Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

Ethnography of the TRMC STEM Internship Discourse Community.

Elisa Rivera
University of Texas at El Paso

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

2

Abstract
Amongst the array of essential language used between the educated public the valuable concept
discourse community is a powerful tool for the literate world. This is because it capsules the idea
that text and knowledge of different people unite, and in a regulated way work together to
complete a desired mission proposed before them or between them. The concept itself is
modestly defined by James E. Porter who states a group of individuals bound by a common
interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated (Porter,
1986). Swales, a professor of linguistics at the University of Michigan, defines it differently he
suggest that 6 specific characteristics are essential when classifying a group as discourse
community. A unique discourse community is the TRMC Science Technology Engineering and
Math (STEM) Internship Program at White Sands Missile Range. This community fulfills all of
swales suggested characteristics and truly represents an ideal discourse community. Exhibiting
all 6 of the characteristics as Swales defines them can be complicated at first, but is possible once
one truly places close attention to its surrounding details and investigates a communities literate
background.

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

3

Introduction
A college student studying Rhetoric and Writing (RWS) will be introduced to a variety of
literate concepts; furthermore, students will encounter new terminology to purposefully increase
student knowledge. Hence, the terms that are implemented are used in our daily writing culture,
facilitating speech between societies. Amongst the array of essential language used between the
educated public the valuable concept discourse community is a powerful tool for the literate
world. This is because it capsules the idea that text and knowledge of different people unite, and
in a regulated way work together to complete a desired mission proposed before them or between
them. The concept itself is modestly defined by James E. Porter who states a group of
individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and
whose discourse is regulated (Porter, 1986). This definition is general compared to how John
Swales defines it. Swales, a professor of linguistics at the University of Michigan, suggest that 6
specific characteristics are essential when classifying a group as discourse community. A unique
discourse community is the TRMC Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM)
Internship Program at White Sands Missile Range. This community fulfills all of swales
suggested characteristics and truly represents an ideal discourse community. Exhibiting all 6 of
the characteristics as Swales defines them can be complicated at first, but is possible once one
truly places close attention to its surrounding details and investigates a communities literate
background. The 6 characteristics explained are listed as follows:

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

4

Literature Review
In order to become familiar with the literate concept discourse community, the revision of studies
by individuals who mediate literate activities is required. Primarily, John Swales ideas derived
from The Concept of Discourse Communities where he explains what a discourse community
is. Swales provides 6 characteristics discourse communities have. Also, we refer to James E.
Porters work, who goes on to explain that specific discourse communities have the ability to
create what a writer chooses to say. Porter shares the importance that discourse communities
have in relation to measuring the originality of texts. Discourse communities, the term that
Swales and Porter stress impacts the creation of the literate world itself.
Swales began his excerpt differentiating speech communities and discourse communities to
prevent later confusion. According to Swales written work, a discourse community is defined as
a group of people who share a similar goal, and communicate using certain mannerism to
demonstrate some level of expertise with membership enough so that hierarchy exists. Discourse
community in Swales analysis is described as a powerful and useful concept; moreover, Mr.
Swales establishes a formal attempt to classify discourse communities as the center of a set of
ideas (Swales, 1990).
Furthermore, there are six listed characteristics that Swales states that presumably fulfills
what a discourse community is. The following are Swales proposed characteristics: community
has an agreed set of goals, community has mechanisms of interaction among members,
community uses active tools to provide information/feedback, possess one or more genres in
communication to aid in achieving desired goal, specific lexis is used within community, and the
group has a developed hierarchy (Swales, 1990).

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

5

Additionally, James E. Porter in Intertextuality and the Discourse

Community gives a more general and lenient definition as to what is
classified as a discourse community compared to Swales 6 characteristics.
Using Portes definition a lot more groups can be categorized as a discourse
community. Also, in porters study what he suggest is that individuals are
limited in writing according to the discourse community a person belongs to
constrained insofar as we must inevitably borrow the traces, codes, and
signs which we inherit and which our discourse community imposes (Porter,
1986). Porter believes that students should learn to write for a discourse
community in order to master discourse community writing and hereafter
alter the ideas for the same community. Individuals should look beyond
intertext to the social work outline that regulates textual production, and
instead trust that writing is a willfully activity that should preserve its
individuality and uniqueness that every writer encompasses.
It is clear that a discourse community as defined by Swales and Porter is
an exclusive group to be a part of. Regardless the magnitude in the
difference between Swales characteristics and Porters definition, discourse
communities do exist and in large numbers. The ideas that revolve around
discourse communities are regulated and related, but unique amongst the
billions of communities in the modern world.
METHODS
Out of the variety of discourse communities I have selected one to use with purpose of
supporting Swales test. I choose to investigate a community that is based on STEM principles.

