Fundamentals
The phrase ‘Digital Invisibility’ describes a complex phenomenon where certain individuals, communities, or aspects of culture are notably absent or misrepresented within digital spaces and technological systems. In essence, it speaks to a subtle yet significant erasure, a void in the data streams, algorithms, and visual landscapes that increasingly define our contemporary world. For those of us who tend to the legacy of textured hair, the comprehension of this term transcends mere academic curiosity; it becomes a vital lens through which we scrutinize the representation of our coils, kinks, and waves, and indeed, the very heritage that springs from them.
This lack of presence in the digital realm can manifest in various ways, from the algorithms that fail to recognize diverse hair textures to the scarcity of authentic imagery that reflects the vast spectrum of Black and mixed-race hair experiences. Understanding this absence is foundational to addressing it, for what is unseen can too easily be forgotten or, worse, devalued. The initial meaning of Digital Invisibility points to a systemic oversight, a default setting in technological design that often prioritizes a narrow, Eurocentric aesthetic, leaving countless strands unacknowledged in the digital tapestry.
Digital Invisibility signifies the quiet absence or misrepresentation of specific cultures and identities within the digital sphere, particularly impacting the rich heritage of textured hair.
Consider, if you will, the foundational elements of how we perceive hair today. From the elemental biology of the strand, tracing its lineage through ancient practices of care and adornment, to its contemporary expression, hair has always served as a profound marker of identity and heritage. When this visual and historical continuity falters in digital renderings, a piece of that collective memory begins to fray. The specification of Digital Invisibility, in this context, highlights how technology, despite its promise of connection, can inadvertently perpetuate historical patterns of marginalization by simply not ‘seeing’ the full human spectrum.
It is important to understand that this phenomenon isn’t merely about aesthetic preference; it carries deeper implications for identity, self-perception, and even economic participation. When a particular hair type or cultural style is consistently absent from digital media, advertising, or even the underlying datasets that train artificial intelligence, it subtly communicates a message about its perceived value and relevance in the wider world. This can erode confidence and perpetuate outdated beauty standards, making the recognition of Digital Invisibility a crucial first step towards fostering a more inclusive and truthful digital reflection of our shared humanity and the varied beauty of textured hair.
Echoes from the Source ❉ Hair in Ancestral Memory
The very concept of hair, particularly its diverse textures, carries a weight of ancestral memory. For many African and diasporic communities, hair was and remains a profound expression of social status, spiritual connection, tribal affiliation, and even marital standing. The intricate braiding patterns, the symbolic adornments, and the communal rituals surrounding hair care were not mere cosmetic acts; they were living archives, transmitting knowledge and identity across generations. The delineation of Digital Invisibility must therefore reckon with the long shadow of historical erasure, where colonial narratives often dismissed or devalued these profound traditions.
Think of the ways ancestral wisdom, often passed down orally, sustained textured hair for millennia. Herbal remedies, natural oils, and specific detangling methods were perfected over centuries, deeply woven into daily life and communal bonds. The current interpretation of Digital Invisibility confronts us with a contemporary paradox ❉ as information becomes digitized, the traditional methods of knowledge transmission risk being overlooked or inadequately captured, leading to a diminished presence of these practices in the very spaces meant to store collective human understanding. This is a subtle yet significant form of absence, where the tangible heritage of hair care traditions might not translate fully into the digital realm.
The Tender Thread ❉ Daily Care and Digital Shadows
The daily rituals of textured hair care, often passed from elder to child, form a tender thread connecting past to present. These intimate moments, filled with stories, songs, and shared techniques, resist easy quantification or digital capture. The explanation of Digital Invisibility considers how the hands-on, sensory experience of caring for natural hair—the feel of the strand, the scent of shea butter, the patient rhythm of braiding—often remains outside the scope of digital documentation. This creates a specific form of invisibility, where the living, breathing practices are less visible than manufactured ideals.
