Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Indigenous knowledge preservation can lead to sustainable development and the protection of the environment, facilitating the achievement of one of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals, number 15, which seeks to protect the sustainable use of ecosystems to avoid desertification and land degradation. This article reports on a study aimed at identifying the stakeholders to be involved in the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of IK in the digital era. The study considered the Ulwazi and Mukurtu projects, which are documented in the literature and representing the contexts of developing and developed countries, respectively. A qualitative approach triangulating data collection techniques was employed by doing a systematic literature review on four databases, i.e., Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Dimensions, followed by a web content analysis of the websites and official social media platforms of the two projects. Content analysis was used to select the relevant documents, followed by online interviews to collect data from two project administrators to validate the findings. The data were thematically analysed using the NVIVO software. The findings provided valuable information about the role and functions of stakeholders in the context of the model that is being designed for IK projects. It was noted that all stakeholders should be involved so that no one is left behind.

Keywords

indigenous knowledge documentation indigenous knowledge acquisition indigenous knowledge preservation indigenous knowledge dissemination CARE principles FAIR principles Ulwazi programme Mukurtu project Mukurtu content management system

Introduction

Indigenous knowledge is seen to cover all aspects of life and encompass diverse fields, including agriculture, medicine, ecology, spirituality, and traditional technologies, and therefore provides a rich resource for sustainable development (Kelbessa, 2022; Leal et al., 2022; Masenya, 2022; Olaopa and Ayodele, 2022). It is incumbent to librarians and researchers to make sure that they involve all the stakeholders when starting an IK project to ensure that no one is left behind. Indigenous knowledge is under threat due to various factors such as globalisation, climate change, cultural erosion, and economic development. Acquisition, preservation, and dissemination have become critical concerns for various stakeholders who seek to recognise, respect, and protect indigenous knowledge as a vital component of cultural heritage and biodiversity. Acquiring indigenous knowledge requires an ethical and culturally sensitive approach that recognises the right of indigenous communities to control their knowledge and resources (Cottrell, 2022; Ramos, 2022; Turner et al., 2022). This is in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which point out the importance of the involvement of indigenous communities when dealing with issues that affect them. Preserving indigenous knowledge involves documenting and safeguarding it from loss, appropriation, and exploitation (Masenya, 2022; Masenya, 2022a). Disseminating IK entails sharing it with wider audiences, including policymakers, academics, and the public, while respecting the intellectual property rights and cultural protocols of the indigenous communities (Achieng, 2022). This study highlights the importance of stakeholders’ involvement in the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge. It also underscores the need for collaborative efforts that prioritize indigenous people's rights, needs, and aspirations. By working together, stakeholders can promote the sustainable use and management of indigenous knowledge, enhance the well-being of indigenous communities, and contribute to global sustainable development.

The acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge have become essential in developing countries (Owiny et al., 2014). The digital era has opened new possibilities for the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of IK (Chigwada and Chiparausha, 2017), and in social and economic development circles, indigenous technical knowledge has been topical, with organisations and scientists noting that IK offers locally adaptable solutions to development problems that are cheap and affordable. Acquisition and preservation of IK initiatives can also combat the danger of the extinction of indigenous knowledge because of its oral and tacit nature. The identification of stakeholders is essential for developing a context-specific IK model for digital projects. Tapfuma (2017) pointed out the ethical considerations that should be put in place when dealing with indigenous knowledge, and this study would look at how the stakeholder can consider the FAIR and CARE principles in the digitisation process. The CARE principles for indigenous data governance were released in September 2019, and they detail that the use of indigenous data should benefit indigenous communities (Carroll et al., 2021). The FAIR principles were published in 2016 to enable the reuse of research data. It is against this background that the study seeks to answer the following objectives:

Evaluate the importance of acquiring, preserving, and disseminating IK in the digital era.

Consider the extent to which the stakeholders can apply the FAIR and CARE principles in the digitisation of indigenous data.

Document the stakeholders that should be involved in the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of IK in the digital era.

The issue of indigenous knowledge in the digital era

Research has shown that it is important to document indigenous knowledge to ensure that indigenous knowledge is not lost as it is in danger of becoming extinct since indigenous knowledge is regarded as an indispensable asset owned by the rural communities and utilised for transforming and developing communities (Ayeni and Aborisade, 2022; Beaulieu-Guay, 2022; Di Francesco et al., 2021; Joshi et al., 2020; Lekhi, 2019; Mdhluli et al., 2021; Ogar et al., 2020; Suchanandan, 2018; United Nations, 2019). However, these authors warned that indigenous knowledge is vulnerable to attrition if it is not recorded for storage and wider transmission. Indigenous communities use oral communication and hands-on experience such as apprenticeships, ceremonies, practices, etc. to preserve and transmit their knowledge (Battiste and Henderson, 2000; Haokip, 2022; Hossain and Ballardini, 2021) and such indigenous people's ways of preserving and sharing knowledge have contributed to the knowledge being threatened with extinction (Mdhluli et al., 2021). It has been stated by Mdhluli et al. (2021) that indigenous knowledge is masked in secrecy and therefore it is impossible to be utilised for the public good. Young people are losing these skills because they spend more time at educational institutions than with the elders in the community. The preservation of indigenous knowledge is critical because it ensures the continuation of the community and its knowledge. If indigenous knowledge is not recorded and preserved, it will be lost through the deaths of elders and traditional leaders in communities and will remain inaccessible to other communities, scholars, and development workers (Hausknecht et al., 2021; Masenya, 2022). For example, when a traditional midwife dies, her birthing knowledge and skills go with her and can never be retrieved. A search was done through Scopus, the Web of Science, Dimensions, and Google Scholar, but no articles were retrieved that extensively document the stakeholders that should be involved in the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge in the digital era. This study, therefore, would provide information on the stakeholders that should be part of an indigenous knowledge documentation project to ensure its preservation is done in line with community needs.

Application of FAIR and CARE principles in IK preservation

It has been noted that the open science movement does not deal with indigenous people's rights and interests as it focuses on increased data sharing and reuse but does not look at power differentials and historical contexts (Research Data Alliance, 2019). The CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) principles for indigenous data governance were developed by the International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group working together with indigenous people, governments, non-profit organisations, and scholars to complement the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship (Carroll et al., 2020; Research Data Alliance, 2019; Wilkinson et al., 2016). This has been necessitated by the tension felt by indigenous communities between protecting indigenous rights and interests while at the same time supporting open data sharing and big data initiatives (Carroll et al., 2021; Gupta et al., 2023; Robinson et al., 2021; Thorpe et al., 2021). This led to the development of protocols that sought to provide clear processes and guidelines for managing culturally sensitive collections, which is in line with the CARE principles of indigenous data governance. Under collective benefit, indigenous people would be able to get some benefits from their data for inclusive development and innovation, improved governance and citizen engagement, and equitable outcomes; authority to control would recognise and empower indigenous people's rights and interests in indigenous data, data for governance, and governance of data; responsibility deals with positive relationships, expanding capability and capacity, and indigenous languages and worldviews; and ethics for minimising harm and maximising benefit, justice, and future use (Sterner and Elliot, 2022). These principles help to improve the involvement of indigenous people in the access and use of their indigenous knowledge and also create opportunities for researchers to understand indigenous knowledge's use in innovation and development. This study would look at the application of the FAIR and CARE principles in the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge by the various stakeholders that can be involved in an IK project. Carroll et al. (2020: 8) noted that “the implementation of the CARE principles in tandem with the FAIR principles will result in data that reflect the realities of indigenous peoples, be useful for indigenous purposes, and remain under indigenous control while promoting knowledge discovery and innovation.” As a result, this would assist in addressing issues related to privacy, ownership, reuse, and collective interests among the producers, curators, and researchers of indigenous knowledge.

