Coaches Can Read Too

Establishing a Territory:  Branick spends a lot of time discussing the importance of being a coach.  He emphasizes that the level of sport that one is coaching does not matter, whether it be pee wee or pro ball.  He goes on to explain the characteristics that are necessary for effective coaching.  It is clear that Branick wants to show in his article what exactly a coach needs to know and to do so that he can lead a successful team.  Literacies that are important to coaching are also mentioned in Branick’s piece.  He talks about how there are many different literacies incolved such as reading the players, organizing plays, making and pursuing goals, and having  a competitive edge.

Establishing a Niche:  Branick focuses on the emmense preparation that coaches have to go through in order to prepare or be ready for numerous games on a regular schedule.  Many people are already aware of the rules of football, and what ball players have to do in order to play consistently, but people don’t regularly think about the coaches, and that’s what Branick points out.

Occupying the Niche:  Once the territory and the niche have been established, a coach needs to occupy the niche.  The coach puts in effort and time in order to come up with the line-up and the plays and to understand how those plays are going to work on the field.  Occupying the niche comes in when a coach has to put all of that knowledge to use when he is reading the field during a game.  A coach not only has to have the knowledge but he has to be able to know what to do when situations arise, and he has to be able to call the right play to win.

Learning to Serve

            The research question that I believe Tony Mirabelli uses in his article is, “… what is a menu and what does it mean to have a literate understanding of one?” (WAW 544).  Mirabelli writes previously about how the menu is the major form of text for interactions that take place between customers and staff, and so his research question is not just simply about reading menus, but about the understanding of the source of interaction within a restaurant setting.

            Mirabelli collected his data through various methods at the restaurant.  He used participation with customers, observations of interactions, took field notes of observation, interviewed individuals, used tape recordings of individuals, and transcriptions.  His status as a waiter at the facility helped him with his data collection by means of allowing him to experience first hand events, interactions, and behaviors and he could analyze.

            I think Mirabelli’s finding were indicative of the importance of the menu in terms of interaction within the people in the restaurant.  The menu itself is discussed as a genre in the article.  It is filled with restaurant specific jargon that changes from place to place.  A menu can have the same dish written on it for two different establishments, and it could mean two totally different things  What is written in the menu is what allows for the conversation between customer and employee to take place and that is what gives the menu any meaning at all.

Project 4 Proposal

I intend to do my discourse community ethnography project on a local sorority on campus, Pi Beta Phi. My knowledge and connections within that particular community are extensive, because I was a member for the first three years of college.   I know the roles and the dynamics of being a member from recruiting through initiation through becoming a well-established active member, both on and off the chapter’s executive board.  I have the knowledge to be able to explain both the formal aspects of the sorority, such as the recruiting process and the philanthropic events, and the more internal aspects, such as the dynamics between members, and what kind of “power” comes with each level of membership. I understand the jargon and the lexis, and I have access to members in all levels of commitment and membership.  I have access to the past, current, and future president. I have access to both the past and current executive board.  I also have access to new members, new initiates, active members, and past members.  Along with the members, there is specific literature such as the Pi Phi magazine, The Arrow, that I have plenty of access to.

            It would be useful to analyze Pi Beta Phi as a discourse community because it has so many aspects and characteristics of a community that people do not necessarily realize when they think about sororities.  I am hoping that by doing this project and really digging deep in order to uncover the discourse community that is Pi Beta Phi, that I will learn more about what makes communities work.  Through our readings and assignments I have attained a good grasp on what qualifications are necessary to establish a discourse community.  That is knowledge that I definitely want to expand on, but what I really am looking forward to learning more about is the function and conflict within the members of the community.  I think the actual dynamics, between members, that are specific to Pi Beta Phi would be interesting compared to other discourse communities.  Going along with that, I am excited to look into more detail in terms of conflict that actually arises between members, because I think the conflict that takes place in a sorority discourse community is something that is very unique, and I think it is something that others would enjoy having insight to. What I think I can add to other scholars conversations is more detail.  I know that we have been told that there are specific dynamics and conflict, but I feel that I would be able to go into more detail about how those things arise and how they are handled.

            I have a couple sources in mind when thinking about drafting my ethnography of Pi Beta Phi.  One is Ann John’s article, “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice”.  I think her views on “Community Conflicts and Diversity” (WAW 511) are extremely interesting and relatable to the community I plan to study.  Another source I intend to use from our classroom text is the article “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in a New Workplace” by Elizabeth Wardle.  Wardle goes into really good detail about the steps that a newcomer goes through when trying to become an established member in a new workplace community. I think this would be really interesting to relate to Pi Phi because the joining of new members is a really large part of the organization, and I think formal recruitment and the new member process are the two biggest events of the year. Naturally, I will also take time to include Gee’s six characteristics of a discourse community, because I feel like he does a great job of explaining valid points, and I think I would be able to relate those to my community.

           

Johns, Ann M. “Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict, and Diversity.” Writing About Writing. 551. Print.

Wardle, Elizabeth. “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces.” Writing About Writing. 520-527. Print.

Gee, James P. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Writing About Writing. 481-497. Print

POST 16 Identity Authority and Learning to Write in New Workplaces

            In the article, “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces” Elizabeth Wardle explains information she took from sociologist Etienne Wenger, which is the three models of belonging.  Those three models that belong to Wenger and are discussed by Wardle are engagement, imagination, and alignment.

