Making a Microaggression: Using Big Data and Qualitative Analysis to Map the Reproduction and Disruption of Microaggressions through Social Media

Abstract

Racial microaggressions are defined as subtle racial slights that can be offensive or hurtful. One of the defining characteristics of racial microaggressions is how difficult they can be to respond to, and the literature reports that not responding may be the most common response to microaggressions. This study addresses a vital gap in the existing literature by examining the extent to which the silence that characterizes face-to-face experiences with microaggressions extends into online social media spaces. Drawing on a dataset of 254,964 tweets over an 8-year period, we present and examine trends in the usage of the term “microaggressions” over time. Furthermore, we then generate a purposive sample of 1,038 of the most influential tweets to explore discussions and content themes through an in-depth qualitative analysis of these messages. Here, we find both a drastic increase in the usage of the term microaggression on Twitter over time and an intense contestation over its meaning and repercussions for both individuals and society. Implications of these findings in understanding the role of online social media discourse in challenging or reproducing hegemonic racial structures is discussed.

Keywords

microaggressions social media Twitter racial structures race online communication

While overt racism or discrimination is generally frowned upon in many contemporary mainstream spaces (Gantt Shafer, 2017), one way in which contemporary racism can be manifested on an interpersonal level is through racial microaggressions, which are defined as racial slights that are subtly offensive or hurtful but fall short of being perceived to be full-blown racism (Sue et al., 2009). Microaggressions can include behaviors, speech, or environmental characteristics that are driven by stereotypes and indicate to Black, Indigenous, and people of Color (BIPOC) that they are second-class citizens (Solorzano et al., 2000). Moreover, there is a large literature on the negative effects of racial microaggressions on mental health, health, and educational outcomes (Sue, 2010).

One of the defining characteristics of racial microaggressions is how difficult they can be to respond to. In fact, Sue (2010) suggests that the most common way of responding to racial microaggressions is to not respond. This means that the ideologies behind racial microaggressions typically go unchecked and unquestioned, and BIPOC tend to suffer these slights in silence. The attitudes and ideologies behind microaggressive acts and speech are normalized when they are perceived to be socially acceptable behaviors and discourse. In contrast, naming or challenging microaggressions can be seen as an act of resistance (Sue et al., 2019). More specifically, because microaggressions are interpersonal manifestations of subtle racism or structural inequality, contesting them subverts the racial status quo and thereby calls into question the interactions related to microaggressions (Eschmann, 2020a).

This study therefore seeks to address a crucial gap in the existing literature by examining the extent to which the silence that characterizes face-to-face experiences with microaggressions extends into online social media spaces. In this study, we use big data techniques to explore Twitter-based discourse that includes the key terms “microaggression” and “microagressions” to better understand how this discussion either furthers or disrupts the reproduction of the covert racist ideologies behind racial microaggressions. In sum, we draw on a dataset of 254,964 tweets over an 8-year period to examine trends in the usage of the term microaggressions over time, and use a sample of 1,038 of the most influential tweets to engage in an in-depth qualitative analysis of these messages.

Through these combined methodological approaches, we identified not only a drastic increase in the usage of the term microaggression on Twitter over time, but also an intense contestation over its meaning and repercussions for both individuals and society. We suggest that increased discourse around racial microaggressions subverts White supremacy, as the interpersonal manifestations of racism that that are typically ignored and go unchallenged are identified, critiqued, and denounced. Implications of these findings in understanding the role of online social media discourse in challenging or reproducing hegemonic racial structures is discussed in greater detail.

Background

Previous research defines microaggressions as brief indignities that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights (Sue et al., 2007). Sue’s (2010) typology of microaggressions includes three categories: microinsults, microinvalidations, and microassaults. Microinsults are insensitive, negative, or demeaning messages about one’s race or ethnicity. These are often characterized by stereotypes, sexual or physical objectification, and/or the blaming or marginalized racial and ethnic groups, values, or traditions for racial disparities. Microinvalidations are messages that minimize or deny the experiences of racial and ethnic minorities. Often, microinvalidations are characterized by the color-blind ideology, the denial/minimization of racism, and the importance of seeing or discussing race and ethnicity. Microassaults are explicit racial disparages that tend to resemble “old-fashioned” racism because they are more conscious and overt.

Because of their subtle nature, microaggressions can be difficult to identify, and targets and perpetrators of microaggressions may have different perceptions of the same behavior and speech. For example, Mekawi and Todd (2018) found that while BIPOC participants are more likely to perceive microaggressions as being problematic, participants with more negative racial attitudes are more likely to see microaggressions as being socially acceptable. While this research suggests a connection between racial attitudes and racial microaggressions, all microaggressions need not be driven by racial animus. Dominant color-blind norms can allow for the occurrence of microaggressions in the absence of any interpersonal hostility (Bonilla-Silva, 2017).

Effects of Microaggressions

Research on microaggressions and discrimination finds negative effects on both mental health, including depression and anxiety (Keels et al., 2017; Nadal et al., 2014), and physical health, including rates of cardiovascular disease (Calvin et al., 2003). Other work finds that trauma resulting from racial microaggressions can have negative impacts on racial identity development, self-esteem, and relationships with others (Nadal, 2018). Some targets of microaggressions can have trouble determining whether a microaggression really occurred (Sue, 2010), while others hesitate to respond to microaggressions because they are worried how their peers might respond (Yosso et al., 2009).

Part of this dynamic may stem from what DiAngelo (2011) calls White fragility, which refers to the way in which some individuals may get defensive if they feel implicated or believe they are being called racist. Given the difficulties in not only identifying racial microaggressions, but also responding to them, it is no wonder that the research suggests that not responding to microaggressions is the norm (Sue, 2010). A recent literature review provides recommendations on how to respond to microaggressions, including highlighting or disarming the microaggression, educating the perpetrator, or providing support for the target (Sue et al., 2019). In the study reported here, we explore these dynamics in online spaces where users discuss and respond to microaggressions without formal moderation or expert recommendations.

Not all minoritized racial/ethnic groups have the same experiences with racial microaggressions. For example, some research finds that Black youth are the most likely to experience racial microaggressions, and Latinx and Asian youth are more likely to report experiences with microaggressions than are White youth (Forrest-Bank & Jenson, 2015). Different racial/ethnic groups also have different types of experiences with racial microaggressions. For example, research finds that Asian folks are more likely to experience perpetual foreigner microaggressions, which assume that they are foreign-born, regardless of their immigration status; Latinx folks report being treated like second-class citizens and face questions about their immigration status; and Black folks are more likely to experience assumptions of criminality which lead to normal behavior being coded as dangerous or illegal (Sue, 2010).

