Coaches vs. HKSC

Blog » Coaches vs. HKSC

Posted on 13 Mar 2013 01:59

Branick picked this discourse community for a few reasons. It seemed that he thought that he was very interested in the topic of football so his interest made him choose coaches of football. Another reason is because he felt that it was a prime example of a discourse community according to Swales. It does not say what his school assignment was so it is impossible to tell what was the reason he chose to compare the discourse community to Swales’ definition. Another reason he chose to write about football was because he wanted to show that there is more to football coaching that meets the eye and by talking about the discourse community and discussing the similar tasks they have, it helped him talk about this.
It seems that Branick got most of information from interviewing people. He talks about interviews with coaches and with sports psychologists. The interview format of research helped him find out information that he would not have gotten from books or the Internet. The type of information he relayed was a lot of connecting between wide varieties of people and also was a lot of analyzing of work. The best way to get analyzed information is either to do your own analyzing or to get the information already analyzed by experts.
From reading this piece I now know that discourse communities can be people that do not necessarily interact. This means that according to Branick a discourse community is not really a community according to Swales. It is more a people with common interests. I could be in a discourse community with people that I never interact with. This is very interesting because when I think of the word community I think of people who do interact and are constantly together working together.
This is compared to Swales’ choice of his own example of a discourse community. Swales approaches the process differently by first trying to join the discourse community he wanted to be apart of. This is where he gets his information from instead of just asking people within the community he tries to get it first hand from being within it. The two types of groups are also very different in that Swales’ group has a lot more interactions with each other then Branick’s does. Even though Branick tried to base his information off of Swales’ model it is interesting to point out that the two end up being very different from each other. This is significant because even with outlines of the criteria, discourse communities are still debatable in which is which. I think Swales would disapprove of Branick’s discourse community.
I think that the format of Branick’s can be useful because of not only what he writes about but also how he writes it. The way his paper is formatted is good because it starts with basic information on coaches and how there is more to the job then might appear. Afterwards, it then talks about the comparison of Swales’ model to the coaches’ model by going systematically with primary, secondary and tertiary headings. This not only kept it organized but it explained better how the comparison was being made. I do not think I will be using this model since my discourse community is more straightforward then Branick’s model. I am not trying to prove that something you would not think is a discourse community is one, but rather demonstrating an interesting and not outlandish example of one. I believe though that anyone who is doing what Branick did, will find his model very useful.

Leave a comment

Add a New Comment
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License