As detailed in our previous blog post, a README is a file type commonly used in software development and distribution to inform users about the files contained in a directory. We have adapted this container for the purposes of the Data Lifeboat to add detail and description beyond what is local to the files on the Flickr.com platform.

 

A README for Anti-Accumulation and Conscious Selection Practices

The inclusion of a README encourages Data Lifeboat creators to slow down and practice conscious description. We are resolute that the Data Lifeboat shouldn’t become another bulk download tool—a means of large-scale data transfer from Flickr.com to other platforms or data banks (which would risk the images potentially becoming detached from their original content or sharing settings). Instead, we have the opportunity with the README to add detail, nuance, and context by writing about the collection as a whole or the images it contains. This is particularly important for digital cultural heritage datasets, as it is frequently an issue that images arrive in archival collections without context or may be digitised and uploaded without adequate metadata (either due to a lack of information or a lack of staff resources).

In the current prototype, the prompts for the README are as follows:

• Tell the future why you are making this Data Lifeboat.
• Is there anything special you’d like future viewers to know about the contents? Anything to be careful about?

These questions are a good start for getting Data Lifeboat creators to think about the intentions and future reception of the contents or collection. We may wish, however, to add further structuring to these questions to craft a sort of creation flow.

You can read more about the current working prototype in Alex’s recent blog-post.

Screenshots from the working prototype:

Learning from pre-existing G.L.A.M. frameworks

During our Mellon workshops, we asked our participants to support the co-design of the README creation flow, with the aim of prompting Data Lifeboat creators to think along the lines of C.A.R.E. and F.A.I.R. principles (detailed in our Part 1 blog post). Many of our workshop participants were already working within G.L.A.M. (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) institutions and had experience grappling with legal frameworks and ethical responsibilities related to their collections.

In preparation for the workshop, we asked representatives to bring copies of their organisations’ (Digital) Deposit Agreements. These are formal, legal documents that outline the terms and conditions under which an object or collection is temporarily placed in the custody of the museum by a depositor. The agreement governs the responsibilities, rights, and obligations of both the depositor and the museum during the period of the deposit. These agreements often include:

• Description of contents
• Purpose of deposit
• Duration of deposit
• Custodial requirements (e.g. care, storage, maintenance)
• Liability
• Rights & Restrictions (e.g. display, reproduction, transference)
• Dispute Resolution

Digital Deposit Agreements, for the bequeathing of digital contents (such as scanned photographs, research datasets, email records, and digital artworks), may include specifications of format, versioning, metadata, digital access, technical infrastructure, and cybersecurity.

The Data Lifeboat README flow could be modelled on some of the categories that frequently arise in Digital Deposit Agreements. However, we also felt there are unique considerations around social media collecting (the intended content of the Data Lifeboat) that we ought to design for. In particular, how might we encourage Data Lifeboat creators to consider the implications of their collection across the four user groups:

1. Flickr Members
2. Data Lifeboat Creators
3. Safe Harbour Dock Operators
4. Photo Subjects

As well as a speculative fifth user, the Future Viewer.

Co-Designing the README Flow

After exploring the current benefits and limitations of existing Digital Deposit Agreements, we invited our workshop participants to engage in a hands-on exercise designed to refine the README feature for the Data Lifeboat. The prompt was:

What prompts or questions for Data Lifeboat creators could we include in the README to help them think about C.A.R.E. or F.A.I.R. principles. Try to map each question to a letter.

To support the exercise, we provided printouts of the C.A.R.E. and F.A.I.R. principles as reference material, encouraging participants to ground their questions in these frameworks. Each participant created a list of potential prompts individually before we reconvened for a group discussion. This collaborative step surfaced shared concerns and recurring themes, which we have organised below, along with some sample questions as they could appear in the README creation flow.

Possible README Questions

We have broken down the README questions into 8 themes, these follow a logical and temporal flow, from present considerations to future horizons.

1. Purpose and Compilation

   Why it matters: clearly defining the purpose and methods for compiling the photos in the Data Lifeboat prompts creators to reflect on their motivations and intentions.

   Sample questions: 

   • What is the purpose of this Data Lifeboat?
   • Why are you creating it?
   • Why is it important that these photos are preserved?
   • What procedures were used to collect the photos in this Data Lifeboat?
   • Who was involved?
   • Is this Data Lifeboat a part of a larger dataset?

2. Copyright and Ownership
   

   Why it matters: clear documentation of authorship and ownership (wherever possible) can protect creators’ rights, or attribution at a minimum.

   Sample questions: 

   • Do you own all the rights to the images in this Data Lifeboat?
   • If you did not take these photographs, has the photographer given permission for them to be included in a Data Lifeboat?
   • Do you know where the photos came from before Flickr?
   • Would you be willing to relinquish your rights under any specific circumstances?

3. Privacy and Consent

   Why it matters: respecting privacy and obtaining consent (where possible) are critical safeguards for the dignity and rights of the represented, particularly important for sensitive content or at-risk communities.

   Sample questions:

   • Is there any potentially personally identifiable data or sensitive information in this Data Lifeboat (either yours or someone else’s) that you wouldn’t want someone to see?
   • Tell us who is in the photos, are they aware they are being included in this Data Lifeboat, could they have reasonably given consent (if not, why)?

4. Context and Description

   Why it matters: providing rich, contextual information (which the free text input allows for) can help supplement existing collections with missing information, as well as helping to avoid misinterpretation or detachment from origins.

   Sample questions:

   • Can you add context or description to an image(s) in this Data Lifeboat?
   • Could you add context to comments, tags or groups within this Data Lifeboat?
   • Do the titles and descriptions accurately reflect the photos in this Data Lifeboat?
   • What do you think is important about this image(s) that you want a future viewer of the Data Lifeboat to understand?

5. Ethics and Cultural Sensitivites

   Why it matters: we have the opportunity to append ethics to historically unjust collections by giving space for Data Lifeboat creators to write how the images should be viewed, understood and should [more on previous interventions here]

   Sample questions:

   • Are you a member of the community this Data Lifeboat is depicting?
   • If not, have you thought about the implications for the community?
   • Are there potential sensitivities in the information stored in this Data Lifeboat that future viewers should be aware of?
   • Are there historical or current harms enacted in this material within the Data Lifeboat (if so, would you like to explain these to a future viewer)?
   • Think about whether this Data Lifeboat contains content that could be used in another way by bad actors, should you include them?

6. Future Access and Use

   Why it matters: outlining conditions or requests for future access and use of the Data Lifeboat collection, whilst this cannot be secured, can at least serve as guardrails.

   Sample questions:

   • Is this Data Lifeboat just for you, or could it be public one day?
   • Who will you be sharing this Data Lifeboat with? Could you nominate a ‘trusted friend’ to also keep a copy of this Data Lifeboat?
   • Would you like to see the Data Lifeboat collection returned to the community (if so, who to)?
   • What should or should not be done with this Data Lifeboat and its contents?

7. Storage and Safe Harbors

   Why it matters: recording (or suggesting) where the Data Lifeboat could end up prompts creators to think about future viewers or stakeholders. There may be the possibility, at point of creation, to designate a Safe Harbor location and its (desired) conditions for storage.

   Sample questions:

   • Where will this Data Lifeboat go once downloaded?
   • Who would you like to notify about the creation of this Data Lifeboat, is there anyone you’d like to send a copy to?
   • Where would you ideally like this Data Lifeboat “docked”?

8. Long-term Vision

   Why it matters: articulating (or attempting to) a long-term vision can help ensure the Data Lifeboat remains meaningful and intact for as long as possible, even after the creator is no longer directly involved.

   Sample questions:

   • Have you included enough information about this Data Lifeboat so you would remember why you made it?
   • Would someone else know why you made it?
   • What/who might represent your interests in this Data Lifeboat after you are no longer around?
   • For whom are you saving these materials in the Data Lifeboat, and what do you want them to understand?

 

Conclusion: README as Cipher?

With these questions in mind, we have a unique opportunity to embed conscious curation, guided by C.A.R.E. and F.A.I.R. principles, into long-term digital preservation of Flickr.com. The README prompts Data Lifeboat creators to thoughtfully consider the ethical dimensions of their future collections.

This deliberate slowness or friction in the process is, we believe, a strength. However, it is equally important that writing a README is an enjoyable and engaging experience. Inventing a pleasant yet inquiring process will be central to the next phase of our work, where service design will play a key role. We will need to decide where to strike the balance between a README flow that is thought-provoking and poetic versus one that is instructive and immediately legible.

While the extent to which the README’s conditions can be made machine-readable remains an open question, there may be ways to encode conditions for use or distribution into the Data Lifeboat itself, or the Safe Harbor Network. It is essential to acknowledge, however, that a README is not a binding promise—it cannot guarantee the fulfilment of all wishes for all time. At the very least, it represents a thoughtful attempt to record the creator’s intentions.

The README serves as a cipher for future reception and reconstruction, a snapshot of the present, and a gift to future explorers.

We are Emily Fitzgerald and Molly Sherman, mothers, artists, and educators based in Portland, Oregon, and San Antonio, Texas. We are excited to embark on our Flickr Foundation Research Fellowship.

For the past decade, we have collaborated on projects exploring themes of intergenerational relationships, housing, family, and care. With backgrounds in social practice, design, and photography, we create public platforms that foster reciprocal exchange and invite active audience engagement. Our work explores the process of collective storytelling, balancing the relational and the aesthetic, and making conceptual and visual decisions collaboratively. Central to our practice is the notion of co-authorship, where the ‘subject’ is also a partner in the creative process. Through this approach, we aim to build structures that promote care, connection, and dialogue.

Over the past many years our personal experiences with miscarriage, abortion, infertility, high-risk pregnancy, disability, single parenting, and IVF have shaped and reframed our work.. These themes are deeply woven into the fabric of our practice and have led us to create the People’s Clinic for Reproductive Empathy. The People’s Clinic for Reproductive Empathy, a project that explores reproductive experiences as a spectrum rather than isolated events, reflecting the varied journeys many individuals face throughout their lives—from infertility to pregnancy, abortion, miscarriage, menopause, and parenthood.

