Much Ado (or Not) About Twitter? Assessing an Emergent Communication and Sport Research Agenda

As the editor of Communication & Sport and also of the International Review for the Sociology of Sport, it has been inescapable not to notice the striking rise in the number of articles focused on Twitter and sport. Although this has been true of much research on digital and social media, it is fair to say that some in the scholarly community are “all a twitter” about Twitter. This dramatic increase has been commented upon by Twitter-weary reviewers, my associate editors at Communication & Sport, and fellow editors in both sport sociology and communication.

Although all recognize the importance of studying Twitter, and “new” digital and social media more broadly, in the sporting context, there have been collectively voiced concerns over both the quantity and the quality of recent submissions focused on Twitter and sport. Foremost among these concerns are those about the adequacy of the theoretical seating and drive of many of these studies. Indeed, some wonder whether too much of this research has been driven by the ready ability to gather “quick and dirty” data and that this, rather than good theory or important questions, may play too large a role in fueling the Twitter fire.

Given such concerns and also because there is no denying that new digital and social media will play increasingly important roles in the dynamic of communication concerning sport, there is a pressing need at this moment for reflection and consideration of the trajectory of the present Twitter and sport research agenda and how it might best evolve to yield important, broad, and lasting understandings.

In speaking to these issues, I have invited seven key scholars to write a short commentary essay giving consideration to the trajectory of an emergent communication and sport Twitter research agenda. Recognizing the tensions at play about this issue, to this Forum, entitled “Much Ado (or not) About Twitter? Assessing an Emergent Communication and Sport Twitter Research Agenda,” I have invited enthusiastic proponents of the emergent Twitter and sport research agenda, those who are more skeptical about its merits and trajectory, and those who see liabilities and potentialities.

The Forum features not only the associate editors of Communication & Sport, who are all leading scholars on new digital and social media and sport in their own right but also other key scholars who have brought benchmark work to inquiry in this area. I hope you share my optimism that their standpoints and thoughtful reflection on the trajectory of Twitter-centered research in sport settings can help fuel discussion, advance tactics, and foster theoretical development for future research on sport and new media.

Because I did not wish to place undue restraints on these invited commentaries, my invitation asked these Forum participants to assess and reflect upon the emergent Twitter-centered research agenda in sport settings, giving consideration to the following issues:

What are the strengths and weaknesses of emergent research on Twitter and sport?

Does emergent scholarship overestimate the use, importance, and impact of Twitter?

Have scholars captivated by Twitter been blinded by their own enthusiasm over something new and trendy?

What are the important questions that need to be asked about Twitter and sport?

Does the emergent research agenda on Twitter and sport sufficiently probe lasting social and cultural impacts?

What needs to be rejigged for research on Twitter and sport to have lasting importance?

Is emergent scholarship stalled in a descriptive mode and too reliant on thematic analysis?

Is emergent scholarship sufficiently theoretically seated?

How might theoretical development in research on Twitter and sport be advanced?

What should scholarly journals do in response to the deluge of Twitter and sport research?

Should scholarly journals rely on “enthusiastic proponents” or “skeptics” in reviewing manuscripts?

Forum commentators were welcomed to address all or some of these issues and were free to reframe issues or interrogate others deemed more important or were left out. The resulting articles cover much terrain and make key observations about roads taken and important pathways that lay ahead.

In the first article, Andrew Billings considers “Power in the Reverberation: Why Twitter Matters, But Not the Way Most Believe.” Billings argues that Twitter research can often overlook the staying power of sport on television while overestimating the adoption and use of Twitter. He makes the argument that Twitter is worth studying in the realm of sports media not because it is representative of the overall public but precisely because it is not at all representative.

In the second essay, Marie Hardin considers “Moving Beyond Description: Putting Twitter in (Theoretical) Context.” Although Hardin sees reliance on descriptive research and content analyses as sensible in early research, the paucity of conceptual and theoretical drive has been notable. Hardin argues that the “next logical step” is for increased priority to be given to studies that theorize new media in communicative terms and place understanding their importance and functioning in a wider sociocultural context.

In the third essay, David Rowe considers the merits of “Following the Followers: Sport Researchers’ Labour Lost in the Twittersphere?” Rowe explores the common assumption that Twitter has insinuated itself into all of the communicative crevices of contemporary life and notes that new communicative innovations such as Twitter have often been staked out by bipolar, dystopian and utopian, projections. Rowe argues that the capitalist marketplace should not be forgotten in assessing the euphoria about Twitter in sport and elsewhere.

In the fourth essay, Brett Hutchins makes the case for the essential imperative “Twitter: Follow the Money and Look Beyond Sports.” Hutchins notes that the ease of data collection has fueled a distinct repetitiveness in some Twitter research and poses that the novelty of Twitter is insufficient justification for analyzing a limited sample of tweets. Hutchins argues that future research needs to examine Twitter’s status as a commercial enterprise and that commodification needs to be more centrally considered when “scraping” data from Twitter output concerning sport.

In the fifth essay, Jimmy Sanderson poses the big question, “What Do We Do With Twitter?” Sanderson notes that the plethora of research on Twitter and sport has been met with resistance by some skeptics. He argues that, as Twitter inquiry on sport matures, the frequency of submissions to sport communication journals may lessen as other scholarly outlets see value and research foci broadens. Sanderson encourages future research on stakeholders and issues of power in the Twitter and sport dynamic.

In the sixth essay, Ann Pegoraro makes a case for the importance of “Twitter as Disruptive Innovation in Sport Communication.” Pegoraro notes that Twitter has disrupted the one-to-many, single-medium framework of sport consumption traditionally offered by television, while introducing the many-to-many possibilities of Internet-enabled sport participatory communication. Pegoraro suggests that although much research to date has ported many extant theories and research agendas, the research process and building of theory is often not neat or orderly and that comprehensive theoretical analysis lies ahead.

In the seventh essay, Paul Pedersen brings perspective from his experiences at the International Journal of Sport Communication (IJSC) with “A Commentary on Social Media Research From the Perspective of a Sport Communication Journal Editor.” Using metrics from the IJSC, Peterson considers the meteoric rise in published research on social media and sport and whether the seeming “avalanche” of submissions justifies new journals focused on digital media and sport. Peterson notes the risks of academic “groupthink” within the communication and sport scholarly community and the need to advance the theoretical significance of Twitter and sport research agenda.

Speaking for my associate editors and the distinguished colleagues who have graciously put their voices forward in this Forum, it is my hope that the reflections here will stimulate a broader discussion of whether there is “Much Ado (or Not)” about the trajectory and future directions of the research agenda on Twitter and sport.