Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

Discourse Community Ethnography

P.M.S
University of Texas at El Paso

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

Introduction
Studies of how societies forms and ways of communicating through any specialized
activity work, are conveyed through meaningful verbal communication, action, and text. For the
most part, the study of most of those communicating forms can take place within either an
academic or professionalized, particular group of individuals or perhaps even a single individual
forming official membership as part of a certain group. In their world, every member counts and
every member find themselves positioned in value. As if without each members part of effort,
the whole group would fail to succeed smoothly, towards reaching any shared goals. Never the
less, particularly there are six brilliant requirements that are focused and followed by that special
group or individual in the group. Leading to a cycle that feeds back to back successful progress
towards their shared goals. Its known to be the concept of an Analytical Discourse Community.
On my research pathway, the community group or even program of my choice to study
was the BUILDing SCHOLARS Program. Perhaps you might wonder why most of the words in
Building and Scholars are formally capitalized? Concluding to the idea that each letter in both
words Building Scholars spell out a meaning, in which all tie onto one major purpose for the
whole program. Letters B and U both stand for BUilding, letter I stands for Infrastructure, while
letters L and D stand for Leading to Diversity. For the word Scholars, letters SCHOLARS simply
stand for Southwest Consortium of Health-Oriented Education Leaders And Research Scholars.
As a brief insight on BUILDing SHOLARS, the program welcomes diverse students to a world
of undiscovered research driven by the students choice of science major. Where mandatory
hands on research is assigned to each student throughout their years of enrollment. An overall
adventure discovering and gaining research experience that will be practiced in their future
careers only gets them ahead of the game. By the time they are officially performing works in

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

their since chosen major, they already have a previous rich experience. Which only provides the
student any familiarized expectations and roles in order to succeed. As a whole, the program
allows each member to mark a difference at such young time of their beginning adult lives. It
accustoms each students potentials and capabilities to run their new educational goals, while
sharing and growing from their past goals within their academic and educational fields.
Literature Review
John Swales purposeful input in an Analytical Discourse Community was for students to
carefully understand what and how communicating ways of forming a sharp tie into a unique
cultural focus. How each member in a community played a different role every necessary time,
only to achieve any shared goal, and to continue growing as a member of that particular group.
One of his inputs was, if there is was live mechanism in a group then any particular member
could
Another similar concept found in the BUILDing SCHOLARS program, was the demand
of originality in problem solving skills and research. By RFC lecturer Dr. Holguins entailment
requirements for students to perform originality in their working skills could not fail to remind
me about the term intertextuality
Methods
BUILDing SCHOLARS is a program that enriches a students research opportunity and
turns it onto an important puzzle piece towards what the students career goal fulfillments are. It
allows students to learn daily and continue to academically grow. The science core classes taken
by the student are directed and taught by RFCs which stand for the Research Foundations
Course professors. Students begin their class sessions by reading and answering a full group
discussion question along with the RFCs input. After answering the question students start their

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

class assignment/task by taking a look at the main question of the day and are required to answer
it within their assigned group members. Having in mind that each member in any group is
assigned to play their role correctly and with effort while having to be either the writer, reporter,
or the group leader. Their data report is recorded on the computer as if it were written as a 300word minimum count essay and before class ends they are required to turn it in through
blackboard. That is why students attendance is highly important, due to the daily grade students
receive for their group participation. Also, students grade their team members on their work
based off of effort, which highly allows engagement between students and the assignment.
Outside of class students are also required to complete quizzes on Sundays before expiration
time and are also required to turn in their homework on Fridays.
Class Observation Visits
My first 7:30 - 8:50 a.m. in class observation within the BUILDing SCHOLARS class
session, question of the day was written on the board and was titled Expert vs. Novice. Having
in mind that the question had an inspiration purpose that led to their bigger assignment of the
day, besides allowing students brains to warm up. Students had discussion time and were
required to answer the following questions as a form of participation. One question read, What
do novice tend to read first in a research article? the second question read What do experts
tend to read first in a research article?. After a few minutes of discussion, students and Dr.
Holguin came to conclusion that novice tend to first read introductions on research articles while
experts tend to read methodologys and results on the research article first.
Moving on to their next daily assignment, students were required to create their very own
solution for a researched disease issue that is currently occurring nationwide. The assignment
needed to be followed by a few steps which were listed by creating an objective, studying a

