Introduction
The Indigenization of knowledge organization within library and information studies is an emerging research field that can be attributed to the rising popularity of Indigenous scholarship. The gradual but distinct worldwide Indigenous knowledge recognition as valuable and legitimate raises a large number of challenges within the sector of library and information services (LIS). Both organizations and professionals are becoming aware that they work with the Australian Indigenous knowledge area within their frameworks, which require management that is culturally appropriate.
For the LIS sector, recognizing Indigenous knowledge offers a range of challenges and issues for further consideration, such as the strategies under which a new system can be developed to meet the expectations of Indigenous peoples in terms of managing their knowledge. Due to the history of colonialism that has significantly affected both past and current Indigenous peoples’ circumstances, any developments in knowledge management and preservation in the LIS context will be intersectionally challenged. Libraries and archives that hold the sources of Indigenous knowledge must deal with the broader issues of knowledge preservation of documented literary heritage (Lilley, 2019). In addition, it is imperative to consider the fact that Indigenous knowledge should always be considered contemporary as it is continuously changing and evolving hand-in-hand with the oral tradition. However, the tension with other knowledge systems makes it complicated to ensure the accurate transmission of knowledge. Without simplifying and questioning the importance of Indigenous knowledge in both previous and current contexts, LIS professionals should be informed of the concerns that the population has. Besides, they should seek appropriate methods of knowledge management and determine how they can influence service provision for Indigenous Australians.
This research aims to study the manner in which the knowledge of Indigenous peoples is being presented in the Western library collection, with the focus placed on the misinterpretation and underserving of Indigenous communities through the pervasive influence of Westernized information systems. It is essential to understand how the representation of Indigenous knowledge has transformed throughout history to determine positive changes that can rectify past wrongs. Taking a qualitative research approach, the study findings will be derived from relevant literature on the topic published at different points of modern scholarly discourse to provide a comprehensive perspective on the representation of Indigenous knowledge within the LIS industry.
Methodology
This qualitative study uses a semi-systematic or narrative literature review methodology used to synthesize the available evidence regarding the Indigenization of Australian libraries. The approach is intended to shed light on the topic of literature Indigenization, which has not been studied in detail and therefore do not allow to conduct a full systematic review (Snyder, 2019). Besides the objective of overviewing a topic, a narrative literature review will show how studies within the selected field of research have changed over time or how the topic has developed across different research traditions (Snyder, 2019). Overall, this study aims to seek and identify the potentially relevant research traditions for the topic at hand and synthesize them using meta-narratives instead of measuring effect size.
This narrative literature review is expected to yield data for content analysis, which is a technique for identifying and reporting patterns in the form of themes within the text. It will allow to shed light on theoretical perspectives or common issues within a research discipline or methodology (Snyder, 2019). A potential contribution of the narrative literature review is the researcher’s ability to synthesize the state of knowledge and create agenda for future research (Davis et al., 2014). With the help of a keyword search, Australian databases such as Australia’s Heritage Bibliography, Australian Aboriginal Tribal Database, Australian Indigenous Language Databases, Australian Literarty and Historic Texts, and others were search. Keywords used for the search included Indigenous knowledge, knowledge Indigenization, Indigenization issues, Indigenous knowledge documentation, literature Indigenization, and Indigenous knowledge concerns.
Literature Review
Indigenous Knowledge
A major challenge that LIS professionals face is concerned with the need to reconcile Indigenous knowledge that is a different system requiring the appropriate handling and management regimes. This is important because the materials are considered different in approach in contrast to those belonging to the system of knowledge management within the Western approach (Pilot, 2005). At its core, Indigenous knowledge is defined as traditional, even though there are debates as to whether the term should be used to replace the traditional knowledge notion (Gall, 2012). Therefore, Indigenous knowledge is instead considered a category of the traditional knowledge subset and is being used to precisely describe the knowledge inherent to the Indigenous peoples (Nakata et al., 2005). There is a common misunderstanding that prevails in Australian research, that Indigenous knowledge is only relevant in the context of the past, which leads to its simplification and primitivization (Battiste, 2005). Due to the misconception, Indigenous knowledge was seen as primitive in early Western scholarly agenda, and the real complexities of Indigenous cultural and social structures had not been generally recognized.
