Discourse Community

21
Kirk 1 There has been much debate about whether or not groups of people form a discourse community. It is said that potential discourse communities can be recreational, academic, and professional (Johns). The characteristics of specific groups determine if they truly are a community. Swales believes a community is a discourse community if they meet his six criteria: common goals, a means of intercommunication, a means of giving feedback, utilizing different genres, acquiring a lexis, and showing different levels of membership. This has been contradicted by Johns. Johns agrees with the thought that there are criteria; however, she believes that all aren’t necessary. Out of the many aspects of a discourse community, the most important one, and also the hardest, would be genres. A genre is a text that makes it more efficient, usually, to achieve a community’s goals. It also can be used to form a relationship between members. A genre doesn’t have to be used word for word, it can be a guideline for a conversation, for instance a menu. It’s not just the text, it’s also the context in which it is read, written, or observed (Mirabelli). Methodology The first step of studying a discourse community would be picking a group to observe. I looked at a professional group of people; a

description

Is a paper written about a construction site that I have evaluated. The findings are explained and then are aids into whether or not I believe it to be a discourse community.

Transcript of Discourse Community

Page 1: Discourse Community

Kirk 1

There has been much debate about whether or not groups of people form a discourse

community. It is said that potential discourse communities can be recreational, academic, and

professional (Johns). The characteristics of specific groups determine if they truly are a community.

Swales believes a community is a discourse community if they meet his six criteria: common goals, a

means of intercommunication, a means of giving feedback, utilizing different genres, acquiring a lexis,

and showing different levels of membership. This has been contradicted by Johns. Johns agrees with the

thought that there are criteria; however, she believes that all aren’t necessary.

Out of the many aspects of a discourse community, the most important one, and also the

hardest, would be genres. A genre is a text that makes it more efficient, usually, to achieve a

community’s goals. It also can be used to form a relationship between members. A genre doesn’t have

to be used word for word, it can be a guideline for a conversation, for instance a menu. It’s not just the

text, it’s also the context in which it is read, written, or observed (Mirabelli).

Methodology

The first step of studying a discourse community would be picking a group to observe. I looked

at a professional group of people; a construction site on the University of Central Florida’s (UCF) campus

under the construction agency Jeff Jennings & Sons. This seemed like the most efficient group because I

had a means of accessing it for my observations and interviews.

With my choice picked, I had to schedule days of observations. The amount of observations I did

was approximately four hours. The observations should NOT be done in one day. I did multiple trips so I

could find out if there were reoccurring patterns. I was lucky enough to also observe a meeting

(Appendix A). A meeting would be ideal, because it allows you to have the authority figures gathered in

one place, this makes it easier to analyze their rankings.

Page 2: Discourse Community

Kirk 2

Observations weren’t the only tasks I had to accomplish. I was an outsider within the contracting

group, so there is some information I wouldn’t be able to stumble upon on my own accord. To get a

better look, I interviewed a member of the community (Appendix B). I didn’t just pick any member, I

choose a new addition. This would seem like it’d hinder my findings, but on the contrary it actually aided

my research. The question now was, how was I going to conduct my interview? I initially wasn’t sure of

what to do with my interview, but after I did my observations I was able to look at what I found and

what I didn’t find. With this in mind I created questions that would allow me to confirm or deny my

findings, and also questions to help me uncover aspects I had not fully seen.

With all my research completed I had to accumulate and analyze my data. Initially when taking

my observations I bullet-pointed them, so they were in no specific order. I probably could have

extracted all the information I needed from my notes; however, I decided that it’d be more conventional

for me if I graphed my findings. I opened up a word document and created a table. Within each section

of the table I put Swales criteria, but I also looked through Mirabelli’s eyes and decided to create a

category for behavior (Appendix A). One-by-one I went through my notes and categorized each idea,

adding notes from within my interview (the interview notes will be underlined to minimize confusion).

Findings

With all the data I have collected it is rather easy to see that all of Swales’ criteria were met. The

more important thing is whether or not the group I studied can be classified as a discourse community. I

could follow Swales’ method and just state the factors that make it so; however, during my study I

realized that meeting the criteria doesn’t make a community, the people within it do.

To explain myself I will start off with the hierarchy within the company. Like most things within

society, Jeff Jennings & Sons is structured like a pyramid. You have the president of the company up at

the top, all by himself, followed by the on-site project manager and supervisor, Steve and Mike

Page 3: Discourse Community

Kirk 3

(Appendix A,B). Immediately following would be the higher ranking, specialized workers, and then the

biggest class of standardized workers. The classification of every worker is different. I interviewed Eric,

he’s brand new to the company and better yet he got a degree outside of his work, in financing

(Appendix B). I believed this helped my research the most.

