Cultural use of ICT4D to promote Indigenous knowledge continuity of Ngarrindjeri stories and communal practices

Abstract

While there is a considerable amount of interest in information and communication technologies for development (ICT4D) in the Indigenous communities, it remains limited to those who can afford it and have the skills and knowledge to implement the technology and access appropriate digital tools. Hence, Indigenous communities are continually stigmatized as marginalized, leading to a cultural misrepresentation of histories that affects the continuing information disparity between Indigenous and Western knowledge systems, particularly the insufficient technology infrastructure designed for traditional users. In this article, ICT4D was conceptualized as a digital platform to support Senior Ngarrindjeri Elder Aunty Ellen Trevorrow in continuing her practice of weaving and storytelling throughout the pandemic. In this context, the community‐based participatory research (CBPR) principles within the structure of video ethnography were qualitatively designed to implement the ICT4D project culturally and ethically. Video recordings, image data, transcriptions, and the Ngarrindjeri ICT4D Pondi (Murray Cod) framework were embedded to justify the findings and the aim of illustrating Aunty Ellen's knowledge‐sharing process to online learners. Likewise, the results demonstrate the positive and negative impact of COVID‐19 on the continuity and orality of Aunty Ellen's cultural stories and practices. The future continuity of Aunty Ellen's knowledge ought to consider the inconsistency of technological infrastructure in regional areas, her waning health, and the interconnectedness of oral expertise, which often pose challenges. This study is a small step toward a better understanding of the value of oral knowledge; emphasizing the creation of e‐learning weaving instructional videos is valuable for future digital management of Indigenous knowledge relevant to LIS.

Value co‐creation in cultural heritage information practices: Literature review and future agenda: An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper

“…The pedagogy and learning value is created through collaborative information practices on cultural heritage artifacts or by using cultural heritage institutions as sites for participatory design or co-production (Ott & Pozzi, 2011). Technological value refers to the technological advancements and innovations in cultural-related information activities brought about through co-creation, including but not limited to digital infrastructure, platforms, technical frameworks, computer-supported collaborative work, and social media applications (Borgman et al, 2019;Bryan-Kinns et al, 2022;Chen et al, 2022;Davidson & Reid, 2022;Haines et al, 2022;Koutsabasis et al, 2022;Mak, 2014;Prandi et al, 2019). Technological value is an important emergent value of some large-scale, cross-disciplinary, collaborative cultural heritage digitization practices (Ruthven & Chowdhury, 2015;Sotirova et al, 2012).…”

“…Currently, many cultural heritage information practices focus on the participation of indigenous people and the dominance of local communities (Chirikure et al, 2010; Human, 2015; Prangnell et al, 2010), especially in the case of co‐creation activities in tourism scenarios (Bezova & Azara, 2021; Su & Wall, 2014), which require the initiative of the communities and the active involvement of local cultural heritage institutions to further promote the creation, dissemination, protection and sustainable development of cultural and recreational values. Related research topics include sustainable indigenous values and community resilience (Utami et al, 2022), indigenous knowledge continuity and communal practices (Haines et al, 2022), community engagement in local cultural knowledge transfer (Jarusawat et al, 2018), community involvement in intangible heritage conventions (Deacon & Smeets, 2013), community co‐curation and engagement with digital heritage (Mutibwa et al, 2020), etc. Compared with the VCC of institution‐led cultural heritage information practices, community‐led cultural heritage projects are more flexible and have lower barriers to participation, such as the localized transmission and sharing of intangible cultural heritage promoted through livestreaming (Lu et al, 2019).…”

“…The government plays an important decision‐making role in the preservation and transmission of cultural heritage, and the issuance of some guiding documents can also have a significant impact on the direction of cultural heritage informatics (Spence, 2005). The individuals and communities are also the main actors in promoting cultural heritage information practices, and there has been widespread interest in how to mobilize participants (Alam & Campbell, 2017), stimulate the integration and creativity of indigenous communities (Haines et al, 2022), and further enhance the effectiveness of cultural heritage VCC through crowd wisdom (Causer & Terras, 2014). In addition to the above categories of stakeholders, NGOs often contribute by bringing in expertise and mediating between local communities and the government (Stephens & Tiwari, 2015).…”