Entanglements of digital technologies and Indigenous ...

EntanglementsofdigitaltechnologiesandIndigenous

languageworkintheNorthernTerritory

CatherineBow(B.A.,M.A.)

TheNorthernInstitute,CollegeofIndigenousFutures,ArtsandSociety

CharlesDarwinUniversity

and

CentreofExcellencefortheDynamicsofLanguage,CollegeofArtsandSocialSciences

AustralianNationalUniversity

AthesissubmittedforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophyof

CharlesDarwinUniversityandtheAustralianNationalUniversity.

November2020

©CopyrightCatherineBow,2020

ORCiDhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3823-0517

AllRightsReserved

2

Front Matter

Simple table of contents

FrontMatter ................................................................................................................ 2

Preface:Thepoliticsoflanguageandtechnology ................................................ 14

Chapter1:Introductionandoutline ...................................................................... 16

Chapter2:ProjectsandAnalysis ............................................................................ 60

Chapter3(PAPER1):TechnologyforAustralianlanguages ............................ 144

Chapter4(PAPER2):TowardsauniquearchiveofAboriginallanguages:acollaborativeproject .............................................................................................. 186

Chapter5(PAPER3):ObservingandrespectingdiverseknowledgetraditionsinadigitalarchiveofIndigenouslanguagematerials ....................................... 211

Chapter6(PAPER4):Diversesocio-technicalaspectsofadigitalarchiveofAboriginallanguages ............................................................................................. 256

Chapter7(PAPER5):CollaborativelydesigninganonlinecoursetoteachanAustralianIndigenouslanguageatuniversity .................................................... 288

Chapter8(PAPER6):IdentityworkinteachingandlearningIndigenouslanguagesonline ..................................................................................................... 318

Chapter9(PAPER7):SociotechnicalassemblagesindigitalworkwithAboriginallanguages ............................................................................................. 350

Chapter10:SummaryandConclusion ................................................................ 368

Appendices .............................................................................................................. 398

3

Abstract

Thisthesisaddressesthequestionofwhathappenswhendigitallanguageresourcesare

developedandbecomeentangledwithdifferenttypesoflanguageworkinIndigenous

languagesofAustralia'sNorthernTerritory.Itexploresthreespecificsociotechnical

assemblages,definedasheterogeneoussetsofsocialandtechnicalresourcesfunctioning

togetherforvariouspurposes.Thetypesoflanguageworkthatemergedweretheroleof

languageinpracticesofdocumentation,pedagogyandidentity-making.

Thethreeprojectsunderconsiderationrespondtodifferentmotivations:theLivingArchive

ofAboriginalLanguagesisadigitalarchiveofendangeredliteratureinlanguagesofthe

NorthernTerritory,motivatedbyaconcernforthefateofmaterialsproducedinbilingual

educationprogramsinremoteschools.TheDigitalLanguageShellisaresourcefor

developingandmobilisingcurriculainIndigenouslanguagesandcultures,motivatedbya

needforalow-costandlow-techtemplateforsharingcontentunderIndigenousauthority.

TheBininjKunwokonlinecourseisaspecificimplementationoftheDigitalLanguageShell,

teachinganIndigenouslanguageofWestArnhemlandinauniversitycontext.Eachproject

wascreatedbytheauthorworkingcollaborativelywithdifferentteams,tosupportvarious

typesoflanguagework.

ThisPhDbypublicationoffersasetofsevenacademicpapers,eachfocusingondifferent

aspectsoftheprojects,andwrittenfordistinctaudiences.Themethodsentailediterative

inquiry,asIreflectedonmyworkasprojectmanagerindevelopingthesedigital

resources,firstaddressingthetechnicalandpracticalconsiderations,thenthroughthe

lensesofvariousacademicdisciplines,andfinallyinameta-analysisofthevarious

heterogeneouselementsthatmakeuptheresearch.Thethesisemergesasanassemblageof

heterogeneities–projects,papers,concepts,academicreferences,andauto-ethnographic

stories–thatisinitselfasociotechnicalassemblage.

4

Signed statement

Thisworkcontainsnomaterialwhichhasbeenacceptedfortheawardofanyother

degreeordiplomainanyuniversityorothertertiaryinstitutionand,tothebestofmy

knowledgeandbelief,containsnomaterialpreviouslypublishedorwrittenbyanother

person,exceptwhereduereferencehasbeenmadeinthetext.

Igiveconsenttothiscopyofmythesis,whendepositedintheUniversityLibrary,

beingmadeavailableforloanandphotocopyingonlineviatheUniversity’sOpenAccess

repository.

Signed: Date:27April2020

5

Acknowledgements

ThisworkwasmostlycarriedoutonthetraditionallandsoftheLarrakiapeople,andI

paymyrespecttoeldersbothpastandpresent.Iextendthisrespecttoalltraditional

ownersofthelandsinwhichIhaveworked,particularlytheBininjpeoples(Mirarr,

Kunwinjkuandothers)ofWestArnhemLand,andtheNgunnawalofCanberra.

Thissectionmayactuallybethemostenjoyablepartofthewholeprocess,asItakethe

opportunitytonameatleastsomeofthepeoplewhomadethiswholethingpossible.

Firstly,thankstothedreamteamofsupervisors–Icouldnothavewishedforabetter

line-up.Acrosstwouniversitiesandthreecities,MichaelChristie,JaneSimpson,Helen

VerranandSusyMacqueenwereincrediblysupportive,patientandinspiring.

Secondly,allthosewhowereinvolvedinthevariousprojectsdescribedhere.Forthe

LivingArchive,thankstoBrianDevlin,HinaSiddiqui,HaideeMcKittrick,TrishJoy,Melanie

Wilkinson,RebeccaGreen,AilsaPurdon,KathyMcMahon,SusanMoore,MareeKlesch,

KarenManton,AnjaTait,KerryBlinco,AnthonyHornbyandhisteaminCDULibrary,

particularlyJessieNg,UjjalKandel,JeromeApresto,GlennBoyling,NeilGodfreyand

JayshreeMamtora.FortheBininjKunwokcourseandDigitalShellproject,thankstoMurray

Garde,AndyPeart,allthemembersoftheBininjKunwokRegionalLanguageCentre,

MarcellaMaloney,andallthelearnerswhotookpartinthevariousiterationsofthecourse.

Thirdly,tomycolleaguesatCharlesDarwinUniversitywhohaveinspiredand

supportedmeovertheyears.ThankstoRuthWallaceandtheNorthernInstitute,

particularlytheamazingresearchsupportteam,toMichaelaSpencerandthewonderful

TopEndSTScrew,GregWilliamsandtheAILI/TAIL-NTgroup,StevenBird,NoriHayashi,

JohannaFunk,FionaShalley,ShelleyWorthington,LindaFord,AntheaNicholls,andso

manyotherswho’vemadethisalovelyplacetowork.AndtocolleaguesattheAustralian

NationalUniversity,particularlyinCoEDLforinspiringconversations,andinCASSfor

patiencewithmanagingmycomplicatedarrangements.ThankstotheAustralian

6

GovernmentResearchTrainingProgram(RTP)Scholarshipprogramfortheirfinancial

supportforthisresearch.