There is a hierarchy for a workers position, but there is also one for the amount of experience

they have. On-site Steve has a greater position than Mike; however, Mike has more work experience

than Steve (Appendix B). Both are equally important, but it’s what one does with their status that makes

them a community. If Steve and Mike were powered by their positions and left Eric to fend for himself,

then they would potentially jeopardize their work place. I say this because the completion of one task

needs aid from many workers (Appendix A). On the other hand, when Eric asks questions everyone tries

to help him. He isn’t the only worker that’s ever been clueless (Appendix B).

The aid between the workers doesn’t just affect each other, it also affects the project.

Therefore, a common goal everyone shares is helping each other, because if they don’t work together

they can’t accomplish their dominant goal. They must build three dorms for UCF in the period of a year

(Appendix B). This may seems irrelevant, but if they don’t work together than their own safety is

compromised. They are working with precast walls that way tons and are put in place by a crane with

the use of only two wires and multiple men (Appendix A). Everything is a potential danger.

To achieve their goals they communicate with one another. To each other it may just seem like

normal conversations, but it wasn’t to me. When I was observing the meeting I knew what was being

talked about, because I had a copy of their meeting packet (Appendix C “Meeting Minutes”). Other than

that I didn’t understand a word they were saying.

In construction you have a convergence of different engineering degrees, so you have to

incorporate the vocabulary of each (Appendix B). For example, a common term used is MEP. It can be

Page 4: Discourse Community

Kirk 4

located within the meeting packet, on blueprints, or stated throughout conversations (Appendix C). MEP

is a term for specific fields of engineering but also specific things that must be done within each building.

It means mechanical, electrical, and plumbing.

Regardless of vocabulary I find challenging, when workers converse they understand each other.

On the occasions they don’t, they use one of their bulletin boards to draw a diagram or they go to one of

their many blueprints to point out what they’re trying to explain (Appendix C). These methods are a way

of making the construction process more efficient. The blueprint itself is a constant guide for the

workers. The blueprints explain, in detail, the land being built on and how to build what needs to be

built. This is helpful because to build a dorm you need a leveled out surface area and a blueprint will

show the different elevations in that area so workers can dig it up (Appendix C).

With all of Swales’ criteria intersecting with one another you can tell that the construction site

on UCF is a discourse community. You don’t have conflicting behaviors between workers that interfere

with the common goals and everyone helps each other to learn and understand the variety of lexis and

genres.

Work Cited

Johns, Ann M. “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict, and

Diversity.” Writing About Writing. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin’s, 2011. 498-517. Print.

Mirabelli, Tony. “Learning to Serve: The language and Literacy of Food Service Workers.” Writing About

Writing. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. 538-55.

Print.

Page 5: Discourse Community

Kirk 5

Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing About Writing. Elizabeth Wardle and

Doug Downs. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. 466-79. Print.

Genre Blueprints Bulletin boards “Meeting Minutes,” packets handed out at

weekly meetings with a purpose, old concerns, and new concerns

Calendar Emails contracts

Lexis curse work attire (must have steel toed boots,

jeans, and a hard hat) vocabulary: precast, MEP, divert, different

engineering terms, etc. topography

Intercommunication walkie-talkies a trailer with four offices, doors kept open

to holler to another convers over lunch meetings emails going back and forth between offices

Feedback given through meetings ask questions emails shouting across trailer being yelled at but mostly one-on-one

Levels the newer the person the more questions

they ask there are the people in the office, in the

trailer on site, then out in the field always a worker at the site entrance meeting started by Steve and he was

referred to throughout it not everyone communicated at the

meeting only one female at the meeting, or on site

(other than myself) UCF is above JJ&S because they employed

them Jeff Jennings – president of company, in

the main office Steve – project manager, top person on

site Mike – project supervisor, after Steve in

position, but greater than Steve with experience, most experienced

After those three it’s George, Mark, and

Goals Finish the construction of all three housing

buildings. The safety of the workers and the

buildings, making sure there are no problems on site

There are sub-goals, projects, every step of the way, such as topography, a ground pour, and precast walls, etc.

