Open Access Mandates and Indigenous Materials: Ways to Ethically Collaborate

  • Dana Reijerkerk

Introduction

Most galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM) collections worldwide are in some way shaped and connected to the colonial collecting project. Colonial collecting refers to the historical, physical, and conceptual transformation across the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of visual material culture, objects, bodies, and knowledge from Indigenous communities to holdings in GLAM collections worldwide. Historically, Indigenous peoples’ lives and cultural practices were documented and recorded as “subjects” under the auspices of the colonial collecting endeavor.

Through my formal education in American Indian Studies and experience working in Indigenous community GLAMs, I learned that colonization is not just about physical items. Colonial thinking reinforces ideas that ownership is physical. Often in GLAM discussions worldwide, the most agreed upon decolonization (decol) action is the actual and literal return of artifacts and visual material culture to Indigenous communities. In discussions of physical repatriation, however, the holding institutions often continue to maintain a virtual reproduction for study and display. Framing decol as solely physical completely misses the point that decol means returning full autonomy to Indigenous peoples, which includes a spectrum of power from defining relationship boundaries to having the final say in how to display images in an online catalog record. Returning objects will never be enough. GLAMs across the world will not truly be decolonized until we actively dismantle the oppressive colonial systems that GLAMs are fundamentally built upon.

In this paper I describe how GLAMs, particularly archives and libraries, often perpetuate colonial hegemonic power imbalances when presenting Indigenous content online under the guise of open access, and potential solutions to mitigate those issues. Worldwide GLAM open access practices—that involve providing free-of-charge high-resolution downloadable images online and to adopt less-restrictive image reproduction policies—highlight the loss of control of intellectual property that many Indigenous communities experience. Open access, while not the inherent problem, highlights the underlying issue of ongoing exclusion and erasure of Indigenous sovereignty and authority of their voices, representations, and narratives in GLAMs. I provide technical and logistical solutions for GLAM practitioners that represent practical changes to redistribute inherent power imbalances to authoring/authority over Indigenous objects and stories.

When known, I point out my sources’ self-identified Indigenous ancestry. This is to provide transparency as an ethical research methodology and also to recognize and respect Indigenous sovereignty. As a librarian and scholar of Indigenous community archives and record issues, I focus on the practical and ethical practices in GLAMs rather than abstract ideological changes that aim to decolonize GLAMs worldwide. I write from a non-Indigenous perspective and I do not claim to speak on behalf of Indigenous populations. This research is an attempt to present current issues with digital collection projects in GLAMs worldwide and to provide practical techniques to foster community discussions and plans for purposeful community action.

Open Access Mandates and Indigeneity

Initially, the term “open access” referred to unrestricted online access to scholarly research then seen primarily to mean scholarly journal articles. Beginning in the early 2000s, various initiatives and groups such as Open Archive Initiative (OAI) (http://www.openarchives.org/) and OpenGLAM (https://openglam.org/) began extending open access principles to cultural heritage materials. Today, open access in GLAMs refers to efforts made by cultural heritage institutions to provide free-of-charge high-resolution downloadable images online and to adopt less-restrictive image reproduction policies. Open access policies highlight the loss of control of intellectual property that many Indigenous communities experience.

There are positive aspects to GLAM open access practices. In GLAMs worldwide, analog collections are selected for digitization or to be included in digital collections for a number of reasons, but often for accessibility or preservation purposes. As more attention is being paid to the marginal status of Indigenous peoples around the world, the way in which GLAMs select, create, and curate digital collections and digital projects with, or more often of, Indigenous communities (often under the auspices of decolonization) is an increasingly contested issue.

The exponential growth of digital copies of all analog materials (both Indigenous and non-Indigenous) held by GLAMs is paralleled by a global movement by Indigenous peoples to redress historical erasures in terms of power, representation, and classification. In many digital collections and digital projects the line between concealing and disclosing (Indigenous) secrets blurs. Open access of digitized Indigenous cultural heritage materials too often fixates on its advantages without thoughtful consideration of what impact it may have on Indigenous communities. Open access is not inherently the issue; rather it is the white Western control exerted over Indigenous peoples, objects, representations, and narratives that were stripped, taken, stolen, and interpreted away from their source communities.