Given these important differences, we seek to highlight race/ethnicity-specific effects and experiences with microaggressions where appropriate. We also utilize the term Black, Indigenous, and people of Color (BIPOC), however, not to conflate all groups’ experiences with racism, but instead to highlight the way in which microaggressions extend from unequal power dynamics between Whites, the dominant racial group, and marginalized BIPOC in the United States and beyond. This term is imperfect, but was designed to be an improvement upon the term people of Color (POC) (Garcia, 2020), which many felt erased the historical and contemporary prominence and uniqueness of anti-Blackness when discussing racism.

Opposition to Microaggressions

Criticism of the microaggressions framework has come from both scholarly and public sources. In the public arena, several influential thought pieces have challenged the concept of microaggressions, using the term to engage in a broader critique of victimhood culture and the perceived challenges of contemporary racial discourse (Friedersdorf, 2015). Scholars have publicly questioned the legitimacy of the microaggressions framework and findings. For example, Nagai (2017) highlights technical and conceptual problems with the studies of microaggressions, including, biased interview questions, small sample sizes, and opinion conformity in focus groups, and suggests that microaggressions privilege the perceptions of BIPOC over the perceptions of White people. Given these perceived inadequacies, other scholars have called for “a moratorium on microaggression training programs and publicly distributed microaggression lists” (Lilienfeld, 2017, p. 138).

From a critical race theory perspective, centering the perspective of BIPOC is central to understanding the mechanisms of racism (Smith et al., 2007). While this does not mean that White perspectives are unwelcome, it does mean that in most contexts, the perspectives of minoritized racial and ethnic groups are undervalued—which is precisely why so much research on microaggressions finds that BIPOC feel like they cannot talk about microaggressive experiences. Furthermore, while the qualitative work that has built up the field’s understanding of microaggressions should not be undervalued, recent quantitative work validating scales of microaggressions and their effects on Black and Latinx youth extends its external validity (Keels et al., 2017).

The Role of the Social Media in Constructing and Challenging Racism

Research has explored the proliferation of explicitly racist content on social media (Bartlett et al., 2014), hate sites (Daniels, 2009; Glaser et al., 2002; Leets, 2001), and comments on mainstream news sites (Hughey & Daniels, 2013). Guo and Harlow (2014) found that not only were YouTube videos more likely to reinforce racial stereotypes than challenge them, videos including “bad” stereotypes of African Americans, Latinx folks, and Asians were more popular. Tynes and colleagues (2008) found that about 75% of Black high-school students in their sample had been exposed to some form of online racism, an occurrence that is negatively associated with mental health. And recent research suggests that not only is exposure to explicitly racist content in online spaces often the norm (Ortiz, 2020), it can also shape the way in which young BIPOC experience and interpret race and racism not just online, but in the real world (Eschmann, 2020b).

Other research highlights the role of social media in amplifying social movements and transcending traditional power structures. For example, Marzouki (2018) explores the ways in which youth in Morocco have used YouTube to challenge hegemonic discourses. More specific to this study, two of the top three most used hashtags on Twitter in the past decade are #BlackLivesMatter (BLM) and #Ferguson, both of which originate from the Movement for Black Lives (Anderson & Hitlin, 2016), and research has found that Black activists on social media can be bigger hubs for information sharing around racial justice movements than traditional media sources (Groshek & Tandoc, 2017). Moreover, research finds that online discussions around issues of justice and racial justice can be effective: a study of Twitter discussions surrounding NFL (National Football League) player Colin Kaepernick’s protest in support of the Movement for Black Lives found that users who received more messages in response to their anti-Kaepernick tweets were more likely to make concessions and admit willingness to see another point of view (Eschmann et al., 2021).

Ray and colleagues’ (2017) investigation of the BLM hashtag finds that the discussion goes beyond activism and represents the production of a collective identity among Twitter users. Ince and colleagues (2017) also add to this literature in suggesting that the #BLM hashtag represents what they call distributed framing, a more democratic operationalization of Movement goals and concerns than has been discussed in prior studies of social movement framing among Twitter users. In a related study, Brown and colleagues (2017) note the intersectional character of Twitter-based discourse using hashtags from the Movement for Black Lives. Discussions of racial injustices are couched in an understanding of the ways in which race intersects with other marginalized identities—like gender, sexuality, class, or religion—and this characteristic distinguishes BLM from other framings of social justice movements. This finding is consistent with research exploring the ways in which sexism can push women out of digital spaces (Sobieraj, 2018), but may also be a liberating tool (Halbert, 2004).

Altogether, previous research in this area has increased the understanding of the role of social media in shaping contemporary responses to racial justice, yet there is still much untapped potential for using digital data to analyze social phenomena, including user-driven efforts to creation knowledge and support networks (Burrows et al., 2000). The current study builds on this literature and explores Twitter-based discourse as a form of communication that has broad implications beyond online conversations.

Methods

To better understand and model Twitter communication on the topic of microagressions, this study used Crimson Hexagon, a social media analytics platform that originated out of academic research (Hopkins & King, 2010), but that has since been acquired by Brandwatch. A wide variety of possible spellings of microagressions were entered as search keywords, including microaggression(s), micro aggression(s), and micro-aggression(s) to capture related content as was being expressed by users on Twitter. All retweets and links to outside websites were eliminated to minimize noise such as tweets with links, but no unique text or repeating tweets in the dataset.

With the full firehose access (i.e., a full repository of all undeleted tweets from the entire history of Twitter) provided through the Crimson Hexagon platform, this search resulted in 254,964 tweets from 1 January 2010 through 31 December 2018. The qualitative analysis draws from a random sample from 50,395 tweets from 1 August 2017 to 25 May 2018. This date range provides a useful vantage point from which to sample a period of time that can be considered “normal,” in that there were no focusing events (Birkland, 1998) that would have brought microagressions into more specific focus among the general public.

From within this more general corpus, tweets from the 1,038 most influential users as identified by Klout score¹ that were posted during this timeframe were selected for in-depth thematic and conceptual analysis. What this approach allows our analysis to do is to focus on the most prevalent themes and content that were being circulated and gaining traction around the topic of microagressions by users that were acting as gatekeepers in this space (Groshek & Tandoc, 2017). As such, the analyses provided here may be considered generalizable on this topic while still situating the findings to a larger discursive space that spanned 8 full years.