Onapersonalnote,thankstothosefriendswhotoleratedmywhingingandself-doubt,

andstuckwithmethroughouttheselastfouryears.ParticularlyRuth,Emily,Liz,Vicki,Tali,

Ro,andtheNightcliffBBQmobinDarwin,forhelpingmeto‘justkeepswimming’.ToGij,

Jehan,ClareandNat–myBFFsinMelbournewhoalsostoodbymefromadistance.Thanks

tothewonderfulCMS/SAHteaminMelbournefortheirsupport,withspecial

acknowledgmenttotheincredibleIsabelDaleforherwisdom,insightandencouragement.

Finally,tomytwofamilies–myBininjfamily,whoadoptedmeandwelcomedmeinto

theirBininjworld–mykakkakNgalwakadjJillNganjmirraandmyyabokNgalkangila

SeraineNamundja.AndtheBows,whoneverreallyunderstoodwhatIwasdoing,butloved

meanyway.MyparentsPat&Barrysadlydidn’tlivetoseemereachthismilestone,but

werealwaysproudofanythingIdid.

7

Full table of contents

FrontMatter .............................................................................................................. 2 Simpletableofcontents ........................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Signedstatement ...................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 5 Fulltableofcontents ................................................................................................................ 7 TableofFigures ...................................................................................................................... 12 Presentationofthesis ............................................................................................................ 13

Preface:Thepoliticsoflanguageandtechnology .......................................... 14

Chapter1:Introductionandoutline .................................................................. 16 SECTION1Introduction ........................................................................................................ 16 1.1Overview ...................................................................................................................................................... 16 1.2Introducingthethreeprojects .................................................................................................................... 19 1.2.1TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages ............................................................................................................. 19 1.2.2TheDigitalLanguageShell ......................................................................................................................................... 21 1.2.3BininjKunwokonlinecourse ...................................................................................................................................... 21

1.3Understanding‘language’ ........................................................................................................................... 23 SECTION2Auto-ethnographicstoriesoflanguagework ................................................... 25 2.1Anautoethnographicresearchoriginstory .............................................................................................. 26 2.2Usingauto-ethnographicstories ................................................................................................................ 29 2.2.1Manbitesdog .............................................................................................................................................................. 31 2.2.2Languageindocumentationpractices ....................................................................................................................... 34 2.2.3Runsinthefamily ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 2.2.4Languageinpedagogicalpractices ............................................................................................................................ 38 2.2.5Familymatters ............................................................................................................................................................ 40 2.2.6Languageinidentity-makingpractices ..................................................................................................................... 42

2.2Threetypesoflanguagework .................................................................................................................... 44 SECTION3Methodology ........................................................................................................ 44 3.1Iterativeinquiry ........................................................................................................................................... 45 3.1.1Firstlevelofinquiry .................................................................................................................................................... 45 3.1.2Secondlevelofinquiry ................................................................................................................................................ 46 3.1.3Thirdlevelofinquiry ................................................................................................................................................... 47

3.2Aninquiryintoinquiry ............................................................................................................................... 48 SECTION4Outlineofthesis .................................................................................................. 49 4.1PhDbypublication ...................................................................................................................................... 49 4.2Thepapersofthiscollection ....................................................................................................................... 50 SECTION5Summary ............................................................................................................. 54 SECTION6References ........................................................................................................... 56

Chapter2:ProjectsandAnalysis ........................................................................ 60 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 60 SECTION1Analyticconcepts ................................................................................................ 60 1.1Assemblage .................................................................................................................................................. 62 1.2Heterogeneities ........................................................................................................................................... 64 1.3Sociotechnology ........................................................................................................................................... 66 1.4Entanglement ............................................................................................................................................... 68

8

1.5Workingwithsociotechnicalassemblages ................................................................................................ 69 SECTION2Projectdescriptions ............................................................................................ 71 2.1LivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages .................................................................................................... 71 2.1.1Background ................................................................................................................................................................. 71 2.1.2Contents ....................................................................................................................................................................... 73 2.1.3Previousprojects ......................................................................................................................................................... 77 2.1.4CreatingtheLivingArchive ........................................................................................................................................ 79 2.1.5Access .......................................................................................................................................................................... 85 2.1.6Interoperability,discoverabilityandsustainability ................................................................................................... 86

2.2DigitalLanguageShell ................................................................................................................................. 89 2.2.1CALL ............................................................................................................................................................................ 91 2.2.2CreatingtheDigitalLanguageShell .......................................................................................................................... 94

2.3BininjKunwokonlinecourse ...................................................................................................................... 98 2.3.1Kunwinjku/BininjKunwok ......................................................................................................................................... 99 2.3.2TeachingBininjKunwok ........................................................................................................................................... 102 2.3.3Universitylanguagelearning ................................................................................................................................... 105 2.3.4TeachingandlearningIndigenouslanguages ......................................................................................................... 109 2.3.5Non-Indigenouslearners .......................................................................................................................................... 111

SECTION3Linkingprojectstotypesoflanguagework .................................................... 115 3.1TheLivingArchiveproject ........................................................................................................................ 116 3.2TheDigitalLanguageShellproject ........................................................................................................... 117 3.3TheBininjKunwokonlinecourseproject ............................................................................................... 118 3.4Iterativereconfiguring .............................................................................................................................. 120 SECTION4Summary ........................................................................................................... 121 SECTION5References ......................................................................................................... 123

Chapter3(PAPER1):TechnologyforAustralianlanguages ..................... 144 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 145 Languagedocumentationpractices .................................................................................... 148 Toolsforlanguagedocumentation ................................................................................................................. 148 Accesstolanguagedata .................................................................................................................................. 149 Re-presentationofcurateddata ..................................................................................................................... 152 Dictionaries ...................................................................................................................................................... 153 Languageinpedagogicalpractices ..................................................................................... 155 Onlinelanguageteaching ................................................................................................................................ 155 Cross-culturalcommunication ....................................................................................................................... 157 Languageinidentitypractices ............................................................................................ 158 Authority .......................................................................................................................................................... 158 Recognition ...................................................................................................................................................... 159 Culturalcontinuity ........................................................................................................................................... 161 Challengesandopportunities .............................................................................................. 163 Textandliteracy .............................................................................................................................................. 166 Lookingahead .................................................................................................................................................. 167 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 169 References ............................................................................................................................ 171

Chapter4(PAPER2):TowardsauniquearchiveofAboriginallanguages:acollaborativeproject ........................................................................................ 186 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 188 Background ........................................................................................................................... 189 DevelopmentoftheLivingArchive ..................................................................................... 191

9

Collaboration ........................................................................................................................ 194 Digitisationandstorage ....................................................................................................... 196 Metadata ............................................................................................................................... 197 Access .................................................................................................................................... 199 Challenges ............................................................................................................................. 203 Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 205 Lessonslearnt ....................................................................................................................... 206 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 207 References ............................................................................................................................ 207

Chapter5(PAPER3):ObservingandrespectingdiverseknowledgetraditionsinadigitalarchiveofIndigenouslanguagematerials ............. 211 BackgroundtotheLivingArchiveProject .......................................................................... 215 KeyDistinctives ............................................................................................................................................... 218 TheFramework:CopyrightandICIP .................................................................................. 220 AddressingCopyrightIssues ............................................................................................... 226 MakingDigitalCopiesandPreservation ........................................................................................................ 228 ProblemWorks ................................................................................................................................................ 229 AddressingICIPIssues ......................................................................................................... 233 ChallengesandSolutions ................................................................................................................................ 235 AccessandUsage .................................................................................................................. 241 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 244 References ............................................................................................................................ 249