Most pressing is that open access mandates and policies in the United States, Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand institutions continue to perpetuate the colonial idea that GLAMs serve the public good in the sense of the public trust. The assumption that cultural heritage should be available as a public good usually does not agree with social factors that govern the circulation of knowledge within many Indigenous communities. Libraries and archives worldwide, for example, operate under the assumption that their collections should be accessible to researchers and have research value. Many North American GLAMs frame the benefit to access and research value as superior to ethical and cultural protocols that might literally prohibit anyone but those initiated from viewing or interacting with material. For example, gah:goh:sah (Haudenosaunee word for medicine masks), which are associated with the Haudenosaunee False Face society, are a known sacred visual material. The Penn Museum, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, displays images with multiple views of False Face Masks in their public online catalog.

Issues with adhering to various Indigenous cultural and communal protocols are further complicated by the legal mandates surrounding Indigenous status and copyright law. Because Indigenous peoples were often framed as subjects of the work rather than authors or creators, they have no legal rights to determine how and when this documentary material is accessed or displayed. A commonly misunderstood idea by all parties is that copyright or other legal frameworks might help preserve and protect Indigenous cultural materials as they circulate outside Indigenous communities. On the contrary, according to Jane Anderson and Kimberly Christen, the layered legal scaffolding that copyright and Creative Commons’ licenses form, only “provide [for Indigenous communities] limited sets of rights to and over Indigenous cultural materials that constitute copyright subject matter—namely photographs, sound recordings, films, and manuscripts that document Indigenous cultural heritage.“

Despite the exponential interest in decolonization work in GLAMs, little headway has been made for Indigenous peoples to self-represent their interests and agendas in digital collections/projects. From a practical standpoint, the institution creating the open access image needs to assert title and ownership over the image. However, this action works to both publicly oppress and assert intellectual property rights over Indigenous materials and knowledge. Many GLAMs worldwide fail to consider that for many Indigenous peoples, collections in memory institutions continue to symbolize historic, ongoing trauma and theft. To see the free, online display of an image showing disrespectful, inappropriate, or otherwise secret information is traumatizing.

Decolonizing Institutional Erasure

What we accept in our collections, what we display, and who we choose to collaborate with all emphasize our institutional values. Waziyatawin Angela Wilson (Wahpetunwan Dakota) and Michael Yellow Bird (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara) define decolonization as “the intelligent, calculated, and active resistance to the forces of colonialism that perpetuate the subjugation and/or exploitation of our minds, bodies, and lands, and it is engaged for the ultimate purpose of overturning the colonial structure and realizing Indigenous liberation.” Waziyatawin Angela Wilson and Michael Yellow Bird’s decol definition succinctly reminds readers that decolonization is active work. Decol requires mindfulness and for those of us, like myself, who are non-Indigenous, to realize that we cannot be an expert in what is best for a community we are a guest in.

GLAMs might not be the best fit spaces to engage in decol work despite the fact that GLAMs worldwide position themselves as experts in preserving and presenting cultural heritage. How can one deconstruct oppressive existing power structures while working inside the system? Julie Blair and Desmond Wong remind us that it is important to perceive GLAMS as they are: settler colonial institutions. In 2020, GLAMs worldwide are still actively colonizing Indigenous people simply because memory institutions exist within settler states and settler state-based knowledge standards. By framing GLAM institutions as extensions of continuing colonization on Indigenous peoples, we as practitioners in GLAMs can both better serve Indigenous communities and better represent Indigenous peoples within our collections. Further, there are many small technical and logistical changes GLAM practitioners can make to better represent Indigenous perspectives. I describe these changes in detail in the next section.

As a librarian, I approach my universities’ digital projects with the intent to decenter its implicit hierarchies. By framing our professional local contexts as settler colonial constructs, we open possibilities for imagining futurities beyond the settler state. Only by rethinking the politics of exhibiting materials can we actively dismantle colonial hegemonic structures of power. A good example of rethinking the logics of display is decolonizing descriptive cataloging of digital projects. In academic and public libraries in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand, for example, contemporary librarians are challenging and rewriting their subject headings in catalog records to be more inclusive and culturally appropriate. Necessary and legitimate new catalog record subject vocabularies emerged from decolonizing cataloging information projects at public, private, and academic research libraries, such as the Mashantucket Pequot Thesaurus of American Indian Terminology, Brian Deer Classification Schema, and Ngā Ūpoko Tukutuku (Māori Subject Headings). These aforementioned examples were all collaborative projects that directly consulted with the respective Indigenous communities.

Decolonizing Our Minds: Where Do We Go from Here?