Importance of acquiring, preserving and disseminating IK

The major challenge facing oral cultures is the disappearance of traditional knowledge and skills due to memory loss or the death of elders and the deliberate or inadvertent destruction of indigenous knowledge (Dei et al., 2022; Jain and Jibril, 2016; Owiny et al., 2014). IK is regarded by Tripathi and Bhattarya (2004) as “the basis for local-level decision making in agriculture, health care, food preparation, education, natural resource management, and a host of other activities in rural communities”, while Owiny et al. (2014) noted that most people depend on indigenous knowledge to meet their medicinal needs, and at least half rely on it for food supply. It has been noted that IK is widely used in rural communities, but the lack of documentation and validation makes it difficult to access outside of rural areas (Owiny et al., 2014). Acquiring, preserving, and disseminating indigenous knowledge in the digital era would help in preserving cultural heritage since indigenous knowledge represents the knowledge and wisdom accumulated over time by generations of people, which helps in maintaining cultural identity and heritage. Indigenous knowledge is also important for sustainable development as it is based on principles of sustainability issues that can be used to inform modern approaches to development by protecting the environment and the well-being of communities (Cottrell, 2022; Derbile et al., 2022). Western approaches can be complemented by utilising indigenous knowledge such as medical knowledge and healing practices, and education can also be enhanced by incorporating indigenous knowledge into the curricula to have a culturally inclusive education that promotes understanding and respect for diverse cultures (Ntihirageza and Ibrahima, 2022). The issue of climate change and biodiversity conservation can also be addressed through the preservation of indigenous knowledge to prevent the loss of endangered species, adapting to changing environmental conditions, and dealing with the impacts of climate change.

Methodology

A qualitative methodology triangulating data collection techniques from four databases i.e., Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Dimensions, followed by a web content analysis of the websites and official social media platforms of the Ulwazi and Mukurtu projects, and interview with project administrators was done. These databases were chosen since they index peer-reviewed scholarly articles that are not predatory, and in order to accommodate articles that are not indexed in the three aggregators, Google Scholar was used to supplement the data (Boeker et al., 2013). The systematic literature review was done to identify articles that documented the various stakeholders that were involved in the Ulwazi and Mukurtu projects. The triangulation was done to encore the findings from diverse perspectives (Ngulube, 2020; Ngulube and Ngulube, 2022) and to enhance the validity and reliability of the data. The keywords that were used for the systematic literature review were “Ulwazi Programme” and “Mukurtu Project,” and articles written in English were selected to deal with the language barriers that might be experienced by the authors. The articles that were considered for this study had keywords in the title, abstracts, keywords sections, and within the article text. Content analysis was used to select the relevant articles for smaller data sets, while open refine was used to clean the data for big datasets to remove duplicates. This was followed by online interviews to collect data from two project administrators to validate the findings. These two projects were selected as they are documented in the literature and representative of the contexts of developing and developed countries. Purposive sampling was used to choose the administrators, as they were the project managers who were involved in the day-to-day running of the projects and were knowledgeable of the processes being done to acquire, preserve, and disseminate indigenous knowledge. During the time of the study, the brain behind the Ulwazi project had retired, and the administrator who was present was contacted to get the data about the project. The aim was to, inter alia, determine the roles that various stakeholders play in an IK project within the digital context. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data from the systematic literature review, and the data from the interviews was thematically analysed using the NVIVO software to extract the stakeholders who are involved in these two projects and the various roles they play to make the project a success, and presented according to the research objectives. The data was imported into the NVIVO project and codes were created after the creation of a coding framework. The data from the interviews was coded in line with the results from the systematic literature review, analysed and the interpreted.

Results

The results from the systematic literature review, web content analysis, and the interview were interpreted through the various themes that came out of the data analysis. Those themes that were drawn from these results were put together to present the findings being guided by the themes that came from the codes created on NVIVO. The themes that came from NVIVO are library, archive, museum, librarian, community people, indigenous knowledge holders, researchers, fieldworkers, and information technology. The total number of documents that were retrieved from each database is shown in Table 1, and the detailed information with the breakdown of the numbers as well as the citations of the articles retrieved from each database is documented in Appendix 1.

Table 1.

Number of documents retrieved from databases.

Database	Search term	Retrieved	Relevant
Scopus	Ulwazi programme	8	2
Scopus	Mukurtu project	6	5
Web of Science	Ulwazi programme	12	2
Web of Science	Mukurtu project	5	1
Dimensions	Ulwazi programme	27	4
Dimensions	Mukurtu project	49	4
Google Scholar	Ulwazi programme	1240	43
Google Scholar	Mukurtu project	847	48

The extracts from the documents considered showed that the stakeholders that are involved in the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge in the digital era are community members, government, information professionals, information institutes, and technologists (Adekannbi et al., 2016; Alhassan, 2012; Balogun and Kalusopa, 2021; Bolhassan et al., 2014; Chantamool et al., 2023; Hopkins et al., 2015; Sarah, 2015; Twinoburyo, 2019). There is a need for teamwork to ensure that the project is successful, and it is important to involve everyone at the initial stages to ensure that no one is left behind and everyone has an understanding of the expectations as well as the direction being taken by the indigenous knowledge project. The interviews that were done with the administrators pointed to the stakeholders, which are documented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Stakeholders in the Ulwazi and Mukurtu projects.

ULWAZI
Stakeholder	Why involve them?
Information professionals i.e., Librarians	Provide infrastructure. Librarians also train community members and field workers.
eThekwini municipality	It is responsible for libraries and provides an annual budget to run the Ulwazi programme.
Community members	These are the IK holders, who are the owners of the knowledge. Fieldworkers are recruited from the community since they are knowledgeable about the culture of that community.
Digital media consultant	Responsible for managing the technology side of the project.
MUKURTU
Stakeholder	Why involve them?
Mukurtu Project Director	The coordinator of the programme.
Mukurtu Digital Librarian	Responsible for preservation and dissemination to ensure that IK is accessible.
Mukurtu IP Coordinator	The legal advisor looks at the legal side of the project.
Mukurtu Curriculum Coordinator	Responsible for partnering with the community and assisting those who would be interested in using the content management system.
Digital Applications Manager	Responsible for intellectual property rights, knowledge classification systems, and new skills and technologies in IK management.

The Ulwazi project

The results from the consulted articles, the website, and official social media sites showed that the Ulwazi project is centred on the library, community, and technology, whereby the public library is responsible for making the IK available to the community by ensuring free and equal access to information and knowledge, as shown in Figure 1 (Barysheva, 2017; Beckmann, 2017; Greyling and Zulu, 2010; Greyling and McNulty, 2011; Hedelund, 2006; Ibba and Pani, 2016; Kotze and Zuma, 2017; McNulty, 2013; McNulty, 2013a; McNulty, 2014; Salawu, 2018; Salawu, 2018a; Yunnus, 2017). The librarians contribute by providing information and knowledge management skills (Snyman and Van Rooi, 2006). Maluleka and Ngulube (2018) pointed out that the Ulwazi programme is the first in South Africa where the library is the moderator and custodian of the knowledge created and owned by the community. The administrator indicated that “librarians also train and reach out to library users and organise storytelling sessions where they invite elders to tell their stories. These would be recorded as oral history upon agreement with the elders”. Libraries also partner with other organisations such as archives and museums (Jain, 2014; Jain and Jibril, 2016; Lwoga et al., 2014; Marschall, 2013; McNulty, 2013; McNulty, 2013a; McNulty, 2013b; McNulty, 2014; McNulty and McNulty, 2014; Myeza and Kaya, 2016; Poorna et al., 2014). Involvement of the community is a way of acknowledging the important role that is played by the IK holders in any IK project. Volunteer fieldworkers are employed by the community because they are knowledgeable about the customs and values of that community. After training, they are brought into the communities to acquire IK (Denis and Ntsimane, 2008; Ritchie, 2003; Thompson, 2000). Local people know the communities they live in; as a result, the village elders and the IK holders trust them and are sure that their knowledge will not be abused (Greyling and McNulty, 2011; Greyling and Zulu, 2010; McNulty, 2013; McNulty, 2014; McNulty, 2018). It has also been pointed out in the interview with the administrator that leaders from the community are involved from the planning stage, where meetings are held with local leaders to obtain their input. ICT is at the heart of the programme whereby technology experts are engaged in the development and maintenance of the content management system that is used to host the database (Adewumi, 2022; Balogun and Kalusopa, 2021; Bhebhe, 2022; Bhebhe and Ngoepe, 2021; Bhukta, 2020; Khanyile and Dlamini, 2021; Lwoga et al., 2020; Masenya, 2022; Mbilinyi and Mwabungulu, 2020; McNulty, 2022; Ncube, 2020; Ngcobo, 2020; Owano et al., 2019; Uzuegbunam, 2021). It was indicated in the interview that “the municipality is responsible for providing funds to run the programme through an annual budget”. Web 2.0 technologies and social media platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter are also used to create awareness and market the programme (Firth, 2012; Greyling and McNulty, 2011; Greyling and McNulty, 2012; Greyling and Zulu, 2010; Kwong, 2011; McNulty, 2012a, 2012b; Singer, 2013; Unit, 2010).