When seeking advice or inspiration in online spaces, individuals with textured hair often encounter a digital landscape heavily skewed towards a narrow band of hair types, or even synthetic representations. This lack of authentic, widely available digital content reflecting their reality contributes to a sense of isolation and a distorted self-image for some. The specification of this type of Digital Invisibility emphasizes not only the absence of data but also the lack of culturally resonant imagery and instructional resources that mirror the lived experiences of those with coils and kinks. It becomes a silence in the digital conversation, where diverse hair stories struggle to find their voice.
Intermediate
Building upon the foundational understanding, the intermediate comprehension of ‘Digital Invisibility’ within the sphere of textured hair moves beyond a simple definition to explore its systemic implications and the mechanisms that perpetuate it. This involves recognizing how this absence is not merely an oversight but often a consequence of ingrained biases within technological development and societal structures. The meaning here deepens to acknowledge that the digital realm, far from being a neutral space, frequently mirrors and amplifies existing inequalities from the physical world. For those connected to the heritage of Black and mixed-race hair, this deeper recognition is crucial, as it highlights the deliberate and unconscious ways our stories and aesthetics are omitted.
One particularly poignant aspect of Digital Invisibility relates to the datasets that train artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms. These systems learn what to ‘see’ and ‘understand’ based on the information they are fed. When these datasets predominantly feature Eurocentric hair textures, or when the imaging technology itself struggles with darker skin tones or complex hair patterns, the resultant algorithms inherit these biases. This leads to practical shortcomings, such as facial recognition systems performing less accurately on individuals with darker skin or textured hair (Buolamwini & Gebru, 2018; Grother et al.
2019; Raji & Buolamwini, 2019). The consequences extend to everyday applications, impacting everything from security systems to online beauty filters that distort natural curl patterns.
Digital Invisibility arises from systemic biases in technological development, where algorithms, trained on skewed datasets, often fail to accurately represent or even ‘see’ diverse hair textures and darker skin tones.
The substance of Digital Invisibility reveals itself as a multifaceted problem, touching upon issues of representation, data equity, and technological fairness. It asks us to consider who designs these systems, what historical narratives inform their creation, and whose lived experiences are prioritized in their implementation. For textured hair communities, this means critically examining how digital tools influence perceptions of beauty, professional suitability, and even identity, often reinforcing a narrow aesthetic ideal that has historically marginalized our hair traditions. The elucidation of this concept necessitates a look at both the visible omissions and the underlying structures that cause them.
Furthermore, the import of Digital Invisibility extends to the commercial landscape. The scarcity of authentic, culturally relevant digital content for textured hair can limit market access and consumer choice for products designed for these hair types. When search algorithms, for instance, favor certain hair types in image results, it affects visibility for brands and creators catering to coils and kinks, inadvertently shaping consumer behavior and reinforcing market dominance. This aspect of the explanation emphasizes the economic and social ramifications that ripple out from a seemingly abstract digital absence.
The Living Traditions ❉ From Ancestral Hands to Digital Screens
The concept of Digital Invisibility gains sharp clarity when we observe the transmission of hair knowledge across generations. Traditionally, this knowledge was embodied, passed from hand to hand, through lived example and oral tradition. The intricate techniques of cornrowing, twisting, and loc maintenance were conveyed through direct apprenticeship, guided by the wisdom of elders.
The challenge now lies in translating this rich, tactile, and experiential heritage into the digital medium without losing its soul. The specification of Digital Invisibility here points to the difficulty of digitally capturing the nuances of touch, tension, and the inherent understanding of a particular strand’s unique needs that characterize authentic textured hair care.
When digital platforms become the primary source of instruction, there is a risk of homogenizing diverse techniques or misrepresenting the historical context of certain styles. A demonstration video, for example, might convey a technique, yet it cannot fully transmit the communal bonding, the generational stories, or the spiritual significance that often accompanies traditional hair rituals. This is a form of digital absence where the emotional and cultural depth of a practice remains unseen, reducing a holistic experience to a purely functional one.
