The Pew Internet & American Life Project reports that 86% of Internet users living with a disability or chronic illness have looked for health information online (Fox, 2007). And while so-called e-patients often start this search for information, many find themselves led to communities that provide this and more, such as Tu Diabetes, an online social network site. This pause in what can seem like an endless search for answers may be one that health professionals can gain insight from. Such extended pauses may give insight into the values of this particular community. This article provides the results and analysis of a study using ethnographic methods and rhetorical analysis to examine the texts posted by members of the social networking site Tu Diabetes in order to discern the values held by this community.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Diabetes Association (ADA). (2008). Standards of Diabetes Care—2008. Diabetes Care, 31, S12–S54.
2.
BartonE. (2008). The presence of interlocutors vs. the sites of the Internet: The restricted range of disability narrative. In PagnucciG. S. & MaurielloN. (Eds.), Re-mapping narrative: Technology's impact on the way we write (pp. 45–72). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
3.
BaymN. K. (1997). Interpreting soap operas and creating community: Inside an electronic fan culture. In KieslerS. (Ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 103–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4.
BormannE. (1980). Communication theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
5.
BormannE. (1982). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: Ten years later. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 68, 288–305.
6.
BormannE. G. (1972). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 58, 396–407.
7.
BormannE. G. (1985). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of Communication, 35, 128–138.
8.
BormannE. G. (1980). Fantasy and rhetorical vision: The rhetorical criticism of social reality. In BrockB. L.ScottR. L., & ChesebroJ. W. (Eds.), Methods of rhetorical criticism: A twentieth-century perspective (pp. 210–222). Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
9.
BormannE. G.CraganJ. F., & ShieldsD. C. (1994). In defense of symbolic convergence theory: A look at the theory and its criticism after two decades. Communication Theory, 44, 259–294.
10.
BormannE. G.CraganJ. F., & ShieldsD. C. (2001). Three decades of developing, grounding, and using symbolic convergence theory (SCT). In GudykunstW. B. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 25 (pp. 271–313). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
BroomD., & WhittakerA. (2004). Controlling diabetes, controlling diabetics: Moral language in the management of diabetes type 2. Social Science & Medicine, 58, 2372–2382.
12.
BuisL. (2007). Social support provision within online health-focused support groups. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, TBA, San Francisco, CA, May 23, 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p172039_index.html
13.
BurrowsR.LoaderB. D.PleaceN.NettletonS., & MuncerS. (2000). Virtual community care? Social policy and the emergence of computer mediated social support. Information, Communication & Society, 3(1), 95–120.
CraganJ. F., & ShieldsD. C. (1995). Symbolic theories in applied communication research: Bormann, Burke, and Fisher. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
16.
EysenbachG.PowellJ.EnglesakisM.RizoC., & SternA. (2004). Health related virtual communities and electronic support groups: Systematic review of the effects of online peer to peer interactions. British Medical Journal, 328(7449), 1166.
17.
FergusonT. (2002). From patients to end users. British Medical Journal, 324, 555–556.
18.
FinnJ. (1999). An exploration of helping processes in an online self-help group focusing on the issues of disability. Health and Social Work, 24(3), 220–231.
FoxS. (2008). The engaged e-patient population: People turn to the internet for health information when the stakes are high and the connection fast. Retrieved March 16, 2009, from the Pew Internet & American Life Project Website: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/The-Engaged-Epatient-Population.aspx
21.
GalegherJ.SproullL., & KieslerS. (1998). Legitimacy, authority, and community in electronic support groups. Written Communication, 15(4), 493–530.
22.
GurakL. J., & SilkerC. M. (1997). Technical communication research: From traditional to virtual. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6(4), 403–418.
HineC. (2008). Internet research as emergent practice. In Hesse-BiberS. N. & LeavyP. (Eds), Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 525–542). New York: The Guilford Press.
25.
HowardT. W. (1994). A rhetoric of electronic communities. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
26.
LesterJ.PradyS.FineganY., & HochD. (2004). Learning from e-patients at Massachusetts general hospital. British Medical Journal, 328(7449), 1188–1190.
27.
MoranM. G. (2002). A fantasy-theme analysis of Arthur Barlowe's 1584 Discourse on Virginia: The first English commercial report written about North America from direct experience. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11(1), 31–59.
28.
McCabeJ. (2009). Resisting alienation: The social construction of Internet communities supporting eating disorders. Communication Studies, 60(1), 1–16.
29.
NaemiratchB., & MandersonL. (2006). Control and adherence: Living with diabetes in Bangkok, Thailand, Social Science & Medicine, 63(5), 1147–1157.
30.
OrgadS. (2005). From online to offline and back: Moving from online to offline relationships with research informants. In HinesC. (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 51–66). Oxford: Berg.
31.
PeelE.ParryO.DouglasM., & LawtonJ. (2005). Taking the biscuit? A discursive approach to managing diet in type 2 diabetes. Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 779–791.
32.
PendryD. A. (2003). Control, compliance, and common sense power relations in diabetes care for Mexican Americans. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
33.
RamosJ. D.Rai-ChaudhuriA., & NeillR. W. (2004). International online discussion lists on chronic myelogenous leukaemia. British Medical Journal, 328(7449), 1177–1178.
34.
RheingoldH. (1993). The virtual community: Finding connection in a computerized world. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
35.
RuhlederK. (2000). The virtual ethnographer: Fieldwork in distributed electronic environments. Field Methods, 12(1), 3–17.
36.
SandersT. (2005). Researching the online sex work community. In HinesC. (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the Internet (pp. 67–80). Oxford: Berg.
37.
SchneiderS. M., & FootK. A. (2005). Web sphere analysis: An approach to studying online action. In HinesC. (Ed.), Virtual methods: Issues in special research on the Internet (pp. 157–170). Oxford: Berg.
38.
SegalJ. (1993). Patient compliance, the rhetoric of rhetoric, and the rhetoric of persuasion. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 23, 90–102.
39.
TurkleS. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
40.
WallhaganM. I. (1999). Social support in diabetes. Diabetes Spectrum, 12(4), 254–256.
41.
WillsonM. A. (2006). Technically together: Rethinking community within techno-society. New York: Peter Lang.
42.
WinkelmanW. J., & ChooC. W. (2003). Provider-sponsored virtual communities for chronic patients: Improving health outcomes through organizational patient-centered knowledge management. Health Expectations, 6(4), 352–358.
43.
ZrebiecJ. F. (2005). Internet communities: Do they improve coping with diabetes?The Diabetes Educator, 31, 825–836.
44.
ArduserL.RentzK.MelonconL., & DebsM. B. (2008). Designing a successful group-report experience. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(1), 79–84.
45.
ArduserL. (2008). Book review, Communication in Medical Care by John Heritage and Douglas W. Maynard. Business Communication Quarterly, 71(4), 511–514.