Qualitative Coding Procedures

Tweets in the dataset were analyzed using an abductive grounded theoretical approach (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012) to understand the ways in which the term microaggression is used on Twitter, including the role of social media-based discourse in reproducing or challenging microaggressive norms and actions. With this modified grounded theoretical approach, we engage in theoretically informed analysis, but highlight unexpected findings that can challenge existing theory or produce new theory. In this way, the reading of the data was influenced by the researchers’ understanding of the microaggressions framework and typology, how microaggressions are experienced by marginalized groups, and conceptual and practical critiques of microaggressions from academic and popular sources.

The coding process included multiple coders. The lead researcher first engaged in open coding of one-quarter of the dataset, resulting in over 100 codes. These codes were organized thematically and used to create a preliminary codebook, which other members of the research team used to code one-half of the dataset. The research team met on a regular basis to engage in a reflexive group coding process, noting differences in interpretation that led to different coding of the same tweets. Through this process, themes were redefined, new themes were created, and the codebook was changed to reflect these changes (Epperson et al., 2017). Once the final codebook was created, the research team each used the codebook to recode the entire dataset, and met to come to a consensus at all points of disagreement (Barry et al., 1999).

Roughly two-thirds of the sample (696 tweets) was replies to other tweets. In each of these cases, before coding the tweet the researchers looked at the tweet that was being replied to, to understand the context in which the tweet was being made. In other cases, if the meaning of the tweet was unclear, even if the tweet was not a reply, the researchers looked at the context of the tweet to be more confident of its meaning. The researchers found that 315 tweets (about 30%) could not be properly coded without examining the context surrounding the tweet. Importantly, this examination of the contextual data surrounding the tweets included in the dataset is methodologically novel and can inform future qualitative and quantitative analysis of social media data.

Taken together, our research approach leverages big data techniques to extract highly contextualized and nuanced qualitative analyses. The combination of our mixed-methods approach answers a call (Lazer et al., 2014) but also provides a methodological roadmap for future studies seeking to make similar contributions that are topically agnostic.

Results

Figure 1 and Table 1 illustrate the drastic increase in usage of the term microaggression on Twitter between 2010 and 2018. Between 2011 and 2015, tweets containing microaggression increased between 183% and 203% each year. The number of microaggression tweets leveled off between 2015 and 2018, with less than a 10% change each year. These trends, found in Table 2, demonstrate the growing visibility of the term microaggression on Twitter.

Figure 1.

Monthly mentions of microaggressions on Twitter, 2010–2018.

Table 1.

Annual Mentions of Microaggression(s) on Twitter 2010–2018.

Year	Tweets
2010	877
2011	741
2012	2,094
2013	6,347
2014	17,930
2015	52,116
2016	60,915
2017	55,157
2018	58,787

Table 2.

Annual Percentage Change in Tweets, 2010–2018.

Years	Total tweets (%)	Microaggression(s) tweets (%)
2010–2011	305	−16
2011–2012	97	183
2012–2013	20	203
2013–2014	−20	182
2014–2015	−21	191
2015–2016	−20	17
2016–2017	−16	−9
2017–2018	−4	7

Growth in Twitter Usage Versus Growth in Microaggression Usage

Apart from mentions of microaggressions, overall Twitter usage also increased dramatically between the years 2010 and 2013. To be sure that the increases in mentions of microaggressions are not simply due to proportionate increases in Twitter usage, Table 2 also includes percentage changes in the total number of tweets (excluding retweets and links) on Twitter between 2010 and 2018. While both overall tweets and microaggression(s) tweets increased substantially between 2011 and 2012 (97% and 183%, respectively), from 2012 to 2013 the growth of overall tweets slowed down (20% increase), while the growth of microaggression mentions stayed at a high rate (203%). And while the total amount of tweets decreased to around 20% annually between 2013 and 2015, microaggression tweets increased to almost 200% for each of those years. It appears that the growth in usage of the term microaggresion(s) on Twitter is not simply due to increased usage of the Twitter platform.

Thematic Codes

Our analysis of the most influential tweets in 2018 yielded seven thematic codes, seen in Table 3. Below we present the descriptions of each code, as well as analyses of several examples of tweets in each category. In addition, while this article conceptualizes microaggressions as a mechanism of subtle racism, microaggressions can also be related to other marginalized identities. In the data we find that users discuss microaggressions not just in regard to race, but also gender, sexuality, and ability, as well as the intersections of race with these other aspects of identity (Crenshaw, 1990). We follow the growing body of literature on intersectional analyses of oppression in digital spaces and approach the data with a sensitivity to the ways in which racism, sexism, and heteronormativity may simultaneously intersect in discussions of microaggressions (Brown et al., 2017; Daniels, 2015; Gray, 2020; Hackworth, 2018; Noble & Tynes, 2016).

Table 3.

Thematic Codes.

Primary code	No. of tweets	% of tweets	No. of unique users
Denying Microaggressions	346	33	304
Responding to Microaggressions	199	19	182
Defining Microaggressions	168	16	148
Impact of Microaggressions	97	9	90
Growth	94	9	85
Storytelling/narratives	78	8	70
Inequality	56	5	54
Total	1,038		933

Many tweets in this sample are representative of both callout culture, defined as “as discursive, gendered Black cultural critique” and Black Twitter, which refers to “a digital/virtual space where Blackness frames the politics of the everyday” (Brock, 2020, pp. 32, 88). Our investigation includes both discussions of anti-Black microaggressions, which seem to be prominent in the data, and discussions of microaggressions that target other marginalized groups and statuses.

Defining Microaggressions

A total of 168 tweets are coded as Defining Microaggressions. Within this code, users identify specific actions that they perceive to be microaggressions, and attempt to begin conversations about why these types of actions are problematic. For example, these two tweets highlight microaggressions that are not universally recognized:

(1): to the folks in my mentions claiming Bernie was actually complimentary towards obama: He reduced the man to a “charismatic individual,” an “extraordinary candidate”—not president, but candidate—and a “brilliant guy.” That is microaggressive af. Don’t insult my intelligence.

(2): Additionally, the dismissal of microaggressions and other examples of everyday racism is because some White people see themselves in these stories and behaviors. And they don’t think *they* are racist so this example isn’t either.

