“University Lecturers Are Not Casual Labourers”: Stance and Discursive Framing of the 2022 ASUU-FGN Industrial Conflict in TV Interviews

Nigeria’s university system has been plagued by recurring industrial actions arising from conflicts of interest between the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) and the Federal Government of Nigeria (FGN), with the 2022 strike constituting the longest such action in the country’s history. The ASUU–FGN tussle has been explored in linguistics, but empirical work has relatively neglected a new and essential dataset—live TV interviews—in which strategic discursive frames that foreground the projected stances of spokespersons for the opposing camps are used in real-time, high-stakes, and mediatised interactions. Focusing on the 2022 impasse, this study examines how key social actors construct their stances and take ideological positions within specific discursive frames. Martin and White’s appraisal framework and Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model of critical discourse analysis constitute the study’s theoretical framework. Using a qualitative analytical approach, the authors subject data comprising transcribed interactions from four TV interviews, featuring a key social actor from each camp, to discourse analysis. The findings show that social actors project their stances within the following discursive and argumentative frames: the constitutional/legal basis of the industrial action; the exploitation of ideologies of welfarism and inclusivity; the (de)valuation of Nigerian tertiary education; and the politicisation of the industrial action. These discursive frames are supported by appraisal subsystems (attitude and engagement) and representational strategies, including authority, polarisation, categorisation, actor description, comparison, lexicalisation, and populism, which enable favourable or derogatory representations of both groups’ actions. The study observes that, during TV interviews, social actors debate the industrial conflict primarily to legitimise and justify their actions rather than to propose effective mechanisms for conflict resolution. It also finds that discursive moves and stance expressions indicate greater confrontation and less diplomacy. The study provides insights into identity politics and the underlying complexities responsible for the persistently strained relationship between ASUU and the FGN.