As Research Fellows, we will curate a comprehensive collection of images from Flickr that captures the past 20 years of digital storytelling and uniquely locates the vast spectrum of reproductive experience into a single collection.

We will create a collection that ethically represents the interconnected aspects of the reproductive spectrum and builds understanding around the diverse journeys shared by an overwhelming number of people. Our research will explore how cultural, political, and personal identities impact agency and health across the spectrum of reproductive experiences—such as abortion, miscarriage, infertility, queer conception, motherhood, disability, IVF, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. We will establish parameters to ensure inclusivity across race, class, gender, and age and carefully consider the ethics of representation and image-making in our visual and conceptual decision-making throughout this fellowship, along with the way photography has been used to reflect, mobilize, and build networks and movements throughout history.

Our research will culminate in the form of a photobook. The contents of the photobook will include hundreds of Flickr images and an appendix of selected metadata associated with each image—preserving a highly accessible digital collection and elevating it as an archival object. We will build the digital collection to ensure that the metadata is reflective of our research and accessible to a greater public, while examining the project’s potential relationship with the Flickr Foundation’s Data Lifeboat project.

The photobook will include oral history interviews with past and present leaders in the fight for reproductive rights and care. These texts will frame the themes represented through the images. The publications will provide an innovative approach to image making and a renewed perspective on archives, including methods of collective and counter archiving. Our research and the publication will explore the boundaries and accessibility of photographic archives, highlight silenced and hidden narratives, and visualize the spectrum of reproductive experience shared by women across history, geography, race, and class.

Spencer Baird, the American naturalist and first curator of the Smithsonian Institution, instructed his collectors in ‘the field’ what to collect, how to describe it and how to preserve it until returning back Eastwards, carts laden. His directions included:

Birds and mammalia larger than a rat should be skinned. For insects and bugs — the harder kinds may be put in liquor, but the vessels and bottles should not be very large. Fishes under six inches in length need not have the abdominal incision… Specimens with scales and fins perfect, should be selected and if convenient, stitched or pinned in bits of muslin to preserve the scales. Skulls of quadrupeds may be prepared by boiling in water for a few hours… A little potash or ley will facilitate the operation.

Baird’s 1848 General Directions for Collecting and Preserving Objects of Natural History is an example of a collecting guide, also known at the time as a desiderata (literally ‘desired things’). It is this archival architecture that Hannah Turner (2021) takes critical aim at in Cataloguing Culture: Legacies of Colonialism in Museum Documentation. According to Turner, Baird’s design “enabled collectors in the field and museum workers to slot objects into existing categories of knowledge”.

Whilst the desiderata prompted the diffuse and amateur spread of collecting in the 19th century, no doubt flooding burgeoning institutional collections with artefacts from the so-called ‘field’, the input and classification systems these collecting guides held came with their own risks. Baird’s 1848 desiderata shockingly includes human subjects—Indigenous people—perceived as extensions of the natural world and thus procurable materials in a concerted attempt to both Other and historicise. Later collecting guides would be issued for indigenous tribal artefacts, such as the Haíłzaqv-Haida Great Canoe – now in the American Museum of Natural History’s Northwest Coast Hall – as well as capturing intangible cultural artefacts – as documented in Kara Lewis’ study of the 1890 collection of Passamaquoddy wax recording cylinders used for tribal music and language. But Turner pivots our focus away from what has been collected, and instead towards how these objects were collected, explaining, “practices and technologies, embedded in catalogues, have ethical consequences”.

While many physical artefacts have been returned to Indigenous tribes through activist-turned-institutional measures (such as the repatriation of Iroquois Wampum belts from the National Museum of the American Indian or the Bååstede project returning Sami cultural heritage from Norway’s national museums), the logic of the collecting guides remains. Two centuries later, the nomenclature and classification systems from these collecting guides have been largely transposed into digital collection management systems (CMS), along with digital copies of the objects themselves. Despite noteworthy efforts to to provide greater access and transparency through F.A.I.R. principles or rewrite and reclaim archival knowledge systems—such as Traditional Knowledge (T.K.) Labels and C.A.R.E. principles, Kara Lewis (2024) notes that “because these systems developed out of the classification structures before them, and regardless of how much more open and accessible they become, they continue to live with the colonial legacies ingrained within them”. The slowness of the Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums (G.L.A.M.) sector to adapt, Lewis continues, stems less from “an unwillingness to change, and more with budgets that do not prioritize CMS customizations”. Evidently a challenge lies in the rigidly programmed nature of rationalising cultural description for computational input.

In our own Content Mobility programme, the Data Lifeboat project, we propose that creators write a README. In our working prototype, the input is an open-text field, allowing creators to write as much or as little as they wish about their Data Lifeboat’s purpose, contents, and future intentions. However, considering Turner’s cautionary perspective, we face a modern parallel: today’s desiderata is data, and the field is the social web—deceptively public for users to browse and “Right-Click-Save” at will. We realised that in designing the input architecture for Data Lifeboats, we could inadvertently be creating a 21st century desiderata: a seemingly open and neutral digital collecting tool that beneath the surface risks perpetuating existing inequalities.

This blog-post will introduce the theoretical and ethical underpinnings to the Data Lifeboat’s collecting guide, or README, that we want to design. The decades of remedy and reconciliatory work, tirelessly driven primarily by Indigenous rights activists, in addressing the archival injustices first cemented by early collecting guides provides a robust starting point for embedding ethics into the Data Lifeboat. Indigenous cultural heritage inevitably exists within Flickr’s collections, particularly among our Flickr Commons members who are actively pursuing their own reconciliation initiatives. Yet the value of these interventions extends beyond Indigenous cultural heritage, serving as a foundation for ethical data practices that benefit all data subjects in the age of Big Data.

A Brief History of C.A.R.E Principles

Building on decades of Indigenous activism and scholarship in restitution and reconciliation, the C.A.R.E. principles emerged in 2018 from a robust lineage of interventions, such as Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1990) and The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007), which sought to recognise and restore Indigenous sovereignty over tangible and intangible cultural heritage.

These earlier frameworks were primarily rooted in consultation processes with Indigenous communities, ensuring that their consent and governance shaped the management of artefacts and knowledge systems. For instance, NAGPRA enabled tribes to reclaim human remains and sacred objects through formalised dialogues and consultation sessions with museums. Similarly, Traditional Knowledge Labels (Local Contexts Initiative) were designed to identify Indigenous protocols for accessing and using knowledge within the museum’s existing collection, for instance a tribal object may be reserved for viewing only by female tribal members. These methods worked effectively within the domain of physical collections but faltered when confronted with the scale and opaqueness of data in the digital age.

In this context, Indigenous governance of data emerged as essential, particularly for sensitive datasets such as health records, where documented misuse showed evidence of perpetuating harm. As the Data Science field developed, it often prioritised the technical ideals of F.A.I.R. principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which advocate for improved usability and discoverability of data, to counter increasingly oblique and privatised resources. Though valuable, F.A.I.R. principles fell short on the ethical dimensions of data, particularly on how data is collected and used in ways that affect already at-risk communities (see also O’Neil 2016, Eubanks 2018, and Benjamin 2019). As the Global Indigenous Data Alliance argued:

“Mainstream values related to research and data are often inconsistent with Indigenous cultures and collective rights”

Recognising the challenges posed by Big Data and Machine Learning (ML)—from entrenched bias in data to the opacity of ML algorithms—Indigenous groups such as the Te Mana Raraunga Māori Data Sovereignty Network, the US Indigenous Data Sovereignty Network, and the Maiam nayri Wingara Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Data Sovereignty Collective led efforts to articulate frameworks for ethical data governance. These efforts culminated in a global, inter-tribal workshop in Gaborone, Botswana, in 2018, convened by Stephanie Russo Carroll and Maui Hudson in collaboration with the Research Data Alliance (RDA) International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group. The workshop formalised the C.A.R.E. principles, which were published by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance in September 2019 and proposed as a governance framework with people and purpose at its core.

The C.A.R.E. principles foreground the following four values around data:

1. Collective Benefit: Data must enhance collective well-being and serve the communities to which it pertains.
2. Authority to Control: Communities must retain governance over their data and decide how it is accessed, used, and shared.
3. Responsibility: Data handlers must minimise harm and ensure alignment with community values.
4. Ethics: Ethical considerations rooted in cultural values and collective rights must guide all stages of the data lifecycle.

C.A.R.E. in Data Lifeboats?

While the C.A.R.E. principles were initially developed to address historical data inequities and exploitation faced by Indigenous communities, they offer a framework that can benefit all data practices: as the Global Indigenous Data Alliance argues, “Being CARE-Full is a prerequisite for equitable data and data practices.”

We believe the principles are important for Data Lifeboat, as collecting networked images from Flickr poses the following complexities:

• Data Lifeboat creators will be able to include images from Flickr Commons members (which may include images of culturally sensitive content)
• Data Lifeboat creators may be able to include images from other Flickr members, besides themselves
• Subjects of photographs in a Data Lifeboat may be from historically at-risk groups
• Data Lifeboats are designed to last and therefore may be separated from their original owners, intents and contexts.

The Global Inidgenous Data Alliance asserts, their principles must guide every stage of data governance “from collection to curation, from access to application, with implications and responsibilities for a broad range of entities from funders to data users.” The creation of a Data Lifeboat is an opportunity to create a new collection, thus we have the opportunity to embed C.A.R.E. principles from the start. Although we cannot control how Data Lifeboats will be used or handled after their creation, we can attempt to establish an architecture for encouraging that C.A.R.E. is deployed throughout the data lifecycle.

Enter: The README

Our ambition for the Data Lifeboat (and the ethos behind many of Flickr.org programmes) is the principle of “conscious collecting”. We aim to move away from the mindset of perpetual accumulation that plagues both museums and Big Tech alike—a mindset that advances a dangerous future, as cautioned by both anti-colonialist and environmentalist critiques. Conscious collecting allows us to better consider and care for what we already have.

One of the possible ways we can embed conscious collecting is through the inclusion of a README—a reflective, narrative-driven process for creating a Data Lifeboat.

