Evidence Summary
Digitized Indigenous Knowledge Collections Can Have Beneficial Impact on Cultural Identity and Social Ties
A Review of:
Liew, C. L., Yeates, J.,
& Lilley, S. C. (2021). Digitized Indigenous knowledge collections: Impact
on cultural knowledge transmission, social connections, and cultural identity. Journal of the Association for Information
Science and Technology, 72(12), 1575–1592. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24536
Reviewed by:
Hilary Bussell
Associate Professor, Research and Education
The Ohio State University Libraries
Columbus, Ohio, United States of America
Email: bussell.21@osu.edu
Received: 27 May 2022 Accepted: 20 July 2022
2022 Bussell.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons‐Attribution‐Noncommercial‐Share Alike License 4.0
International (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly attributed, not used for commercial
purposes, and, if transformed, the resulting work is redistributed under the
same or similar license to this one.
DOI: 10.18438/eblip30179
Abstract
Design – Phenomenological explorative study.
Setting – New
Zealand.
Subjects –
Eight D-IKC users, including three academics, four undergraduate students, and
one postgraduate student. Six participants were women and two were men. All
participants were of Māori descent.
Methods –
Eight semi-structured interviews ranging from 40 to 75 minutes were conducted
in a face-to-face setting between June 2019 and August 2020. Participants were
recruited through the researchers’ personal and professional networks using a
purposeful sampling technique. Potential participants were provided with a copy
of the interview guide during recruitment.
Main Results – The article reports on seven areas of results: use of collections,
accessibility and discoverability, collection features and functionality,
sharing of knowledge resources, reuse and repurposing of resources, perceived
benefits of cultural and social connections, and development and provision of
D-IKC. Participants use D-IKC for academic work including coursework, teaching,
and research as well as for personal interest and development, such as
researching whakapapa (genealogy) and
whenua (land) information, language
revitalization projects, and creative works. All participants expressed
preference for online access to the collections. Participants discussed
barriers to access not only for themselves but also for other members of their
community, including difficulty using the platforms on mobile devices, lack of
awareness about the collections, inadequate digital access, and lack of digital
competence for searching and navigation. Some participants noted inaccuracies
in transcriptions that could lead to alteration of the meaning of words and
deter engagement with D-IKC. All participants reported having shared knowledge
resources they encountered in digitized collections. Primary reasons for
sharing information included helping classmates get access to educational
materials and sharing resources with whānau (extended family) for genealogical research and land
claims. Common reasons for reusing or repurposing materials included language
and dialect revitalization and creative work and performance. Participants said
they were more likely to share materials related to their tribal affiliation.
Participants also discussed information that would not be appropriate to share,
such as information that is considered tapu (sacred),
particularly if the material is outside of their tribal roots. Notably, all
participants said they had come across resources and information in D-IKC that
should not be openly accessible at all. Participants reported having gained
linguistic and cultural knowledge as well as information about their cultural
identity through their use of D-IKC. Sharing this knowledge with their
communities has helped strengthen social connections. Some participants noted
that their hapū
(subtribe) planned to set up their own digital archives.
Conclusion – Overall, D-IKC can have a beneficial impact
on individual and collective social identity and social ties. Making these
materials available online facilitates their wider access and use. However,
memory institutions (MIs) need to take steps to ensure that cultural values and
knowledge are embedded into the development and stewardship of the collections.
MIs should employ more specialists from Indigenous communities with deep
understanding of customary practices and principles, encourage other staff to develop their understanding of the
language and customs of the Indigenous communities that their collections are
rooted in, and develop partnerships with Indigenous authorities to help guide
them on issues relating to sacred knowledge and genealogical materials. The
authors also recommend that MIs develop outreach programs to raise awareness of
the resources and to improve digital access and competencies.
Commentary
This article contributes to the body of research on
the role that cultural heritage institutions can play in the development of
cultural identity, knowledge transmission, and social connections.
Specifically, the authors build on previous research into the development of
knowledge sharing relationships through the use of
digitized Māori
language collections (Crookston et al., 2016) by exploring users’
perspectives, experiences, and expectations in engaging with these collections.
Based on this research, the researchers provide insights into how these
collections can lead to knowledge sharing outside of an institutional context;
they also articulate a number of considerations to
guide MIs in the provision of Indigenous knowledge collections.
This study was evaluated using guidance from Kuper et al. (2008). The article is particularly strong in
the level of detail it provides in its methodology section and supporting data.
The authors include a paragraph that addresses reflexivity by describing their
positionalities as researchers. Reflexivity is an important concept within
qualitative research that explores the influence a researcher brings to the
research process by acknowledging how their “gender, ethnic background,
profession, and social status influence the choices made within the study” (Liew,
Yeates, & Lilley, 2021, p. 689). The authors describe how they brought a combination of
“insider and outsider perspectives” to their collaboration in terms of their
sociocultural identities, topical knowledge, and roles within the research
study. Important to note is that at least one of the authors is of Māori
descent while another is not; they note that the third author has expertise in kaupapa Māori (Māori principles and values), but they do not state whether he is
of Māori descent. The methods for data
collection and analysis are described thoroughly. In addition to drawing on
concepts from their literature review and several value-impact frameworks for
assessing digital cultural heritage collections, the authors analyzed their
data using kaupapa Māori to make sure that specific cultural issues were not elided.
The authors draw on these concepts throughout the article and provide a
glossary of Māori terms in an appendix. Additional supporting data include participant profiles and summaries of key
findings mapped to value-impact frameworks and traditional cultural values.
One area where additional details would have been
welcome is in the discussion of sampling. The authors state that participants
were recruited through personal and professional networks of the researchers,
using a purposeful sampling technique. All of the
participants were university students or academics, leading the reader to
assume that university affiliation was one of the criteria; however, this is
not stated outright, and what other inclusion criteria were used is unclear.
As the authors note, given the qualitative nature of
this study, the findings are not meant to be generalizable to a larger
population. Nevertheless, they provide a number of recommendations and insights that will be relevant
to MIs that maintain Indigenous cultural knowledge collections. These considerations are particularly important in
light of the fact that the principle of open access to information
resources can be in conflict with Indigenous knowledge sharing paradigms
(Underhill, 2006) and given the destructive role that archives, libraries, and
other MIs have and continue to play through colonial collecting practices
(Christen, 2015).
References
Christen, K. (2015). Tribal archives, traditional knowledge, and local
contexts: Why the “s” matters. Journal of
Western Archives, 6(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.26077/78d5-47cf
Crookston, M., Oliver, G., Tikao, A., Diamond,
P., Liew, C.L., & Douglas, S.-L. (2016).
Kōrero Kitea: Ngā hua o te
whakamamatitanga/The impacts of digitised
te reo archival
collections. https://interparestrust.org/assets/public/dissemination/Korerokiteareport_final.pdf
Kuper, A., Lingard,
L., & Levinson, W. (2008). Critically appraising qualitative
research. BMJ, 337, 687–689. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1035
Liew,
C. L., Yeates, J., & Lilley, S. C. (2021).
Digitized Indigenous knowledge collections: Impact on cultural knowledge
transmission, social connections, and cultural identity. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 72(12),
1575–1592. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24536
Underhill, K. J. (2006). Protocols for Native American archival
materials. RBM: A Journal of Rare Books,
Manuscripts, and Cultural Heritage, 7(2), 134–145. https://doi.org/10.5860/rbm.7.2.267