HASTAC was founded in 2002 by Cathy N. Davidson (Duke University) and David Theo Goldberg (University of California Humanities Research Institute), who were soon joined by leaders in the world of academe, technology, digital humanities, and the arts and humanities.
LSE Impact Blog (@LSEImpactBlog) tweeted at 5:01 AM – 14 Nov 2016 :
A tale of two scholarly blog platforms: comparing and conceptualizing online research communities.https://t.co/CAJBk22xOC (http://twitter.com/LSEImpactBlog/status/798133743655337984?s=17)
So how are HASTAC and Hypotheses different? As noted above, HASTAC is driven by newness and what you might call a revolutionary, cross-disciplinary aspiration, compared to the disciplinary focus of Hypotheses. New media, new forms of teaching, learning, and collaboration, are discussed more often in HASTAC, while Hypotheses includes more content dedicated to the transferal of traditional humanities and social science research into a new environment. …..While HASTAC posts are spread over groups of humanities and digital humanities disciplines, Hypotheses posts are mostly concentrated on a single group with digital humanities labels subsumed within the large cluster. These differences are likely tied to the organizations running the platforms and how they framed their aims (building a network of scholars interested in new media vs. providing a publishing platform). There also seems to be a greater enthusiasm for prefixing subdomains of humanities research with the word digital in the U.S. than in Europe, perhaps a symptom of this aspiration to newness, or an interdisciplinary vs. intradisciplinary vision of what the digital humanities comprise.