A dialogue and reflection on photohistory: Engaging indigenous communities in research through visual analysis

Abstract

Attempts at capturing observations and concerns of change in the Canadian north (sub-Arctic, Arctic) have been mostly conducted through interviews and focus groups spearheaded by researchers. Indeed, images depicting change in the north, when utilized at all, are mostly used to confirm and illustrate the findings derived from researchers. Rarely are local depictions of change used in these interpretations. The purpose of this Notes from the field is to discuss the application of a methodology we term ‘photohistory’ in a study examining visual depictions of cultural and environmental changes in the Moose Cree and MoCreebec First Nations in northern Ontario, Canada. This process of active engagement fosters past reclamation of old photographs while encouraging the discovery of new research directions and partnerships. The application of photohistory in a First Nations located in northern Canada, and subsequent refinement of the methodology for future studies, are discussed.

Keywords

indigenous communities participatory photography photohistory

Introduction

The purpose of this Notes from the field is an attempt on the part of an interdisciplinary research team composed of university and community researchers to share our experiences with a research approach known as photohistory, to highlight the issues that arose while attempting to implement photohistory, and to outline what we’ve learned from this process as a result. In order to contextualize the study, discussions between the community representatives (Randy, the late chief of the Mocreebec Council of the Cree Nation and Lillian, the then Land Use Plan Coordinator for the Lands and Resource Secretariat for the Moose Cree First Nation), and the principal investigator (Harvey Lemelin from Lakehead University) are provided. Since the conversations between the Randy, Lillian and Harvey were not audio-taped on their request, we have paraphrased all of these discussions. Since both Randy and Lillian are authors, the accuracy of these statements has been verified.¹

Randy: Have you noticed that when researchers describe things like climate change they always use satellite images, computer modelling, or their own photographs taken during their field trips to northern Canada? I have yet to see one image depicting how local people interpret and visualize these changes, whether they be environmental or social.

Harvey: Interesting that you would suggest that because I just came across a study that was using participatory photography and I would like to modify it somewhat to include both historical and contemporary images. Would that be of interest to you?

Randy: Yes, for I would very much like to have access to historical pictures of our citizens and community without having recourse to archives which are thousands of miles away from our community and require a certain level of expertise to navigate these data bases. Now a data base of images locally available would provide various opportunities for our community members to connect or re-connect with their past and visualize these changes.

Lillian: I like the idea, but the thing you have to remember about Moose Factory is that we have been extensively researched, documented and photographed by historians, anthropologists, professional photographers and later tourists who came to visit the area on the ‘Polar Bear Express’ train. While we are always cautious about conducting research, I see the possibility of incorporating these findings of the proposed photohistory study into our current land-use studies where we are currently mapping and documenting our activities on our traditional territory (see Moose Cree First Nation, no date b), and perhaps even developing networks with museums and archives.

Through participatory photography, participants become the authors of their own photographs, and have opportunities to represent their experiences of the phenomenon under study (Wang & Burris, 1997). Participatory photography, suggests Castledon, Garvin, and the Huu-ay-aht First Nation (2008) and Wang and Burris (1997) empowers marginalized groups to depict their experiences and ‘give-voice’ through visual images. However, some researchers like Prins (2010) and Lykes (2010) have criticized some (but not all) of these studies for failing to account for the intermediary’s potential role in giving voice to these marginalized groups, and romanticizing the transformative results of photography. Another challenge with this approach is the focus upon contemporary issues, with little regard for the historical context.