- Oral Histories ❉ Many ancestral hair traditions exist primarily through spoken word, songs, and shared narratives, which are difficult to index or discover in typical text-based digital searches.
- Tactile Knowledge ❉ The skilled manipulation of textured hair relies heavily on touch, tension, and understanding the specific curl pattern, elements that are not easily conveyed or preserved in digital formats.
- Communal Learning ❉ Hair care often occurs in communal settings, a shared experience that differs greatly from solitary digital consumption, leading to a diminished representation of this social aspect.
Guardians of the Helix ❉ Protecting Identity in the Digital Age
For communities where hair has historically been a site of both oppression and resistance, the contemporary threat of Digital Invisibility carries historical resonance. From the discriminatory laws that policed Black hair in public spaces to the ongoing battles against hair discrimination in workplaces and schools, the fight for the recognition of textured hair is intertwined with struggles for fundamental human dignity. The current delineation of Digital Invisibility within this context highlights how digital spaces can, unintentionally or otherwise, extend these historical patterns of suppression.
The pervasive nature of Eurocentric beauty standards in digital imagery, for instance, can erode self-esteem and cultural pride, especially for younger generations who are constantly exposed to these digital ideals. When natural hair is rarely depicted as professional or conventionally beautiful in popular digital media, it perpetuates a harmful cycle of self-rejection or forced assimilation. The import of this digital absence, therefore, stretches into the very core of identity formation, making the deliberate creation of inclusive digital spaces and content a critical act of cultural preservation and self-affirmation.
| Era/Domain Colonial Period |
| Manifestation of Invisibility Suppression of traditional hairstyles; imposition of Eurocentric grooming standards. |
| Impact on Textured Hair Heritage Forced assimilation, loss of traditional knowledge, association of natural hair with 'unruliness'. |
| Era/Domain Early Photography |
| Manifestation of Invisibility Calibration of cameras for lighter skin tones; limited access for Black photographers; lack of diverse subjects. |
| Impact on Textured Hair Heritage Scarcity of authentic historical images of textured hair, leading to gaps in visual records. |
| Era/Domain Mainstream Media (20th Century) |
| Manifestation of Invisibility Underrepresentation or stereotypical portrayal of Black/mixed hair; promotion of chemical relaxers as ideal. |
| Impact on Textured Hair Heritage Internalized beauty standards, economic pressure for hair alteration, mental conflict regarding hair identity. |
| Era/Domain Current Digital Platforms |
| Manifestation of Invisibility Algorithmic bias in facial recognition (lack of data on textured hair); insufficient diverse imagery in stock photos; limited digital tools for diverse hair rendering. |
| Impact on Textured Hair Heritage Continued misidentification, perpetuation of narrow beauty ideals, reduced digital footprint for textured hair communities. |
| Era/Domain Understanding these continuous threads of invisibility, from historical suppression to digital omission, is vital for actively constructing a future where all hair heritage is seen and celebrated. |
Academic
The academic delineation of ‘Digital Invisibility’ presents it as a profound socio-technical phenomenon, wherein specific populations or cultural elements become marginalized or outright absent within digital infrastructures, data ecologies, and algorithmic constructions. This conceptualization extends beyond mere underrepresentation, delving into the structural mechanisms, power dynamics, and historical legacies that contribute to this digital void. Within the specialized domain of textured hair heritage, this signifies a complex interplay of historical, cultural, and technological forces that have systemically rendered Black and mixed-race hair experiences less legible, discoverable, or accurately interpreted within the digital realm. It is a critical examination of how the seemingly objective nature of digital systems can, in practice, perpetuate and amplify existing biases, creating a contemporary form of epistemic injustice where certain forms of knowledge, particularly ancestral hair wisdom, are either uncaptured or miscategorized.
