In Elizabeth Wardle’s, “Identity, Authority and Learning to Write in New Workplaces” she describes three ways that newcomers try to belong in a new community. These three modes are: engagement, imagination and alignment.
Engagement is simply the interactions that the newcomers have with an “old timer” in the workplace in order to develop interpersonal relationships. Waddle say that engagement can be positive, however it can also be negative and lead to newcomers feeling lost without a sense of identity in the workplace. When applying this to a soccer team, the new players must be able to show their skill and ability to help the team. The engagement occurs during practice when playing against one another. The skill a player has speaks for itself and in order for new players to fit in they must show their ability to add something to the team.
Imagination occurs after engagement and is where the newcomer begins to form their own identity and finds where they may belong within the community. I guess an example of this would be when the team rosters are announced and the freshmen see if they made the team and if they did which team they made.
Alignment involves being able to find common ground and negotiate with “old timers” to define your visions. It’s where the newcomer starts to feel comfortable enough to point out observations and where they start to align with the “old timers” point of view. Aligning can sometimes lead to the loss of identity. Again, applying this to a soccer team, the newcomers or freshman usually must begin to see things in the perspective of the seniors or old timers. Doing so allows them to be accepted by the “old timers”.
Your understanding of the imagination perspective is interesting. I can relate to a freshman imagining themselves on the varsity squad. Their imagination of the results can be either aligned closely to the true outcome, say if they’re a good player. Or, their imagination could be way off from the true alignment of the situation, say if they suck. If a freshman imagines they are a superstar and doesn’t even make the freshman squad, then their chances of staying in the discourse community drop dramatically. The upperclassmen (women) understand the pecking order and don’t need to imagine who is going where. In Wardle’s case study, Alan imagines himself as God. In reality he was just an IT guy. Anyone that imagines themselves as God, never mind the circumstances, is going to be let down when reality sinks in. Wardle chose an extreme example to clearly illustrate how a misalignment between true engagement and imagination can cause problems for the prospective discourse community member joining the community.
ReplyDeleteI like your stance on engagement. I like how you applied this to a sports team also. I used the rugby team to understand the engagement mode on my blog. I really agree that a new guys(or girls) skills speak for itself when they are new to a sports team. I can relate to this engagement mode also, thats why I feel like it meant something more to me.
ReplyDeleteI see Alan's story in a different way. I don't believe that someone should just be given authority right away, maybe a little proof of how good they are in a discourse community would change my mind first. I think back to how Alan was given a position of authority because his expertise was rare, it makes me think of how this new guy to the team was put ahead of me just because he was bigger and looked more athletically fit. Well when we hit the field it was a different story, he folded like a lawn chair. but Alan was a prick to the people he worked with or interacted with. As you know, on a sports team of any kind you never put someone down because you are better than them, you support them, and challenge them to become better.
When looking at Wardle's modes of newcomers trying to belong to a new community I agree with your understanding of engagement. In my opinion engagement is the easiest and most successful way that a newcomer can gain their sense of belonging into a discourse community. Engagement is the pursuit of developing relations with the older members and interacting with them in a way that you learn about not only the members themselves, but the discourse community as a whole as well. In the case of Alan, you can see how important engagement is for a new member to feel accepted and that they belong. When Alan would engage with the other members through email, it was very obvious that he viewed the others as "just users". This did not sit well with the other members of the community and may be one of the reasons Alan was not accepted. Alan was not actively engaging with the older members because they were turned off by his attitudes and were not returning his emails. Alan misused the engagement source, email, thus leaving a sour taste of himself in the mouths of the older members of the community. This showing how important it is to engage properly with the other members of the discourse community to belong.
ReplyDelete