Historians have long used photographic sources as evidence; it was not until the development of ethnohistory, an approach combining ethnographic and historical data with maps, images and oral traditions in order to produce a more holistic and inclusive approach to understanding historical events (Axtel, 1979; Geertz, 1973; Harkin, 2010). The field developed following the United States Indian Claims Commission in 1946, and in its proceedings established the validity of both ethnographic and historical evidence (Harkin, 2010). Traditionally associated with the disciplines of history and anthropology, the field now encompasses works from ‘the disciplines of geography, literature, sociology and archaeology’ (The American Society for Ethnohistory, 2002). While at the core of the ethnohistorical approach are the experiences of people and how past events are culturally constructed, enthnohistorical approaches typically do not provide an opportunity for communities to de-construct or reconstruct photographs (Scherer, 1995). In addition, such approaches often use photographs as a probe ‘to elicit interview data but does not specify the source of the photos; and who is taking the pictures’ (Lal et al., 2012, p. 182). Photohistory addresses (where possible) who took the picture, where it is stored, and seeks participant input in the identification of who or what is in the photograph. Indeed, the most obvious difference between using images generated by local participants and accessing historical photographs produced by non-local, non-Indigenous photographers which may or may not be necessarily available, is the act of re-connecting and reclaiming of photographs by participants and the possible use of these images for exhibits or websites beyond local audiences (for an extensive discussion regarding strategies aimed at connecting participants through photographs both new and old, see Barndt, 2001).

Combining elements of participatory photography (Wang & Burris, 1997) and ethnohistorical approaches, photohistory is the historical collection and analysis of photographs with participants enabling potential temporal comparison of landscape transformations, identification of ancestors, and assertions of socio-cultural continuity (Hergenrather, Rhodes, Cowan, & Bardhoshi, 2009; Huworth, 2003). By engaging participants at the onset of the research process, photohistory attempts to address the shortcomings of ethnohistory and ethnographic photography, which do not usually foster the opportunity to reclaim a historical or present identity through the construction and reconstruction of photographs (Francis & Morantz, 1983; Kauper-Brown & Seifer, 2006; Scherer, 1975). Participants are able to tell the stories of these photographs taken of their communities and to provide new and often more culturally relevant narratives of these images. Photohistory, much like Harrison’s (2002a, 2002b) concept of phototherapy, provides an opportunity for individuals to re-picture and re-imagine the self and the past and to construct contemporary narratives addressing issues of local concerns. Attempts at reconnecting to one’s past through images may, however, also require addressing past issues of colonialism. For example, this aspect of the research is examined in greater details in the subsequent section.

A team of social scientists affiliated with the Centre for Northern Research at Lakehead University in cooperation with researchers and citizens of the Moose Cree First Nation and the the MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation, explored the various dimensions of change through photohistory and participatory photography. These approaches, along with community consultation, identified factors that may contribute to a greater understanding of how certain community citizens are visualizing and interpreting the impacts of changes on livelihood in this region of northern Canada. The purpose of this Notes from the field, co-authored by the community advisor from the Moose Cree First Nation (i.e. Lillian) and the community advisor from the MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation (Randy), the PI (Harvey) and other members of the research team is to describe the application of photohistory in a study examining visual depictions of cultural and environmental changes in the Moose Cree First Nation, located in northern Ontario, Canada. In the conclusion, we review the challenges and benefits associated with photohistory. Future recommendations and refinement of the methodology for future studies are also discussed.

Photohistory

Lillian: Old photographs are great but you have to remember that they are essentially produced by non-Indigenous people or worse, experts, who may have been in the case of our people intent on capturing a disappearing culture or glorifying early European settlements in northern Canada. We have to be conscious of this colonial heritage when we select and share these pictures.

As Lillian alludes, photographic depictions of Aboriginal people in northern Canada have largely been the product of European participants in the fur trade, such as James W. Anderson (Geller, 2004) or explorer-adventurers such as Robert Flaherty (Christopher, 2005). Further, many of these pictures were taken at a time when colonialism and patriarchy dominated, and consent was not required. As a result, they have often been filed under generic titles (e.g. Indian man, Indian woman) in collections or archives. Ownership, replication and repatriation of the pictures as we will see later, are also other points of contention.

