Swales Guided Reading Questions: Before You Start

Removedswales Guided Reading Questions1 Before You Start Reading Th

Read the questions related to Swales' concept of discourse communities, including definitions of key terms, differences between speech and discourse communities, the six defining characteristics of a discourse community, and an application example involving the HKSC. Additionally, analyze how one characteristic is described, and explore participation versus assimilation in a discourse community. Then, review a case study involving Old State University's College of Business Administration, which is undergoing strategic changes and faculty development efforts. Conduct a needs assessment, focusing on organization analysis, job/task analysis, and person/performance analysis, to identify discrepancies between desired and current performance in the context of faculty training needs and organizational improvements.

Paper For Above instruction

In this paper, I will explore Swales' theory of discourse communities by addressing the core components outlined in the reading questions. Additionally, I will conduct a comprehensive needs assessment based on the case study of the College of Business Administration at Old State University, integrating theoretical concepts with practical application to illustrate how organizational analysis, job/task analysis, and person/performance analysis serve to identify areas in need of improvement and guide targeted interventions.

Understanding Discourse Communities According to John Swales

Swales conceptualizes a discourse community as a group that shares common goals, methods of communication, and a specialized language. The words "discourse" and "community" are fundamental; "discourse" refers to language use within a context, and "community" is a group united by shared interests or goals. Therefore, a discourse community can be defined as a group of people engaged in communication practices that serve their common objectives.

Swales distinguishes a discourse community from a speech community by emphasizing that the former is characterized by specific goals, genres of communication, and participatory mechanisms that sustain shared practices, whereas a speech community may be defined more by linguistic similarities without necessarily sharing explicit goals or standards of communication (Swales, 1990).

The Six Characteristics of a Discourse Community

Swales identifies six defining features of a discourse community: 1) a broadly agreed set of goals; 2) mechanisms of intercommunication among members; 3) participation mechanisms to provide information and feedback; 4) utilize genres of communication specific to the community; 5) know-how and expertise are shared among members; and 6) a threshold level of members possessing specified knowledge and skills (Swales, 1990).

Focusing on one characteristic, the genre of communication, Swales notes that the types of texts and discourse—such as reports, discussions, or memos—are specialized and serve particular purposes within the community. These genres facilitate shared understanding and uphold the community’s standards of communication, which are essential for maintaining cohesion (Swales, 1990).

Application of Discourse Community Characteristics: The HKSC

Swales applies his six characteristics to the Hong Kong Speech and Language Clinic (HKSC) by demonstrating how each feature manifests within the group. For example, HKSC has clear goals related to speech therapy and language development, operates through various communication mechanisms such as meetings and reports, and relies on specific genres like clinical reports and therapy plans. The community members share expertise in speech pathology, and thresholds are maintained through professional qualifications—all exemplifying a discourse community in practice (Swales, 1990).

Participation Versus Assimilation in Discourse Communities

An individual can participate in a discourse community without fully assimilating into its norms or processes. Participation involves engaging in communication and activities with community members, while assimilation requires adopting the community’s values, standards, and cultural practices. A person might contribute to discussions or perform tasks but may not internalize the community's core norms, which can affect the depth of engagement and influence within the group (Swales, 1994).

Applying the Needs Assessment to Old State University College of Business Administration

The case study of Old State University’s College of Business Administration highlights a strategic transition following leadership changes. To effectively implement new initiatives, a thorough needs assessment is essential. This process begins with an organization analysis to evaluate whether systemic issues hinder progress. In the case, the college’s shift toward targeting adult learners and implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) signifies a significant organizational change. Analyzing if these are broad system-wide issues or localized concerns informs subsequent steps.

The second phase, job/task analysis, involves examining how roles, tasks, and responsibilities evolve amid new strategic directions. For example, faculty are now expected to teach evening courses, participate in community engagement, and adapt to new teaching methodologies aligned with TQM principles. Identifying gaps in skills or resources necessary for these tasks helps define specific training needs.

The third phase, person/performance analysis, focuses on identifying which individuals require development and whether challenges stem from motivation or ability. Faculty resistant to change, perhaps due to traditional teaching methods or reluctance to adopt TQM practices, may need motivation or skills training to meet new standards. Identifying whether the problem lies in a faculty member's motivation or ability directs appropriate intervention strategies.

By conducting this comprehensive assessment—carefully analyzing organizational structure, role requirements, and individual capabilities—the university can develop targeted training programs to enhance faculty performance, align staff with strategic goals, and ultimately improve student satisfaction. This systematic approach ensures that interventions are based on identified needs rather than assumptions, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation of strategic changes.

Conclusion

Understanding discourse communities through Swales’ framework provides valuable insight into how groups communicate and maintain cohesion. Applying this understanding in a practical context, such as the needs assessment at Old State University, demonstrates the importance of systematic analysis in organizational development. Properly identifying areas for improvement ensures that training and organizational initiatives are effective, sustainable, and aligned with the community’s goals. As institutions continually evolve, integrating theories of discourse and rigorous needs assessments creates a foundation for adaptive and successful change management.

References

• Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
• Swales, J. M. (1994). Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge University Press.
• Nkomo, S. M., Fottler, M. D., & McAfee, R. B. (2005). Human resource management applications (5th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
• Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Analyzing genre: Language in research papers and presentations. Routledge.
• Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
• Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge University Press.
• Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
• Gee, J. P. (2014). Discourse and community: Communities of practice and language learning. Routledge.
• Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. Oxford University Press.
• Hyland, K. (2012). Writing in the disciplines: Conducting research in academic writing. In M. Hewings & J. M. Swales (Eds.), Researching writing: Linguistic approaches (pp. 75–95). Routledge.