using your initial codes and place these in the right most column (the cell under focused codes).
Copy table two and paste it below your coded data. Using table two, create a codebook similar to the examples provided above, which addresses 3-5 of your most salient focused codes. Be sure to provide definitions and illustrative examples.
Write a 1-2 paragraph analytic memo in which you discuss how the coding process went, what you learned, and how the codes and concepts you have generated might help to answer your research question or to shed new light on your topic.
Be sure your document has A) 3-5 double-spaced pages of original qualitative data collected for this course. B) both open and focused codes, C) a codebook with 3-5 codes in it, and D) a 1-2 paragraph analytic memo. Rename the document with your student username in the filename and upload it to the appropriate canvas submission portal.

Part one: Choose Data

From the first week, we have given consideration to what sets qualitative inquiry apart from other types of sociological research – from its epistemology, to its methods of data collection, to its analytic strategies and conventions. We have also discussed three methods of data collection this semester: content analysis (including texts and visual data), ethnographic observations, and interviews. As we have seen in each unit, each form of data is suited to different types of research questions.

While you have, in theory, collected three different forms of data (content, fieldnotes, transcript) using three different methods (content analysis, ethnography, interview), this assignment only asks that you code and analyze ONE of these three forms of data.

In fact, you only need to code 3-5 double spaced pages of qualitative data.

(continues on next page)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!____STOP____!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TASK ONE: WHICH FORM OF DATA WILL YOU USE?
CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS (Please type/copy-paste your choice at the top of your assignment):

I will code and analyze the fieldnotes I collected for the ethnography assignment.
OR
I will code and analyze the transcript I collected for the interview assignment.
OR
I will code and analyze the texts, images, or videos, I collected for the content analysis assignment.

Once you have made your decision and typed/copied-pasted your choice at the top of your assignment, please proceed to part two.

NOT SURE WHICH TO CHOOSE?
Please see the Part One Appendix below for descriptions of the three types of data and what each is good for.

Part Two: Choose Strategy

In contemporary sociology many analytic strategies have codified and formed their own cult followings and methodological literatures. In this class we have or will discuss the three most prominent strains of such guidance: Grounded theory (naturalistic/inductive analysis), Narrative analysis, and Discourse analysis.

You may notice that we have actually already discussed two of these in the content analysis week at the beginning of the semester. The third, grounded theory, is actually not a theory at all, but a detailed method for generating inductive naturalistic sociological theory by carefully reading, labeling, and re-labeling, sections of the data in a process known as “coding.” In my opinion, the grounded theory method offers the clearest and most detailed instructions for this process, however, the other two strategies we will discuss, narrative and discourse analysis, involve similar forms of coding.

You will make this decision based on personal preference as well as methodological/theoretical necessity (some analytic strategies are more apocopate for some questions than others). See Part Two Appendix for detailed descriptions of each strategy.

(Continues on next page)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TASK TWO: WHICH ANALYTIC STRATEGY WILL YOU USE?
CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS (Please type/copy-paste your choice at the top of your assignment):

I will code and analyze my chosen data using grounded theory coding strategies.
OR
I will code and analyze my chosen data using narrative analysis coding strategies.
OR
I will code and analyze my chosen data using discourse analysis coding strategies.

Once you have made your decision typed/ copied-pasted your choice at the top of your assignment, please proceed to part three.

NOT SURE WHICH TO CHOOSE?
Please see the Part Two Appendix below for descriptions of each analytic strategy and what each is appropriate for.

Part Three: Coding Your Data

Its finally time to begin coding your data! You will do so in two “Rounds”: 1st Round Coding: Also known as “initial codes” in grounded theory, this round involves more or less descriptively labeling sections of the text. It is essentially the same process for narrative and discourse analysis as it is for grounded theory. 2nd Round Coding: Also known as focused coding in grounded theory, this round involves using your initial codes to produce concepts, generate theory, or answer research questions. It looks a little bit different for depending on whether you are using grounded theory, narrative analysis, or discourse analysis.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TASK THREE: COPY AND PASTE THE FOLLOWING TABLE INTO YOUR ASSIGNMENT (Please paste it below your answers to task one and two from above).

Table 1 – Coding Template (Paste this table into your assignment document)
Data (copy and paste ALL OF YOUR DATA into the cell directly below this cell. I know, it sounds crazy to put all that data into one cell, but just trust me.) 1st Round Codes (type your 1st round codes next to the associated sections of your data from the data column to the right) 2nd Round Codes (type your 2nd round codes next to the associated 1st round codes from the middle column)

1st Round Codes (initial):

As you will see below, there are many ways of doing this. Most are relatively informal and codes are generated on an as-needed basis as new topics and lines of thought emerge in the data. Researchers frequently don’t even go back an recode earlier data just because a new code emerged (that is why there is more than one round). Thus the process is iterative rather than preplanned.