The following five recommendations are potential ways in which GLAM practitioners worldwide can implement solidarity and relationship building with local and international Indigenous communities. Each strategy provides logistical and technical examples that are based on my work with/in Indigenous communities and also a literature review on Indigenous-led decolonization work.

1. Engage in work that meaningfully benefits Indigenous communities.

  • Build systems with Indigenous peoples, not for them. If communities do not benefit from the project, it is not deconstructing oppressive systems.

  • Digital projects can become another form of settler appropriation if power structures are not dismantled. This means that even a good faith effort becomes another form of knowledge extraction from Indigenous communities.

  • Example: Change the display subject headings in your Integrated Library System or Digital Asset Management System of offensive words to locally accepted terms. For example, display the word “Indigenous” and not “Native American.”

  • Example: Dr. Leilani Sabzalian (Alutiiq), explains that before entering into research or projects she tries to, “gauge folks’ investment in community (not just their project) … the groundwork they’ve laid, the relationships they’ve formed, the research they’ve done, how the project would benefit the community, and whether the project aligns with my expertise/interests….”

2. Be mindful of how much space allies take up in consultations and discussions with Indigenous peoples.

  • Reserve space for Indigenous collaborators to express their needs and give power to exert control over their heritage.

  • Create space for community feedback; for example, clearly indicate contact information.

  • Be mindful of the work we ask communities to do: Is it “a demand that indigenous people escalate their efforts for ‘the greater good’”?

3. Contextualize Indigenous peoples materials and knowledge as objects rooted in historical biases that do not accurately represent Indigenous peoples.

  • This helps educate non-Indigenous patrons about contemporary Indigenous peoples while understanding that problematic materials exist and why they are inaccurate

  • Example: include digital images of card catalog records or museum registers.

  • Example: Add stories to catalog records about how a community member’s ancestor used an object. This strategy helps recover knowledge and add back into the knowledge pool.

4. Create space for Indigenous epistemologies in library collections.

  • This could be physical (e.g., section of the stacks) or intellectual (e.g., adopt an Indigenous-based subject vocabulary).

  • Example: incorporate Indigenous language and knowledge representation in metadata aggregators as seen in The Great Lakes Research Alliance for the Study of Aboriginal Art and Culture Knowledge Sharing (GKS) Database.

  • Example: Technically enforce access and use protocols on catalog records by integrating one factor authentication to listen to sensitive/secret audio files or images rather than only adding notice in the form of text. Warnings and temporary displays that only acknowledge protocols are empty gestures if the design structures of catalog records, including cataloging rules and the user interface, work around implemented ethical systems.

5. In decolonizing description projects, be mindful of whose voice is privileged.

  • Example: extend respect via naming—verbally and officially refer to communities, items, and visual materials by community-defined terms.

  • Example: Make batch changes to descriptive standards, such as LCSH, so the display tag is more culturally appropriate.

Conclusion

Open access practices, while not directly the issue, highlight the continued exclusion and erasure of Indigenous voice and authority in GLAMs. In digital projects and digital collection building involving Indigenous materials, Indigenous perspectives deserve further consideration by GLAMs worldwide before engaging in digital curation work. GLAM open access practices can and do have a meaningful impact on GLAM Indigenous/non-Indigenous analog materials. Specifically, open access practices help to further preserve and provide international access to GLAM collections. This is particularly enriching for analog materials that are separated by geopolitical boundaries or that are too fragile to physically handle/research.

Despite these benefits, Indigenous visual materials require special consideration before digitizing or otherwise publicly displaying high-resolution, freely-downloaded image versions. Many Indigenous communities have access and use protocols that directly conflict with notions of GLAM open access. Memory institutions are ethically and morally obligated to create space for Indigenous self-representation and culturally appropriate access to, control over, and preservation of Indigenous cultural heritage. If the situation calls for it (based on local contexts), this might mean the institution should take down images of Indigenous materials from public access. Whether or not this is a permanent removal is up to the Indigenous community to decide.

It is essential to confront the reality that Indigenous peoples continue to be colonized in order to ensure new GLAM initiatives do not inadvertently continue to colonize through ingrained biases thus building new hegemonic power structures. The examples outlined in this paper are one attempt to mitigate power imbalances in digital spaces. Curator Sumaya Kassim argues that we need to “flip the narrative” and ask how memory institutions can facilitate the decolonial process for its majority white audience in a way that is not exploitative of people of color. GLAMs worldwide need to reconfigure the logics of research so that Indigenous perspectives, participation, and authority is both legitimate and necessary to all work on and about Indigenous peoples. Kimberly Christen succinctly articulates what decolonization actions can be taken by GLAMs worldwide: “alter museum display practices, question modes of authorings, and/or redefine collecting priorities based on systems of accountability that define an ethical field of visuality based on not looking.”

