Exploring Photography in Rural Kenyan Households: Considering “Relational Objects” in CSCW and HCI

SUSAN WYCHE, Michigan State University, Department of Media and Information, USA APRIL GREENWOOD, Michigan State University, Department of Anthropology, USA BRIAN SAMUEL GEYER, Michigan State University, Department of Anthropology, USA

Domestic and personal photography are topics of longstanding interest to CSCW and HCI researchers. In this paper, we explore these topics in Bungoma County, Kenya. We used interview and observation methods to investigate how photographs are taken, displayed, organized, and shared, in 23 rural households. To more deeply understand participants’ photography practices, we also gave them digital cameras, observed what they did with them, and asked them to engage in a photo-elicitation exercise. Our findings draw attention to the ways photographs are “relational objects” – that is, material objects that support the maintenance, reproduction, and transformation of social relations. We then describe these relations: economic (i.e., working as cameramen producing and distributing printed images); family (i.e., parents and children using printed images to tell family histories); and community (i.e., people using printed images to present an idealized self). The introduction of digital cameras into these households did not appear to change these practices; instead, it reinforced them. We discuss how considering relational objects in CSCW/HCI is useful for balancing the technologically determinist perspectives that are the basis of many prior studies of photography in these fields. In particular, we detail how considering the concept provides new perspectives on materiality, as well an alternative to the individualistic perspective, which underlies these communities’ understanding of photography. CCS Concepts: • Human-centered computing → Human computer interaction (HCI) → HCI theory, concepts and models

KEYWORDS Domestic photography; personal photography; photo-elicitation; Kenya; social media ACM Reference format: Susan Wyche, April Greenwood, and Brian Samuel Geyer. 2020. Exploring Photography in Rural Kenyan Households: Considering “Relational Objects” in CSCW and HCI. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, CSCW1, Article 46 (May 2020), 21 pages, https://doi.org/10.1145/3392852

1 INTRODUCTION For more than 25 years, photography has been a significant topic of interest to the CSCW and HCI 46 communities [62]. Scholars in these fields recognize that domestic and personal photography are central features of people’s lives. They continue to study how access to new technologies (e.g., digital cameras, smartphones, high-speed internet, and social media) changes how people take, store, share, and display photographic images. To date, this research has primarily focused on European and North American countries [34]. The goal of our research was to explore domestic and personal photography practices in an African country, and more specifically in Bungoma County, Kenya. This is a rural area where technical infrastructures, access to digital technologies, and the cultural norms that shape photography, mostly differ from those found at the sites of prior CSCW/HCI studies of photography (e.g. [15, 26, 28, 40, 45, 58, 71]).

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]. 2573-0142/2020/May – Article 46… $15.00 Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3392852

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:2 Susan Wyche et al.

Studies investigating photographic practices in such contexts are useful for decentering the Western perspectives that mostly underlie these communities’ understanding of photography. Further, and as our findings suggest, they are also useful for drawing attention to the ways printed photographs are “relational objects”—that is, not just images, but social and material objects that support personal, economic, and community relations [28]. We argue that, by considering printed photographs as relational objects, we reveal broader implications for CSCW/HCI research. This is particularly the case in terms of balancing the technologically determinist perspectives (e.g., viewing technology as the driving force for change) that underlie many prior CSCW/HCI studies of domestic and personal photography [46]. This study is part of an ongoing five-year project investigating technology use in rural Kenyan households [13, 73]. We began our fieldwork in June 2016, when we visited 23 households (n=29; 17 men and 12 women) located in Bungoma County; we also gave them a digital camera, and asked them to use it for two weeks. In May 2017, we returned to these households, and asked participants to show and tell us about their photographic collections (e.g., framed images and photo albums). During these interviews, participants also told us what they were doing with the digital cameras we gave them, and took part in a photo-elicitation exercise—that is, we inserted photos they had taken with the cameras into the interviews, to investigate their motivations for taking them [36]. The findings presented here primarily come from these interviews and observations. These findings draw attention to the ways printed photographs are taken, stored, shared and displayed in our participants’ homes. We also learned that printed photos were important because they were relational objects. We detail the ways these photographs supported and maintained relationships between people [68]. These are: economic (i.e., cameramen earning a living by producing printed images); family (i.e., parents and children using printed images to tell family histories); and community (i.e., people using printed images to present an idealized self). The introduction of a digital camera into these households did not appear to change these practices; instead, it reinforced them. In our discussion, we elaborate on the importance of reconsidering the technological determinism that underlies prior CSCW/HCI studies of photography. We then explore how considering relational objects offers an alternative to this perspective. In particular, we detail how considering this concept benefits CSCW/HCI by providing new perspectives on materiality and an alternative to the individualistic perspective, upon which many prior studies of photography in these fields are built. Our contributions to the CSCW/HCI literatures include this discussion, as well as our novel findings about photographic practices in rural Kenya.

2 RELATED WORK The CSCW/HCI communities’ attention to photographic practices emerged in the early 1990s. The literature investigating photography in these fields is vast, and we do not report on all of it here. Instead, we review influential studies of domestic photography (the photographic activities of ordinary people taking and using images for non-professional purposes [62]), as well as personal photography (photography which is done by non-professionals for themselves and their friends and intimates [44]). Similar to our study, this research explores how photographs are taken, organized, displayed, and shared, in households. We also situate our research in some prior studies of photography in Africa, including Information Communication Technology and Development (ICTD) studies.

2.1 Domestic and Personal Photography in CSCW/HCI Early studies of domestic photography were motivated by the explosion of new products—such as digital cameras, scanners, and printers—that supported taking and processing photographs at home. These efforts primarily focused on how the transition from analogue (or film photography) to digital photography changed families’ photographic activities [25]. Notable CSCW/HCI studies include Frohlich et al.’s qualitative investigation of 11 American families. They documented how digital cameras and other technologies (e.g., personal computers) changed how families stored, organized, and shared photographs [31]. Related studies have been conducted in British households, including Crabtree et al.’s exploration of how families collaborate around and share paper-based photographs[16]. Rodden and Wood conducted a similar study with 13 British

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:3 Susan Wyche et al.

participants, investigating how they manage digital photographs [59]. Kirk et al. build upon this work by interviewing and observing 12 users’ photowork practices; that is, how they delete, file, use, edit, and share digital pictures at home [48]. Other studies of domestic photography broadened their focus to investigate how families display photos in their homes. These studies include Durrant et al.’s exploration of how British teenagers curate photos, as well as Swan and Taylor’s efforts to understand why families display photos on their mantelpieces, walls, and sideboards in their homes [65, 67]. Primary outcomes of these studies include design recommendations to inform the development of photoware systems (i.e., technologies that support storing, sending, and sharing of digital photos)[16, 31, 59]. Other outcomes included prototype digital display systems for homes [49, 65]. Here, we were less concerned with how our findings could translate into novel digital systems; instead, our research provides new ways of understanding people and their relationships with photographic technologies. These prior studies take place in US and UK households, an observation that motivated Graham and Rouncefield to explore photographic practices in Chinese homes [34]. They examined these practices in five households, located in Chengdu (a city in China’s Sichuan Province), and found that these households organized and displayed photographs in ways that were similar to those reported in prior CSCW/HCI research. They also present new findings; in particular, the ways their participants performed “religious practices related to their photo behavior” (e.g., ancestral work). The authors concluded that there is value in conducting research that documents both similarities and differences in domestic photography practices; we agree. More broadly, their findings draw attention to the ways context-specific and cultural factors affect photography practices. We build upon this research by exploring these factors in Bungoma County, Kenya.

2.1.1 Personal Photography, Online Photo-Sharing, and Curation. Our research is also aligned with studies of personal photography. Similar to the aforementioned studies, these also tend to be motivated by technology- driven shifts, especially the introduction of online photo-sharing platforms (e.g., Flickr). In her notable work examining personal photography practices, Van House asks, “What do people do differently with digital technologies?” [44]. She documented how the transition from analogue to digital technologies changed how people take, organize, and share photographs. Drawing from data collected over several years of participant observation in the US, she found that greater access to digital cameras and smartphones resulted in people taking significantly more images, including more snapshots of everyday activities. This resulted in people storing and archiving their massive photo collections in new ways: for example, rather than printed photos in boxes or photo albums, digital images were saved as files on computers. Van House also observed that digital technologies, especially access to high-speed internet, prompted people to rapidly view and share photos using email and/or social media. She concluded that the lag time between making and viewing images has been eliminated, and that photographs are now less personal and more public[44]. Multiple CSCW/HCI scholars have extended this research by studying these practices online. Ahern et al. recognized that greater use of photo sharing systems makes it easier for users to share “personal content” online; they examined how users navigate privacy when these images become accessible to the wider public [1]. Findings from Miller and Edward’s study of photo-sharing on Flickr.com suggest that the website supports “a different set of photography and socialization styles,” which include new concerns about privacy [52]. In another study, Van House found that Flickr.com users engage in new practices, including “photo exhibition”— displaying their own and viewing others’ digital images—and “distant closeness”—staying close to people who are distant physically[43]. Other studies investigate sharing digital images using a cameraphone (or smartphone) [40, 47]; they find that access to these devices increases the exchange of digital photographs and promotes new practices (e.g., spontaneous sharing of photographs [40]). More recently, researchers have examined these photographic practices among different user groups. Similar to our research, these efforts also begin to account for different social practices/relationships and their influences on photography. Kumar and Schoenebeck studied how mothers used Facebook to share photographs of their children. They found that the technology changed their practices by giving them new parenting responsibilities, such as protecting their children’s privacy and identity online [50]. Andalibi et al. focused on changes associated with using Instagram. Findings from their analysis of images on the site suggested that people regularly shared pictures depicting “negative emotions”—a finding that countered the previously-established finding that people just shared pictures depicting “positive emotions” [3, 4]. PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:4 Susan Wyche et al.