What should you code for? Well, initial codes are also sometimes also called “open codes” because the sky is the limit. Typically they are descriptive and may simply say “what is going on” in some chunk of test, be it a line, a sentence, utterance, or even a whole paragraph. In essence, you are trying to identify, name, categorize, describe, and ultimately understand the phenomena represented in our data. Continually asking yourself “what is this about?” “What is being addressed/referenced here?” “What is the point of this statement?”. But asking “what is going on” can be more challenging than it seems. So, researchers have developed a handful of techniques to help.

Tips: Example:
Line-by-line, INVIVO (all caps below) codes), and Gerund codes (note all the ‘ing’s below)
Coding for/with gerunds – words ending in “ING”. These help indicate actions and processes which are two of the phenomena we are most interested in describing.
In-vivo coding- creating codes (and sometimes eventually even concepts) based purely on phrases found in the data itself.
Line-by-line coding – providing a descriptive code (what is going on here?) for every single line of text, regardless of where sentences start and stop. This is purely inductive and descriptive. Explaining assignment, offering TIP 1.
Tip for finding action and process
Explaining what we care about
Explaining what we care about and why.

Explaining assignment, offering TIP 2
Clarifying previous statement
Explaining what “INVIVO” codes are.

Explaining assignment, offering TIP 3
DESCRIBING how to do tip
More detailed DESCRIPTION
Clarifying
Explaining why we care.

1st round coding shouldn’t be a torturous or time consuming. Instead, it should be relatively quick and spontaneous. Try to think of each code as tentative and changeable (this will keep you from getting too attached to them). While you can code selectively (focusing only on what stands out), try to error on the side of over-coding rather than under-coding, and I strongly encourage you to give line-by-line coding a try even if it is only temporarily. In general, you should code anything that is relevant to your question, interesting, surprising, or puzzling, you should always be on the lookout for patterns that you didn’t expect to find.

See Part Three Appendix A (1stRound Coding) for help and more examples!

2nd Round Coding (focused/theoretical):
The second step in the coding process is to take the initial codes you generated before and re-code them a second time. This time, you are trying to take your descriptions and turn them into concepts, categories, types, or attributes (of concepts). This process will look very different depending on the analytic strategy you are employing.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Each analytic strategy has different instructions for focused coding, so BE SURE YOU USE THE INSTRUCIONS CORRESPONDING TO THE ANALYTIC STRATEGY (grounded theory, narrative analysis, or discourse analysis) YOU CHOOSE IN PART 2 ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Part three: Codebooks and Memos

The next step is to make codebook. As the name implies, the idea is to collect the main codes you have identified and to describe them. Your codebook should be organized like the examples below. Ordinarily, you would describe all the main codes in your analysis, but since this is just a short assignment for practice, you may select the 3-5 codes you feel are most compelling, well evidenced, and relevant to your question. You will want three items for each of your 3-5 codes: the code, a description/definition, and the best example quote you can find in the data to illustrate it.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! STOP !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TASK 4: COPY AND PASTE THE FOLLOWING TABLE INTO YOUR ASSIGNMENT DOCUMENT, BELOW YOUR CODING TABLE.

Table two: Codebook Template
Code(s) Description Example quote

If you were writing an article or book based on your research, this codebook would be the invaluable middle step between your data and your finished project. In many cases, you might also choose to include columns for subcodes (such as attributes/types of your focused codes) and columns for notes about related concepts from the literature.

The final step in the coding and analysis process is writing itself. While there could be a whole class simply on writing and framing a qualitative research project, in this class we are interested mostly the methods themselves.

Therefore, all I ask from you is a short analytic memo in which you reflect on the codes you produced and described in your codebook and how these relate to or help to answer or shed light on some new facet of your original question or topic.