While these photographs are not the total history of a people but a static record of very particular events that may or may not accurately represent a historical event (White, 2007). Yet an original photograph ‘is a genuine object from the past that, besides carrying visual information about the past event, has a specific material texture and conveys the “spirit” of the past – something that in principle cannot be replicated’ (Poddiakov, 2002, p. 115). Since many of these images depict traditional activities, they are evidence of Indigenous survival and adaptation to these changes (Vizenor, 2007).

These issues noted in the previous two paragraphs illustrate the importance of appropriate communication and the need to discuss the ethics of such approaches between the research team and local participants (Cain, Davison, & Stewart, 2009; Erasmus & Ensign, 1999; Lemelin, Wiersma, & Stewart, 2010). Photohistory addresses these oversights by initiating the following guidelines: i) initial consulting with community members to generate an image search list; ii) a review of repository sources of photographs (i.e. archives, museums); iii) pre-viewing of the selected images; and iv) instituting a field component, where images are circulated and shared with the communities and narratives and future strategies are developed. The re-examination of the photographs in some instances can provide an opportunity for individuals and communities to reclaim a historical identity that may have been lost or unknown to them, to interpret these images by contextualizing them (providing information on where the photograph was taken, defining who is in the picture), to illustrate what happened to certain area or infrastructures (which are no longer present), and in some cases, correcting errors or omissions. The downside with these images is that they are often the product of a colonial past, and have the potential to trigger difficult or negative memories. Consideration and discussion regarding the selection of certain images prior to the community viewing of these images is recommended.

Using photohistory in the Moose Cree First Nation

Moose Factory island is located within the Moose River, 18 km upriver from James Bay. The island is located at the edge of the boreal forest, slightly above the Hudson Bay Lowlands, forming a 150–300 km wide belt of flat, low-lying land adjacent to the coast. Moose Factory island is divided into various political entities including federal and provincial lands, and two First Nations (Moose Cree First Nation, no date a). Historically, the Omushkego Cree (also called the West Main Cree or Swampy Cree) occupied the muskeg (from the Cree word for wetland), and ranged 200–300 km inland from the coast (Honigmann, 1981). With over 3798 registered band members (1606 on-reserve, 2192 off-reserve) in 2005, the Moose Cree First Nation make up the bulk of the resident population on the island. Numbering just over 500, the MoCreebec membership is located on Moose Factory Island and in Moosonee (a nearby non-Native community) (Kapashesit et al., 2011). The economy of Moose Factory is made up of the public service (i.e. Moose Cree First Nation, Federal & Provincial government), tourism and hospitality (i.e. transportation and guiding), construction, the traditional economy (harvesting, trapping, berry gathering), and the private sector (small businesses) (Moose Cree First Nation, no date a).

Similar to Chataway’s (1997) study, familiarity between the research team and the community was fostered through previous collaborative efforts ranging from field courses being held in the community, to previous research collaborations, to publications being co-written with the PI community advisors and community members. Further discussions regarding the proposed projects were held in the community, with various representatives of the Moose Cree First Nation. In the winter of 2010, a research agreement approved by the Moose Cree First Nation council and the MoCreebec was signed between representatives of the band council and the research team. The agreement addressed such issues as cooperation and collaboration, relationship between the researchers and the community, obligations, intellectual property and dissemination. A local research assistant (Peter) from the Moose Cree First Nation reporting to the community advisor (Lillian) was hired in the fall of 2010 to coordinate the project in the community. Donna Ashamock of the MoCreebec was hired in the winter of 2011.

Harvey: Now that we have hired the research assistants, we need to decide how we will allocate the rest of the funding, especially since we don’t have the funds to visit all the museums, archives and research centres that we had originally envisioned.

Lillian: Understood. Then we should go to the places where we know there are pictures of the community. So despite my earlier misgivings, let’s visit the national archives in Ottawa, and see what’s there.

Harvey: Okay, what kind of pictures do you want the historian to look for?

