It has been argued that the degree of control groups have over discourse can be linked to their degree of power and that this in itself is a diagnosed constituent of social power (Van Dijk, 1998).
The order of discourse' (Fairclough, 2001) of education is an obvious area for the critical study of text and talk and one that has received much attention from researchers (see Atkinson, Davies, and Delamont, 1995; Coulthard, 1994; Duszak, 1997; Fisher and Todd, 1986; Mercer, 1995; Wodak, 1996). The power and dominance associated with the social domain of education is formed by the rules and routines which govern the discursive production and reproduction of power and authority exercised over the individuals who are dependent on the institution, namely the students.
.
The purpose of this study was to identify this form of power if present. Discourse access and control may be defined in respect of both content and structure of text or talk. Fairclough (2001) postulates that there are numerous techniques for controlling and constraining discourse in an educational setting including by interruption, the use of commands and questions, evaluation of student contribution and the use of a particular register or specific terminology. Fairclough gives an example of just such an unequal encounter' during a discussion between medical students and a senior doctor (p37-9, 2001). Here he describes how the senior doctor controls the student contribution to the encounter by a process of interrupting, prompting, commanding, questioning, especially through the use of tag questions, and praising the student. Fairclough identifies three types of constraint from this case which he names as; contents, what is said or done, relations, the social relations of the people entering into the discourse, and subjects, the subject positions' people can occupy in the encounter (p39, Fairclough 2001).
In the doctor-student example all three types of constraint are illustrated.