One salient aspect of this Digital Invisibility lies in the construction and composition of datasets used to train artificial intelligence models. These datasets, often vast collections of images and text, form the ‘eyes’ and ‘ears’ through which AI perceives the world. When these foundational datasets exhibit a skewed representation—for instance, an overwhelming predominance of hair textures that conform to Eurocentric ideals, or an insufficient collection of images depicting the rich diversity of Black hairstyles—the resulting algorithms inevitably inherit these biases. This leads to a systematic diminution in the efficacy and fairness of AI systems when encountering textured hair.
As Buolamwini and Gebru (2018) compellingly illustrated in their seminal “Gender Shades” study, commercial gender classification systems frequently demonstrated significantly lower accuracy rates for darker-skinned females compared to lighter-skinned males, with performance sometimes plummeting to 65.3% for the former while maintaining 99.2% for the latter. While their study focused on gender and skin tone, the inherent algorithmic bias linked to facial features and image quality issues for darker skin tones directly impacts the accurate representation and recognition of textured hair, which is inextricably linked to racial and gender identity. This discrepancy, rooted in inadequate data diversity, contributes directly to the digital absence of certain hair types. This instance serves as a rigorous, empirically backed example of Digital Invisibility, showing how foundational algorithmic biases perpetuate the marginalization of textured hair in digital recognition systems, subtly reinforcing historical patterns of exclusion.
The academic meaning of Digital Invisibility critically examines how biased data sets, particularly in AI development, lead to structural marginalization and inaccurate digital representation of textured hair, echoing historical erasures.
The implication of this data bias is far-reaching. Beyond mere misidentification, it contributes to a broader societal perception that privileges certain aesthetics in digital spaces. This subtle but constant reinforcement can shape perceptions of professionalism, beauty, and cultural value, particularly when digital imagery becomes a primary arbiter of such standards.
The explication of Digital Invisibility therefore necessitates an examination of the historical context of beauty standards, tracing how Eurocentric ideals became entrenched not only in physical spaces but also translated, often uncritically, into the digital architecture of our modern world. It is a continuation of historical power dynamics manifesting in new technological forms.
Furthermore, the concept extends to the absence of culturally relevant semantic understanding within digital knowledge systems. Traditional hair care practices, ancestral adornments, and the intricate symbolism woven into Black and mixed-race hair history are often either missing from major digital encyclopedias, categorized incorrectly, or presented without the necessary cultural nuance. This lack of authoritative digital documentation, often stemming from a historical lack of equitable archiving and preservation efforts, constitutes a significant facet of Digital Invisibility. The result is a diminished capacity for these digital repositories to serve as comprehensive, accurate records of a vital aspect of human cultural heritage.
Algorithmic Silences ❉ When Digital Systems Fail to See
The core of Digital Invisibility, from an academic standpoint, resides in the ‘algorithmic silences’ that occur when computational systems, despite their claims of objectivity, fail to perceive or correctly categorize phenomena outside their limited, often biased, training data. This is particularly salient for textured hair. Facial recognition technologies, for instance, are designed to identify individuals by analyzing key facial landmarks. Hair, a prominent attribute, plays a role in this process.
Studies have shown that variations in hair length, style, and texture can affect recognition performance, with certain “non-demographic attributes” like hairstyles significantly affecting recognition performance. If datasets used to train these systems lack diverse representations of textured hair, the algorithms may struggle to generalize or even misinterpret complex curl patterns, leading to errors.
The problem extends beyond mere technical malfunction; it speaks to a deeper issue of design philosophy. Early camera technologies were often calibrated for lighter skin tones, leading to difficulties in properly lighting and capturing darker complexions and the intricate details of textured hair (Sobze, 2013). This historical bias in photographic capture has, in turn, fed into the datasets used for modern AI, creating a perpetuated cycle of visual and consequently, algorithmic, marginalization. The continuous thread from early photographic absence to modern algorithmic bias underscores a profound, often unacknowledged, aspect of Digital Invisibility ❉ the systematic failure of technology to account for the full spectrum of human visual diversity, particularly where race and hair texture intersect.
