For the Discourse Community Ethnography project, I intend to
examine the co-ed service fraternity Alpha Phi Omega (APhiO). This
community has around four hundred members on campus, but is also divided into
families and committees which each form a genre of the group. I will
assess this group according to Swales' six characteristics of a discourse
community, and have outlined the application of each.
Swales tells us that, "a discourse community
has a broadly agreed set of common public goals." APhiO aims to
provide community service for the benefit of those in need and its members.
Participants should increase leadership and service skills. The
second quality of a community dictates that it contains, "mechanisms
of intercommunication among its members." APhiO uses emails through
listserv and website sign-ins that correspond to personal sign-ins at service
events. Members are aware of these mechanisms and are expected to make use
of them. Furthermore, sign-ins at chapter meetings ensure members are in
attendance. Powerpoints are used to convey information to a large number
of members during chapter. Swales' third requirement of a discourse community
requires, "participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information
and feedback." Members who participate in service are expected to
uphold the values and behavior that are discussed in chapter and in out of
chapter communication. Voting occurs regularly on issues that impact
members. Ombudsmen request information on various issues regarding membership
issues. Suggestions are requested during chapter. Furthermore,
"a discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in
the communicative furtherance of its aims." To this end, during
chapter, each executive member is expected to have a slide on a powerpoint,
highlighting their announcements. These announcements go in a specific
order and are expected to last a certain amount of time. Similarly, each
committee within the fraternity has a set of language specific to their needs. Swales
also requires that a, "discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis." Language used to describe service events allows for shorter
meetings. Listerv allows for faster communication between members.
Website information is compressed into shorter terms that allow members
to navigate it quickly and efficiently. Like other fraternities and
sororities, some Greek jargon applies. Bids are used to inform hopefuls
of acceptance into the pledge process.
Pledges fulfill requirements to become actives, or in APhiO
brothers. Finally, "a discourse community has a threshold level of
members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal
expertise." Membership size is limited by space for meetings.
Interviews are held to pare down the number of applicants. In order to
have a large number of members that is also efficient, the pledge process
teaches members the language they will require as actives.
My interest in this discourse community stems from my own
participation. I think that it will be interesting to view this group in
a new light after participating for a year. The jargon that we use has become
so familiar to me that it would be interesting to see how much of it is
actually exclusive to this group.
With regards to interviews, I believe it would be
beneficial to talk to the head of a committee, since they represent their own
genre within the group. Furthermore, I think that the average, highly
involved member would be a good source of information. In addition, there is
almost no end to the set of texts that are available to members. I would
draw from the powerpoints used during chapters, emails sent via listserv and
the website for the fraternity.
Hi Lyndsey,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great start to the ethnography. Your application of Swales' criteria is effective and thorough. You already have a good handle on the type of interactions going on in this d.c. We just need to think of a particular focus. Reading your proposal, it seemed like you had a particular interest in genre, at least you seem to understand how different genres are enacted and regulate certain discourses. It seems like we talked about genre today in class as well. Wardle certainly discusses genre a little as a way to demonstrate how identities are represented through discourse. Swales, of course, also has a little bit about genre and the book that article is taken from deals with genre more. The Mirabelli reading we're doing next also talks about genre. You'll want to pay close attention to how these different authors treat the concept. A common understanding of the term is that genre is a response to a recurring situation that becomes conventional or traditional through repeated usage. Genres regulate discourse in that they have certain characteristics that writers repeat whenever they participate in the genre. But as you mentioned today, writers can also change the genre by doing something different within its framework. So how to apply this to your d.c.? How does genre regulate discourse and behavior? Why and how did the genres develop? How do they evolve or change? Looking at these specific questions might help you figure out something new about how genre operates in this specific discourse community. Of course, you might have a different direction you want to head in, and that's fine. Just be sure that you focus in on one or two of the concepts from the textbook. Ask me about another source sometime that might be a good addition to the study. I've got something in mind that might help you enhance your understanding.