Figure 1.

Ulwazi projects major concepts.

The Mukurtu project

The Mukurtu project is run by a group of indigenous communities, archivists, librarians, curators, researchers, and software developers to manage IK materials (Bharti and Singh, 2022; Carney et al., 2022; Rodriguez, 2018; Thorpe and Booker, 2022; Thorpe et al., 2021). The content management system is based at Washington State University in the USA and was developed for the Warumungu people to share stories, knowledge, and cultural materials using their own protocols (Christen, 2019; Christen et al., 2018; Strathman, 2019). The content management system “is a free, open-source, community-oriented content management platform and indigenous archival tool created and designed to respect indigenous knowledge systems and meet the unique cultural needs for the management and preservation of indigenous digital cultural heritage materials online and offline” (Ascher, 2014). The name of the project resembles an object that holds sacred items that can be accessed by the community after permission is granted by knowledgeable community leaders. According to the FAIR principles, the CMS uses international standards-based content management tools aligned and adaptable to the local cultural protocols and intellectual property systems of indigenous communities, libraries, archives, and museums (Aamot, 2022; Adelson et al., 2021; Avgousti et al., 2019; Avgousti et al., 2022; Bharti and Singh, 2022; Carney et al., 2022; Dutta and Mukhopadhyay, 2022; Ferreira et al., 2021; Galassi, 2021; Gosart et al., 2022; Gupta et al., 2022; Thorpe and Booker, 2022; Thorpe et al., 2021; Tringham, 2022; Urberg, 2020; Vaarzon-Morel et al., 2021; Whaanga and Mato, 2020). The administrator indicated that “the project also gives people access to the software that was developed to host IK, and everyone is free to download it and share it with others”.

Indigenous communities

The community comprises four different members including the “Mook-oo-tooers” i.e., the user group who test and comment on the designing, building, testing, implementation, and updates of the platform; the “partners,” who are actively involved in the development, research, production, dissemination, and sustainability of Mukurtu; the “advisors,” who provide practical assistance regarding the development and application of Mukurtu across multiple and diverse stakeholder groups; and the “sponsors,” who provide funding, infrastructure, and other capital needs for the ongoing development and sustainability of Mukurtu. The community members are responsible for uploading the materials using specific criteria such as families, restrictions, gender, and country affiliations (Anderson and Christen, 2013; Christen, 2011; Christen, 2012; Christen, 2012a; Christen, 2015; Christen, 2016; Christen et al., 2017; Gardiner and Thorpe, 2014; Haubt, 2013; Ruedas, 2012; Senier, 2014; Shepard, 2014; Shepard, 2015; Thorpe and Galassi, 2014).

Archivists and librarians

The administrator indicated that there are a number of archivists and librarians who are involved in the development and management of the Mukurtu platform to meet indigenous communities’ needs as well as meet archival and library standards and practices. The founder and director of the project is an archivist with extensive experience working with indigenous communities to develop culturally sensitive digital archives. The archivists and librarians have been developing and implementing best practices for digital curation and preservation of indigenous cultural heritage (Christen, 2016; Christen et al., 2017; Hall, 2017; Holton, 2017; Holton, 2017a; Hughes, 2017; Owens, 2017; Tribe et al., 2017). They ensured the accessibility of the platform to the indigenous communities as well as the usability of the system since the community members are the primary users and contributors to the archive. Therefore, the information professionals’ involvement in the IK project highlights the importance of collaboration and community involvement in the development and maintenance of culturally sensitive digital indigenous knowledge, as stated by Carron (2019), Christen et al. (2018), Christen (2019), Graham and Loeper (2018), Martin (2018), Risam (2018), Rodriguez (2018), Roy and Trace (2018), and Strathman (2019).

Researchers

The researchers are working on issues that can allow indigenous communities to have a voice in terms of how their IK is documented and accessed. The Mukurtu project comprises researchers from the Centre for Digital Curation and Scholarship at Washington State University in the United States of America (USA), the State Library of New South Wales, and the Jumbunna Institute for Indigenous Education and Training, University of Technology Sydney (Thorpe, 2019). These researchers have developed hubs and spokes to provide advice on digital curation, including language and collection documentation and standards, as well as digitisation and preservation standards (Thorpe et al., 2021). The Mukurtu Project Director emphasised the importance of the hub in allowing communities to access their cultural heritage using local protocols, and the partner institutions had been working around advocacy for support and infrastructure to manage the digital keeping places in sustainable ways (Thorpe and Booker, 2022; Thorpe et al., 2021). Through the various research projects that were done and collaborations with indigenous communities, a tool that responds to the specific needs of indigenous communities was developed to manage and curate cultural heritage materials (Machulak, 2020). The issue of ethical curation and digital repatriation had been pointed out by the researchers to ensure that the indigenous voice is heard in the description of indigenous knowledge of a certain community (Anderson and Christen, 2013; Christen, 2015; Gardiner and Thorpe, 2014; Senier, 2014; Shepard, 2015).

Software developers

Through various grants, software developers have been working on the development of the Mukurtu content management system since 2007, revising and updating the system to meet community needs. (Christen et al., 2017). The content management system can now allow both institutional and tribal metadata to be viewed at the same time through the framework of collaborative curation, display, and classification by integrating multiple sets of standards and information systems. The specific features and functions of Mukurtu provide “customisable granular cultural protocol-driven access to digital content based on local knowledge systems; pathways for sharing content and metadata between multiple community groups within the platform; layered narratives and curation of materials that go beyond the item level to connect content, metadata, traditional knowledge, and cultural narratives in one view; flexible and clear licensing and labeling of content; and selective metadata transfer between collecting institutions and indigenous communities using Mukurtu's roundtrip feature.” (Christen et al., 2017).

Application of FAIR and CARE principles in digitisation of IK

It was noted that the catalogue records can be viewed and tribal members can correct and add their knowledge to the content using this highly adaptable, flexible, and socially interactive platform that provides the space, tools, and community support for indigenous communities to manage the content and access the digital cultural heritage according to the needs of the community and cultural protocols. As a result, an indigenous community is able to create, produce, and share indigenous knowledge with other Mukurtu community members in line with the FAIR principles. The content management system has cultural protocol-based access parameters whereby communities can define the sharing and circulation of materials between members of the community and other libraries, archives, museums, and the public (Christen, 2019; Christen et al., 2018; Strathman, 2019; Thorpe and Booker, 2022; Thorpe et al., 2021). The traditional knowledge fields are customisable for curating content alongside Dublin core metadata fields, and traditional knowledge licenses and labels that work with copyright and creative commons licenses. Within the portal, tribal administrators are able to decide on the level of access and flag any culturally sensitive materials, and this deal with the CARE principles for indigenous data governance. It was stated that the researchers are working with the library sector to ensure that the IK is accessible and usable in indigenous community contexts (Thorpe, 2019). The Mukurtu hubs and spokes speak to the importance of facilitating content sharing by working with indigenous communities and championing diversity and inclusion (Institute of Museum and Library Services, 2015).

