| Summary: | The existence of social networks on the Internet is today seen as broad, and the number of users of the network is increasing. There seems to be many reasons to which people are using the social networks. Within the network, users can for various reasons create groups with different objectives. One of the reasons is that groups are created in order to influence a company. With a perceived feeling that companies handle the problem differently, we assume the source is the uncertainty about what the groups really are. As part of understanding what is happening within the groups we ask ourselves how individuals within a particular group express themselves and how they influence each other. We intend to study how group members uses rhetorical arguments to influence each other, if there is any difference between men and women in the way they use the arguments, and how the group's purpose, policies and standards are reflected in the interaction. Our object of study is a group within the social network Facebook, where we chose to analyze a part of the group’s discussions by using a text analytical method. The study showed that a majority of members in our sample have a purpose to influence others. The result also shows that arguments that aim at logical thinking and common sense are most prevalent. But our results also show that a difference exists between men and women in the use of rhetorical arguments. As a conclusion we see that the ambiguity that the group’s policies and standards express actually reflects in the way the members express themselves.
|
|---|