Chapter6(PAPER4):Diversesocio-technicalaspectsofadigitalarchiveofAboriginallanguages ...................................................................................... 256 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 258 Auserfromcountry ............................................................................................................. 262 Auserfromtheclassroom ................................................................................................... 269 Onlinesurveyoutcomes ...................................................................................................... 276 ImagininganArchive ........................................................................................................... 278 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 285

Chapter7(PAPER5):CollaborativelydesigninganonlinecoursetoteachanAustralianIndigenouslanguageatuniversity ........................................ 288 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 290 Background ........................................................................................................................... 291 Digitallanguageshellandpilot ........................................................................................... 295 Addressingthechallenges ................................................................................................... 299 Developingresources ...................................................................................................................................... 299 Strengtheningteachers ................................................................................................................................... 301 Creatingstudentdemand ................................................................................................................................ 304 Buildingconnections ....................................................................................................................................... 306 Implications .......................................................................................................................... 308 References ............................................................................................................................ 313

10

Chapter8(PAPER6):IdentityworkinteachingandlearningIndigenouslanguagesonline .................................................................................................. 318 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 320 TheDigitalLanguageShellandBininjKunwokcourse ..................................................... 322 Buildingpossibilitiesforidentityworkintothedesignofalanguagecourse ................. 326 Identityworkandimaginedcommunities ......................................................................... 332 Theroleoftechnology ......................................................................................................... 341 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 344 References ............................................................................................................................ 346

Chapter9(PAPER7):SociotechnicalassemblagesindigitalworkwithAboriginallanguages ........................................................................................... 350 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 352 Assemblage1:TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages ............................................. 354 Assemblage2:TheDigitalLanguageShell ......................................................................... 358 Assemblage3:TheBininjKunwokonlinecourse .............................................................. 361 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 364 References ............................................................................................................................ 365

Chapter10:SummaryandConclusion ............................................................ 368 SECTION1Drawingtoaclose ............................................................................................. 368 1.1Overview .................................................................................................................................................... 368 1.2Kamakbu?(IsitOK?) ................................................................................................................................ 370 SECTION2Contributions .................................................................................................... 374 2.1Practicalcontribution ............................................................................................................................... 375 2.2Methodologicalcontribution .................................................................................................................... 377 2.3Academiccontribution .............................................................................................................................. 380 2.4Theoreticalcontribution ........................................................................................................................... 385 SECTION3Implicationsandsignificance ........................................................................... 386 3.1Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 388 3.2Futuredirections ....................................................................................................................................... 389 SECTION4Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 391 4.1Afinalethnographicstory ........................................................................................................................ 392 4.2Thelastword ............................................................................................................................................. 395 SECTION5References ......................................................................................................... 397

Appendices ............................................................................................................ 398 APPENDIX1:Statementsofcontributionbyco-authors ................................................... 398 Appendix1.1:Paper2-Statementofco-authorship .................................................................................... 398 Appendix1.2:Paper3-Statementofco-authorship .................................................................................... 399 APPENDIX2:Publisherapprovals ...................................................................................... 400 Appendix2.1PermissionfromJALIAeditorstoreproducePaper2 ........................................................... 400 Appendix2.2PermissionfromTaylorandFrancistoreproducePaper4 .................................................. 401 Appendix2.3PermissionfromBabeleditorstoreproducePaper5 ........................................................... 402 APPENDIX3:Linkstoadditionalnon-peerreviewedmaterials ...................................... 403 APPENDIX4:Ethicsapprovaldocumentation ................................................................... 404 Appendix4.1:InitialapprovalfromANUHumanResearchEthicsCommittee(ref2017/403) ............... 404 Appendix4.2:FinalreportapprovalfromCDUHumanResearchEthicsCommittee(refH17077) ......... 405

11

12

Table of Figures

Figure1(Ch1.1):ScreenshotofbrowseresultsfromLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages .......... 20

Figure2(Ch1.2):ScreenshotfromDigitalLanguageShellhomepage ................................................. 21

Figure3(Ch1.3):ScreenshotfromhomepageofBininjKunwokonlinecourse .................................. 22

Figure4(Ch1.4):Screenshotfrom‘KunwinjkuKunwok’,p.139 ........................................................... 32

Figure5(Ch2.1):Screenshotofasinglerecordwithcoverandmetadata ........................................... 73

Figure6(Ch2.2):HomepageoftheprojectpagefortheLivingArchive ............................................... 77

Figure7(Ch2.3):ScreenshotofbackendofDigitalLanguageShell(onWordPress) ......................... 97

Figure8(Ch2.4):MapshowinglocationofKunwinjkulanguage ........................................................ 100

Figure9(Ch4.1):Homepageshowingmapaccessbyplaceorlanguage ........................................... 202

Figure10(Ch4.2):ScreenshotofBrowseviewofcollectionshowingthumbnailswithbasicmetadata

plusdisplayandfilteroptions ....................................................................................................... 202

Figure11(Ch5.1):Outlineofpaper ....................................................................................................... 215

Figure12(Ch6.1):LivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguageshomepage ............................................. 266

Figure13(Ch6.2):Screenshotoftheresultsofasearchfortheword‘turtle’intheLivingArchiveof

AboriginalLanguages ..................................................................................................................... 273

Figure14(Ch7.1):ScreenshotofDigitalLanguageShellhomepage .................................................. 297

Figure15(Ch7.2):ScreenshotofJillNganjmirradiscussinguseofskinnames ................................ 300

Figure16(Ch7.3):Outlineoftopicsandcontentforsemesterunit .................................................... 302

Figure17(Ch7.4):ScreenshotActivityUnit7BininjKunwokcourse ................................................ 303

Figure18(Ch8.1):TABLEDetailsofthedatacollectedfromthevariouscohortswhoparticipatedin

theBininjKunwokonlinecourse .................................................................................................. 334

Figure19(Ch9.1):LivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesscreenshot ............................................. 355

Figure20(Ch9.2):DigitalLanguageShellscreenshot .......................................................................... 359

Figure21(Ch9.3):BininjKunwokonlinecoursescreenshot .............................................................. 362

Figure23(Ch10.1):Screenshotfromcartoonstory(translation:"We(two)wanttogofishingatthe

Sandbar") ........................................................................................................................................ 371

Figure24(Ch10.2):Screenshotfromcartoonstory(translation:"There'sadangerouscrocodile

livingthere") ................................................................................................................................... 372

13

Presentation of thesis

Thisthesisispresentedasacollectionofsevenacademicpapersbasedonthreeresearch

projects.Atthetimeofsubmission,fourpaperswerepublished,twoacceptedfor

publication,andoneunderreviewPaper7hassincebeenpublished.Thecandidateisthe

soleauthorforfiveofthepapers,theco-authorsfortheothertwohavesignedpermission

andindicatedthesharedcontribution(seeAppendix1).Publisherpermissionsarein

Appendix2.Thepublicationsarepresentedwithoutnumbering(aspublished)whilethe

discussionchapters(1,2,10)arenumberedforclarity.