READMEs are files traditionally used in software development and distribution that contain information about files within the directory. It is often in the form of plain text (.txt, .md), to maximise readability, frequently containing information about operating instructions, troubleshooting, credits, licensing and changelogs, intended to be read on start-up. In the Data Lifeboat, we have adopted this container to supplement the files. Data Lifeboat creators are introduced to the README in the creation process and, in the present prototype, are met with the following prompts to assist writing:

• Tell the future why you are making this Data Lifeboat.
• Is there anything special you’d like future viewers to know about the contents? Anything to be careful about?

(These prompts are not fixed, as you’ll read in Part 2)

During our workshops, participants noted the positive (and rarely seen) experience of introducing friction to data preservation. This friction slows down the act of collecting and creates space to engage with the social and ethical dimensions of the content. As Christen & Andersen (2019) emphasise in their call for Slow Archives, “Slowing down creates a necessary space for emphasising how knowledge is produced, circulated, and exchanged through a series of relationships”. We hope that Data Lifeboat’s README will contribute to Christen & Andersen’s invocation for the “development of new methodologies that move toward archival justice that is reparative, reflective, accountable, and restorative”.

We propose three primary functions of the README in a Data Lifeboat:

1. Telling the Story of an Archive

   Boast, Bravo, and Srinivasan (2018), reflecting on Inuit artefacts in an institutional museum collection, write that its transplant results in the deprivation of “richly situated life of objects in their communities and places of origin.” Once subsumed into a collection, artefacts often suffer the “loss of narrative and thick descriptions when transporting them to distant collections”.

   We are conscious that this could be the fate of many images once transplanted in a Data Lifeboat. Questions emerged in our workshops as to how to maintain the contextual world around the object, speaking of not only its social metadata (comments, tags, groups, albums) but also the more personal levers of choice, value and connection. A README resists the diminishment of narrative by creating opportunities to retain and reflect on the relational life of the materials.

   The README directly resists the archival instinct toward neutrality, by its very format it holds that this can never be true. Boden critiques the paucity of current content management systems, their highly structured input formats cannot meet our responsibilities to communities as they do not give space to fully citing how information came to be known and associated with an object and on whose authority. Boden argues for “reflections on the knowledge production process”, which is what we intend the README to encourage the Data Lifeboat creator to do. The README prompts (could) suggest Data Lifeboat creator reflect on issues around ownership (e.g. is this your photo?), consent (e.g. were all photo subjects able to consent to inclusion in a Data Lifeboat?), and embedded power relations (e.g. are there any persecuted minorities in this Data Lifeboat?): acknowledging the archive is never objective.

   More poetically, the README could prompt greater storytelling, serving as a canvas for both critical and emotional reflection on the content of a Data Lifeboat. Through guided prompts, creators could explore their personal connections to the images, share the stories behind their selection process, and document the emotional resonance of their collection. A README allows creators to capture and contextualise not only the images themselves, but to add layers of personal inscription and meaning, creating a richer, more distributed archive.

2. Decentralised and Distributed Annotation

   The Data Lifeboat constitutes a new collecting format that intends to operate outside traditional archival systems’ rigid limitations and universalising classification schemes. The README encourages decentralised curation and annotation by enabling communities to directly contribute to selecting and contextualising archival and contemporary images, fostering what Huvila (2008) terms the ‘participatory archive’ [more on Data Lifeboat as a tool for decentralised curation here].

   User-generated descriptions such as comments, tags, groups, and galleries — known on Flickr as ‘social metadata’ —serve as “ontological keys that unlock the doors to diverse, rich, and incommensurable knowledge communities” (Boast et al., 2018), embracing multiple ways of knowing the world. Together, these create ‘folksonomies’—socially-generated digital classification systems that David Sturz argues are particularly well-suited to “loosely-defined, developing fields,” such as photo subjects and themes often overlooked by the institutional canon. The Data Lifeboat captures the rich, social media that is native to Flickr, preserving decades worth of user contributions.

   The success of community annotation projects has been well-documented. The Library of Congress’s own Flickr Pilot Project demonstrated how community input enhanced detail, correction, and enrichment. As Michelle Springer et al. (2018) note, “many of our old photos came to us with very little description and that additional description would be appreciated”. Within nine months of joining Flickr, committing to a hands-off approach, the Library of Congress accumulated 67,000 community-added tags. “The wealth of interaction and engagement that has taken place within the comments section has resulted in immediate benefits both for the Library and users of the collections,” continues Springer et al. After staff verification, these corrections and additions to captions and titles demonstrated how decentralised annotation could reshape the central archive itself. As Laura Farley (2014) observes, community annotation “challenges archivists to see their collections not as closely guarded property of the repository, but instead as records belonging to a society of users”.

   Beyond capturing existing metadata, the README enables Data Lifeboat creators to add free-form context, such as correcting erroneous tags or clarifying specific terminology that future viewers might misinterpret—like the Portals to Hell group. As Duff and Harris (2002) write, “the power to describe is the power to make and remake records and to determine how they will be used and remade in the future. Each story we tell about our records, each description we compile, changes the meaning of records and recreates them” — the README hands over the narrative power to describe.

3. Data Restitution and Justice

   Thinking speculatively, the README could serve an even more transformative purpose as a tool for digital restitution. Through the Data Lifeboat framework, communities could reclaim contested archival materials and reintegrate them into their own digital ecosystems. This approach aligns with “Steal It Back” (Rivera-Carlisle, 2023) initiatives such as Looty, which creates digital twins of contested artefacts, currently held in Western museums. By leveraging digital technologies, these initiatives counter the slow response of GLAM institutions to restitution calls. As Pavis and Wallace (2023) note, digital restitution offers the chance to “reverse existing power hierarchies and restore power with the peoples, communities, and countries of origin”. In essence, this offers a form of “platform exit” that carves an alternative avenue of control of content to original creators or communities, regardless of who initially uploaded the materials. In an age of encroaching data extractivism, the power to disengage, though severe, for at-risk communities can be the “reassertion of autonomy and agency in the face of pervasive connectivity” (Kaun and Treré, 2021).

   It is a well-documented challenge in digital archives that many of the original uploaders were not the original creators, which prompts ought to prompt reflections around copyright and privacy. As Payal Arora (2019) has noted our dominant frameworks largely ignore empirical realities of the Global South: “We need to open our purview to alternative meanings including paying heed to the desire for selective visibility, how privacy is often not a choice, and how the cost of privacy is deeply subjective”. Within the README, Data Lifeboat creators can establish terms for their collections, specifying viewing contexts, usage conditions, and other critical contextual information. They can also specify restrictions on where and how their images may be hosted or reused in the future (e.g. ‘I refuse to let these image be used in AI training data sets’). A README could allow for Data Lifeboat creators to expand and detail more fluid and cultural and context-specific conditions for privacy and re-use.

   At best, these terms would allow Data Lifeboat creators to articulate their preferences for how their materials are accessed, interpreted and reused in the future, functioning as an ethical safeguard. While these terms may not always be enforceable, they provide a clear record of the creators’ intentions. Looking ahead, we could envision the possibility of making these terms machine-readable and executable. The sustenance of these terms could potentially be incorporated into the governance framework of the Safe Harbor Network, our proposed decentralised storage system of cultural institutions that can hold Data Lifeboats for the long-term.

Discussion: README as a Datasheet for Networked Social Photography Data Sets?

In the long history of cataloging and annotating data, Timnit Gebru et al.’s (2018) Datasheets for Datasets stands out as an emerging best practice for the machine learning age. These datasheets provide “a structured approach to the description of datasets,” documenting provenance, purpose, and ethical considerations. By encouraging creators to critically reflect on the collection, composition, and application of datasets, datasheets foster transparency and accountability in an otherwise vast, opaque, and voraciously consuming sphere.

The Digital Cultural Heritage space has made similar calls for datasheets in archival contexts, as they too handle large volumes of often uncontextualised and culturally sensitive data. As Alkemade et al. (2023) note, cultural heritage data is unique: “They are extremely diverse by nature, biased by definition and hardly ever created or collected with computation in mind”. They argue, “In contrast to industrial or research datasets that are assembled to create knowledge… cultural heritage datasets may present knowledge as it was fabricated in earlier times, or community-based knowledge from lost local contexts”. Given this uniqueness, digital cultural heritage requires a tailored datasheet format that enables rich, detailed contextualization reflecting both the passage of time and potentially lost or inaccessible meanings. Just as datasheets have transformed technical datasets, the README has the potential to reshape how we collect, interpret, and preserve the networked social photography that is native to the Flickr.com platform — something we argue is part of our collective digital heritage.

There are, of course, limitations—neither datasheets nor READMEs will be a panacea for C.A.R.E-full data practices. Gebru et al. acknowledge that “Dataset creators cannot anticipate every possible use of a database”. The descriptive approach also presents possible trade-offs: “identifying unwanted societal biases often requires additional labels indicating demographic information about individuals,” which may conflict with privacy or data protection. Gebru notes that the Datasheet “will necessarily impose overhead on dataset creator”—we recognise this friction as a positive. Echoing Christen and Anderson’s call “Slowing down is about focusing differently, listening carefully, and acting ethically“.

Conclusion

Our hope is that the README is both a reflective and instructive tool that prompts Data Lifeboat Creators to consider the needs and wishes of each of the four main user groups in the Data Lifeboat ecosystem:

1. Flickr Members
2. Data Lifeboats Creators
3. Safe Harbor Dock Operators
4. Subjects in the Photo

While we do not yet know precisely what form the README will take, we hope our iterative design process can offer flexibility to accommodate the needs of—and our responsibilities to—Data Lifeboat creators, photographic subjects and communities, and future viewers.

In our Mellon-funded Data Lifeboat workshops in October and November, we asked our participants to support us in co-designing a digital collecting tool with care in mind. We asked:

What prompts or questions for Data Lifeboat creators could we include in the README to help them think about C.A.R.E. or F.A.I.R. principles. Try to map each question to a letter.

The results of this exercise and what this means for Data Lifeboat development will be detailed in Part 2.

 

The photographs in this blog post come from the Smithsonian Institution’s Thomas Smillie Collection (Record Unit 95) – Thomas Smillie served as the first official photographer for the Smithsonian Institution from 1870 until his death in 1917. As head of the photography lab as well as its curator, he was responsible for photographing all of the exhibits, objects, and expeditions, leaving an informal record of early Smithsonian collections.