Lillian: I’ve already discussed this with many people in the community and I was told to look for pictures of people and the community. Other pictures of people out on the land would also be good. Just don’t bring back pictures of the old fort, we have plenty of those.

After an initial selection of over 100 images from the national archives of Canada some dating back as far the early 19th century, a total of 45 images consisting of people, infrastructures (e.g. the old fort, schools, churches), the island and the river, and traditional activities were selected by the research team (the PI, the historian, and the community advisors). Previous experiences using historical photographs in another study had demonstrated that showing and discussing 40 to 50 historical images would require about two hours. Since our goal was to overwhelm the participants, we opted to use 45 images. The public presentation of these images to community residents was held in the summer of 2011 (Figure 1).

Lillian: The best thing to do is to start the presentation with a guided slide show of the images. This presentation should be led by the historian who can provide additional details on where the images where found. If there are questions in Cree, I can translate these. I doubt that this presentation will last more than one hour. Following this, we will encourage the participants to visit the tables, look at photographs which will be numbered and laid out and can be discussed at greater length with someone from the research team.

Figure 1.

Picture depicting historical navigation routes near Moose Factory.

Three members of the research team (the historian, the PI, and the community advisor) and 20 people from various age groups (parents and early teens to Elders in their 80s) attended this event held in Moose Factory. Not surprisingly, Elders were the most engaged in the discussions surrounding the images. In many cases, the Elders conversed in Cree, and the translators only summarized the discussions. Background noise, various discussions and poor recording equipment (i.e. digital recorders) prohibited the recording of the discussions. However, extensive notes were taken by the PI who does not speak Cree but did request a number of clarifications regarding certain key points. Confirmation of the field notes taken by the PI was provided by the community advisor who spoke Cree.

The pictures fostering the greatest discussion included those of people and buildings such as the school, the carpenter shed, and the court house. This was often due to the social nature of these places (i.e. the carpenter shed was used for social gatherings and dances). In other cases, numerous landscape transformations, like the farmed fields of potatoes and hay, a dredged navigation way between Moose Factory Island, dykes and creeks, all of which can no longer be found today, fostered a great deal of discussion. Despite various pictures of springtime floods in the community, some discrepancies regarding the cause of these floods emerged (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Picture depicting spring floods in Moose Factory.

Inaccuracies in the image labels from the archives were also noted. For example, one picture of the Révillon frères establishment was labelled in Moose Factory when it was actually located in Moosonee (a non-Native community located across the river). In another situation, the man referred to as Cree half-breed named ‘Jerry’ by the Hudson Bay Company, was actually the great-grandfather of one of the participants. His real name, she pointed out, was Jerry Solomon and he was Cree (see Figures 3 and 4). Despite discussing most potential scenarios, we had not anticipated that descendants might identify their ancestors. Oversight aside, this is another potential benefit of photohistory. When asked if we could use this particular image in this Notes from the field to illustrate the photohistory process, the descendant stated that yes, the research team could use this particular image, provided that her great-grandfather was named appropriately. Seeking the approval of community citizens in the replication or use of these images also provides another dimension to photohistory, for while certain images may have been reproduced in the past with permission from archives or museum collection, researchers (from the community and the university) using a photohistory does require the permission of the descendants in the reproduction of these images.

Figure 3.

Archival depiction of Cree half-breed ‘Jerry’. Source: Library and Archives of Canada, Photograph Images Card Index.

Figure 4.

Photohistory depiction of Jerry Solomon, Cree harvester. Source: Library and Archives of Canada, Photograph Images Card Index.

When asked at the conclusion of the presentation what participants thought of the images and what they would like from them, most commented that they were appreciative of being provided with this opportunity to view these old images. Some participants suggested that properly labelling the pictures of all the people photographed, not just the Euro-Canadians would address the mis-representation or absence of the Cree people in many of these images. The research team did re-label the images and provided copies of these re-labelled photographs to community members.

