Abstract
This paper assesses the data management of digitized Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in IKS repositories in South Africa. The study adopted a qualitative research method. The multiple case study research design was adopted to collect data from eight respondents in four Indigenous Knowledge Systems Documentation Centres (IKSDCs) in repositories spread across three provinces in South Africa. The findings revealed that the Department of Science and Technology (DST) coordinates the national IKS programmes under the National Recordal System (NRS) and they are responsible for the management of digitized IKS. The findings also revealed that although the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System (NIKMAS) was built for the management of the data, the system is still in its planning phase, and work is still in progress. In addition, it was discovered that information professionals like archivists and records managers are currently not involved in the management of IKS data in the repositories. The paper offers recommendations on the data management and storage of IKS, data description, mitigating the challenges, and some measures to help ensure the authenticity of the IKS data collected in the repositories.
Introduction
The preservation and management of Indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) has long been a topic of significance for many cultures around the world. The digitization of Indigenous knowledge systems has provided new opportunities for preserving, sharing and utilizing this knowledge, but also poses new challenges for ensuring its long-term preservation and accessibility. In South Africa, where Indigenous knowledge systems is an important aspect of the country's cultural heritage, the management of digitized Indigenous knowledge systems in repositories has become a critical issue (Masekoameng, 2022). The concept of Indigenous knowledge systems encompasses a wide range of knowledge, including traditional ecological knowledge, medicinal knowledge, cultural practices and beliefs, and language. This knowledge is often passed down through generations and is embedded within the cultural practices and beliefs of a community. The digitization of Indigenous knowledge systems has the potential to make this knowledge more widely accessible, but also raises concerns about the authenticity, integrity and cultural sensitivity of the digital representations of the knowledge.
South Africa has a rich cultural heritage, which includes a wealth of Indigenous knowledge systems passed down through generations. In recent years, South Africa has recognized the importance of preserving and promoting Indigenous knowledge systems and has implemented a range of policies and strategies aimed at preserving and promoting this knowledge (Dlamini and Khanyile, 2021). One of the key policy initiatives in South Africa is the National Indigenous Knowledge System Policy launched in 2004 (DST, 2004). This policy framework provides a comprehensive approach to the preservation and management of Indigenous knowledge systems in South Africa and outlines the responsibilities of government, communities, and other stakeholders in this process. The South African government also introduced the Protection, Promotion, Development, and Management of Indigenous Knowledge Bill in 2016, which was signed into Act No. 6 of 2019 as Protection, Promotion, Development, and Management of Indigenous Knowledge Act, 2019 (Ncube, 2022). The policy framework also outlines the steps necessary to protect Indigenous knowledge systems from exploitation and misappropriation, including the establishment of Indigenous knowledge systems -related laws, the creation of Indigenous knowledge systems databases, and the development of Indigenous knowledge systems -related training programs. In addition, the policy framework also calls for the establishment of partnerships between government, communities, and other stakeholders to ensure that Indigenous knowledge systems is preserved and promoted in a sustainable and culturally appropriate manner. Other notable South African legislation and policy for the indigenous knowledge and biodiversity protection include Biodiversity Act 2004 and BABS Regulations 2008, Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2013, and Indigenous knowledge systems Bill 2016 (Bareetseng and Yamana, 2019). The the National Recordal System (NRS) Initiative (Khalala, 2021), the Ulwazi Programme (Dlamini and Khanyile, 2021), and the digitisation of VhaVenda oral tradition (Kugara and Mokgoatšana, 2022) are are some digitisation initiatives in South Africa. The effort to protect Indigenous knowledge in South Africa led to the creation of the National Recordal System (NRS) project by the Department of Science and Technology (DST) to coordinate and standardize the capture, storage, maintenance, and dissemination of science and technology-related IKS data in South Africa (Amechi, 2015; Bagley, 2019). South Africa's National Indigenous Knowledge Systems Policy paved the way for the establishment of the National Indigenous Knowledge System Office (NIKSO), aimed at coordinating academic institutions and other organizations regarding Indigenous knowledge systems. The National Recordal System project has led to the creation of the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System (NIKMAS), which acts as a central access point and the national digital library for Indigenous knowledge systems in South Africa (Alberts et al., 2011; Bagley, 2019). Through the National Recordal Systems (NRS) initiative, Indigenous Knowledge Systems Documentation Centres (IKSDCs) to facilitate the digitisation of Indigenous knowledge systems (Alberts et al., 2011). Indigenous Knowledge Systems Documentation Centres (IKSDCs) have been established in each province in South Africa for the collection, documentation, storage, and dissemination of IK and related activities. The nine provinces in South Africa are the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, Northern Cape, North West, and Western Cape (Alexander, 2023). The Indigenous Knowledge System Documentation Centres, located in academic institutions in different provinces, are provincial hubs geared towards implementing the NRS initiative (Alberts et al., 2011). This initiative shows the commitment of the South African government to the management and preservation of Indigenous knowledge. The IKSDCs are provincial hubs geared towards implementing the National Recordal System initiative. In 2012, the KwaZulu-Natal IKSDC hosted at the University of KwaZulu-Natal was established as the major hub in South Africa.
