Subverting the universality of metadata standards

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the underlying meanings, effects and cultural patterns of metadata standards, focusing on Dublin Core (DC), and explore the ways in which anticolonial metadata tools can be applied to exercise and promote Indigenous data sovereignty. Design/methodology/approach Applying an anticolonial approach, this paper examines the assumptions underpinning the stated roles of two of DC’s metadata elements, rights and creator. Based on that examination, the paper considers the limitations of DC for appropriately documenting Indigenous traditional knowledge (TK). Introduction of the TK labels and their implementation are put forward as an alternative method to such limitations in metadata standards. Findings The analysis of the rights and creator elements revealed that DC’s universality and supposed neutrality threaten the rightful attribution, specificity and dynamism of TK, undermining Indigenous data sovereignty. The paper advocates for alternative descriptive methods grounded within tribal sovereignty values while recognizing the difficulties of dealing with issues of interoperability by means of metadata standards given potentially innate tendencies to customization within communities. Originality/value This is the first paper to directly examine the implications of DC’s rights and creator elements for documenting TK. The paper identifies ethical practices and culturally appropriate tools that unsettle the universality claims of metadata standards. By introducing the TK labels, the paper contributes to the efforts of Indigenous communities to regain control and ownership of their cultural and intellectual property.

Open science in Sámi research: Researchers' dilemmas

“…For instance, the platform Mukurtu 6 hosts projects related to Indigenous cultural heritage. Designers behind the platform have, together with Indigenous groups, developed cultural protocols for presenting and regulating access to the data (Christen, 2011 ; Senier, 2014 ; Montenegro, 2019 ). Mukurtu requires membership for full access and gives the communities control over the data curated by using traditional heritage labels and defining and implementing cultural protocols.…”

Revisiting the digital humanities through the lens of Indigenous studies—or how to question the cultural blindness of our technologies and practices

“…Thus far, the application of Indigenous methodologies to digital contexts is scarce but indicates the need for a deeper understanding of the dynamics and strategies at play in digital environments and on social media platforms. Efforts are already being made in this direction, for instance, Mukurtu, 4 a platform for sharing and managing Indigenous cultural heritage (Christen, 2011;Montenegro, 2019;Senier, 2014) that hosts a variety of projects with the possibility of using traditional heritage labels and adjusting hosted projects according to cultural protocols. For instance, projects on Mukurtu require membership for full access, giving control to the communities over the data and knowledge shared and curated on the platform.…”

Descriptive standards and collection management software for documentary heritage management: attitudes and experiences of information professionals

“…A standardised approach to describing collections have been critiqued for marginalising indigenous knowledge, as well as queer identities by reinforcing binary gender classifications (Billey et al, 2014;Montenegro, 2019). Montenegro (2019) sees standardised metadata creation as is inherently problematic for reinforcing Western paradigm of knowledge creation. Standardisation is argued to be a form of universalism not suited to upholding indigenous data sovereignty.…”