Bibliography

Alkemade, Henk, et al. “Datasheets for Digital Cultural Heritage Datasets.” Journal of Open Humanities Data, vol. 9, 2023, doi:10.5334/johd.124.

Arora, Payal. “Decolonizing Privacy Studies.” Television & New Media, vol. 20, no. 4, 26 Oct. 2018, pp. 366–378, doi:10.1177/1527476418806092.

Baird, Spencer. “General Directions for Collecting and Preserving Objects of Natural History”, c. 1848, Dickinson College Archives & Special Collections

Benjamin, Ruha. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Polity, 2019.

Boast, Robin, et al. “Return to Babel: Emergent Diversity, Digital Resources, and Local Knowledge.” The Information Society, vol. 23, no. 5, 27 Sept. 2007, pp. 395–403, doi:10.1080/01972240701575635.

Boden, Gertrud. “Whose Information? What Knowledge? Collaborative Work and a Plea for Referenced Collection Databases.” Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, vol. 18, no. 4, 12 Oct. 2022, pp. 479–505, doi:10.1177/15501906221130534.

Carroll, Stephanie Russo, et al. “The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance.” Data Science Journal, vol. 19, 2020, doi:10.5334/dsj-2020-043.

Christen, Kimberly, and Jane Anderson. “Toward Slow Archives.” Archival Science, vol. 19, no. 2, 1 June 2019, pp. 87–116, doi:10.1007/s10502-019-09307-x.

“Digital Media Activism A Situated, Historical, and Ecological Approach Beyond the Technological Sublime.” Digital Roots, by Emiliano Treré and Anne Kaun, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2021.

Duff, Wendy M., and Verne Harris. “Stories and Names: Archival Description as Narrating Records and Constructing Meanings.” Archival Science, vol. 2, no. 3–4, Sept. 2002, pp. 263–285, doi:10.1007/bf02435625.

Eubanks, Virginia. Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor. Picador, 2018.

Gebru, Timnit, et al. “Datasheets for Datasets.” Communications of the ACM, vol. 64, no. 12, 19 Nov. 2021, pp. 86–92, doi:10.1145/3458723.

Griffiths, Kalinda E et al. “Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Data Governance in Health Research: A Systematic Review.” International journal of environmental research and public health vol. 18,19 10318. 30 Sep. 2021, doi:10.3390/ijerph181910318

Lewis, Kara. “Toward Centering Indigenous Knowledge in Museum Collections Management Systems.” Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, vol. 20, no. 1, Mar. 2024, pp. 27–50, doi:10.1177/15501906241234046.

O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Penguin, 2017.

Rivera-Carlisle, Joanna. “Contextualising the Contested: XR as Experimental Museology.” Herança, vol. 6, no. 1, 2023, doi.org/10.52152/heranca.v6i1.676

Pavis, Mathilde, and Andrea Wallace. “Recommendations on Digital Restitution and Intellectual Property Restitution.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2023, doi:10.2139/ssrn.4323678.

Schaefer, Sibyl. “Energy, Digital Preservation, and the Climate: Proactively Planning for an Uncertain Future.” iPRES 2024 Papers – International Conference on Digital Preservation. 2024.

Shilton, Katie, and Ramesh Srinivasan. “Participatory Appraisal and Arrangement for Multicultural Archival Collections.” Archivaria, vol. 63, Spring 2007.

Springer, Michelle et al. “For the Common Good: The Library of Congress Flickr Pilot Project”. Library of Congress Collections, 2008.

Sturz, David N. “Communal Categorization: The Folksonomy”, INFO622: Content Representation, 2004.

Turner, Hannah. Cataloguing Culture: Legacies of Colonialism in Museum Documentation. University of British Columbia Press, 2022.

On Saturday, December 7th 2024, Notre Dame Cathedral reopened its iron-clad tracery doors, marking the end of a four-year closure. The news coverage focused on the splendour — and occasional controversy — of its distinguished guests, contentious seating plans and retro light shows. The reopening inevitably brought back memories of the 2019 tragedy that befell the cathedral, destroyed by fire. Somehow the event underscored our collective helplessness under the Covid-19 lockdowns as viewers could only watch in horror as the same images spread around news and social media. On reflection the ubiquity and uniformity of the images is surprising, so often captured from the southeast end of the chancel: the flechè engulfed in flames like a tapered candle, and behind it through the iridescent smoke, a pair of lancet windows seemed to peer back at the viewer, embodying a vision of Notre Dame des Larmes—Our Lady in tears.

There is an alternative history of the Notre Dame fire, captured not through mainstream media but in the dispersed archives of networked social photography—an often overlooked and underreported lens on the event. Among the pictures gathered by the Flickr Foundation is a remarkable collection of street photographs that offer a fresh perspective (also shared in this post). These images place the fire in context: smoke billows against the backdrop of the Eiffel Tower as seen from Trocadéro; a woman in a fur coat strolls nonchalantly past the boarded-up bouquinistes; a couple steal a glance from their moped; a man abandons his bicycle, supplicating on the banks of the Seine. User-generated social photography expands the event from its mass-reproduced, singular, fixed perspective, into a multi-dimensional, multi-vocal narrative, that unfolds longitudinally over time.

This is the incantation of social photography at its best, so often dismissed for its sheer volume, producing images that are “unoriginal, obvious, boring.” Yet, as art historian Geoffrey Batchen counters, “There are no such things as banal photographs, only banal accounts of photography.” The true value lies not just in the images themselves, but in how we look at them. It is through this act of curation, contextualisation and interpretation that these photographs gain their depth.

 

A People’s History through the Lens

Embedded within the story of photography itself is a people’s history. From its inception, photography has centred the social subject, capturing the overlooked and hidden realities that traditional media refused to. In mid-19th century Paris, early photographers, Eugène Atget and Félix Nadar chronicled the changing urban landscapes, preserving scenes of working-class neighbourhoods, subject to Haussman’s destruction, proletarian characters and everyday life. The camera’s portability, speed and (perceived) candidness made it suitable to the task of documenting the unseen.

The social subject in photography has long been intended to elicit sentiment and action. Social photographs compel viewers to respond emotionally and, ideally, to take action. Jacob Riis’s How the Other Half Lives (1888), aimed at middle-class audiences, used images of New York’s Lower East Side slums to generate empathy and drive charity. As Walter Benjamin later described it, the medium of photography has a “revolutionary use-value” in its ability to render visible hidden social structures. Contemporary documentary collections, such Kris Graves’s A Bleak Reality, have harnessed this historic compulsion to catalyse social change.

There is rightly so, caution against social photography’s treatment of its subjects. As Maren Stange argues, in her analysis of American documentary photographers including Riis (along with Hine and the famed Farm Security Administration collection), social photography has historically rested on assumptions about its subjects, instrumentalising them or reducing them to symbolic devices. Moreover, it often fails to acknowledge that the photographer inherently constructs the photograph’s reality. As David Peeler notes, each photograph holds “layers of accreted meanings” shaped by the photographer’s choice in composition, processing, and presentation. In the age of citizen-driven photography, with the distributed ability to manipulate images, these limitations become even more pronounced, requiring an explicit recognition of the constructed nature of the medium.

The construction of this fragment of reality in photography, however, is not inherently negative. When acknowledged, it can be a source of power, offering what Donna Haraway describes as situated knowledge—a rejection of objectivity in favor of partial, contextual perspectives. Citizen-driven collections, though subjective and, by their very nature incomplete, serve as an antidote to what Haraway calls the “conquering gaze from nowhere.” They counter dominant, institutional narratives with fragmented, personal views.

 

The Photograph Over Time

The value of a photograph often increases over time, as its meaning and significance evolve in relation to historical, cultural, and social contexts. Photographs gain depth through longitudinal perspectives, becoming more compelling at a distance as they reveal shifts, absences, and forgotten details. As Silke Helmerdig, in Fragments, Futures, Absence and the Past, discusses in her treatment of German photography of the 2010s, we ought to see photography as speaking to us in the future subjunctive, it asks us, “what could be, if?”

With time and attention, photographs can be viewed in aggregate, the future historian can pull from concurrent sources. Our contemporary photographic collecting tools, as in the case of Flickr’s Galleries and Albums, which allow curation of others people’s photographs, can come to resemble a sort of photomontage. Rosalind Krauss, writing on the photomontages of Hannah Höch and other Dadaists in The Optical Unconscious, argues that the medium forces a dialogue between images, creating unexpected connections and breaking the linearity of traditional visual narratives thus opening space for political critique. The Notre Dame gallery disrupts the throughline of the ‘official’ imagery of the event, creating a space for discourse of other elements besides the central action (e.g. gender, capitalism, urbanism).

Securing the People’s Archive

Having discussed the value of the citizen-made collection, this compels us to ask what if our institutional archives began collecting contemporaneously more? We believe Data Lifeboat can help with this. The Notre Dame Gallery is just one example of a potential collection for a Data Lifeboat: our tool for long-term preservation of networked social photography and citizen-made collections from Flickr.com.

Data Lifeboats could be deployed as a curatorial tool for networked social photography, providing institutions with a way to collect, catalogue and reflect on citizen-driven narratives. At present, there is not an archival standard for images on social media and archivists still struggle with the vastness and maintenance of those they’ve managed to collect [see our blog-post from iPres]. Data Lifeboat thus operates as a sort of packaging tool, flexible and light enough to adapt to collections of differing scales and purviews, but still maintaining the social context that makes networked images so valuable.

There are two potential approaches:

1. Hands-on: Data Lifeboats could be commissioned by an institution around a certain topic. For example, the Museum of London could commission a group of Whitechapel teenagers to collect photos from Flickr.com of their neighbourhood spaces that are meaningful to them.
2. Hands-off: Citizens create Data Lifeboats independently of a topic of their choosing. Institutions may choose to hold these bounded social media archives as a public good, for the benefit of our collective digital heritage.