Preface:Bow,C.(2018).Thepoliticsoflanguageandtechnology.Flycatcher-CDUStudent

Magazine,6(WetSeason),31.(notpeer-reviewed)

Paper1:Bow,C.(inpress).TechnologyforAustralianLanguages.InC.Bowern(Ed.),Oxford

HandbookofAustralianLanguages.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Paper2:Mamtora,J.,&Bow,C.(2017).TowardsaUniqueArchiveofAboriginalLanguages:

ACollaborativeProject.JournaloftheAustralianLibraryandInformationAssociation,

66(1),28–41.https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2017.1282845

Paper3:Bow,C.,&Hepworth,P.(2019).Observingandrespectingdiverseknowledge

traditionsinadigitalarchiveofIndigenouslanguagematerials.JournalofCopyrightin

EducationandLibrarianship,3(1),1–36.https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7485

Paper4:Bow,C.(2019).Diversesocio-technicalaspectsofadigitalarchiveofAboriginal

languages.ArchivesandManuscripts,47(1),94–112.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2019.1570282

Paper5:Bow,C.(2019).CollaborativelydesigninganonlinecoursetoteachanAustralian

Indigenouslanguageatuniversity.Babel,54(1/2),54–60.

Paper6:Bow,C.(submittedforreview).IdentityworkinteachingandlearningIndigenous

languagesonline.

Paper7:Bow,C.(2020).SociotechnicalassemblagesindigitalworkwithAboriginal

languages.LearningCommunities:InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,

26,12–21.

14

Preface: The politics of language and technology

Bow,C.(2018).Thepoliticsoflanguageandtechnology.Flycatcher-CDUStudentMagazine,

6(WetSeason),p.31.https://flycatchermag.wixsite.com/flycatcher/single-

post/2018/05/11/THE-POLITICS-OF-LANGUAGE-AND-TECHNOLOGY

Ihavechosentousethisshortreflectionasaprefacetothewholethesis,asit

introducessomeofthethemesaddressedintherestoftheresearchpresentedhere.

ThearticlewaswrittenfortheCharlesDarwinUniversitystudentmagazineasan

informalreflectiononanexperienceIhadinFebruary2018atagovernment-sponsored

eventwhichgatheredarangeofpeopleworkinginIndigenouslanguagesacrossAustralia.

Thepaperisnotpeer-reviewed,norwritteninanacademicstyle,soshouldnotbe

countedasoneofthepublishedpapersofthisthesis.

15

16

Chapter 1: Introduction and outline

SECTION 1 Introduction

1.1 Overview

Thisthesisseekstorespondtothequestionofwhathappenswhenparticulardigital

technologiesbecomeentangledwithdifferenttypesoflanguageworkinIndigenous

languagesofAustralia’sNorthernTerritory(NT).

Effortsmadetodocument,archiveandpreserveIndigenouslanguagesarebasedon

certainassumptionsaboutthenatureoflanguage.Theuseofdigitaltechnologiesaddsnew

layersofpossibility,throughaidingproductionofarangeoflanguageresources,suchas

recordings,texts,dictionaries,videos,etc.Thesecomponentscanthenbeassembledinto

largerinfrastructuressuchasdatabases,archivesandpedagogicalwebsites.These

infrastructuresareformsofsociotechnicalassemblage,definedhereasheterogeneoussets

ofsocialandtechnicalresourceswhichperformandenablevarioustypesoflanguagework.

Ratherthanattemptingtoexplorethelargerangeofdigitaltechnologiescurrentlyin

useinsupportofAustralianIndigenouslanguages,Ifocusonthreeparticulardigital

languageinfrastructuresthatIhaveworkedwith–theLivingArchiveofAboriginal

Languages,theDigitalLanguageShell,andtheBininjKunwokonlinecourse.

MyworkwiththeseprojectsraisedmanyquestionsandrevealedmanytensionsasI

grappledwiththecontingencyandsituatednatureofthedigitalinfrastructuresbeing

created.Thedatapresentedhereinvolvesmylivedexperienceasprojectmanageronthese

projects,theemergenceofparticulartypesoflanguageworkandtherelationshipsbetween

17

them.Theresearchhasbeenaniterativeprocess,withdifferentlevelsofinquiry,andis

presentedhereindifferentways:sometimesethnographically,sometimestheoretically,

sometimesdescriptively.

ThethesiscomprisessevenacademicpublicationsproducedasIworkedonthese

threedigitallanguageinfrastructureprojects.Thepublishedpapersareaimedatspecific

audiencesfromarangeofdisciplines–librarians,archivists,languageteachers,

technologists–eachaddressingdifferentaspectsoftheprojects.Theresearchisnecessarily

transdisciplinary,crossinglanguagedocumentation,digitalarchiving,information

management,onlinelanguageteachingandlearning,Indigenousknowledgesanddigital

humanities,asIconsiderthebetween-worldprocessesofmanykindsthathelptolook

beyonddisciplinarynotionsthatcanleadtodecontextualisingorlimitingtheresearchto

particularacademicdomains.

IdrawonsomeanalyticconceptsfromthefieldofScienceandTechnologyStudies

(STS)whichIfounduseful,particularly‘assemblages’,‘heterogeneities’and

‘sociotechnology.’Simplyput,anassemblageis“amodeoforderingheterogeneousentities

sothattheyworktogetherforacertaintime”(Müller,2015,p.28).Theheterogeneous

entities(orheterogeneities)maybeanythingfrombookstodigitalartefactstopeopleto

placestoconcepts,andasociotechnicalanalysisrejectsthedistinctionbetweenthe‘social’

andthe‘technical’,seeingthemascompletelyentangledandmutuallyconstitutive(Law,

1990).Theseconceptsareexploredinmoredetailinthefollowingchapter.

Theword‘entanglement’isuseddeliberatelyhere,asawayofintroducingasenseof

‘mess’andlackofstructure.Wheretheideaofassemblagessuggestsorderandpurpose

18

withanintentionalityofdesign,thenotionofentanglementshighlightsthemessinessof

suchcollectionsofheterogeneouselements,butwithoutimplyingchaosorlackofcarein

design.Whenunderstoodassuch,entanglementscanhelptoidentifysomehiddenor

unexpectedoutcomes.

Inmyresearchworkingintechnologydevelopmentforarchivingandpedagogy,and

throughtheiterativeresearchprocessofwritingacademicpapers,threetypesoflanguage

work–understoodas‘thingsthatpeopledowithlanguage’–emerged.

• Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesdocumentation,includingdevelopingand

managingresourcesforlanguageanalysisandstudy,workwhichismostoften

foundinformaleducationandtheacademy

• Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvescommunityknowledge,governanceand

culture,whichincludesvariouspedagogicalpractices,andconceptsofownership,

bothinternaltothespeechcommunityandalsoinengagementwithoutsiders

• Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesgenerating,regenerating,managingand

negotiatingidentitywithinandamonglanguagecommunities

Thistypologyisnotmeanttobecomprehensive,asclearlytherearemanyothertypesof

languagework,norarethesemutuallyexclusive.Thesethreetypesoflanguageworkare

summarisedas‘documentation’,‘pedagogy’and‘identity’.

IntheremainderofthisopeningchapterIwillbrieflyintroducethethreeprojects

underconsideration(whichwillbefurtherdetailedinthefollowingchapter),andestablish

myresearchpersona.Thenthroughtheuseofauto-ethnographicstories(presentedherein

adifferentfont),IdescribesomeofthedisconcertmentsIfeltasIwentaboutmyworkon

19

theseprojects,andusethesetoexplorethedifferenttypesoflanguageworkthatemerged.I

thendescribemymethodologyofiterativeinquiry,andgoontooutlinetheremainderof

thethesis,describinghowthesedifferenttypesoflanguageworkemergeinthepapersthat

follow.ThroughoutthechapterIpivotbetweenethnographicstorytelling,reflectionand

academicwritingtopresentdifferentlensesthroughwhichtoviewtheresearch.

