An attempt to define a discourse community

Many researchers and theorists, such as Bizzel (1986, 1992) Candlin (1997) Reid (1993) and Swales (1990), have defined a discourse community as a knowledge community formed by a group of people who operate on the basis of certain values, goals, expectations, and language practices. Moreover, to be recognized as such, a discourse community should meet a set of characteristics. According to Swales (1990; as cited in Pintos, 2009), these requirements are: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology, and high general level of expertise. Therefore, if someone belongs to a discourse community, s/he should give testimony of such membership by meeting the mentioned aspects.

Regarding the first characteristic, it refers to the fact that the group should achieve certain objectives and have specific interests. Thus, considering teachers as part of a situated learning discourse community (Hoffman-Kipp et al, 2003) where they interact with colleagues in goal-directed activities, collaborating, strategizing solutions to problems, and relying on each other; it turns evident that what Swales (1990) states as one necessary characteristic, it is indeed.

It is possible to relate the ideas mentioned above with the second and third aspects proposed by Swales (1990). Accordingly, discourse members will not survive unless they are intercommunicated through mechanisms that facilitate the circulation of information and feedback. Wenzlaff -Terri et al (2004) state “interactions with the people in one’s environment are major determinants of both what is learned and how learning takes place” (p. 1). Furthermore, one of these authors’ core concepts is the idea of forming a cohort structure within education, defined as the one that “fosters a collaborative culture (…), enhances opportunities for influencing decision-making processes and for connecting personally and professionally with colleagues” ( Wenzlaff – Terri et al, 2004 p. 2).

Last but not least, the three remaining characteristics proposed by Swales (1990) are closely related to language practices and level of knowledge. Therefore, developing communicative competence becomes crucial since the group needs to acquire specific vocabulary and be aware of conventionalized style and language principles. Christine Kelly – Kleese (2004) argues that a community college can be understood as a discourse community within a larger community of higher education. In doing so, she makes reference to what Swales (1990) states in the last requirements by claiming that “members of two-year college discourse communities share understandings about how to communicate knowledge and achieve shared purposes, and they exhibit a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (Kelly-Kleese, 2004 p. 2).

On balance then, belonging to a discourse community implies not only knowing about the specific language practices this community uses but also taking part in those practices. Thus, a discourse community cannot exist in the absence of a collaborative culture and an environment that supports risk-taking and reflection; being both essential if we are to be considered active members that contribute effectively to the development of a community of researcher teachers.

















References

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teaching learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved August 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730


Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved August 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Pintos, V. (2008) Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad CAECE. Retrieved August 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved August 2009, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=2730