In both cases, the institutions become holders of Data Lifeboats and they are subsumed into their digital collections management systems. Data Lifeboats become part of a process of Participatory Appraisal, extending and diversifying the ‘official archive’, addressing the persistent gap of who gets to be represented. As we have also discussed, there are also possibilities for distributing the load of Data Lifeboats, more on this in the Safe Harbor Network.

Other possible Data Lifeboats

During our Mellon-funded workshops, we asked participants to suggest Data Lifeboats they would like to see in their institutional collections, but also any they would create themselves for personal use.

At-risk Subjects

Collections focus on documenting vulnerable or ephemeral content that might disappear without active intervention. This includes both environmental changes and socio-political documentation that could be censored or lost.

e.g. glaciers over time, rapid response after a disaster, disappearing rural life across Europe, politically at-risk accounts

Subjects often overlooked

Collections that aim to preserve marginalised voices and underrepresented perspectives, helping to fill gaps in traditional institutional archives and ensure a more representative historical record.

e.g. a queer community coffee shop, Black astronauts, local street art, life in Communist Poland

Nostalgia for Web 1.0

As so much of Web 1.0 disappears (e.g. Geocities, MySpace music, see also ‘Digital Dark Age‘), there is a desire to archive and begin critically reflecting on the early days of the web.

e.g. self-portraits from the early 2000s, vernacular photography from the 2010s, Flickr HQ, most viewed Flickr photos

Quirky Collections

Flickr is renowned as a home for serendipitous discovery on the web, sometimes lauded as ‘digital shoebox of photographs’, there is the opportunity to replicate this ‘quirkiness’ with Data Lifeboats.

e.g. ghost signs, every Po’Boy in town, electricity pylons of the world

Personal collections

e.g. family archives, 365 challenges, a group of friends

Data Lifeboats could serve as secure containers for digital family heirlooms. Built into Flickr.com are privacy controls (Friends, Family) that would carry over to Data Lifeboats, preserving privacy for the long-term

 

Conclusion

The Notre Dame gallery exemplifies an ideal subject for a Data Lifeboat, both in its content and curatorial approach. The Data Lifeboat framework serves as an apt vessel, with its built-in capabilities:

• Data Lifeboats can capture alternative viewpoints, situated knowledges and stories from below through tapping into the vast Flickr archive. We recognise that we can never capture, nor preserve, the archive in its entirety, so Data Lifeboats tap into the logic of the archival sliver.
• Data Lifeboats can preserve citizen-driven communication through their unique storage of social metadata. This means that the conversations around the images are preserved with the images themselves, creating a holistic entity.
• Data Lifeboats are purposely designed with posterity in mind. Technologically, their light-touch design means they are built to last. Furthermore, the README (link) nudges the Data Lifeboat creator toward conscious curation and commentary, providing value to future historians.

Can you think of any other Data Lifeboats? We’d love to hear about them.

As you may know, we had laid out doing two workshops:

1. Washington DC, at The Library of Congress, in October, and
2. London, at the Garden Museum and Autograph Gallery, in November.

We were pleased to welcome a total of 32 people across the events, from libraries, archives, academic institutions, the freelance world, other like-minded nonprofits, Flickr.com, and Flickr.org.

Now we are doing the work of sifting through the bazillion post-its and absorbing the great conversations had as we worked through Tori’s fantastic program for the event. We were all very well-fed and organized too, thanks to Ewa’s superb project management. Thank you both.

Workshop aims

The aims of each workshop were the same:

• Articulate the value of archiving social media, and Data Lifeboat
• Detail where Data Lifeboat fits in current ecology of tools and practices
• Detail where Data Lifeboat fits with curatorial approaches and content delivery
• Plot (and recognise) the type and amount of work it would take to establish Data Lifeboat or similar in organisations

Workshop outline

We met these aims by lining up the workshops into different sessions:

1. Foundations of Long-Term Digital Preservation – Backward/forward horizons; understanding digital infrastructures; work happening in long-term digital preservation
2. Data Lifeboat: What we’re thinking so far – Reporting on our NEH work to prototype software and policy, including a live demo; positioning a Data Lifeboat in emergency/not-emergency scenarios; curation needs or desires to use Data Lifeboats as selection/acquisition tool
3. Consent and Care in Social Media Archiving – Ethics of care in digital archives; social context and care vs extractive data practices; mapping ethical rights, risks, responsibilities including copyright and data protection, and consent, and
4. Characteristics of a Robust & Responsible Safe Harbor Network (our planned extension of the Data Lifeboat concept – think LOCKSS-ish) – The long history of safe harbor networks; logistics of such a network; Trust.

I’m not going to report on these now, but whet your appetite for our further reporting back.

Background readings

Tori also prepared some grounding readings for the event, which we thought others may like to review:

• The Archival Sliver: A Perspective on the Construction of Social Memory in Archives and the Transition from Apartheid to Democracy by Verne Harris
• Energy, Digital Preservation, and the Climate: Proactively Planning for an Uncertain Future by Sibyl Schaefer
• The Image As Witness: Collecting Visual Materials from the National Tragedy by Jeremy Adamson
• Digital Preservation: A Critical Vocabulary, Chapter 5: Risk by Rebecca Frank
• “I Can’t Wait for You to Die” A Community Archives Critique by Harrison Apple

Needless to say, we all enjoyed it very much, and heard the same from our attendees. Several follow-on chats have been arranged, and the community continues to wiggle towards each other.

Last week we passed a big milestone set out in the Strategy 2021-2023 – Flickr Commons Revitalization I wrote in 2021. As the strategy says, when the Commons launched in 2008, the program had two main objectives:

1. To increase public access to archival photography collections, and
2. To provide a way for the general public to contribute information and knowledge.

Our current work to reinvigorate the program introduces two new ones: 

1. To propagate updates from and to member catalogs and other sources, and
2. To protect and attend to the long life of this unique collection.

Even though it’s now 2024, we are still on the track we set out back in 2021. After doing research with Commons members to inform the strategy, we heard five main requests:

1. Add new Discovery layer and encourage contribution – We launched commons.flickr.org earlier in the year, and have continued to develop it with recent activity, an overview of conversations about the pictures, and a simple map. Alex made a changelog too, so you can see how it evolves.
2. Co-design granular, comparative, exportable stats – The company launched an enhancement to the core stats feature on Flickr.com November last year, which got most of the way to helping Flickr Commons members report to their people on how people are interacting with their accounts. Being able to justify your time to work on Flickr.com and community engagement inside museums, libraries, and archives is supported by this directly.
3. Improve description tools for regular researchers – We haven’t started on this in earnest yet, and hope to in 2025. (Would you like to be in our user group for this? Please get in touch.)
4. Incorporate CC0 and Public Domain Mark (PDM) – This is not done yet, but we have been advocating for the upgrade of CC 2.0 to CC 4.0 which is now a work in progress. We have also created a Collections Development Policy and other supporting content to help guide new members on what ‘no known copyright restrictions’ means and how to use it.
5. Streamline onboarding to easily manage members and participation – We are excited to be working with the company on developing new Commons-specific APIs to allow our team to build out new administration tools for the program. This will continue in 2025, and make everything much easier!

New members!

For the first time in several years, we’ve welcomed three new Commons members to the fold:

• Community Archives of Belleville & Hastings County
• Letterform Archive
• Port Morien Digital Archive

And we have a tranche of new members in the wings, ready to go, including our first member from India!

Seventeen years!

Flickr Commons was launched in 2008, so will be turning 17 in January. It was lovely for some of our team to visit with Michelle, Helena, Phil, and others in The Library of Congress Commons team last week. We were there for a Data Lifeboat workshop, and it was great to dream about what the next sixteen years could be like together! (We’ll be writing the workshops up separately.)

So, keep an eye out for more new members coming aboard, and if you work inside a cultural organization with a photography collection, get in touch to see if joining Flickr Commons could help your organization grow a new audience. (Short answer: it can!)

What is an archive?

At its simplest, an archive is a repository of historical records like photographs, documents, sound recordings, books and artworks. Speciality archives may focus on a particular medium, such as the Moving Image Archive or a place, like the London Metropolitan Archives. Archives house physical or digital records or a combination of both. Many archives are found within larger institutions such as universities, libraries, museums, government offices, and established public or private organizations. Usually, these archives have their materials grouped into collections managed by professionals called archivists. 

There are all kinds of informal archives as well. Lots of smaller community and cultural organizations keep records of their activities but may not have a dedicated archivist to keep them organized. We, individuals, also record our lives through photography, sometimes printing them or keeping them in digital photo albums, or online on various social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, or Flickr.

What is Photovoice?

Originally conceived and put into practice by health researchers Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris in the early 1990s, Photovoice involves working alongside participants to take photographs and subsequently discuss them in order to be able to collectively illuminate and reflect upon contemporary issues within a community. At the end of the project, a selection of the photos taken and discussed is exhibited for the community to share the insights that were collectively produced. Often, researchers engaging in Photovoice seek to recalibrate the power imbalance between researcher and subject by lending the tools for research (i.e. the camera) to the active participants, thus elevating them to the position of collaborator, co-researcher, or co-producer.

Archivevoice is an extension of Photovoice, alongside others like Videovoice and Comicvoice. By using the principles of participatory action research developed in Photovoice, other researchers have modified their methods engaging in different artistic mediums for participants’ self-expression. Videovoice has the goal of getting “people, who are usually the subjects or consumers of mainstream media [to] get behind video cameras to research issues of concern, communicate their knowledge, and advocate for change.” Comicvoice, coined by John Baird, engages research groups in creating their own narratives from outsourced comics.

Why Archives?

There is so much rich, historical information available within archives. One of the limits of the Photovoice method is what is available to be photographed. Through Archivevoice, the research participants are able to navigate through much broader windows of time and space to reflect and discuss how historical events shape the contemporary moment. This kind of embodied practice of looking back and critically engaging with one’s community and culture through such a deep, reflective practice has been referred to by scholars as “ancestor work”. 

Archivevoice

Archivevoice is a Participatory Action Research (PAR) method that adapts the core principles of Photovoice using photographs or other archival documentation to undergo community-centered research.