Digital technology has several advantages that help in the preservation of materials and its easy access. Despite these advantages, there are issues of obsolescence of older technologies and formats, among other issues that make digital materials static and just as imprecise and flawed as non-digital preservation (Perry, 2014). Digital preservation is a set of processes, activities, and management of digital information over time to ensure its long-term accessibility (Mukasa and Kamusiime, 2012). There is a need for digital preservation to ensure continued access for as long as possible. However, Decman (2010) asserts that the concept of digital preservation is not widespread. Digital preservation is important in ensuring that heritage materials are preserved forever or at least the longest time possible. Studies (e.g., Balogun and Kalusopa, 2021, 2022; Ezema and Ugwu, 2013; Gbaje and Mohammed, 2013; Mutula, 2014; Masenya and Ngulube, 2019) have established the lack of digital preservation policies and plans for digital materials. Despite the new opportunities, digital technology offers researchers the opportunity to create data sets that enable increasingly sophisticated analysis, haphazard data management and preservation strategies endanger the potential benefit this advancement brings. (Jahnke et al., 2012). There are also issues regarding the lack of digital preservation policies and solid plans for digitized Indigenous knowledge systems in repositories in South Africa (Balogun and Kalusopa, 2021). Indigenous knowledge in Africa is a valuable cultural heritage that is at risk of being lost due to a lack of proper data management. As more and more of this knowledge is digitized, there is a need for research to address the challenges of preserving and making it accessible for future generations including data management issues. The management of digitized Indigenous knowledge systems in repositories involves a range of activities, including the creation and maintenance of metadata, the design and implementation of access controls, and as well as cultural sensitivity and community engagement in the data management process. These activities are shaped by a range of factors, including legal and ethical considerations, community engagement, and technological infrastructure. A research focus on data management of digitized indigenous knowledge in an African context can help ensure that this valuable resource is preserved and made accessible for future generations.
Thus, this paper aims to explore the current state of data management of digitized Indigenous knowledge systems in repositories in South Africa, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for preserving and making this knowledge accessible. The specific objectives that guided the study are as follows:
To assess the data management and storage of Indigenous knowledge systems data in the repositories. To assess the data description of the Indigenous knowledge systems data. To determine the challenges of managing digitized Indigenous knowledge systems. To ascertain the measures in place for ensuring the authenticity of the data.
Literature review
Trusted Digital Repositories (TDR) is a concept that is associated with digital preservation and the trust of digital records in general. Much of the emphasis on trust in the digital preservation community has been centred on the concept of maintaining trusted digital repositories (Corrado, 2019). In order to ensure the long-term preservation and management of digital materials it is important to establish a Trusted Digital Repository (TDR). According to the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) framework, there are some attributes that Trusted Digital Repositories have to fulfill to ensure trustworthiness and reliability of the archived content. These attributes include Compliance with the Reference Model for an Open Archival Information System (OAIS), Administrative responsibility, Organisational viability, Financial sustainability, Technological and procedural suitability, System security, Procedural accountability (Donaldson, 2020; RLG-OCLC, 2002). For instance, Organizational viability refers to the sustainability and stability of the repository. It involves having clear governance structures, policies, and procedures in place to support the long-term management of digital materials (RLG-OCLC, 2002). The OAIS Reference Model is a widely adopted framework for the long-term preservation of digital information. The model developed by the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) provides a conceptual framework and common language to understand the components and functions of an archival system (CCSDS, 2012). The data management component of the OAIS Reference Model is important in digital preservation and archiving digital information (Lavoie, 2014). It is composed of several activities like metadata management, data storage and preservation, access management, and documentation of preservation strategies. Effective data management practices helps in ensuring long-term access, integrity, and usability of digital objects of archival systems which then supports the preservation and dissemination of valuable digital information (Dollar and Ashley, 2016).
The data management function of the Open Archival Information System (OAIS) framework supports the search and retrieval of archived content through the use of descriptive metadata for the effective management of databases (Michael, 2016). Storage involves the temporary or long-term storage plan for archived data (Bragg and Hanna, 2013). Data management and storage are very important in the management of digital repositories, and this has been a challenge to some organizations. For example, Adu (2016) in a study found that certain organizations do not have proper storage devices for the extension of the life of digital materials. Other studies like Iglesias (2011), Prom et al. (2016), have revealed that the use of cloud computing and other digital solutions is on the rise. The use of cloud computing for the storage of data is currently on the rise with organizations making use of cloud computing services like Infrastructure as a service (IaaS), software as a service (SaaS), and platform as a service (PaaS).
Preservation and management of indigenous knowledge systems (IKS) in South Africa are of significant importance due to their cultural, social, and economic value (Edgar et al., 2022; Zwane and Masipa, 2021). However, there are some challenges faced in the management of digital materials (Adu, 2016; Biyela et al., 2016; Dooley and Luce, 2010; Dryden, 2009; Ezema, 2011; Ngulube, 2012). Some of the challenges are related to legal (Adu, 2016; Biyela et al., 2016; Ngulube, 2012), technology (Biyela et al., 2016; Dryden, 2009; Masenya and Ngulube, 2019; Ruusalepp and Dobreva, 2013), and budget constraints (Adu, 2016; Dooley and Luce, 2010; Ezema, 2011). On the issue of budget constraints, the Council of Canadian Academies (2015) stressed that funding plays a very key role in ensuring the success of any digital preservation initiative. The issue of funding is very common especially in institutions in Africa (Adu, 2016; Ezema, 2011).
