Attempting to reflect upon Discourse Communities

An Attempt to provide a Descriptive Reflection on Discourse Communities

               In the light of Swales’(1990) theory  a discourse community  should meet the following features: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology, and a general level of expertise. The central purpose of this paper is to provide a reflection upon the significance of the previously mentioned requirements of a discourse community.

              One of the main characteristics of a discourse community is to have common goals. The members of a discourse community prevail together since they have a collective purpose to achieve and to struggle for. Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles, and  Lopez-Torres. (2003) put forward the idea that:

The goal-directed nature of human activity in cultural contexts supports learning environments where people collaborate, use artifacts, strategize solutions to problems, and relay on other, more experienced members of the activity system. For example, several teachers working in urban multicultural schools might voluntarily gather on monthly basis to study their own professional practice as it relates to addressing the needs of minority students. Inquiry and deep reflection drive their meetings and define this micro community within the school. (para. 17).

             Thus, common goals enhance collaborative work and provide novices with the opportunity of learning from other community members with more experience. Undoubtedly, a community of teachers working together fosters a profound sense of collective reflection and mutual academic and professional enrichment.

            Two other requirements of a discourse community, which are intricately related, are participatory mechanisms and information exchange. The members of a discourse community should provide other members with information and feedback, and this will only occur if they are immersed in an enriching process of permanent sharing of reflections within an intercommunicative environment. Summing up, Hoffman-Kipp et al’s., (2003) words, it can be said that, reflecting without participating is as impossible as thought without language. Whenever we refer to a discourse community, we should consider that reflection goes hand-in-hand with participation, being both factors of valuable importance for the professional development of discourse community members.

            Other important features that a member of a discourse community should take into consideration are the academic genre conventions and the use of specialized lexis as well. According to Kelly-Kleese’s (2001) perspective, “The use of such language and definitions exemplifies the argument that the communicative competence within academe belongs to the university discourse community ” (para. 2). A member of a discourse community at university level is expected to respect academic genre conventions and to be able to manipulate language skillfully to make his/her voice heard.

            The last requirement of a discourse community is the level of expertise of its members, for instance, in the area of teaching, as it is our case. We are all part of a collaborative culture in which reflecting critically upon our own praxis and upon how to improve the teaching-learning process is the principal goal. For ourselves, for our learners, for a better education, and as McLaughlin and Talbert (1993) uphold, “For the learning to have long-standing impact, “teachers need teachers to grow with” in a discourse community. A discourse community cannot exist in the absence of a collaborative culture and an environment that supports risk-taking and reflection.” ( as cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004, para. 32).

            To conclude, and taking into consideration Swales' (1990) six principles as well as all the reflections published by the above cited authors, it can be asserted that a discourse community, to be considered as such, should be characterized by the six previously mentioned features.

 

References

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, I. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mONQM/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 October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993. (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 )
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.