Based on the definition in the Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of the Heritage of Indigenous peoples, Indigenous knowledge is “a complete system of knowledge with its own concepts and epistemology, and its own scientific and logical validity” (Battiste, 2005, p. 7). Among the qualities of Indigenous knowledge, there are dynamic and practical qualities that have been derived predominantly from the cultural and contextual changes that have called for Indigenous populations to continuously negotiate their value with the external environment (Magni, 2016). According to Bates (2009), maintaining Indigenous knowledge is a constant evolution, which is represented by the generations of creative thought and action within every community that is being challenged by the continuously evolving problems and conditions (Briggs and Sharp, 2004). Because of the distinct and noticeable connections associated with both contextual and cultural relationships, Indigenous knowledge becomes a valuable aspect of the lives of Indigenous peoples due to the provision of the necessary survival means. As mentioned by Briggs and Sharp (2004), Indigenous knowledge is often facilitated by the utilitarian and pragmatic demands of everyday life, which are also impacted by non-Indigenous components, such as the response of the population in question. In their own knowledge, Indigenous peoples are actors, which means that separating it from the socio-cultural context could be the detriment of misleading interpretations.
Although it is increasingly being recognized and appraised for its vital role in maintaining the livelihoods of populations worldwide and for its innovation potential, it still is devalued when juxtaposed to the role of Western knowledge (Briggs and Sharp, 2004). The attempts of researchers to make sense of the peculiarities of Indigenous knowledge have transformed into the system of contrasting it to Western knowledge, thus simplifying and misinterpreting (Nakata et al., 2007). There has been a common trend associated with approaching Indigenous knowledge as based on invalid data sets that cannot be extracted and incorporated into scientific frameworks.
Due to the historical diminishing of Indigenous knowledge and its overall fragile existence, there should be efforts to preserve it and protect relevant rights to intellectual property in order to ensure an appropriate attribution, use, and documentation (Nakata et al., 2007). The recent interest in the contribution of Indigenous knowledge, even though linked to the reassertion of Indigenous people’s political and cultural roles, has predominantly been urged by scientific and humanitarian activity, particularly research on the practices of sustainable development, conservation, and the loss of biodiversity (Nakata et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the manner in which Indigenous knowledge is documented goes against the conceptual framework through which it has been described. In the context of sustainable development, the preservation and conservation strategies of knowledge, which imply the acquisition and collection, its documentation and storage, as well as the sharing of information, involve the separation of sections that are meaningful for exploration and storage in various databases (Agrawal, 2004). Similarly, within the educational setting, the attempts of integrating Indigenous knowledge into the learning curricula are often challenged by the separation and fragmentation throughout the categories of knowledge that cannot be characterized as Indigenous.
Through the manipulation of Indigenous knowledge and its abstraction, the final form of information may not have the holistic and oral form as well as its complete meaning, which is often attributed to its social context (Nakata et al., 2007). Therefore, the documentation of Indigenous knowledge in libraries risks undermining the purpose and the meaning of the information that should be preserved rather than cut or abstracted (Agrawal, 1995). As mentioned by Langron and Ma Rhea (2003), when the documented Indigenous knowledge is derivative and not presented in its full form, those who set a goal of studying it have to use critical evaluation skills in order to initially test its legitimacy prior to exploration and analysis. This shows that Indigenous knowledge must be documented in its full form to preserve its meanings as well as protect the Indigenous intellectual property.
The Documentation of Indigenous Knowledge
The historical interest associated with studying Indigenous knowledge could be differentiated into academic and developmental areas (Agrawal, 2004). The academic area is concerned with studies in such fields as anthropology and ethnography, while the developmental area is concerned with the issues of land management and participatory development (Agrawal, 2004). Much research conducted in the 1980s underlined the importance of Indigenous knowledge management in the sense of “development from below,” in which knowledge becomes an essential component of increasing the relevance and the adaptation of technological advancements to local needs (Magni, 2016).
Conducting an online search on Indigenous knowledge immediately reveals the extent to which the global community is interested in its documentation (Nakata & Langton, 2007). With the widespread availability of networking and information technologies in the past two decades has enabled the creation of databases, registers, and other resources for accessing Indigenous information globally (Nakata & Langton, 2007). However, in Australia, which is a developed country, the situation concerning the documentation of Indigenous knowledge can be considered insignificant due to the lack of attention to the minority’s interests (United Nations, 2009). The development of the LIS sector does not view Indigenous knowledge documentation as important due to the prioritization of Western-oriented information that dominates the global addenda.
The history of documenting traditional and cultural knowledge in Australia has evolved through the work of missionaries and anthropological activists (Nakata & Langton, 2007). As a result of this, a significant section of Indigenous knowledge is preserved in separate collections around the state, including both secret and sacred information (Nakata & Langton, 2007). Current efforts rely significantly on the interplay of Indigenous populations’ interests and the objectives of academic research, which depend on Australia’s philanthropic funds, which are predominantly scarce.
