Glory and Pitfalls of Digital Bricolage: How constant Technological Changes Drives Constant Changes of Humanities Methods
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.19137/qs.v30i2.9728Keywords:
digital platform, statistical data, comparative analysis, open accessAbstract
In 2021, Twitter announced a new version of its Application Programming Interface (API) that allowed, with constraints, the collection of Twitter data. At the same time, it introduced a new policy for researchers: those who applied for and obtained recognition as researchers by Twitter could search Twitter’s whole history and harvest, theoretically, up to 10 million tweets each month. For those without enough funding to access the commercial API, this was a huge change: a real improvement, but also, for Humanities ‘bricoleurs’ analysing Twitter data, a major challenge. Indeed, all the tools and methodologies elaborated over a decade around the use of Twitter data in the Humanities, particularly in history and memory studies in our case, had to evolve. By exploring the example of the Twitter API and its evolution, this article investigates the continuous changes in our methods and ways of working, carried out under pressure from technical evolutions and their underlying business models based on data access, even when these are minor. It explores digital bricolage as an imperfect response, then the changes induced by Elon Musk’s seizure of Twitter, which force a shift from bricolage to braconnage. In conclusion, we ask whether we should stop studying Twitter, though this would imply self-sabotage of our own research.
Downloads
References
Annales. HSS. (2015). La longue durée en débat. Annales, 70(2), 285–287. http://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-2015-2-page-285.htm
Archiveteam. (2009). GeoCities. http://www.archiveteam.org/index.php?title=GeoCities
Ben-David, A. (2020). Counter-archiving Facebook. European Journal of Communication, 35(3), 249–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323120922069
Berendt, B., Büchler, M. & Rockwell, G. (2015). Is it Research or is it Spying? Thinking-Through Ethics in Big Data AI and Other Knowledge Sciences. KI - Künstliche Intelligenz, 29(2), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13218-015-0355-2
Borra, E. & Rieder, B. (2014). Programmed method: Developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib, 66(3), 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0094
Boyd, D. & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical Questions for Big Data: Provocations for a cultural, technological, and scholarly phenomenon. Information, Communication & Society, 15(5), 662–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878
Braudel, F. (1958). Histoire et Sciences sociales: La longue durée. Annales, 13(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.1958.2781
Bruns, A. (2019). After the ‘APIcalypse’: social media platforms and their fight against critical scholarly research. Information, Communication & Society, 22(11), 1544-1566. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1637447
Clavert, F. (2018). Face au passé: La Grande Guerre sur Twitter. Le Temps Des Médias. Revue d’histoire, (31), 173–186. https://shs.cairn.info/article/TDM_031_0173/pdf?lang=fr
Clavert, F. (2020, March 31). Quel rôle pour les historiens et historiennes pendant une pandémie? L’histoire contemporaine à l’ère numérique. https://doi.org/10.58079/plwp
Clavert, F. (2021). History in the era of massive data. Geschichte Und Gesellschaft, 47(1), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.13109/gege.2021.47.1.175
Clavert, F. & Paci, D. (2023). ‘Le goût d’un jour de fête’? Commemorating the end of the Second World War on Twitter during the lockdown: a comparison between France and Italy. In O. Fridman & S. Gensburger (Eds.), The COVID-19 Pandemic and Memory. Remembrance, commemoration, and archiving in crisis (pp. 221-244). Palgrave McMillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34597-5_11
D’heer, E., Vandersmissen, B., Neve, W. D., Verdegem, P. & Van de Walle, R. (2017). What are we missing? An empirical exploration in the structural biases of hashtag-based sampling on Twitter. First Monday, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v22i2.6353
Dagiral, É. & Pailler, F. (2018). Des chercheur·e·s et des tweets. Enquêter sous contraintes. In S. Lecossais & N., Quemeneur, N. (Dirs.), En quête d’archives: bricolages méthodologiques en terrains médiatiques (pp. 113-121). Institut National de l'Audiovisuel. https://doi.org/10.3917/ina.lecos.2018.01.0114
Documenting the Now. (n.d.). DocNow. https://www.docnow.io/
François, P., Manning, J. G., Whitehouse, H., Brennan, R., Currie, T., Feeney, K. & Turchin, P. (2016). A Macroscope for Global History: Seshat Global History Databank, a methodological overview. Digital Humanities Quarterly, 10(4). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/10/4/000272/000272.html
Gilot, J.-M., Grandjean, M. & Clavert, F. (2018). 1914-1918: Quand la commémoration devient participative. Le Temps des medias, 2(31), 219–229. https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-temps-des-medias-2018-2-page-219.htm
Gomez-Mejia, G. (2020). La fabrique de la désuétude. Regards diachroniques sur Geocities et Myspace. In V. Schafer (Ed.), Temps et temporalités du Web (pp. 77–97). Presses universitaires de Paris Nanterre. http://books.openedition.org/pupo/6088
Grafton, A. (2011). Loneliness and Freedom. Perspectives on History, 43(3). https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/march-2011/loneliness-and-freedom
Grison, T., Julliard V., Alié F. & Ecrement V. (2023). La modération abusive sur Twitter. Étude de cas sur l’invisibilisation des contenus LGBT et TDS en ligne, Réseaux, 1(237) 119-149. https://www.cairn.info/revue-reseaux-2023-1-page-119.htm
Guldi, J. & Armitage, D. (2014). The History Manifesto. Cambridge University Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). La pensée sauvage. Plon.