1.2 Introducing the three projects

IwasemployedatCharlesDarwinUniversity(CDU)asprojectmanagerforthree

projectstosupporttheongoingmaintenanceandtransmissionoflanguagesthrough

archivalandpedagogicalpractices.Theyarebrieflyintroducedheretogivecontexttothis

chapter,beforebeingdescribedinmoredetailinthenextchapter,alongwiththeacademic

contextsinwhichtheyaresituated.

1.2.1 The Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages

TheLivingArchiveisadigitalarchiveofendangeredliteratureinIndigenous

languagesoftheNorthernTerritory.Theprojectwasdevelopedinresponsetoaconcern

forthefateofprintedmaterialsproducedforvernacularliteracyinbilingualprogramsat

remoteNTschoolssincethemid-1970s.Thousandsofbookletswerecollected,digitised,

andmadeavailableonanopenaccesswebsite,withtheconsentofthecopyrightandmoral

rightsholders.Therearenowapproximately5000itemsin50languages,aroundtwo-

thirdsofwhicharepubliclyavailablethroughtheopenaccesswebsiteat

http://laal.cdu.edu.au/.

20

Figure1(Ch1.1):ScreenshotofbrowseresultsfromLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages

21

1.2.2 The Digital Language Shell

TheDigitalLanguageShellisanonlinetemplatedevelopedtosupportIndigenous

groupstosharetheirlanguageandculturalmaterialsunderIndigenousauthority.Using

freelyavailabletools,theShellwasdevelopedasalow-costandlow-techmeansofcurating

andsharingmaterialsforvariouspedagogicalpurposes.Itisavailableathttps://language-

shell.cdu.edu.au/.

Figure2(Ch1.2):ScreenshotfromDigitalLanguageShellhomepage

1.2.3 Bininj Kunwok online course

TheBininjKunwokonlinecoursewasthefirstinstantiationoftheDigitalLanguage

Shell,allowingAustraliantertiarystudentstostudyanIndigenouslanguageonline.

DevelopedincollaborationwithmembersoftheBininjKunwokRegionalLanguageCentre,

thecoursefocusedontheKunwinjkulanguageofWestArnhemLandintheNorthern

Territory.Aninitialpilotprogramoffourunitsinvolvedover100volunteerlearnersin

2016,andthiscoursewaslaterextendedintoafullsemestercoursedeliveredacrosstwo

universitiesforthefirsttimein2019.

22

Figure3(Ch1.3):ScreenshotfromhomepageofBininjKunwokonlinecourse

Allthreeprojectsarecollectionsofheterogeneities,broughttogetherforvarious

purposes.Differenttypesoflanguageworkareevidentintheprojects.TheLivingArchive

re-presentsmaterialsproducedinparticularcontextsforpedagogicalandidentity-making

23

purposeswhichalsoserveasformsofdocumentation.TheDigitalLanguageShellcreates

spaceforIndigenouspeopletopresenttheirownaccountsofhowidentityandpedagogy

arepursuedthroughlanguagewiththepresentationofvariouskindsoflinguisticand

culturalelements(curricula,grammaticalexplanations,multimediaobjects,songs,kinship

charts,etc).TheBininjKunwokonlinecoursepresentsasapedagogicaltool,displayinga

rangeofobjectspresentinglinguisticdatatobemastered,whichalsoperformssignificant

identityworkforboththedesignersandthelearners.

1.3 Understanding ‘language’

Yolnguhaveoftensaid:Thelandismadeoutoflanguage,languagecomesoutofthe

ground,andhistorystaysintheplacewhereitismade.Everythingwecanrecogniseis

madeoutoflanguage.Everythingwesaycontributestotheongoingcreationofa

knowableworld,aworldwecansharetogether.(Christie,2001,p.34)

ForIndigenousAustralians,languageisinseparablefromthelandfromwhichit

emerges(Christie,1993,1994;Christie&Perrett,1996;Evans,2001,2011;Merlan,1981).

AccordingtoChristie,forYolŋu“neithertheshapesoftheworldnortheshapesofits

languagesareontologicallyprior.Theyareco-extensiveandco-constitutive.Thisisa

strikingmetaphysicswhenwecompareittoaviewoflanguageasrepresentinganobjective

pre-existingreality,whichgenerallyunderpinsourEuropeanphilosophyoflanguage”

(2007,pp.57–58).Assuch,languageisnotsimplyacommunicativesystembutakey

componentofbeingapersoninplace.

Ratherthanconsideringlanguageasanaprioricategory,representinganobjective

realitythatcanbecapturedandanalysed,itishelpfultoviewitasemergentand

24

constitutedintheeverydayhere-and-nowlife,andassuchisconstantlyinflux.This

approachmodifiesandmoderatesthecommonpracticeoftreatinglanguageasafound

objectwhichissomehowseparablefromotheraspectsoflife,andenablesworkwiththe

entanglementsoflanguageandtechnologythatemergedwithinmyownresearch.

MuchoftheacademicwritingonIndigenouslanguagescomesfromnon-Indigenous

researchers,howevertherearesomeattemptsbyIndigenousauthoritiestoexpressthese

alternativeconceptionsoflanguageinEnglishforacademicaudiences(Bell,2007,2013;

Boyukarrpi,Gayura,Madawirr,Nunggalurr,&Waykingin,1994;Marika-Mununggiritj&

Christie,1995;Williams,2011;Yunkaporta,2010;Yunupingu,1996).Indigenousvoices

wereincorporatedinsubmissionstothe2012parliamentaryhearingonLanguageLearning

inIndigenousCommunities(HouseofRepresentativesStandingCommitteeonAboriginal

andTorresStraitIslanderAffairs,2012).AnexamplecomesfromanArrernteelder:

Wordsaregiventousbythelandandthosewordsaresacred.Whatdoesitmeanto

anAboriginalculture?Thelandneedswords,thelandspeaksforusandweusethe

languageforthis.Wordsmakethingshappen—makeusalive.(AmeliaTurner,citedin

HouseofRepresentativesStandingCommitteeonAboriginalandTorresStrait

IslanderAffairs,2012,p.10).

Useoftheterm‘language’throughoutthisresearchshouldbeseenasakindof

shorthandforanintricateentanglementofcompetence,performance,ownership,social

meaningandvalue,whichisproducedandreproducedincomplexlinguisticecologiesofbi-

andmultilingualism,incorporatingcode-switchingandtranslanguaging,inhomesituations

andeducationalcontexts.Theterm‘languageowners’isusedhere,sometimes

interchangeablywith‘languageauthorities,’thoughtheyaredistinctideas–forexamplea

childcouldbealanguageownerbutnotalanguageauthority.MostoftenIusetheterm

25

‘Indigenouslanguages’torefertoAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderlanguages,thoughin

somecasestheterm‘Aboriginallanguages’isusedwhenreferringtolanguagegroupsofthe

NorthernTerritorywhereuseofTorresStraitIslanderlanguagesisverylimited.

Inusingtheterm‘Indigenous’,Iamcognisantoftheriskofgeneralisingortotalising

myunderstandingsofthemyriadperspectivesofIndigenousAustralians.Asanon-

Indigenousresearcher,IdonotclaimtospeakforIndigenousAustralians–myresearchis

basedonworkingwithcolleaguesmostlyfromtheTopEndwhosetraditionallanguagesare

stillinuse,andmuchofmyreadingrelatestosimilarcontexts.Mymaininteractionshave

beenwithBininjofWestArnhemLand,andYolŋuofNorth-eastArnhemLand,whohave

managedtomaintainmanyaspectsoftheirtraditionallanguageandculture,andtherefore

whoseperspectivesmaydiffersignificantlyfromthoseofothergroupswhohavesuffered

greaterdestructionoftheirlanguageandcultureduelargelytocolonisation.