Effective data management practices support the success of digital preservation and enhances the organization and retrieval of digital assets within archival repositories. As custodians of memories in our society, archives play a key role in the documentation, preservation, and provision of access to Indigenous knowledge (Masuku and Pasipamire, 2014; Ngulube et al., 2011; Russell, 2005). Studies (e.g., Ngulube et al., 2011; Russell, 2005) have acknowledge the role of archives as repositories that serve the purpose of preserving and providing access to diverse forms of indigenous knowledge. They offer indigenous communities a platform to reclaim, validate, and share their knowledge within their cultural context (Christen, 2015; Montenegro, 2023). One of the most important characteristics of archives is ensuring that certain measures are put in place to ensure that the trustworthiness of records is intact and that it reveals the true identity of the original creator. Records of archival value must come from verifiable sources (Sharon, 2010) and they must reflect factual and accurate data and transactions (ISO 15489-1, 2001). Duranti (2010) noted that ensuring the authenticity of digital records over time poses a major challenge. Authenticity in this context deals with maintaining provenance, rights management, technical environment, and preservation management (Oehlerts and Lui, 2013). According to Hellmer (2015), digital information requires a very high standard of guarantee of integrity and authenticity. There are different forms of ensuring the authenticity of digital records. Ramiah and Wal (2003) revealed that one form of ensuring the authenticity of digital records is by preventing unauthorized addition, deletion, alteration, concealment, and use of records by unauthorized or unknown individuals. This emphasizes the importance of strict access control to ensure the authenticity of digital records. This is because digital images are quite easy to manipulate (Parry, 2009), and some of the alterations made on digital materials might be relatively difficult to detect (Guthrie and Mitchell, 2006; Parry, 2009). Apart from digital records, video data are also subject to the risk of manipulation if they are not properly preserved (Upadhyay and Singh, 2012) for example, Upadhyay and Singh (2012) stated that video authentication poses several challenges especially in the presentation of digital videos as evidence.
Thus, the connection between indigenous knowledge systems preservation and archives is important in safeguarding cultural heritage, empowering indigenous communities, and fostering intercultural understanding (Ngulube et al., 2011). Archives play a crucial role in the preservation and revitalization of indigenous cultures, promoting social justice and respect for diverse knowledge systems (Roy, 2013).
Methodology
The research approach adopted to explore the objectives of the study is the qualitative research approach. This paper is based on a multiple case study method. Subjective understanding of human experiences in their natural setting is a key element of the qualitative research approach (Silverman, 2010). In this paper, the qualitative approach was adopted because it allows for a rich exploration of the subjective experiences, perspectives, and practices of individuals involved in managing and storing the data, providing a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and nuances of data management in this context. Also, the objectives of the study, such as assessing data management and storage, examining data description practices, determining challenges, and ascertaining measures for ensuring data authenticity, require an exploration of the underlying motivations, decision-making processes, and contextual factors. Qualitative research methods enable researchers to delve into these aspects, providing insights into the underlying reasons and dynamics.
The multiple case study design was adopted to determine the differences and similarities in the repositories. The multiple case study design employed in this study allows for an in-depth examination of the studied phenomenon within its real-life context across different institutions. This design facilitates the exploration of similarities and differences in data management practices, providing a holistic view of the challenges and opportunities faced by various Indigenous Knowledge Documentation Centres (IKSDCs). The design also enabled the researcher to investigate the studied phenomenon in its real-life context across different institutions.
Data for the study was collected from eight participants in Indigenous Knowledge Documentation Centres (IKSDCs) located in four academic institutions across three provinces (Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, and Western Cape) in South Africa. The Indigenous Knowledge Documentation Centre main hub at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN), AgriFood Technology Station at the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), Department of Science and Technology-National Research Foundation (DST-NRF) Digitization Centre at the University of Witwatersrand (Wits), and the Indigenous knowledge systems Centre at the University Zululand (Unizulu). Although there are Indigenous Knowledge Documentation Centres in each of the nine provinces in South Africa, data collection was limited to these institutions due to factors such as time, financial resources, issues with permission for access, their role in the digitization project. For example, the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) was selected for the study because it plays a key role in the digitisation initiatives in South Africa. Apart from physically hosting the Digital Innovation South Africa (DISA) project, the university also hosts the Department of Science and Technology-National Research Foundation Centre for Indigenous knowledge systems, which is the major hub for the Indigenous Knowledge System digitisation project in South Africa. The Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) was selected because it hosts the major hub for the digitisation of Indigenous knowledge systems in Western Cape in the AgriFood Technology Station at the university's Bellville campus. The University of Witwatersrand (Wits) was selected for its role in the digitisation of heritage and Indigenous Knowledge materials in South Africa. It also hosts the Department of Science and Technology-National Research Foundation Digitisation Centre. The University of Zululand was also selected because it is a strategic partner to the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) Indigenous knowledge systems Documentation Centre. University of Zululand's Indigenous knowledge systems Centre is located at the institution's Science Centre at Richards Bay, and it is actively involved in the collection and digitisation of Indigenous knowledge systems in South Africa.