Lévi-Strauss, C. & Ricoeur, P. (1963). Autour de la Pensée sauvage. Réponses à quelques questions. Entretien du «groupe philosophique» d’Esprit avec Claude Lévi-Strauss [Personal communication].
McCallum, A. K. (2002). MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit. MALLET. http://mallet.cs.umass.edu
Mélice, A. (2009). Un concept lévi-straussien déconstruit: Le «bricolage». Les Temps Modernes, 5(656), 83-98. https://doi.org/10.3917/ltm.656.0083
Michel, J.-B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., The Google Books Team, Pickett, J. P., Hoiberg, D., Clancy, D., Norvig, P., Orwant, J., Pinker, S., Nowak, M. A. & Lieberman Aiden, E. (2010). Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books. Science, 331(6014), 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199644
Milligan, I. (2017). Welcome to the web: The online community of GeoCities during the early years of the World Wide Web. In N. Brügger & R. Schroeder (Eds.), The Web as History: Using Web Archives to Understand the Past and the Present (pp. 137-158). University College London Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1mtz55k.13
Moretti, F. (2007). Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. Verso.
Parisot-Sillon, C. (2020). Pandémie et goût de l’archive. L’ère du braconnage ? In F. Clavert C. & Muller, C. (Eds.), Le goût de l’archive à l’ère numérique (s.p.). Éditions de la Sorbonne. https://gout-numerique.net/table-of-contents/archives-numerisees-la-salle-de-lecture-virtuelle-et-physique/pandemie-et-gout-de-larchive-lere-du-braconnage
Ratinaud, P. & Dejean, S. (2009). IRaMuTeQ: implémentation de la méthode ALCESTE d’analyse de texte dans un logiciel libre [Conference session]. Modélisation Appliquée Aux Sciences Humaines et Sociales (MASHS2009), Toulouse, France.
Revel, J. (2007). Histoire et sciences sociales. Lectures d’un débat français autour de 1900. Mil neuf cent. Revue d’histoire intellectuelle, 1(25), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.3917/mnc.025.0101
Rüling, C.-C. & Duymedjian, R. (2014). Digital bricolage: Resources and coordination in the production of digital visual effects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 83, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.05.003
Severo, M. & Giraud, T. (2019). La fabrique de la donnée géolocalisée. Questions de communication, 36(2), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.4000/questionsdecommunication.20879
Sikk, K. (2020, April 7). Cyberpunk perspectives on the big data paradigm and the discipline of history: Part I. The mindsets. Digital History & Hermeneutics. https://dhh.uni.lu/2020/04/07/cyberpunk-perspectives-on-the-big-data-paradigm-and-the-discipline-of-history-part-i-the-mindsets/
Smyth, H. & Echavarria, D. R. (2021). Twitter and feminist commemoration of the 1916 Easter Rising. Journal of Digital History, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/JDH-2021-1006?locatt=label:JDHFULL
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Quinto Sol
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
When submitting their contributions, authors must declare that they have the permission of the file or repository where the documents that are attached to the work were obtained, whatever their format (unpublished manuscripts, images, audiovisual files, etc.). Such permission authorizes their publication and reproduction, releasing the journal and its editors from any liability or claim from third parties.
Likewise, authors must adhere to the Creative Commons license called "Attribution - Non-Commercial CC BY-NC-SA", through which the author allows copying, reproducing, distributing, publicly communicating the work and generating derivative works, as long as the original author is properly quoted and acknowledged. It is not allowed, however, to use the work for commercial purposes. Authors may establish additional agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the paper published in the journal (for example, placing it in an institutional repository or publishing it in a book), with the acknowledgment of having been published first in this journal.
The publication of content in this journal does not imply any royalty or charge for taxpayers.
Quinto Sol adheres to the DORA (Declaration on Research Assessment) signed in San Francisco, California, on December 16, 2012, and to the Declaration of Mexico (Joint Declaration LATINDEX - REDALYC - CLACSO - IBICT).
4.png){kind=logo}
2.png)
_(2).png)
1.jpg)
1.jpg)
