Case Studies in Industrial Engineering: Authority and Identity in Written and Unwritten Communication Sarah Anderson In recent years,

many writers and ethnographers have been looking into what it takes to gain access to a discourse community and how this goes hand-in-hand with success in the workforce. Anne Beaufort defines a discourse community as a social entity distinguished by a set of writing practices that result from the communitys shared values and goals, the physical conditions for getting writing done, and individual writers influence in the community (59). The topic has been frequently discussed from many different angles. Researchers have examined how college writing assignments work to prepare students for the writing they will do in their professions (Beaufort; Davis & Birbili). This discussion is on-going and has focused in on students gaining a meta-cognitive awareness of genre and its place within a discourse community. Some have gone farther to investigate how students are to go about obtaining that awareness (Dirk; Miller; Birkenkotter & Hucken; Devitt, Bawarshi, & Reiff; Beaufort). The writers discussed have thoroughly covered the concept of gaining access to a discourse community through the written genres but leave a considerable amount unsaid in regards to spoken communication. Beaufort touches on this subject in her book Writing in the Real World. She follows the writing of employees at a non-profit organization as they learn to write for their jobs. One chapter, The Institutional Site of Composing: Converging and Overlapping Discourse Communities looks at some of their different writing scenarios, ranging from federal grant proposals to memos within the office. Beaufort makes an argument for the idea that in many cases, writing does not stand alone. In order to be effective, local grant proposals required direct communication with government officials, and within the organization, the protocol for writing varied based on the desires of those in charge. There are varying levels

of writing in the workforce, but nearly all professions require both written and face-to-face communication. Communication, be it written or otherwise, is not effective if the person trying to communicate has no authority within the discourse community. Elizabeth Wardle discusses the concept of authority, asserting that it must be granted to a writer by the institution to which they are communicating, and it can be taken away if the writer is not able to maintain it. In the same article, Wardle addresses the concept of identity and how the writer must find a way to ensure that their communication lines up with their own perception of their identity (Enculturation 2004). Newcomers to a discourse community must make decisions about how their writing and identity will change now that they have to take into consideration the goals of the company as well as their personal expectations for themselves. The following analysis sets out to explore the relationship between the spoken and written word and how they work together to achieve a goal. It also seeks to understand the place that authority and identity have in belonging to a discourse community. This research focuses on the field of industrial and systems engineering (ISE) to better understand how communication works within a discourse community. Those in this profession can work in a great range of industries at many different levels of the company. Within the community of industrial engineering, there are many different points of interaction at which engineers communicate with members of other discourse communities, similar to the way Beauforts non-profit exists as a melting pot of overlapping discourse communities. The communication can take place in a number of different forms. In much the same way as Wardles case study struggles to gain acceptance, these engineers find that they must have some measure of authority in order to communicate effectively and accomplish their goals. This ethnography of the industrial

engineering profession looks at examples of practicing engineers who discuss their difficulties in entering the discourse community when joining a company after graduation. It specifically studies examples of those who found that written communication was not enough to succeed in their workplace.

METHODOLOGY
This analysis takes into consideration a number of different industrial engineers and their struggles to adapt to work in the professional field. Each of these discussions and observations uniquely contributes to the knowledge of what it takes to become a member of the industrial engineering discourse community. In February 2013, I conducted a phone interview with Dan, a senior industrial engineer working for a major toy manufacturer. He currently oversees the supply chain of three large distribution centers in the Midwest. I initiated the conversation in order to learn more about what it is like to work as an ISE. I asked Dan about the sort of environment he worked in, what he wished he had done prior to becoming joining the company to prepare for employment, and what the most unexpected and difficult aspect of his job was. Another scenario presented the chance to interact with industrial engineers of many different backgrounds. Every spring at a large rural Midwestern university, the Industrial and Systems Engineering department hosts an awards banquet to honor the graduating seniors as well as to play host to the board of directors coming into town for their annual meetings. The event is hosted in a local ballroom and is business casual with a catered three course dinner and a cash bar. In this event alone there are many different discourse communities converging; professors, their spouses, the alumni board of advisors, and undergraduate, graduate, and doctorate students all attend the event. The advisory board is made up of alumni of the university; all are working in

the ISE field either practicing or teaching the subject in a university. One notable board member is Karen, who would give a speech about her experience in the field. While a semi-formal dinner is an excellent occasion to observe interactions, it does not present an accurate picture of the profession itself. This opportunity directly followed the awards dinner. I was invited to meet with the board of advisors the morning after the banquet to discuss the direction of the department. There were about a dozen board members and five or six students in the conversation.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

One of the more agreed-upon ways of entering a discourse community is through either the help or experience of someone who is already a member. The telephone interview with Dan was enlightening; he had several important points on what it takes to be successful as an engineer. To begin, he gave me a brief overview of the various positions he has held since his graduation six years ago, and then followed with a discussion of the skills he has used in his career. The interview centered on gaining access to the industrial engineering discourse community. When asked about the biggest challenge he faced when joining the workforce, Dan said that the process of getting senior executives to buy-in to the proposed projects was more extensive and important than he was expecting. This concept of authority, discussed by Wardle, is crucial in order to be taken seriously enough to have a project move forward. The communication medium used is subject to the situation; the project proposal may be in the form of a presentation, formal document, or a conversation in an elevator. In all cases, the project must be presented in a convincing manner with data to back up the proposal. By observing the actions of different people, it becomes possible to more accurately predict the outcome of a given situation. At the ISE Awards Banquet, there is the opportunity to