These prior CSCW/HCI studies of domestic and personal photography primarily focus on the digital technology involved (e.g., digital cameras, smartphone, and social media). While valuable, an emphasis on new technologies and the ways they change practices is aligned with technological deterministic perspectives, which tend to view technical innovations as the sole or primary cause of societal change [72]. This perspective may obscure the context-specific and/or historical factors that also affect people’s photographic practices, including the material and accompanying relational qualities observed in our study.

2.2 Photography In Africa: A Brief Overview Our study also extends research examining photography’s long history on the African continent. Scholars from African studies, anthropology, and art history have studied the topic from multiple perspectives (introduction of photography, production and circulation of images, artistic expression, etc.). Our work was inspired by prior studies of photographic practices, such as Behrend’s ethnography of studio photographers along Kenya’s Swahili coast. He traces the history of photography from the colonial era to the arrival of digital technologies [5]. Similar to most studies of photographic practices in East Africa, this research does not fully account for the impact of digital technologies and their effects on people’s photography practices. Uimonen’s research begins to fill this gap in the literature by exploring how young women in Mwanza, Tanzania use their mobile phones to take—and social media to share—digital pictures [68]. Other recent efforts to understand digital photography in this region include Carrier’s fieldwork in Eastleigh (a suburb of Nairobi, Kenya) in which he describes how a clothes trader uses his smart phone, digital photography, and social media to support relationships (with, e.g., potential customers, and his relatives outside of Nairobi) [12]. Findings from these studies draw attention to the material and relational practices underlying how people take and share photographs in East Africa; that is, “[t]he act of … having a picture taken together not only expresses, but also creates substantial relations” ([5], pg. 63). We build upon this research by observing similar practices surrounding photography in Kenyan households and the ways in which digital cameras and paper photographs function as (per Edwards’ description) “relational objects” [30]. She argues that just focusing on photographs’ content (i.e., “the image qua image” [32, pg. 222]) is insufficient, and that, in order to understand photographic practices in non- Western settings, it would be especially useful to recognize the ways that photographs—particularly printed images—are “tactile, sensory things” that occupy “the spaces between people and people” [25, pg. 27]. We extend prior studies of photography in East Africa that use this concept by conducting our research in a rural area where smartphone and social media use is not as widespread as in urban ones. More broadly, and like the aforementioned scholars, we recognize that studying photography practices in Africa is useful for decentering the dominance of Western discourses on the topic. This dominance is present in the CSCW/HCI communities’ knowledge of photography [34, 62]; however, there are exceptions found in the ICTD literature. This is a subfield within HCI/CSCW that has traditionally examined how technology “can be appropriately designed to (…) address the distinctive needs of users in developing regions”, including parts of Africa [38]. Frohlich et al. studied cameraphone use in rural South Africa. They found that photographs were taken to mark special events and relationships. They use this and other findings to develop a prototype “multimedia narrative application” [32]. Oduor et al. adopt a similar approach in their study of how families use communication technologies to connect members living in Kenya’s rural areas with members living in urban areas. Their findings inform the development of “TumaPicha”—a digital family photo-sharing system [54]. Similar to these researchers, we are also interested in studying the actual doing of photography in parts of Africa. However, we also want to consider how these practices are grounded in context-specific and historical factors; hence, our use of relational objects as a way to frame our finding. By using this concept, we also extend recent efforts in CSCW/HCI that consider the significance of the relational qualities underlying people’s interactions with technology in developing contexts [26]. Finally, we build upon these prior studies not just by studying people’s photographic collections, but also by giving them digital cameras to use. As such, our research extends prior studies that use photo-elicitation in African field research [8, 9], as well as recent efforts to use photo-elicitation in CSCW research [33].

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:5 Susan Wyche et al.

3 BUNGOMA COUNTY, KENYA Bungoma County is a rural area situated in Western Kenya’s Lake Victoria basin. According to the most recent census, the county has a population of 1,375,063 people and an area of 2,069 km2 [22]. Bungoma Town is an 8-hour bus ride from Nairobi and has a bustling town center with shop-lined streets, including cyber cafés and photo studios, as well as restaurants, bars, and hotels. Further away (roughly 15-45 km) are smaller market towns, surrounded by villages. These are rural communities located 5-15 km off of main roads and composed of clusters of mostly mud-and-wattle homes.

Further, and relevant to our research, internet access has existed in Bungoma County since at least 2010 when the third author first began conducting fieldwork in the area. As is typical in other parts of Africa, cyber cafés—where people pay to access the internet and its accompanying features (e.g., Facebook) using desktop computers—are present in Bungoma Town [74, 75]. The internet can also be accessed using a smartphone, but few people in rural areas own these devices. Further, using a smartphone to either access the internet or to exchange digital photographs requires purchasing data bundles, which can be a significant expense for economically poor households and thus limits their use of the mobile internet [23]. Instead, the vast majority of people in the area own feature phones, which tend to have a low-resolution camera and basic internet capabilities [17].

4 METHODOLOGY Our study is part of an ongoing five-year project investigating technology use in rural Kenyan households [13, 73]. To date, we have visited participants’ homes three times (June 2016, May 2017, and May 2019). Some of the findings presented here come from our first visit, but most come primarily from interview and observational data collected over a two-week period in May 2017. In this study, we used qualitative methods that have been widely used in prior CSCW/HCI studies of domestic and personal photography [16, 35, 59, 65, 67]. We also used photo-elicitation, a technique that typically involves giving people a camera, asking them to take pictures with it, and then inserting their photographs into interviews [36]. This approach allows participants to visually communicate their own realities, and to have a more active role in research. Such approaches are generally considered useful for creating more equitable relationships between researchers and participants [36, 63]. In June 2016 we visited 23 households in Bungoma County. We used judgment—or purposeful—sampling to identify households which could provide us with the most useful information for our study [7]. During this initial visit, we asked participants questions about technology use in their homes (e.g., mobile phones and solar lighting systems). We also explained our research interest in photography, gave each household a battery-operated digital camera (Vivitar Vivicam i7, with a 4GB memory card), asked them to use it for two weeks, and told them we would return the following year to discuss some of the pictures taken with the device. In May 2017 we returned to the 23 households and conducted interviews with the head of each household; these were typically men (11), or single mothers (6). When possible we conducted interviews with both husband and wife (6 couples) (n=29; 17 men and 12 women). All participants were adults, aged 25 to 62, and lived with multiple children. Three-fourths of the households were located in villages that were approximately 30-50 km from Bungoma Town. Participants engaged in a variety of income-generating activities, such as driving a piki-piki (motorcycle taxi), small-scale farming, or working as a cobbler, beer brewer, tailor, or fishmonger. Some participants had full-time employment at NGOs or local sugar factories. Broadly speaking, 12 (of the 23) households could be characterized as economically poor. We complemented our interviews and observations with visits to five maduka ya picha (photo studios) in Bungoma Town, to deepen our understanding of photography practices in the area. These are shops where photographs are taken and printed. While there, we observed what was happening in them, and asked their owners about their customers and daily activities. Although our time in the field was short, the findings presented here also draw on insights from the authors’ combined +20 years of research engagement in East Africa.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:6 Susan Wyche et al.