The interests and motivations behind documenting Indigenous knowledge are varied and multi-dimensional. There is a rising acknowledgment of the future importance and the value of Indigenous knowledge, which is expected to contribute to the well-being of the populations in question with the help of their cultural maintenance (Magni, 2016). Such acknowledgment is expected to yield both economic and social advantages with the help of innovation and a strong desire to maintain, protect, and restore the knowledge for the purpose of cultural and educational advancement (United Nations, 2009). The constraints in the availability of philanthropic funding often result in rather insignificant documentation projects that have been simplified and narrowly-defined (United Nations, 2009). Because of such challenges, the particular historical characteristics and the current capacities of groups and communities limit the interests and priorities of documentation despite the fact that the opportunities for it are complex (Magni, 2016).
At the present moment, several categories can be identified regarding Indigenous knowledge documentation within the LIS sector (Nakata & Langton, 2007). One of such categories is represented by the sector of activity that is associated with the urgency of some Indigenous populations to record the oral knowledge, which has been mainly undocumented, that is put at risk by the intergenerational loss (Nakata & Langton, 2007). The second category is local documentation, which is associated with the recording of the traditional and cultural information gathered from Indigenous groups for centuries and stored in archive or museum collections (Janke and Company, 2018). In addition, there are some projects that have been targeted at documenting knowledge, including knowledge innovation, which stems from a modern collaboration with scientific and academic interests (Nakata & Langton, 2007). Therefore, there is great potential for the ongoing communication of Indigenous knowledge, integration and innovation across various categories.
The Mistreatment of Indigenous Knowledge
Indigenous knowledge is kept and practiced in order to look after Australia’s cultural heritage, expressing its identity and role in the global context. For many decades, Indigenous knowledge has been mainly transferred down from one generation to another, predominantly through word of mouth, with no specific manual recording (Wohling, 2009). The information is usually being shared when the representatives of a younger group are ready to have the knowledge and store it until further transfer (Wohling, 2009). In the form of traditional practices, ceremonies, and other symbols of cultural heritage, Indigenous knowledge is being transferred. However, its mistreatment begins with concerns as to whom and how the knowledge can be shared.
One of the main challenges is concerned with free use of Indigenous knowledge, failing to acknowledge the rights to ownership (Wohling, 2009). Indigenous people are not in control of the way in which the knowledge that supposedly belongs to them is being recorded and interpreted. Because of the increased use of digitization and databases, the majority of the archival systems and records containing Indigenous knowledge present issues when it comes to owning and accessing the storage of relevant works (Janke and Company, 2018). According to the report Aboriginal Knowledge, Digital Technologies and Cultural Collections conducted by the University of Melbourne, there are four prominent issues of Indigenous knowledge mistreatment encountered within the digital technology context (Janke and Company, 2018). For instance, during the digital collection of Indigenous knowledge from the representatives of Indigenous communities for the Center for Australian Languages and Linguistics, some challenges in mistreatment emerged. Place names with Indigenous words required consultations with Indigenous peoples, which limited knowledge consistency and accurate representation.
Another example concerns the commercial use of Indigenous words. Under the Trade Marks Act of 1995, there were no requirements for the examiners of trade marks to inquire whether the registration of Indigenous words was verified with community representatives (Janke and Company, 2018). For instance, in cases when trade mark applications contained any language elements from the Maori people, there should have been considerations as to whether such elements could be considered offensive to the community (Janke and Company, 2018). Such a case occurred with Telstra, which is a company specializing in digital incubators that brought a new product to the market, Muru-D (Janke and Company, 2018). In order to avoid issues concerning offending Indigenous peoples, Telstra consulted with a Sydney Aboriginal community leader in order for the product’s name to “reflect that traditional language of the land that it was built on” (Janke and Company, 2018, p. 56).