“Through exhibitions and outreach events community members can be brought to the archive and made aware of what records are present in the archives. They can see themselves, their families, and their histories represented in the materials and engage with those who are responsible for preserving and describing that history. Through workshops and naming events, the archives can be brought to community members for the purpose of facilitating discussion, memory making, and healing together.”

– Kristen Young

What is the purpose of Archivevoice?

• To use photographs and other archival documentation to reflect on collective experiences affecting communities
• To gain insight about a particular community’s histories, activities, and concerns
• To engage communities with their own archival records
• To empower communities to lend their voice to heritage projects and document their own histories
• To have community participants be co-producers of research
• To activate the archive through creative presentation of the selected records (e.g. exhibition, zine, phonebook, etc.)

How could I run an Archivevoice session?

Archivevoice borrows the same five-phase approach outlined in Vanese Apaza and Phoebe DeSantis’s 2016 Facilitator’s Toolkit for a Photovoice Project, with the authors’ permission. The five phases adapted to Archivevoice are as follows:

Phase 1: Introduction to Archivevoice

Introducing the method, the project and its research questions. Introduce participants to the archive or collection that will be explored, and the possible project outputs.


Phase 2: Selection of archival photos or other documentation



In Archivevoice, this phase replaces the photo-taking step in Photovoice. This is when the participants will receive archive research training tailored to the particular archive they are working with. They search the archive and select the photographs or other materials they wish to discuss. The project manager or lead researcher may want to preselect the items available for study (e.g. limiting the search within specific collections or setting specific inclusion criteria such as using materials with ‘no known copyright restrictions’).


Phase 3: Discussion around selected media

Just as in Apaza & DeSantis’ process, the “SHOWeD” method can be used to prompt the research participants to discuss the selected media.

SHOWeD is an acronym used in community-based health care research inspired by the pedagogical teachings of Paulo Freire. 

S – What things did you see?

H – What was happening?

O – Does this happen in our community?
W – Why does this happen?

D – What can we do about it?



While SHOWeD has a long history of being used in conjunction with Photovoice, other reflection and discussion methods such as focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and narrative writing are also possible or can be used in conjunction with SHOWeD depending on what is deemed appropriate or relevant by the lead researcher.

Phase 4: Media processing for archive activation

Here the selected archival media must be prepared for display. This could involve ensuring that the researcher has the appropriate rights or permissions to reproduce the identified media, that copyright is granted (or no known copyright restrictions are applied), and digitizing, formatting, and printing.

Phase 5: Community exhibition or other public output

Photovoice projects often culminate in a public exhibition for the community who were the subjects of the photos taken during the project. Similarly, once proper permissions are secured for the selected archival media, an exhibition of these items can be produced either physically – in the archive itself or gallery or community centre or online. Other options for public presentations of these selected media could be a book or zine, online exhibition, documentary, podcast, and more. 

Archivevoice serves as an adaptation of Photovoice to facilitate engagement with archival intervention and activation. According to Freire, “education must begin with the solution of the teacher-student contradiction, by reconciling the poles of the contradiction so that both are simultaneously teachers and students.” In this sense, a critical pedagogy requires both parties, “teachers” and “students” to understand that they each have something to learn from the other and that knowledge can be freely transferred from one to another. Participants who become de facto co-researchers in these projects in which they are given relative autonomy to express themselves through the selected media (e.g. photo, video, comic, archive, etc.) are empowered to have their feedback and knowledge heard and understood and they make planning and curatorial decisions. By elevating their status to co-researchers and collaborators, 

Archivevoice and the other -voice projects dissolve knowledge hierarchies asserting that lived experience and community knowledge merit their place in research and public pedagogy projects.  

For my final blog post—coming soon—I will report on my own investigation of the Archivevoice method, through a workshop I ran recently in Montreal with researchers from the Access in the Making Lab located at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. Members from the lab are currently engaged in a project researching the disabling conditions that climate change and systems of extraction are having on various populations and ecosystems around the world. Together, we went through the steps of the Archivevoice method using Flickr as its source archive, looking for and discussing images that related to the researchers’ individual projects. The vast quantity of photos available in the Flickr archive prompted many interesting topics of discussion that will be explored in part three of this series.

Bibliography

Apaza, Vanesa, Phoebe Desantis, Aurea DeLeon, Jaclyn Keelin, Alexandra Ovits, Sherrine Schuldt, and Michael Spillane. “Facilitator’s Toolkit for a Photovoice Project.” United for Prevention in Passaic County and the William Paterson University Department of Public Health, 2016. https://www.up-in-pc.org/clientuploads/Whatwedo/Flyers/UPinPC_Photovoice_Facilitator_Toolkit_Final.pdf.

BAIRD, John Loige. “Comicvoice: Community Education through Sequential Art.” In POP CULTURE ASSOCIATION ANNUAL MEETING, Vol. 13, 2010.

Catalani, Caricia E. C. V., Anthony Veneziale, Larry Campbell, Shawna Herbst, Brittany Butler, Benjamin Springgate, and Meredith Minkler. “Videovoice: Community Assessment in Post-Katrina New Orleans.” Health Promotion Practice 13, no. 1 (January 1, 2012): 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839910369070.

Freire, Paulo, Donaldo P. Macedo, Ira Shor, and Myra Bergman Ramos. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 50th anniversary edition. 1 online resource (viii, 220 pages) vols. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2018. https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?ark:/81055/vdc_100055048362.0x000001.

Shaffer, Roy. “Beyond the Dispensary.” English Press: Nairobi, Kenya, 1986. https://www.amoshealth.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/62/2019/10/Beyond-the-Dispensary.pdf.

Young, Kristen. “Black Community Archives in Practice.” In Black Community Archives in Practice, 211–21. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780228019152-011.

 

Deep Reading in the Last Days of Summer

 

I joined the Foundation team in early August, with the long-term goal of better understanding future users of the Data Lifeboat project and Safe Harbor network. Thanks to the Digital Humanities Advancement Grant we were awarded by the National Endowment for the Humanities, my first task was to get up to speed with the Data Lifeboat project, a concept that has been in the works since 2022, as part of Flickr.org’s Content Mobility Program, and recently developed a working prototype. I have the structured independence to design my own research plan and, as every researcher knows, being able to immerse oneself in the topic prior, is a huge advantage. It allows us to frame the problem at hand, to be resolute with objectives and ground the research in what is known and current.

 

Stakeholder interviews

To understand what would be needed from the research plan, I first wanted to understand how we got to where we are with Data Lifeboat project.

I spoke with Flickr.org’s tight-knit internal team to gather perspectives that emphasised varying approaches to the question of long-term digital preservation: ranging from the technological, to the speculative, to the communal. It was curious to see how different team members viewed the project, each speaking from their own specialty, with their wider ambitions and community in mind.

Branching out, I enlisted external stakeholders for half-hour chats, those who’ve had a hand in the Data Lifeboat project since it was in napkin-scribble format. The tool owes its present form to a cadre of digital preservation experts and enthusiasts, who do not work on the project full-time, but have generously given their hours to partake in workshops, coffees, Whereby calls, and a blissfully meandering Slack thread. Knowing these folks would be, themselves, a huge repository of knowledge, I wanted a way to capture this. Besides introductions to the Safe Harbor Network co-design workshops (as supported by the recent Mellon Foundation grant) and my new role, I centred our conversation around three key questions:

1. What has your experience of the last six months of the Data Lifeboat project been like? How do you think we are doing? Any favourite moments, any concerns?
2. What are the existing practices around digital acquisition, storage and maintenance in your organisation(s)? How would the Data Lifeboat and Safe Harbor Network differ from the existing practices?
3. Where are the blind-spots that still exist for developing the Data Lifeboat project and Safe Harbor Network? What might we want to find out from the co-design workshops in October and November?

Here it was notable to learn what had stuck with them in the repose since the last Data Lifeboat project meet-up. For some the emphasis was on how the Data Lifeboat tool could connect institutions, for others it was how the technology can decentralise power and ownership of data. All were keen to see what shape the project would take next.

One point, however, remained amorphous to all stakeholders that we ought to carry forward into research: what is the problem that Data Lifeboat project is solving? Specifically in a non-emergency scenario (as the emergency need is intuitive). How can we best articulate that problem to our imagined users?

As our prototype user group is likely to be institutional users of Flickr (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums), it will be important to meet them where they are, which brought me onto my next August task: the mini-literature review.

 

Mini Literature Review

Next, I wanted to get up to date on the contemporary discourses around digital preservation. Whilst stakeholders have brought their understanding of these topics to shaping the Data Lifeboat project, it felt as if the project was missing its own bibliography or set of citations. I wanted to ask, what are the existing conversations that Data Lifeboat project is speaking to?

It goes without saying that this is a huge topic and, despite my humble background in digital heritage research (almost always theoretical), cramming this all into one month would be impossible. Thus, I adopted the ethos of the archival ‘sliver’ that so informs the ethos of the Data Lifeboat project, to take a snapshot of current literature. After reviewing the writing to date on the project (shout-out to Jenn’s reporting here and here), I landed on three guiding topics for the literature review:

 

The Status of Digital Preservation

• What are the predominant tools and technologies of digital preservation?
• What are recent reflections and learnings from web archiving experiments?
• What are current institutional and corporate strategies to digital social collecting and long-term data storage?

Examples include:

• Preserving Digital Materials by Ross Harvey and Jaye Weatherburn
• The Archived Web: Doing History in the Digital Age by Niels Brügger
• Ten years of the UK web archive: what have we saved? by Andy Jackson

Care & Ethics of Archives

• What are the key ethical considerations among archivists today?
• How are care practices being embedded into archives and archival practice?
• What reflections and responses exist to previous ethical interventions?

Examples include:

• The Archive as a Productive Space of Conflict by Cedric Price
• Documenting the Now: Ethical Considerations for Archiving Social Media Content Generated by Contemporary Social Movements by Bergis Jules et al.
• An Introduction to Radical Empathy in Archival Practice by Elvia Arroyo-Ramírez, Jasmine Jones, Shannon O’Neill, and Holly Smith

Collaboration and Organisation in Archival Practice

• What are the infrastructures (hard and soft) of archival practice?
• What are the predominant organisational structures, considerations and difficulties in digital archives
• How does collaboration appear in archives? Who are the (visible and invisible) stakeholders?