Assignment:

Choose some data to analyze. It must be qualitative, it must be something original that you collected for this course, and it must be ONE of the following forms of data: of visual/textual content (approximately 3-5 double-spaced pages worth), OR a set of fieldnotes, OR an interview transcript.
Choose an analytic strategy. You must select ONE of the three analytic strategies discussed above. EITHER grounded theory (naturalistic analysis), OR narrative analysis, OR discourse analysis. While they are not mutually exclusive, I want you to focus on only one for this assignment. If you don’t know which to use, use grounded theory (i.e. the coding examples in this assignment above).
Copy table one and paste it below. Copy and paste your data into the cell under the word data (yes, put the whole set of fieldnotes or the whole transcript into one cell of the table!).
Using table one, the examples above, and the Charmaz reading, code your data for initial. Labeling them in the appropriate column next to the appropriate section of text in your data. Then, still using table one, generate focused codes using your initial codes and place these in the right most column (the cell under focused codes).
Copy table two and paste it below your coded data. Using table two, create a codebook similar to the examples provided above, which addresses 3-5 of your most salient focused codes. Be sure to provide definitions and illustrative examples.
Write a 1-2 paragraph analytic memo in which you discuss how the coding process went, what you learned, and how the codes and concepts you have generated might help to answer your research question or to shed new light on your topic.
Be sure your document has A) 3-5 double-spaced pages of original qualitative data collected for this course. B) both open and focused codes, C) a codebook with 3-5 codes in it, and D) a 1-2 paragraph analytic memo. Rename the document with your student username in the filename and upload it to the appropriate canvas submission portal.

PART ONE APPENDIX

If you aren’t sure form of data to use, use the following to help you make your decision:

Content Analysis (written texts, images, audio, or video):
Description- Collection and analysis of naturally occurring (i.e. they were just our there, you did not take the pictures) visual or textual materials.
Examples: elderly people’s Facebook posts, Old Navy Ads, 19th century American novels, social movement websites, etc..
Strengths: Good at understating group meanings and cultural representations. Provides access to meanings present in organizations (corporations, churches, social movements, etc.), institutions (the family, the courts, the economy, etc.) and other official discourses Also good at understanding cultural meanings of symbolic and emotional scripts and expectations especially in narratives.
Weaknesses: documents and representations do not always (perhaps ever) represent real people or groups fully. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but both are pale imitations of the real thing. This method is also simply more difficult to justify sociologically, and may not be seen as sufficiently sociological relative to other methods unless well-grounded in an appropriate research question and theoretical tradition.

Ethnographic Observations (fieldnotes):
Description- Generating fieldnotes based on observations (and possibly participation) at a specific field site during a specific time period and around a specific group of people who are typically there or a shared purpose. Typically, a long-term activity with the same or similar group members. Narrative fieldnotes include as much detail as the researcher can remember about the fieldwork encounter.
Strengths- good at understanding action/behavior, interactions, and interpretations in their natural context. Overcomes the attitudinal fallacy by observing action and accounts rather than only accounts. Participation offers a new dimension of experiential understanding.
Weaknesses: highly constrained by location, time, and access. Incredibly time consuming and tedious for relatively small publication payoff.

Interviews (transcript):
Description – Generating a transcript based on a topic, set of questions, or shared mutual interest, and a conversation with an interlocutor. The transcript produced, usually via audio recording, is intended to capture as much of what is said verbatim.
Strengths- Good at understanding subjective meanings, representation, boundary policing and categorization. Excellent at studying life histories, identities, expectations, ambitions, hopes, and fears.
Weaknesses: Tends towards methodological individualism and fabricated continuity, suffers from a lack of contextual sensitivity, subject to the attitudinal fallacy.

PART TWO APPENDIX:
If you are not sure which analytic strategy to use, please use the following descriptions to help you make your decision:

Grounded Theory (Naturalistic Analysis):
Description: This is an inductive (meaning its categories come from the data itself rather than from prior theory) form of coding and analysis intended to generate sociological theory (or answer research questions) based on a careful reading of themes and patterns present in naturalistic qualitative data such as content, fieldnotes, or transcripts.
Appropriate Uses: This form of analysis is appropriate for all forms of qualitative data and is more or less theoretically-neutral since all the themes should come from the data itself.
Resources: In addition to this lab itself, you will find the excerpts of Charmaz 2006 I posted on this week’s canvas module.

Narrative Analysis:
Description: This form of analysis either analyzes actual narratives or treats things (like songs, blog posts, tv shows, interviews) as narratives for analytic purposes. That is, it analyzing data by describing them in terms of beginnings, middles, ends, plots, characters, morals, settings, rising and falling action, villains, victims, heroes.
Appropriate uses: Narrative analysis is best used for interviews or content with narrative formats. It can sometimes be appropriate for ethnography, but only if you overheard someone else’s stories (is not appropriate for your own narrative fieldnotes). It is best used for questions directed at understanding culture, meaning-making, and symbolic action.
Resources: In addition to this lab, you may also wish to return to the lecture notes from the content analysis week. You may also find the reading by Loseke helpful, we already read it, but I’ve reposted it for this week.

