Discourse Communities

What is a Discourse Community?

The term discourse community can be defined as a group of people who gather and share particular knowledge, ideologies and a common discourse (Bizzel, 1986, 1992; Candlin, 1997; Gunnarson, 1997; Herzberg, 1986; Ivanič, 1998; Reid, 1993; Swales, 1990, cited in Pinto & Crimi, 2010). For instance a community college can be considered as a discourse community because “its members have, over time, developed a common discourse” (Kelly-Kleese, 2001, para. 4) that includes common knowledge and purposes, common relationships, attitudes and values. Swales (1990) has pointed out six characteristics that a discourse community requires in order to be identified as such: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise (cited in Pinto & Crimi, 2010). The purpose of this work is to find evidence that sustains Swales’ basic criteria for a discourse community.

As regards Swales’ (1990) first criterion, common goals, many discourse communities have developed in order to remark how reflection on teaching practises  itself is “mobilised in particular contexts for particular political, pedagogical, and phenomenological purposes” (Owens, 2002; as cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Torres, 2003, para. 8). Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) propose that a group work is a feasible method of achieving objectives and give proof of this through a research study of a cohort based master’s degree program in curriculum and pedagogy where its members worked together to accomplish a common purpose .

Taking into account the second criterion Swales (1990) suggests, participatory mechanisms, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Torres (2003) state that teacher reflection in social context takes place “as teachers engage in and share their reflection in diverse ways”(p. 4). Interaction among the members of a discourse community is the principal mechanism to provide information and feedback. Participation “in cultural contexts supports learning environments where people collaborate, use artifacts, strategize solutions to problems, and rely on other, more experienced members” (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Torres, 2003, para. 18). The authors also affirm that teachers become resources for one another, guiding and assisting each other so as to form new ideas.

The third requirement that Swales (1990) proposes is information exchange. Members of a community should interact among themselves to exist as a community. Therefore they can use journals or virtual systems of communication such as e-mail, mailing lists, and discussion forums on the Web to share their experiences (cited in Pinto & Crimi, 2010).

Considering Swales’ (1990) fourth criterion, community-specific genres, Kelly-Kleese (2004) claims that a discourse community borrows its concept from that of speech community. Speech communities can be defined “in terms of the words that are used, the ways they are pronounced, the subjects talk about” (Kutz, 1997; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004 para. 5). She also affirms that members of a discourse community “exhibit a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (Kelly-Kleese, 2004, para.5)

Swales (1990) establishes as the fifth criterion that a discourse community should have a highly specialized terminology. Its members adopt a particular language and have “a greater skill in using (and manipulating) the language system” (Bowers, 1987 as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, para. 5).

Finally, Swales (1990) proposes that a group which belongs to a discourse community should acquire a particular level of knowledge, high general level of expertise (cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010). A community develops certain level of prestige through its writing and publishing. Zito (1984) claims that “an author is granted a certain biding authority to his intended meaning: this legitimated by academic credentials, professional associations, and the division of knowledge within the academy” (as cited Kelly-Kleese, 2001, para. 11). Moreover, the author points out that only those members who belongs to a discourse community and that are “qualified by some socially institutionalized agency may engage in such discourse and be taken seriously” (Zito, 1984 as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, 11).

To conclude, Swales (1990) basic criteria serves as an important contribution to identify discourse communities and their members. Evidence on the six requirements a discourse community should meet to be recognized as such, as Swales (1990) establishes, is found in the four articles analyzed.

References

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher

     learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from

     http://finderarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College

     Faculty and Administrators. Community College Faculty and Administrators.

     Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from

     http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college

     scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007,

     from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Pintos, V. & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and

     prospective researchers. Retrieved August 2010, from

     http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=6856

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher

     Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from

     http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405