About the Author

  • Dana Reijerkerk

    Dana Reijerkerk is the Knowledge Management & Digital Assets Librarian at Stony Brook University. She earned a BA in American Indian Studies and an MSI in Archives and Records Management from the University of Michigan. In her current role at Stony Brook University Libraries, she implements digital preservation practices and advises on long-term preservation and user experience design issues related to digital collections and open educational resources. She has years of experience working directly with federally and state-recognized Indigenous communities in the United States, helping further their cultural revitalization projects.

Notes

  1. Colonial collecting is another term for salvage ethnography. See Redman, S. J. 2016. Bone Rooms, From Scientific Racism to Human Prehistory in Museums. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674969711. Gruber, J. W. 1970. “Ethnographic Salvage and the Shaping of Anthropology.” American Anthropologist 72(6): 1289–99.
  2. Barker, A. W. 2010. “Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums,” Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 293–308.
  3. Laakso, M. et al. 2011. “The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009.” PLOS ONE 6(6) (June 13, 2011): e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961.
  4. Hansen, D. R. 2011. “Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Trade Barriers and the Public Domain.” Journal of Copyright Society of the U.S.A 58(4) (February 26, 2011). Christen, K. 2015. “On Not Looking: Economies of Visuality in Digital Museums.” The International Handbooks of Museum Studies: Museum Transformations, First Edition, 365–86. Coombes, A. E. and Phillips, R. B. (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829059.wbihms416. Anderson, J. and Christen, K. 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): 105–26.
  5. Srinivasan, R. et al. 2010. “Diverse Knowledges and Contact Zones within the Digital Museum.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35(5) (May 21, 2010): 735–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909357755. Christen, “On Not Looking.”
  6. Colwell, C. 2015. “Curating Secrets: Repatriation, Knowledge Flows, and Museum Power Structures.” Current Anthropology 56(S12) (December 1, 2015): S263–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/683429
  7. Srinivasan R. et al. 2009. “Critical and Reflective Uses of New Media Technologies in Tribal Museums.” Museum Management and Curatorship 24(2) (June 1, 2009): 161–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770902857901
  8. Shenandoah, L. 1995. “Haudenosaunee Confederacy Announces Policy on False Face Masks.” Akwesasne Notes 1 (Spring 1995). http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/maskpoli.html
  9. “False Face Mask: Images for Object 70-9-135.” Penn Museum. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/178604.
  10. Christen. “Chuck a Copyright,” 106.
  11. Christen. “Chuck a Copyright.”
  12. Christen. “Chuck a Copyright,” 106.
  13. Colwell, C. 2015. “Curating Secrets: Repatriation, Knowledge Flows, and Museum Power Structures.” Vidali, D. S. 2015. “Repairing a Screaming Silence: Human Rights and Wrongs, Native American Realities and One Museum.” Anthropology Now 7(3) (September 2, 2015): 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2015.1103613
  14. Wilson, W. A. and Yellow Bird, M. 2005. For Indigenous Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook: 5. Santa Fe: School of American Research.
  15. Blair, J. and Wong, D. 2017. “Moving in the Circle: Indigenous Solidarity for Canadian Libraries.” Partnership : The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 12(2): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v12i2.3781
  16. Blair and Wong. “Moving in the Circle.”