Beyond the challenges that emerge as a result of knowledge digitalization, there are issues concerning the misappropriation and misuse of traditional knowledge. Fundamentally, any commercial use of traditional Indigenous knowledge can take place only in cases when people agree after being adequately informed about the potential implications, both positive and negative (Nakata et al., 2007). Nevertheless, Indigenous Australians currently represent the most researched subset of the population, with significant sections of research being associated with their knowledge, the ways of life, as well as the struggle for attaining self-determination (Nakata et al., 2007). Due to the complexity of the subject areas that are being studied, questions regarding the misuse and misappropriation of traditional knowledge arise (Nakata & Langton, 2007). According to the National Principles of Intellectual Property Management for Publicly Funded Research, any Indigenous knowledge studies should consider the strategies of addressing cases in which research potentially threatens or has threatened on the spiritual, cultural, and other aspects of Indigenous populations’ lives (Nakata et al., 2007). However, the principles do not offer any guidance on how to the cases of knowledge mistreatment should be handled, nor do they address the ways of obtaining informed consent from the representatives of Indigenous communities. Overall, despite the fact that the issues of mishandling Indigenous knowledge are acknowledged, there is little effort at this time aimed at improving the situation, with the extent of future changes and developments remaining unclear.
Approaching Indigenous Knowledge Materials
The Indigenous knowledge that has been documented is a component of the archived heritage of the Australian nation, and therefore, has the capacity of intersecting with the LIS sector (Nakata et al., 2005). When it comes to approaching the handling of Indigenous knowledge materials, the LIS system is challenged by the recognition of such information as distinct sections of knowledge with their peculiar management regimens (Nakata & Langton, 2007). The traditional rights of access are located within the customary systems of law and kinship that can authorize the regulation and transfer of Indigenous knowledge from one custodian to the next. Besides, the restrictions on access to knowledge can include age, gender, status, and other characteristics (Nakata et al., 2005). The primary rights to intellectual property belong to each of the Indigenous groups, with rights to ownership derived from relationships based on kinship, although such aspects can vary between groups across Australia.
Despite the fact that the challenges with handling Indigenous knowledge starts with the differentiation between the systems, the limitations in handling such information do not stem from management systems (Nakata et al., 2005). The limitations are more likely to emerge from the interplay of the two systems and the information handling sector, especially regarding Indigenous knowledge being challenged by the issues of “ownership, attribution, and conditions of access to knowledge that may have been collected without informed consent” (Nakata & Langton, 2007, p. 29). The traditional knowledge management systems have dissolved under the pervasive influence of colonialism, which has led to the destruction of languages, cultures, traditions, unique perspectives, and people (Nakata & Langton, 2007). Nevertheless, there remains a significant desire of Indigenous populations to use the wide range of collections and archives in order to acquire as much traditional knowledge as possible that is related to their ancestors specifically and the country in general.
Information services and libraries are therefore increasingly required to take into account the documented knowledge not as a component of historical archives but as contemporary forms (Nakata & Langton, 2007). As mentioned previously, Indigenous knowledge is always contemporary, which means that through its connections to the oral traditions, it will change and adapt (Nakata & Langton, 2007). Moreover, it has been shown that the knowledge could be in conflict with other systems and approaches, such as the Western framework, and related transmission tools and technologies (Pilot, 2005). Professionals operating in the field of knowledge preservation and recording should have the informed acknowledgement of Indigenous people’s concerns as well as the intentions with which research on Indigenous knowledge is being done.
Indigenous Knowledge Centers: A Solution?
The development of Indigenous Knowledge Centers (IKC) is a step forward in the direction of establishing effective procedures of Indigenous knowledge management and a facilitator of a reciprocal learning process between Indigenous communities and State Libraries, as suggested by Pilot (2005). For instance, throughout Queensland, the development of such centers implied working with remote communities in Torres Strait regions and Queensland’s Cape York to establish several centers Lockart River, Darnley Island, New Mapoon, Wujal Wujal, Poruma Island, Mabuiag Island, Injinoo, Aurukun, and Pormpuraaw (Pilot, 2005). The mentioned Indigenous Knowledge Centers were developed through challenging and questioning the traditional models of library management and creating new environments intended to meet the Indigenous populations’ knowledge needs (Pilot, 2005).
The creation of IKCs plays a vital role in recognizing the essential needs of the community in terms of determining how the knowledge is created, retrieved, spread, used, and owned (Pilot, 2005). As mentioned by Taylor (2003), “IKCs are established in close consultation with the community. When the community decides to proceed, the State Library of Queensland uses community development processes to engage the council and community to work with them to develop plans for their IKC. Local staff are recruited at this stage, so that they are involved in the entire planning and establishment process” (p. 280). The purpose of creating IKCs is to enable each Indigenous community to shape its own system that will meet specific knowledge needs (Taylor, 2003). The partnership between local governments and communities is expected to give latter the broad access to traditional library resources as well as supplement materials that would support both the visual and oral traditions of Indigenous populations (Pilot, 2003). With the help of IKCs, there is an opportunity of capturing the multi-dimensional history and customs of communities while also providing a knowledge framework for future generations.
