Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
Discourse Community Ethnography
Roberto Gamillo
University of Texas at El Paso
Rhetoric & Composition I 1301
October 24, 2014
Paul LaPrade
1
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
2
Discourse Community Ethnography
Introduction
The purpose of this discourse community analysis is to examine the academic community
of NURS 2402, an undergraduate class that covers pathophysiology, and determine if it can
constitute as a discourse community. This analysis is based on John Swales’ six defining
characteristics of a discourse community. Other academic literatures that are based on the topic
of discourse community ethnography are also acknowledged and applied in order to provide a
better understanding of discourse communities.
Literature Review
Ethnography is defined as a descriptive study of a particular human society. This type of
study is generally conducted by living among the people who are the subject of study, learning
about their language and participating in their everyday life while maintaining a certain degree of
objective detachment. Ethnographers will complete this procedure by forming relationships with
certain members of this particular human society and use them to obtain substantial information.
These studies are usually conducted with a certain question in mind that will undoubtedly be
answered by the research. In general terms, ethnography is the study and recordings based on
research about human cultures.
Discourse, in this situation, is the use of words to exchange thoughts and ideas.
Therefore, a discourse community can then be defined as a group of people involved in and
communicating in a particular field. The article “The Concept of Discourse Community” by John
Swales states that a discourse community is defined by six characteristics:
1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
3
3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback.
4. A discourse community uses 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 discourse expertise.
A community must meet all of the defining criteria in order to be considered a discourse
community.
There are a few critical points to keep in mind while reading Swales’ definition of
discourse communities. Lexis is simply a specialized vocabulary belonging to a certain
community. A genre is a term that is open to interpretation; in a discourse community genres are
generally considered to be communicative vehicles for the achievement of goals. These terms
may not necessarily be familiar to readers, but are crucial when attempting to comprehend the
concept of discourse communities.
There are endless types of groups that could be classified as professional, public or
personal discourse communities. People at a workplace, a classroom, a group of friends and
many other groups may constitute as a discourse community as long as “It is a group of
individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and
whose discourse is regulated” (Porter, 2014, p. 400). Swales six characteristics were taken into
account in the study of a particular academic course, which justifies the name: discourse
community ethnography.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
4
The community under observation consisted of the members in the Pathophysiology
course (NURS 2402) at the University of Texas at El Paso. The members of this class are the
students who are attending that particular class and the professor, Bill Farnsworth. According to
UTEP’s registration records (which were accessed online through Goldmine) there is a total
capacity of 60 students per class. The number of students enrolled in the class that was observed
amounted to a total of 40 students.
There are several methods to conduct a proper discourse community ethnography
analysis. When approaching the analysis, it must be made clear that data collection is the priority
and the methods used for collecting data differ in efficiency. An observation, ethnographic
interviews, content analysis of artifacts, and network research were all used in different
variations while analyzing NURS 2402. A personal interview with the professor was held during
his office hours, and a student interview was directed through email. A class observation was
also conducted and artifacts were collected during this time for further analysis.
Discussion
Overview
The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the community of NURS 2402
constitutes as a true discourse community. The community is placed under scrutiny with Swales’
six defining characteristics of a discourse community in mind.
Shared Goals
There are a couple of goals in the community which are public to anyone possessing
common knowledge of education. The general goal of the community according to Mr.
Farnsworth is “having the basic knowledge in what they (students) need to know in regards of
disease and illness.” Therefore, the common goal of this community can be perceived as the
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
5
acquisition and conservation of knowledge in the science of pathophysiology. Shared goals are
also present in the form of academic interest, professional interest, and a general interest in
nursing.
Students enrolled in the course are usually much more concerned with either maintaining
a high grade in the class or having a passing grade. In the interview with the student, on the topic
of shared goals, the student stated that her personal goal was to pass the class. She later
suggested that she believes this is the common goal for the class. Though it may appear that the
goal of the students is different from the goal specified by the professor, in order to pass the class
students must undoubtedly be knowledgeable in pathophysiology (the science of disease and
illness).
Mechanisms of Intercommunication
Intercommunication within this community is imperative towards the function of the
course and the success of the students. There are many ways that communication is achieved in
this community. Forms of communication include verbal, visual, and electronic discourse. In the
classroom, the professor communicates information with the students through power point
presentations and verbal communication. The students interact with the professor’s lecture by
asking questions. Other ways the professor communicates information with students is through
handouts, quizzes/exams and assigned readings. Outside of the classroom, the students
communicate via Blackboard (a webpage that connects all members of the group, including the
professor). Students also communicate through phone calls, text messages and emails. Mr.
Farnsworth is also always available to the students during his office hours.
Each of these forms of communication serves its purpose. Ultimately, the purpose of
these mechanisms is to provide information and feedback. Information is provided to the
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
6
students in the lecture part of the class, as well as in the assigned readings. In order to receive
feedback, the professor assigns handouts that are to be completed by the students. This gives the
professor an idea of where the students stand in the understanding of the course. Exams are also
a form of feedback that significantly display how well a student is able to retain and comprehend
the information given. This Feedback may also be present through student emails and personal
communications with the professor.
Genres are recognizable forms of communication. Thus, this course contains many
different spoken and written genres. Examples of spoken genres in this community are study
groups. In these study groups the students communicate information verbally with the goal if
sharing information. Emails are also a genre as they are used to communicate professionally with
the professor. Text messaging and messaging on Blackboard are also types of genres.
In order to be able to communicate across these genres it is important that the students are
familiar with the lexis of the community. The lexis in this community is mostly made up of
medical terms. Whilst observing the class, the professor used numerous medical terms and the
students in the classroom appeared to have an understanding as to what he was referring to. A
newcomer to the classroom would be without a clue if he was not familiar with the specific lexis
that is used in this community. For example, the professor uses the word “gait” as a substitute for
“walking” and according to Swales this is considered a specific lexis.
Threshold Levels
The levels of expertise within the NURS 2402 community are distinguished without any
difficulty. At the top of the hierarchy stands Professor Farnsworth who is the provider of
knowledge. Mr. Farnsworth undoubtedly has the most important position as he is “in charge” of
the community. He provides a syllabus which is a template for what will be covered in the course
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
7
and provides the rules and regulations for the course as well. All students are classified below the
professor as they look towards the professor for guidance.
Directly under the professor are the students. Though there may be a hierarchy within the
students, time limitations during the study did not allow for a deep analysis of student hierarchy.
However, student status within the class is mostly determined by their grade. Therefore, the
higher the grade, the higher the student sits on the hierarchy.
Conclusion
The community satisfies all of the six requirements of a discourse community. The
community shares a common set of public goals. It uses different mechanisms to
intercommunicate between members of the community. These mechanisms provide significant
amounts of information and feedback. Genres are developed and present within this community.
The group uses a specific lexis when communicating with one another. Finally, the group has
different levels of expertise. NURS 2402 can be classified as a true discourse community, by
Swales’ standards, based on this research.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
8
References
Swales, J. (2014). The Concept of Discourse Community. In D. Downs & E. Wardle (Eds.),
Writing about Writing (pp. 215-229). Bedford St. Martins.
Porter, James E. (1968). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. In D. Downs & E. Wardle
(Eds.), Writing about Writing (pp. 395-409). Bedford St. Martins.