The population of the study included key staff at the Indigenous Knowledge Documentation Centres in the selected academic institutions, including Indigenous knowledge systems Managers/Coordinators, Digitisation officers, and Online Collection Administrators. Using the purposive sampling method, participants who were directly involved in the Indigenous knowledge systems project in the Indigenous Knowledge Documentation Centre were selected and this involvement made it necessary for the researcher to consider them appropriate to be interviewed. Through the purposive sampling method, the following participants were selected in each academic institution: Indigenous knowledge systems Managers/Coordinators, Digitization officers, Online Collection Administrators. The breakdown of the participants are as follows: five Indigenous knowledge systems Managers/Coordinators, two Digitisation officers, and one Online Collection Administrators. Approval was sought from the participants before data were collected. The data for this study were collected through comprehensive face-to-face interviews which lasted between 30 to 45 min each. Interviews allow for the collection of rich and contextual data that can provide valuable insights (Schultze and Avital, 2011). The use of comprehensive face-to-face interviews as the data collection method enabled the researcher establish rapport with participants, gather detailed and nuanced information, and probe further to gain a deeper understanding of their experiences and perspectives. Data were analyzed using the NVivo 12 software. The software was used to to identify themes, patterns, and insights from the participants’ narratives, providing a systematic and rigorous analysis of the qualitative data.
Findings and discussion
Participants were interviewed and asked questions regarding the data management of the digitized Indigenous Knowledge in their institutional repositories. The participants were asked the following questions: How the digitized Indigenous Knowledge is managed, challenges faced in the management of the digitized Indigenous Knowledge, how the institutions are dealing with the challenges, and how the institutions ensure access to the data captured in the repository. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed into texts. The interviews were transcribed, typed, and uploaded into the NVivo software for qualitative data analysis. The NVivo software was used to store, code, classify, and analyze the qualitative data. Thus, thematic analysis was used to present the data. The responses from the interview are as follows:
Data management and storage
The study revealed that when Indigenous knowledge data are collected by the field recorders, they are checked by the Community Coordinators before being transferred to the IK Coordinators who upload them on the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System (NIKMAS). The Department of Science and Technology (DST) who controls the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System is widely believed to be burdened with the management of the Indigenous knowledge digital materials and not the academic institutions. One of the participants P12 noted that the field workers are equipped with laptops, digital cameras, and recorders which are used to capture data that are later synchronized with the Indigenous knowledge Coordinator's laptop before being uploaded on the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System. According to the participant P12, they “use equipment in the form of laptops, digital cameras, and recorders. When they finish with that, the information is synchronised with the main computer in our office. We do not use drivers or hard drives; we do direct transfer from computer to computer. We have a database that is specifically designed to store our data.”
One reason given for this is to safeguard the data against interference. Another participant affirmed this and added that they do not have any form of backup or archival measures in place. Apart from the Indigenous knowledge data collected from the primary source which are uploaded on the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System, IN01 collects other types of Indigenous knowledge that are stored on hard drives before being uploaded online. The study revealed that much has not been done in the area of ensuring proper storage of Indigenous knowledge collection. This reinforced the findings of Adu (2016) that certain organizations failed to take advantage of having proper storage devices to extend the life of digital materials. Having proper storage facilities in place helps to ensure that there is a reliable backup facility in place. However, one of the participants P42 affirmed that their data is stored on an open-sourced digital preservation platform known as Archivematica. This is similar to other studies that reveal the use of cloud computing and other digital solutions for data storage (Iglesias, 2011; Prom et al., 2016). Cloud computing is seen as a vital tool that can be used in meeting storage and data management challenges in digital preservation.
Data description
Participants identified two main ways in which they describe data which are the Dublin Core metadata and the ISAD(G) (General International Standard Archival Description). P12 and P22 revealed that their institutions adopt the Dublin Core metadata for their data description. Metadata has been identified as an indicator of the authenticity of digital material. According to P22, “we use the Dublin Core metadata. We just get the relevant details like the surname, title, author, date of publication, abstract…” RS12 also admitted to using the Dublin Core Metadata for describing data and added that there are: “…different identifiers or fields we fill for each material. So, if it is a publication for example, video or whatever the case might be, there are certain fields that we fill. We also take the screenshots of the first page so that it is captured and someone can always click. There is a link that will take you and open it up on its original database.”
Participant P42 also stated that their repository uses a ready-made template that is available on Archivematica's AtoM software. The AtoM software metadata is based on the International Council on Archives’ (ICA) ISAD(G) standard. However, some of the participants said that they either do not have any idea of the specific metadata being used or that they use a simple description of the content. For example, P52 stated that “it is not described as far as I know in our system when it resides with us. It may be at the NIKMAS side, but I don’t know how they do it. So, far we have not done that. I am assuming it is in the DST system.” Also P82 also attributed the responsibility to the Department of Science and Technology (DST), the project coordinator. According to P82, “They [DST] do all of that, but we put in the real data to say if it's in the traditional medicine category you say traditional medicine… But I don’t know how they pull it out on their side. We have people's names, personal data or information that makes us see who it is.”