While the introduction of IKCs for local Indigenous communities is expected to have a positive influence on the education of the population rooted in the preservation of their cultural heritage (Pilot, 2005). However, despite the advantages, it is important to consider the challenges of implementing the IKC model (Pilot, 2005). Two of the most prominent barriers to implementation include the employment, training, and retention of trained staff as well as the access and support for high-quality technologies and communications. Additional funding is needed to support the advancement of information communication and technology services (ICT) available at IKCs. To facilitate an effective work of IKC, it is imperative to establish a strong technology infrastructure, reliable access to the Internet for staff, online training, as well as the availability of video conferencing facilities (Pilot, 2005). For the Indigenous communities of Australia, IKC models represent opportunities to gather information about the past and today’s presence, preparing populations to meet their future (Taylor, 2003). Knowledge should be an important part of their lives, without reductions or simplifications, in order to give an understanding of where they are from and where they are heading.
Conclusion
Indigenous knowledge is vast and all-encompassing due to its continuously changing and evolving in line with the oral tradition of the peoples. However, the way in which materials that include Indigenous knowledge is handled limits leads to misappropriation and misuse, especially due to the juxtaposition to the Western approach to knowledge. The professionals working in the LIS sector must consider Indigenous knowledge as a part of the historic Australian heritage in order to reconnect it with traditional perspectives and beliefs, however vast and complicated the task may be. Throughout Australia, individuals, groups, and communities are expected to increasingly facilitate the re-integration of knowledge and knowledge-based innovation in order to integrate it into scholarly work in order to develop the capacity of the community as well as its economic and social well-being. The review of the literature showed that there is still no cohesive solution to addressing the problem of Indigenous knowledge misappropriation and misuse. While the establishment of knowledge centers and similar projects to enhance Indigenous knowledge handling and management could be a step in this direction, there is a challenge of training staff on appropriate practices of knowledge preservation and storage. Community libraries and databases are expected to become more flexible when developing strategies for handling Indigenous knowledge materials because the latter presents multiple opportunities for exploration, management, storage, and transfer, although not at the detriment of Indigenous populations’ property rights or their heritage.
References
Agrawal, A. (1995). Dismantling the divide between Indigenous and Western knowledge. Development and Change, 26(3), 413-439.
Agrawal, A. (2004). Indigenous and scientific knowledge: Some critical comments. Anthropology Indonesia, 3(3), 1-9.
Bates, P. (2009). Learning and Inuit knowledge in Nunavat, Canada. In P. Bates, M. Chiba, S. Kube, & D. Nakashima (Eds). Learning and knowing in indigenous societies today (pp. 48-67). Paris: UNESCO.
Battiste, M. (2005). Indigenous knowledge: Foundations for First Nations. Web.
Briggs, J., & Sharp, J. (2004). Indigenous knowledges and development: A postcolonial caution. Third World Quarterly, 25(4), Web.
Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in social research through different lenses. SpringerPlus, 3, 511.
Gall, S. (2012). Defining traditional knowledge: A perspective from the Caribbean. Caribbean Quarterly, 58(4), 62-86.
Langton, M., & Ma Rhea, Z. (2003). Traditional lifestyles and biodiversity use regional report: Australia, Asia and the Middle East. Composite Report on the status and trends regarding the knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous and local communities relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Lilley, S. (2019). Through Indigenous eyes: Looking for Indigenous services in Australian and New Zealand university libraries. University of Boras, 24(3).
Magni, G. (2016). Indigenous knowledge and implications for the sustainable development agenda. Web.
Nakata, M., & Langton, M. (2005). Australian Indigenous knowledge and libraries. Sydney: UTSePress.
Nakata, M., Byrne, A., Nakata, V., & Gardiner, G. (2005). Indigenous knowledge, the library and information service sector, and protocols. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 36(2), 7-21.
Pilot, J. (2005). Developing Indigenous knowledge centers. In M. Nakata & M. Langton (Eds.) Australian Indigenous knowledge and Libraries (pp. 34-40). Sydney: UTSePress.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
Taylor, S. (2003). State library of Queensland library services: Overcoming barriers and building bridges. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 34(4), 280-281.
United Nations. (2009). State of the world’s Indigenous peoples. Web.
Wohling, M. (2009). The problem of scale in Indigenous knowledge: A perspective from Northern Australia. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 1-14.