Sean Branick: "Coaches Can Read Too"

We were tasked with reading a paper on the ethnography of football coaches by Sean Branick, a former student of the University of Dayton. We then had to outline his steps in introducing, validating, and discussing his topic: the existence of a complex discourse community within a football team, and that it is lead primarily by the coach of said team. 

Establishing the territory

Sean Branick states within the first few lines of his paper that he studied and is now discussing the ethnography of the discourse community of a college football coach. He then specifically establishes territory by making general statements about studies on coaching: papers on the aspects of a good coach, strong coaching methods, etc.

Establishing a niche:

Sean establishes his niche when pointing out that studies have been done and essays have been written about coaching, but no one has made a point to examine football coaches with regards to a complex discourse community with multiple literacies. He then asserts the existence of such a community,  

Explaining how to fill the niche:

Sean Branick finally gets to the meat of his paper: detailing what he sees as the complex discourse community evident in the life of a college football coach. Breaking down several areas of his research, Branick examines and explains his findings from interviews with coaches and his own observations. He deals extensively with “reading” a player: knowing when they are ready to play as well as the most effective way to motivate and encourage them. 

Tony Mirabelli and Learning to Serve

“What is a menu and what does it mean to have a literate understanding of one?” This is a question Tony Mirabelli asks in The Menu section of his writing Learning to Serve: The Literacy of Food Service Workers. He declares the menu to be a genre in itself, placing great importance on its existence and the use of it. The knowledge and understanding of the menu is paramount to the successful operation of the diner, as waiters, customers, chefs, and managers make use of it; essentially everyone involved with the diner. Mirabelli seems to base the majority of his data in this section on personal experience, referencing several instances from his two years of work at Lou’s to illustrate several points. And these include not only his own experiences but those of coworkers at the time.

His primary finding is that a menu is not just a piece of printed text used to catalogue the meals a restaurant serves. It is a literacy held by those who work at that restaurant; an understanding of the meals and options offered. In his work as a waiter, Mirabelli had to hold down a considerable wealth of knowledge about every meal and specialty at Lou’s. Having a literate understanding of the menu and every bit of information on it is central to the success of a waiter/waitress, and helps the restaurant to succeed.

Discourse Community Ethnography: AIGA

For my discourse community ethnography paper, I was considering writing on AIGA at Ohio University. AIGA stands for American Institute of Graphic Arts. It is a national graphic design group, and I am apart of their student group here at Ohio University. It is currently made up of juniors and seniors in the Graphic Design studio, although anyone may participate. As I understand it, a lot of the draw of being apart of AIGA is to network with designers at both the local, state, and national level, as well as at varying positions in the design field (students, teachers, free-lancers, art directors, etc).

I think it would be interesting to take a look into AIGA for a variety of reasons. Foremost amongst them is to gain a stronger grip on this group for myself. I didn’t join the AIGA group on campus until earlier this year. Having only been accepted into the program this past spring, there obviously wasn’t much point in joining at the end of the year. For that reason, and because the group only meets twice in a month, I’m still very much getting my bearings figuring out what this group is all about and what specifically they do and work on. Also, I think AIGA is a great opportunity to examine how a discourse community can exist and function on the various levels mentioned above (local, nation, student, professional, etc). I think it will be immensely interesting to see how all of these groups are connected and how those connections function in regards to what we’ve read about discourse communities in Writing About Writing.

I obviously intend to use Swale’s six characteristics of a public discourse community.  This will give me a quick and easy plan to breakdown and analyze the discourse community within AIGA, at least on a basic level. A good place to start, if nothing else.

Elizabeth Swardle’s writing regarding the enculturation of newcomers to a community will also feature in my paper.  Her points about engagement, imagination, and alignment were particularly interesting in describing this enculturation process, where a newcomer earns acceptance and finds their place in a community.

With using Swales and Swardle, it goes without saying that Gee’s input and opinions on the community situation will make an appearance. His ideas regarding dominant literacies and sub-literacies could prove interesting when applied to the design community and the hierarchy therein. Ann Johns will also feature, as she directly responds to the statements made by Swales and Gee, while adding her own take.

Finally, I think Dennis Barons Pencils to Pixels could prove interesting. It deals with the potential changes to discourse and writing in general with each new technological innovation. Design has experienced many technological upheavals in its short life, the foremost being the advent of computers. Many instructors find the computer to be foreign to the process, going so far as to deem it an obstacle and obstruction to proper design. All contemporary designers are all the while being taught to work heavily on computer, with only small amounts of work or preliminary work done outside of it. It could be real interesting.

The writers I will reference from WaW:

Dennis Baron

John Swales

Elizabeth Swardle

James Paul Gee

Ann Johns

Swardle and the three keys to enculturation

In Elizabeth Wardle’s Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces, she lists three methods used by new members of a community so as to integrate themselves into it. The three methods are Engagement, Imagination, and Alignment.

Engagement occurs with the discovery of a “common enterprise”, as Wardle calls it. This is shared between a newcomer and old-timer(s), and is essentially both new and old working towards the same common goal. In Wardle’s account of Alan the tech guy, the engagement would most likely be the interaction between Alan and the faculty/students he works with in providing technical stability and support. The faculty/students need help from Alan so they can go about their duties, and Alan provides the support so they can do just that. In the Design world, this relationship very much so exists between client and designer. The client wants an advertisement flyer as well as designed a certain way, and a designer uses his/her knowledge and technique to produce an advert that is appealing as well as appealing to the client.

