Unveiling Gender Bias in an Iranian Discourse: An Investigation of the Validity of van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach to Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) examines how social power and dominance are produced and reproduced through text and talk. Despite its importance, quality control in CDA has received insufficient attention. This study aimed to critically analyze an Iranian discourse using van Dijk’s socio-cognitive framework to address gender discrimination as a social problem and to assess the validity of findings derived from this approach. The analysis following different stages of the framework uncovered ideological manipulation within the text, reflecting gender bias. To evaluate the quality of the CDA findings, the study applied van Dijk’s accessibility criterion. A sample of 100 women participated in this stage. Participants read the text and answered questions, with 35 initially rejecting the notion of gender discrimination in the text. These participants were subsequently presented with detailed analysis steps, findings, and interpretations to reconsider their views. Following this intervention, 63% of this group recognized gender bias in the text, while 37% remained unconvinced. In-depth interviews with the latter group revealed the impact of their values and beliefs on their interpretations, underscoring how personal perspectives influence the reception of critical analysis. The findings highlight the importance of accounting for ideological and cognitive factors in CDA research. This dual focus on critical analysis and validation offers a nuanced understanding of how discourse interacts with societal power structures and individual belief systems.