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

design, studying methods and coming up with new ones, and lastly having completed results. As
students took their role into play, Dr. Holguin reminded students that their citations were only
meant to support their overall solution. Citations where not to clarify where they chose their
answer from. Also, reminded them that their solution had to be created by their own thoughts
originally and not by someone elses ideas. In that very moment Porters expressions of
Intertextuality came to my mind. By having students think twice about what and how they write
while at the same time being able to comprehend their own writings. While each student in each
group became busy and conversed with their team members about their assigned task, I was able
to notice one single student leaving himself out of the group. I noticed he was also late to class
which was what lead him to fall behind in his role and class discussion. Luckily Dr. Holguin did
not allow him to fall behind and provided him with clues and reminders on what his expectations
needed to be. Also at times, as she walked around his group, Dr. Holguin noticed and
complimented his skills on his assigned task. That is how I noticed the beauty of how the class as
whole worked together and did not allow their progress of success to fall apart. Also, I was able
to understand how each student in the group had inner leadership skills, each fought against any
doubts and demanded their role work as part of effort in their groups. In the end, once they
completed their assignment the look on their rosters seemed as if they felt accomplishment and
satisfaction with their completed work.
My second visit consisted from 9:00 10:30 a.m. the RFC was still Dr. Holguin and the
class topic remained the same, the only difference were the students. Over all in both classes a
large amount of diversity was noticeable. There was about even amounts of opposite sex students
all with different race. I was able to witness the diversity BUILDing SCHOLARS welcomes into
the program. In this class I was also able to observe how students were more conservative about

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

their roles in their groups. Although they did converse using more mathematical and scientific
vocabulary their analyzing skills moved smoothly. In this class the internet was functioning and I
was also able to see how internet can make a difference in a class environment. With internet
students are able to progress faster and tend to either chose to waste their time or use their time
wisely simply by having technology by their side.
Interviews
After attending class observation sessions, interviewing two unique students and RFC Dr.
Holguin seemed to tie in my research activity. Once I completed my second observation I
interviewed students Destiny and Octavio and through phone call I was able to interview Dr.
Holguin. Most interview questions were answered, however the most interesting were the
following. As a common interesting fact in all interviews, all three individuals shared the same
goal yet pursued it in different ways with unique feelings. Commonly their goal was to teach and
gain research skills in different topics that will ultimately help me reach my goal in the
academic level Octavio said. The passion and motivation that helped each individual progress to
reach their goals were the love for [his] field and being able to help others says student
Octavio. While Dr. Holguin says her motivation has always been her long interest in research...
and being able to find the correct forms to answer questions. Each member or student involved
in BUILDing SCHOLARS was able to confess how highly important and impacting
communication was. Whether it was in person, through emails, internet, websites, or assignments
communication helped each individual find priority in an assignment, engage in an assignment,
grow academic strategies and simply have more research habits. Lastly, all interviewed
individuals certainly do come across issues as much as they seem to enjoy the group. Destiny
mentions time management between group members being the issue while Octavio says

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

requirements that need to be strictly followed in the program and lastly, Dra Holguin says the
hardest thing is to get students to participate at the same academic level and distractions
being in between students learnings.
Analyzing Texts
Under my studies, I was not able to keep any texts that formed a part of the BUILDing
SCHOLARS fundamental research class assignments. However, I was able to witness the
members way and forms of communication within in class observation. Through presented
interviews and gathering answers to my doubts I was able to visualize how immensely important
communicating whether through activity actions, verbally, or text are within a Discourse
Community. Dr. Holguin mentioned how she was the one who created her very own grading
policy. Octavio mentioned filling out important paperwork while Destiny mentioned links online
to complete assigned worksheets. Every general activity, verbal communicating, and texts form
fall and lead, at least in the BUILDing SCHOLARS, to a community of discourse.
Discussion
After recording the systematic customs within scientific intentions of researching a
community of people, the purpose of choosing to study BUILDing SCHOLARS program was to
determine and identify whether that particular program falls or does not fall into approval for a
Discourse Community. The purpose was also intentionally to put to practice John Swales Six
Characteristics that would help satisfy and determine is BUILDing SCHOLARS falls into the
category or not. Having in mind that if in any case BUILDing SCHOLARS would not fall into a
Discourse Community Ethnography by lack of the six characteristics, then an experience of
idealized research is what is provided for the student whom researched BUILDing SCHOLARS.

