What Do We Do With Twitter?

Sport researchers are far from the only sport stakeholder group that is pondering this question. I am grateful to Dr. Lawrence Wenner for providing a platform for this discussion and I am equally appreciative of the opportunity to say a few words about it. When I was asked to participate in this forum, I initially felt that I would use this space to make a persuasive argument to Twitter skeptics about why studying this medium, particularly in the realm of sports, is important. However, I am not sure that anything I say here, or anywhere else, would have that effect. Instead, in this brief essay I will discuss some reasons why Twitter and sport submissions have mushroomed and then conclude by offering some directions for future research in Twitter and sports.

Twitter is not unique among new communication technologies that are generally met with skepticism when introduced. I was only in high school when the Internet became widely available, and I suspect that the current angst that some feel toward Twitter was similar to feelings in the 1990s about computer-mediated communication (CMC) research. Consider that some outlets that are now mainstream in the communication discipline, such as Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, New Media and Society, Information and Communication and Society, and Television and New Media were nowhere to be found when some of the early CMC scholars began doing research in this domain. I am not sure that we will get to the point where we have academic journals focused on social media and sports—but I can foresee that eventuality. I mention this because my sense is that there is a good number of reviewers who are probably tired of being asked to review Twitter and other sport and social media studies, many of which merit rejection. Reasons for such a determination may include lack of theoretical sophistication, insufficient explanation of methods, or weak arguments for the merit and importance of the research.

However, short of imposing quotas on Twitter and sport submissions, I believe that the frequency of submissions is something that we have to live with for the moment. Nevertheless, I think that this issue will eventually sort itself out for several reasons. First, I think that there is a tendency on the part of people doing Twitter and sport research to submit their work either to this journal or to the International Journal of Sport Communication, likely due to the perception that these outlets will be “friendly” toward this line of research. I think, as sport and social media scholars branch out to other outlets and with the eventuality of additional outlets appearing, that we will see a reduction in the frequency of submissions. Second, it seems to me that most of this research is being done by graduate students and early career assistant professors (of which I am one). I was fortunate to be mentored by Dr. Jeffrey Kassing who was both interested in social media and an exceptional mentor for the journal submission process. I am not sure, however, how many of those submitting Twitter and other social media-focused research have had the same experiences. In other words, I am not sure that the mentoring is as robust as it could be and I think as it evolves so will the quality of Twitter and other social media and sport research.

I will now shift my attention to the future of Twitter and sport research. It has been almost 5 years since I worked on my first Twitter study (Kassing & Sanderson, 2010) involving fan–athlete interaction via Twitter during the 2009 Tour of Italy (Giro d’ Italia). In that time span, Twitter has changed dramatically, especially in sport. For example, during the 2013 Super Bowl, there were just over 26.1 million tweets disseminated about the game (Knapp, 2013), and during the 2014 BCS National Championship, there were 4.4 million tweets sent out about the game (BCS National Championship Dominates, 2014). Additionally, it is difficult to find a sports team that does not have a presence on Twitter and it has become integrated into most sport broadcasts. Athletes and other sports personalities populate Twitter, and many sports journalists routinely report on perceived missteps by athletes on Twitter, in particular college athletes. As a result, a cottage industry of social media education providers for athletes has emerged.

All this is to say that, as researchers, we have vast amounts of data to examine multiple facets of sport. Puschmann, Bruns, Mahrt, Weller, and Burgess (2014), in their edited volume, Twitter and Society, contend that it is imperative to examine “Twitter’s emerging role in society, documenting its growing impact on society, and exploring to what extent it is possible to use the study of Twitter as a lens through which we may observe contemporary society” (p. 427). I would echo those sentiments but substitute “sport” for “society” and also include sport’s relation to society. To that end, I conclude by offering several directions in which Twitter research can proceed.

First, I am fully aware that much of the current Twitter and sport research and submissions focus on thematic analysis or “what” various sports stakeholders are communicating via Twitter. I think that these studies have value and that it is important that we continue to investigate this topic but perhaps elaborate more on its significance. For example, using more traditional content analytic methods to look at frequencies of content and/or differences between content. Just as other communication scholars replicate previous work on various constructs, why not with Twitter? In my view, Twitter is not “different” from communication, it is communication. But it has provided athletes and other sports stakeholders with enhanced communication opportunities—and I think it is vital that we consistently evaluate this phenomenon to see how it evolves. For instance, via Twitter we see athletes sharing political commentary and engaging in digital activism. An illustrative case here involves reactions to the George Zimmerman verdict in 2013. Zimmerman was acquitted of murdering Trayvon Martin, a young African American male. After the verdict was announced, a number of athletes posted their reactions to the verdict on Twitter, creating a media firestorm (Hummer, 2013). Using the Zimmerman verdict as an exemplar, what are the implications of athletes engaging in this kind of discourse? Some probable outcomes include teams rebuking or censoring athletes from making this kind of commentary and fans attacking the athlete on Twitter for expressing views that may be divergent from theirs. Researching these issues in sport can be illustrative in discussions about employee surveillance, power relationships, race and ethnicity, and sports culture.

On a similar note, what about issues of power? I believe that intercollegiate athletics is an important venue to examine in this area. It is a popular practice in college sport to prohibit student athletes from using Twitter during their sports season or, in the case of Old Dominion football coach Bobby Wilder, from using Twitter the entire time that they are on scholarship (Minium, 2012). What does this restriction say about power dynamics in this area of the sport landscape? And what about the mandatory social media education training that many schools implement for student athletes? Moreover, what do student athletes’ tweets perhaps tell us about larger concerns within intercollegiate sport? Consider the vitriol directed at Ohio State University quarterback Cardale Jones who tweeted in the fall of 2012 that he did not come to school to go to class but to play football (Schwab, 2012).

At the time of writing, one of the more noteworthy sport stories centered on the University of Texas and its search for a football coach. Prior to Head Coach Mack Brown announcing that he was stepping down, Twitter was abuzz with a plethora of rumors and speculation (many from established media outlets) about Brown being forced out and who would replace him, putting the story on par with any daytime soap. Ultimately, Brown announced that he was voluntarily stepping down and University of Louisville Head Coach Charlie Strong became the new head coach at Texas. However, information about Brown stepping down and Strong replacing him was all over Twitter before either action was officially announced. This case serves as an illustrative example of the intricacies and nuances that Twitter has introduced into sports media. What effect does it have on fan bases who “hear” via Twitter that their coach may be leaving and what is the trickle-down effect of such a practice? Perhaps this prompts a social identity threat (perhaps unnecessarily) that leads fans to behave in hostile and demeaning ways.

In conclusion, I think that it is important to remember that while this discussion is focused on Twitter, a year from now we could be having a similar forum about Instagram or some other social media platform. Although I do not pretend to be a prophet, I am nevertheless quite confident that social media is not going away and will only continue to exert a stronger influence on sport. To that end, I suggest that we consider studying sport with Twitter. Our society (including sport) is evolving, and, as researchers, we can either parallel or diverge from that, but either way the evolution goes on.