both observe the interactions of industrial engineers as well as to hear the testimony of an engineers struggle to find her place in the profession. There are conversations going constantly; students are asked how they got involved in ISE, what they plan to do with their degree, and what is different about American universities. This sort of interaction can be seen in a number of different discourse communities the genre of professional social interaction. After the meal and before awards are presented, the head of the department introduces Karen. Karen had been asked to talk about her career path since graduating. Karen finished college and went to work in a manufacturing plant a couple of hours away. She explains that her difficulties in adapting to the workplace were not in performing the job given to her, but in interacting with others in the company. In manufacturing, industrial engineers have the task of looking at the process and finding where there are superfluous steps that can be removed. As a result of this, those working on the assembly lines have a natural dislike and fear of the engineers that they believe may deem their job unnecessary. Karen found it hard to enter the discourse community, not of the engineers, but of the people she was studying. Karen describes her efforts to connect with the workers, sitting with them at lunch and making conscious efforts to get to know them as people. This was an assignment that she had not anticipated while going into her new job, and it was one that could not be solved by writing. Her efforts paid off in the long run as the employees came to regard her as a friend and colleague and understood that her motivation did not lie in eliminating their jobs. After talking to them about what they did, she was able to effectively study the manufacturing process and make changes that helped make the employees jobs easier and more productive. In time, Karen left her job at the plant and went to work at a pediatric hospital in a large city where her focus was on finding how many nurses were necessary to staff a shift. The attitude

in this workplace was very different. The nurses had little time to regard Karen as a threat and were willing to answer her questions. She was able to follow the nurses workdays effectively because they did not mind her, whereas at the manufacturing plant the employees became tense when she was present and would not perform their jobs as they normally would. Elizabeth Wardle describes her case study of a man whose attempt to gain access to a discourse community was not as successful. Alan worked as a computer technician for the humanities department at a university and found that there was some misinterpretation of the amount of authority he had. Because he believed himself to be above those he was working for, Alans emails were demanding and thus ineffective. Alan ended up losing the respect of those in the department and therefore lost any authority he had. Karen and Alan had similar problems rooted in authority and identity that they handled in different manners. Karen was feared because of the employees perception of her authority, and she had to make the effort to communicate her intentions to the workers to gain their trust and cooperation. Alan started out with trust and cooperation but lost it because he did not communicate with the employees in a way that was appropriate because he had a skewed perception of his own authority. Clearly, in order to gain access to a discourse community, communication with those already in it is imperative. Karen talked about how much more content she was in her job at the hospital rather than working in a manufacturing plant. This contentment came from a better sense of communication that she gained when she transferred jobs. Karen was uncomfortable with an identity that she was forced into, as the workers perception of her was not at all what she saw herself as. Even after only an hour of discussion, it is very possible to make significant headway in understanding a discourse community. Meeting with the board of advisors was a unique

experience that significantly advanced my knowledge of the profession. The topics of conversation ranged from professor reviews to a comparison of different methods used in the industry today and discussion of which ones were still relevant. The practicing engineers were more than happy to pass on the knowledge they had obtained after working in the field for years. One of the most important skills vital in a newcomer to the discourse community was the ability to work effectively in teams. The group dynamic is never the same twice, and the engineer must have the ability to communicate effectively and have the meta-cognitive awareness needed to adapt and connect with different groups. As engineers working in positions of authority, the board members all agreed that communication skills, especially teamwork, were valued in the workplace. Entrance into a discourse community is necessary not only to perform a job correctly, but to acquire the job in the first place. Dan talked about beginning at an intern-level position in which he had many different roles. These all required different communication skills with a number of groups of people. He got the position because of the people he knew and then worked his way up from there. Dan was able to provide several pieces of advice on where to go to make contacts, such as what websites to join and which LinkedIn.com groups to become a part of. This is a testimony to the changing times and what it takes to become successful in the industry today. Networking with colleagues is critical in order to make a place for oneself. Dan testified that his own success was due to his connections in the companies he joined, and he praised me for being proactive in networking. It is evident that success in gaining access to the industrial engineering discourse community may be achieved through means of communication other than writing. This networking was seen at the awards banquet as well, with students of all levels using the opportunity to talk to board members who are actively working in the ISE profession. The

students did have some idea of how to find employment; some even came prepared and were leaving their business cards with the engineers. Those active networking attempts may very well result in their having jobs in the near future.

CONCLUSIONS
From the analysis, it is evident that communication is a vital factor in performing a job well as an industrial engineer. Though there is written communication within the workplace, face-to-face communication plays a large part in gaining access to the discourse community. This communication will open the doors for further opportunities while at the same time giving the new engineer a greater understanding of their position within the company and clarifying their sense of authority and identity. This was seen in the case studies conducted by both Beaufort and Wardle as they sought to better understand the function of writing within a discourse community. These writers both discovered that the effectiveness of writing has a scope that goes far beyond the written work itself. An awareness of the impact of writing and its interaction with other forms of communication within the ISE community will lead to a heightened awareness of the significance of social interaction on a writers position within the overlapping discourse communities. This awareness spans a much broader range than one single professional area and so can benefit the writer in a multitude of aspects. Because of this, it is important that when students graduate college, they have not simply learned to write, but learned to communicate.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anson, Chris M., and L. Lee Forsberg. "Moving Beyond The Academic Community: Transitional Stages In Professional Writing." Written Communication 7.2 (1990): 200-31. Beaufort, Anne. The Institutional Site of Composing: Converging and Overlapping Discourse Communities. Writing in the Real World. New York: Teachers College Press, 1999. 3061. Print. Kahn, Seth. Putting Ethnographic Writing in Context. Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing 2 (2011) 175-192. Print. Wardle, Elizabeth. Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces. Enculturation 5.2 (2004). http://enculturation.gmu.edu/5_2/wardle.html Phone interview with Dan. Telephone interview. 11 Feb. 2013.