4.1 Researcher Positionality and Ethical Considerations Critical to qualitative research is an awareness of one’s positionality in relation to the research context and relationships with participants [63]. This awareness is also typically associated with conducting ethical research [18]. Here we consider our positionality. The primary author has more than ten years’ experience studying technology use (e.g., mobile phone and social media) in Western Kenya [74, 75]. I am a +40-year-old woman university professor who conducts research in HCI/CSCW. I am based in the US, and a native English speaker. My Swahili is rudimentary and I require an interpreter when conducting research. Nightingale Simiyu, a Bungoma resident, has worked as my interpreter and field assistant since my first visit to Western Kenya. She is trained as a qualitative researcher, and advises me on culturally appropriate ways to conduct research in the area. The second and third authors assisted with data analysis. We are anthropology graduate students, who— like the first author—have been educated and socialized in the US; we also have extensive experience conducting research in East Africa. We all recognize that our whiteness, education level, and comparative wealth are markers of difference that distinguish us from many people in our fieldsites. We are aware of—and sensitive to—power relations underlying our interactions with participants, and are committed to conducting research in a respectful and ethical manner. These principles guide our research: carefully describing our project to participants, obtaining informed consent, showing respect for participants’ knowledge, following research protocols in Kenya, and returning our research findings to participants [18, 63]. Qualitative research always raises ethical considerations and photo-elicitation does this to a much higher degree. Participant-generated photographs pose special challenges to confidentiality and privacy because images have the potential to visually identify study participants. Furthermore, participants must be aware of— and consent to—who has access to their images [11]. We addressed these concerns during the informed consent phase of our initial interviews by asking participants whether the photos they took with the digital cameras could be disseminated among the research team for analysis (all agreed). Prior to our follow-up visit in May 2017, we reminded participants that they had the option of opting out of the study; all invited us back into their homes. During these interviews we also reviewed consent. Lastly, we received verbal permission from participants who took the images in Figures 1, 2, and 3, to include them in this publication. Our research protocol received approval from Michigan State University’s Institutional Review Board and Kenya’s National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI) (the organization that grants research permits to foreigners conducting research in Kenya).

4.2 Digital Camera Procedure and Data Collection When giving participants the digital cameras during our initial visits to their households (June 2016), we learned that, although most had cameras on their phones, none had self-contained cameras (digital or film). Although all were familiar with digital photography, for most this was their first time using a personal digital camera, so we provided demonstrations on how to take pictures. We encouraged participants to take pictures of whatever they wanted to so that we could understand their relationship with digital photography. There was no defined minimum or maximum number of photographs that should be taken, but participants were advised that during the follow-up interview there would only be time to discuss a handful (12-15) of photos. Two weeks after our initial interview, our research assistant collected the memory cards inside the cameras (these held participants’ images), gave each participant a new memory card, and left the cameras as compensation for participation in the study (about a $25 USD value). We concluded that two weeks was sufficient time for participants to take a significant number of photographs for our analysis. Prior to our follow-up interviews, our assistant called participants, asked them which pictures they wanted to discuss when we returned, and printed these (all participants recalled the images they took, and provided specific details about which images they wanted printed). In May 2017, we returned to households, and reported findings from our initial study to participants. As has been observed in prior studies (see [63]), returning to participants’ homes for a second visit helped us develop a level of rapport that was missing from our initial sessions. During these sessions, our research assistant encouraged participants to speak the language of their choice. Some interviews were conducted in

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:7 Susan Wyche et al.

English, and some in Swahili. However, as is typical in Kenya, all participants tended to answer questions using a combination of both languages (i.e., code-switching). We began interviews by asking participants about the study-supplied digital camera (e.g., Did they have it?). We then focused on their photograph collections (e.g., Tell us about your photographs?), which typically prompted participants to show us their family photo albums. We then asked focused questions about these albums and the images in them (e.g., Who took the pictures?; Which ones are significant and why?). Sessions concluded by asking participants to engage in the photo-elicitation exercise and to discuss some of the images taken with the digital cameras. Twelve to fifteen images were placed on a table; we then asked participants to choose which ones they wanted to talk about. We then asked these questions: Why did you take this picture?; How does the image make you feel?; and ended interviews by asking participants if they wanted to tell us anything else about the printed images. With participants’ permission, we audio-recorded sessions for translation and transcription. We also took digital photographs of their domestic photograph collections (i.e., the images in their photo albums, hanging on their walls, or saved on their mobile phones). Following each session, we wrote field notes documenting our observations. The length of sessions varied depending on the number of photographs discussed (between 45 minutes to two hours), but most lasted about an hour. We left printed copies of photographs with the participants.

4.3 Analysis Data collection continued over two weeks, until we reached saturation (newly-gathered material did not contribute new information to the perspectives already encountered). Interviews were transcribed and analyzed inductively using a grounded theory approach, which allows theory to emerge from the data itself [64]. We began by open coding the interviews, noting our line-by-line impressions from the data. We also coded for silences in the data, in which a behavior pattern among a few participants signals its systematic absence among the rest (e.g., references to digital photographs)[57]. Silences in interviews provide opportunities for further examination because they draw attention to insights that are unimportant to participants (and thus not worth mentioning), or which are so obvious that participants feel no need to voice them. As the open codes and silences began to reveal consistent patterns related to participants’ photography practices, we then subjected those patterns to further analysis to develop categories. Throughout this process we also collectively analyzed the 147 photographs taken in participants’ homes (of their photo albums, framed pictures, etc.), and the 1,384 images participants took with the digital cameras. On average, households took 40-70 digital images over the two-week period; one participant took 386 photos. Similar to the interviews, we used an inductive approach (i.e., content analysis) and grouped images into broad and emergent categories (e.g., the people and objects that participants most frequently photographed). When examining the photos taken with the digital cameras, we also looked for silences in the images—that is, the absence of certain elements in them (e.g., no selfies). During this process, we also observed and noted the consistencies between participants’ photography collections and the images taken with the digital cameras, especially similarities in images’ content. Literature from HCI, CSCW, and ICTD informed our analyses, as did anthropology and African studies. Additional rounds of coding were performed to fill categories related to Edwards’ concept of relational objects. To increase the validity of our findings, we triangulated across data (i.e., field notes, photographs, and interview transcripts). Lastly, the authors engaged in weekly conversations (over a six-month period) to clarify and confirm the findings presented here. The quotes, observations, and photographs included here are representative of the themes identified during our data analysis.

5 FINDINGS We begin by providing an overview of participants’ photography collections, especially how they stored, displayed, and cared for them. We also note that although most participants had mobile phones with cameras, they only rarely—if ever—used them to take pictures. More broadly, participants infrequently engaged with digital photographs. Our findings suggest that printed photographs were significant because they were relational objects. The photographs we observed in participants’ homes, and those they took with the digital cameras provided, were not just images, but significant material objects that supported the maintenance,

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:8 Susan Wyche et al.

Figure 1: Representative examples of households’ photo albums and framed photographs. reproduction, and transformation of social relations [68]. We then describe these relations. We focus on economic relations and describe how some participants used the cameras we provided them to earn money by working as cameramen. These are typically men who travel to rural areas to take and distribute pictures. Here, we also present more evidence for the social relationships printed photographs supported by describing the activities which were central to a cameraman’s job. Next, we describe the ways printed images supported family relations, in particular how the telling of both visual and oral histories were embedded in viewing photo albums. Finally, we focus on the ways printed photographs—both those in participants’ collections and those taken with the digital cameras—supported their community relations, especially in presenting an idealized self to others. In addition to providing a descriptive account of participants’ photography practices, these findings offer some evidence to suggest that, rather than changing traditional photographic practices, the introduction of a digital camera into households reinforced existing ones.

5.1 Participants’ Domestic Photographs: The Significance of Printed Images As has been observed in prior studies, printed photographs were an important feature in all households [44, 55]; each had a collection of photos typically stored in albums. Inexpensive plastic albums were the most popular mode of photographic organization: seventeen households had at least one, with the remainder keeping images in paper and/or plastic bags. Common to these albums were formal portraits of individuals, family portraits, and portraits taken at social events (e.g., graduations, weddings, funerals, religious ceremonies) or in front of prominent buildings (e.g., the Kenyatta International Conference Center). We talked to individuals at photo shops who confirmed this, telling us these were the most frequent images they printed. Less common, and as has been reported in prior studies of photography in East Africa [5, 68], were snapshots (spontaneous and/or casual photographs) in most albums. Also present in homes were family walls—that is, walls with carefully arranged displays of framed photos of immediate and extended family members and the occasional ancestor. These walls have also been observed in UK homes [72]. As in this research, such photos were “seeable”—they are among the artifacts one immediately encounters when entering homes [65]. Less observed in these UK households, and what we saw in half of our participants’ homes, was that these framed images were taken down and rearranged, typically once a year. We noted the changes in arraignments during our May 2017 visit, and again in May 2019. These changes happened when homes were being “mudded”: a common practice in rural homes that involves applying a mud-dung mixture to a home’s walls, in order to maintain them (e.g., repair cracks). Participants worked to care for and maintain their printed photos. When talking about these images it was common for them to slowly and carefully remove them from their wall. They would then comment on the framed image. We learned that although frames and albums were expensive, they were worth it, because

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:9 Susan Wyche et al.

protecting photographs is important. Even with participants for whom buying a frame appeared to be an unaffordable expense, we observed makeshift ways of presenting these images in their households, such as taping photographs to pieces of cardboard and covering them in a thin piece of plastic (Figure 1). Such practices have been observed in households elsewhere; people’s efforts to preserve printed images draws attention to their significance [71]. These efforts protected photographs from dirt, rainwater, and soot, which are common features of rural households. In one participant’s words:

When inside a frame, the picture has glass protection. We also need frames because the photos will always be clean. As you can see our house is dusty.