The study revealed that no uniform or standard metadata is being used in the data description process. Several ISO standards provide guidelines to support the preservation and to ensure the authenticity of digital records. The lack of a uniform metadata is a result of the lack of digital preservation policy which aligns with a previous study by Balogun and Kalusopa (2021).
Challenges of managing digitized indigenous knowledge systems
Participants across different institutions highlighted some of the challenges faced in the management of digitized Indigenous Knowledge. The challenges mentioned are related to legal issues, technological issues, financial issues, lack of technical skills, lack of adequate staff, and language issues.
The legal problems are issues that have to do with intellectual property rights, i.e., copyright from the knowledge holders. Participants P12 and P22 noted that due to certain copyright restrictions, some of their Indigenous knowledge is not being updated or uploaded on their online database. P12 specifically indicated that: Sometimes when we find data that have restrictions on them due to copyright or we are not allowed to update it or put in a separate database. So it's about acquiring necessary permissions. And if you have many people working on the system, you find that each individual is coming up with their own group of things that are restricted. So we have to find and create a sort of system for us to manage data that are restricted.
The challenges related to the copyright of digital materials have been highlighted in different studies (Adu, 2016; Ngulube, 2012) especially copyright issues related to Indigenous knowledge (Biyela et al., 2016). Digitizing indigenous knowledge can raise complex copyright issues, particularly with regards to the ownership and control of the knowledge being digitized. There are several challenges that need to be addressed when digitizing indigenous knowledge, including ownership, cultural rights, and access and control. These copyright issues can have significant impacts on the archiving of Indigenous knowledge systems. For example, if ownership and control of the knowledge is not properly established, it may be difficult to ensure that the digitized representations of the knowledge are properly preserved and made accessible over time. In addition, cultural rights and ethical considerations may also limit the distribution and use of the digitized knowledge, making it difficult to promote its preservation and accessibility. To address these challenges, it is important for those involved in the digitization of indigenous knowledge to engage in ongoing dialogue with the communities who hold this knowledge and to work together to establish clear guidelines for the preservation and management of digitized Indigenous knowledge systems. This has made it necessary for the institutions to make efforts in acquiring the necessary permissions. P32 and P72 also supports this assertion by noting that they deal with copyright problems. Some of the measures adopted to curb the issue of copyright is the use of Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), Prior Informed Consent (PIC), Catalogue, and Harvest forms. According to P72, …we have different forms (No to fill out by the IK recorders and from there you transfer this information to the laptops. The Harvesting Form contains more information about the harvested plant or food. So one challenge we face is that some people in the past did not capture the required information required (especially the previous host of the IKSDC in the province), and this causes backlog for us. Some IK holders don’t even have the NDA or the PIC signed. Therefore, we cannot use the information because there is no proof that they said yes or no. There's also an issue when people don’t have the Catalogue Form but they have the Harvesting Forms while some have the harvesting and none of the rest. Some knowledge holders have also passed away.
The participants indicated that these measures are put in place to avoid intellectual property rights and copyright issues in the future. Also, the Indigenous knowledge holders are required to give their permission for the capture, preservation, and dissemination of the Indigenous knowledge within specific agreements. The harvesting form is considered as one of the most important in the data capture stage because it contains it records more in-depth information about the Indigenous knowledge data collected from each Indigenous knowledge holder. The captured data are then transferred to the Indigenous knowledge recorder laptops by the Indigenous knowledge Coordinators through synchronisation.
Technology problems are also one of the major problems faced in the management of the Indigenous knowledge collection as mentioned by the participants. P32 specifically stated that sometimes they have problems with the system like issues with the uploading of files. Some of the Indigenous knowledge materials refuse to upload on the system due to the file size which usually causes the Indigenous knowledge Coordinators to seek assistance from the technicians at the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in Pretoria. Usually, they try to avoid plugging the computers into a public network to avoid data breaches or interceptions through hacking or unauthorized copying. However, due to a lack of technical expertise on the part of the Indigenous knowledge collectors at the institutions, it is usually relatively impossible to avoid connecting these external networks to seek assistance from these IT specialists helping them to manage the system. P42 also asserted that they have technical problems, but they are usually related to storage and access of the Indigenous knowledge data. According to P32, The people managing the database are at the national level at the DST, so we communicate telephonically, which is also an issue. From time to time, one has to use a software (TeamViewer mostly) for them to look at the computer and understand what is happening. For me, I think that tampers with the issue of trust in the communities that we are working with because we don’t want to expose certain data on the internet yet. We avoid this, but when these problems occur and you don’t have that understanding, we have to plug into that. I will say those are the challenges because you want to avoid your database being hacked so that the information is not compromised. These computers are not the types of computers that we plug on the network except there is need to. Because going to Pretoria to the workshop is expensive.