Examples include:

• “Everything on the internet can be saved”: Archive Team, Tumblr and the cultural significance of web archiving’ by Jessica Ogden
• The invention of the archived web: tracing the influence of library frameworks on web archiving infrastructure by Kieran Hegarty
• Maintenance and Care by Shannon Mattern

 

A selection of academic articles, blog posts and industry guidelines were selected as source materials (as well as crowdsourcing from the Flickr.org team’s favourites). In reading these texts, I had top of mind the questions: ‘What does this mean for the Data Lifeboat project and the Safe Harbor Network’, in more granular terms this means, ‘What can we learn from these investigations?’ ‘Where are we positioned in the wider ecosystem of digital preservation?’ and finally, ‘What should we be thinking about that we aren’t yet?’

Naturally with more time, or with an academic audience in mind, a more rigorous methodology to discourse capture would be appropriate. For our purposes, however, this snapshot approach suffices – ultimately the data this research is grounded in comes not from textual problematising, but instead will emerge from our workshops with future users.

Having this resource is of huge benefit to meeting our session participants where they stand. Whilst there will inevitably be discourses, approaches and critiques I have missed, I will at least be able to speak the same language as our participants and get into the weeds of our problems in a complex, rather than baseline, manner. Furthermore, my ambition is for this bibliography to become an ongoing and open-source asset, expanding as the project develops.

These three headers (1. The Status of Digital Preservation, 2. Care & Ethics of Archives, 3. Collaboration and Organisation in Archival Practice) currently constitute placeholders for our workshop topics. It is likely, however, that these titles could evolve, splinter or coalesce as we come closer to a more refined and targeted series of questions for investigating with our participants.

 

Question Repository [in the works]

Concurrently to these ongoing workstreams, I am building a repository, or long-list, of questions for our upcoming workshops. The aim is to first go broad, listing all possible questions, in an attempt to capture as many inquisitive voices as possible. These will then be refined down, grouped under thematic headings which will in turn structure the sub-points or provocations for our sessions. This iterative process reflects a ground-up methodology, derived from interviews, reading, and the collective knowledge of the Flickr.org community, to finally land on working session titles for our October and November Safe Harbor Network co-design workshops.

Looking ahead, there is an opportunity to test several of these provocations around Data Lifeboat at our Birds-of-a-Feather session, taking place at this year’s International Conference on Digital Preservation (iPres) in Ghent later this month. Here we might foresee which questions generate lively and engaged discussion; which features of the Data Lifeboat tool and project prompt anticipation or concern; and finally, which pathways we ought to explore further.

 

Other things I’ve been thinking about this month

Carl Öhman’s concept of the Neo-Natufians in The Afterlife of Data: What Happens to Your Information When you Die and Why You Should Care

Öhman proposes that the digital age has ushered in a major shift in how we interact with our deceased. Referencing the Natufians, the first non-nomadic peoples to keep the dead among their tribe (who would adorn skulls with seashells and place them in the walls) instead of leaving them behind to the elements, he posits our current position is equally as seismic. The dead now live alongside us in the digital realm. A profound shift from the family shoebox of photographs, the dead are accessible from virtually anywhere at any time, their (visible and invisible) data trail co-existing with ours. An inescapable provocation for the Data Lifeboat project to consider.

“The imago mask, printed not in wax but in ones and zeros”

The Shikinen Sengu Ritual at Ise Jingu, Japan

The Shikinen Sengu is a ritual held at the Ise Grand Shrine in Japan every 20 years, where the shrine is completely rebuilt and the sacred objects are transferred to the new structure. This practice has been ongoing for over a millennium and makes me think on the mobility of cultural heritage (analogue or digital) and that stasis, despite its intuitive appeal, can cause objects to perish. I am reminded of the oft-exalted quote from di Lampedusa’s Sicilian epic:

“If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.” – The Leopard, by Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

Furthermore Shikinen Sengu highlights the importance of ritual in sustaining objects, despite the wear-and-tear that handling over millennia may cause. What might our rituals around digital cultural data be, what practices could we generate (even if the original impetus gets lost)?

 

Background Ephemera

Currently Playing: Laura Misch Sample the Earth and Sample the Sky

Currently Reading: The Hearing Trumpet by Leonora Carrington

Currently Drinking: Clipper Green Tea

This week we added maps to our Commons Explorer, and it’s proving to be a fun new way to find photos.

There are over 50,000 photos in the Flickr Commons collection which have location information telling us where the photo was taken. We can plot those locations on a map of the world, so you can get a sense of the geographical spread:

This map is interactive, so you can zoom in and move around to focus on a specific place. As you do, we’ll show you a selection of photos from the area you’ve selected.

You can also filter the map, so you see photos from just a single Commons member. For smaller members the map points can tell a story in themselves, and give you a sense of where a collection is and what it’s about:

These maps are available now, and know about the location of every geotagged photo in Flickr Commons.

Give them a try!

How can you add a location to a Flickr Commons photo?

For the first version of this map, we use the geotag added by the photo’s owner.

If you’re a Flickr Commons member, you can add locations to your photos and they’ll automatically show up on this map. The Flickr Help Center has instructions for how to do that.

It’s possible for other Flickr members to add machine tags to photos, and there are already thousands of crowdsourced tags that have location-related information. We don’t show those on the map right now, but we’re thinking about how we might do that in future!

How does the map work?

There are three technologies that make these maps possible.

The first is SQLite, the database engine we use to power the Commons Explorer. We have a table which contains every photo in the Flickr Commons, and it includes any latitude and longitude information. SQLite is wicked fast and our collection is small potatoes, so it can get the data to draw these maps very quickly.

I’d love to tell you about some deeply nerdy piece of work to hyper-optimize our queries, but it wasn’t necessary. I wrote the naïve query, added a couple of column indexes, and that first attempt was plenty fast. Tallying the locations for the entire Flickr Commons collection takes ~45ms; tallying the locations for an individual member is often under a millisecond.)

The second is Leaflet.js, a JavaScript library for interactive maps. This is a popular and feature-rich library that made it easy for us to add a map to the site. Combined with a marker clustering plugin, we had a lot of options for configuring the map to behave exactly as we wanted, and to connect it to Flickr Commons data.

The third is OpenStreetMap. This is a world map maintained by a community of volunteers, and we use their map tiles as the backdrop for our map.

Plus ça Change

To help us track changes to the Commons Explorer, we’ve added another page: the changelog.

This is part of our broader goal of archiving the organization. Even in the six months since we launched the Explorer, it’s easy to forget what happened when, and new features quickly feel normal. The changelog is a place for us to remember what’s changed and what the site used to look like, as we continue to make changes and improvements.

I had the wonderful opportunity to visit London and Flickr Foundation HQ during the month of May 2024. The first month of my fellowship was a busy one, getting settled in, meeting the team, and making contacts around the UK to share and develop my idea for a new qualitative research method that was inspired by my perusing of just a minuscule fraction of the billions of photos uploaded and visible on Flickr.com.

Unlike the brilliant and techno-inspired minds of my Flickr Foundation cohort: George, Alex, Ewa, and Eryk, my head is often drifting in the clouds (the ones in the actual sky) or deep in books, articles, and archives. Since rediscovering Flickr and contemplating its many potential uses, I have activated my past work as a researcher, artist, and cultural worker, to reflect upon the ways Flickr could be used to engage communities in various visual and digital ethnographies.

Stemming from anthropology and the social sciences more broadly, ethnography is a branch of qualitative research involving the study of cultures, communities, or organizations. A visual ethnography thereby employs visual methods, such as photography, film, drawing, or painting.. Similarly, digital ethnography refers to the ethnographic study of cultures and communities as they interact with digital and internet technologies.

In this first post, I will trace a nonlinear timeline of different community-based and academic research projects I have conducted in recent years. Important threads from each of these projects came together to form the basis of the new ethnographic method I have developed over the course of this fellowship, which I call Archivevoice. 

Visual representations of community

The research I conducted for my masters thesis was an example of a digital, visual ethnography. For a year, I observed Instagram accounts sharing curated South Asian visual media, analyzing the types of content they shared, the different media used, the platform affordances that were engaged with, the comments and discussions the posts incited, and how the posts reflected contemporary news, culture, and politics. I also interviewed five people whose content I had studied. Through this research I observed a strong presence of uniquely diasporic concerns and aesthetics. Many posts critiqued the idea of different nationhoods and national affiliations with the countries founded after the partition of India in 1947 – a violent division of the country resulting in mass displacement and human casualty whose effects are still felt today. Because of this violent displacement and with multiple generations of people descended from the Indian subcontinent living outside of their ancestral territory, among many within the community, I observed a rejection of nationalist identities specific to say India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. Instead, people were using the term “South Asian” as a general catchall for communities living in the region as well as in the diaspora. Drawing from queer cultural theorist José Esteban Muñoz, I labelled this digital, cultural phenomenon I observed “digital disidentification.”[1] 

My explorations of community-based visual media predate this research. In 2022, I worked with the Montreal grassroots artist collective and studio, Cyber Love Hotel, to develop a digital archive and exhibition space for 3D-scanned artworks and cultural objects called Things+Time. In 2023, we hosted a several-week-long residency program with 10 local, racialized, and queer artists. The residents were trained on archival description and tagging principles, and then selected what to archive. The objects curated and scanned in the context of this residency were in response to the overarching theme loss during the Covid-19 pandemic, in which rampant closures of queer spaces, restaurants, nightlife, music venues, and other community gathering spaces were proliferating across the city.

During complete pandemic lockdown, while working as the manager for cultural mediation at the contemporary gallery Centre CLARK, I conducted a similar project which involved having participants take photographs which responded to a specific prompt. In partnership with the community organization Head & Hands, I mailed disposable cameras to participants from a Black youth group whose activities were based at Head & Hands. Together with artist and CLARK member, Eve Tangy, we created educational videos on the principles of photography and disposable camera use and tasked the participants to go around their neighbourhoods taking photos of moments that, in their eyes, sparked Black Joy—the theme of the project. Following a feedback session with Eve and myself, the two preferred photos from each participants’ photo reels were printed and mounted as part of a community exhibition entitled Nous sommes ici (“We’re Here”) at the entry of Centre CLARK’s gallery. 


