Almost a year ago while I was doing online research in my search for a new (to me) car, I came across the forum, SubaruForester.org. I joined the site as a new member and found a great deal of advice and information from other, older members. Given that I did end up buying the car in question, I have remained a member of the forum. When we began discussing discourse communities, my experience as part of this community immediately stood out to me. The sire itself is an online forum for owners and enthusiasts of a certain type of car. There are numerous threads and posts concerning everything from buying advice to modifications and repairs, in addition to ‘want to buy’ and ‘for sale’ sections. All of the members share the same general goal of discussing, learning about, and enjoying the vehicles that they are so enthusiastic about. The conversations can be extremely varied, with subgroups of members that have unique focuses when it comes to their vehicles. In addition, there is an obvious hierarchy when it comes to noobs vs. senior contributing members. Thus, I feel this not only qualifies as a discourse community, but it will be one that may provide some unique insights while studying.
In all of the discourse communities that have been discussed so far, the members were all centrally located and interacted directly. In most cases, a significant amount of the interpersonal interaction of the members of the community was verbal communication. For example, a workplace environment, a sports team, or a club all fulfill this criteria. I am interested in a different kind of community. My plan is to look at the online Subaru Forester owner’s forum, Subaruforester.org. it more than fulfills the criteria for being a discourse community, but it is unique in several ways. I am interested in how the unique interaction of the members affects both the conversations that go on as well as the function of the community as a whole.
As I have mentioned, I am mainly interested in looking at the fact that almost all of the interaction between members occurs through posts and messages I on the web rather that actual interaction…IRL. I want to examine how the means of communication between members affects what they say. It is my theory, based on my experience in this particular community, as well as my experience on the internet in general that individuals communicate much differently when on the internet than they would through direct interpersonal communication. I feel as though an important factor in this is the anonymity that the internet provides. More so than even facebook, members of a forum can remain as anonymous as they choose. This may cause different types of conversations as opposed to what one would consider to be a traditional discourse community.
Through my examination of the aforementioned discourse community I wish to also examine the concepts and theories on discourse communities presented by several of the authors in Writing about Writing. First off, I will obviously be referring to Gee’s 6 charactoristics of a discourse community while I examine y subject. I will also be considering Elizabeth Wardle’s, “ Identity, Authority, and Learning to write in New Workplaces” as I discuss the enculturation process for a new member of the community. Given that for the past year I worked to become a full contributing member of the community, I fell this will be insightful. I feel that how one becomes a full member of a discourse community says a lot about the community itself. Lastly, I will be referring to John Swales “The concept of Discourse Community” as I connect my experiences in my specific community to communities as a whole.
References:
Swales, John. "The concept of discourse community." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
Wardle, Elizabeth. "Identity, Authority, and Learning to write in New Workplaces." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
Gee, James Paul. "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics." Writing about Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin, 2011. Print.
Tom,
ReplyDeleteI like this original and interesting idea for an ethnography. I think it's especially smart that you recognize that not much research has been done on discourse communities whose members are physically separated (although Swales' does present an example of a community- the Hong Kong Stamp club-whose members are geographically separated). Still, you're doing something slightly different since you're focusing on an online community. This could definitely be a niche you could occupy if you want to go that route. What do we learn overall about discourse communities by examining how they function online? Your other questions about initiation are interesting too. You should have room for around 2 major issues I would think. Just make sure you can show how they're related. Good work.