Anecdotally I’ve noticed since joining the twitterstream that #digitalhumanities is far more active than #digitalhistory and #twitterstorians. Because my work involves both community formation and transformative social movements, I’ve been bothered by my inabilitiy to easily access scholars working digital history as well as my impression that #twitterstorians doesn’t include very many U.S. historians who study gender. I’m worried in effect that gender and history by historians is not present enough in #digitalhumanities.
reminded me history is a subspecies of #digitalhumanities and suggested that #twitterstorians comprise much of the #digitalhumanities community. My anecdotal impression is that literature tweeps (who apparently now want their own hashtag similar to #twitterstorians) are far more active in #digitalhumanities than historians. #twitterstorians is a tag meant, I believe, for historians on twitter. These historians are in any field and may or may not be involved in digital history work.
The results are too voluminous to analyze in one go because I’m interested in finely grained analysis, the quality of interactions in addition to quantity. Please understand that I’m a qualitative researcher. The last project I did of this sort involved me hand coding web-based interactions. I suck at programming (haven’t done it since the 90s), but what I’ve learned from my short time on Twitter is that you may as well dive in and start the conversations you want to have.
By sheer volume alone,
In order for hastags to function, they need to be consistent, so in that spirit I offer the following observations.
I originally ran #DH but quickly realized that whatever academics might think, we’re not even close to dominating this hashtag.
So I ran #digital #humanities (13 tweets)
Finding #2 no surprise use #digitalhumanities not #digital #humanities Similarly stop using the singular #twitterstorian (17 tweets)
I wondered about the incredibly small #digitalhistory yield. I began running variants.
#digital AND #history 0
Number of RTs 116 (35.1%)
to specific user 14 (4.2%)
Number of RTs 111 (36.6%)
To specific user 12 (3.9%)