The findings correspond with the research findings by Biyela et al. (2016) which revealed that technology is a major issue in the management of Indigenous knowledge. Still, on the issue of technology, While P72 noted that they have had with data being corrupted due to certain undue exposures by Indigenous knowledge Recorders, P82 added that they have problems with malfunctioning computers. According to P72, We do have issues with corruption of the data and things like that. Recently, we had some issues with corrupted data. IK holders are not supposed to connect their phones or personal devices to the IK laptops or other personal uses like connecting to the internet, but they do this sometimes. We have had issues where data is corrupted when they hadn’t even been transferred to the laptops. In cases like this, we start all over again and we go back to the community knowledge holders. I am currently recapturing some of the lost data like photos and audios but we are not retaking the lost videos for now.
Thus, the study revealed that the Indigenous knowledge management process is riddled with both hardware and software technology challenges causing setbacks in the process of performing Indigenous knowledge-related tasks.
Another technological challenge is the lack of technical skills. As shown in the study, when the Indigenous knowledge Coordinators have issues related to software or hardware malfunctioning, they are usually unable to troubleshoot or fix these problems on their own and they rely mainly on the IT specialists who are usually far away. The Indigenous knowledge Coordinators usually have to liaise with these IT specialists through the software called TeamViewer to share their problems with the hopes of getting a proper resolution to the issues. They also rely on phone calls to communicate with these technicians. Lack of technical skills poses a big risk on the integrity of the Indigenous knowledge materials as these computers are connected to the internet and are usually at risk of being hacked or being infected with viruses or malware. Lack of technical expertise also makes the Indigenous knowledge Coordinators expose sensitive data to the technicians which are sometimes seen as a breach of the trust of the knowledge holders, according to P32. This is because certain materials are supposed to be restricted due to agreements with the knowledge holders. After all, and as soon as these materials are exposed without authorization, it becomes a case of breaching the trust of the knowledge holders. Although the Indigenous knowledge Coordinators try to avoid connecting the laptops to avoid the issues associated with connecting the laptop to public networks, they usually do not have any other option but to connect to get the required assistance and solutions. Rapidly changing technology, hardware and software obsolescence, and media degradation all threaten the survival of digital materials (Dryden, 2009) but it is also important to note that lack of adequate technical expertise to operate and manage technology also poses a huge risk to the management of digital records.
Digital preservation is quite tasking because in attempting to sustain data, the specific tools in assessing the data such as the hardware and software must also be preserved (Masenya and Ngulube, 2019; Ruusalepp and Dobreva, 2013). Managing digital materials requires frequent updates of software and hardware which are usually a bit costly to acquire and maintain. Funding is very crucial in the pursuance and success of any digital preservation initiative (Council of Canadian Academies, 2015). A study by Dooley and Luce (2010) revealed that the problem of dwindling budget was affecting the digital preservation initiatives in the 31 surveyed institutions in Canada. Studies like Ezeani and Ezema (2011) have also revealed that African countries also face problems related to tight budgets when embarking on digitization/digital preservation initiatives. Participant P42 also revealed that they are currently faced with the challenge of an inadequate budget to maintain their digital collection. The budget constraint was also echoed when P72 pointed to the fact that
Other challenges mentioned by the participants are issues related to language, unauthorized copying, and communication. The challenge associate with language was stressed by P22 who noted that they do not have certain things in print so it is sometimes difficult to find materials in other local languages. According to P22, “language is another issue because most Africana people don’t have things that are written down, so it is a bit difficult finding things in Zulu, Afrikaans, or other local languages.” Some of the Indigenous knowledge materials accessed online are also copied without proper acknowledgment of the source while the communication issue is mainly related to the communication gap between the IT specialists and the Indigenous knowledge staff at the academic institutions.
However, the participants said that certain measures are being put in place to face some of the challenges. For example, some institutions are using consent forms to resolve problems related to intellectual property rights. P42 noted that the ICT staff is also working tirelessly to ensure that the issues related to technology are reduced to the barest minimum. P42 added that the issue of the budget constraint is currently being dealt with through funding applications to support their repository.
Measures in ensuring authenticity
One of the most vital characteristics of archives is to ensure that certain control measures are in place to ensure that the authenticity and reliability of records must be intact and they must reveal the true identity of the original creator. Therefore, it is important to ensure that records of archival value come from verifiable sources (Sharon, 2010) and they must also reflect transactions that are accurate and factual (ISO 15489-1, 2001). Participants P12, P52 and P72 asserted that they verify the authenticity of collected materials at the community level. P12 acknowledged that they have measures in place to authenticate digitised indigenous knowledge. According to P12 Firstly, when we look at the way data was collected. Let's say you are looking at a published document that is coming through the system, you check to see which community was involved and not ensuring it is not manipulated in any way. If we have the community at hand (like we collect some papers on traditional medicine or something to that effect), we bring a group of people and we discuss with them about it. It does not require them reading academic papers or thesis but you find that you are able to verify whether the concepts were captured are suitable or not. There is a committee responsible for the validation and authentication of information.
P52 also noted that “validation is done at the community level, but not by the time it gets to the NIKMAS. I’m not sure if there's need for further validation. That would apply to the NIKMAS system itself.”
