This appendix presents an example of an appraisal matrix designed to help activists incorporate power, ambience, and values into their decision-making. It is built around the principles of Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), with a focus on how to hold big ag accountable for their treatment of animals and suitably retain or selectively withhold or destroy their evidence over time.

Appraisal Matrix Analysis for DxE – Strategic Witnessing, Risk, Ambience, Power and Values

The below is an example matrix for incorporating the power, ambience and values of activism, witnessing and appraisal that supports the DxE principles of holding organisations to account for the way they treat animals. Compare the Critical Functional Appraisal matrix (Fig. 10.7), use of platforms (Fig.10.1), the flow-chart vignettes (Fig. 10.3) and continuum axis analysis (Fig. 10.4). Each of these templates asks similar questions. The matrix allows for the more refined mapping across the axes of the continuum, to help make values and power in decision-making more transparent. It can be used as repeatable matrix of these high-level decisions of the most valued and overarching appraisal decisions across DxE’s narratives and memory-making.

A core function of exposé is shown below, but can be repeated for other important functions that are most valued by the group. Records are created, shared and re-created over time, so each column is not a static ‘point in time’ consideration but one that can be referred to when reusing or re-editing original content in new contexts. Deciding on where to create these records in a nanosecond is important too, since platforms may not be considered a stable or ideal place to create and store evidence. This matrix illustrates how DxE can apply Records Continuum Theory in practice, making decision-making more transparent.

Fig. 11.1 Appraisal Matrix of Direct Action Everywhere’s function

The matrix columns replicate dimensions of the Records Continuum Model and Radical Appraisal Continuum Model (RACM) and the appraisal decisions guide radical recordkeeping. In reality, each action does not neatly fit into one column or another but helps to make the theoretical practical. Even if not a neat fit; the main objective is to have comprehensive and consistent decision support built by the community. An ambient and values-based view of records flows into the ‘short term’ and ‘long term’ columns, which focus on retention decisions in particular. Some overlap is possible but is flexible for the community to develop in a format that best suits them.

Fig. 11.2 Description of Matrix Columns.

DxE has developed their approach to strategic communications over time, moving toward activist-designed and encrypted applications where increased security is a value. Secure design of systems like Signal relieves activists from the complexities of setting up complex in-house workarounds like encryption and Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). Activist-built applications can take away the complexity around which VPN provider to trust.^[1]

Reflecting on Long-Term Needs for Activists

DxE may in future wish to add institutional collaborations to this column of the matrix. For now, institutional intervention does not reflect the values of DxE. Any external collaborators during the archiving process must resist the urge to apply traditional archival solutions to a community that performs radical recordkeeping. For example, the LOCKSS project (Lots of Copies Keeps Stuff Safe)^[2] on initial inspection could be easily adapted to a community context like the animal rights community. It has existed for twenty years and has extended into a web-based academic version called CLOCKSS.^[3] However, such an example has not been added to the matrix here as a possible solution. Even if the activist community were to trust the academic institution that runs the project (Stanford University), there might be a values-based decision to avoid projects initially funded by Google and Microsoft (demonstrating the opposite of grassroots values). Similarly, other solutions that apply a socio-technical approach or voting system for security amongst trusted peers, but applying ‘personhood scores’ similar to other self-governing systems^[4] would not suit DxE in a community that has already built trust amongst its members in other ways (such as potluck events and protesting together). Peer-to-peer technologies may suit an activist design.

Relying on media narratives alone is problematic, and alternatives for recording the DxE activist voice in its original context, rather than relying on a collecting model outside of activist control, means an opportunity for DxE to exert self-determination and autonomy over their archiving solution. Some example archiving avenues are added into the matrix for investigation. An interim platform could be assessed as useful until a secure and permanent activist-led solution is designed. The New Design Congress, for example, supports radical recordkeeping (arguably an activist group themselves) and may provide a solution like this in the future. It would likely be a trusted source for DxE because it is a community-led group that values the disruption of archontic power built into online systems.

Conclusion

Critical Functional Appraisal and analysis using the matrix exemplified above, helps activists to reflect on their long-term needs and recordkeeping values in their community context. While the example in this appendix is specifically for DxE, it can be adapted to other activist groups to collaboratively develop their participatory appraisal across a social moment and beyond.