Blog ยป Two Worlds Apart
Posted on 13 Mar 2013 02:12
|
Table of Contents
|
Two Worlds Apart:
The authors I chose for this blog post wrote about discourse communities that are normally considered to be from different worlds: Nerds and Football Coaches. These two authors both chose to write about communities not necessarily thought of as discourse comunnities, and both do an admirable job trying to explain why the communites are discourse communities. Both "nerd girls" and "football coaches" are not of in terms of "complex literacy practices", as Sean Branick puts it.
Conversational Research:
These two authors used a standard model of research where they went out and recorded conversations between members of the discourse community, and then drew their findings from that. The value of live conversations between members of the community help to understand the dynamics of individuals behind the group framework, while also providing insights into the community itself. Becase the target of this 'genre' is another person on the same community, it allows the researcher to more fully understand the group.
In addition, Branick used interviews to try and "take a look at the thought process behind [the coaches' methods]". I think interviews are a great medium for understanding the literacy practices of a group, because it forces the 'insider' of the community to create a 'genre' on the fly that targets an 'outsider' of the discourse community. In addition, posing as a 'mushfake' insider may help to draw insights from the 'insider', as now the conversation is between two 'insiders' rather than and 'insider' and an 'outsider'. The obvious benefits will be that the interviewee will be much more comfortable discussing their community with another insider of that community.
Their Conclusions:
Both of the authors concluded that these two communities have much more depth to them as discourse communities than previously thought. However their purposes differed slightly, and this affects the overall conclusion that they made. Sean Branick was exploring the literary practices of football coaches, and so he concludes with a wish that he has informed others about the discourse of football coaches. On the other hand, Mary Bucholtz was exploring the communities of identity and practice, using the example of nerd girls. Therefore, she concludes by generalizing the advantages of using a community of practice to describe groups rather than speech communities.
My Conclusions:
For my work, I wish to write on the discourse community of blog writers (specfically semi-professional blogs, such as those written by many CS professionals). I can draw from these writers' research practices, as I definitely will be analyzing specific examples to futher my ideas. I particularly enjoy the idea of using Branick's techniques of using interviews, and I will most likely utilize the connectedness of the Internet, and try to reach out to some of these blog writers to try and understand their thoughts. I don't know where I will end up in terms of my research, but at the least I hope to be able to conclude as Branick did, hoping that I have informed others on my chosen discourse community.
Leave a comment
Bucholtz and Branick both lack your advantage in that you are already a member of the discourse communities you wish to study; while they seem to have been able to simulate insider knowledge to become a part of internal discourse, as opposed to merely observing it, they will still have missed certain affectations or references - regardless of whether they appear to have missed them; presumably, as false insiders, they were able to maintain a pretension of understanding - which inevitably leads to a shallower understanding of the dialogue as a whole. Of course, what they maintain by not completely submerging themselves in the community is a certain outside perspective.
I particularly liked your formatting, as well as the way you drew from previous readings, particularly with regard to Branick's research methods. Balancing outsider and insider knowledge, particularly in what appears to be a very close-knit community, seems like something important to keep in mind as you move forward, and something that I, as an outsider, am interested to read.
First allow me to say that your choice of format was very appropriate for this type of blog post; I too tried to use formatting to my advantage by listing the authors (and their works) that I chose to compare at the top of the page so as to avoid having to include those trivialities in the introduction. Suffice it to say you have made me look bad.
I too read Bucholtz's study of the "nerd girl" practice community and came away with similar conclusions. I agree she was not so much interested in proving that this particular group of nerd girls constituted a discourse community as she was in exposing the inadequacies of the speech community model. As a big sports fan, Branick's paper definitely appeals to me. I also hold the view that interviews are one of the most useful tools for examining a discourse community. Your insight on "mushfake-ing" during an interview was fresh and unexpected; I had almost forgotten the term existed.
I think you are on the right track when you say Branick's research method is more appropriate for your potential discourse community study. Our topics are similar in that they are both online communities, so sitting next to and recording members' conversations like Bucholtz did is out of the question. However, an interview is easier to arrange and can provide just as much information if conducted properly. Good luck with your project.