In Tweet (1), the user performs a content analysis of Bernie Sanders’ words about Obama, highlighting language that is subtly demeaning to the President and labeling that speech as being microaggressive. For users who would not have read Sanders’ tweets with as critical of a lens, this user is informally teaching their followers how to spot microaggressions in everyday language.

Along similar lines, Tweet (2) explains why this type of work—defining microaggressions—is necessary, given the dominant modes of thinking about race. In this example, the user suggests that opposition against the microaggressions framework may stem from White individuals not wanting to be implicated as engaging in problematic behavior. This tweet builds an understanding of microaggressions as being related to racism and potentially making White people feel uncomfortable. Other tweets define microaggressions in regard to other dimensions of marginalization:

(3): calling a gay person sassy is a microaggression.

(4): It’s that subtle micro aggression misogyny that gets me the most. When they don’t even realize they are putting masculinity on a pedestal.

In Tweet (3), the user engages in a very obvious defining activity by describing a specific word that she/he sees as being microaggressive. Whether the term is used in serious or not serious terms, the user here communicates that for them, the word is itself problematic. In Tweet (4) the user suggests that implicit recognition of masculinity as superior or normal can be a microaggression that impacts the way in which gender is experienced. In defining microaggressive behaviors, these tweets address the invisibility and normalcy of microaggressions in everyday life, thereby helping Twitter users understand how offensive and oppressive language and behaviors are embedded in seemingly innocent interactions.

Responding to Microaggressions

Tweets in this code include both users responding to perceived microaggressions on Twitter, as well as responding to other users’ experiences with microaggressions, sometimes as a form of social support. In the first example, the user describes their experiences with microaggressions:

(5): i’m tired of seeing new bullshit on my timeline every day lmfaoooo i’m so fucking tired, can I just go back to being a dumb bitch instead of being hyperaware of every single microaggression I see and having to digest it but still not have the power to do anything abt it.

In this tweet, the user suggests that she has reached a level of consciousness that makes her hyper-aware of microaggressions, and almost (but perhaps not sincerely) wishes that she were less aware so that she would not be so bothered by them. This sentiment is tied to the belief that she cannot do anything about experiences with microaggressions, which is consistent with the literature: most targets of microaggressions report not responding. Other users, however, have other ideas about responding:

(6): Wasn’t gonna share at first since I know many others have dealt w/ far worse, but I think it’s important for ppl to know what these microaggressions can look like. They represent bigger/more harmful thoughts, & I won’t validate them by letting it slide.

(7): @deviIsdoll @sIobbing i do lmao i will ALWAYS hold people accountable for microaggressions, there’s no excuse for them.

For the author of Tweet (6), simply sharing their experiences with microaggressions is a form of resistance—especially given their suggestion that letting microaggressions “slide” can validate them as being legitimate and acceptable forms of speech and/or behavior. In Tweet (7), another user shares the same sentiment, suggesting that they actively engage in challenging microaggressions. While the literature reports that people overestimate their tendency to respond to microaggressions or discrimination (Kawakami et al., 2009), we have other examples of people actively critiquing microaggressions:

(8): @Magialuna Seriously? There are studies. Yours is one anecdotal experience. By the way, this is microaggressive. If a Black person says something is about race, it’s not down to you to question it. Just say nothing.

This tweet not only defines a perceived problematic behavior as a microaggression, but it also demonstrates behavioral alternatives to racial microaggressions—legitimating and acknowledging the perspective of aggrieved BIPOC. These responses to racial microaggressions represent a unique form of resistance, and is consistent with recent research on how young people use technology to challenge microaggressions in educational settings (Eschmann, 2020a).

Inequality

In all, 56 tweets were coded as Inequality, a code made up of tweets that talk about the connection between microaggressions and larger forms of inequality such as racism, sexism, heteronormativity, or other dimensions of oppression. Some of these tweets refer to in-group microaggressions or racism, while others call out other users’ unconscious microaggressions in relation to structural oppression. This code is distinct from the Responding to Microaggressions code because of its focus not just on the microaggression, but the relationship between microaggressions and direct racism. In articulating this connection, Twitter users make the case for why microaggressions matter: more than just racial slights, they are connected to and reinforce oppressive power structures.

For example, this tweet discusses the broad significance of microaggressions:

(9): School closures are racist, microaggressions (ugh) are racist, forced displacement is racist, stop-and-frisk is racist, housing segregation is racist (and everything). Because of the country’s historical momentum, racism in policy+culture is our *default.

The user discusses microaggressions in the context of other forms of structural racism, from school closings to housing segregation. While microaggressions are “slights,” here the user reinforces their significance by suggesting they are part of a larger web of problematic institutions, policies, and interactions.

For some users, it can be frustrating to perceive that others do not or want to understand, why microaggressions can be so problematic:

(10): Weaponized ignorance is why such a bulk of anti racism discourse is still bogged down on explaining white privilege, microaggressions and appropriation to white people and little is dedicated to discussing dismantling oppressive systemic mechanisms.

(11): I refuse to believe that white people cant understand the concept of microaggressions. I believe they fully understand it and commit them on purpose to drive us crazy, so they then have an excuse to further mistreat us.

In Tweet (10), the user suggests that “ignorance” can be intentionally utilized to keep antiracist work from making significant strides. For this user, conversations about what microaggressions are and why they are important can keep activists or individuals from working to dismantle racist systems—not just the microaggressions that support those systems. In Tweet (11), the user suggests that White people do, in fact, understand microaggressions, and use them to intentionally hurt people of Color. While this idea is not supported by the literature—theories of covert racism suggest that hostility is not required to maintain color-blind racist structures or behaviors like microaggressions (Bonilla-Silva, 2017)—this user does not believe that White people are truly ignorant of the ways in which their microaggressive behaviors or words do harm to persons of Color.

Another user shares the same frustration, but does not believe White people always know when they act as agents of microaggressions:

(12): Microaggressions are real and contribute to a longstanding history of dehumanization along with sexualization and conversion, if someone tells you a microaggression contributes to that history or that behavior, just LISTEN, It doesnt always have to be a fight everytime holy shit.

Rather than assume that microaggressions are intentional, this user asks White people to put a hold on their defensiveness to hear how marginalized groups experience being the targets of microaggressions. Referring to fights here implies that the user has experienced or witnessed White people becoming defensive when they are made aware of microaggressive acts.