Beyond facial recognition, digital image search functions and stock photo libraries also suffer from this inherent bias. A search for ‘professional hairstyles’ might yield overwhelmingly straight or loosely waved hair, while images of locs, braids, or natural afros are scarce or relegated to specialized categories. This subtly reinforces a narrow definition of professionalism and beauty, impacting opportunities and self-perception for individuals with textured hair. The societal impact of such omissions can hardly be overstated, contributing to mental and emotional challenges for African American women who experience discrimination related to their natural textured hair (Scott-Ward et al.
2021). This contributes to a constant psychological negotiation between self-acceptance and societal expectations, a burden often amplified by the digital world’s skewed portrayals.
Archival Echoes ❉ Preserving What Was Omitted
The academic understanding of Digital Invisibility also examines the archival silences—the gaps in historical records, museum collections, and cultural databases that stem from past discriminatory practices or a lack of intentional preservation. Traditional knowledge, especially that related to hair practices, was often passed down orally, making it vulnerable to loss if not consciously documented. Digital archiving, while offering immense potential for preservation, also carries the risk of replicating these historical omissions if not approached with a critical, culturally sensitive lens.
Research on Indigenous knowledge and digital tools highlights this duality. While digital platforms can empower communities to control their cultural heritage and provide self-representation, challenges persist, particularly in rural and Indigenous communities with inadequate infrastructure (Christen, 2011; Verran et al. 2007).
The process of digitizing cultural heritage requires ensuring Indigenous voices and protocols are upheld, safeguarding against misinterpretation or commercialization of sacred or sensitive knowledge (Christen, 2011). For hair heritage, this translates to the absence of rich documentation of traditional styles, tools, and rituals in mainstream digital archives, leaving a void that contemporary communities must actively work to fill.
- Data Skew ❉ Predominance of Eurocentric hair textures in AI training data leads to algorithmic bias and misidentification for textured hair.
- Image Poverty ❉ Scarcity of diverse, authentic images of Black and mixed-race hair in digital libraries perpetuates narrow beauty standards.
- Knowledge Gaps ❉ Underrepresentation of ancestral hair care practices and cultural meanings in digital educational resources.
The consequences of such archival invisibility are profound. It can lead to a diminished understanding of the historical and cultural significance of textured hair, not only within affected communities but globally. When these histories are not readily accessible in digital formats, they risk being overlooked in academic research, educational curricula, and public discourse. This creates a narrative deficit, where the resilience, artistry, and ingenuity associated with Black hair traditions are not adequately recognized or celebrated.
The creation of digital libraries and community-led archives represents a powerful counter-movement, providing platforms for preserving and sharing traditional knowledge and fostering self-representation and autonomy (Tribe et al. 2017). Such initiatives are vital for challenging historical narratives that have marginalized indigenous cultures, allowing communities to curate and present their knowledge on their terms (Europeana PRO, 2024). This active reclamation of digital space is a direct response to, and a practical solution for, mitigating Digital Invisibility.
The Unbound Helix ❉ Implications for Identity and Future Trajectories
The long-term implications of Digital Invisibility extend to the very fabric of identity and the future trajectories of textured hair communities. When digital spaces, which increasingly mediate our understanding of the world, fail to reflect the full spectrum of human hair diversity, it creates a subtle yet persistent form of systemic discrimination. This impacts individual self-perception, societal acceptance, and even economic opportunities.
The problem of hair discrimination in schools and workplaces persists, with hair texture or hairstyle often categorized as ‘unprofessional’ or ‘unkempt’ (Ellington, 2020). This experience is often amplified by the lack of positive digital representation that might challenge such biases.
Consider the domain of psychophysiological research, particularly electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potentials (ERP) studies. These studies, which measure brain activity, have historically shown a pronounced lack of diversity in their participant pools. One contributing factor is researchers’ assumptions about how racial differences in hair texture, volume, and style might impact electrode placement and data quality. This leads to practices that disproportionately affect people of color, especially individuals of African descent with highly textured and dense hair follicles (Webb et al.
