What is a discourse community?

According to Swales (1990), six basic criteria should be considered in order to recognize a discourse community. His concept of discourse community involves common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized, and high general level of experience. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate his conceptualization of a discourse community through sustainable evidence.

Regarding the first criterion, a discourse community should achieve certain common goals. To exemplify this notion, Kelly-Klesse (2004) argues that a community college can be seen as a discourse community when its members share similar attitudes and values. She also claims that “shar[ing] understandings about how to communicate knowledge and achiev[ing] shared purposes” (Kelly-Kleese, 2004, para. 5) are defining aspects to recognize a community college as a discourse community.

Based on the second criterion, a discourse community should share participatory mechanisms such as providing information and feedback. Supporting evidence about this requirement can be found in Wenzlaff and Weiseman’s (2004) work, which after research study of the nature of teaching, interpreted data and reported their findings:

The findings of this study suggest that a cohort-based graduate program that is personalized and responsive to teachers’ needs promotes meaningful learning and sense of empowerment (Summary and Implications section, para. 1)

Empowerment within a discourse community is the key to teacher leaning. For teachers to believe themselves empowered, they must direct their learning opportunities (Summary and Implications section, para. 2)

As a third requirement, Swales (1990) stated that a discourse community should maintain a communication flow to exchange information. Hoffman-Kipp, Ardiles, and Lopez-Torres (2003) agree that in a learning discourse community several teachers “voluntary gather on a monthly basis to study their own professional practice” (para.2) in order to sharpen up communication among them. Thus, keeping in contact and establishing social connections among colleagues seem to enhance professional growth and enrich bonds in a community.  

An example that provides evidence to back up the fourth criterion regarding the community-specific genres can be illustrated from the conclusion drawn by Hoffman-Kipp et al. (2003). The “online journal demonstrates how technology has provided a means by which teachers can critically dialogue” (para. 4), assuming that the use of one community-specific genre can contribute to build up a sense of membership identity and define a group association as a discourse community.

According to Swales (1990), in a discourse community members should use highly specialized terminology. Kelly-Kleese (2001) makes a point in it when she explains the fact that university scholars are expected to develop a special skill to name “what is” in their writings and publishing ventures. “By focusing on sharing their knowledge, findings, and interpretations, they create policy and redefine the language and reality of higher education; engaging in scholarship is a well developed aspect of the culture of this discourse community”(Kelly-Kleese, 2001, para. 2).

Swales (1990) stated that a group should achieve high levels of expertise in order to be defined as a discourse community. Scholars base their assumptions and hypotheses on literature review and research findings by citing other authors’ research works or publications. For instance, Kelly-Kleese (2004) defines the importance of scholarship as a “solid foundation in one’s professional field” (Vanghan, 1998; cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p. 5). She also argues that scholarship implies not only achieving higher standards of education in different settings but also “serviceability” and “meeting the practical needs of society” (Boyer, 1990, 1990a; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p. 5).

In the light of the literature discussed, the different authors provided evidence to back up Swales’ (1990) theory of a discourse community. Kelly-Keese (2001, 2004) illustrated most of the principles that underline this theoretical underpinning, referring to common goals, information exchange, specialized terminology and level of expertise while Wenzlaff and Weiseman (2004) exemplified the notions of participatory mechanisms and intercommunication. Hoffman-Kipp et al., (2003) also mentioned the importance of intercommunication and stood out the role of a shared genre to define an academic discourse community.

References

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved September 2010, from http://findarticles.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 Review. Retrieved September 2010, 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 September 2010, from

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

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved September 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405