Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

Discourse Community Ethnography

Naomi Ingram
RWS 1301
University of Texas at El Paso
Paul LaPrade
Audience: Students interested in taking/required to take UNIV 1301 - Social Justice and
Activism

Discourse Community
Ethnography
Introduction
Discourse communities are a variety of in-groups. For a social scientist, they are
noteworthy mini-societies that deserve to be studied. My study investigates a UTEP University

course based on Social Justice and Activism. I chose this subject because I believed that I could
conduct an interesting analysis on its identity as a discourse community. Another reason I made
this decision was because I am already a member of this community. With this membership, I
can have the "inside scoop" and avoid the hassle of scheduling conflicts. I truly understand the
inner workings of this group; therefore, I can give a more honest and accurate report than I could
if I were an outsider. Also, the Professor and students feel more comfortable with me asking to
interview them. Another advantage of being part of this body is the amount knowledge I have
gathered since the being of the semester. Organizing this information is the key to understanding
intercommunication within this course.
Literature Review
John Swales is an author that defined 6 specific qualifying criteria for discourse
communities. He was trying to show the intended audience that discourse communities are
particularly dynamic. The characteristics for these groups were defined and exemplified in this
reading with extreme detail. Swales then shares his study on an organization called the Hong
Kong Study Circle to demonstrate each concept of such communities. He also discusses issues
born from discourse boundaries and expectations.
The idea that speech communities and discourse communities vary stuck out to me the
most within his writing. According to the author, "a speech community typically inherits its
membership by birth, accident or adoption; a discourse community recruits its members by

Discourse Community
Ethnography

persuasion, training or relevant qualification" (Swales, 1990, p. 219). This difference describes
speech communities as more of an ascribed status and discourse communities as more of an
achieved status. I found it interesting that these two separate groups existed. This reading was the
first time I've ever heard of such categories. I agree with the author's statements because they
apply to my personal experience. For example, I belong to the speech community of English
speakers, and the discourse communities within my college courses. These ideas should be used
by researchers when analyzing certain assemblies of people. This will make the content of their
research more meaningful and comprehensive. This source relates to my research because I used
Swales's standards to analyze the UNIV 1301 class.
Kain and Wardle are authors that were interested in knowing more about the
functionalities of activity systems. They wanted to show the intended audience that activity
systems are dynamic in the ways that they communicate, operate, and evolve. There were no
studies discussed within this reading, but an important definition did come up. The activity
system, as mentioned in this article, is "defined as a group of people who share a common object
and motive over time, as well as the wide range of tools they use together to act on that object
and realize that motive," (Kain and Wardle, n.d., p. 275). Activity systems are structured and
organized.
From the reading, the following idea stood out to me: "Keep in mind, however, that an
outsider someone who is not a part of a particular activity system can never fully grasp the
hows and whys of that system. Some things will remain a mystery to you; some things, in fact,
even remain a mystery to insiders," (Kain & Wardle, n.d., p. 281). It was interesting to me that
some concepts of activities can't be fully understood, even sometimes by its own members. This

Discourse Community
Ethnography
potential confusion supports my decision to analyze a community that I was already a part of.
This choice increases my odds in understanding the "hows" and "whys" of the UNIV 1301
discourse community.
These two readings are similar because they both discuss how texts can be analyzed.

Swales, Kain, and Wardle all agree that texts are methods of communication and vary in purpose
across activities and communities. The authors also express that texts are specialized in ways for
members of the group. They suggest that readers should respond to this knowledge with an
interest in diving further into this topic.
Discussion: Diving Further Into This Topic
Class Structure
The UNIV 1301 class meets every week on Tuesday and Thursday from 9 to 10:20 in the
morning. This hour and 20 minute session has 2 weekly assignments and a semester-long project
based on service-learning. There are about 25 people enrolled in the course, a peer leader for
them to communicate with, and a Professor to manage them all.
Swales's Test
John Swales lists the characteristics of discourse communities in the following 6 bullet points:
1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.
3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback.
4. A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims.
5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.
6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and discoursal expertise. (1990, 220-222)

Discourse Community
Ethnography

The first characteristic vaguely applies to UNIV 1301. When I interviewed the Professor
and the student, I asked them about the course's goal. Professor Varela answered that her goal
was "...to help students succeed in college and perhaps help them with some skills that they can
carry over into their careers and life" (D. Varela, personal communication, October 17, 2016).
The student, named Samantha, shared that she wanted to become more aware of injustice in
society (Samantha, personal communication, October 12, 2016). Varela and Samantha both
wanted this community to offer things that members can apply to their everyday lives. When I
asked them if they felt that other members shared this goal, they both said no. They felt that
members don't see the value of this class until later on when they learn its true purpose. For the
reason that goals are unclear, UNIV 1301 partially fails the first discourse community criteria.
The UNIV 1301 course passed Swales's second characteristic involving methods of
communication. When observing class sessions, students were split into subgroups to discuss
their Tuesday assignments. The energy within these smaller groups was much more intimate and
lighthearted than it was with the larger group. I noticed that students felt more comfortable to
share their thoughts and engage in small talk. When it came time to share the basis of these mini
discussions with the rest of the class, everyone fell silent. Students who did end up speaking,
were the usual communicators of the class. Most members of this discourse community don't
speak out to the entire class unless spoken to. When it comes to the community's online
discussions, the atmosphere is completely different. Students are required to post once and
respond to two others on Blackboard every week. There is a specific time that this weekly
assignment is due. Also, a word limit is placed on each text. It is possible that this online
interaction is lively because the intercommunication is regulated.