SECTION 2 Auto-ethnographic stories of language work

Auto-ethnographicstory-tellingisanapproachImobiliseasaninitialtechniquefor

openinguppossibilitiesforinterrogatingmyownassumptionsandhowtheyhavebeen

challengedthroughmyengagementwithIndigenousknowledgepractices.

Thisinitialstorysetsupmyidentityasaresearcher,andtheideasIbroughtwithme

totherolewhichledtothisPhD.Later,asetofthreestoriesshowsomeofthewaysin

whichtheseideaswerechallengedthroughoutmyresearch,soidentifyingmy‘starting

point’opensupspacetoexploretheshiftsinmyunderstanding.

26

2.1 An autoethnographic research origin story

AliceSprings,February2012. I’monmyway toDarwin to startaone-year

contractasaprojectmanagerfortheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesat

Charles Darwin University. Though I’ve visited Central Australia a few times

previously,thiswillbemyfirstexperienceoftheTopEnd.

My flight fromMelbourne toDarwin includes a stop-over inAlice Springs. As

oftenhappensaftera flight, there’saqueueinthe ladies’ toilets.AsIwaitmy

turn,myheartswellsasIhearthesoundofIndigenouslanguagesbeingspoken

aroundme.Asa linguistwithastronginterest inIndigenousandendangered

languages,itfeelslikeaspecialprivilegetohearsuchlanguageuse‘inthewild’.

I’veheardIndigenouslanguagesbeforeofcourse,butthismaybethefirsttime

I’veheardthemspokeninsuchamundanecontext–it’snotaformalWelcome

toCountry,orarecitationofatraditionalstory,oranexampleofaparticular

grammaticalstructure–forallIknowtheladiesmaybediscussinghowmuch

toiletpaperisinthestalls,orwho’spickingthemupfromtheairport.Itdoesn’t

evenmatter,thefactthattheyareusingtheirlanguagesgivesmeanunexpected

thrill.

SomuchofmyexperienceofIndigenouslanguageshasbeenbasedonlanguage

documentation–abriefstintinoutbackNSWworkingwithlocalWangkumara

peoplewantingtobringtolifetheirheritagelanguagewhichnowonly‘existed’

intheformofapublishedgrammaranddictionaryfromthe1980s. Ialsodid

somehome-basedcontractworkforalanguagecentreinWA,whereIwassent

27

files of language data that I would structure into a database format. But

linguisticdataisverydifferentfromlanguageinuse,alessonIwouldcometo

appreciatemoreinmynewposition.

I’dalreadyexperiencedsomeofthistension,whenallmyacademictrainingin

linguisticsonlypartiallypreparedmefortwoyearsof fieldworkexperiencein

centralAfricaasagraduateinternwithSIL.Inthehot,drySahelareaofnorthern

Cameroon, Iwas constantly challenged by the ‘rawness’ of the data I elicited

whichwouldformthebasisofmyphonologicaldescriptionandanalysisofthe

previouslyunwrittenChadic languageofMoloko(Bow,1997a,1997c,1997b),

whichlaterbecamethefocusofmyMastersthesisattheUniversityofMelbourne

(Bow,1999).Collectinglinguisticdataforanalysisfromnativespeakerswasvery

unlikemy experience solving linguistic problemswith neatly curated data at

university. The results of my analysis seemed so dissociated from the active

collectiveandembodiedlanguageworkoftheMolokopeoplewithwhomI’dbeen

working.

ThenewjobinDarwinlookedlikeitwouldcombinemyinterestinIndigenous

andendangeredlanguageswithmyemerginginterestintechnology.Following

my time in Africa, I’d worked in a computer science department exploring

linguistic tools for documentation of endangered languages (Bow, Hughes, &

Bird, 2003; Gibbon, Bow, Bird, & Hughes, 2004; Hughes, Bird, & Bow, 2003;

Penton,Bow,Bird,&Hughes,2004).Thisworkdidnotturnmeintoacomputer

scientist,butitdidproduceanumberofpapersco-authoredwithcomputational

linguistsandexposedmetoarangeoftechnologiesusedtosupport language

28

workinthisspace.Mylaterworkasaresearchassistant-cum-projectmanager

to create an online resource to help international medical graduates with

communicationskillsinEnglish(Bow,Woodward-Kron,Flynn,&Stevens,2013;

Woodward-Kron,Fraser,Pill,&Flynn,2015)furtherfuelledmyinterest inthe

affordancesoftechnologyforvariouskindsoflanguagework.

TheotherinterestIbringtomynewroleisinlanguagelearningandteaching.

As well as a few years teaching English language intensive courses to

international students, I’ve been helping Christian missionaries learn new

languagestoworkincross-culturalcontextssincereturningfromAfrica.These

days I’m involved in an intensive course called Missions Interlink Language

Learning (MILL), which presents amethodology focusing largely on building

relationships through language learning, involving strategies and activities

working with a ‘language helper’ (Bow, 2012). This approach sees language

learningasasocialactivityratherthananacademicone,usingoralratherthan

literate methods, which can be confronting to many who studied a ‘foreign

language’atschoolinAustraliabutrarelylearnttousethelanguageforactual

communication. Previously I’d facilitated two MILL courses in Alice Springs

supporting people learning Indigenous Australian languages and noted

significant differences – not just linguistically but in the way the Indigenous

language helpers we worked with engaged in the process of sharing their

language.Languageseemedtobemorethanthewordsthatcameoutoftheir

mouths,butmorecloselylinkedtotheiridentitythanI’dexperiencedpreviously,

29

and their pedagogical approach didn’t seem to recognise ‘language’ as a

separateobjectthatcouldbe‘learned.’

Thisproject inDarwin looks likeagoodway tocombinemy interests inboth

languageand technology,witha focus on IndigenousAustralian languages. I

haven’t done the hard yards of living and working in a remote Aboriginal

communitytogetabetterunderstandingoflifeinthatcontext.I’macutelyaware

ofmyprivilege,asanon-Indigenous,settler-colonial,middle-class,well-educated

woman, though not fully aware of how these characteristics will inform and

impactmywork. Standing in the queue for the ladies’ toilet at Alice Springs

airport on my way to Darwin, though delighted by the sound of Indigenous

languages being spoken, I have no idea what to expect inmy new role. And

anyway,it’sonlya12-monthcontract,howbadcoulditbe?

2.2 Using auto-ethnographic stories

Whenbeginningtothinkaboutlanguageworkanddigitaltechnologies,IfoundthatI

neededtounsettlesomeoftheassumptionsIbroughtwithmearoundtechnologybeinga

panaceaforlanguageendangerment,orbeingthe‘solution’forlanguageownerstoshare

theirlanguageandknowledgepracticeswithyoungergenerationsandwithinterested

outsiders,andthatpreservation,reconfigurationandsharinglanguagewouldbean

undisputedgood.Usingauto-ethnographicstoriesasananalyticmethodallowsmetoopen

uparangeofissuesandpossibilitieswhichconfrontedmeinmyeverydaywork.Situating

suchknowledgeworkineverydayactivities,interactionsandreflectionsbringsaparticular

30

perspectivefromwhichtoexploreimplicationsandshiftsandtheimpactsonmyown

thinkingandresearch.