Stakeholders of the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of IK

From the findings, it can be noted that the stakeholders in Figure 2 can be part of the indigenous knowledge project so that no one is left behind. It has been noted that the two projects are being run in compliance with the FAIR and CARE principles since the involvement of the indigenous communities ensures that their needs are met and the platform is accessible and usable. This is also in line with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which state that archival and record-keeping practices respect the dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world. This should be taken into consideration in any indigenous knowledge project, and the involvement of the IK holders can help to deal with this issue.

Figure 2.

Stakeholders in the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of IK.

Government agencies

The government is responsible for enacting various laws and ensuring that those laws are implemented and enforced so as to ensure that the IK is passed from one generation to the next. Legal frameworks that protect both the IK holders and those responsible for acquiring IK should be available, such as intellectual property rights and copyright, since some researchers might end up getting the IK from the owners and patenting it. Ministers from various ministries that deal with digitisation projects, research projects, information communication projects, broadcasting and media, arts and culture, and local history should be involved to make the IK project a success. Members of Parliament from the various constituencies should also take part in the IK project so that there is support from the lawmakers. There should be one ministry that is responsible for IK management in the digital era to ensure a smooth flow of activities from acquisition to preservation and dissemination. These would be responsible for providing the resources that are needed to run the project, including the ICT infrastructure, especially in rural areas, internet connectivity, necessary devices, electricity, and digital devices. Access issues should be dealt with to allow the free flow of IK from the holders without force or cohesion, as stated by the FAIR and CARE principles. The school curriculum should also include concepts of IK preservation in the digital era, and some ministries are responsible for curriculum development in schools, colleges, and universities. There should be no restrictions on various information sources such as newspapers, radio, television, books, and other electronic resources to ensure that those who are supposed to benefit from the IK do so. Therefore, government agencies can provide funding for research and development and create policies and laws that protect indigenous knowledge access and use.

National research councils

National research councils have a mandate to ensure that all the research projects that are done in a country are legal and ethical. These research councils are responsible for the ethical clearance of most of the national research projects, while some also provide funding to finance the research process. Therefore, those who would be interested in studying the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge will be guided by the national research councils in terms of what should and shouldn’t be done. This would ensure that there is no harm to participants and that intellectual property rights issues are well managed throughout the research process.

Non-governmental organisations

It has been noted that most IK projects are funded by NGOs. Therefore, the involvement of the NGOs is to ensure that the resources needed for the success of the project are available since they provide funds and expertise in project management, which is a very essential component. Those responsible for running the indigenous knowledge project can also solicit funds from various NGOs through grant applications and partner with these NGOs in running the project while protecting the intellectual property rights of the IK holders to avoid abuse and misuse of the acquired indigenous knowledge in line with the FAIR and CARE principles. It would also be easier to market and promote the indigenous knowledge project since NGOs are able to fund workshops, seminars, exhibitions, lectures, debates, and conferences, among other outreach programmes. Through their consulting work, NGOs can act as advisors on how to successfully run an indigenous knowledge project in the digital era. In some countries, indigenous knowledge resource centres are operated by NGOs, and they know how to deal with indigenous communities. Exchange programmes can be facilitated so as to learn from those who are already doing them. As a result, the NGOs can provide technical expertise, training, and support for the development of digital tools and technologies.

Technologists

The acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge in the digital era require the use of technology, as shown in both projects. The researchers and librarians worked with the software developers to continuously develop the content management system, starting with the Mukurtu Alpha, Mukurtu Beta, and Mukurtu hubs and spokes under the Mukurtu project. Within the database, there is the inclusion of Dublin Core metadata from the institutions sharing the materials. There are also tribal catalogue records that can only be altered by tribal administrators, while institutional administrators can only alter the institutional record and metadata. There is a need to employ the community software development model to ensure that the design, functions, and features are guided by local needs. Technologists have the best knowledge on how to store, organise and disseminate indigenous knowledge in the digital era.

Information institutes

There are a number of information institutes that are available that can assist in dealing with the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge. They include libraries, archives, museums, culture houses and centres, knowledge centres, information centres, documentation centres, and telecentres, among others. Most of these information institutes have a mandate to manage the IK and are able to deal with issues of copyright and intellectual property rights in accessing and using the IK. And as a result, the information professionals should be knowledgeable about the FAIR and CARE principles of IK governance. The information institutes are manned by professional people who are knowledgeable about managing various formats of information sources and have digital libraries and institutional repositories that can be used for archiving IK. The librarians had been instrumental in training users on accessing IK, and the trainers should continuously upskill and reskill to ensure that they remain relevant in IK management.

Local communities

The local community is the owner of the IK, while the IK holders within the communities are the custodians of the knowledge, i.e., the primary holders of the indigenous knowledge, who decide what knowledge is shared and how it is shared according to the FAIR and CARE principles. Therefore, in the absence of the local community, no IK project can be done since the village elders, village headmen, and wise men and women are part of the community that facilitates the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of IK. In some cases, authorisation must be sought from the village elders to acquire IK since it is regarded as a societal asset. As a result, IK holders should be encouraged to contribute to the IK projects as a way of dealing with copyright issues. Involving the IK holders from inception would help to deal with the issues of resistance since awareness creation on the importance of documenting and preserving IK would already have been done. These IK holders would participate in live performances, exhibitions, and storytelling sessions as part of disseminating IK. The indigenous communities that can benefit from such IK projects include but are not limited to the Potato Park in Peru; the Stone Village in Yunnan, China; Mijikenda Cultural Village in coastal Kenya, Aboriginal communities in Australia; Sami People in Northern Europe; Maasai Community in Tanzania and Kenya; San people in Zimbabwe; Penan people in Malaysia; and the Tlaámin Nation in Canada.

Researchers

These are the providers of information with regard to the sources of indigenous knowledge since they interact with various communities during the research process. They know the indigenous knowledge holders and, therefore, can also be part of the fieldworkers who would be responsible for acquiring the indigenous knowledge. Most of the researchers participate in interviews with village elders and collect some indigenous knowledge samples from the community, depending on the research project. The researchers also promote the accessibility of indigenous knowledge in different communities by archiving their research outputs in institutional repositories, personal websites, and academic social media platforms. This would be another avenue for disseminating indigenous knowledge in the digital era with the consent of the indigenous communities. As a result, to have a successful indigenous knowledge project, there is a need to identify researchers dealing with indigenous knowledge and incorporate them. The researchers can also be engaged as fieldworkers to acquire indigenous knowledge since they know the indigenous knowledge sources and are trusted by the village elders and local people. They are also aware of the local customs and cultures of the villages and communities, and they are most likely not to face resistance from knowledge holders. These can also be regarded as the academia that is responsible for conducting research and training indigenous communities. The research that they do can also help with the development of digital tools for acquiring, preserving, and disseminating indigenous knowledge.

Print and electronic media

It has been noted that the Ulwazi and Mukurtu projects are utilising various print and electronic media, including social media, to market their IK projects as a way of creating awareness and updating people on the activities that are taking place in IK management and preservation. Most people are now utilising various platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Flickr, among others, and these can be good avenues for planning and implementing an IK project. In rural areas where there are electricity challenges and internet connectivity issues, other broadcasting services such as radio and television recorded shows can be used, and IK holders can also be invited to talk shows to share their IK.