Discourse Analysis:
Description: This form of analysis either analyze actual “official discourses” or to treats organizational, institutional, and other instances of power, knowledge, or status as discourses for analytic purposes. That is, it analyzes data by descoping them in terms of speakers, audiences, subjects, standpoints, power, knowledge, status, authority, and legitimacy.
Appropriate uses: Discourse analysis is suitable for many forms of interviews, fieldwork, or content, but especially those pertaining to status, power, authority, or knowledge. It is best used for questions directed at understanding how authoritative categories are created and how some forms of knowledge come to be regarded as legitimate while others are erased.
Resources: In addition to this lab, you may also with to return to the lecture notes from the content analysis week. You may also find the reading by Rose helpful, we have already read it, but I am reposting it for this week.

PART THREE APPENDIX A 1st Round Coding Examples:

In-Vivo Coding Example
Data Initial Codes (in-vivo)
I think that’s one of the fears with people doing interview research is the amount of data they’ll have to analyze. They go, ‘I’m gonna make such a mess and it’s going to feel overwhelming1. I’ve just wasted so much time and I’ve got no results.’ I’ve just increased my anxiety2about what I have to do because I’ve made the analysis so massive. I guess the journey is about taking massive amounts of data, and breaking it down. You’ll have so many little bits of information3everywhere that you can use and re-arrange and tidy up in the end.

1 Feel overwhelming

2 Increased anxiety

3 Bits of information

Emotional states
(Strauss and Corbin pg. 78):Text Fragment 1 Pain relief is a major problem when you have arthritis. Sometimes, the pain is worse than other times, but when it gets really bad, whew! It hurts so bad, you don’t want to get out of bed. You don’t feel like doing anything. Any relief you get from drugs that you take is only temporary or partial.
One thing that is being discussed here is PAIN. Implied in the text is that the speaker views pain as having certain properties, one of which is INTENSITY: it varies from a little to a lot. (When is it a lot and when is it little?) When it hurts a lot, there are consequences: don’t want to get out of bed, don’t feel like doing things (what are other things you don’t do when in pain?). In order to solve this problem, you need PAIN RELIEF. One AGENT OF PAIN RELIEF is drugs (what are other members of this category?). Pain relief has a certain DURATION (could be temporary), and EFFECTIVENESS (could be partial).

Part Two Appendix B (2nd round coding)

Use the only the descriptions and examples below which correspond to your chosen analytic strategy. (e.g. if you choose, to use narrative analysis, you may ignore the sections on grounded theory and discourse analysis below!!!!!!!!)

Grounded theory (naturalistic analysis):
Here the idea is to take your line by line or other highly descriptive initial codes and begin to consider what certain segments of the text are doing. Consider how they are functioning in the text and what purpose they serve. Think back to high school English, is the purpose of the statement in the data to describe, to explain, to justify or provide legitimacy to, to argue or convince, to entertain, etc. Once you have considered this, ask what type of description? What type of argument? What type of entertainment? Etc. The focus is on answering the “WHY?” question, and the aim is to move from purely descriptive codes to ones which begin to offer ANALYSIS.
This can sometimes mean beginning to connect concepts in your data to concepts from the literature, but this should be reserved for the latter stages of the coding process (to maintain the inductive nature of the analysis). See below for examples of grounded theory focused codes.
While there are many ways of doing this (see table below), the most important strategies are known as “componential” and “typological” analysis.
Typological analysis: involves using your codes to generate a typology. Ask yourself: what are the “types” or “categories” which make up this (phenomena)? For example, if I was studying the motivations of volunteers for a social justice organization, I might create a typology of their different sources of motivation, trying to use my initial codes to help me see the different types/ categories of motivation.
Componential analysis: involves using your codes to explore the components/attributes of some larger concept . Basically, you are asking yourself: What is this a component of? What is this an attribute of? This is a “part” of what (larger whole)? For example, if I was studying the motivations of volunteers for a social justice organization, I might ask what are the components/attributes of this concept called “motivation,” trying to use my initial codes to help me understand all of the different parts/components which go into motivation regardless of what type.