Storytelling/Narratives

A total of 168 tweets were coded as Storytelling/narratives, a code made up of tweets that talk about specific experiences that refer to specific anecdotal acts of microaggressions. These tweets are often part of a longer thread that recounts microaggressions that the author had personally experienced or witnessed. Some of these tweets also aim to encourage other users to share their own stories. The intentionality of the anecdotes can vary from encouragement to accusatory tones.

For example, these three tweets describe personal experiences with microaggressions:

(13): One of the most common microaggressions I face as a Black woman is simply voicing your opinion and people automatically reacting as if you’ve just told someone to suck their mudda from the back with a bendy straw.

(14): Microaggression du jour: Nope. I’m actually not an incoming masters student Funny thing about race/racism: it runs on autopilot 1/N.

(15): As much as I am grateful to be in such an international environment, it gets so tiring having to face the descendants of your colonizers and deal with constant micro-aggressions like, “Wow, how did your English get so good?” or be told my food is gross.

In Tweet (13), the author uses a graphic metaphor to illustrate her experience with a recurring microaggressive experience. The user notes that when she shares an opinion, she is often met with a hostile reaction – the kind she might expect if had she insulted someone with a offensive vulgarity, but not in response to a harmless comment. In Tweet (14), the user is a tenured professor at an elite university. He is insulted by the assumptions that he is (1) a student not a professor and (2) a visitor, not a member of the university community. The narrative in the tweet thread that follows uses this story to illustrate the type of racism faced by persons of Color on college campuses. The user continues to elaborate on how these commonplace assumptions undermine the authority he earned on campus as a professor, and adds to his own self-doubt. Further along in the thread, many other professors of Color tell similar stories that demonstrate how frequent this specific microaggression occurs.

In Tweet (15), the author describes a common microaggression that implies that people of Color cannot speak English well or that their ethnic cuisine looks unappetizing. This tweet points out that microaggressions can occur anywhere, even when the user lives and works in a diverse environment. Centering the perspective of marginalized peoples can elucidate the mechanisms of racism, and is one of the goals of critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000). The tweets in code are examples of the ways in which social media can amplify marginalized voices, as users share hurtful experiences that they feel they cannot share in other contexts.

Impact of Microaggressions

The Impact code consists of 97 tweets that discuss the personal, emotional, or societal impact of microaggressions. The focus on how the microaggression experience had an effect on self, society, and racial power dynamics distinguishes this code from the Responding to Microaggressions code. These two tweets demonstrate the distinction of emotional impacts from microaggressions from that of Responding to Microaggression:

(16): @HMSHost That’s how racist micro aggression works. You sit there feeling completely invalidated, rarely exactly sure as to why-or if you should. Wild.

(17): Im such a cancer bc anytime I feel even the smallest micro aggression Im already in tears.

(18): @DrMattyG @alison985 Also, a heads up: while I appreciate that you care enough to ask about this, asking people from marginalized groups to answer this is not always received in the best way and is itself considered by some to be a microaggression because it’s asking for unpaid emotional labor.

In Tweet (16), the author details a standard response to racial microaggressions wherein the target internalizes the statement. Because microaggressions are subtle enough that they are not universally seen as being the fault of the perpetrator, targets of microaggressions may question themselves instead of their perpetrators. In Tweet (17), while the user uses their zodiac sign to explain why they respond to microaggressions so passionately, the broader lesson is that experiencing microaggressions can be traumatic.

Along these lines, Tweet (18) is written in response to a tweet from another user that asks Twitter users for “concrete examples” of microaggressions, saying, “I’ve read a lot of twitter posts about it but not seen many real world examples.” After giving a concrete example of a microaggression, the author of Tweet (18) suggests that answering potentially repetitive or invasive questions about race can be a form of emotional labor. Even if the targets of microaggressions do not end up in tears, such as the author of Tweet (17), unpaid emotional labor can leave them exhausted and less prepared for other social or professional tasks that require their attention and effort.

Another user talks about the effects of microaggressions on the queer community:

(19): Being a part of #rainbowmob means we are more likely to overhear or be subjected to micro-aggressions, our suicide rate is a fking tragedy and we closerourselves in multiple ways depending on our associations.

Here the author makes an implicit question between negative experiences associated with being queer and microaggressions and negative health outcomes (suicide). Furthermore, while the typo “closer” can mean either closing or closeting themselves off, either word choice would suggest that in response to continuous microaggressions, queer folks may decide to limit certain types of social interactions in an effort to avoid traumatic experiences, something that can stymie their networking and social potential.

In our last example, another user discusses a distinct response to microaggressions:

(20): dealing with perpetual chronic pain plus unexpected joint dislocations plus nonstop ableism and microaggressions is a perfect recipe for neverending rage. i am not perfect. i often come off as angry even when i don’t intend to. i try not to, but i don’t always succeed.

Here the author notes the compounding effect of chronic pain and microaggressions as anger that negatively impacts their interactions with others. These tweets demonstrate a variety of potential impacts of microaggressions, including sadness, anger, decreased self-esteem, self-harm, and emotional exhaustion. There is no universal experience or response to microaggressions; together these varied experiences strengthen our understanding of how traumatic experiences with even minor racial slights can be. By describing the negative effects of microaggressions, tweets in this code can serve as evidence of why microaggressions should be taken seriously and challenge the notion that they are harmless.

Growth

The code Growth consists of 94 tweets that offer social support, advice, and community support to users who have experienced or perpetrated microaggressions. Tweets in this code come from users who recognize that microaggressions are problematic, and either want to grow themselves or help others to grow in the ability to recognize, avoid, and combat them. Tweets are often used to demonstrate growth and learning from allies, many of whom self-identify as White. For example:

(21): @Femmefeministe additional support. But proof of allyship/being an accomplice lies within the actions. Taking on racist micro-aggressions & using your. . . . privilege to help during perhaps tense moments may help. Beyond that I cannot help more.

(22): @Girly_Juice Likewise, as a white person, you’ll tend to only witness a fraction (if that) of the racial microaggressions that happen all the time.

In Tweet (21), the user is answering questions polled from her Twitter feed, and responds to a self-identified White user who wanted to know how to be an ally for co-workers of Color. The author of Tweet (21) therefore writes to White people specifically, suggesting that they use their privilege to confront microaggressors. Whereas people of Color often worry about adverse consequences of critiquing microaggressions, the perceived consequences for White people may be less.