Following the guided visual talk which lasted for almost two hours, participants were encouraged to visit the tables and provide additional information. The goal of the second phase of the photohistory process was to provide participants with additional opportunities in less formal settings to discuss the photographs. However, by this time most participants were tired and elected to leave. Of those participants that did stay (approximately five people), some noted, and we are summarizing here, that it was ironic that many of these photographers were intent on capturing or documenting a dying way of life yet three generations later, the descendants of many of those photographed were still fishing and hunting the same rivers, the same lands that their ancestors were.

Randy: All I want is access to some early pictures of our community. Yet, we have been informed by legal council that we are not allowed to reproduce some of these old photographs of our community and our people. The best part is that if you look closely, you will see that some of these photographs are actually pictures of some of my family members. Now I don’t know how research was done back then, but every time I have asked to see the parental consent forms for the youth photographed in these pictures, my requests have fallen on deaf ears. How is that right? And what about the royalties from these pictures?

Issues pertaining to the reproduction, ownership and repatriation of photographs emerged. For example, one participant wanted to know if the consent form for the pictures were also found in the archives. The argument here was that if there are no consent forms or contracts, should the images not be returned to rightful proprietor (i.e. the photographed individual, or his/her descendants)? The research team indicated that they were not familiar with such processes and that it would likely require legal advice. That said, this is an important ethical dimension of photohistory requiring further research on these dimensions. When asked if implementing any of the suggestions would be possible beyond this particular study, one of the research team members mentioned Project Naming, and suggested that Library and Archives of Canada could be contacted on behalf of the community to see if they would be interested in creating a similar collaborative project with the community.

Initiated in 2001, Project Naming is an initiative composed of the Library and Archives of Canada (LAC) in partnership with the Nunavut Sivuniksavut Training Program and the Nunavut’s Department of Culture, Languages, Elders and Youth. Project Naming is an ongoing initiative designed to have youth in Nunavut work with Elders in the identification of Inuit which appear in photographic material held in the archives of Canada (Library and Archives Canada, 2009). The project is also designed to ‘help bridge the cultural differences between Nunavut and the more southern parts of Canada’ (Library and Archives Canada, 2009). Focusing initially on a sample of 500 photographs from the Richard Harrington Collection, Phase I and II eventually were expanded to include over 3000 images from other LAC collections focussing on Qikiqtaaluk (Baffin region), Kitikmeot (Central Arctic), and Kivalliq. Since ‘Elders may be the last people able to identify these individuals from the past, whose names might otherwise remain lost forever’, time is of essence with this project (Library and Archives Canada, 2009).

Discussion

Harvey: Well, conducting a photohistory project is certainly much more difficult than I had anticipated. It took much longer than I thought, the equipment didn’t work well, and only a few people participated in the second round of discussions. People reading about this project may say that we don’t know how to do community research.

Lillian: Nothing ever goes as planned around here so you adapt and learn. I think it was great the way people were engaged in the first round of discussions. We got a lot of feedback. That said I do have some recommendations, which may help out in future projects. Right off the bat, challenges associated with recording the discussions can be addressed by providing a shorter slide show of no more than 20–30 images divided into themes or concepts (i.e. people, landscapes, infrastructures) and using several microphones, recorders and cameras. Following this presentation, participants would be directed to the tables (again divided along themes and concepts), appropriately distanced from one another with two recorders and good quality microphones and cameras (if possible) and translators. Participants would then be given approximately 20 to 30 minutes to view the images at each table.