Limitations of the study

The study concentrated on only two projects that had been successfully introduced from a developed and developing country perspective. This might affect the generalisability of the research results. There might be other IK projects that were done but failed along the way. These can also be studied so as to draw lessons from what went wrong in those projects.

Conclusion and recommendations

It can be concluded that it is important to preserve indigenous knowledge, and various stakeholders should be part of the indigenous knowledge project in order to make the process of acquiring, preserving, and disseminating indigenous knowledge easier and more successful. All the stakeholders should be involved from the planning stage to ensure that no one is left behind. Therefore, it is important to identify the key stakeholders involved in indigenous knowledge preservation and prioritise the needs of indigenous communities every step of the way. From the Ulwazi and Mukurtu projects, it can be noted that the aim is to empower communities to manage, share, narrate, and exchange digital heritage in culturally relevant and ethical ways. The stakeholders involved with these two projects are knowledgeable about the FAIR and CARE principles, and they are applying these principles when sharing photographs, videos, and audio through communities, categories, and cultural protocols.

Therefore, there is a need to consider the CARE and FAIR principles in acquiring, preserving, and documenting indigenous knowledge to avoid the violation of cultural protocols in indigenous communities for those who might be interested in starting an IK project. This can be done by exploring best practices and guidelines for dealing with and respecting indigenous communities, and it can also be done by evaluating existing preservation initiatives, both successful and unsuccessful, to take the lessons learned into account. The community should have the upper hand, and all the stakeholders should be involved from the planning stage to ensure that no one is left behind in the IK project. Continuous collaboration is important to allow community engagement and also to prioritise partnerships with communities that are indigenous knowledge holders and owners. There is a need for the provision of funds to ensure that the various stakeholders are able to perform their duties in order for the indigenous knowledge project to be successful. Therefore, there is a need to ensure that the needs of indigenous communities are prioritised through partnerships and collaboration among the stakeholders, i.e., the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of indigenous knowledge should be collaborative, community-based, and culturally sensitive to leave no one behind.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Josiline Chigwada

Patrick Ngulube

About the authors

Josiline Chigwada is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of South Africa (UNISA) in the School of Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Studies. She is a librarian with 17 years' experience in academic librarianship. She holds a doctorate in Information Science. She is a member of Library and Information Association of South Africa,SPARC Africa management committee,Zimbabwe Library Association,Association for Information Science and Technology,Zimbabwe Young Academy of Sciences,and the Rotary Club of Msasa. Her research interests are in indigenous knowledge,open science,research data management,and contemporary issues in library and information science.

Patrick Ngulube is a Professor of Interdisciplinary Research and Graduate Studies at the University of South Africa (UNISA). He is a National Research Foundation of South Africa rated researcher. He is an indigenous son of the soil who is widely published in the field of indigenous ways of knowing and practice. He has mentored several PhD candidates and postdoctoral fellows in the field of indigenous knowledge systems and African epistemologies.

References

Aamot

(2022) Indigenous data governance and sovereignty: a crosswalk comparison of four metadata schemas. Masters paper, School of Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://doi.org/10.17615/qj9e-wx11.

Achieng

(2022) Digitalisation of indigenous knowledge of agricultural practices: A strategy for food security in Africa. Journal of Public Administration 57(4): 802–818.

Adekannbi

Olatokun

Ajiferuke

(2016) Predictors of traditional medical knowledge transmission and acquisition in south west Nigeria. Information Development 32(3): 566–578.

Adelson

Mickelson

Kawapit

(2021) The Miiyupimatisiiun research data archives project: co-developing an indigenous data repository. KULA 5(1): 1–6.

Adewumi

(2022) Protecting intangible cultural heritage in the era of rapid technological advancement. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 36(1): 3–16.

Alhassan

(2012) Indigenous knowledge acquisition and transfer among members of the nupe royal music band in Nigeria. African Journal of Library, Archives & Information Science 22(1): 61–65.

Anderson

Christen

(2013) Chuck a copyright on it’: Dilemmas of digital return and the possibilities for traditional knowledge licenses and labels. Museum Anthropology Review 7(1–2): 105.

Ascher

(2014) Mukurtu Project. Available at: https://dianaascher.com/mukurtu-project/#:∼. (accessed 10 March 2023).

Avgousti

Papaioannou

Gouveia

(2019) Content dissemination from small-scale museum and archival collections: community reusable semantic metadata content models for digital humanities. Code4Lib Journal (43, 2019-02-14).

10.

Avgousti

Papaioannou

Gouveia

(2022) Building CyprusArk a web content management system for small museums collections online. Code4Lib Journal (54, 2022-08-29).

11.

Ayeni

Aborisade

(2022) African indigenous knowledge systems and the world. In: Oloruntoba

Falola

(eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Africa and the Changing Global Order. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77481-3_8.

12.

Balogun

Kalusopa

(2021) A framework for digital preservation of indigenous knowledge system (IKS) in repositories in South Africa. Records Management Journal 31(2): 176–196.

13.

Barysheva

(2017) The role of public libraries in the republic of South Africa in safeguarding and promotion of the intangible cultural heritage. Bibliotekovedenie [Russian Journal of Library Science] 66(1): 70–76.

14.

Battiste

Henderson

(2000) Protecting indigenous knowledge and heritage: a global challenge. Vancouver: UBC Press.

15.

Beaulieu-Guay

(2022) The many faces of knowledge: Do science and traditional ecological knowledge coexist in federal assessments. Canadian Public Administration 65(3): 403–420.

16.

Beckmann

(2017) Standardization by Localization: A South African Story. In: Localization and Technical Communication Workshop (Vol. 11). Available at: https://mastertcloc.unistra.fr/2017/09/11/standardization-south-africa/. (accessed 10 March 2023).

17.

Bharti

Singh

(2022) Evaluation and analysis of digital language archives development platforms: A parametric approach. The Electronic Library 40(5): 552–567.

18.

Bhebhe

(2022) Proposed independent organisational structure for memory institutions in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Collection and Curation 41(3): 101–106.

19.

Bhebhe

Ngoepe

(2021) Elitism in critical emancipatory paradigm: National archival oral history collection in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Archival Science 21(2021): 155–172.

20.

Bhukta

(2020) Protecting traditional knowledge: Ways and means. In: Bhukta

(eds) Legal Protection for Traditional Knowledge. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80043-063-120200005

21.

Boeker

Vach

Motschall

(2013) Google scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: Good relative recall and precision are not enough. BMC Medical Research Methodology 13: 31.

22.

Bolhassan

Cranefield

Dorner

(2014) Indigenous knowledge sharing in sarawak: A system-level view and its implications for the cultural heritage sector. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 6-9 January 2014, pp.3378–3388: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.419.

23.

Carney

Diedrich

Blong

, et al. (2022) Northwest native plants: A digital space for paleoethnobotanical knowledges and biocultural heritage. Heritage 5(1): 297–310.

24.

Carroll

Garba

Figueroa-Rodriguez

, et al. (2020) The CARE principles for indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal 19(43): 1–12.

25.

Carroll

Herczog

Hudson

, et al. (2021) Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR principles for indigenous data futures. Scientific Data 8(108). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0.

26.

Carron

(2019) Integrating Indigenous Knowledge in Non-Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Institutions. Available at: http://jhir.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/62121 (accessed 15 April 2023).

27.

Chantamool

Suttisa

Gatewongsa

, et al. (2023) Promoting traditional ikat textiles: ethnographic perspectives on indigenous knowledge, cultural heritage preservation and ethnic identity. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. Epub ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/GKMC-08-2022-0198

28.

Chigwada

Chiparausha

(2017) The efficacy of culture houses and centres in the acquisition, preservation and dissemination of indigenous knowledge in Zimbabwe. In: Ngulube

(eds) Handbook of Research on Social, Cultural and Educational Considerations of Indigenous Knowledge in Developing Countries. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 259–279. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-0838-0.ch014.