This participant continued and told us that photo albums had similar benefits:

But when they are all together in the album, you can look at them, keep them clean, and also keep them safe.

To “keep them safe” from children and potential thieves, photo albums were typically stored in locked kabati (cabinet) in parents’ bedrooms. Participants’ yearly rearrangement of the photos on their family walls, these photographs’ placement in their homes, and their efforts to keep printed photographs safe and clean, all draw attention to images’ material form. Further, and as we elaborate on in the next section, they also supported social relations in ways that digital images did not.

5.1.1 Personal Photographs and Mobile Phones. A consistent finding in prior CSCW/HCI research is that having a mobile phone with a camera results in people taking more pictures [2, 40, 44]. During our initial interviews we learned that each household had a mobile phone that included a camera. When conducting our follow-up interviews, we observed that most participants had just a few (if any) pictures stored on their devices. The majority told us they rarely used their mobile phones to take pictures, and we observed just three instances of people storing digital images on them. A young father with a picture of his daughter that he used as a screensaver on his handset, and an older woman showed us a picture of her favorite cow on her device. Another woman, Lydia1—one of the few who owned a smartphone—swiped through images taken at a recent family gathering. Although participants had a camera at hand, this did not appear to result in them using the devices to take more personal photographs. Participants had multiple reasons for not taking pictures, including limited storage space on their features phones, or, for those who lacked electricity at home, a reluctance to deplete their phone battery’s charge by taking pictures. Other participants, when we asked why they did not use their feature phones to take pictures, told us they simply did not want to. Further, and as we discuss later, participants may not have been motivated to take photographs because many relied on cameramen to take pictures. It also appeared that photographs did not become important until they were printed, or became material objects. Despite participants’ widespread awareness of the differences between physical and digital forms of photography, their vocabulary—when describing their actions with photographs—suggested that none found it necessary to distinguish between digital and physical; instead, they automatically defaulted to the latter. Participants consistently used words like “printed” and “hard copy” when describing what one does with photographs, rather than “send”, “upload”, or “download”. The frequent descriptions of photographs as printed, rather than digital, suggested that the distinction was unnecessary or unimportant. Further, although cyber cafés are present in Bungoma Town and participants knew that digital images could be transferred from their mobile phones, uploaded, and shared online (e.g., on Facebook) at cafés, only one mentioned the possibility of doing this. Photo shop owners also told us they rarely received digital images to print (e.g., via e- mail). Even Lydia, when showing us the photographs on her smartphone said, “I have not taken them for developing. Maybe I will develop later.” Her emphasis on developing (printing the images) provided more support for our finding: printed photographs matter more to our participants than digital ones do, because

1 All participants’ names have been replaced with pseudonyms to preserve their anonymity.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:10 Susan Wyche et al.

they are material objects that support significant social relations in the community. Photographs were meant to be held, protected, passed around, and carefully handled.

5.2 Economic Relations: Working as a Cameraman We also found that digital cameras mattered in ways not accounted for in prior CSCW/HCI research. Here we elaborate on what happened with some of the digital cameras we gave participants—in particular, how they were used to support economic relations. More specifically, 12 participants used the devices to support a new livelihood strategy—working as a cameraman (also referred to as ambulant photographers, or street photographers in urban areas [5, 68]). Whereas access to digital photography technology is generally regarded as altering the producer-consumer relationship—that is, digital devices (and web-based technologies) enable people to both take and to distribute pictures [44, 62]—this was not the case in our study. Photography was an activity which participants relied upon cameramen to perform. These are typically men who have a digital camera, travel from village to village, approach households, and offer to take pictures—frequently portraits—of children wearing their school uniforms, women wearing new dresses, or families posing together. Cameraman stage, take, print, and distribute photographs. They are also hired to work at important occasions (e.g., funerals, weddings, or coming of age events). George describes them:

These are people who move around whenever there are funerals or weddings. They take photos of people. They are in the business of taking photos … If you are pleased with your photo you pay for it.

Nearly every participant talked about cameramen. Many of the photographs we saw hanging on their walls and placed in their photo albums had been taken by one. All participants had been photographed by one—some even after we gave them the digital camera. Significantly, we learned that in the 11-month period between when we gave the households digital cameras and when we conducted the follow-up interviews, more than half of our participants had begun trying to earn money using the cameras we provided. Of the households not using the cameras for this purpose, the majority told us that they had stopped using it because they needed new batteries; additionally, three households told us that their cameras had been stolen. In rural Kenya, as is typical elsewhere in Africa, people often have multiple livelihood strategies (gaining economic security by pursuing simultaneous projects, pursuits, and strategies [10]). By providing cameras, we enabled individuals to pursue another one, in addition to, for instance, selling fish or working as a motorcycle taxi driver. Researchers in prior CSCW/HCI studies [33, 43, 59], and those from other fields [8, 9], have given participants cameras to use for research purposes: none reported these cameras being used to support a new livelihood strategy. Becoming a cameraman required having a camera, as well as gaining new skills. James, a motorcycle taxi driver, told us:

I feel like taking more and more. I did so because I felt I am still an amateur in this field of photography so I didn’t charge, but later when I gain enough skills, I will be charging for the photos taken.

He and the other participants (who had also begun to work as cameramen), told us that a significant part of their work involved identifying “clients” as well as learning how to properly arrange, direct, and pose individuals and groups before photographing them. James and other participants discussed other social relations underlying their interactions with their clients, adding that they were attending graduations, funerals, and weddings to cultivate relationship with people, in hopes of ultimately charging them for taking photos. Picture-taking was a process negotiated between people and required developing new relationships— an aspect of digital photography not typically accounted for in prior CSCW/HCI research. Prior studies tend to focus on the relationships between people and cameras [46, 55, 62], rather than the social relations underlying the actual taking of digital images.

5.2.1 Processing Images: Digital to Print. Here we continue to discuss our findings about cameramen, especially those which draw attention to how images operate as relational objects. This manifested in the printing and

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:11 Susan Wyche et al.

Figure 2. “Looking smart” picture from participants’ photo album; pictures taken with digital camera distribution of photographs, a process which required having a relationship with a photo studio. These are small businesses where people have passports and national ID photos taken and printed, as well as other materials (e.g., calendars, political campaign posters, funeral cards). We have visited many of these establishments over the course of our fieldwork in East Africa. Their layouts are similar: a small shop equipped with a desktop computer with photo-editing software that is connected to a printing machine. In Bungoma Town, we observed studio workers transfer images from customers’ USB drives, memory cards, and the occasional mobile device, crop images on the computer, print them, and place them in brown paper bags so the cameramen could distribute them. All of these activities draw attention to the material and tactile qualities associated with processing digital images in Bungoma. During our conversations with shop owners we learned that they also cater to, and have established relationships with, cameramen. Cameramen come to the shops, print their images, and then distribute them to their clients (for 50 KES each, or about $0.50 USD). Daniel, a participant who started working as a cameraman and who had recently taken pictures at a funeral in his village, described this process:

I take the pictures of people, the coffin, and I process them in town and bring them to your doorstep and sell them. They give me cash. PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:12 Susan Wyche et al.

Figure 3. Dennis showing us a picture of himself posed next to bricks. A picture of Janet taken next to her fish.

Rather than being sent or shared, printed photographs were objects one “bring[s] to your doorstep.” In Bungoma, transactions were not digital, but physical, social, and monetary. Again, we observed how printed images were relational objects. These relations were embodied in cameramen’s activities, especially in identifying clients and developing relationships with them, as well as with photo shop owners.

