So
as to function effectively in a discourse community and to promote professional
growth, members have to be acquainted with the specific use of speech and
writing of this professional academic community. This paper focuses on defining
the characteristics of discourse community, departing from Swales’ (1990)
definition, looking for evidence to support it in different articles. He
establishes six basic characteristics: common goals, participatory mechanisms,
information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized
terminology, and high general level of expertise.
Members
of a discourse community share common goals as well as a high level of
expertise (Swales, 1990). According to Kutz (1997), “its members have, over
time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common
purposes, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values” (as cited in
Kelly-Klesse, 2004 p. 2). Moreover people involved should possess a high level
of knowledge to be recognized as an authorized writer by the group itself. Zito
(1984) argues that “an author is granted a certain binding authority to his
intended meaning; this is legitimated by academic credentials, professional
associations, and the division of knowledge within the academy” (as cited in
Kelly- Klesse, 2001, p. 3)
A
discourse community holds some conventions for participatory mechanisms and information
exchanges (Swales, 1990). The interchange of information and feedback among
members encourages positive collaborative professional development. “A feeling
of ownership and commitment through self-improvement allows ongoing teachers’
development to flourish” (Mycue, 2001; cited in Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004).
Furthermore if teachers are immersed in a collaborative culture it will allow
them to learn from one another as colleagues. Wenzlaff and Wieseman
(2004) state that “for teacher learning to occur, teachers need opportunities
to participate in professional communities that discuss learning theories, and
various teacher materials and pedagogy” (p. 2). In the same way, Hoffman-Kipp,
Artiles and LopezTorres (2003) argue that that “teachers function as resources
for one another, providing each other with guidance and assistance on which to
build new ideas” (p.5).
Member of these communities share community
specific genres and highly specialized terminology. Kelly-Kleese (2004)
also states that “In order to have their work deemed worthy, community college
faculty and administrators must understand the convention of writing and the
standards by which their work will be judged” (p.9).
In conclusion, Hoffman-Kipp et al., Kelly-Kleese, and Wenzlaff and
Wieseman’s articles give evidence to support Swales’ (1990) characteristics of
discourse communities. So it is important to consider these six basic
characteristics, which are well-grounded in theory, when attempting to enter or
to keep on in this particular professional community.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L.
(2003). Beyond reflection: teacher
learning as praxis. Theory into
Practice. Retrieved October 2007, from
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community
College Faculty
and Administrators. Community College Review.
Retrieved October 2007, from
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college
scholarship
and discourse. Community College Review.
Retrieved October 2007, from
Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow.Teacher
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in Academic and
Research Settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