29.

Christen

(2011) Opening archives: Respectful repatriation. The American Archivist 74(1): 185–210.

30.

Christen

(2012a) Does information really want to be free? Indigenous knowledge systems and the question of openness. International Journal of Communication 6(2021): 2870–2893.

31.

Christen

(2015) Tribal archives, traditional knowledge, and local contexts: Why the “s” matters. Journal of Western Archives 6(1): 1–19.

32.

Christen

(2019) The songline is alive in Mukurtu”: Return, reuse, and respect. In: Barwick

Green

Vaarzon-Morel

(eds) Archival Returns: Central Australia and Beyond. Language Documentation & Conservation Special Publication No. 18. Honolulu, HI; Sydney, NSW, Australia: University of Hawai’i and Sydney University Press, 153–172.

33.

Christen

Davis

Griffith

, et al. (2018) Traditional knowledge and digital archives: An interview with Kim Christen. Journal of Social Theory 27(1): 8–14.

34.

Christen

Merrill

Wynne

(2017) A community of relations: Mukurtu hubs and spokes. D-Lib Magazine 23(5/6): 1–9.

35.

Christen

(2012) Mukurtu: An Indigenous archive and publishing tool. NEH White papers. Report ID 98886 https://doi.org/10.17613/M6Q06X

36.

Christen

(2016) Mukurtu Mobile: Empowering Knowledge Circulation Across Cultures. Available at: https://cas.wsu.edu/connect/september-2013/empowering-cultural-preservation/ (accessed 17 April 2023).

37.

Cottrell

(2022) Avoiding a new era in biopiracy: Including indigenous and local knowledge in nature-based solutions to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy 135: 162–168.

38.

Dei

GJS

Karanja

Erger

(2022) Elders’ Cultural Knowledges and the Question of Black/African Indigeneity in Education. Cham: Springer.

39.

Denis

Ntsimane

(eds) (2008) Oral History in a Wounded Country: Interactive Interviewing in South Africa. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

40.

Derbile

Atanga

Abdulai

(2022) Re-visiting sustainable development: Sustainability and well-being from the perspectives of indigenous people in rural Ghana. Local Environment 27(3): 327–341.

41.

Di Francesco

Hanke

Milton

, et al. (2021) Documenting indigenous knowledge to identify and understand the stressors of Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) in Nunavut, Canada. Arctic 74(4): 418–436.

42.

Dutta

Mukhopadhyay

(2022) Preservation and Management of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Resources in the Information Society: An Outline of the Solution through Emerging uses of ICTs. In: 13th International CALIBER-2022, BHU, Varanasi, UP, 17-19 November 2022. http://ir.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/1944/2383

43.

Ferreira

Lukschy

Watyam

, et al. (2021) A website is a website is a website: Why trusted repositories are needed more than ever. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Digital Language Archives 2021, University of North Texas, 30 September – 1 October 2021. https://doi.org/10.12794/langarc1851176.

44.

Firth

(2012) Tablet PCs preserve indigenous knowledge. NewScientist 214(2896): 22.

45.

Galassi

(2021) Archival returns: Central Australia and beyond. Information & Culture 56(2): 217–218.

46.

Gardiner

Thorpe

(2014) The aboriginal and torres strait islander data archive: Connecting communities and research data. Language Documentation and Description 12: 103–119.

47.

Gosart

Kinnally

Sprouse

(2022) Protecting indigenous music in the public domain: HathiTrust digital library case study. Collection Management 48(3): 1–15.

48.

Graham

Loeper

(2018) Engagement, enthusiasm, and empowerment: participatory learning in Special Collections instruction. UMBC Faculty Collection. http://hdl.handle.net/11603/10943.

49.

Greyling

McNulty

(2011) The number in my pocket: The power of mobile technology for the exchange of indigenous knowledge. Knowledge Management for Development Journal 7(3): 256–273.

50.

Greyling

McNulty

(2012) How to build an Indigenous Digital Library through Community Participation: the case of the Ulwazi Programme. In Information for Sustainable Development in a Digital Environment. XXth Standing Conference of Eastern, Central and South Africa Library and Information Associations (SCECSAL), Nairobi, Kenya, 4-8 June 2012.

51.

Greyling

Zulu

(2010) Content development in an indigenous digital library: A case study in community participation. IFLA Journal 36(1): 30–39.

52.

Gupta

Bonneau

Elvidge

(2022) Connecting past to present: Enacting indigenous data governance principles in westbank first nation’s archaeology and digital heritage. Archaeologies 18: 623–650. 1-28.

53.

Gupta

Martindale

Supernant

, et al. (2023) The CARE principles and the reuse, sharing, and curation of indigenous data in Canadian archaeology. Advances in Archaeological Practice 11(1): 76–89.

54.

Hall

(2017) Mukurtu for mātauranga Māori: A case study in indigenous archiving for reo and tikanga revitalisation. In: Whaanga

Keegan

Apperley

(eds) He Whare Hangarau Māori: Language, Culture & Technology. Hamilton: Te Pua Wananga kit e Ao, University of Waikato, 189–199.

55.

Haokip

(2022) Indigenous knowledge as early warning guide in disaster management. In: Singh

(eds) International Handbook of Disaster Research. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8800-3_8-1.

56.

Haubt

(2013) Virtual heritage archives: Building a centralized Australian rock art archive. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences 40. XL-5/W2, 5-W2. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprsarchives-XL-5-W2-319-2013.

57.

Hausknecht

Freeman

Martin

, et al. (2021) Sharing indigenous knowledge through intergenerational digital storytelling: Design of a workshop engaging elders and youth. Educational Gerontology 47(7): 285–296.

58.

Hedelund

(2006) Community Center Gellerup: from everyday practice to method development: A Danish public library case. In: Proceedings of the 17th Standing Conference of Eastern, Central and Southern African Library and Information Associations, Dar es Salaam, 10–14 July 2006.

59.

Holton

(2017) Sustaining Digital Cultural Heritage Through Culturally Responsive Content Management. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10524/66807. (accessed 25 April 2023).

60.

Holton

(2017a) From Community to Archive and Back: Language archives and digital return. In: Proceedings of the Foundation for Endangered Languages Conference. Available at: https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10046228. (accessed 01 May 2023).

61.

Hopkins

Stepp

McCarty

, et al. (2015) Herbal remedy knowledge acquisition and transmission among the Yucatec Maya in Tabi, Mexico: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11(33): 1–10.

62.

Hossain

Ballardini

(2021) Protecting indigenous traditional knowledge through a holistic principle-based approach. Nordic Journal of Human Rights 39(1): 51–72.

63.

Hughes

(2017) Mukurtu: Ethically minded and socially empowering digital archiving. MAC Newsletter 45(2): Article 11. Available at:. (accessed 20 April 2023).

64.

Ibba S and Pani F (2016) Digital libraries: The challenge of integrating instagram with a taxonomy for content management. Future Internet 8(2): 16.

65.

Institute of Museum and Library Services (2015) IMLS Focus 2015: The National Digital Platform Summary report. Available at: https://www.imls.gov/sites/default/files/publications/documents/2015imlsfocusndpreport.pdf. (accessed 02 May 2023).

66.

Jain

(2014) Indigenous knowledge management in Botswana using ICT applications. In: Bwalya

Mnjama

Mazebe

Sebina

(eds) Concepts and Advances in Information Knowledge Management. Witney, Oxfordshire: Chandos Publishing, 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781780634357.2.167.

67.

Jain

Jibril

(2016) Expanding Library Services for Indigenous Community Posteriy: A Case of Selected Public Libraries in Botswana. IFLA WLIC 2016, 13-19 August 2023, Columbus, OH. https://library.ifla.org/view/conferences/2016/

68.