5.3 Family Relations: Viewing Photo Albums In this section we describe how families viewing printed photos in albums supported intimate relationships, a finding that is not unique to rural Kenya [15, 28, 41, 44]. Other scholars have noted that photographs are used for this purpose in most parts of the world [30]. This was another activity that was not disrupted by the introduction of the digital camera into households. Participants knew they could view images on these devices—via the screen on the back of the camera. This practice has been observed in prior studies [42]; however, none of our participants reported doing this. A desire to preserve the camera’s battery power, or the small size of camera’s screen, may explain this finding. Another explanation was that households’ plastic albums readily supported viewing pictures; their physical form makes it easy look at the photos alone or with others [42]. Further, when people visit households, they are expected to spend the first few minutes sitting and looking through albums. This activity is part of everyday etiquette in rural East Africa [69]. When explaining the significance of this activity, a participant told us, “they can look at [the photos] and feel at home;” a frequent refrain which suggests that photos are not just images, but objects that have emotional impact. Viewing albums was a regular event in all households. Some households viewed them daily, but for most it happened on a weekly or monthly basis. When we visited participants, most were eager to share their albums with us. The photographs in them were typically arranged chronologically [14], with what appeared to be the oldest images placed at the back of albums; in two cases, these included sepia-toned photos of long-deceased family members. As participants turned the pages we learned about their families’ weddings, baptisms, graduations, and funerals. These albums were active objects and in six households we saw that the most recent photographs in them were ones which had been taken with the study-supplied digital cameras. Although we did not count the number of photos in each household’s album, it seemed that participants’ collections were smaller than those reported in prior CSCW/HCI studies. In no case did we sense that a household struggled to manage backlogs of photographs [31, 41], nor did participants struggle to recall the photographs in their albums. When turning the pages, participants were able to account for each picture they had without relying on written captions (as observed in [41, 44]). As previously mentioned, there were costs associated with printing and maintaining photographs; this may explain why there were fewer images in participants’ collections. However, it also seemed that

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:13 Susan Wyche et al.

participants were selective about the images they kept; each one was special and had a purpose. Individual pictures triggered stories and participants recalled precisely when the image was taken and who was in it. For example:

I went with my wife to watch football in Kisumu—four years ago. We ate fish and ended up at the pier, on the lake to view the ship. We had only heard of the ship and went to see it. It was our first time in Kisumu, the two of us. We enjoyed it.

Jacob’s account is representative of others—of both the photos in participants’ personal collections and those that they had taken with the digital cameras. Indeed, we observed that most participants were able to recall pictures when we contacted them (prior to May 2017 visit) to discuss the photos taken with the digital cameras—all provided us with accounts of the images they wanted us to print and bring to the follow-up interviews. Similar findings have been reported in prior studies of photography [28, 44]. Further, the fact that participants easily recalled photographs taken 11 months prior to our follow-up interview draws even more attention to the ways photographs are not just images, but are objects of communication [44]. Although most participants used the digital cameras to take more pictures, this did not appear to result in greater sharing of photographs, a frequent finding reported in CSCW/HCI research [34, 37]. Instead, they consistently spoke of photographs as personal objects meant to be reserved for sharing among family members and close friends. Viewing printed photographs provided participants an opportunity to tell stories, communicate important information to visitors, and make them feel welcome. This activity also cemented generational relationships. Parents described looking at photographs with their children (and grandchildren) as an important activity, adding that an album was a learning device used to teach children about their history [28, 44]. “History” was a word participants frequently used when talking about photos in their albums. For example, a participant asked “how would my children and my grandchildren get their history without these pictures?”; this finding demonstrates how these objects are used to connect one generation to the next [44]. Indeed, as has been observed elsewhere, the images operated as visual history, but the information they provided also supported the telling of oral histories [28] and—as demonstrated by this quote—were for reflecting on the past and future:

I usually sit down with my grandchildren while looking at the albums and tell them how hardworking I was when I was young and ask them who they would want to be in the future. I tell them they must work hard.

For married couples, looking at the photo albums and reflecting on their personal history seemed to serve another purpose. These participants told us they looked at the albums right before going to bed at night. For them, looking at photographs of their parents or in-laws served as a reminder of the lessons they had been taught about marriage, parenthood, and resilience in the face of the inevitable hardships these brings. For example:

Sometimes when conflict arises between us, I show her these pictures to remind her what we have been through together and the good times that we shared. We can be able to let go of the bad if we recall the good things.

In all cases, albums, and more specifically the images they contained, were used for the telling of and reflecting on family histories and relations: they were objects through which these histories were performed, sustained, and understood [28].

5.4 Community Relations: Presenting an Idealized Self Here we describe how participants’ printed photographs supported community relations. As previously mentioned, all participants took many photographs with their digital cameras. There were consistencies between these images and those observed in their family albums and hanging on their walls. We detail these consistencies, especially how photographs were carefully curated to project an idealized self to others, or communicated what participants wanted members of their communities to see and know about them. This PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:14 Susan Wyche et al.

curation manifested in participants’ desires to “look smart”, to feature themselves posed next to significant objects, and to capture negative events in photographs [3]. There was a performativity observed in all photographs, especially in portraits, which were nearly always taken by someone else (i.e., cameramen). We counted just three selfies (digital self-portraits) out of the 1,384 images taken with the digital cameras. Frequently these performances were related to a desire to “look smart” (i.e., to dress well). This was a frequent refrain participants used when talking about having their picture taken. As participants answered our questions about their personal collections and the photos taken with the digital cameras, two elements emerged as being central to looking smart: making an effort, and good behavior. For many, having a smart photo taken required significant effort, which included taking a bath (a labor- intensive process that typically involves collecting water and heating it) and putting on Sunday dress with accessories (e.g., a purse or necklace), or, for children, their school uniforms. Men put on suits, ties, and polished shoes. For women, this process typically required attention to their hair: either having it “plaited” (braided) or putting on a wig. This performance, which was done when being photographed and thus captured in the photos themselves, communicated that one was respectable and cared about the image they presented to others. They also captured local standards of attractiveness. Millicent’s comments are reflective of others describing the effort required to look smart in a photograph:

You're prepared to do something and take care of your looks. Normally, being smart starts from taking a bath, dressing well. Such a person looks clean.

She added:

You know something that is smart; it’s something that is prepared. They may get prepared by trying to dress well, to make it interesting, you may also add some things: a purse or wig.

These portraits nearly always depicted people from head-to-toe, a deliberate pose meant to capture—in one man’s words—“every detail” of someone’s appearance. For most of the men in our study, full-bodied photographs of their wives were desirable because they communicated that they were able to provide for their families (in terms of food and clothing). Multiple portraits also featured children posing in school uniforms, another deliberate decision meant to communicate that one’s children are properly educated, that the family can pay school fees (a significant expense for many families), and more broadly responding to cultural expectations about prioritizing education. There were other consistencies in participants’ portraits that appeared both in existing photographs and in those taken with the study-provided digital cameras. In prior research, CSCW/HCI researchers have observed that the introduction of digital cameras results in people taking more pictures of the mundane objects that reflect the texture of their daily lives [43](e.g., “photographs of food, of your new haircut, or of a new pair of jeans you’re trying on” [24]). This also seemed to be the case in our study, and many images taken with the digital cameras featured people posed with props: for example, motorcycles, furniture, fish, and sewing machines. Our analysis suggested that these objects were far from insignificant; rather, all were widely recognized by participants and others in the community as signals of income generation, of being a hard worker, and of a rising social status. A photograph of a piki-piki driver with his motorcycle, a carpenter with his furniture, a fishmonger with her fish, and a seamstress with her sewing machine, communicate their industriousness and hard work when they explain the significance of these objects to visitors viewing their photos. These particular photographs gave participants an opportunity to describe their working lives; for example, Janet, a successful fishmonger, told us about a photograph taken with her digital camera (Figure 3):

I came from far selling fish. I started selling fish in 2007 the time my eldest daughter sat for class eight exams so we had fee problems. I went and talked to the principal she told me told pay even 500 shillings ($5 USD) on a weekly basis. I would sell fish. I bought this space from the money I earn from selling fish. It’s my life to sell fish. I don’t miss even for a day selling fish.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:15 Susan Wyche et al.

Dennis, a community volunteer, shared this anecdote about an older image of himself standing next to a pile of bricks:

Those bricks were our source of income. It was a family project. Every member participated. That photo reminds me of my contribution towards that primary school.

Participants carefully curated their photographs, drawing attention to the positive aspects of their lives—a finding observed in prior CSCW/HCI research [20, 53]. What has been less observed in these studies [3, 4], and what we found, was a tendency to also display the negative aspects of everyday life. These aspects included: illness, death, and failure. Participants showed us photos of themselves with typhoid fever or other medical conditions, such as elephantiasis of the leg. They also used the digital cameras to take these images. A mother discussed a photograph that showed her son’s scarred hand following an accidental burning. There were also countless photos of funerals in both participants’ photo albums and images taken with the digital cameras. We also observed photos of failures, which in many cases were related to failed businesses:

Last year we had a beans project. We wanted to plant only beans. We decided to divide the garden into different sections, which had different varieties of beans. So when I look at this picture I remember how the project didn't succeed because the yield was poor and returns were too low.

This deliberate inclusion of difficult times in curated collections serves a specific purpose for viewers—they provide relief for the inevitable hardships one will face, including sickness and death. They were also important signs of “progress.” This was a frequently-used term used to describe efforts to “[leave] the old, unproductive ways for new productive ones” [58]. Printed images documented the old ways and viewing them seemed to serve as a reminder to pursue new ones. For example:

Sometimes they can make you have regrets because they remind you of certain events or changes in life. For example, this lady has just graduated from high school, if you take her photo today and she gets married after some years, her life maybe changes and becomes unbearable. If she looks at her picture and recalls the good old days, she is likely to not feel sad.