Tweet (22) is part of a longer thread around microaggressions, and overlaps some with the Defining Microaggressions code as the user explains part of what characterizes microaggressions: Whites may underestimate how often they occur given the difficulty of recognizing when they are happening. This tweet has been placed in the Growth code, however, because its purpose is helping a White Twitter user understand how and why microaggressions occur. Indeed, the author of Tweet (22) is responding to another user who denied the existence of microaggressions and has a Twitter bio that states “white power, MAGA.”

Other users use the Twitter space to explicitly discuss growth for them or the wider community:

(23): but I’m old so I don’t know how. You can help me out so I can stay away from microaggressions. Anyway, I’ve been told to use paragraphs so people can read what I write. So here’s a second paragraph that you probably won’t read. I love all of you. Thank you.

(24): I also just realized that by poking fun at the term “Cis-male,” I’ve committed a micro-aggression because of my white privilege.

(25): This H&M issue MUST be brought into the classroom and used to discuss race, stereotypes, micro aggressions #HipHopEd #teachablemoment.

In Tweet (23) the user acknowledges their ignorance and potential to offend with microaggressions. Rather than be defensive and suggest that microaggressive behavior is not problematic, however, the user requests help from the Twitter community to build their own awareness. Similarly, the author of Tweet (24) acknowledges (in what appears to be a sincere tone) that they are guilty of committing a microaggression. Growth is implicit in this acknowledgment, as the user points out how they have recognized their own bias. Furthermore, other users may find that they are guilty of similar microaggressive crimes and seek to change their behavior.

The user in Tweet (25) references a widely publicized incidence where the H&M clothing company published an ad of a Black child wearing a sweatshirt that said “coolest monkey in the jungle” on it (Stack, 2018). The focus here is on how the negative incident can be used to teach others so that the same situation would be less likely to happen in other contexts. The collective response to microaggressions demonstrated in this code indicate that users are attempting to engage in social action, are empowering one another to be change agents, and are articulating what change—here the elimination of microaggressions and racism—might look like in various contexts.

Denying Microaggressions

The largest code in the dataset is Denying Microaggressions, a code that consists of tweets that reject the microaggressions concept and minimize the negative impacts they are supposed to engender. Many tweets in this category come from right-wing political commentators (including a number of verified² accounts) and conservative news outlets, while others come from persons of Color who believe complaining about microaggressions are an impediment to racial equality/progress.

In the following tweets, users question the existence of microaggressions:

(26): Please take a good look at the list below:—cultural appropriation—microaggressions—white privilege—nonbinary genders—gender pay gap—rape culture—toxic masculinity—mansplaining—manspreading—patriarchy NONE OF THESE THINGS ACTUALLY EXIST!

(27): Microaggressions were invented to complain about an all new set of issues when people ran out of real problems to deal with.

(28): “There is only one race, the human race” is now listed as a “racist” micro-aggression by the official board at the University of California This statement is in fact the opposite of racist, it views everyone as equal human beings Why is the left so race obsessed?

In Tweet (26), microaggressions are listed alongside other “politically correct” terms the author sees as being problematic. Similarly, Tweet (27) suggests that microaggressions are an invention. The idea that people “ran out of problems to deal with” is consistent with the notion that racism was solved with the Civil Rights Movement, which delegitimizes discussions about contemporary forms of racism, like microaggressions. Tweet (28) is also consistent with a color-blind, post-racial ideology that sees race and racism as archaic concepts, and not social categories that have real impacts on the lives of people of Color.

Other users in this code share their perspectives about how people respond to microaggressions:

(29): If they’re microaggressions then you should only be microoffended.

(30): So the false alarm text messages in Hawaii saying that a missile was coming sends people into a panic. Understandable. God help Californians if they ever get a text message saying they are about to be bombed with micro aggression and hate speech.

Both of these tweets seem to be attempts at humor, with Tweet (29) emphasizing the micro in microaggressions as a way of suggesting that they are not that serious, and Tweet (30) using hyperbole to make a similar point about microaggressions being taken too seriously.

The tweets in this code are examples of microinvalidations, a form of microaggression that Sue (2010) uses to refer to the denial of the racial reality of oppressed peoples. Similarly, Bonilla-Silva (2017) writes that the minimization of racism is one of the four frames of color-blind racism, and is one of the dominant ways in which some Whites justify the persistence of racial inequality. Here, as users belittle the concept of microaggressions, they bolster traditional racial power dynamics by suggesting that claims of microaggressions are universally baseless.

Both the prevalence of this code (one-third of the tweets in this dataset) and its prominence among verified and influential users on Twitter indicate that as the term microaggressions becomes more and more prevalent, there is a significant contingent that is opposed to this framing of interpersonal racial dynamics. This highly visible denial of racial microaggressions, therefore, may provide the rationale for the other two-thirds of tweets in this dataset, which seek to highlight when and where microaggressions take place, define microaggressions, connect them to racism and racial inequality more broadly, and support individuals who have experienced microaggressions.

Discussion

This study explored the usage of the term microaggression in online spaces. The dramatic increase in usage of the term between 2010 (with 877 mentions) to 2018 (with 58,787 mentions), an increase of 6,603%, is indicative of the way in which this language is increasingly being used to describe the types of subtle racialized interactions that characterize the color-blind post-Civil Rights era. There are many potential explanations for this increase in the usage of the term microaggression, including increased attention to racial justice issues on Twitter through movements such as BLM (Anderson & Hitlin, 2016), trends towards more discussion of identity politics in the Trump era (Taylor, 2018), or the usage of an academic term (microaggressions) to describe the types of subtle experiences that many marginalized groups experience, but used other language to describe (or did not discuss in public) before the proliferation of the microaggressions concept online.

Given the silences that characterize experiences with microaggressions in face-to-face interactions (Sue, 2010), just this increased usage of the term represents a dramatic shift and increased visibility of experiences with problematic racial interactions that have been hidden—or only discussed in private by the targets of microaggressions—for so long. This unmasking of racism through social media meets many of the criteria suggested by Sue and colleagues (2019) regarding the best practices for disarming microaggressions.

Yet, this work indicates that there is contention around the microaggressions concept. The single largest code we found, denying microaggressions, made up one-third of the tweets in the dataset and consisted of tweets used to minimize and ridicule microaggressions. These tweets show that as popular understanding of the term grows, detractors may use the online space to defend their actions. This is consistent with the literature, which suggests that microaggressors are defensive when confronted (Sue, 2016). The tweets in this code indicate that many are frustrated with normal behaviors being coded as problematic through the microaggressions lens, and use social media as a way to challenge this encroachment on their free speech.