Project completion by the start of UCF fall semester of 2013

The erection of building three as quickly as possible within a tight space

Everyone is trying to help each other

Appendix A - Observations

Page 6: Discourse Community

Kirk 6

Jerry Eric – least experienced Leveled like a pyramid Kerry – project manager for UCF Christy and Jake – housing reps for UCF

Behavior Everyone jokes with each other, the trailer is filled with humor When a question is asked anyone with the knowledge to answer it does When someone is asked to do something they do it Workers work together to secure two crane wires to precast walls, once in place there is a

worker inside the crane operating it to lift the wall from the truck that brought it. Once in the air the crane operator has to move it in place on site, the workers that put the crane wires on the wall are also holding a line to minimize the motion of the wall in the air, so it doesn’t hit anything on site and set them farther back from their deadline

Meeting Steve was the person to start the meeting There was confrontation between a UCF representative and a specialist. The UCF guy was visibly

irritable, so you saw the specialist agreeing with everything he wanted; however, the specialist never truly looked at the UCF guy. The specialist’s demeanor and attention was directed more towards Steve.

Christy was concerned about complaints she was getting from the housing next to the construction site.

Appendix B

Interview Transcript

ME: There we go.

ERIC: You have to record it?

ME: I have to, and then I have to transcribe it. Okie dokie. Do you want me to read the questions or you just…

ERIC: Go ahead.

ME: Ok. Um, what are some different levels of authority that you’ve seen present, and name also, what they are, like site manager?

ERIC: Ok, well, Jeff Jennings, the president of the company, he’s at the main office. He runs all the different projects.

ME: Ok.

Page 7: Discourse Community

Kirk 7

ERIC: He comes out her may once a month. Next one down from that would be Steve; he’s the project manager out here. Next down from that, I’d say is Mike Thompson. He’s the project supervisor; he’s been around the longest though.

ME: Okay, so that’s the most experience.

ERIC: I would say Mike is the most experienced, he’s been around the longest. From there is George, Mark, Jerry, I’d say they’re the next tier down, and they’ve also been around for a while.

ME: Ok, so you would…

ERIC: Of them I wouldn’t know how to rank them. I think they all have their specific specialties, different areas that they’re better at.

ME: So, you would kind of think that you would have a pyramid?

ERIC: Yes.

ME: Where you have a few at the top and then more and more…

ERIC: Definitely!

ME: Ok.

ERIC: That’s definitely how it works. And then, I’m the new guy, so I don’t really know where I fit in. I’m not at the bottom; I’m not at the top.

ME: You’re at the bottom for experience.

ERIC: I’m definitely at the bottom for experience, but position, I wouldn’t say I’m at the bottom, but my lack of experience restricts me from being higher up, I’d say.

ME: Ok. Um, ok so I know you are working with UCF, because you’re doing the buildings for them. Um, who do you have to report to for UCF? Like who were the people here in the meeting just now?

ERIC: OK, there’s Kerry Farr who’s the project manager. He works for UCF and he’s kind of our main contact through UCF. And then from there we have…

ME: There were another two people there, for the housing, so you deal with them.

ERIC: Yea, Christy Hartzler is housing, and I believe Jack Price is the other housing person. And so they, we work with Kerry, and then Kerry works with them. We jointly work with them as well, cause we are specifically dealing with construction for housing. So that’s why we work with them. If there was a different sort of construction going on, on campus, then I’m sure there’s another UCF department, besides housing, that they’d report to.

Page 8: Discourse Community

Kirk 8

ME: Ok. Um, and since you are one of the newest, when you first started what was it like acceptance wise? Like, were you treated differently, like um, because everyone likes to mess with each other are you messed with more so or is it pretty much, relatively the same?

ERIC: Um well, I guess the start off they didn’t mess with me as much. They were kind of feeling me up to see what kind of person I was, but then as the months go on they realized I like to mess with them so they’ll mess with me just as much now and it’s just mutual all around the office. We all like to poke fun at each other, play games.

ME: Um, I think I heard this before, but um, what is like any specific deadlines UCF has for you in the completion of the building?

ERIC: Um, there’s only one deadline really and that’s August of next year. We have to be ready by…

ME: All three buildings completely built?

ERIC: The whole entire project needs to be done by the next fall, the start of the next fall semester.

ME: Ok. Um so, you don’t know of any other specific goals except for like, anything, like what’s currently trying to be achieved, cause that would be a goal within itself?

ERIC: Also there are a lot of small term goals to get the project going. Right now we want to make sure we are on top of building three, getting that erected. There’s a lot of tight space on our job site between the old dorms and the pond, where we have to work with a giant crane. So we have to make sure the pieces are erected as quickly as possible, so we don’t have the building around our crane, it getting stuck in there. So, building three I guess is the biggest goal right now getting that completed and making turn. Once that’s done everyone can start taking off for the rest.