Joshi

Ghorbani

Siwakoti

, et al. (2020) Utilization pattern and indigenous knowledge of wild medicinal plants among three ethnic groups in Makawanpur district, Central Nepal. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 262(2020). https://0-doi-org.oasis.unisa.ac.za/10.1016/j.jep.2020.113219.

69.

Kelbessa

(2022) African worldviews, biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Environmental Values 31(5): 575–598.

70.

Khanyile

Dlamini

(2021) Preservation of traditional medicinal knowledge: Initiatives and techniques in rural communities in KwaZulu-Natal. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal) (Winter 1-31-2021): 1–19.

71.

Kotze

Zuma

(2017) Navigating freedom: Social cohesion policies and the democratic cultural landscape of Durban's liberation heritage route. Museum International 69(1-2): 98–113.

72.

Kwong

(2011) Endangered Heritage and Emergent Ogogo: A Case Study of the “Ulwazi Programme”. Independent Study Project (ISP) Collection. 2886. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/isp_collection/2886

73.

Leal

Barbir

Gwenzi

, et al. (2022) The role of indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation in Africa. Environmental Science & Policy 136(2022): 250–260.

74.

Lekhi

(2019) Loss of traditional knowledge is due to lack of documentation. Protecting, promoting, and revitalising traditional knowledge. Cultural Survival, 9 September 2019. Available at: https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/loss-traditional-knowledge-due-lack-documentation. (accessed 20 April 2023).

75.

Lwoga

Ngulube

Stilwell

(2020) Indigenous knowledge management practices in indigenous organizations in South Africa and Tanzania. In: Information Resources Management Association (eds) Indigenous Studies: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 37–57. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-0423-9.ch003.

76.

Lwoga

Stilwell

Ngulube

(2014) Knowledge management and indigenous organizations with special reference to Tanzania and South Africa. In: Ortenblad A Handbook of Research on Knowledge Management. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 318–340. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783470426.00028

77.

Machulak

(2020) Mukurtu: A digital platform that does more than manage content. Humanities 41(4): 1–14.

78.

McNulty

(2012a) New technologies and museums in South Africa: challenges and opportunities. In: 76th South African Museums Association National Conference, Paarl, 30 October - 1 November 2012. Available at: https://www.mcnulty.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/SAMA-PRESENTATION-G.McNULTY.pdf. (accessed 05 March 2023).

79.

McNulty

(2013) Archival aspirations and anxieties: Contemporary preservation and production of the past in umbumbulu, KwaZulu-Natal. South African Historical Journal 65(1): 44–69.

80.

McNulty

, 2013b. Custodianship on the periphery: archives, power and identity politics in post-apartheid Umbumbulu, KwaZulu-Natal . PhD Thesis. University of Cape Town, Faculty of Humanities, Social Anthropology. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/17412.

81.

McNulty

(2018) Digital African content and development? In Africa: Local knowledge in local languages. In: Salawu

(eds) African Language Digital Media and Communication. London: Routledge, 11–30. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351120425.

82.

McNulty

(2022) Mkhize historians dispute the past. In: Kros

Wright

Buthelezi

Wintjes

(eds) Archives of Times Past: Conversations About South Africa’s Deep History. Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 252–262.

83.

McNulty

(2012b) The Ulwazi Programme: local users, local language, local content. IMACR 2012. Available at: https://www.mcnulty.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/IAMCR2012_McNulty.pdf. (accessed 10 April 2023).

84.

McNulty

(2013a) The development of a user-generated digital library: The case of the ulwazi programme. In: 2013 IST-Africa Conference & Exhibition, Nairobi, Kenya, 29-31 May 2013, pp.1–11.

85.

McNulty

(2014) The Ulwazi programme: A case study in community-focused indigenous knowledge management. In: Osei-Bryson

Mansingh

Rao

(eds) Knowledge Management for Development. Integrated Series in Information Systems. Boston, MA: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7392-4_13.

86.

McNulty

(2014) Digital Memory Toolkit. Durban: McNulty Consulting.

87.

Maluleka

Ngulube

(2018) The preservation of knowledge of traditional healing in the Limpopo province of South Africa. Information Development 34(5): 515–525.

88.

Marschall

(2013) Sharing Zulu cultural heritage on the internet: ENanda online. Sharing Cultures 2013: 469. Available at: https://iris.unibas.it/bitstream/11563/64111/1/SC2013_ebook_ATTI_01.pdf#page=488. (accessed 10 April 2023).

89.

Martin

(2018) The Mukurtu system: A window on interculturality. Hermes, La Revue 82(3): 238–243.

90.

Masenya

(2022) Digital preservation of indigenous knowledge in South African rural communities. In: Rendani

Tshimangadzo

(eds) Handbook of Research on Protecting and Managing Global Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 317–340. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7492-8.ch017.

91.

Masenya

(2022a) Decolonization of indigenous knowledge systems in South Africa: Impact of policy and protocols. International Journal of Knowledge Management 18(1): 1–22.

92.

Mbilinyi

Mwabungulu

(2020) The fate of indigenous knowledge: The role played by libraries in Tanzania. Information Development 36(4): 489–502.

93.

Mdhluli

Mokgoatšana

Kugara

, et al. (2021) Knowledge management: Preserving, managing and sharing indigenous knowledge through digital library. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 77(2): a6795.

94.

Myeza

Kaya

(2016) Interfacing ICT and indigenous knowledge systems for sustainable environmental management in South Africa. Journal of Social Sciences 46(2): 107–113.

95.

Ncube

(2020) African language digital media and communication. Critical Arts 34(6): 104–107.

96.

Ngcobo

, 2020. Knowledge sharing practices in public libraries: a case study of eThekwini municipal libraries . Doctoral dissertation. University of KwaZulu Natal. Available at: https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/18694. (accessed 10 April 2023).

97.

Ngulube

(2020) The movement of mixed methods research and the role of information science professionals. In: Information Resources Management Association (eds) Research Anthology on Innovative Research Methodologies and Utilization Across Multiple Disciplines. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 258–288. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-6684-3881-7.ch015.

98.

Ngulube

(2022) Are we there yet? Mixed methods research in the South African journal of economic and management sciences. Acta Commercii 22(1): 1–11.

99.

Ntihirageza

Ibrahima

(2022) Education and epistemicide in Africa: Towards an ubuntu-based comprehensive model of education. In: Tshifhumulo

Makhanikhe

(eds) Handbook of Research on Protecting and Managing Global Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 275–293. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7492-8.ch015.

100.

Ogar

Pecl

Mustonen

(2020) Science must embrace traditional and indigenous knowledge to solve our biodiversity crisis. One Earth 3(2): 162–165.

101.

Olaopa

Ayodele

(2022) Building on the strengths of African indigenous knowledge and innovation (AIK&I) for sustainable development in Africa. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 14(5): 1313–1326.

102.

Owano

Adeka

Lusweti

(2019) Use of information communication technologies in the revitalisation of disappearing indigenous languages through knowledge centres: Case of Suba. In: Kwaya

Kiplangat

Wamukoya

Njiraine

(eds) Digital Technologies FoR Information and Knowledge Management. Nairobi: The Technical University of Kenya, 422.

103.

Owens

(2017) Closing Keynote: Digital Infrastructures that Embody Library Principles. Digital Initiatives Symposium. 18. Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/symposium/2017/2017/18. (accessed 10 March 2023).

104.

Owiny

Mehta

Maretzki

(2014) The use of social media technologies to create, preserve, and disseminate indigenous knowledge and skills to communities in East Africa. International Journal of Communication 8(2014): 234–247.

105.

Poorna

Mymoon

Hariharan

(2014) Preservation and protection of traditional knowledge – diverse documentation initiatives across the globe. Current Science 107(8): 1240–1246.

106.

Ramos

(2022) Understanding Yurok traditional ecological knowledge and wildlife management. The Journal of Wildlife Management 86(1): e22140.

