8.1 The new media dimension

In the last twenty years, a whole new component has been added to the process of becoming a historian. It is not formally part of getting a degree; nor does it figure in the criteria used to assess candidates for jobs. Yet it is frequently where doctoral students start to build a reputation, and where they construct a community of fellow travellers. As a result, using social media well is now almost as central to the historical conversation as are seminar presentations, conference attendance and formal peer-reviewed publications. Getting these things right is therefore important.¹

Blogging, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and all their many imitators can be a joyous free-for-all; a democratic space where all voices are heard. At first sight, many of these platforms appear to undercut the gatekeepers of the academy and to create space for new and different voices. They are potentially liberating – and to be applauded, not avoided.

Yet all social media can simultaneously be a poisonous snake-pit of bitter recrimination, of brutal pile-ons and of gross insults. Their very democratic character means that they provide space for racists, homophobes and misogynists; for conspiracy theorists and ethnic nationalists; and just seriously unpleasant people. To participate in these venues can sometimes require a strong stomach. At the same time, there is nothing quite like the sense of community that can be found online, or the expertise accessible through the generosity of ‘#Twitterstorians’. As important, sometimes humans just enjoy receiving a few cute pictures of pets, or, when feeling down, getting the immediate validation of a cheery ‘like’ or two in response to a Tweet.

8.2 Self-knowledge: who are you?

The first challenge is creating a professional version of oneself online. There is every possibility that researchers already have four or five social media accounts – some long abandoned, and others used daily to keep in touch with friends. As a result, it’s necessary to decide whether to build a ‘historian’s’ presence by adapting those accounts, or by creating new ones. This choice is really down to how much each individual wants to have a personal media identity which is separate from the one shared with a professional community. It may seem a waste to abandon a community of followers just because the username chosen five years ago is irrelevant or embarrassing; or it may be time to update.

Fashions in naming conventions and the use of online anonymity change rapidly. But it’s a worthwhile general rule for researchers, when creating a new profile online as a historian, to use their given names in full. A cute nickname dates quickly, and may anyway confuse people when meeting in the flesh. And, while anonymity gives more freedom to say contentious things, historians tend to be serious people. The academic community expects all individuals to own and to defend their opinions.

It is also sensible to choose background images and blog names carefully. A thematic image reflecting a thesis topic or area of study helps ensure that casual visitors get the message. A great image will attract more users. Issues of copyright at this stage should not cause too much concern. A detail from a larger image will normally fall under fair use – and, in the event of an objection, the image can always be removed. It is also sensible to take care when providing a self-description and personal profile. If some casual interest is listed before the core research theme, there’s a serious risk of failing to engage with the very people who should be most interested – and interesting as respondents.

8.3 Following others: who are they?

Who to follow is then the next big choice. #Twitterstorians has been an active hashtag on Twitter and Instagram since 2007, when Katrina Gulliver² first used it to identify historically relevant Tweets. And in 2015 Jason Kelly compiled a list of all ‘Twitterstorians’, with analytics of their interactions.³

One strategy for building an online community is simply to start following #Twitterstorians. But it’s equally powerful to start locally. It’s good to follow people in the same department or faculty; to follow other doctoral students; to follow the author of the book you read most recently (if it was any good). And it’s as important to stop following people who post things that are not relevant. Time and energy are limited. Spending too much of both online, on social media, just means there is less time for research and face-to-face discussion.

Most history conferences and many seminars have a hashtag. And it has now become commonplace at conferences for a separate discussion and debate to take place on Twitter during the course of the conference – with comments on papers and panels being shared both among the participants on the ground and with a wider global audience. It is worth following these #hashtags as a way of identifying people with similar interests, and those working in similar areas. It’s a direct and easy way to participate. It also provides a good opening when meeting people in the flesh – their latest Tweet will serve as a ready-made opening for discussion.

Dan Cohen, the historian of science, once said of Twitter that he enjoyed it mainly because at the end of every week he would know what new articles were published; who had said what; and which conferences he should have attended. For many people, Twitter and other social media act as a filter, allowing them to choose which voices to let through the cacophony. Following the right people, whether a few hundred or several thousand, allows researchers to join networks of scholars who work in relevant fields. But one obvious warning applies. Using social media can be addictive; and it’s vital not to let media participation crowd out time for everything else.

8.4 Participating: what to say?

Having set up an account, created a profile and decided who to follow, it is time to start using the media to promote one’s own work – and to join the debates. It is okay – indeed sensible – to watch quietly for a while, but eventually it’s good to start contributing. When doing so, it is vital to remember that everything posted is a public statement and a form of publication.

In formal, peer-reviewed publications, there are reviewers, editors and friends to stop authors from being stupid. Even in the case of a seminar presentation, speakers have time to think about their contributions, and ideally, their supervisors will have read a draft. Online, none of these ‘hold-me-back’ mechanisms exist. It’s fatally easy to over-react, making ill-judged, ill-informed or unintentionally insulting comments. And these dicta will remain in the ether forever. It is thus essential not to respond instantly. Everyone needs a few moments to assess how a comment or a post is likely to be received.