Harvey: Good idea, and considering that this is the second time I have done this, I also have a number of additional recommendations that we should consider when using photohistory this includes:

a) Consulting with community partners prior to the field study can elicit and engage communities in the research process, including in the reproduction of historical images. Consideration of the available images (i.e. what the photographers found of interest) and potential repercussions from colonial heritages is also required. For as you mentioned earlier Lillian, the community and research team should be conscious of the colonial heritage in selecting and sharing images.

b) Several hard copies of the images must be reproduced, numbered, and titled so that participants can keep these reproductions. While digital copies, in this particular instance, were not requested, several copies were made and left in the community.

c) Engage participants with the help of translators (if necessary), and ask them to provide additional information on the pictures. This information might be best captured through the use of video cameras and focus groups.

d) It is crucial that participants be informed that any photograph which is deemed too sensitive will be removed and will no longer be circulated. Repatriation of particularly sensitive material (i.e. traditional harvest, ceremonies) and the possibility of the removal from these images from public archives is also worth discussing.

e) Provide communities and participants with more than one opportunity to comment on the photographs. As participants were tired after the initial presentation many did not stay for the second half of our presentation. Scheduling a few different meetings throughout the week would facilitate the opportunity to discuss the photographs.

f) Discussions regarding how the photographs will be shared (i.e. articles, conferences, reports) and how the information can be integrated into existing and/or future projects, are crucial, not only at the beginning but throughout the study. Special sensitivity is required when photographs of family members are displayed. Acquiring permission from family members for the future use of these images is recommended.

The goal of photohistory, much like White’s (2007) visual depictions, are ‘not closure but an opening toward a richer view of the process of photography and of the Anishinaabe lives and histories represented’ (Vizenor, 2007, p. xi). Thus, photohistory like participatory photography is grounded in emancipatory philosophies, where systematic approaches to research are used to engage, create awareness, and in some cases to empower community researchers and participants throughout all the phases of a research project from its conceptual phases to conclusion and recommendations (Lykes, 1997; Lykes, in collaboration with the Association of Maya Ixil women-New Dawn, Chajul, Guatemala, 2001; Lykes, Terre Blanche, & Hamber, 2003). For an Elder of the Moose Cree First Nation this project provided an opportunity to properly name her grandfather in an archived image. For others, the images provided photographic evidence of the resiliency of these communities. The selection of the old residential school, churches and the old fort (in the case of Moose Factory) was not an attempt to avoid the colonial history of the north or whitewash difficult issues such as the residential school era in the community, but was instead an attempt to re-address these issues through moments of creative tensions (see Barndt, 2001). However, before images of certain activities, people, locations (i.e. residential schools) are replicated, discussions with members of the advisory group are required. For as Lillian noted, ‘ ... you want these images to engage and empower, not to be used against you and your people’. Since replication, ownership, and repatriation were brought up by some participants, questions of moral and legal dimensions of photographs, and who should own and determine the use of these images are also central to photohistory and do require further attention. The inclusion of researchers more familiar with the legal aspects of photography and image ownership in photohistory is warranted.

Conclusion

Harvey: So, what do you think? Was it a successful project or a dismal failure?

Lillian: What do you mean?

Harvey: Well there were numerous set-backs, technical malfunctions, and the findings were somewhat different than what we had anticipated.

Lillian: Yes there were delays, malfunctions, and the findings were different than what we had anticipated, but that’s the great thing about doing community research. Don’t you find it interesting that we went looking for images depicting change and what we found was that people’s interest in change extended far beyond climatic variations or environmental indicators? Change from a local perspective includes environmental, social, economic and political change. Yet despite all of these changes, we are still here centuries later navigating the river and practising our livelihood. To me that’s one of the best findings from this project.