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

6

The discourse community I selected was the Supporting Test and Evaluation for the Department
of Defense Internship program (TRMC STEM Internship). An STEM based experience that
allows student practice their acquired skills providing student with challenging task within the
Department of Defense. The TRMC STEM Internship Program was introduced to me by Ms.
Lynn Dellossie December 1, 2015 who invited me to apply via email. The email included a
brochure that had detailed information about the program, specific content listed: subject, motto,
requirements, information needed, what is experience is gained, and deadlines. It was enough to
be classified as a discourse community by Porter, but not sufficient to pass Swales 6
characteristics test.
Consequently, I sent emails in search of more information, Ms. Dellosie directed me to Ms.
Patricia Holguin-Lucero who suggested I make an appointment. I called Ms. Dellosie to schedule
an appointment with the TRMC STEM Internship Program Coordinator, Mrs. Lucero. I was told
that Mrs. Lucero was in Washington D.C. until April 7, 2015. I anticipated meeting with her to
gain further information and was able to receive an interview on April 8, 2016.
The opportunity of interviewing Mrs. Lucero granted me the possibility of having all my
questions answered. I prepared 15 questions of which I would formally ask Mrs. Lucero in
person. Questions ranged from what are effective ways your community communicates? to
why do you enjoy what you do in your community? Mrs. Lucero was able to answer all of my
questions. Inclusively, the interview provided me with insights on how to attain a position as an
intern to even more virtuous life advice.
The TRMC STEM Internship Program does effectively meet the criteria of a discourse
community. Interviewing Mrs. Lucero I learned not only the direct objective of the internship
program which relates to STEM, but just how important the Department of Defense is and how

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

7

many jobs spur from working for the government. I learned that in this discourse community
once involved in government related issues many more doors are open to one. Mrs. Lucero stated
Every day is a different thing, what we do makes a difference, and I can say I am a part of that.
Advice Mrs. Lucero gave me included networking as the most important thing to do while one
can. Mrs. Lucero assured me that TRMC STEM Internship is a strong program to be a part of,
since it will open me to even greater discourse communities.

Discussion
Primarily, a discourse community has a set of general public goals. The rules and regulations
can be used to determine the level of intensity and intellectual capacity each goal in the
community will require. The motive of the TRMC STEM Internship Program consists of
allowing students to acclimate the fundamentals of test and evaluation (T&E) within the
Department of Defense, while practicing skills and participating in a valuable experience. The
Test and Research management center required diversity in thinking and targeted University
students to heighten the arena and awareness.
The following characteristic is related to the mechanisms members use to communicate.
Each discourse community is able to interact with one another using telecommunications,
newsletters televisions etc. to speak and write accordingly to transfer information, data to one
another. The TRMC community uses the following Medias to communicate: email, tele-cons,
newsletter, automated UTC, and Facebook page. The TRMC STEM discourse community uses
the previously stated technologies to communicate regularly. For example, meetings with
members across the nation often communicate using tele-cons. Another example is Facebook
which is used to communicate with members commercially like in promoting the Program to
University students.

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

8

Third characteristic listed, describes a participation from different mechanisms in order to

provide information and feedback. This characteristic requires members of a discourse
community to actively participate in any outside source used to communicate with the group. If
member is not active exchanging information, this member is not considered part of the
community. The TRMC Internship program includes a portal for all employees. Answering
emails is essential in order to exchange information effectively. Members are only members if
they are communicating with one another to complete the Test and Evaluation missions.
The following characteristic includes having one or more genres for the purpose of
continuance in the publics communicational goals. The discourse community is unceasingly
developing by the use of specific genres to meet publics expectations. Genres are used to
accomplish tasks, Genres and language are needed to establish the uniqueness of the discourse
community. Becoming familiar with a wide variety of technologies is a necessity to be part of
this program. The genre of technology and focus on concepts such as radar modernization, target
simulation, data fusion, radar camera integration, cyber security, visual flight display, automated
seeker, and moving target simulation are used in this unique program.
In continuance, the addition of genres in a discourse community consequently will include
lexis, the ditch and syntax used to reinforce a distinguished discourse community. Technically
speaking, the structure of a writing piece or phrase determines the audience, group, community
that is being addressed. For example, long sentences or short sentences, abbreviations, acronyms
play a large rule in determining the strength of a discourse community. Furthermore, the choice
of words used between members reinforces the idea that in order to understand the structure and
diction one must be an active member of the discourse community. The lexis, diction, and syntax
used in the TRMC STEM Internship program is related directly with STEM principles. Genres

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

9

that one should become familiar with are Journals such as International Test and Evaluation
Association (ITEA) The Journal of Test & Evaluation. Members are encouraged to subscribe to
publications advice to become familiar with more information to complete tasks the internship
will bring fourth. In these readings the language used is unique to this discourse community.
Learning to speak the unique STEM language is required for all new and old members to be
familiar with.
Lastly, a discourse community depends on its members, particularly members who have a
suitable degree of pertinent content and those with discourse expertise. In the TRMC STEM
Internship Program there is a hierarchy. This hierarchy starts with the Executive directors of the
installations (locations at which interns work at) with the most authority. Following is the
Coordinator of the Internship Program Mrs. Lucero, who is also a contractor for TRAX
International, then are the mentors who will educate the interns working with them one on one.
The mentors are professionals from government work sites to engineering companies. Last are
the interns who are participating to gain and practice their acquired skills.

Conclusion
It is evident that the Supporting Test and Evaluation for the Department of Defense
internship program (TRMC STEM Internship) does saticfy the 6 characteristics Swales presents
as the defining factors of what it takes to be a discourse community.

Running Head: Discourse Community Ethnography

10

References
Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. In E. Wardle, & D. Downs,
Writing about Writing (p. 395-406). Boston, New York: bedford St. Martins.
Swales, J. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. In E. Wardle, & D. Downs, Writing
about Writing (pp. 215-223). Boston, New York: Bedford/ St. Martin's.