The ways our participants’ personal photos are curated indicate that impression management—presenting one’s best self while still appearing authentic—is not something that was introduced by digital cameras, but was already a vital part of their daily lives. Every pose, every prop, and every event held specific meaning for the story participants wanted to tell to their communities with their photos. The pictures taken with the digital cameras—similar to those in participants’ photo albums and hanging on their walls—demonstrates that a significant amount of care and thought was given to composing the images.

6 DISCUSSION: Relational Objects and Balancing Technologically Deterministic Perspectives in CSCW/HC Returning to the goals for our study as presented in the introduction, we see that exploring photography in rural Kenyan households offers a novel empirical example that contributes to the CSCW/HCI communities’ knowledge of domestic and personal photography. We document the context-specific and historical factors affecting photography practices in Bungoma County, specially the ways printed images and the study- provided digital cameras supported different social relations or worked as relational objects. We observed both similarities and differences between our findings and those from prior CSCW/HCI studies of photography. In terms of similarities, our findings are aligned with others that observe the popularity of photography in people’s domestic lives, and we observed commonalities in how households display and organize printed photographs [16, 44, 66]. We offer additional evidence demonstrating that printed photographs are enmeshed in personal, familial, and communal oral histories [44]. Further, and similar to findings reported in prior CSCW/HCI research, our participants used photographs to present an idealized image of themselves to others [42], which also included negative events [3]. PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:16 Susan Wyche et al.

We also provide further support for the ways printed images are relational objects in East Africa [5, 28, 68] and build upon this research by offering some evidence suggesting that—even after the introduction of a digital camera—printed photographs continue to support the maintenance and reproduction of social relations. Similar to prior studies that used photo-elicitation, we found the approach useful for understanding photography practices from our participants’ perspectives. Further, and as previously mentioned, no prior photo-elicitation studies have reported that the study-provided cameras were used to support a new livelihood strategy (i.e., becoming a cameraman). This finding was unexpected, and provided useful insights into what happens when digital cameras are introduced in this context. We also observed differences between our findings and those reported in prior CSCW/HCI studies of photography. Many of these differences can be attributed to the relational practices underlying households’ interactions with printed photographs and the digital camera. By attributing our findings to relational practices—instead of to technological affordances (e.g., infrastructures and mobile phone access)—our research represents a departure from most prior CSCW/HCI studies of photography. These studies primarily credit changes in people’s photographic practices to access to new technologies [46] (e.g., smartphones, highspeed internet, and social media) [25, 44, 48, 52, 59, 65, 67]. It can be tempting to apply a technological determinist perspective to our findings—that is, to attribute them to infrastructural and economic factors in Bungoma County, as well as to limited use of smartphones and social media in the area. These factors likely contributed to our observations; however, an excessive focus on them may obscure other relevant phenomena. Participants in our study could have travelled to one of the many cyber cafés in town, created Facebook or Instagram accounts, and posted their photos—including selfies—online. They could have taken more impromptu snapshots, instead of carefully staged portraits. All had feature phones, and could have used them to take pictures. They also could have avoided cameramen because they had a digital camera and no longer needed their services, or even abandoned their photo albums and looked at pictures using the study-provided digital camera. We did not observe these changes in our study. Giving households digital cameras did not appear to dramatically change their photography practices. Instead, it seemed to intensify the relational practices that were already present in participants’ lives, including relying on cameramen to take photographs, viewing photo albums within their homes, and presenting idealized selves to their communities. Other scholars have concluded that domestic and personal photography do not change as a result of digital technologies; instead, they argue that changes in photographic practices are an outcome of complex social and cultural transformations [21]. Appreciating these complexities can be useful for countering deterministic assumptions that technology is inevitably the driving force of social and cultural change. Our focus on relational objects draws attention to different forces that affect technology use. Here we elaborate on how these findings provide the CSCW/HCI communities with new perspectives on materiality, as well an alternative to the individualistic perspective that underlies prior studies on photography.

6.1 New Perspectives on Materiality CSCW/HCI researchers have long recognized that a material perspective is important [24, 70]: it can be useful for understanding breakdowns in collaborations [60], and for inspiring new forms of computing [45]. Photographs’ material qualities were considered in early CSCW/HCI studies of domestic photography [25, 31, 67]. However, in these studies, there was an all-too-easy leap from observing households’ interactions with printed photographs to then translating those findings into the design recommendations and novel systems that support interacting with digital images (e.g., [25, 48, 67]). Even prior ICTD studies of photography practices in Africa assume digital photographs will replace printed ones (i.e., TumaPicha) [32, 54]. Printed photos have become objects mostly associated with the past [62], and described as a predecessor to digital photography [53]. Our findings demonstrate their continued significance, especially the ways they support economic, familial, and community relations in rural Kenya. More broadly, our findings offer the CSCW/HCI communities new perspectives on materiality; in particular, they draw attention to unexpected consequences that may accompany digitization, and temper generalizations underlying prior studies of photography in these fields.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:17 Susan Wyche et al.

We observed how printed images supported shared social practices and creative processes underlying information exchange in Bungoma County. Looking at albums was an important social practice that supported intimacy within families, especially among married couples, and more broadly was perceived as a tradition in the area. We observed the “human infrastructures”; that is, the ways people are “brought into alignment in order for work to be accomplished” [51]. Similar to findings from prior studies conducted in places where internet access is not widespread, we observed how people use objects (i.e., USB drives and memory cards) to share digital content (also observed in both Cuba [27] and India [61]). Less observed in these studies is how such objects are also central to people’s livelihoods or support economic relations. Picture studios depend on cameramen, who in turn depend on village residents. Printed images were not just the outcome of these relationships, but a key part of maintaining them. Prior CSCW/HCI studies of photography do not fully consider the impact of digitization, especially the unforeseen or unintended consequences that may accompany it. Our findings tell us what might be lost if design recommendations and prototype systems anticipate not only dematerialization, but more broadly an internet in rural Kenya that resembles what exists in the US and UK. Our findings also demonstrate how appreciating printed photos’ continued significance is useful for tempering generalizations in CSCW/HCI. In some households, rearranging framed photographs was a yearly activity related to mudding. This finding draws attention to different housing conditions and their effects on people’s photography practices [65, 67]. More broadly, it challenges taken-for-granted aspects of home life (not all homes are constructed out of wood, bricks, etc.), and demonstrates why the CSCW/HCI communities must broaden their knowledge of domestic photography—and home environments more generally—to include those outside of the “Western European world” [6, 19]. Clearly, access to digital photographic technologies and online photo-sharing is not as widespread as prior studies lead us to believe [16, 44, 52]. We also observed that the lag time between making and viewing photographs has not been “eliminated,” as suggested in prior CSCW/HCI studies [44]. In Bungoma, viewing photographs depends on how long it takes for the cameraman to travel to town, print the images, and return them to his clients. Whereas prior studies of digital photography suggest that “[i]t costs nothing to take a digital photograph” [59], this is not the case in Bungoma, where significant costs appeared to limit the number of photographs households had and displayed. These findings are useful for questioning the deterministic assumption that the digital photography revolution is a singular historical process, which took place approximately a decade ago in the US and in other industrialized nations; this assumption is common in the CSCW/HCI literatures [34, 62].

6.2 Reconsidering Individualism in CSCW/HCI Studies of Photography We also observed how considering relational objects can be useful for balancing other deterministic perspectives within CSCW/HCI. As previously mentioned, the majority CSCW/HCI communities’ knowledge of photography is largely shaped by findings from prior studies conducted in the US and UK. These are countries where financial and social independence are celebrated and valued. More broadly, these studies tend to center on Western-based concepts, namely individualism [39]. Findings from these studies suggest that as cameras become more accessible to people, photography practices becomes more individualized; that is, people take and share digital photographs to promote and celebrate themselves [43, 44, 52] and to record personal experiences [40]. These studies also suggest that access to new technologies results in more “selfies” [53], or photographs that have been described as being “primarily self-oriented” and “statements of individualism [37]. We conducted our research in Bungoma County, Kenya. Although personal ambition was present in participants’ lives, supporting one’s family and being seen as a valued community member seemed to be prioritized over elevating one’s status as an individual. These relational qualities manifested in our participants’ photography practices. Having mobile phones did not result in participants taking more pictures. Limited storage space on their mobile phones and a desire to preserve their device’s battery may explain this; however, attributing this finding to these factors reflects the deterministic perspective that we want to question. Instead, participants did not use their phones to take pictures, because being photographed was a special occasion that required a significant amount of preparation (e.g., putting on different clothes) and coordination between a cameraman and the people being photographed (e.g., posing clients). Further, having a PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:18 Susan Wyche et al.

digital camera did not result in more selfies being taken. As previously mentioned, we observed just three selfies out of the 1,384 images taken with the digital cameras. Looking smart and photographing economic activities were not self-celebrations (which emphasize individualism). Instead, their photos included themselves next to carefully chosen props (e.g., fish, bricks, or motorcycles), that communicate that the participants were productive members of the community, doing their part to contribute to its well-being. The fact that this practice seemed to persist, even though participants had mobile phones with cameras, and even after the introduction of the digital camera, is a reminder that new technologies are not necessarily disruptive, but are instead incorporated into pre-existing practices. Finally, acknowledging that other factors affect people’s photography practice can prompt new questions for CSCW/HCI researchers to consider. Researchers in this space should explore multiple issues: not just the question of how new technologies change photography practices, but also of whose ways of knowing are written into and privileged in the design of these technologies (i.e., individualism), and of which perspectives and practices are left out in their design (i.e., relational). The significance of material objects and the relations they support can be downplayed, or even disregarded, when primarily focusing on the changes accompanying the introduction of new technology—as has been typical in prior CSCW/HCI studies of photography.