It is interesting to note that even those who are vehemently opposed to the term microaggressions are aware of it. The mechanisms of racism should not need to be defended, when they remain invisible. That some users feel the need to deny the logics of microaggressions so passionately may demonstrate a discomfort with this mechanism of power reproduction being unmasked through social media discourse. This discomfort may be increased given the role social media and Twitter have played in amplifying the voices of marginalized groups and activist and antiracist efforts, from protests against police violence against Black people, to sharing videos of White people calling the police on innocent Black people without cause (Anderson & Hitlin, 2016; Ransom, 2020). For individuals who are accustomed to (and comfortable with) racial slights being ignored and overlooked in everyday interactions, the increased attention paid to these acts through social media can represent an unwelcome change in the racial power dynamics, as users challenge the previously invisible mechanisms of White supremacy.

The data also demonstrate that Twitter users are engaged in informal knowledge production, educating other users about what microaggressions are and how they are experienced by and impact marginalized communities, including people of Color, women, queer people, and those who have intersecting identities. Sometimes, these messages are directed at those who are actively denying or committing microaggressions, demonstrating that social media is a space in which users are able to engage in discussions across ideological boundaries. Future research may explore the prevalence and productivity of such discussions. In other cases, such as in the Growth code, we see evidence of the ways in which this knowledge production can impact human development as users discuss their learning about microaggressions and the ways it has shifted their thinking and real-world interactions.

Equally important is the role discussing microaggressions on social media plays for people of Color and other marginalized groups. For folks who have been silenced in other settings—unable to respond to or critique microaggressions because of power dynamics—having access to a public space in which their experiences with microaggressions are empathized with can be a powerful form of support. Sharing their stories with people who not only believe that microaggressions occurred, but also help in processing these experiences, externalizes the problem of microaggressions with the perpetrator, taking away any sense of guilt for the targets of microaggressions. In this way, discussion of microaggressions on Twitter are consistent with what the literature has called counterpublics, digital counterpublics, and counterspaces, or alternative communication spheres that engage in discussions that may be marginalized in mainstream spaces, or online communal discussions more explicitly related to the dismantling of racism (Eschmann, 2020a; Groshek & Han, 2011; Hill, 2018; Jackson et al., 2020).

This digital discourse has the potential to normalize knowledge of the subtle mechanisms of structural racism and increase awareness of how covert acts can perpetuate racial inequality. Given that many microaggressions are ignored, and not recognized as patently offensive (Gantt Shafer, 2017), increased awareness and discourse in online spaces may change how these events are experienced and responded to in face-to-face settings. This study demonstrates the potential for online spaces to be primary sites for equity-based knowledge production and the challenging of dominant and hegemonic structures.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rob Eschmann

Notes

Author Biographies

Rob Eschmann (PhD, University of Chicago) is an assistant professor in the Boston University School of Social Work and Faculty Affiliate in the Sociology Department and the African American Studies Program. His research interests include the changing nature of racism and resistance in the digital age, from more explicit presentations of racist ideologies to innovative forms of resistance.

Jacob Groshek (PhD, Indiana University Bloomington) is the Ross Beach Chair in Emerging Media Research at Kansas State University. Topically, his areas of expertise concern online and mobile media technologies as their use may relate to sociopolitical and behavioral health change at the macro (i.e., national) and micro (as in individual) levels.

Rachel Chanderdatt (BA, Boston University) studied Anthropology and Sociology and worked in the Digital Race Lab at BU.

Khea Chang (BA, Boston University) studied Political Science and worked in the Digital Race Lab at BU.

Maysa Whyte (BA, Boston University) studied Business Law and worked in the Digital Race Lab at BU.

References

Anderson

Hitlin

(2016). Social media conversations about race: How social media users see, share and discuss race and the rise of hashtags like #BlackLivesMatter. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/08/15/social-media-conversations-about-race/

Barry

C. A.

Britten

Barber

Bradley

Stevenson

(1999). Using reflexivity to optimize teamwork in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 9(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973299129121677

Bartlett

Reffin

Rumball

Williamson

(2014). Anti-social media. Demos. http://www.demos.co.uk/files/DEMOS_Anti-social_Media.pdf

Birkland

T. A.

(1998). Focusing Events, Mobilization, and Agenda Setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(1), 53–74.

Bonilla-Silva

(2017). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America. Rowman & Littlefield.

Brock

Jr. (2020). Distributed blackness: African American cybercultures (Vol. 9). NYU Press.

Brown

Ray

Summers

Fraistat

(2017). #SayHerName: A case study of intersectional social media activism. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(11), 1831–1846. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1334934

Burrows

Nettleton

Pleace

Loader

Muncer

(2000). Virtual community care? Social policy and the emergence of computer mediated social support. Information, Communication & Society, 3(1), 95–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/136911800359446

Calvin

Winters

Wyatt

S. B.

Williams

D. R.

Henderson

F. C.

Walker

E. R.

(2003). Racism and cardiovascular disease in African Americans. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 325(6), 315–331.

10.

Crenshaw

(1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1300.

11.

Daniels

(2009). Cloaked websites: Propaganda, cyber-racism and epistemology in the digital era. New Media & Society, 11(5), 659–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105345

12.

Daniels

(2015). The trouble with white feminism: Whiteness, digital feminism and the intersectional internet. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2569369

13.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2000). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Temple University Press.

14.

DiAngelo

(2011). White fragility. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3). http://libjournal.uncg.edu/index.php/ijcp/article/view/249%3E

15.

Epperson

M. W.

Thompson

J. G.

Lurigio

A. J.

Kim

(2017). Unpacking the relationship between probationers with serious mental illnesses and probation officers: A mixed-methods examination. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 56(3), 188–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2017.1290005

16.

Eschmann

(2020b). Digital resistance: How online communication facilitates responses to racial microaggressions. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332649220933307

17.

Eschmann

(2020a). Unmasking racism: Students of color and expressions of racism in online spaces. Social Problems, 67, 418–436. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz026

18.

Eschmann

Groshek

Turaif

Thompson

(2021). Bigger than sports: Identity politics, Colin Kaepernick, and concession making in #BoycottNike. Computers in Human Behavior, 114, 106583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106583

19.