The study revealed that one way of ensuring authenticity is to ensure that validation is done at the community levels. This method of authenticity in this context ensures that the data collected from the sources are authentic before being stored in the repository. This is basically to ensure authentic recorded information from the right source at the local level. This is in line with the ISO 15489-1 (2001) standard in ensuring that the accuracy and factuality of information are ensured. P12 also noted that how authenticity is ensured in published Indigenous knowledge materials is by checking the communities involved and making sure that the data is not manipulated in any way. The institution goes as far as inviting individuals from the communities involved to validate and ensure that the data presented is authentic.
This form of authentication is very important in ensuring that the Indigenous knowledge data coming to the repository are accurate and complete which informs their decision on the need to preserve such materials. On ensuring authenticity in this context, the study revealed that the institution is putting a lot of effort into ensuring that they verify the authenticity of the Indigenous knowledge information. According to Duranti (2010), one of the major challenges of digital systems is ensuring the authenticity of digital records over time. Authenticity in this context involves certain factors involving maintenance of provenance, authenticity, rights management, preservation management, and the technical environment (Oehlerts and Lui, 2013). Digital information requires a high standard of guarantee of authenticity and integrity (Hellmer, 2015).
The participants were asked questions on authenticity in this context of digital preservation. This study revealed that one method of ensuring authenticity is the access control measures put in place. For instance, P32 said that: The database is designed in a sense that it is only at the community level that things can be changed. When it comes to my level, all I can do is to request in the database for something to be redone if necessary. If there is anything that is not clear then I can send it back to them. And in the same way, we connect the computers directly and then synchronise. What I have sent to them will then go to them and they will work on that in the process.
This means that even though some Indigenous knowledge Coordinators have access to the Indigenous knowledge data collected, the data can only be edited at the community level. If something needs to be edited or reworked, the Indigenous knowledge Coordinators can only recommend this to the community Coordinators, but usually do not have access or the right to do these on their own. The synchronization of the computers is also done to ensure that they keep track of the changes and whoever has been making those changes. P22 also stated that “we have login and password for people capturing data into the system and the web manager is able to pick if it is a robot. And if maybe I am on the system and I do something wrong and it is my login, they can also pick that up.” That is, the system is designed in a way that it tracks whoever accessed the system and the activities they engage in while being logged into the system. Access is very limited and not everyone has access to the system but whoever is given access to the system is monitored and whoever that no longer has any reason to have access to the system is blocked from having further access. RS32 also raised a point related to access control by saying that: The database is designed in a sense that it is only at the community level that things can be changed. When it comes to my level, all I can do is to request in the database for something to be redone if necessary. If there is anything that is not clear then I can send it back to them. And in the same way, we connect the computers directly and then synchronise. What I have sent to them will then go to them and they will work on that in the process.
This measure of ensuring authenticity monitors and controls access to the Indigenous knowledge system. This finding is similar to what was discovered by Lin et al. (2003) which revealed that a form of ensuring the authenticity of digital materials was through the prevention of unauthorized addition, deleting, alteration, concealment, and use of records by unauthorized or unknown individuals.
Strict access control is one of the key measures of maintaining authenticity and has been some of the key features in top records management software such as the HP Records Manager (also known as HP RM or HP Trim). Depending on the authorized access granted, software like HP RM has strict restriction functions on different levels and may even restrict a user to viewing certain documents only and even blocking users from having access to certain files within an authorized folder. The system also keeps track of all the actions taken by the users in a way that is similar to tracking or keeping the digital footprints of the user on the system. This is a measure adopted by the institutions, but this measure does not make provision for possible unforeseen issues such as hacking or possible alteration in the process of migrating data. This study revealed that some of the participants assumed that once the validating of the data is done and stored in certain formats, they become authentic and there is no need to put additional measures in place to ensure the authenticity of the stored digital material. Participant P82 asserted that the fact that some of the data are in video format is enough evidence to prove the authenticity of the materials. The participant added that video recordings are “as authentic as they can” and this guarantees its authenticity “even in the next 50 years”.
However, this is contrary to the studies that have proved that video data can be subjected to manipulation if not properly preserved (Upadhyay and Singh, 2012). Digital images are easy to manipulate (Parry, 2009) and digital manipulations are also relatively difficult to detect (Guthrie and Mitchell, 2006; Parry, 2009). Video authentication can also pose a complex challenge and it is of high importance especially in issues related to forensic investigations of digital videos either for law enforcement agencies or to present digital videos as evidence (Upadhyay and Singh, 2012). These issues need to be taken seriously as they can also affect the authenticity of Indigenous knowledge materials in the nearest future.
Recommendation
The study established that there are several challenges in the data management and storage of the Indigenous knowledge in the Indigenous knowledge systems repositories. Recommendations related to solving these problems are made below:
Data management and storage
The study established that Indigenous knowledge data are collected at the institutional level while most of the data are uploaded to the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System. To protect the IK collected at the communities, the data is stored on the recorder laptops before being uploaded on the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System. It is recommended that the institutions should be more involved in the data management process. They should not rely solely on the Department of Science and Technology to take up most of the responsibilities for the data collected at the institutional level. There should also be a clear policy stating the responsibilities of the academic institutions in the management of Indigenous knowledge systems. It is also recommended that there should be a proper data storage system in place. The storage of data on the Indigenous knowledge recorder laptops and transfer through synchronization is considered inadequate. There should be a proper storage/backup method used in any case of hardware breakdown or data corruption which are already being experienced in the early stages of the project. Cloud computing with high-security features should be considered for the storage of Indigenous knowledge data.