These public community projects were not formal or academic, but, I came to understand each of these projects as examples of what is called research-creation (or practice-based research or arts-based research). Through creative methods like curating objects for digital archiving and photography, I, as the facilitator/researcher, was interested in how the media comprising each exhibition would inform myself and the greater public about the experiences of marginalized artists and Black youth at such pivotal moments in these communities.

Photovoice: Empowering research participants

The fact that both these projects involved working with a community and giving them creative control over how they wanted their research presented reminded me of the popular qualitative research method used often within the fields of public health, sociology, and anthropology called Photovoice. The method was originally coined as Photo Novella in 1992 and then later renamed Photovoice in 1996 by researchers Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris. The flagship study that established this method for decades involved scholars providing cameras and photography training to low-income women living in rural villages of Yunnan, China.

The goals of this Photovoice research were to better understand, through the perspectives of these women, the challenges they faced within their communities and societies, and to communicate these concerns to policymakers who might be more amenable to photographic representations rather than text. Citing Paulo Freire, Wang and Burris note the potential photographs have to raise consciousness and promote collective action due to their political nature. [5]

According to Wang and Burris, “these images and tales have the potential to reach generations of children to come.” [6] The images created a medium through which these women were able to share their experiences and also relate to each other. Even with 50 villages represented in the research, shared experience and strong reactions to certain photographs came up for participants – including this picture of a young child lying in a field while her mother farmed nearby. 

According to the authors, “the image was virtually universal to their own experience. When families must race to finish seasonal cultivating, when their work load is heavy, and when no elders in the family can look after young ones, mothers are forced to bring their babies to the field. Dust and rain weaken the health of their infants… The photograph was a lightening [sic] rod for the women’s discussion of their burdens and needs.” [8]

Since its conception in the 1990s as a means for participatory needs assessment, many scholars and researchers have expanded Photovoice methodology. Given the exponential increase of camera access via smartphones, Photovoice is an increasingly feasible method for this kind of research. Recurring themes in Photovoice work include community health, mental health studies, ethnic and race-based studies, research with queer communities, as well as specific neighbourhood and urban studies. During the pandemic lockdowns, there were also Photovoice studies conducted entirely online, thus giving rise to the method of virtual Photovoice. [9]

Critical Fabulation: Filling the gaps in visual history

Following my masters thesis research, I became more interested in how communities sought to represent themselves through photography and digital media. Not only that, but also how communities would form and engage with content circulated on social media – despite these people not being the originators of this content. 

In my research, people reacted most strongly to family photographs depicting migration from South Asia to the Global North. Although reasons for emigration varied across the respondents, many people faced similar challenges with the immigration process and resettlement in a new territory. They shared their experiences through commenting online. 

People in communities which are underrepresented in traditional archives are often forced to work with limited documentation. They must do the critical and imaginative work of extrapolating what they find. While photographs can convey biographical, political, or historical meaning, exploring archived images with imagination can foster creative interpretation to fill gaps in the archival record. Scholar of African-American studies, Saidiya Hartman, introduced the term “critical fabulation” to denote this practice of reimagining the sequences of events and actors behind the narratives contained within the archive. In her words, this reconfiguration of story elements, attempts “to jeopardize the status of the event, to displace the received or authorized account, and to imagine what might have happened or might have been said or might have been done.” [10] In reference to depictions of narratives from the Atlantic slave trade in which enslaved people are often referred to as commodities, Hartman writes “the intent of this practice is not to give voice to the slave, but rather to imagine what cannot be verified, a realm of experience which is situated between two zones of death—social and corporeal death—and to reckon with the precarious lives which are visible only in the moment of their disappearance. It is an impossible writing which attempts to say that which resists being said (since dead girls are unable to speak). It is a history of an unrecoverable past; it is a narrative of what might have been or could have been; it is a history written with and against the archive.” [11]

I am investigating what it means to imagine the unverifiable and reckoning what only becomes visible at its disappearance. In 2020, I wrote about Facebook pages serving as archives of queer life in my home town, Montreal. [12] For this study, I once again conducted a digital ethnography, this time of the event pages surrounding a QTPOC (queer/trans person of colour)-led event series known as Gender B(l)ender. Drawing from Sam McBean, I argued that simply having access to these event pages on Facebook creates a space of possibility in which one can imagine themselves as part of these events, as part of these communities – even when physical, in-person participation is not possible. Although critical fabulation was not a method used in this study, it seemed like a precursor to this concept of collectively rethinking, reformulating, and resurrecting untold, unknown, or forgetting histories of the archives. This finally leads us to the project of my fellowship here at the Flickr Foundation.

In addition to this fellowship, I am coordinator of the Access in the Making Lab, a university research lab working broadly on issues of critical disability studies, accessibility, anti-colonialism, and environmental humanities. In my work, I am increasingly preoccupied with the question of methods: 1) how do we do archival research—especially ethical archival research—with historically marginalized communities; and, 2) how can research “subjects” be empowered to become seen as co-producers of research. 

I trace this convoluted genealogy of my own fragmented research and community projects to explain the method I am developing and have proposed to university researchers as a part of my fellowship. Following my work on Facebook and Instagram, I similarly position Flickr as a participatory archive, made by millions of people in millions of communities. [13] Eryk Salvaggio, fellow 2024 Flickr Foundation research fellow, also positions Flickr as an archive such that it “holds digital copies of historical artifacts for individual reflection and context.” [14] From this theoretical groundwork of seeing these online social image/media repositories as archives, I seek to position archival items – i.e. the photos uploaded to Flickr.com – as a medium for creative interpretation by which researchers could better understand the lived realities of different communities, just like the Photovoice researchers. I am calling this set of work and use cases “Archivevoice”.

In part two of this series, I will explore the methodology itself in more detail including a guide for researchers interested in engaging with this method.

Footnotes

[1] Prakash Krishnan, “Digital Disidentifications: A Case Study of South Asian Instagram Community Archives,” in The Politics and Poetics of Indian Digital Diasporas: From Desi to Brown (Routledge, 2024), https://www.routledge.com/The-Politics-and-Poetics-of-Indian-Digital-Diasporas-From-Desi-to-Brown/Jiwani-Tremblay-Bhatia/p/book/9781032593531.

[2] Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris, “Empowerment through Photo Novella: Portraits of Participation,” Health Education Quarterly 21, no. 2 (1994): 171–86.

[3] Kunyi Wu, Visual Voices, 100 Photographs of Village China by the Women of Yunnan Province, 1995.

[4] Wu.

[5] Caroline Wang and Mary Ann Burris, “Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment,” Health Education & Behavior 24, no. 3 (1997): 384.

[6] Wang and Burris, “Empowerment through Photo Novella,” 179.

[7] Wang and Burris, “Empowerment through Photo Novella.”

[8] Wang and Burris, 180.

[9] John L. Oliffe et al., “The Case for and Against Doing Virtual Photovoice,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22 (March 1, 2023): 16094069231190564, https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231190564.

[10] Saidiya Hartman, “Venus in Two Acts,” Small Axe 12, no. 2 (2008): 11.

[11] Hartman, 12.

[12] Prakash Krishnan and Stefanie Duguay, “From ‘Interested’ to Showing Up: Investigating Digital Media’s Role in Montréal-Based LGBTQ Social Organizing,” Canadian Journal of Communication 45, no. 4 (December 8, 2020): 525–44, https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2020v44n4a3694.

[13] Isto Huvila, “Participatory Archive: Towards Decentralised Curation, Radical User Orientation, and Broader Contextualisation of Records Management,” Archival Science 8, no. 1 (March 1, 2008): 15–36, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-008-9071-0.

[14] Eryk Salvaggio, “The Ghost Stays in the Picture, Part 1: Archives, Datasets, and Infrastructures,” Flickr Foundation (blog), May 29, 2024, https://www.flickr.org/the-ghost-stays-in-the-picture-part-1-archives-datasets-and-infrastructures/.

Bibliography

Hartman, Saidiya. “Venus in Two Acts.” Small Axe 12, no. 2 (2008): 1–14.

Huvila, Isto. “Participatory Archive: Towards Decentralised Curation, Radical User Orientation, and Broader Contextualisation of Records Management.” Archival Science 8, no. 1 (March 1, 2008): 15–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-008-9071-0.

Krishnan, Prakash. “Digital Disidentifications: A Case Study of South Asian Instagram Community Archives.” In The Politics and Poetics of Indian Digital Diasporas: From Desi to Brown. Routledge, 2024. https://www.routledge.com/The-Politics-and-Poetics-of-Indian-Digital-Diasporas-From-Desi-to-Brown/Jiwani-Tremblay-Bhatia/p/book/9781032593531.

Krishnan, Prakash, and Stefanie Duguay. “From ‘Interested’ to Showing Up: Investigating Digital Media’s Role in Montréal-Based LGBTQ Social Organizing.” Canadian Journal of Communication 45, no. 4 (December 8, 2020): 525–44. https://doi.org/10.22230/cjc.2020v44n4a3694.

Oliffe, John L., Nina Gao, Mary T. Kelly, Calvin C. Fernandez, Hooman Salavati, Matthew Sha, Zac E. Seidler, and Simon M. Rice. “The Case for and Against Doing Virtual Photovoice.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22 (March 1, 2023): 16094069231190564. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231190564.

Salvaggio, Eryk. “The Ghost Stays in the Picture, Part 1: Archives, Datasets, and Infrastructures.” Flickr Foundation (blog), May 29, 2024. https://www.flickr.org/the-ghost-stays-in-the-picture-part-1-archives-datasets-and-infrastructures/.

Wang, Caroline, and Mary Ann Burris. “Empowerment through Photo Novella: Portraits of Participation.” Health Education Quarterly 21, no. 2 (1994): 171–86.

———. “Photovoice: Concept, Methodology, and Use for Participatory Needs Assessment.” Health Education & Behavior 24, no. 3 (1997): 369–87.

Wu, Kunyi. Visual Voices, 100 Photographs of Village China by the Women of Yunnan Province, 1995.