Discourse Community
Ethnography

When students interact online in their weekly discussions, Swales's third discourse
benchmark is implemented. The responses to the Blackboard posts are personalized. Most
students begin their replies with a nice greeting and the name of the person that they are
addressing. They'll also include advice, commentary, and opinions on points made by the other
person. These writing artifacts are a resource for each student to receive feedback about UTEP's
programs to join or college skills to attain.
The use of online and in-class discussions/assignments, guest speakers, and ServiceLearning are the various types of educational communication within this class. These different
genres represent the fourth characteristics of Swales's discourse communities. Online and inclass interactions offer different opportunities to speak to members and learn something new.
Guest speakers are a genre that bring new knowledge and energy with every visit. ServiceLearning provides an array of work, volunteer, and educational experiences. Every student in this
class has a unique story to share with their classmates. Each genre is distinctive chance for
members to intercommunicate.
This fourth characteristic of discourse communities by Swales is directly represented in
the particular vocabulary that this group uses. Some specific lexis include: RAP, BDB,
Blackboard, and Service-Learning. I remember being confused by these terms on the first day of
class. RAP is an acronym for reading, analysis, and portfolio. It is the name for a weekly
assignment that students must turn in online and in class. BDB is the name for the online
discussion (post and respond) about UTEP programs and college life that I mentioned earlier.
Blackboard is the online zone where assignments are submitted and discussions are take place.
Service-Learning is a large-scale project that requires volunteer work. Whenever I discuss these

Discourse Community
Ethnography

specialized lexis with people outside of this course, I have to explain it in ways that I wouldn't
have to if I were speaking with another member.
Swales's final discourse community criteria is demonstrated in the Professor and the peer
leader's actions. The Professor is highly educated in her class content. One of her students,
Samantha, credits Professor Varela on her ability to make long lectures informative and
entertaining (Samantha, personal communication, October 12, 2016). I commend the peer leader
in her politeness and professionalism. The entire class seems to have lots of respect for both
authority figures.
Analyzing Interactions (using Aristotle)
Aristotle defined ethos, pathos, and logos to categorize methods of persuasion. His words
were translated by W. Rhys Roberts, who stated, "There are, then, these three means of effecting
persuasion. The man who is to be in command of them must, it is clear, be able (1) to reason
logically, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms, and (3) to
understand the emotions-that is, to name them and describe them, to know their causes and the
way in which they are excited," (n.d.). When it comes to UTEP UNIV 1301 course on Social
Justice and Activism, all of these methods are used at one point of almost every class session.
When guest speakers give lectures, the power of ethos is activated. One day, the
Professor scheduled the class in the library, where the class librarian taught the students all about
research skills. Her occupation as a librarian made her words more credible and reliable. This
lesson would not have the same level of persuasion if it were given by someone who was less
educated on the inner workings of UTEP's library system. One statement could have two

Discourse Community
Ethnography

completely different influences when given by separate speakers. This is the powerful impact of
ethos.
Pathos is utilized in this discourse community when the Professor or guest instructors
trigger the students' emotions in order to prove a point. For example, a guest speaker gave a
presentation about the Animal Right's Movement. Some of the animal cruelty pictures in his
presentation were so graphic, I had to look away. Lots of other students in the class expressed, in
verbal and non-verbal ways, their opposition to this injustice. Their discomfort may even inspire
them to become activists in the future. This persuasion is very impactful because feelings often
control lives.
UNIV 1301 uses logos whenever readings are given to discourse members to examine.
The Professor requires students to read and analyze information individually. Then, when it
comes to class discussion, members can communicate with factual information that improves
their arguments. Discussions wouldn't be as persuasive if no one had valid facts to back them up.
Conclusion
When analyzing this community, I learned that my Professor is a lot more organized than
I thought. I discovered that these assignments, discussions, and project are actually building
towards something bigger than I previously understood. Elaborating on my research a bit further,
the individuals of this discourse communities need to do a better job of communicating goals and
objectives. A discourse community is pointless without a common target to aim towards. This
focus will allow members to achieve ambitions faster. When conversation flows, people can
work, learn, and grow together. Communication is functional when its purposeful. The nature of
communication is fluid.

Discourse Community
Ethnography
Reference Page
Kain, D. & Wardle, E. (n.d.). Activity theory: an introduction for the writing classroom. In E.
Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.), Writing about writing: A college reader (pp. 395-409).
Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.

Roberts, W. R. (n.d.). Rhetoric by artistotle. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle

/rhetoric.1.i.html

Swales, J. (1990). The concept of discourse community. In E. Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.),
Writing about writing: A college reader (pp. 215-229). Boston, MA: Bedford/St.
Martins.