Indigenous Knowledge and Culturally Responsive Methods in Information Research

Becvar, Katherine; Srinivasan, Ramesh

doi:10.1086/605382

Cited by 32 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As many scholars have recently pointed out, traditional indigenous knowledge can be extremely valuable to both Native and non-Native peoples (Grant-Costa, Glazaand, and Sletcher 2012;Christen, 2011;Becvar and Srinivasan 2009;Ginsberg 1994). My goal here is to demonstrate how the Digital Knowledge Sharing initiative has begun the process of merging indigenous and archival knowledge systems.…”

Section: Outcomes Of Tribal Partnershipsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Digital Knowledge Sharing: Forging Partnerships between Scholars, Archives, and Indigenous Communities

Powell

2016

MAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article reviews a digital repatriation project carried out by the Center for Native American and Indigenous Research at the American Philosophical Society over the course of eight years (2008-present). The project focused on building digital archives in four indigenous communities: Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Penobscot Nation, Tuscarora Nation, and Ojibwe communities in both the United States and Canada. The article features insights from traditional knowledge keepers who helped to create a new system of co-stewarding the APS’ indigenous archival materials and recounts how the APS established protocols for cultural sensitivity. A new model of community-based scholarship is proposed to create a more equal and respectful relationship between indigenous communities, scholars, and archives.

show abstract

Section: Outcomes Of Tribal Partnershipsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Digital Knowledge Sharing: Forging Partnerships between Scholars, Archives, and Indigenous Communities

Powell

2016

MAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For Becvar and Srinivasan (2009), the primary failure of most preservation efforts is the researcher's inability to understand or the inability to be 'sensitive' to categories and meanings to which we are non-native. As they say in their article: 'Simple grassroots ethnographic research is, by itself, insufficient for overcoming existing inadequacies in understanding cultural differences' (p. 425).…”

Section: Culturally Sensitive Research Methodology Versus Ethnographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today ethnographers are concerned with how local institutions, local agendas, and regional economic strategies can be redefined to avoid the scenario whereby one group, namely the local elite, wins and others, those with less power, (always) lose. Becvar and Srinivasan (2009) also seem to believe that legitimate cultural elements or traditions are easy to 'discover'. But note again that their paper is based on information that privileges testimony from only one segment of Zuni society: the aged.…”

Section: Culturally Sensitive Research Methodology Versus Ethnographymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is not to imply that all preservationists are unaware of how power has affected and biased heritage preservation (or lack thereof) of the cultures of marginalized groups in the past. The more recent trend is to overcome prior exclusion by encouraging participation by local community members and members of indigenous groups in the preservation of their own histories (Becvar and Srinivasan, 2009;Cloonan, 2007aCloonan, , 2007bLloyd, 2007;Ogden, 2007;Srinivasan, 2006Srinivasan, , 2007. The UNESCO Convention on Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage is but one example of a response on the global level to the problem of overcoming unequal cultural representation.…”

Section: Power and Hierarchy In Preservation: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was true regardless of the fact that these representations did not reflect the community as a whole. Finally, in an effort to show how LIS research falls short, we will discuss why one recently proposed research methodology, namely Becvar and Srinivasan's (2009) 'culturally responsive research methodology' could not have supported any kind of legitimate preservation effort in Ghimeş.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hierarchy, complicity and culture in the library and information science preservation agenda: Observations from Romania

Klimaszewski

Bader

Nyce

2012

Journal of Librarianship and Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that researchers involved in cultural heritage preservation need to adopt a more inclusive ethnographic research methodology that pays special attention to how power, class, and status shape the communities we study. Based on observations from field research in Ghimeş-Fǎget, Romania, we discuss why the Hungarian ethnic identity was chosen as the village's most visible representation although residents had many other identities from which to choose. We show how local efforts to preserve culture, history and self 'in one direction' were shaped by the current socio-economic reality in the village. Our findings suggest that identity selection is influenced by shifting power relations between ethnic groups over time as much as it is by the dominant ethnic group in a community. In an effort to show how existing research falls short, we discuss why one recently proposed 'culturally responsive research methodology' could not support any kind of legitimate preservation agenda in Ghimeş or any other community.

show abstract

Centering dialog and care in digital Indigenous knowledge stewardship: Of relationality, responsibility, and respect

Liew,

Lipscombe

2024

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The question of how to appropriately care for and share Indigenous knowledges is central to cultural heritage documentation and, contemporary archival praxes and discourses. Transforming the standards of Indigenous knowledge management (IKM) necessitates confronting the legacies of colonial control and Indigenous expurgation that settler colonial galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM) have contributed to (intentionally or not). Writing of and within the Māori context in New Zealand, we argue that a renewed orientation toward dialogic collaboration between institutions and Indigenous communities is crucial for revitalizing archival practices and partnerships in ways that center Indigenous values. Moreover, we purport that aligning institutional practices with Indigenous values is insufficient if Indigenous communities are neither made to feel welcome within archival spaces nor empowered to utilize them. As such, we identify the notions of relationality, responsibility, and respect as vital in supporting this ethical transformation of Indigenous knowledge stewardship both in New Zealand and in other Indigenous contexts. We propose that current efforts to reshape IKM praxes in culturally responsible and responsive ways can be meaningfully expanded through dialogic engagement, and an ethics of care.

show abstract

Indigenous Knowledge and Culturally Responsive Methods in Information Research

Cited by 32 publications

References 31 publications

Digital Knowledge Sharing: Forging Partnerships between Scholars, Archives, and Indigenous Communities

Digital Knowledge Sharing: Forging Partnerships between Scholars, Archives, and Indigenous Communities

Hierarchy, complicity and culture in the library and information science preservation agenda: Observations from Romania

Centering dialog and care in digital Indigenous knowledge stewardship: Of relationality, responsibility, and respect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About