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

However, if the chosen program does fall in category for Discourse Community Ethnography
then it be a high driven accomplishment in the cultural category of research.
Expert Swales Six Characteristics
According to Johns Swales first characteristic, a Discourse Community has a broadly
agreed set of common public goals (Swales, 1990, p.120) and within BUILDing SCHOLARS
all members did share a common goal. The kind of goal in which most members can relate or
once related to. In my study, for example, student Destiny and Octavio shared a goal in which
both individuals wanted to continue gaining research experience because they both new it would
have a positive effect for their future careers. On the other side Dr. Holguin already had reached
her goal that was once under the same status as both students Destinys and Octavios current
goals. Dr. Holguin does mention her long interest in learning and research which ultimately
identifies and brings together the common shared between the members of BUILDing
SCHOLARS Community.
As part of the second characteristic, a discourse community has mechanism of
intercommunication among its members (Swales, 1990, p.221). In BUILDing SCHOLARS
student Octavio once mentioned that being an active member of the program, was difficult to
fulfill mandatory requirements such as attending any program related events. Meaning that the
techniques and methods BUILDing SCHOLARS uses consecutively are events and meetings, to
provide the programs members feedback from the program purposes for each semester.
The third characteristic consisted of a discourse community [using] its participatory
mechanism primarily to provide information and feedback (Swales, 1990, p. 221). As viewed in
the second characteristic BUILDing SCHOLARS program does hold consecutive meetings and
events for members to attend. In such activities, also as mentioned before, feedback on the

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

shared purposes and goals of the program updates, were released and exposed for only members
to understand and get a hold of. Additionally, in those events and meetings communication takes
place and allows new ideas between the program members to share and take into thought. Its as
if a new idealized experience is about to approach and enter enter each of the members
adventure pathway of research!
Then we have the fourth characteristic which is the requirement of the community at least
having one or more genres (Swales, 1990, p. 221) within the forms the discourse community
communicates embodying a major part of the community. For those of us whos trying to bare
and understand the meaning of the word genre, its acceptable to do so due to ways one is able to
identify a genre once studying a community. According to John Swales In BUILDing
SCHOLARS program, the genre used universally by the program were the methods
undergraduate students use to discover solutions for a new assigned discovery. As mentioned
before such methods would be by members creating an objective, studying a specific design,
studying strategies and methods while coming up with new ones, and lastly having completed
results. Such followed, genres are how things get done, when language is used to accomplish
them (Martin, 1985:250). While students followed the methods as genres, theyd also
communicate while playing their roles in order to lead their activity towards a researched science
solution.
Lastly, we have the two last characteristics that are a part of the six criteria which help
identify within a particular group a vivid Discourse Community. After acquiring a genre,
Discourse Community also gains a specific lexis. In this case in the BUIDing SCHOLARS
lecture section that I observed, gained a wide spread of lexis after the students had class
discussions and discussions between their group member peers. Even though the genre for the

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

10

most part stayed the same, different lexis would come about every time class topic changed. The
last required characteristic would be the development of a member within a program. In
BUILDing SCHOLARS every enrolled member does not simply just star as an ordinary student
and stays the same during their years of enrollment. However, the students that do start
BUILDing SCHOLARS as a freshmen start as students gaining first experience in research field
students, in which they become a mentee learning more about the program. Then once they
become academically sophomores in college, the students become a Peer-Mentor and this time
the students follow their research path ways towards more serious and complex steps. As the
student continues to grow in the program and learns from different played roles and experiences,
their membership continues to change in the program. That is how in a valid Discourse
Community a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and
discoursal expertise (Swales, 1990, p. 222) in the BUILDing SCHOLARS program!
Conclusion
John Swales not only suggested the study and research of a Discourse Community, but
overall taught any individual what the purpose of a cultural community either academic or
professionalized practices and shares, all holding a purpose. In depth of understanding a
Discourse Community, outside members of research interests are able to understand the
importance of a particular group; goals. As a student with interest in research one is able to
ponder the beauty of how different communities function through strong activity work,
communication and text. Having the privilege to study and perform research on the BUILDing
SCHOLARS program in The University of Texas at El Paso fulfilled the identification of a
unique Discourse Community. John Swales six characteristics of influence and requirements
revealed the BUILDing SCHOLARS being accountable for an active Discourse Community. The

Running Head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY

11

BUILDing SCHOLARS sensational program, demonstrated a strong recognition of shared goals

within its active members and also demonstrated effort in working as a united team when facing
any issues. Without leaving behind a genre and a lexis in the program of my choice, John Swales
purpose of living and witnessing a Discourse Community form ones eyes opened my mentalities
doors. No longer could I just visualize a group without thinking first hat the purpose or common
goals of that group were. After finally researching the one program my best interest lies on, and
the one I can only hope to hold a formal membership as part of my career goal, only made me
feel more passionate about the varieties of research in the science fields. Thank you BUILDing
SCHOLARS for a warm welcoming and a special thanks to John Swales for offering such
productive research experience and opportunity along my career desires and pathway.
References
Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric.
Writing about writing: A college reader (p. 395-403). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
Swales, J. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. Individual in Community.
Writing about writing: A college reader (p. 220-222). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.