            Engagement is the aspect of earning membership or fitting in to a new environment. For example, when a new employee is hired into a work area, they work to bond with current established members of the team through common goals.  The newly hired worker will identify with the older members by working hard to reach the common goal.  They work hard to achieve the common goal so that they can become more intertwined with one or more of the “old-timers”.  If the new member of the team does a poor job of working toward the goal it will result in a poor relationship with the current members. For example in a sorority when new members are brought in and they focus on partying more than the important aspects such as philanthropies and community events, they gain a bad reputation with the active members.

            Imagination occurs after a new member is accepted into the new environment they joined.  Once accepted by current established members, it is the responsibility of the new worker to reach out and create new ideas for the goals.  If the imagination model goes well for the new member, it will advance them in the community and help to cement them as a contributing member.  When a new member in a sorority has become accepted and initiated, they can then begin to contribute ideas for policies or events.  If their proposals go well and work out, it helps them to establish respect with their membership.

Alignment is the last and the most personal of the models. Once a new member has been accepted and has proven to be a successful member, the more established members open up more and form relationship with the new members. These relationships rely on boundaries and common goals.  When new members of a sorority show imagination within the organization they will be noticed and sought out by active members to form relationship such as friends or possibly mentoring.

POST 15

Both Swales and Gee both focus their articles on what they believe a “discourse community” is, and essentially they differ on what defines membership.  Swales takes his own stance that a discourse community membership does not require and actual joining, but more or less that we become members of the discourse communities that we belong to by default.  It is the choices that we make such as our interests, who we communicate with, how we communicate, and other decisions like those that define what communities we are immersed in.  On the opposing side, Gee takes a different approach to explaining discourse communities.  What Gee focuses on is the difference between dominant and non-dominant discourses.  Dominant discourses are the communities that provide its members with social skills alongside other skills that help members with materials or items that are necessary to functioning successfully in society.  Non-dominant communities, according to Gee, are those that provide us with things that advance the member’s social network. Gee also argues that if a person is not a member of a particular dominant community, then they can use their affiliation with their non-dominant community to “fake” dominant membership.

            John’s adds to Swales and Gee’s by introducing the topic of the conflict that takes place within every discourse community, with academic communities being the focus.  Most of the time, “students” who want to become a member of a specific community must comply with the standards that are affiliated with that community.  Conflicts can arise when those standards are not met, or when there are other aspects that prevent membership. To become a member, it is almost fact that sacrifices of other communities must be made, such as family and friends.  For example, in order to become a member of a sorority here on campus, you have to sacrifice time, and that time comes away from other communities such as academics and social.

Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics

In the article, “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics” James Paul Gee explains the concept that he introduces, which is that discourse communities involve constant “tests”.  These tests are things that are given individuals in order to decipher who is a “native” and who is a “non- native”.  By this Gee means who is a member of the community and who is an outsider.  Members of the primary discourse are the members of the discourse community that gives the “tests”, and members of secondary discourse are people that do not pass those “tests”.  He emphasizes in his article that those tests act as the “gates” into the primary discourse community.  If the tests are passed the gates are opened and vice versa.  He also says, “Social groups will not usually give their social goods to those who are not native” (WAW 487).  With this he is saying that people in the primary communities do not like to interact and contribute socially with those who do not pass the “tests” or get through the “gates”.

The best example that I can apply to the tests that Gee talks about involves my former sorority on campus.  The members of the sorority would make up the primary discourse community.  These members have knowledge and traditions that are specific only to members of that community.  Someone who would try to pose as a member would have to be able to correctly identify and define those traditions and knowledge in order to open the “gate” (along with going through recruitment).  I think the concept that Gee introduces is interesting because it definitely does apply to all discourse communities.

The Concept of Discourse Community

1.     1. “A discourse community had a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (WAW 471).  What I interpret this characteristic to mean is that a discourse community must involve those with common goals and not just people who deal with the same things. In his article John Swales uses the example of the Vatican to make his point.  An example that I would use to explain this uses people who go to the mall.  There are many people who go to malls all the time but it is the workers at the mall who have the common goal of bringing in profit.

2.      2.“A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members” (WAW 471).  Members of a discourse community all interact either directly or indirectly. For example, I worked as a lifeguard at one of three pools in Dublin, Ohio.  I did not meet or work with many lifeguards at the other two pools, but we dealt with the same patrons, we got our checks from the same business, and we all had the same training by the same bosses.  I did not deal with them directly but we had an intercommunication through other shared aspects of the job.

3.     3. “A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback” (WAW 472).  A discourse community has mechanisms of feedback and information that the members of the community participate in. For example, I am a subscribing member of the American College of Sports Medicine.  I get their newsletter every time they send it out but I have yet to look at one yet.  This says that I get the same information and feedback, but I do not participate, and therefore I am not a member of that discourse community.

4.     4.  “A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims” (WAW 472).  Discourse communities have specific genres, or understood expectations of the community.  This is a characteristic that I have a hard time thinking of an example for because I don’t know who to relate it to my own experiences.

5.      5.“In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis” (WAW 473).  Discourse communities have certain ways of communicating, and different abbreviations/terms that are used that is specific to the community.  For example, I am an exercise physiology major, and within my major almost all the communication involves medical terminology and technical terms that would seem foreign to an outside of the major.

6.     6. “A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise” (WAW 473).  A discourse community is made up of expert members and new, novice members, and that is what keeps the community going.  For example, my sophomore year of high school I played volleyball and the team was essentially all graduating seniors and then a few of us newcomers.  After that year ended and the seniors went on to college, we became the expert members who took on younger players and brought them up to the level that we had been brought up to.  That is what kept the varsity team going.

Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing About Writing (2011). 471-473. Text.