7 LIMITATIONS, FUTURE WORK, AND CONCLUSION While our short study shows some interesting preliminary results, more research is clearly needed to capture the complexity of people’s personal photography practices, to understand rural households’ interactions with digital cameras, and to evaluate changes in practice that may come from owning one. In particular, an ethnographic approach that encourages researchers to spend an extended amount of time in the field might be useful for more deeply understanding this topic; indeed, our intermittent engagement with households may have compromised our findings. Moreover, households were located in rural or peri-urban settings, so our analysis is not representative of personal photography practices elsewhere—for example, in Kenya’s major urban areas (Nairobi, Kisumu, and Mombasa) where smartphone ownership and use of social media applications (e.g., WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter) tends to be more widespread than in Bungoma County. Nonetheless, our findings contribute to new ways of thinking about photography within the CSCW/HCI communities. Our findings also draw attention to future research opportunities; in particular, we are interested in cameramen. We want to more carefully examine how they introduce rural householders to digital photography. The continued situated analysis of these material objects—in particular the people, relationships, and objects (e.g., cameramen, photo studios, and printed photographs), which make them work—has much to offer CSCW/HCI researchers. A closer look at personal photography in these rural African households reveals significant aspects of photography that are present, and may provide valuable insights for the concept of photography as a whole. We present a novel case study exploring how photographs are taken, organized, displayed, and shared in rural households in Bungoma County, Kenya. Our findings demonstrate the value of studying photographic practices across cultures, in particular for drawing attention to relational objects—a topic that merits more consideration in CSCW/HCI. Our research demonstrates the value of introducing new concepts into the CSCW/HCI communities—in particular, our use of relational objects to frame our research. This concept is considered useful for understanding photographic practices in non-Western settings. More broadly, our research draws attention to the variations in technology use that have not been fully considered in prior research. We encourage CSCW/HCI researchers to be receptive to unexpected ideas (e.g., the continued significance of printed images) and to different cultural norms (e.g., prioritizing relational practices over individualized ones). This means avoiding generalizing perspectives about personal and domestic photography practices—which can lean towards technological determinism—and considering situated perspectives which can emerge from studying these practices in rural Kenya.

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:19 Susan Wyche et al.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors are grateful to our participants for their time. Special thanks to Nightingale Simiyu for her research assistance. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This research was funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) (Award number 1452479).

REFERENCES [1] Ahern, S., Eckles, D., Good, N.S., King, S., Naaman, M. and Nair, R. 2007. Over-exposed?: privacy patterns and considerations in online and mobile photo sharing. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07) (San Jose, California, 2007), 357–366. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240683 [2] Ames, M., Eckles, D., Naaman, M., Spasojevic, M. and Van House, N. 2010. Requirements for mobile photoware. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 14, 2 (2010), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0237-4 [3] Andalibi, N., Ozturk, P. and Forte, A. 2015. Depression-related imagery on Instagram. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’15) (Vancouver, Canada, 2015), 231–234. https://doi.org/10.1145/2685553.2699014 [4] Andalibi, N., Öztürk, P. and Forte, A. 2017. Sensitive Self-disclosures, Responses, and Social Support on Instagram: The Case of# Depression. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’17) (Portland, Oregon, 2017), 1485–1500. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998243 [5] Behrend, H. 2013. Contesting Visibility: Photographic Practices on the East African Coast. Transcipt Verlag. [6] Bell, G., Blythe, M. and Sengers, P. 2005. Making by Making Strange: Defamiliarization and the Design of Domestic Technologies. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact (TOCHI). 12, 2 (Jun. 2005), 149–173. https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067862 [7] Bernard, H.R. and Bernard, H.R. 2013. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage. [8] Bignante, E. 2010. The use of photo-elicitation in field research. Exploring Maasai representations and use of natural resources. EchoGéo. 11 (2010). https://doi.org/10.4000/echogeo.11622 [9] Bowles, L.R. 2017. Doing the Snap: Storytelling and Participatory Photography with Women Porters in Ghana. Visual Anthropology Review. 33, 2 (2017), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1111/var.12129 [10] Bryceson, D.F. 2002. The scramble in Africa: reorienting rural livelihoods. World Development. 30, 5 (2002), 725–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00006-2 [11] Bugos, E., Frasso, R., FitzGerald, E., True, G., Adachi-Mejia, A.M. and Cannuscio, C. 2014. Peer Reviewed: Practical Guidance and Ethical Considerations for Studies Using Photo-Elicitation Interviews. Preventing Chronic Disease. 11, E189, (2014). doi: 10.5888/pcd11.140216. [12] Carrier, N. 2019. Mobile people, phones and photography: Somali visual practices in Nairobi’s Eastleigh estate. Africa. 89, 2 (2019), 225–245. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001972019000044 [13] Chidziwisano, G.H. and Wyche, S. 2018. M-Kulinda: Using a Sensor-Based Technology Probe to Explore Domestic Security in Rural Kenya. Proceedings of the ACM 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18) (Montreal, Canada, 2018), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173584 [14] Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T., Rodden, T., Cheverst, K., Clarke, K., Dewsbury, G., Hughes, J. and Rouncefield, M. 2003. Designing with care: Adapting cultural probes to inform design in sensitive settings. In Proceedings of the 2004 Australasian Conference on Computer- Human Interaction (OZCHI2003) ( Wollongong, Australia, 2003), 4–13. [15] Crabtree, A., Rodden, T., Hemmings, T. and Benford, S. 2003. Finding a Place for UbiComp in the Home. UbiComp 2003: Ubiquitous Computing (Seattle, Washington, 2003), 208–226. [16] Crabtree, A., Rodden, T. and Mariani, J. 2004. Collaborating around collections: informing the continued development of photoware. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’04) (Chicago, Illinois, 2004), 396–405. https://doi.org/10.1145/1031607.1031673 [17] Crandall, A., Otieno, A., Mutuku, L., Colaço, J., Grosskuth, J. and Otieno, P. 2012. Mobile Phone Usage at the Kenyan Base of the Pyramid: Final Report. iHub Research. [18] Dearden, A. and Kleine, D. 2018. Minimum ethical standards for ICTD/ICT4D research. University of Sheffield, Sheffield [19] Desjardins, A., Wakkary, R. and Odom, W. 2015. Investigating Genres and Perspectives in HCI Research on the Home. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’15) (Seoul, Korea, 2015), 3073–3082. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702540 [20] Dibble, J.L. and Levine, T.R. 2013. Sharing good and bad news with friends and strangers: Reasons for and communication behaviors associated with the MUM effect. Communication Studies. 64, 4 (2013), 431–452. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.770407 [21] Van Dijck, J. 2008. Digital photography: communication, identity, memory. Visual Communication. 7, 1 (2008), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470357207084865 [22] Districts of Kenya. Available online: http://www.statoids.com/yke.html. Accessed: 2019-06-17. [23] Donner, J. 2015. After access: Inclusion, development, and a more mobile Internet. MIT Press. [24] Dourish, P. and Mazmanian, M. 2011. Media as material: Information representations as material foundations for organizational practice. Third International Symposium on Process Organization Studies (2011), 92. [25] Durrant, A., Frohlich, D., Sellen, A. and Lyons, E. 2009. Home curation versus teenage photography: Photo displays in the family home. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 67, 12 (2009), 1005–1023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.09.005 [26] Dye, M., Nemer, D., Kumar, N. and Bruckman, A.S. 2019. If it Rains, Ask Grandma to Disconnect the Nano: Maintenance & Care in Havana’s StreetNet. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 3, CSCW (2019), 187. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359289

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:20 Susan Wyche et al.