ME: Ok, when you first started were there any specific words or phrases that you didn’t understand or you mistook it for something else, because of a previous meaning?

Eric: Well, I majored in financing. This isn’t financing (laugh). So, I’m learning something new every single day. So, I’m pretty much asking questions. A lot of the things I don’t understand I don’t know the meanings to, so I often ask questions to get specifics and since we’re in a company that foresees an entire project, not just specifically electrical, plumbing, or mechanical it’s a little difficult because I have to take a little bit from everything and try to relate them all to each other.

Me: Ok. So, I mean you have to constantly ask questions, so what are the different ways of communicating with other workers? Like, of course you can talk to them one-on-one but what else?

Eric: Um, that’s basically all I do. I listen a lot or call on Steve or Mike or George or whoever is on the site. And then, if I don’t understand I’ll just ask questions, I’ll listen to George or Steve or everybody else talking to workers on site, and try to formulate my own answers to the questions, you know, I might be creating in my head.

Page 9: Discourse Community

Kirk 9

Me: So, I mean when there’s asking to do you just talk person-to-person? No e-mails, no phone calls or text?

Eric: 90% of the, 95% of the time I can just ask Steve or Mike and they’ll usually know the answer or they will help me find the answer, but sometimes I will have to go to the office for more of that computer type stuff. To worker with our office lady or contact the IT guys from Orlando Tech.

Me: Ok. Um. Ok, last one, how do you improve yourself? Like what are the different types of feedback you’re given? Like um, is it pretty much just a one-on-one feedback or do you do something, mess up, and someone yells at you?

ERIC: Both. Mostly it’s one-on-one feedback. Just asking questions and getting answers. If I make a mistake Steve always says that he started off not knowing anything, just like me, and he’s gotten to where he is now. He said to just, you’re going to make mistakes and not to worry about that, just keep, keep getting at it, you’ll eventually figure it out. I’ve noticed that in the short term, some of the stuff I’m doing now I was really blind and didn’t know what I was doing even after a couple weeks, but I’m totally getting the hang of it, getting used to it. Gets easier.

ME: So then, everyone is pretty much trying to help you?

ERIC: Yea.

Page 10: Discourse Community

Kirk 10

Appendix C – Genres

Page 11: Discourse Community

Kirk 11

Draft

There has been much debate about whether or not groups of people are from a discourse community. It

is said that potential discourse communities can be recreation, academic, and professional (Johns). The

characteristics of specific groups determine if they truly are a community. Swales gives out six criteria:

common goals, a means of intercommunication, a means of giving feedback, utilizing different genres,

acquiring a lexis, and showing different levels of membership. If a community reframes from meeting all

six then they can’t be a discourse community (Swales). This has been contradicted by Johns. Johns

agrees with the thought that there are criteria; however, she believes that all aren’t necessary.

Page 12: Discourse Community

Kirk 12

Out of the many aspects of a discourse community, the most important one, and also the

hardest, would be genres. A genre is a text that makes it more efficient, usually, to achieve a

community’s goals. It also can be used to form a relationship between members; a genre doesn’t have

to be used word for word, it can be a guideline for a conversation, for instance a menu. It’s not just the

text, it’s also the context in which it is read, written, or observed (Mirabelli).

Methodology

The first step of studying a discourse community would be picking a group to observe. I looked

at a professional group of people; a construction site on the University of Central Florida’s (UCF) campus

under the construction agency Jeff Jennings & Sons. This seemed like the most efficient group because I

had a means of accessing it for my observations and interviews.

With my choice picked, I had to schedule days of observations. The amount of observations I did

was approximately four hours. The observations should NOT be done in one day. I did multiple trips so I

could find out if there were reoccurring patterns. I was lucky enough to also observe a meeting. A

meeting would be ideal, because it allows you to have the authority figures gathered in one place, this

makes it easier to analyze their rankings.

Observations weren’t the only things I had to do. I was an outsider within the contracting group;

there is some information I just wouldn’t be able to stumble upon on my own accord. To get a better

look I interviewed a member. I didn’t just pick any member, I choose a new addition. This would seem

like it’d hinder my findings, but on the contrary it actually aided my research. The question now was,

how did I conduct my interview? I initially wasn’t sure of what to do with my interview, but after I did

my observations I was able to look at what I found and what I didn’t find. With this in mind I created

questions that would allow me to confirm or deny my findings, and also questions to help me uncover

aspects I had not fully seen.