AccordingtoWinthereikandVerran,“ethnographicstorieshaveinthemacapacityto

re-presenttheworldinwaysthataregenerativeforthepeopleandpracticesthatthe

storiesareabout,aswellasfortheauthorsandtheiracademiccollectives"(2012,p.37).

Someofthestoriesinvolve‘disconcertment’which“isexperiencedasamomentof

existentialpanic—beingsuddenlycausedtodoubtwhatyouknow”(Verran&Christie,

2013,p.53).Intheiranalysisofacollectionofethnographicstoriesofdisconcertment

aroundworkingwithdifferentknowledgesystemsintheNT,Verranandstate:

Weseeourstoriesrevealingnewideasandwaystododifferencecollectivelyasthey

emergefromcollectiveaction.Weseehownewwaysofgoingforwardtogether

dependuponthecomingtogetherofdiverseandunusualsubjects,objects,and

settings.Wefocusuponhowthesenewenergeticsdisconcert,contradictand

transformourthoughtlessassumptions.Storieshaveaspecialabilitytoclarifythe

characteroftheirparticipants(ourselves,wehope,especially),theirhistories,

desires,imaginations,theirpsychologicalandemotionalstates,theiraestheticsand

theirentrenchedness,aswellastheirsearchesforthenewandthedifferent.

Throughnarratives,theethnographerintroducesandengagesunusualand

nonhumanparticipants.(Verran&Christie,2013,p.55)

InthissectionInarratethreeauto-ethnographicstoriestakenfrommyexperience

workingwithIndigenouspeopleinthedevelopmentanddeliveryofthethreedigital

languageprojects.ThroughthesestoriesIdrawoutthreedifferenttypesoflanguagework

thatemergedinmypractice.Inrecountinghowmyassumptionsaboutlanguagewere

challengedinspecificinstances,Iexposetheseassumptions,andopenupameansof

analysingthem.Thetypesoflanguageworkdescribedinthesestoriesdidnotcomefrom

31

theory,butfrommyfirstlevelofmyinquiry,asIwentaboutmyworkdevelopingdigital

resourcesforIndigenouslanguagework.

2.2.1 Man bites dog

Darwin,January2018.I’mtryingtowriteaclearexplanationofsomeaspects

ofKunwinjkugrammarfortheBininjKunwokonlinecourse.SothankfulthatI

haveaccesstothelearningguide“KunwinjkuKunwok:AShortIntroductionto

Kunwinjku Language and Society” (Etherington & Etherington, 1998). It’s a

wonderfulresource,writtenbythelocalmissionarywhodevelopedfluencyinthe

language,andit’swrittenfornon-Indigenouslearners,soitoftengivescareful

explanations of someof thegrammatical differences that can tripupEnglish

speakers. I’m very conscious of my deficiencies as a learner of Kunwinjku

language, relying heavily on this book for explanations, sometimes even just

copying and pasting huge chunks into the online lessons (with attribution of

course).

IcomeacrossanexamplethatIthinkwouldbeusefultoinclude.Onp139,ina

section at the end of the book describing “Differences between English and

Kunwinjku”EtheringtonexplainswordorderinKunwinjku:

32

Figure4(Ch1.4):Screenshotfrom‘KunwinjkuKunwok’,p.139

Thismakesperfectsensetomelinguistically,Iknowduruk is ‘dog’andbininj

means ‘person’ or ‘man’, so obviously there’s something in the verbal word

bibayengthatindicateswhodoeswhattowhom.ButI’mnottoostrongonverbs

yetinKunwinjku,Iknowit’spossibletopackalotofinformationineachone,

with various prefixes and suffixes containing all sorts of grammatical and

contextual information.Myquestion is, howdo you swap the subject and the

object?Ifthesetwosentencesbothmean‘thedogbittheman’,thenhowwould

yousay‘themanbitthedog’?

IregularlyworkwithaBininjcolleague,anexperiencedtranslatorandlanguage

worker,whoisveryinsightfulaboutlanguage.Duringoneofmyregularsessions

with Jill, aswe recordwords anddiscuss resources for the course, I raise the

question.

“Durukbibayengbininj-thatmeans‘thedogbittheman,’doesn’tit?”

33

“Yo.”[yes]

“Sohowwouldyousay‘themanbitthedog’?”

Shelooksconfused.Itryagain.

“WhatdoesBininjbibayengdurukmean?”

She hesitates to answer - is it because she knows it means the same as the

previoussentence,andshe’squestioninghowtoexplainhowthatcouldbethe

case?

Iwritethetwosentencesout,makingiteasierformetopointtothewordsand

clarifythemeaning,ratherthantalkingabstractly.

“Dothesetwosentencesmeanthesamething?”

IrecallthelinguistMurrayGardebeginningtoexplaintomethecomplexityof

the verbalword inKunwinjku.Not only are theredifferent prefixes forwho’s

doingtheaction,butanadditionalsetofprefixestoshowoneactordoingan

actiontosomeoneelse,withawholehierarchyofanimacythatdetermineswhich

pronounformgoesontheverb.Thetwovolumegrammar(Evans,2003)includes

severalpagesonthishierarchy,whereahumanis‘higher’thanananimal,but

‘lower’thanaspiritbeing,whichdeterminestheformofthepronounprefixused.

I’mnotexpectingJilltoexplainallthistome,Ijustwanttoknowhowtoswapa

subjectandobjectforminasimplesentence.

Shetriestohelp,bytellingmeastory.

34

“Somaybethere’sahouse,andthere’sacheekydogthere.Soyouneedtobe

carefulwhenyouwalkpastincasethatdogcomestobiteyou.”

I should have learnt this technique by now, that Bininj prefer to consider a

concrete example, a situation in the world where the something is true. I

appreciateherstory,butit’snotwhatIneed.Itrytoaskagain.

“Whatifit’stheotherwayaround,whatifthemanwasbitingthedog?”

Idon’tthinkshecancomeupwithanykindofstorytoillustratethatsentence.

Webothendupfrustrated,andImoveawayfromgrammartoanewtopic.

2.2.2 Language in documentation practices

Thisstoryevidencestwodifferentattitudestolanguage–myown,asaBalanda(non-

Indigenous)linguisttryingtoanalyseandunderstandaparticulargrammaticalstructure,

andthatofalanguageauthoritystrugglingtoseparatethegrammaticalstructurefroman

actualsituationintheworld.Suchdialoguesarecommonforlinguistsinelicitation

practices,withasimilarstoryreportedinBowern(2008,p.85).Thestoryrevealsthetype

oflanguageworkinvolvedindocumentation,seeinglanguageasanobjectofstudy,which

doesnotresonatewiththeIndigenousperspectivewherethereisnodistinctionbetween

talkandaction,"thingsintheworld"andwaysoftalkingaboutthem(Christie,1994).This

distinctionislessevidentforEnglishspeakersforexample,whereamonolingualEnglish

speakermaystrugglewiththeconceptofamanbitingadog,butisunlikelytostruggleto

producethephrase.Thisexperiencealsohighlightstheimportanceofstorywhen

negotiatingknowledge,asthiswasthewaymycolleaguetriedtoexplainsomethingtome,

35

andsituatesthekindofrespectfulcollaborativeworkwewerenegotiatinginestablishing

thelanguagecourse.