[27] Dye, M., Nemer, D., Mangiameli, J., Bruckman, A.S. and Kumar, N. 2018. El Paquete Semanal: The Week’s Internet in Havana. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’18) (Montreal, Canada, 2018), 639. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174213 [28] Edwards, E. 2005. Photographs and the Sound of History. Visual Anthropology Review. 21, 1‐2 (2005), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1525/var.2005.21.1-2.27 [29] Edwards, E. 1999. Photographs as objects of memory. Material Memories: Design and Evocation. Oxford: Berg. (1999). [30] Edwards, E. 2011. Tracing photography. Made to be seen: Perspectives on the history of visual anthropology. (2011), 159–189. [31] Frohlich, D., Kuchinsky, A., Pering, C., Don, A. and Ariss, S. 2002. Requirements for photoware. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’02) (New Orleans, Louisiana, 2002), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1145/587078.587102 [32] Frohlich, D., Robinson, S., Eglinton, K., Jones, M. and Vartiainen, E. 2012. Creative cameraphone use in rural developing regions. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (MobileHCI’12) (San Francisco, California, 2012), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1145/2371574.2371603 [33] Gautam, A., Shrestha, C., Tatar, D. and Harrison, S. 2018. Social Photo-Elicitation: The Use of Communal Production of Meaning to Hear a Vulnerable Population. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. 2, CSCW (2018), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274325 [34] Graham, C. and Rouncefield, M. 2008. Photo practices and family values in Chinese households. In Proceedings of International Workshop on SIMTech (2008). Lancaster University. Available online: http://mundanetechnologies.com/goings- on/workshop/cambridge/papers/GrahamRouncefield.pdf [35] Graham, C., Rouncefield, M., Gibbs, M., Vetere, F. and Cheverst, K. 2007. How probes work. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Entertaining User Interfaces (OZCHI’07)(Adelaide, Australia, 2007), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/1324892.1324899 [36] Harper, D. 2002. Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies. 17, 1 (2002), 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725860220137345 [37] Hess, A. 2015. Selfies| the selfie assemblage. International Journal of Communication (IJOC). 9 (2015), 18. [38] Ho, M.R., Smyth, T.N., Kam, M. and Dearden, A. 2009. Human-Computer Interaction for Development: The Past, Present, and Future. Information Technology and International Development (ITID). 5, 4 (2009). [39] Hofstede, G. 2003. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage publications. [40] Van House, N., Davis, M., Ames, M., Finn, M. and Viswanathan, V. 2005. The uses of personal networked digital imaging: an empirical study of cameraphone photos and sharing. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in Computing Systems (Portland, Oregon, 2005), 1853–1856. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1057039 [41] Van House, N., Davis, M., Takhteyev, Y., Good, N., Wilhelm, A. and Finn, M. 2004. From “what?” to “why?”: the social uses of personal photos. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’04) (Chicago, Illinois, 2004). https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1057039 [42] Van House, N.A. 2009. Collocated photo sharing, story-telling, and the performance of self. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies. 67, 12 (2009), 1073–1086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2009.09.003 [43] Van House, N.A. 2007. Flickr and public image-sharing: distant closeness and photo exhibition. In CHI’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, 2007), 2717–2722. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240866.1241068 [44] Van House, N.A. 2011. Personal photography, digital technologies and the uses of the visual. Visual Studies. 26, 2 (2011), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2011.571888 [45] Ishii, H., Lakatos, D., Bonanni, L. and Labrune, J.-B. 2012. Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. interactions. 19, 1 (2012), 38–51. https://doi.org/10.1145/2065327.2065337 [46] Keightley, E. and Pickering, M. 2014. Technologies of memory: Practices of remembering in analogue and digital photography. New Media & Society. 16, 4 (2014), 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814532062 [47] Kindberg, T., Spasojevic, M., Fleck, R. and Sellen, A. 2005. I saw this and thought of you: some social uses of camera phones. In CHI’05 extended abstracts on Human factors in Computing Systems (Portland, Oregon, 2005), 1545–1548. https://doi.org/10.1145/1056808.1056962 [48] Kirk, D., Sellen, A., Rother, C. and Wood, K. 2006. Understanding photowork. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’06)(Montreal, Canada, 2006), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124885 [49] Kirk, D.S., Izadi, S., Sellen, A., Taylor, S., Banks, R. and Hilliges, O. 2010. Opening up the family archive. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’10) (Savannah, Georgia, 2010), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718918.1718968 [50] Kumar, P. and Schoenebeck, S. 2015. The modern day baby book: Enacting good mothering and stewarding privacy on Facebook. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (CSCW’15)(Vancouver, Canada, 2015), 1302–1312. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675149 [51] Lee, C.P., Dourish, P. and Mark, G. 2006. The human infrastructure of cyberinfrastructure. In Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’06)(Banff Alberta Canada, 2006), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1145/1180875.1180950 [52] Miller, A.D. and Edwards, W.K. 2007. Give and take: a study of consumer photo-sharing culture and practice. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, 2007), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240682 [53] Le Moignan, E., Lawson, S., Rowland, D.A., Mahoney, J. and Briggs, P. 2017. Has Instagram Fundamentally Altered the ‘Family Snapshot’? In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colororado, 2017), 4935–4947. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025928 PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.

46:21 Susan Wyche et al.

[54] Oduor, E., Neustaedter, C. and Hennessy, K. 2016. The design and evaluation of a photograph-sharing application for rural and urban Kenyan families. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. (2016), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-016-0930-z [55] Petrelli, D., Bowen, S. and Whittaker, S. 2014. Photo mementos: Designing digital media to represent ourselves at home. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 72, 3 (2014), 320–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2013.09.009 [56] Petrelli, D. and Whittaker, S. 2010. Family memories in the home: contrasting physical and digital mementos. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. 14, 2 (2010), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-009-0279-7 [57] Poland, B. and Pederson, A. 1998. Reading between the lines: Interpreting silences in qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry. 4, 2 (1998), 293–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049800400209 [58] Prazak, M. 1999. ’We’re on the run’: ideas of progress among adolescents in rural Kenya. Journal of African Cultural Studies. 12, 1 (1999), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13696819908717842 [59] Rodden, K. and Wood, K.R. 2003. How do people manage their digital photographs? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, 2003), 409–416. https://doi.org/10.1145/642611.642682 [60] Rosner, D.K. 2012. The material practices of collaboration. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’12) (Seattle, Washington, 2012), 1155–1164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145375 [61] Sambasivan, N. and Smyth, T. 2010. The human infrastructure of ICTD. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD’10) (London, United Kingdom, 2010), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2369220.2369258 [62] Sarvas, R. and Frohlich, D.M. 2011. From snapshots to social media-the changing picture of domestic photography. Springer Science & Business Media. [63] Scheyvens, R. 2014. Development Fieldwork: A Practical Guide. Sage. [64] Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications Inc. [65] Swan, L. and Taylor, A.S. 2008. Photo displays in the home. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM Conference on Designing interactive systems (DIS’08) (Cape Town, South Africa, 2008), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1145/1394445.1394473 [66] Taylor, A.S. and Swan, L. 2005. Artful systems in the home. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05) (Portland, Oregon, 2005), 641–650. https://doi.org/10.1145/1054972.1055060 [67] Taylor, A.S., Swan, L. and Durrant, A. 2007. Designing family photo displays. In Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (ECSCW’07) (Limerick, Ireland, 2007), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-031-5_5 [68] Uimonen, P. 2016. “ I’m a picture girl.”: Mobile photography in Tanzania. Digital Photography and Everyday Life. E.G. Cruz and A. Lehmuskallio, eds. Routledge. 19–34. [69] Vokes, R. 2008. On ancestral self-fashioning: Photography in the time of AIDS. Visual Anthropology. 21, 4 (2008), 345–363. https://doi.org/10.1080/08949460802156383 [70] Wiberg, M., Ishii, H., Dourish, P., Vallgårda, A., Kerridge, T., Sundström, P., Rosner, D. and Rolston, M. 2013. Materiality matters--- experience materials. interactions. 20, 2 (2013), 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1145/2427076.2427087 [71] Wright, C. 2004. Material and memory: photography in the Western Solomon Islands. Journal of Material Culture. 9, 1 (2004), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359183504041090 [72] Wyatt, S. 2008. Technological determinism is dead; long live technological determinism. The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. (2008), Hackett E., Amsterdamska O., Lynch M. and Wajcman J., eds. MIT Press, 165–81. [73] Wyche, S., Chidziwisano, G.H., Uwimbabazi, F. and Simiyu, N. 2018. Defamiliarizing the Domestic: Exploring M-Kopa Solar and Sustainable Practices in Rural Kenyan Households. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCAS Conference on Computing and Sustainable Societies (COMPASS’18) (Menlo Park and San Jose CA USA, 2018), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209811.3211888 [74] Wyche, S. and Olson, J. 2018. Gender, Mobile, and Mobile Internet| Kenyan Women’s Rural Realities, Mobile Internet Access, and “Africa Rising.” Information Technologies & International Development (ITID). 14 (2018), 33-47. [75] Wyche, S.P., Schoenebeck, S.Y. and Forte, A. 2013. “Facebook is a Luxury”: An Exploratory Study of Social Media Use in Rural Kenya. In Proceedings ACM SIGCHI Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW ‘13) (San Antonio, Texas, 2013), 33– 44. https://doi.org/10.1145/2441776.2441783

PACM on Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 4, No. CSCW1, Article 46, Publication date: May 2020.