Data description
From the findings, it is evident that there is no uniform data description method. It is recommended that the national policy should clearly state the adoption of a specific data description method which may be adopted at the national and institutional levels. Dublin Core is currently used by digitization initiatives in South Africa, and the implementation of this data description method can be enforced across the country including academic institutions.
Challenges of managing digitized indigenous knowledge systems
The study established that some of the major challenges faced are related to legal issues, challenges with technology and lack of technical skills, budget constraint, and lack of adequate staff. It is therefore recommended that adequate measures should be put in place to ensure that intellectual property rights and copyright issues are handled seriously. The issues related to lack of technical skills should be dealt with by training staff at the academic institutions on how to manage or troubleshoot hardware/software issues. The lack of technical skills makes it difficult for Indigenous knowledge collectors to function independently sometimes without seeking technical assistance from IT specialists who are usually far away. Apart from exposing the Indigenous knowledge materials to risk, it is evident that there is a gap between the staffs who have the knowledge and work with the Indigenous knowledge materials to preserve them but lack technical skills, and the IT specialists who have the technical skills but have little understanding about the management of the Indigenous knowledge resources. IT skills are not enough to prove that an individual has knowledge about issues such as digital preservation. The Indigenous knowledge staff at the academic institutions should have adequate training on the technical expertise required for managing the digitized Indigenous knowledge systems, or at least the basic requirement. This also includes ensuring that there is adequate staff on the ground to handle some of the problems encountered.
It is highly recommended that information professionals like record managers and archivists are involved in the digitization/digital preservation initiative. The use of technology goes beyond the use of hardware and software but the knowledge and expertise to apply principles/policies to manage digital materials are required. Digital preservation that focuses on only technology is bound to fail as the technology itself cannot ensure content accessibility over time. Technology may become obsolete but there is a need to ensure that there are sustainable funding and policies in place to sustain digital preservation (Corrado, 2019). Well-trained record managers and archivists for example would be in the best position to apply principles and international standards with technology in the preservation of digital materials. The effective combination of technical expertise and digital preservation knowledge is critical in the success of any digital preservation project. Funding is another issue that should also be taken seriously. It is recommended that funding is sourced through multinationals, international organizations, or private individuals who are interested in supporting the cause or interested in such initiatives. However, to avoid the issue of digital colonization, the funding agreement should clearly state the issues related to ownership of the digital materials to avoid any unforeseen legal conflict over the ownership of the digital materials in the future.
Measures of ensuring authenticity
This study established that information is validated at the community level, and a form of access control is in place to ensure the authenticity of digital materials. It is recommended that there should be a more stringent validation process. Also, there needs to be a proper measure in place for the maintenance of the authenticity and integrity of the digital asset. The use of passwords to ensure that there is restricted access for alteration or deletions of records is recommended across all the institutions. Tracking and verification of changes made to the digital objects as often as possible are also recommended for academic institutions. Development of customized software that works like Archivematica or HPE RM but tailored to the needs of managing Indigenous knowledge systems in academic institutions in SA is recommended.
Conclusion
The study established that the Department of Science and Technology through National Indigenous Knowledge Systems Office (NIKSO) plays a major role in the management of the Indigenous knowledge systems collected in academic institutions. Some institutions have total control over certain types of Indigenous knowledge systems collected but the institutions under the Indigenous knowledge systems Documentation Centres have minimal control over the Indigenous knowledge data they collect. Some institutions have their backups or storage in form of hard drives for their institutional Indigenous knowledge systems while the Indigenous knowledge systems from primary sources are usually synchronized from computer to computer until it is uploaded on the National Indigenous Knowledge Management System. The study also established that there is no standard of uniform metadata used to describe the Indigenous knowledge systems in academic institutions. In the management of Indigenous knowledge systems in the academic institutions, there are several challenges faced which include technology, intellectual property rights, and copyright, budget constraints, lack of technical skills, and lack of adequate staff. Also, while the validation of the Indigenous knowledge systems is pursued from the source to ensure the authenticity of the data collected, the study established that the authenticity of the digital materials for the long-term is not clear in some of the institutions and it does not seem as if there are plans in place for the authenticity of the Indigenous knowledge systems digital materials. While access is currently restricted to a large extent, it was established that the security features of the repositories are inadequate and none of the repositories fully conform to the OAIS responsibilities.
It is concluded that because the Indigenous knowledge systems project in the institutions is part of the national project which is still in its planning phase, the management responsibilities are currently unclear and the Indigenous knowledge systems in the academic institutions are not as informed as they were expected to be about certain responsibilities and the handling of certain tasks. It is also evident that none of the repositories complies with the OAIS responsibilities nor conforms to the Trusted Digital Repository (TDR) standard. It is also concluded that there is a communication gap between the Indigenous knowledge systems staff who are working to preserve the Indigenous knowledge systems but do not have the technical skills required, and the IT professionals who have the required technical skills to work on the system but do not fully understand the purpose of the Indigenous knowledge systems project.