  17. Littletree, S. and Metoyer, C.A. 2015. “Knowledge Organization from an Indigenous Perspective: The Mashantucket Pequot Thesaurus of American Indian Terminology Project.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 640–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1010113. Raegan Swanson, R. 2015. “Adapting the Brian Deer Classification System for Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 568–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1009669
  18. Littletree and Metoyer. “Knowledge Organization from an Indigenous Perspective.”
  19. Cherry A. and Mukunda, K. 2015. “A Case Study in Indigenous Classification: Revisiting and Reviving the Brian Deer Scheme.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 548–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1008717. Swanson, “Adapting the Brian Deer Classification System for Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute.”
  20. Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa National Library of New Zealand. 2020 “Ngā Upoko Tukutuku / Māori Subject Headings.” Accessed October 30, 2020. https://natlib.govt.nz/librarians/nga-upoko-tukutuku. Bardenheier, P., Wilkinson, E. H., and Dale, H. 2015. “Ki Te Tika Te Hanga, Ka Pakari Te Kete: With the Right Structure We Weave a Strong Basket.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 496–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1008716
  21. Tuck E. and Yang, K. W. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1): 1-40. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630
  22. Louro, K. Twitter post. March 2019, 6:12 p.m. https://twitter.com/KatLouro/status/1105954869662253056. Kat Louro is the Librarian/Archivist for the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council.
  23. Sabzalian, L. Twitter post. July 2020, 5:41 p.m. https://twitter.com/leilanisabz/status/1288952885011574784
  24. Blair and Wong. “Moving in the Circle.”
  25. Dupont, S. Twitter post, March 2019, 2:27 p.m. https://twitter.com/dupontsarah/status/1105898073643872256
  26. Cairns, P. “Decolonisation: We Aren’t Going to Save You,” Center for the Future of Museums Blog (blog), December 17, 2018. https://www.aam-us.org/2018/12/17/decolonisation-we-arent-going-to-save-you/
  27. Blair and Wong. “Moving in the Circle.”
  28. Bohaker, e., Ojiig Corbiere, A. and Phillips, R. B. 2015. “Wampum Unites Us: Digital Access, Interdisciplinarity and Indigenous Knowledge—Situating the GRASAC Knowledge Sharing Database.” Museum as Process: Translating Local and Global Knowledges. Raymond S. (ed.) Museum Meanings. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
  29. Sledge, J. 2007. “Stewarding Potential,” First Monday 12(7) (July 2, 2007): 61. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i7.1923
  30. Bohaker, Ojiig Corbiere, Phillips. “Wampum Unites Us.”
  31. Blair and Wong. “Moving in the Circle.”
  32. Bohaker, Ojiig Corbiere, Phillips. “Wampum Unites Us.”
  33. Phillips, R. B. 2011. “How Museums Marginalize: Naming Domains of Inclusion and Exclusion.” Museum Pieces: Towards the Indigenization of Canadian Museums: 95–101. Anderson, J. (ed.) McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  34. Bone C. and Lougheed, B. 2018. “Library of Congress Subject Headings Related to Indigenous Peoples: Changing LCSH for Use in a Canadian Archival Context.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 56(1) (January 2, 2018): 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2017.1382641
  35. Blair and Wong. “Moving in the Circle.”
  36. Kassim, S. “The Museum Will Not Be Decolonised.” Media Diversified (blog), November 15, 2017. https://mediadiversified.org/2017/11/15/the-museum-will-not-be-decolonised/
  37. Nicholas, G. et al. 2010. “Intellectual Property Issues in Heritage Management Part 2: Legal Dimensions, Ethical Considerations, and Collaborative Research Practices.” Journal of Heritage Management 3(1): 117–47. https://doi.org/10.1179/hma.2010.3.1.117
  38. Christen.“On Not Looking,” 366.