107.

Research Data Alliance (2019) CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. The Global Indigenous Data Alliance, GIDA. Available at https://www.gida-global.org/care. (accessed 15 April 2023).

108.

Risam

(2018) Decolonizing the digital humanities in theory and practice. In: Sayers

(eds) The Routledge Companion to media Studies and Digital Humanities. New York: Routledge, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315730479.

109.

Ritchie

(2003) Doing Oral History: A Practical Guide, 2nd Ed New York: Oxford University Press.

110.

Robinson

Kong

Coates

, et al. (2021) Caring for indigenous data to evaluate the benefits of indigenous environmental programs. Environmental Management 68: 160–169.

111.

Rodriguez

(2018) Mukurtu content management system. Technical Services Quarterly 35(4): 406–407.

112.

Roy

Trace

(2018) Beyond stewardship and consultation. In: Salvatore

(eds) Cultural Heritage Care and Management: Theory and Practice, vol. 17. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 17–28.

113.

Ruedas

, 2012. A digital repository for indigenous Amazonian cultural materials . Doctoral thesis. The University of Texas at Austin. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/2152/ETD-UT-2012-05-5792. (accessed 10 March 2023).

114.

Salawu

(2018) Introduction: Not to be left behind–African languages, media and the digital sphere. In: Salawu

(eds) African Language Digital media and Communication. London: Routledge, 1–8.

115.

Salawu

(ed) (2018a) African Language Digital Media and Communication. London: Routledge.

116.

Sarah

(2015) Preservation and use of indigenous knowledge in primary healthcare among the alternative healthcare practitioners in Oyo state, Nigeria. In: 2nd International conference on education and social sciences, Istanbul, Turkey, 2-4 February 2015.

117.

Senier

(2014) Digitizing indigenous history: Trends and challenges. Journal of Victorian Culture 19(3): 396–402.

118.

Shepard

(2014) Review of Mukurtu content management system. Language Documentation and Conservation 8(2014): 315–325.

119.

Shepard

(2015) The digital archive Is useless…”: Community archiving, dissemination and sovereignty. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/25275 (accessed 11 March 2023).

120.

Singer

(2013) Growing up on the museum mile: Introducing the heritage project of the Cape Town Holocaust centre. South African Museums Association Bulletin 36(1): 51–64.

121.

Snyman

MMM

Van Rooi

(2006) Facilitating knowledge management: Opportunities for librarians in a changing world. In: Proceedings of the 17th Standing Conference of Eastern, Central and Southern African Library and Information Associations, Dar es Salaam, 10–14 July 2006, pp.106–123.

122.

Sterner

Elliot

(2022) The FAIR and CARE data principles who counts as a participant in biodiversity science by governing the fitness-for-use of data. Political Science. Available at: philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21039/1/FAIRandCAREData-April6-2022.pdf. (accessed 11 March 2023).

123.

Strathman

(2019) Digitizing the ancestors: Issues in indigenous digital heritage projects. International Journal of Communication 13(2019): 3721–3738.

124.

Suchanandan

(2018) Protecting and preserving indigenous knowledge. Mail and Guardian. 2 February 2018. Available at: https://mg.co.za/article/2018-02-02-00-protecting-and-preserving-indigenous-knowledge/. (accessed 10 March 2023).

125.

Tapfuma MM (2017) Preservation of indigenous knowledge systems in Zimbabwe: Some ethical considerations. In: Ngulube P (ed) Handbook of Research on Social, Cultural, and Educational Considerations of Indigenous Knowledge in Developing Countries. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0838-0.ch013

126.

Thompson

(2000) The voice of the past: Oral history, 3rd Ed New York: Oxford University Press.

127.

Thorpe

(2019) Taking the Mukurtu project international. Incite 40(3/4): 24–24.

128.

Thorpe

Booker

(2022) Navigating respectful practice to support indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights in Australian libraries. In: Coates

Owen

Reilly

(eds) Navigating Copyright for Libraries: Purpose and Scope. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Saur, 440–466.

129.

Thorpe

Galassi

(2014) Rediscovering indigenous languages: The role and impact of libraries and archives in cultural revitalisation. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 45(2): 81–100.

130.

Thorpe

Christen

Booker

, et al. (2021) Designing archival information systems through partnerships with indigenous communities: Developing the Mukurtu hubs and spokes model in Australia. Australian Journal of Information Systems 25: 1–22.

131.

Tribe

Hillman

, et al. (2017) Building sípnuuk: A digital library, archives, and museum for indigenous peoples. Collection Management 42(3-4): 294–316.

132.

Tringham

(2022) On the digital and analog afterlives of archaeological projects. In: Garstki

(eds) Critical Archaeology in the Digital Age: Proceedings of the 12th IEMA Visiting Scholar's Conference. ISD LLC, 2. Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press at UCLA.

133.

Tripathi

Bhattarya

(2004) Integrating indigenous knowledge and GIS for participatory natural resource management: State-of-the-practice. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries 17(1): 1–13.

134.

Tsatas

(2022) Decolonized listening in the archive: A study of how a reconstruction of archival processes and spaces can contribute to decolonizing narratives and listening. CAML Review/Revue de l'ACBM 50(2): 46–67.

135.

Turner

Cuerrier

Joseph

(2022) Well grounded: Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge, ethnobiology and sustainability. People and Nature 4(3): 627–651.

136.

Twinoburyo

(2019) Preservation of endangered indigenous knowledge: The role of community libraries in Kampala-Uganda. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries 8(1): 61–72.

137.

Unit CP (2010) Innovations in Local Sustainability: Good Practice from eThekwini. Durban: Corporate Policy Unit eThekwini Municipality.

138.

United Nations (2019) Indigenous people’s traditional knowledge must be preserved, valued globally, speakers stress as permanent forum open annual session. Available at: https://press.un.org/en/2019/hr5431.doc.htm. (accessed 10 March 2023).

139.

Urberg

(2020) Digital humanities projects and standards: Let’s get this conversation started!. Information Services & Use 40(3): 213–224.

140.

Uzuegbunam CE (2021) African language digital Media and communication, Abiodun Salawu (ed.). Journal of African Media Studies 13(1): 121–124.

141.

Vaarzon-Morel

Barwick

Green

(2021) Sharing and storing digital cultural records in central Australian indigenous communities. New Media & Society 23(4): 692–714.

142.

Whaanga

Mato

(2020) The indigenous digital footprint. In: Hokowhitu

Moreton-Robinson

Tuhiwai-Smith

Andersen

Larkin

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Critical Indigenous Studies. London: Routledge, 447–464. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429440229.

143.

Wilberg

(2014) Mukurtu: information retrieval system engineered for indigenous individuals and communities. In IFLA WLIC 2014, 16 −22 August 2014, Lyon, France. Available at: https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/922. (accessed 10 March 2023).

144.

Wilkinson

Dumontier

Aalbersberg

, et al. (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data 3: 160018.

145.

Yunnus

, 2017. Preservation of indigenous knowledge (IK) by public libraries in Westcliff, Chatsworth, Durban . Masters mini thesis. University of the Western Cape, South Africa.

Stakeholders in the acquisition,preservation,and dissemination of indigenous knowledge projects

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

The issue of indigenous knowledge in the digital era

Application of FAIR and CARE principles in IK preservation

Importance of acquiring, preserving and disseminating IK

Methodology

Results

The Ulwazi project

The Mukurtu project

Indigenous communities

Archivists and librarians

Researchers

Software developers

Application of FAIR and CARE principles in digitisation of IK

Stakeholders of the acquisition, preservation, and dissemination of IK

Government agencies

National research councils

Non-governmental organisations

Technologists

Information institutes

Local communities

Researchers

Print and electronic media

Limitations of the study

Conclusion and recommendations

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

About the authors

References