This counsel is not one of timidity. For all with strong perspectives on the world, for all seeking to change opinions and for all wanting to transform the nature of a discussion, Twitter and blogs are powerful tools. But it is worthwhile taking the time to figure out how to do it well. A good initial strategy is simply to ‘retweet’ other people; and to promote admirable viewpoints – or events that seem important and interesting. This starting-point helps to build a following, and reveals those who retweet in response.

There is also a mass of expertise out there, willing to help. Whether it is a problematic bit of palaeography, or a question of the best background reading for a new subject, tagging a question with #twitterstorian or just asking a general audience will frequently generate a helpful response. If the question is personal, or the details become too arcane, then it’s fine to ask people to communicate by ‘direct message’.

Eventually, staying active on a platform for a sufficient period of time allows the building of a good group of friendly followers. Researchers can present their own work and provide information about dates/venues for their presentations. It is important not to do this too much – as there is nothing worse than the appearance of online braggadocio. However, letting others know about research presentations is a community service and helps to ensure that there is a live audience, as well as one online.

8.5 Coping with trolls

Those who participate online long enough will come across trolls, who love to foment discord.⁴ Every individual who contributes will eventually get the tone or content wrong and come under attack online. Indeed, the more followers a researcher attracts, and the more posts that are made, the more difficult it is to avoid occasionally getting into trouble. In the event of making an error, the best thing is to apologize immediately and move on. Twitter has a short memory, even if Tweets have a long shelf-life.

Yet sometimes further action is required. In the first instance, anyone being trolled should immediately ‘unfollow’ the trollers; or, more decisively, ‘block’ them. Historians want to have open conversations which include a variety of voices, but a degree of self-protection is necessary. If some posts are particularly triggering of discord, then there is no need to give them screen space. And if they move towards hate speech, they should be reported. There are a huge variety of internet trolls, from alt-right extremists, to purer-than-the-driven-snow leftists, always happy to point out everyone else’s moral flaws. The best moment to stop listening is when the conversation is generating anxiety or depression.

Social media is meant to facilitate conversation that is not only fruitful but fun; and, when the fun stops, it is time to leave. (See also section 13.5.) Creativity needs silence and space as well as buzz and shared stimulus.

8.6 Summary: writing snout to tail

As already stressed (see section 7.3), historians write constantly. If all social media does is distract from the task in hand – if too much time is spent looking at pictures of kittens or of fancy meals – then social media emphatically won’t help the completion of a large piece of research. But it is possible to build social media into the writing process, and, by using it creatively, to generate excitement about the project. At an extreme, social media can be used to test ideas and to ask for response: ‘Is it crazy to think that …?’ ‘Is there evidence for …?’ ‘Have I missed sources on …?’

Still more useful are blogs. Either personal blogs, or collective blogs which invite contributions, allow researchers to try out longer pieces of writing, and to measure responses. The ‘Many-Headed Monster’, for example, is a collective blog about early modern British social history, which regularly solicits contributions and has become one of the main venues where the field is discussed.⁵ But even posting the text of a conference paper to a personal blog will help generate an audience and build a following – particularly if it’s matched with a link on Twitter. Posting online also has the advantage of ensuring that authors write with an awareness that a wider audience might be reading.

When researchers write only for their supervisors and a few close friends, it is easy to assume they will forgive complex prose, because they recognize that the ideas being expressed are complex. But when all the world might be reading, there is a stronger motive to get the style right: intelligent but not abstruse. Writing regularly also inculcates the habit, and saves authors from the preciousness that many initially feel about exposing their writing to others. Writing well is frequently just a matter of practice.

Many younger scholars worry that publishing their ideas too soon will harm their reputation, or allow someone else to steal their ideas and hard-won research insights. Yet publishing in any form, including in blog posts, provides a demonstrable authorship that no-one can steal. It is entirely legitimate to re-use a blog post as part of a doctorate or a peer-reviewed publication (with the addition of an appropriate level of footnoting and academic apparatus).

Blogging also has the advantage of gradually building a familiar audience. By the time it comes to give a paper in a seminar or conference – or later, after the award of a degree, to publish the book of the thesis – the audience will be primed and eager to read the outcome. The historians’ role is changing, and the ways in which they reach an audience have evolved to include social media. Being self-aware online enables researchers to participate in a shared intellectual community, and simultaneously to ensure that their own contributions are valued and recognized.

1. 1  A. Briggs and P. Burke, A Social History of the Media: From Gutenberg to the Internet (Cambridge, 2002); J. Van Diyck, The Culture of Connectivity: a Critical History of Social Media (Oxford, 2013).

2. 2  See Katrina Gulliver, historian, writer and academic: @katrinagulliver.

3. 3  See <https://www.jasonmkelly.com/jason-m-kelly/2015/09/17/twitterstorians-a-list> [accessed 30 April 2021]. For Jason M. Kelly, historian, teacher and engaged citizen, see @Jason_M_Kelly.

4. 4  P. Fichman and M. Sanfilippo, Online Trolling and Its Perpetrators: Under the Cyberbridge (Lanham, Md., 2016); A. Salter and B. Blodgett, Toxic Geek Masculinity in Media: Sexism, Trolling and Identity Policing (Basingstoke, 2017); T. Flynn, Rage-In: the Trolls and Tribulations of Modern Life (Cork, 2018).

5. 5  See <https://manyheadedmonster.com/> [accessed 24 January 2022].