Discourse Community Ethnography

Discourse Community Ethnography:

The High School Equivalency Program
Victor Caballero
The University of Texas at El Paso

Discourse Community Ethnography

Abstract
The Oxford English Dictionary defines a discourse community as a group of people
sharing a common and distinct mode of communication or discourse, especially within a
particular domain of intellectual or social activity, but in order to categorize the High School
Equivalency Program as such, The Concept of Discourse Communities by John Swales (1990)
and Intertextuality and the Discourse Community by James Porter (1986) will be used to
evaluate the program and determine if it is indeed a discourse community. Certain guidelines
established by Swales must be fulfilled by the program in order to be considered a discourse
community.

Introduction
Through everyday life activities, each one of us are important members of a discourse
community without even realizing it. The Oxford English Dictionary defines it as a group of
people sharing a common and distinct mode of communication or discourse, especially within a
particular domain of intellectual or social activity but to me this is a very vague explanation on
what a discourse community is. I prefer John Swaless explanation where he created a method to
determine if this specific group of people are considered a discourse community. Such method
consists of fulfilling only six characteristics as we will see throughout this paper.
In order to categorize the High School Equivalency Program as a discourse community
The Concept of Discourse Communities by John Swales (1990) and Intertextuality and the
Discourse Community by James Porter (1986) will be used to evaluate such program and
determine if it is indeed a discourse community.

Discourse Community Ethnography

Literature Review
As explained before, John Swaless method makes it easier for us to analyze what a
discourse community should consist of and how to properly identify one by analyzing its
qualities. The High School Equivalency Program at UTEP must possess certain characteristics to
determine if it is indeed a discourse community.
The first characteristic states that a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of
common public goals" (Swales, 1990, p. 220), meaning that the community should have a
specific purpose. The second characteristic indicates that it "has mechanisms of
intercommunication among its members" (Swales, 1990, p. 221). This characteristic focuses on
communication - how individuals connect with one another within the discourse community.
Each discourse community has various methods of communication.
The third characteristic explains that a discourse community uses its participatory
mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback" (Swales, 1990, p. 221). This
particular characteristic grants a purpose to the established communication within a discourse
community, generally to achieve the goal that is first established in the first characteristic. The
fourth characteristic indicates that a discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or
more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims" (Swales, 1990, p.221). This
characteristic seeks to define the standards in communication, meaning that in order to have
communication with its members there must be a genre or a pattern. E-mails could be an
example of this.
The fifth characteristic mentions that "in addition to owning genres, a discourse
community has acquired some specific lexis" (Swales, 1990, p.222), meaning that a community

Discourse Community Ethnography

must have its own vocabulary where they communicate in its own local words or lexis. The sixth
and last characteristic states that a discourse community has a threshold level of members with
a suitable degree of relevant content and discourse expertise" (Swales, 1990, p.222). The
meaning of this would be something similar to a hierarchy where new members are at the bottom
of the pyramid and the more experienced are at the top.
In Intertextuality and the Discourse Community by James Porter (1986), intertextuality
is implied as a way where all writing and speech create their own significance through the
referencing of other texts and borrowing suggestions to make new discourses. It can also be
explained by saying that any text is considered intertextual because it must be built on structures
that existed before itself. The idea of intertextuality can also be related to advertising, music, and
film as it states that everything created today is influenced on what was created before.
Porter defines a discourse community as a group of people that are involved in and
communicate about a particular common topic in a particular field accepted by that community.
Discourse communities relate to intertextuality in the sense that this limit us to also borrow
traces and signs we inherit, and those fulfilled by our discourse community.

Methods
To analyze the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) I have to gather information
from various sources and find out if it fulfills the criteria to be considered a discourse
community. Most of the information will be gathered through their website and brochures as well
as myself as I am currently working at the HEP main office. I will consider myself as a source as
well.

Discourse Community Ethnography

Discussion
Characteristic 1 A discourse community must set a common public goal.
HEPs goal can be located within its mission statement found in the programs website.
The statement reads: HEP prepares program participants to successfully complete
the HSE exam and to gear students for career advancement that will maximize their potential for
achievement. (High School Equivalency Program, 2015). To further elaborate the statement,
HSE means the high school equivalency. This program fulfills the first characteristic.
Characteristic 2 Intercommunication among its members.
This characteristic can be found under the Staff tab of their website: sa.utep.edu/hep. In
this tab, each employees email can be found. This is their primary method of communication
between member of this discourse community and the outside world. Another mechanism of
intercommunication is the telephone; each of the staff members have a unique number extension
that can be used to make phone calls within the same department.
Characteristic 3 Provide information and feedback.
The third characteristic is more of an extension of the second where feedback is a
requirement which indulges the members to have a two-way interaction. This characteristic is
found in the same place as the second one; in emails. HEP staff must interact and respond to
emails in order to accomplish tasks and for the program to run effectively. Another way of
feedback and participation is during staff meetings where all the members have to gather to stay
informed and up to date with the program. Various topics include student enrollment, important
due dates, and discussions on methods on how to improve the program. These different staff
interactions make the program reach its goal.

Discourse Community Ethnography

Characteristic 4 A discourse community uses one or more genres.

In HEP we can find it in different places including emails as well. Emails from the
program must follow some simple rules; they must greet the sender, then thank the recipient but
only if its a reply, then the first sentence must state the purpose and the closing remarks must be
added towards the end of the email. Another norm would be to mention any attachment if it is
being made.
Characteristic 5 Specific lexis.
At the program, there are many lexes used to convey a message across the community.
For example, as mentioned before, the HSE exam; not many people outside the program know
what it stands for and in fact, this is the actual acronyms used for exams like GED or HiSET.
This acronym is of special importance to the program because GED and HiSET are test brands
and the program is not allowed to promote a brand.
Characteristic 6 Members with a suitable degree of discourse expertise.
The last characteristic is dedicated mainly to the community members. This characteristic
can be found on the programs website. There is a noticeable hierarchy in this discourse
community. Each member has a level of expertise and a role, starting with Ms. Chacon as the
program director, followed by Margarita Arzate, the academic coordinator. Alejandra Jimenez as
administrative assistant, Nora Cuvelier educational outreach coordinator, and Oscar Nuez as
master teacher. The pyramid continues on with the part-time teachers, which include Armida
Aldana, Haydee A. Jaramillo, and Lilian Lopez. At the bottom of this hierarchy are the
undergraduate student assistants. Similarly, students of the program could also be considered

Discourse Community Ethnography

members of the community located at the lowest level although they are the main focus of this
discourse community.

Conclusion
In conclusion, HEP passed Swales Test once all of its six characteristics where met, thus
the High School Equivalency Program can be considered a discourse community.

References
Caballero, V. M., Jr. (Ed.). (n.d.). The High School Equivalency Program. Retrieved September
19, 2016, from http://studentaffairs.utep.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=73233
Discourse Community - definition of discourse community in ... (n.d.). Retrieved November 14,
2016, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/discourse_community
Porter, J.E. (1986) Intertextuality and the discourse community. In D. Downs & E. Wardle (Eds.)
Writing About Writing (2nd Ed., 396-409). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.
Swales, J. (1990). The concept of discourse community. In D. Downs & E. Wardle (Eds.)
Writing About Writing (2nd Ed., 217-229). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.