Bibliography

Anderson, J. and Christen, K. 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): 105–26.

Bardenheier, P., Wilkinson, E. H., and Dale. H. 2015. “Ki Te Tika Te Hanga, Ka Pakari Te Kete: With the Right Structure We Weave a Strong Basket.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 496–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1008716

Barker, A. W. 2010. “Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums.” Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 293–308. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25735113

Blair, J. and Wong, D. 2017. “Moving in the Circle: Indigenous Solidarity for Canadian Libraries.” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 12(2): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v12i2.3781

Bohaker, H., Ojiig Corbiere, A., and Phillips, R. B. 2015. “Wampum Unites Us: Digital Access, Interdisciplinarity and Indigenous Knowledge—Situating the GRASAC Knowledge Sharing Database.” Museum as Process: Translating Local and Global Knowledge: 45–66.

Bone, C. and Lougheed, B. 2018. “Library of Congress Subject Headings Related to Indigenous Peoples: Changing LCSH for Use in a Canadian Archival Context.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 56(1) (January 2, 2018): 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2017.1382641

Cherry, A. and Mukunda K. 2015. “A Case Study in Indigenous Classification: Revisiting and Reviving the Brian Deer Scheme.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 548–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1008717

Christen, K. 2015. “On Not Looking: Economies of Visuality in Digital Museums.” The International Handbooks of Museum Studies: Museum Transformations. First Edition: 365–86. Coombes, A. E. and Phillips, R. B. (eds.) John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118829059.wbihms416

Colwell, C. 2015. “Curating Secrets: Repatriation, Knowledge Flows, and Museum Power Structures.” Current Anthropology 56(S12) (December 1, 2015): S263–75. https://doi.org/10.1086/683429

Dupont, S. Twitter post. March 13, 2019, 2:27 p.m. https://twitter.com/dupontsarah/status/1105898073643872256

“False Face Mask: Images for Object 70-9-135.” Penn Museum. Accessed October 30, 2020. https://www.penn.museum/collections/object/178604

Gruber, J. W. 1970. “Ethnographic Salvage and the Shaping of Anthropology.” American Anthropologist 72(6): 1289–99.

Hansen, D. R. 2011. “Protection of Traditional Knowledge: Trade Barriers and the Public Domain.” Journal of Copyright Society of the U.S.A. 58(4) (February 26, 2011).

Kassim, S. 2017. “The Museum Will Not Be Decolonised.” Media Diversified (blog), November 15, 2017. https://mediadiversified.org/2017/11/15/the-museum-will-not-be-decolonised/

Laakso, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B-C., and Hedlund, T. 2011. “The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009.” PLOS ONE 6(6) (June 13, 2011), e20961. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0020961

Littletree, S. and Metoyer, C. A. 2015. “Knowledge Organization from an Indigenous Perspective: The Mashantucket Pequot Thesaurus of American Indian Terminology Project.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 640–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1010113

Louro, K. Twitter post. March 13, 2019, 6:12 p.m. https://twitter.com/KatLouro/status/1105954869662253056

Nicholas, G. et al. 2010. “Intellectual Property Issues in Heritage Management Part 2: Legal Dimensions, Ethical Considerations, and Collaborative Research Practices.” Journal of Heritage Management 3(1):117–47. https://doi.org/10.1179/hma.2010.3.1.117

Phillips, R. B. 2011. “How Museums Marginalize: Naming Domains of Inclusion and Exclusion.” Museum Pieces: Towards the Indigenization of Canadian Museums. Anderson, J. (ed.): 95-101. McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Puawai, C. “Decolonisation: We Aren’t Going to Save You.” Center for the Future of Museums Blog (blog), December 17, 2018. https://www.aam-us.org/2018/12/17/decolonisation-we-arent-going-to-save-you/

Redman, S. J. 2016. Bone Rooms, From Scientific Racism to Human Prehistory in Museums. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674969711

Sabzalian, L. Twitter post. July 30, 2020, 5:41 p.m. https://twitter.com/leilanisabz/status/1288952885011574784

Shenandoah, L. 1995. “Haudenosaunee Confederacy Announces Policy on False Face Masks,” Akwesasne Notes 1 (Spring 1995). http://www.nativetech.org/cornhusk/maskpoli.html

Silverman, R. (ed.). Museum Meanings. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Sledge, J. 2007. “Stewarding Potential.” First Monday 12(7) (July 2, 2007). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v12i7.1923

Spitulnik Vidali, D. 2015. “Repairing a Screaming Silence: Human Rights and Wrongs, Native American Realities and One Museum.” Anthropology Now 7(3) (September 2, 2015): 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2015.1103613

Srinivasan, R., Enote, J., Becvar, K. M., and Boast, R. 2009. “Critical and Reflective Uses of New Media Technologies in Tribal Museums.” Museum Management and Curatorship 24(2) (June 1, 2009): 161–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/09647770902857901

Srinivasan, R., Becvar, K. M., Boast, R., and Enote, J. 2010. “Diverse Knowledges and Contact Zones within the Digital Museum.” Science, Technology, & Human Values 35(5) (May 21, 2010): 735–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243909357755

Swanson, R. 2015. “Adapting the Brian Deer Classification System for Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute.” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 53(5–6) (July 4, 2015): 568–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2015.1009669

Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa National Library of New Zealand. “Ngā Upoko Tukutuku / Māori Subject Headings.” Accessed October 30, 2020. https://natlib.govt.nz/librarians/nga-upoko-tukutuku

Tuck, E. and Yang. K. W. 2012. “Decolonization Is Not a Metaphor.” Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1(1) (September 8, 2012): 1–40. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/18630

Waziyatawin, A.W., and Yellow Bird, M. 2005. For Indigenous Eyes Only: A Decolonization Handbook. School of American Research Native America Series. Santa Fe: School of American Research.