Gendering attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a discursive analysis of UK newspaper stories.

Discursive psychology is used to study the gendering of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in UK national newspapers in the period of 2009-2011. The analysis examines how gendering is embedded in causal attributions and identity constructions. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is portrayed as a predominantly male phenomenon with representations of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder being gendered through extreme stories about victims, villains or heroes that depict boys and men as marginalised, exceptional or dangerous. There is also a focus on mothers as the spokespersons and caretakers for parenting and family health while fathers are rendered more invisible. This contributes to our understanding of how attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is constructed in the media using a range of gendered representations that draw on cultural stereotypes familiar in Western societies.

Repertoires of ADHD in UK newspaper media.

This article takes a discursive approach to examine how Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder has been represented and debated in UK newspapers in the last decade. Two repertoires of ADHD were identified as the biological and the psychosocial. Subject positions such as problem child, abnormal or ordinary naughty child and ineffectual or neglectful parents are embedded in these alternative versions of ADHD. The biological repertoire justifies and encourages drug treatment for problem children while the psychosocial repertoire makes available the subject position of ordinary naughty child and supports moral judgements about poor parenting practices in a 'sick society'. Such representations have challenged the media medicalization of ADHD common in a previous decade. Although the biological and the psychosocial repertoires are competing explanations for ADHD, they both perform a common function in representing families as in need of regulation.

'Golden age' versus 'bad old days': a discursive examination of advice giving in antenatal classes.

Childbirth is seen as a medical event, and pregnancy, a time when parents-to-be are in need of advice. This article provides a discursive analysis of how such advice is given in antenatal classes. Using audio-recorded data from National Childbirth Trust (NCT) antenatal classes, we analyse how class leaders talk to class members about pregnancy, childbirth and infant care. We identify a pattern of advice giving in which class leaders construct 'golden age' or 'bad old days' stories variably to contrast the practices of the past ('then') with current practices ('now'). These contrasting repertoires operate against a backdrop of medicalization and societal expectations that are both current and out-dated, providing a constitutive framework to support class leaders' evaluations and advice on pregnancy, childbirth and infant care.

The ME Bandwagon and other labels: constructing the genuine case in talk about a controversial illness.

This paper examines the discourse of morality surrounding 'ME' as a contested illness, looking at how GPs and ME group members differentiate between the category of 'genuine ME sufferer' and the 'bandwagon'. 'Jumping on the bandwagon' is a metaphor commonly used to describe the activity of 'following the crowd' in order to gain an advantage. This discursive analysis shows how 'bandwagon' categories are constructed in contrast to the category of genuine sufferer. People who jump on the bandwagon are accused of matching their symptoms to media stereotypes, adopting trendy illnesses ('fads'), or using 'tickets' to avoid facing up to psychological illnesses. Both GPs and ME group members construct a differential moral ordering of physical and psychological illness categories, where the latter assumes a lesser status. The paper concludes that against a background of medical uncertainty and controversy, the 'bandwagon' and other derogatory labels function as contrast categories that work to establish the existence of 'ME' as a genuine illness.

The local production of knowledge: disease labels, identities and category entitlements in ME support group talk.

This article uses discursive psychology to analyse how knowledge claims and entitlements are locally produced in an ME support group meeting and a research interview. The article demonstrates how 'expertise' and 'experience' associated with lay and professional membership are locally constituted in the activity of reasoning, arguing and claims making. The analysis shows how expertise and experiential claims are constructed, disclaimed, warranted and undermined in relationship to membership categorization and entitlements to knowledge that are co-constructed in the process of a discussion about disease labels and the nature of the illness as physical or psychological. In a discussion about the definition of contested disease categories, what is 'at stake' for the group members is the entitlement to speak from experience as members who can 'know' their own minds.