Forrest-Bank

Jenson

J. M.

(2015). Differences in experiences of racial and ethnic microaggression among Asian, Latino/Hispanic, Black, and White young adults. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 42(1), 141–162.

20.

Friedersdorf

(2015, September 11). Microaggressions and the rise of victimhood culture. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-rise-of-victimhood-culture/404794/

21.

Gantt Shafer

. (2017). Donald Trump’s “political incorrectness”: Neoliberalism as frontstage racism on social media. Social Media + Society, 3(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117733226

22.

Garcia

S. E.

(2020, June 17). Where did BIPOC come from? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/article/what-is-bipoc.html

23.

Glaser

Dixit

Green

D. P.

(2002). Studying hate crime with the internet: What makes racists advocate racial violence? Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 177–193.

24.

Gray

K. L.

(2020). Intersectional Tech: Black users in digital gaming. LSU Press. https://lsupress.org/books/detail/intersectional-tech/

25.

Groshek

Han

(2011). Negotiated hegemony and reconstructed boundaries in alternative media coverage of globalization. International Journal of Communication, 5(0), 22.

26.

Groshek

Tandoc

(2017). The affordance effect: Gatekeeping and (non)reciprocal journalism on Twitter. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 201–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.020

27.

Guo

Harlow

(2014). User-generated racism: An analysis of stereotypes of African Americans, Latinos, and Asians in YouTube Videos. Howard Journal of Communications, 25(3), 281–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/10646175.2014.925413

28.

Hackworth

(2018). Limitations of “just gender”: The need for an intersectional reframing of online harassment discourse and research. In Vickery

J. R.

Everbach

(Eds.), Mediating misogyny: Gender, technology, and harassment (pp. 51–70). Springer.

29.

Halbert

(2004). Shulamith firestone. Information, Communication & Society, 7(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118042000208933

30.

Hill

M. L.

(2018). “Thank you, black Twitter”: State violence, digital counterpublics, and pedagogies of resistance. Urban Education, 53(2), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917747124

31.

Hopkins

D. J.

King

(2010). A method of automated nonparametric content analysis for social science. American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 229–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00428.x

32.

Hughey

M. W.

Daniels

(2013). Racist comments at online news sites: A methodological dilemma for discourse analysis. Media, Culture & Society, 35(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712472089

33.

Ince

Rojas

Davis

C. A.

(2017). The social media response to Black lives matter: How Twitter users interact with Black Lives Matter through hashtag use. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(11), 1814–1830. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1334931

34.

Jackson

S. J.

Bailey

Welles

B. F.

(2020). #HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. MIT Press.

35.

Kawakami

Dunn

Karmali

Dovidio

J. F.

(2009). Mispredicting affective and behavioral responses to racism. Science, 323(5911), 276–278.

36.

Keels

Durkee

Hope

(2017). The psychological and academic costs of school-based racial and ethnic microaggressions. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1316–1344. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217722120

37.

Lazer

Kennedy

King

Vespignani

(2014). The parable of Google flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science, 343(6176), 1203–1205. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1248506

38.

Leets

(2001). Responses to internet hate sites: Is speech too free in cyberspace? Communication Law & Policy, 6(2), 287–317.

39.

Lilienfeld

S. O.

(2017). Microaggressions: Strong claims, inadequate evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(1), 138–169.

40.

Marzouki

M. E.

(2018). Citizens of the margin: Citizenship and youth participation on the Moroccan social web. Information, Communication & Society, 21(1), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1266373

41.

Mekawi

Todd

N. R.

(2018). Okay to say? Initial validation of the Acceptability of Racial Microaggressions Scale. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 24(3), 346.

42.

Nadal

K. L.

(2018). Microaggressions and traumatic stress: Theory, research, and clinical treatment. American Psychological Association.

43.

Nadal

K. L.

Griffin

K. E.

Wong

Hamit

Rasmus

(2014). The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(1), 57–66.

44.

Nagai

(2017). The pseudo-science of microaggressions. Academic Questions, 30(1), 47–57.

45.

Noble

S. U.

Tynes

B. M.

(2016). The intersectional internet: Race, sex, class, and culture online. Peter Lang International Academic Publishers.

46.

Ortiz

S. M.

(2020). Racists without racism? From colourblind to entitlement racism online. Ethnic and Racial Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2020.1825758

47.

Ransom

(2020, July 8). Amy Cooper faces charges after calling police on black bird-watcher. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/06/nyregion/amy-cooper-false-report-charge.html

48.

Rao

Spasojevic

Dsouza

(2015). Klout score: Measuring influence across multiple social networks. 2015 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), 2282–2289. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2015.7364017

49.

Ray

Brown

Fraistat

Summers

(2017). Ferguson and the death of Michael Brown on Twitter: #BlackLivesMatter, #TCOT, and the evolution of collective identities. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(11), 1797–1813. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1335422

50.

Smith

W. A.

Yosso

T. J.

Solórzano

D. G.

(2007). Racial primes and black misandry on historically white campuses: Toward critical race accountability in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(5), 559–585.

51.

Sobieraj

(2018). Bitch, slut, skank, cunt: Patterned resistance to women’s visibility in digital publics. Information, Communication & Society, 21(11), 1700–1714. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1348535

52.

Solorzano

Ceja

Yosso

(2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69, 60–73.

53.

Stack

(2018, January 8). H&M apologizes for “monkey” image featuring black child. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/business/hm-monkey.html

54.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons.

55.

Sue

D. W.

(2016). Race talk and the conspiracy of silence: Understanding and facilitating difficult dialogues on race. John Wiley & Sons.

56.

Sue

D. W.

Alsaidi

Awad

M. N.

Glaeser

Calle

C. Z.

Mendez

(2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128.

57.

Sue

D. W.

Bucceri

Lin

A. I.

Nadal

K. L.

Torino

G. C.

(2007). Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.72

58.

Sue

D. W.

Lin

A. I.

Torino

G. C.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Rivera

D. P.

(2009). Racial microaggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15(2), 183–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014191

59.

Taylor

K.-Y.

(2018). The white power presidency: Race and class in the Trump era. New Political Science, 40(1), 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2018.1420555

60.

Timmermans

Tavory

(2012). Theory construction in qualitative research from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

61.

Tynes

B. M.

Giang

M. T.

Thompson

G. N.

(2008). Ethnic identity, intergroup contact, and outgroup orientation among diverse groups of adolescents on the Internet. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 459–465.

62.

Yosso

Smith

Ceja

Solórzano

(2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659–691.