Imaginination has to do with just that: the imagination of the newcomer regarding how they think of themselves and their work within the community. This can be either positive or intensely negative as well as crippling to ones enculturation. , Alan imagined himself to be in a position of great power and authority; even going so far as to say he was a “God around here”. His beliefs were misplaced, as Alan had little power and respect in his workplace. In the design world, you could think very highly of yourself and your work, but in reality your work may not be that good or may indicate a lack of technique and/or skill that you are completely oblivious to because of how you imagine yourself.

Alignment seems to ultimately be the point where you decide whether you really like the community there and its conventions and expectations. In Wardle’s example, Alan refuses to alter his behavior and business etiquette to the preference of the University where he works; thus clearly choosing to not align with the community. In my research of the design group AIGA, I would probably define alignment as whether or not you “conform” to the loose styles and guides of the design group you are working with. This could include insisting on using elements and design techniques that are considered cliché or “trashy” to the point where you are resisting the group heavily.

Gee, Swales, and Johns

By now, we have read both pieces by John Swales and James Paul Gee regarding their respective ideas about discourse communities and their function. Writing About Writing suggests that a dialogue or conversation is occurring between the two writers as we read. On the one side we have Swales and his systematic breakdown of what he views as “the six important features of any public discourse community”. Among his key points are that a discourse community has to be centered on the idea of operating in an inclusive manner (as opposed to an exclusive manner).

In Gee’s view, a discourse community functions in a manner opposite to that of Swales’ community. In other words, Gee’s communities operate in an exclusive manner where those included are part of the “dominant group”. To me, it seemed implied that this idea is generally tied in with power and socioeconomic standing. Gee talks about the dominant group using “tests” to feel out the literacy of outsiders as a means to exclude them, as well as to “get the right person” when seeking someone for a position or job.

Then along comes Ann Johns. She backs up Swales points regarding his six key traits of a discourse community, even directly referencing them early on in her own article. She then goes on to relate the various aspects of Swales’ points to instances where they occur in her life; her mother’s AARP membership, her husband’s international bicycling group, to name a couple. Johns also brings more to the table for discussion. She makes mention of the topic of convention vs. anti-conventionalism, where she compares the tendency for established writers to part ways with what is considered conventional while students are required to learn and write in a rigidly conventional manner, ‘lest they be “torn apart” by their instructors. Johns also discusses the issue of authority in communities: asserting that those who are considered the “authority” in their community could (either consciously or otherwise) impose their values and beliefs on the rest of the community. 

Gee and Discourse

    In Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics, James Paul Gee discusses, among other things, the key differences between language, grammar, discourse, and Discourse. Gee also makes mention of "tests" imposed upon users of a certain language or literacy. These tests are based on their knowledge and usage of what is considered to be the "dominant Discourse" in a community or society. The primary outcome of these tests is that one can see whether this person is "native" to this Discourse or not.
    In other words, you can see whether a person has learned the proper usage of a language that is considered the primary language of an area. An example that Gee gives is the focus on superficial features of a language that only one who is "native" to it would grasp. His example is "middle-class mainstream" Discourse, which presupposes that is in opposition with those of lower socioeconomic standing. These "non-native users" don't have as firm of a grasp on the proper use of the language and can thus be pointed out and denied access to greater opportunities (such as a better job). I think this is an example we can all relate to as, for better or for worse, we are taught from a young age to articulate our thoughts in such a way as to imply that we are well educated and intelligent.

Six Discourse Communities

1) “A discourse community has a broadly agreed upon set of common public goals.”

In other words, all discourse communities have a framework of what they’d like to change or accomplish. For example, a student group centered on “going green” has the ultimate goal of inspiring significantly more people on campus to recycle and reduce their carbon footprint than were previously doing so before the group existed.

2) “A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.”

There exists a means to communicate and keep in touch in all discourse communities. In my above example, this could mean an emailing list that all the members of the group are apart of. It would also mean the meetings this group holds to discuss new topics and ways to further their goal.  

3) “A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback”

A discourse community discusses new information and ideas in its meetings or other instances where the community is able to participate. In my example, the “green group” would utilize meetings to discuss new ideas relevant to “going green” as well as different ideas as per how to spread them throughout their campus and student body.

4) “A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.”

Discourse communities make use of certain genres, or types of writing, to help communicate its message and, by extension, accomplish its ultimate goal. My “green group” would, in this instance, probably utilize print (posters, flyers, ads) to keep ideas about recycling and using less energy at the forefront of the student bodies’ mind. 

5) “In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.”

A discourse community will make use of certain words and phrases specific to its cause and operation. In my “green group”, this could mean the use of the words and phrases like green, environmentally friendly, and others that pertain to recycling and such.

6) “A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.”

Within the discourse community is at least a certain number of people who are credible in the knowledge and direction they provide. In my example, this could be a group of knowledgeable students studying fields relevant to “going green” (i.e., environmental health, environmental sustainability, green energy, etc).