Page 13: Discourse Community

Kirk 13

With all the “dirty” work completed I had to accumulate and analyze my data. Now, when taking

my observations I bullet-pointed them, so they were in no specific order. I probably could have

extracted all the information I needed from my notes; however, I decided that it’d be more conventional

for me if I graphed my findings. I opened up a word document and created a table. Within each section

of the table I put Swales criteria, but I also looked through Mirabelli’s eyes and decided to create a

category for behavior. One-by-one I went through my notes and categorized each idea, adding notes

from within my interview (the interview notes will be underlined as to subtract confusion).

Findings

With all the data I have collected it is rather easy to see that all of Swales’ criteria were met. The

more important thing is whether or not the group I studied can be classified as a discourse community. I

could follow Swales’ method and just state the factors that make it so; however, during my study I

realized that meeting the criteria doesn’t make a community, the people within it do.

To explain myself I will start off with the hierarchy within the company. Like most things within

society, Jeff Jennings & Sons is structured like a pyramid. You have the president of the company up at

the top, all by himself, followed by the on-site project manager and supervisor, Steve and Mike

(Appendix A). Immediately following would be the higher ranking, specialized workers, and then the

biggest class of standardized workers. The classification of every worker is different. I interviewed Eric,

he’s brand new to the company and better yet he got a degree outside of his work, in financing

(Appendix B). I believed this helped my research the most.

There is a hierarchy for a workers position, but there is also one for the amount of experience

they have. On-site Steve has a greater position than Mike; however, Mike has more work experience

than Steve. Both are equally important, but it’s what one does with their status that makes them a

community. If Steve and Mike were powered by their positions and left Eric to fend for himself, then

Page 14: Discourse Community

Kirk 14

instead of not helping him grow they would also jeopardize their work place. On the other hand, when

Eric asks questions everyone tries to help him. He isn’t the only worker that’s ever been clueless

(Appendix B).

The aid between the workers doesn’t just affect each other, it also affects the project.

Therefore, a common goal everyone shares is helping each other, because if they don’t work together

they can’t accomplish their dominant goal. They must build three dorms for UCF in the period of a year

(Appendix A). This may seems irrelevant, but if they don’t work together than their own safety is

compromised. They are working with precast walls that way tons and are put in place by a crane with

the use of only two wires. Everything is a potential danger.

To achieve their goals they communicate with one another. To each other it may just seem like

normal conversations, but it wasn’t to me. When I was observing the meeting I knew what was being

talked about, because I had a copy of their meeting packet (Appendix C “Meeting Minutes”). Other than

that I didn’t understand a word they were saying.

In construction you have a convergence of different engineering degrees, so you have to

incorporate the vocabulary of each. For example, a common term used is MEP. It can be located within

the meeting packet, on blueprints, or stated throughout conversations. MEP is a term for specific fields

of engineering but also specific things that must be done within each building. It means mechanical,

electrical, and plumbing.

Regardless of vocabulary I find challenging, when workers converse they understand each other.

On the occasions they don’t, they use one of their bulletin boards to draw a diagram or they go to one of

their many blueprints to point out what is trying to be explained. These methods are a way of making

things more efficient. The blueprint itself is a constant guide for the workers. The blueprints explain, in

detail, the land being built on and how to build what needs to be built. This is helpful because to build a

Page 15: Discourse Community

Kirk 15

dorm you need a leveled out surface area, and a blueprint will show the different elevations in that area

so workers can dig it up.

Letters of Revision

Dear maggie,

Your paper was very written, it flowed really nice and everything was clear and to the point. You did not discuss how difficult it was to join this community as well as the cost of affiliation of this community. Is the fact that “ the criteria does not make a community, the people within it do” your thesis for this assignment? I did not clearly understand if this was or was not a Discourse community. I feel like all your evidence points to it, but i was not clear on what your thoughts on it were.

Vinny

Maggie,

Your paper is coming along nicely so far. You mention your interview numerous times and it is clear that is where you received most of your information. You mentioned the lexis used by construction workers later in your paper too. I would recommend as you move towards your final draft that you complete more references to writers we read in class. You mention them at the beginning and you highlighted main ideas of there’s. However, you need to explicitly mention their names again in the “Findings” section of your paper. For example, when you mention lexis near the end of your paper, also mention how it is one of Swales’ six criteria.

Kyle Sankovich