[continues on next page]

Narrative analysis:
Here the main idea is to take your initial descriptive codes and to begin to read the text as a narrative. You are aiming to identify characters, a plot, a setting, rising and falling action, and a moral. Many narratives are melodramatic, meaning they have victims, villains, and heroes. And typically, narratives serve some persuasive function, often through a moral of some sort.
Your principal task is to discover the “moral” at the center of a given story by analyzing its characters, especially its portals of victims, villains, and heroes.
Then you will use this information to begin outlining the:
“symbolic codes” : rules of thought and interpretation which tell us how we should, i.e. the socially/culturally acceptable way to, understand situations and social actors, and our rights and responsibilities therein.
and
“emotion codes” : rules of feeling and affect which tell us what emotions we should i.e. the socially/culturally acceptable way to, feel emotions internally and display them externally.
The idea is that stories tell us how we should think about and feel about various social groups and phenomena. And using narrative analysis we can uncover the hidden symbolic and emotional codes ( the hidden culture) which makes a given story plausible and persuasive to some audience.
For example: let’s say I am interested in how big corporations justify exploiting their workers. I might decide to study cooperate origin stories, the story of how a company was founded.
Using narrative analysis, I could identify that the founder is often portrayed as a heroic figure who overcomes personal adversity and hardship to make a successful company.
The employees or customers then become potential victims in need of being ‘saved’ by this brilliant and hardworking individual who is able to meet their needs by providing employees with ‘good’ jobs and providing the customer with some satisfaction they couldn’t have met before.
The villain, I might notice, is curiously absent, and is instead personal ‘adversity’ or ‘hardship’ vanquished with hard work and perseverance.
Using this analysis, I might note the following symbolic codes: Hardworking individual, founder, adversity/hardship, employees, customers, successful business, and jobs.
The story itself gives meaning to each of these codes, explaining to the audience implicitly, how they should think and feel about each of them.
So, we are supposed to revere and look up to the hardworking individual and the founder, while we should see employees as the beneficiaries of this hero’s self-effacing aid and support.
Most importantly, we are supposed to see adversity as a PERSONAL problem that can be overcome if one simply works hard – (as if employees who also suffer adversity simply don’t also work hard enough and are lucky to just have jobs).
Discourse analysis:
Here the main idea is to take your initial codes and to benign to read the text as an “official” discourse (a written or spoken conversation between two people or groups).
By reading a text as part of a larger conversation with other texts, the aim is to understand what role your data (or the group your data represents) play in the creation of meaning in some discourse about some object or subject.
All discourses are from the position of a speaker (usually an “expert” of some sort) and are directed at an audience. Moreover, all discourses produce either “objects” or “subjects”.
Speaker/expert: What is the social position of the speaker or expert? What stake do they have in the creation of knowledge about something?
Audience: Who is the speaker talking/writing to? Who is supposed to be listening/reading? And why should that person or group care?
The object: The thing the discourse is discussing or describing. It could be a concept, an object, a practice/behavior, type of thought, phenomena, anything really.
The subject: Discourses often construct not just things but groups of people. Not just labeling groups as ‘types’ (making them an object), but actively creating identities for people, “subject positions.” Social locations from which actors can then interpret their own lives.
How is the object or a subject of your discourse socially constructed? – that is your principal question. The ultimate goal is to identify and symbolic, material, and rhetorical “technologies” used by discussants to construct “authoritative” or “legitimate” “knowledge” about the object or subject of the discourse.
This can help us identify the mechanisms and technologies (both literal and figurative) through which truth and power are “re-instantiated”.
For example: Let’s say I was studying I was interested in understanding how sociologists have constructed various “social problems” or of “society” as a whole. I might treat sociology as a discourse in which different experts construct forms of knowledge about the world in conversation with one another via publications.
As I analyze, I might notice that sociologists, as experts, are located not in society, but in academia – set apart from the object of their study. This tells me something important about the real purposes (or lack thereof) of such a discourse. I might notice that the audience isn’t typically the public, but other academics or sometimes policy makers and elites. This audience will profoundly shape what can and is said and how it is phrased. Academics, elites, and politicians may not be concerned with the same social problems as other members of the public, or may not be concerned with them in the same way. The discipline itself and prior knowledge and theory about the world will also have a profound impact on the objects of knowledge which are created, transformed, or destroyed. Finally, I might notice that sociology’s objects are typically conceptual rather than material – we care about race and racism as concepts not as acts (like, say, a civil rights attorney might see them). Lastly, I might address the “types of people” and subjects constructs by sociological discourse. Here we would attend to the way sociological discourse as official social science helps to actually create the categories it claims to study. How, in studying society, do sociologists help to construct this object in such a way that we can now talk about it influencing us? (Consider the role of early colonial anthropology in the invention of the concept known as “race” as a pseudoscientific category allegedly based in biology and scull shape. Then, consider role of contemporary anthropology in attempting to undo this damage and replacing this concept of race with a new one which recognizes its own socially (discursively) constructed yet structurally consequential nature.