2022). A study involving 213 individuals revealed that while hair volume is associated with small, systematic differences in signal quality, these differences can be significantly reduced by including gel volume as a covariate, eliminating most group differences (Gatzke-Kopp, 2016; Kissel & Friedman, 2023). This academic finding, while technical, highlights a direct instance of Digital Invisibility. The methodological limitations inherent in ERP recording, often stemming from an absence of consideration for textured hair characteristics, directly contribute to the under-representation of these populations in scientific data, impacting the generalizability of findings and perpetuating a narrow scope of human physiological understanding.
| Initiative Type Community Digital Libraries |
| Focus Collecting oral histories, family photographs, and personal narratives about hair. |
| Contribution to Overcoming Digital Invisibility Provides authentic, self-generated content that counters mainstream omissions and fosters self-representation. |
| Initiative Type Specialized Online Exhibitions |
| Focus Digital showcases of historical hair tools, styles, and their cultural significance. |
| Contribution to Overcoming Digital Invisibility Offers curated narratives that educate a broader audience and honor the artistry and history of textured hair. |
| Initiative Type AI Dataset Diversification Projects |
| Focus Creating balanced datasets with extensive images of diverse hair textures and styles. |
| Contribution to Overcoming Digital Invisibility Directly addresses algorithmic bias, improving the accuracy of facial recognition and image classification for all hair types. |
| Initiative Type Ethical Digitization Protocols |
| Focus Guidelines ensuring cultural consent, appropriate metadata, and community ownership for digitized heritage. |
| Contribution to Overcoming Digital Invisibility Safeguards against misrepresentation and commodification, preserving the true meaning and context of hair traditions. |
| Initiative Type These efforts are crucial for ensuring that the rich tapestry of textured hair heritage is not only digitally present but also accurately and respectfully represented for future generations. |
The persistent digital absence of textured hair, whether in recognition systems, media representation, or scientific datasets, creates a significant challenge for individual well-being and collective historical memory. It can lead to internalized biases, making it harder for individuals to embrace their natural hair without societal pressure (Jones, 2020; Mbilishaka et al. 2020).
This deep, academic exploration of Digital Invisibility underscores its far-reaching consequences ❉ it is not simply about what we see on our screens, but about how those screens shape our perception of reality, our sense of belonging, and the enduring legacy of our ancestral strands. The critical assessment of this phenomenon necessitates interdisciplinary approaches, combining insights from computer science, cultural studies, and social justice advocacy to forge pathways toward more equitable and truly representative digital futures.
The academic investigation also calls for a shift in technological design methodologies, moving toward approaches that prioritize inclusivity from conception. This includes developing algorithms that are inherently more robust to variations in appearance and ensuring that datasets are actively and ethically diversified. The objective is not merely to correct existing biases but to design systems that anticipate and accommodate the full range of human diversity, especially when it comes to unique cultural expressions like textured hair. The academic discourse pushes for a re-evaluation of what constitutes ‘normal’ or ‘default’ in digital representation, demanding that systems are built with a universal appreciation for the human form, in all its varied beauty.
- Data-Driven Bias ❉ Algorithmic training sets, often lacking diverse hair textures, directly contribute to inaccuracies in facial recognition and image processing technologies.
- Narrative Distortion ❉ Absence of authentic, culturally resonant digital narratives can lead to a simplified or misrepresented understanding of textured hair heritage.
- Epistemological Gaps ❉ Insufficient digital archiving of traditional hair care practices results in a loss of accessibility to ancestral wisdom and knowledge.
Reflection on the Heritage of Digital Invisibility
In contemplating Digital Invisibility, especially through the vibrant prism of textured hair heritage, we confront a phenomenon that is both a modern challenge and a continuation of historical narratives. The soul of a strand carries millennia of stories, resilience, and ingenuity. Its journey from elemental biology, through the communal hands that braided and tended, to its role in voicing identity and shaping futures, is a profound testament to an unbroken lineage. Yet, in our rush into the digital age, we have inadvertently created new spaces where this enduring heritage can become faint, where its vibrant hues dim against a backdrop of generalized, often singular, representations.