In this Notes from the field, we have attempted to illustrate and illuminate some of the complexities that arise when academics engage with communities and together develop novel processes of representation (Lykes et al., 2003). Much like Lykes et al. (2003), our ‘hope is that our account will serve as a corrective to overly purist and naive ideas sometimes found in the [...] literature regarding the possibilities of “giving voice” to or empowering the marginalized and the disenfranchised, while at the same time celebrating basic community [...] principles of respectful engagement and participatory action’ (p. 89). By engaging participants in discussions of who owns the images, repatriation of these images, and the ethics surrounding the photographs, photohistory has the potential to re-connect and, in some cases, transform people from photographic objects to active participants. This process of active engagement and agency thus fosters past reclamation while encouraging the discovery of new possibilities (i.e. incorporating this project with land-use projects and the Photovoice project) and developing new partnerships. For as Lassiter (2005) explains, ‘collaboration entails joint production, but with overlapping mutual as well as differing purposes, negotiation, contestation, and uncertain outcomes’ (p. 983). Since photohistory is collaborative and participatory, these guidelines and recommendations of photohistory should not become too prescriptive and should in all instances continue to respect local protocols and timelines while fostering community engagement with the past, in the present, and in the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the Social Sciences Research Council of Canada for funding this project. We are also thankful to all chiefs, councillors and community members for their support. This article is dedicated to the memory of Chief Randy Kapashesit.

We also thank Mary Brydon-Miller, for leading the review process for the authors of this article. Should there be any comments/reactions you wish to share, please bring them to the interactive portion (Reader Responses column) of the website: .

Note

Author biographies

Raynald Harvey Lemelin is the Lakehead University Research Chair in Parks and Protected Areas and Associate Professor in the School of Outdoor Recreation, Parks & Tourism at Lakehead University.

Elaine C Wiersma is an Associate Professor, Department of Health Sciences at Lakehead University.

Lillian Trapper is a member of the Moose Cree First Nation and the former Director of Lands and Resources, Moose Cree First Nation. She is currently the New Post Creek Project Coordinator for the Moose Cree First Nation.

For 26 years, Randy Kapashesit dedicated his working life on behalf of MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation and his community. Randy participated in many capacities in rebuilding an independent and sovereign Cree Nation, both in community and internationally. Alongside with community members, he was instrumental in creating the Cree Village Ecolodge. As an accomplished writer and orator, he also addressed numerous indigenous environmental issues. He served as Chief of MoCreebec Council of the Cree Nation. Randy Kapashesit passed away in April 2012.

Michel S Beaulieu is Chair of the Department of History and Coordinator of the Interdisciplinary Programs in Northern Studies at Lakehead University.

Martha Dowsley is an Associate Professor, Cross-appointed in Anthropology and Gegraphy at Lakehead University.

References

Axtell

(1979) Ethnohistory: An historian’s viewpoint. Ethnohistory, 26(1): 1–13.

Barndt

(2001) Naming, making and connecting: Reclaiming lost arts: The pedagogical possibilities of photo-story production. In: Campbell

Burnaby

(eds) Participatory practices in adult education, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 31–54.

Cain

K. J.

Davison

C. M.

Stewart

E. J.

(2009) Preliminary field-work: Methodological reflections from northern Canadian research. Qualitative Research, 9(4): 489–513.

Castledon

Garvin

Huu-ay-aht First Nation (2008) Modifying photovoice for community-based participatory Indigenous research. Social Science & Medicine, 66(6): 1393–1405.

Chataway

(1997) An examination of the constraints on mutual inquiry in a participatory action research project. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4): 747–765.

Christopher

(2005) Robert and Frances Flaherty: A documentary life, 1883–1922, Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Erasmus

Ensign

(1991) A practical framework for community liaison work in native communities, Brandon, Manitoba: Justin Publishing.

Francis

Morantz

(1983) Partners in furs: A history of the fur trade in Eastern James Bay, 1600–1870, Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Geertz

(1973) The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays, New York: Basic Books.

10.

Geller

(2004) Northern exposures: Photographing and filming the Canadian North, 1920–45, Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

11.

Harkin

(2010) Ethnohistory’s ethnohistory: Creating a discipline from the ground up. Social Science History, 34(2): 113–128.

12.

Harrison

(2002a) Seeing health and illness worlds – using visual methodologies in a sociology of health and illness: A methodological review. Sociology of Health and Illness, 24(6): 856–872.

13.

Harrison

(2002b) Photographic visions. Narrative Inquiry, 12(1): 87–111.

14.

Hergenrather

K. C.

Rhodes

S. D.

Cowan

C. A.

Bardhoshi

(2009) Photovoice as community-based participatory research: A qualitative review. American Journal of Health Behavior, 33(6): 686–698.

15.

Honigmann

J. J.

(1981) West Main Cree. In: Helm

(eds) Subarctic, handbook of North American Indians, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, pp. 217–230.

16.

Hurworth

(2003) Photo-interviewing for research. Social Research Update, 40: 1–4.

17.

Kapashesit

Lemelin

R. H.

Bennett

Williams

(2011) The Cree ecolodge: A regional tourism catalyst. In: Grenier

Müller

D. K.

(eds) Polar tourism: A tool for regional development, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, pp. 155–178.

18.

Kauper-Brown

Seifer

(2006) Developing and sustaining community-based participatory research partnerships: A skill-building curriculum, Washington, DC: University of Washington Press.

19.

Lal

Jarus

Suto

M. J.

(2012) A scoping review of the Photovoice method: Implications for occupational therapy research. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79(3): 181–190.

20.

Lassiter

L. E.

(2005) Collaborative ethnography and public anthropology. Current Anthropology, 46(1): 83–106.

21.

Lemelin

R. H.

Wiersma

Stewart

E. J.

(2010) Integrating researchers and indigenous communities: Reflections from northern Canada. In: Hall

(eds) Fieldwork in tourism: Methods, issues and reflections, New York: Routledge, pp. 289–307.

22.

Library and Archives Canada. (2009). Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/inuit/index-e.html.

23.

Lykes

M. B.

(1997) Activist participatory research among the Maya of Guatemala: Constructing meanings from situated knowledge. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4): 725–746.

24.

Lykes

M. B.

(2010) Silence(ing), voice(s) and gross violations of human rights: Constituting and performing subjectivities through PhotoPAR. Visual Studies, 25(3): 238–254.

25.

Lykes, M. B. (in collaboration with the Association of Maya Ixil women-New Dawn, Chajul, Guatemala). (2001). Creative arts and photography in participatory action research in Guatemala. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 363–371). London: SAGE.

26.

Lykes

M. B.

Terre Blanche

Hamber

(2003) Narrating survival and change in Guatemala and South Africa: The politics of representation and a liberatory community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(1/2): 79–90.

27.

Moose Cree First Nation (no date a). The Moose Cree First Nation. Retrieved from http://www.moosecree.com/.

28.

Moose Cree First Nation (no date b). Homeland Declaration Map. Retrieved from http://www.moosecree.com/documents/mcfn_homeland_declaration_map.pdf.

29.

Poddiakov

(2002) Photographs and counter-narratives. Narrative Inquiry, 12(1): 113–120.

30.

Prins

(2010) Participatory photography: A tool for empowerment or surveillance? Action Research, 8(4): 426–443.

31.

Scherer

J. C.

(1975) You can’t believe your eyes: Inaccuracies in photographs of North American Indians. Studies in the Anthropology of Visual Communication, 2: 67–86.

32.

Scherer

J. C.

(1995) Ethnographic photography in anthropological research. In: Hocking

(eds) Principles of visual anthropology, The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 201–216.

33.

The American Society for Ethnohistory (2002). About the American Society for Ethnohistory. Retrieved from http://www.ethnohistory.org/about-ase/.

34.

Vizenor, G. (2007). Foreword. In B. White, We are at home: Pictures of the Ojibwe people (pp. i–xii). St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.

35.

Wang

Burris

M. A.

(1997) Photovoice: Concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Education & Behavior, 24(3): 369–387.

36.

White

(2007) We are at home: Pictures of the Ojibwe people, St Paul: Minnesota Historical Society Press.