Discourse Community Ethnography M.K. University of Texas at El Paso

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY
Discourse Community Ethnography

M.K.
University of Texas at El Paso
Introduction
The purpose of the discourse community study is to examine whether the civic
community of the Animal Rescue League, a non-kill shelter for animals without a home, is an
accurate discourse community. We need to see if this civic communitys relationship to the six
demarcated characteristics of discourse communities goes with the rules of John Swales
definition of a true discourse community. Also, professionally exploring each aspect of the DCE
is reviewed to make sure there is a full understanding of this discourse community.
Lit Review: Ethnography & Discourse
A discourse community, simply defined, is a group that has a similar way of writing or
talking or that likes to use common communication methods. These groups generally have
similar goals. Ethnography is a descriptive work produced from such research. A discourse
community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals. These goals may be formally
inscribed in documents (Swales, 1990, p. 471). A discourse community shares assumptions about
what objects are appropriate for examination and discussion, what operating functions are
performed on those objects, what constitutes evidence and validity, and what formal
conventions are followed (Porter, 1986, p. 39). A discourse community, depending on your topic,
has a focus of fixed, or certain topics. Ethnographical studies are typically conducted with a
purpose or a question to answer in mind. Discourse is simply any form of communication with a
clear purpose.
Six defining characteristics.
The below defining characteristics of a discourse community that are described by

Swales:
1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.
3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback.
4. A discourse community uses and hence possesses one or more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims.
5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.
6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and discoursal expertise.
Swales states that all these characteristics need to be included for the group that is being
observed to be considered a true discourse community.
Community under observation
The members of the civic, Animal Rescue League through the University of Texas at El
Paso: Civic Service Learning Center were the focuses of observation for this study. The members
refers to the volunteers that help out at the shelter and also the director, who controls the entire
shelter and what goes on, Miss Loretta. Anyone can volunteer according to the Volunteer section
on their website, all that needs to be done is a mandatory orientation that takes no more than an
hour. Although, many people sign up to volunteer, there are days when there arent many people
at the locations to help. The most volunteers on a weekday was about 3 volunteers and 4 workers
on the payroll. As a beginner volunteer, here are a few of the areas you can assist in cleaning the
kennels, dog/cat crates, and/or rooms in trailers, help with laundry (we have a washer and dryer
on site), shelter maintenance/yard work, provide office assistance, provide temporary poster care
for recovering or special needs animals, young puppies/kittens, animals requiring socialization
help (separate Foster Application is required). Once you get more experience, here are some
areas you can assist in helping with adoption representatives, grooming and vet runs, dogs:
walking, socializing, training and/or transporting, and also cats: feeding, playing with, and/or
socializing with. They are a volunteer based organization and once you get involved the number
of ways to help out are endless (ARL, 2014).
In Civic Observation
The two observations occurred during the day, just after opening. There are no scheduled
times for volunteers to show up, all volunteers are also allowed to leave at any time they want.
The form of communication was volunteer-to-payed worker or volunteer-to-senior volunteer.
There was no external form of communication (cell phone, computers, and texting) with other
associates. Although there was external communication with a fellow student who was
volunteering at the Animal Rescue League as well.
Interviews
Two interviews were conducted while performing the discourse community ethnography.
The first interview was with a student volunteer. The interview was conducted during the
volunteer hours in an outdoor environment. The interview questions came from a list created
beforehand to ensure a sufficient understanding. During the interview, written notes were done
for reference, but there was no recorded audio.
The second interview was with the director of the Animal Rescue League. The interview
was done while the director was in and outside working with the animals. Different questions
were given, with appropriate follow up questions. With her permission, audio was recorded for
personal notes.
Discussion: Overview
After the original ethnography study was done, large amounts of data was collected. The
reason of analysis was to see if the community of Animal Rescue League met the standards of a
true discourse community and the characteristics of discourse communities.
Shared Goals
There are several goals of this community which are obvious to many people. The
general goal of this community, the Animal Rescue League, is to take care of homeless dogs and
help them find forever homes. Some dogs were strays and some were turned over my previous
owners. Shared interests exist as well in the form of professional interest and an interest in
animal care as a whole. Volunteers pursue specific goals of cleaning the animal kennels,
grooming, and gaining and retaining knowledge of the workings of how to care for animals and
also how to help animals rehabilitate. In the interview with a volunteer, Sheena stated that her
main goal for the animal rescue league is to have all the animals adopted and in good
homes which is a common attitude towards all the animals. Goals of the director included
successfully rehabilitating animals and taking care of them to their best ability and making sure
they are ready when someone decides to adopt them.
Group Dynamic
Volunteer-to-payed worker and volunteer-to-senior volunteer communication are the

main forms of this civic community. During the observation at the location, the director Loretta,
constantly talked to the animals trying to express a sense of passion and she asked the volunteers
how they were doing and helping them out with their duties although she was already doing
something of her own. Sometimes Loretta would be inside and working on paper work or
adoption forms and that made her hard to reach at times. It was sometimes hard for the
volunteers to get started on their community work because they werent really sure where their
help was needed, so they would ask other volunteers if they needed help.
Conclusion
This civic community has several mechanisms of intercommunication between its
members.The members of the animal rescue league share several goals which are clearly
displayed to the public on their website for anyone interested. Participatory mechanisms are used
in this community both to provide feedback and to inform, but also comes at a more hands on
approach, which Swales talks about in his third stipulation. Lexis is the strongest evidence
supporting the animal rescue league participants as establishing a true discourse community.
Lexis is all over the place, from the labels and vocabulary used to tag things and distinguish them
at the shelter. The last requirement of a true discourse community ethnography is to have an
acute form of people with a lot of knowledge and know what theyre doing with the subject. The
argument can be made that the animal rescue league community is a true discourse community.
Limitations of the Study
The main limitation of the discourse community ethnography was that the time we had to
observe and interview was a small time frame to accomplish an accurate study of the community.
I read that some ethnography observations can take years to analyze so that fact that this was
done within a month time span questions the accuracy of this community over all, in some
situations.
References
Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34-47.
Swales, J. (2011). The Concept of Discourse Community. In D. D. Elizabeth Wardle, Writing
about Writing (pp. 466-479). Bedford St. Martins.
Animal Rescue League of El Paso (2014-2015) Volunteer. Retrieved from Animal Rescue
League of El Paso Homepage

Discourse Community Ethnography M.K. University of Texas at El Paso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discourse Community Ethnography M.K. University of Texas at El Paso

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discourse Community Ethnography M.K. University of Texas at El Paso

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY