Instagramming
The Ends of Identity:
Pre-birth and post-death identity
practices mapped via the
#ultrasound and #funeral hashtags
Dr Tama Leaver, Curtin University (@tamaleaver)
Department of Internet Studies
&
Dr Tim Highfield, QUT (@timhighfield)
Digital Media Research Centre

Overview
1. Context: The Ends of Identity
2. Method: Instagram data collection
3. #ultrasound
4. #funeral

[1] Context/Background: the Ends of Identity

Shared assumptions of ‘Identity 2.0’, the
‘Networked Self’, and ‘Web Presence’
• Individual agency is central.
• Presumption that identity should be controlled,
curated and managed by the ‘self’ being
presented.
• When agency is not the controlling influence,
this is seen as an issue to be overcome (eg
better privacy settings, clearer Terms of Use).

What about the Ends of Identity?
• Following Erving Goffman (1959) if frontstage
is self performed, and backstage is the more
essential self, who builds the stage, and who
remembers the performance(s)?
à Before (online) agency: before birth, until the
‘reigns’ of online identity tools and
performances are inherited?
à After (online) agency: who looks after online
traces of self once the self they refer to dies?

At one end: parents as initial identity
curators/creators online …
• Parents/guardians set the initial
parameters of online identity.
• From ultrasounds photos to cute
toddler pics, losing that first tooth
etc …
• How do and should young people
‘inherit’ online identities?

“The emergence of such social media platforms
as Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, Twitter, Bundlr
and YouTube facilitating the sharing of images
has allowed the wide dissemination of imagery
and information about the unborn in public
forums. Indeed, sharing of the first ultrasound
photograph on social media has become a rite
of pregnancy for many women.”
(Lupton, 2013, p. 42)

At the other end: Memorializing
Performed Digital Selves?
• What happens to profiles, accounts,
photos, videos and other social
traces after someone dies?
• Do we have the right to delete it all?
• Should it be memorialized?
• Who decides? (very few laws
address social media inheritance).

Blatant plug
“Researching the Ends of Identity:
Birth and Death on Social Media”
Tama Leaver (2015)
Social Media + Society manifestos
sms.sagepub.com

[2] Method: Collecting Photos from Instagram

Building from studies using Twitter
• To map and track social media use, we start
with established methods for studying Twitter.
• Topical datasets, using similar methods around
varied subjects, including:
– Breaking news
– Politics
– Crises
– Popular culture
– Sports

Twitter data
User
name
Tweet
Hashtag
Link
Date
and
4me
@men4on

Tags and social media
• Tagging did not originate with Twitter,
although a prominent aspect of how users
tweet.
• Tags and hashtags used on other social media,
although functionality, adoption, and
intentions vary.
– Instagram vs. Tumblr vs. Pinterest vs. Facebook…

Instagram data
Creator
user
name
Image/
video
Cap4on
Likes
Comments
Tag
@men4on
Date/4me

Tracking Instagram activity
• Our initial approach builds on Twitter-specific
work and tools, which allows for comparative
analysis (methods and content).
• The starting focus is on #tags – practices,
functions, coverage of the same topic/tag,
including across different platforms.
• See Highfield and Leaver (2015).
• But also an evolving space with ongoing
challenges – emoji hashtags, for instance.

Prototype Instagram methods
• Following the Twitter analytics model of
querying for specified keywords/hashtags,
query Instagram API for similar tag-specific
results.
• The tag search query retrieves data including:
media id, media type, user id, user name,
caption, image/video links, time and date,
location data, tags, comments (count and
content), likes (count).

Changing data
• Unlike Twitter, content posted on Instagram is not
static.
– Captions now editable after the fact
• A photo or video posted can be added to by the
original user and others viewing the file.
– Liking, adding comments, replying to previous
comments.
• Rather than creating standalone data, comments are
additions to the existing image – attached to this
specific data point, not in isolation.
à When should we ‘capture’ the data? (How long until
comments typically finish, for example?)

Authorship and intentions
• Comments also impact upon what is being
tracked and captured.
• Tracking specific tags through the Instagram
API returns media where the creator has, in the
process of publishing the content, included
these tags in their caption.
• However, it also includes media where a
follow-up comment includes these tags
(although this can later be filtered out).

NB: Privacy isn’t a binary …
Individual and cultural definitions and expectations of
privacy are ambiguous, contested, and changing. People
may operate in public spaces but maintain strong
perceptions or expectations of privacy. Or, they may
acknowledge that the substance of their communication is
public, but that the specific context in which it appears
implies restrictions on how that information is -- or ought
to be -- used by other parties. Data aggregators or search
tools make information accessible to a wider public than
what might have been originally intended.
(Markham & Buchanan, 2012, p. 6)

Contextual Integrity in Ethics
• Instagram may be experienced as private or partially
private in everyday use (contextually), despite being
public at a technical level (via the API).
• The shift from an iPhone only app to Android and
Windows phone, plus web profiles makes Instagram
photos more and more public.
• Researchers have to weigh intentionality in sharing,
not just technical publicness (“it’s freely available
online”).

[3] #ultrasound

#ultrasound
Table
1.
#ultrasound
tagged
media
on
Instagram,
2014
Images
Videos
Overall
Media
March
3468
151
3619
April
3847
128
3975
May
3575
151
3726
3-­‐Month
Totals:
10890
430
11320

#ultrasound 48hr snapshot (focused on
first Monday of each month)
• March: 289 images / 7 videos
• April: 331 images / 14 videos
• May: 373 images / 11 videos
à Now to drill down further into the
March #ultrasound images …

#ultrasound
– types of photos …
• Advertising: 3
• No relevance (hashtag
spam): 6
• Ultrasound humour: 8
• Other Medical
Ultrasounds: 17
(including 1 dog)
• Also 15 images deleted
or made private

Social Experiences of #Ultrasounds
• 32 photos depicting social
experiences centred on
prenatal ultrasounds
• EG parent(s) travelling to/
from the ultrasound
• EG selfie and caption
expression nervousness or
excitement prior to
ultrasound

Collages/Professional Photos
incl. #ultrasounds
• 32 photos either deliberate
collages or professional
photographs incorporating
ultrasound photos
• EG professional posed shot or
ultrasound on screen or printed
• EG collage showing ultrasound,
parent(s) plus celebratory details
(eg champagne glass or ‘it’s a boy/
girl’ or planned baby name).

Ultrasounds with personally
identifiable text in the photo
• 71 photos (26% of the set)
included personally identifiable
information in the photo
(usually generated by the
ultrasound equipment)
• Typically includes mother’s full
name, mother’s DOB, medical
facility, estimated gestation
period to date, date of the scan,
etc.

Ultrasounds without personally
identifiable text in the photo
• 105 photos (38% of the set) do
not include personally
identifiable information in the
photograph
• Some deliberately obscured,
some out of focus, most
zoomed to avoid those details
(either consciously or simply
to take a better photograph)

“On Instagram alone, every month thousands of
foetal images are shared and publicly tagged as
ultrasounds. Often these images capture the
metadata visible on the ultrasound screen, which
might include the mother’s name, the current date,
the location of the scan, the expected delivery date,
and other personal information. For many young
people, this type of sharing will be their first
mention on social media, the beginning of a long
and likely loving record published by their parents,
guardians and loved ones.” (Leaver, 2015)

[4] #funeral

#funeral
Table
2.
#funeral
tagged
media
on
Instagram,
2014
Images
Videos
Overall
Media
March
5375
214
5589
April
5429
220
5649
May
5059
200
5259
3-­‐Month
Totals:
15863
634
16497

#funeral 48hr snapshot (focused on
first Monday of each month)
• March: 398 images / 9 videos
• April: 543 images / 26 videos
• May: 472 images / 19 videos
à Now to drill down further
into the March #funeral
images …

#funeral – types of photos …
• Not photos (memes,
screenshots, inspirational
quotes): 70
• Names of deceased: 8
• Coffins: 9
• Open caskets/graves: 2
(people); 5 (animals)
• Also 28 images deleted or
made private

#funeral imagery
• Flower arrangements, wreathes and typical
funeral icons constituted a significant
proportion of the Instagram funeral media,
consistent with more mainstream funeral
visualisation.
• Coffins, cemeteries, and images of the funeral
ceremonies also represented, if not as
frequently

The deceased and #funeral
• Images of the deceased less common –
presentation of self/groups, but stylistic
framing of elegiac imagery (overlays, collages)
– Limited photos of the deceased in situ – more notes
and programmes, headstones
• There were several funeral images of pets
(mostly goldfish being flushed down a toilet).

Non-funereal #funeral
• Images relating to:
– The album Funeral by
Arcade Fire
– The band Funeral for a
Friend
– Funeral doom music (sub-
genre of doom metal)
• The band Funeral
(Norwegian funeral doom
band)

#funeral humour
• While smaller in number,
there were still a range of
humorous images and memes
– motivational ( ‘a funeral for my
fat’)
– emphasising funeral as a
farewell rather than death
– comedic subversion
– death-related memes

Storytelling and intertexts
• Narrative construction through collages
• Screenshots of texts, conversations, music and
media players
• Intertexts – stills from films, television shows,
sequential GIFs reformatted for a still collage

A brief note on funeral selfies
• Just over a third of the images were selfies (self-
portrait photos either of an individual or group
taken with a mobile device)
– Recurring imagery of sad/forlorn expression, clad
in black
• But not universal – smiling common too
• #funeral as means for remembering and
celebrating deceased – but also the personal
experience and context (getting ready, on way)
• See also: Gibbs et al. (2015)

Findings: #ultrasound and privacy
• 15 images deleted/hidden in first fortnight is
significant (potentially rethinking sharing
publicly).
• 71 images with personally identifiable
information = the initial (named) social media
footprint preceding birth.
• Whether conscious choice (informed) or not,
very hard to tell.

Findings: social experiences
• Social experience (selfies, journey to/from) and
collages/professional photos demonstrate the
mainstream sociality of sharing images about
ultrasounds and funerals.
• Collages show explicit choices about framing
the ‘story’ of the ultrasound; often a form of
visual digital storytelling.

Findings: social experiences
• For funerals, the presentation of self rather
than the deceased further underlines social
mediation – personal experiences, family and
friends, reflection and memory
• This does not overlook or forget the context for
these images – use of captions and comments
to share this information rather than or in
addition to the images?

Findings:
identity/presence forming
• All shared #ultrasound photos are indicative of a
growing culture of sharing photos of young people by
parents/guardians/etc.
• Literacies regarding the persistence of this data are
haphazard, rarely informed by the apps/platforms,
showing a cultural need for widespread embedding of
mobile media literacies.
• Social norms about sharing these images are evolving
because of affordances, as much as driving them

References
• Aufderheide, P. (2010). Copyright, Fair Use, and Social Networks. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked
Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp. 274-303). Routledge.
• boyd, d. (2010). Social Network Sites and Networked Publics: Affordances, Dymanics and Implications. In
Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites (pp.
39-58). Routledge.
• boyd, d., & Crawford, K. (2012). Critical Questions for Big Data. Information, Communication & Society,
15(5), 662-679.
• Bruns, A., & Burgess, J. (2011). Mapping Online Publics. http://mappingonlinepublics.net/
• Gibbs, M., Meese, J., Arnold, M., Nansen, B., & Carter, M. (2015). #Funeral and Instagram: death, social
media, and platform vernacular. Information, Communication & Society , 18 (3), 255–268.
• Halavais, A. (2013). Structure of Twitter: Social and Technical. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M.
Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and Society. New York: Peter Lang.
• Highfield, T., & Leaver, T. (2015). A methodology for mapping Instagram hashtags. First Monday, 20(1).
http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v20i1.5563
• Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Book.
• Leaver, T. (2015). Researching the Ends of Identity: Birth and Death on Social Media. Social Media +
Society, 1(1). http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115578877
• Lupton, D. (2013). The Social Worlds of the Unborn. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
• Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical Decision-Making and Internet Research Recommendations
from the AoIR Ethics Working Committee (Version 2.0). Retrieved from http://aoir.org/reports/ethics2.pdf
• Zoonen, L. van. (2013). From identity to identification: fixating the fragmented self. Media, Culture
& Society, 35(1), 44–51. doi:10.1177/0163443712464557

Questions or Comments?
For more details and slides:
www.tamaleaver.net
@tamaleaver
t.leaver@curtin.edu.au
www.timhighfield.net
@timhighfield
t.highfield@qut.edu.au