One Day in the Life of a National Twittersphere

Open access


Previous research into social media platforms has often focused on the exceptional: key moments in politics, sports or crisis communication. For Twitter, it has usually centred on hashtags or keywords. Routine and everyday social media practices remain underexamined as a result; the literature has overrepresented the loudest voices: those users who contribute actively to popular hashtags. This article addresses this imbalance by exploring in depth the day-to-day patterns of activity within the Australian Twittersphere for a 24-hour period in March 2017. We focus especially on the previously less visible everyday social media practices that this shift in perspective reveals. This provides critical new insights into where, and how, to look for evidence of onlife traces in a systematic way.

Blaszka, M., Burch, L. M., Frederick, E. L., Clavio, G. & Walsh, P. (2012). #WorldSeries: An empirical examination of a Twitter hashtag during a major sporting event. International Journal of Sport Communication, 5(4): 435-453.

Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J.-L., Lambiotte, R. & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 10: P10008. doi:

Bruns, A. (2008). Life beyond the public sphere: Towards a networked model for political deliberation. Information Polity, 13(1-2): 71-85.

Bruns, A. & Burgess, J. (2015). Twitter hashtags from ad hoc to calculated publics. In N. Rambukkana (ed.), Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks (pp. 13-28). New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A. & Moe, H. (2014). Structural layers of communication on Twitter. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt & C. Puschmann (eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 15–28). New York: Peter Lang.

Bruns, A., Burgess, J., Banks, J., Tjondronegoro, D., Dreiling, A., Hartley, J., Leaver, T., Aly, A., Highfield, T., Wilken, R., Rennie, E., Lusher, D., Allen, M., Marshall, D., Demetrious, K. & Sadkowsky, T. (2016). TrISMA: Tracking infrastructure for social media analysis. Retrieved from [Accessed 2018, December 7].

Bruns, A., Moon, B., Münch, F. & Sadkowsky, T. (2017). The Australian Twittersphere in 2016: Mapping the follower/followee network. Social Media + Society, 3(4): 1-15. doi:

Burgess, J. & Bruns, A. (2015). Easy data, hard data: The politics and pragmatics of Twitter research after the computational turn. In G. Langlois, J. Redden & G. Elmer (eds.), Compromised data: From social media to big data (pp. 94-111). New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

Coleman, S. (2003). A tale of two houses: The House of Commons, the Big brother house and the people at home. Parliamentary Affairs, 56: 733-758. doi:

Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: Disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum, 23(4): 525-535. doi:

Cunningham, S. (2001). Popular media as public “sphericules” for diasporic communities. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 4(2): 131-147. doi: http://doi.org10.1177/136787790100400201

Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and political engagement: Citizens, communication, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dixon, D. (2012). Analysis tool or research methodology? Is there an epistemology for patterns? In D. M. Berry (ed.), Understanding digital humanities (pp. 191-209). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gitlin, T. (1998). Public sphere or public sphericules? In J. Curran & T. Liebes (eds.), Media, ritual and identity (pp. 175-202). London: Routledge.

Griffin, A. (2016, September 23). Shitposting: What is the bizarre online behaviour that could win Donald Trump the election? The Independent [online]. Retrieved from [Accessed 2018, December 7].

Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16: 411-426. doi:

Haddon, L. (2016). The domestication of complex media repertoires. In K. Sandvik, A. M. Thorhauge & B. Valtysson (eds.), The media and the mundane: Communication across media in everyday life (pp. 17-29). Gothenburg: Nordicom.

Highfield, T. (2013). National and state-level politics on social media: Twitter, Australian political discussions, and the online commentariat. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 6(4): 342-360. doi:

Highfield, T. (2014). Following the yellow jersey: Tweeting the Tour de France. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt & C. Puschmann (eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 249-262). New York: Peter Lang.

Jacomy, M., Venturini, T., Heymann, S. & Bastian, M. (2014). ForceAtlas2, a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLOS ONE, 9(6) doi:

Larsson, A. O. & Moe, H. (2014). Twitter in politics and elections: Insights from Scandinavia. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt & C. Puschmann (eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 319-330). New York: Peter Lang.

Marwick, A. E. & boyd, danah (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1): 114-133. doi:

McEwan, S. (2017). Nation of shitposters: Ironic engagement with the Facebook posts of Shannon Noll as reconfiguration of an Australian national identity. Journal of Media and Communication, 8(2): 19-39.

McKinnon, M., Semmens, D., Moon, B., Amarasekara, I. & Bolliet, L. (2016). Science, Twitter and election campaigns: Tracking #auspol in the Australian federal elections. Journal of Science Communication, 15(6). doi:

McNamara, L. (2016, September 1). Explainer: What is Section 18C and why do some politicians want it changed? The Conversation [online]. Retrieved from [Accessed 2018, December 7].

Münch, F. (2019). Measuring networked media – Exploring network science methods for large scale online media studies. PhD Dissertation. Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

Murthy, D. (2018). Twitter (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity.

Palen, L., Starbird, K., Vieweg, S. & Hughes, A. (2010). Twitter-based information distribution during the 2009 Red River Valley flood threat. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 36(5): 13-17.

Papacharissi, Z. & Blasiola, S. (2016). Structures of feeling, storytelling, and social media: The case of #Egypt. In A. Bruns, G. Enli, E. Skogerbø, A. O. Larsson & C. Christensen (eds.), The Routledge companion to social media and politics (pp. 211-222). London: Routledge.

Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. London: Penguin.

Pear Analytics. (2009). Twitter study–August 2009. Retrieved from [Accessed 2018, December 7].

Rambukkana, N. (ed.). (2015). Hashtag publics: The power and politics of discursive networks. New York: Peter Lang.

Rogers, R. (2014). Foreword: Debanalising Twitter: The transformation of an object of study. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt & C. Puschmann (eds.), Twitter and society (pp. ix–xxvi). New York: Peter Lang.

Sandvik, K., Thorhauge, A. M. & Valtysson, B. (2016). Introduction. In K. Sandvik, A. M. Thorhauge & B. Valtysson (eds.), The media and the mundane: Communication across media in everyday life (pp. 9-15). Gothenburg: Nordicom.

Senft, T. M. (2013). Microcelebrity and the branded self. In J. Hartley, J. Burgess & A. Bruns (eds.), A companion to new media dynamics (pp. 346-354). London: Blackwell.

Sensis. (2016). Sensis social media report 2016: How Australian people and businesses are using social media. Melbourne: Sensis. Retrieved from [Accessed 2018, December 7].

Shaw, F., Burgess, J., Crawford, K. & Bruns, A. (2013). Sharing news, making sense, saying thanks: Patterns of talk on Twitter during the Queensland floods. Australian Journal of Communication, 40(1): 23-39.

Simon, J. & Ess, C. (2015). Philosophy & Technology, 28(1): 157-162. doi:

Sunstein, C. R. (2009). 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Van Dijck, J. & Poell, T. (2013). Understanding social media logic. Media and Communication, 1(1): 2–14. doi:

Nordicom Review

Journal from the Nordic Information Centre for Media and Communication Research (Nordicom)

Journal Information

CiteScore 2018: 0.54

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.223
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.270


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 529 529 341
PDF Downloads 248 248 148