The subtle absences we have explored—in algorithms, in archives, in mainstream digital imagery—are not simply technical glitches. They are echoes of older silences, whispers of times when textured hair was deemed ‘other,’ ‘unruly,’ or simply ‘unseen’ by dominant gazes. Our understanding of Digital Invisibility calls upon us to recognize that while the tools are new, the impulse to overlook or diminish certain forms of beauty and knowledge carries a long history. This reflection beckons us to look beyond the surface of the screen, to discern the deeper currents of culture, power, and perception that shape what is rendered visible.
The tender thread of ancestral wisdom, passed through generations, teaches us a timeless lesson ❉ true care stems from deep seeing, from acknowledging the unique needs and inherent beauty of every coil and kink. As we navigate the digital landscape, this wisdom reminds us of our responsibility to consciously counteract invisibility. It compels us to advocate for technologies that genuinely see, to contribute to archives that authentically preserve, and to cultivate digital spaces that celebrate the full, boundless expression of textured hair in all its glory.
The journey to unravel Digital Invisibility is an ongoing act of reclamation. It requires us to become both sensitive historians, unearthing the rich heritage that has been overshadowed, and lucid scientists, working to calibrate systems that truly reflect the world’s multifaceted beauty. The ultimate aspiration is to ensure that the unbound helix of textured hair, with all its inherent power and historical significance, finds its rightful, radiant place in the digital future, a place where it is not only seen but deeply understood and revered.
References
- Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. (2018). Gender Shades ❉ Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 1-15.
- Christen, K. (2011). Indigenous knowledge and archival science ❉ An ethical and historical analysis. Archival Science, 11(3-4), 289-302.
- Ellington, T. (2020). TEXTURES ❉ The History and Art of Black Hair. Hirmer Publishers.
- Europeana PRO. (2024, August 9). How digitised collections bring value to indigenous communities. Europeana Pro.
- Gatzke-Kopp, L. M. (2016). Race and psychophysiology ❉ A methodological commentary. Psychophysiology, 53(1), 162-165.
- Grother, P. J. Ngan, M. L. & Hanaoka, K. (2019). Face Recognition Vendor Test (FRVT) Part 3 ❉ Demographic Effects. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
- Jones, S. (2020). Black women’s hair texture ❉ A psychological and socio-cultural conflict. PhD dissertation, Walden University.
- Kissel, M. & Friedman, D. (2023). Addressing race and hair texture biases in electroencephalography (EEG) and event-related potential (ERP) research ❉ A call to action. Psychophysiology, 60(2), e14282.
- Mbilishaka, O. Mbilishaka, S. D. & Mbilishaka, N. A. (2020). The African American hair care industry ❉ A social history of a cultural institution. Journal of Black Studies, 51(3), 270-292.
- Raji, I. D. & Buolamwini, J. (2019). Actionable Auditing ❉ Investigating the Impact of Publicly Documented Bias on Commercial AI Products. Proceedings of the 2019 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 111-120.
- Scott-Ward, M. Donahoo, S. & Smith, J. M. (2021). African American women’s experience of wearing natural textured hair. PhD dissertation, Walden University.
- Sobze, D. Z. (2013). The Third Wave Afro ❉ How the Black beauty blogosphere has mobilized new meaning and movement. Senior Thesis, University of Michigan.
- Tribe, M. et al. (2017). Decolonizing the Digital ❉ Indigenous cultural heritage in the digital age. In Indigenous Futures, (pp. 201-218). University of Queensland Press.
- Verran, H. et al. (2007). Knowledge as a contested domain ❉ The work of Australian Indigenous knowledge and research. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 3(1), 22-38.
- Webb, D. et al. (2022). The Effect of Hair Type and Texture on Electroencephalography and Event-Related Potential Data Quality. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 54, 101073.