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
Nice proposal, Zach. I'm glad you're motivated by a desire to learn more about this association. It sounds like it's important to your field and I think you have a lot to gain from doing this. I like that you're thinking about using so many sources from WAW, and you can definitely mention all of the scholars you list in your introductory lit review. Do be careful about trying to focus on too many in the observation/interview and results, however. Your ethnography should use Swales to define the community then a few more scholars to analyze and contextualize your data. I like your idea about Wardle's (she borrows the idea from Wenger) "modes of belonging" so if that's what interests you-go with it. Be careful about using Gee unless you really have a good handle on it (we can talk if you want). Finally, the Barton article might be an interesting way to contextualize a discussion of neophytes/older members with authority. Are younger newer members able to attain authority in AIGA more quickly because they have skills in computer graphic design? What about older members who have authority? Are they at risk of losing that authority if they don't learn computer literacy? Using Baron will definitely be interesting, but make sure you connect it to the some concept or element of the discourse community. Good luck!
ReplyDelete