Written Communication

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for free access to the SAGE eReference platform!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by GALEGHER, J.
Right arrow Articles by KIESLER, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Written Communication, Vol. 15, No. 4, 493-530 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/0741088398015004003

Legitimacy, Authority, and Community in Electronic Support Groups

JOLENE GALEGHER

Carnegie Mellon University

LEE SPROULL

Boston University

SARA KIESLER

Carnegie Mellon University

In electronic support groups, people use Internet-based electronic text communication to discuss personal problems or disorders with others who share common circumstances. Although their discussions exist only in the electronic medium, these groups can be viewed usefully as discourse communities. The authors draw on what is known about two other popular sources of help—face-to-face self-help groups and self-help books—to frame the rhetorical challenges faced by members of electronic support groups. The authors then compare the discourse of electronic support groups with that of electronic hobby groups to demonstrate that the two sets differ in terms of the rhetorical behavior of their participants. The authors analyze messages to determine how members establish legitimacy and authority in their texts and how message exchange gives rise to group identity and a sense of community. Our observations indicate that although some discourse characteristics and some rhetorical features are common to all the electronic groups we studied, others are unique to the special requirements of electronic support groups.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Lit Linguist ComputingHome page
S. Hoffmann
Processing Internet-derived Text--Creating a Corpus of Usenet Messages
Lit Linguist Computing, June 1, 2007; 22(2): 151 - 165.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Organization StudiesHome page
E. Vaast
What Goes Online Comes Offline: Knowledge Management System Use in a Soft Bureaucracy
Organization Studies, March 1, 2007; 28(3): 283 - 306.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
American Journal of EvaluationHome page
C. A. Christie and T. Azzam
What's All the Talk About? Examining EVALTALK, an Evaluation Listserv
American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 2004; 25(2): 219 - 234.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
New Media SocietyHome page
J. Lamerichs and H. F.M. T. Molder
Computer-Mediated Communication: From a Cognitive to a Discursive Model
New Media Society, December 1, 2003; 5(4): 451 - 473.
[Abstract] [PDF]