Inmyfocusonelicitingandelaboratinggrammaticalinsightsinmydiscussionwith

Jill,Iwasengagingwithlanguageindocumentation–viewingitasaseriesofrulesand

structureswhichcouldbebrokendownandreconstructed,andconsequentlytaughtto

learners.ThefactthatIcouldfindaphraselike‘thedogbittheman’translatedinto

Kunwinjkuinalearners’guideindicatesthatsomeonehadalreadydonethatanalysisof

languageasanobjectandpresenteditinaformthatIcouldconsume.Thismadelittlesense

toJill,whosephilosophyandexperienceoflanguagewasthatitbuildsaknowledge

communityinthesocialworld.Shestruggledtoenvisionasituationintheworldinwhicha

manbitadog,soshewasn’tthinkingaboutlanguageasanabstractedform,shewastrying

tofindaworldinwhichthatsituationwastruesothatshecouldexpressitinKunwinjku.

Inmyworkineachofthelanguageprojects,Iwasabletoidentifytheknowledge

practiceswhichsupporttheworkoflanguageindocumentation.IntheLivingArchive

project,Iwastakingpaperartefactsandturningthemintodigitalitemsfordifferentforms

ofdelivery.IntheDigitalLanguageShell,Iwascreatingaplatformforsharingvarious

resources,wherelanguagepracticeshadalreadybeendocumentedandpackagedasdatain

variousforms.IntheBininjKunwokproject,Iwasidentifyingthoseresourcesfora

particularlanguagethatcouldbeusedforpedagogicalpurposes,selectingtheproductsof

languagedocumentationthatshouldpopulatethecourse.

Thisexperienceopeneduptometheneedtotakeseriouslythelanguage-in-the-world

aspectofBininjunderstandingsoflanguageasawayofrelativisingmyownconcernsfor

36

structuresandruleswhichareinternaltothelanguagestructure.Thedisconcertment

involvedinthisrealisationshiftedmyperspectiveonlanguage,andinthepapersinthis

thesis,Icanseeashiftinmyownthinkingfromfocusingontheworkoflanguagein

documentationtoincorporatingothertypesoflanguagework.

Thenextstoryextendsthistensionfurther,fromdealingwithonelanguageauthority

about‘grammar’todealingwithagroupoflanguageauthoritiesabout‘curriculum.’

2.2.3 Runs in the family

Gunbalanya,March2018.Theshirecouncilmeetingroomisacoolhavenfrom

theoppressivehumidityoutside,thoughsomewhatnoisywithallthefansandair

conditioning units running. It’s the biennial meeting of the Bininj Kunwok

LanguageProjectReferenceGroup,whichisabouttobecometheBininjKunwok

RegionalLanguageCentre.Muchofthemeetingwastakenupwithdiscussion

aboutthestructureof thenewlanguagecentre,aboutmembership,directors,

names,objectives–lotsofwhitefellarequirementsforthisnewlegalentity.

Thenitwasmyturntospeak.InpreviousmeetingsI’dsharedabouttheBininj

Kunwokonlinecoursewe’dpilotedin2016withverypositivefeedbackfromthe

learners, and I reminded the committee by showing some of the lessons and

resourcesonthebigscreen.Someinattendancewereawareoftheproject,as

they’dallhadinputinpreviousmeetings,butIknewitwasn’tparticularlysalient

tothegroup.TheideaofBalanda(non-Indigenouspeople)wholivethousandsof

kilometres away fromWestArnhemLand sittingat their computers learning

aboutBininjKunwokevenstrikesmeasoddinthiscontext.

37

We’vebeeninvitedtoexpandthe4-unitpilotcoursetoafullcoursefora12-week

universitysemester.Isthecommitteehappytodothat?Murmursof‘kamak,yo’

indicatedapproval.Aswedidwhenwecreatedthefirstsetoflessons,Iwanted

to know the committee’s ideas for what other topics should be covered. We

alreadyhadlessonsonintroducingyourself, talkingaboutfamily,comingand

going,andhowtostaysafeandshowrespect.WhatdotheythinkBalandashould

knowaboutwhentheycometoGunbalanyaoranyotherBininjcommunity?

Igotnoresponse.Ithadbeenalongmeetingandwewereallgettingtired.Iwas

careful to speak slowly and clearly, not using difficult language or idioms.

MurrayGarde,thenon-Indigenouslinguistandinstigatorofthelanguagecentre

was able to help out and translate into Kunwinjku when needed. I started

offering suggestions, like maybe we could talk about ‘country’, about ‘land’,

aboutmanme(food)…Murraysaidmanmewouldbeagoodone,thenJillsaid

‘yo,manmedjamayh’(plantfoodandanimals),soIwrotethatdown.

MoresilenceasIwaitedforfurtherresponse.Iproposedsomemoreideas:would

theyliketoteachpeopleabouttheland,thecountry, ‘stonecountry’–Murray

suggestedkunbolk(trees)andgavesomeotherwordswhichIdulywrotedown.

Moresilence.Isuggested‘seasons’,Murraytranslatedandgaveexamplesforthe

committee.Imentioned‘bodyparts’and‘health’,whichMurrayalreadyhassome

resourceswecanuse.Stillwaitinginvainforsuggestionsfromthecommittee,I

suggested‘art’–wecouldgotoInjalakArtCentreandmakesomevideosofBininj

artiststalkingabouttheirworkthere.

38

Itwas clear tome thatMurray and Iwere doing all the heavy lifting in this

interaction,thecommitteeeitherdidn’tunderstandwhatIwasaskingfor,orhad

nointerestinprovidinganswers.Surelyitmustbetimeforlunch?

I tried asking the question a different way. What other things do you think

BalandashouldknowaboutwhentheycometoGunbalanya,whatdoyouneed

toteachthemsotheybehavetherightway?Ngalbangardistartedtellingastory

inKunwinjku,butIcouldonlypickupsomeEnglishwords:

“at the clinic… locking up the doors… one toilet… diarrhoea…what if

poisoncousinorbrotheristhere?…”

TheotherBininjnoddedinagreement,apparentlyalsoawareoftheissue.The

womancontinued,

“Theydon’twantto listentous, ‘excuseme,Igotdiarrhoea,canIusethe

toilet?’ while that person is there, because sometimes they think, the

receptionist thinks they know everythingabout the situation. Inside only,

outsidelocked,iftheydon’twantpeopleusingtheinsideone,whydon’tthey

fixupthetoiletoutside?”

I realised that the story was answering my question, but not in the form I

expected. I duly noted ‘avoidance relationships’ as a topic that needed to be

includedinthecourse.

2.2.4 Language in pedagogical practices

ThisstorydescribesasimilardisconcertmentwhereIasalinguistattempttocarveup

languagecontentinawaythatisunnaturaltothelanguageowners,andhowtheirstoryof

39

anactualsituationintheworldgeneratedananswertomyquestion.Thisrelatestotherole

oflanguageincommunityknowledge,culture,andknowledgetransmission–summarised

hereas‘pedagogy’.

Inmymisguidedattempttoelicitabstractconceptsaspossibleframesforteaching

language,Irealised(again)thatmyBininjcolleaguesdonotseparatelanguagefrom

everydaylife,butthatitisaninherentpartofteachingappropriatebehaviour,andthiswas

thepedagogicalimperative.Ratherthantryingtofindanobjective‘topic’ofstudyforthe

languagecourse,theBininjauthoritiesconsideredspecificsituationsintheworldinwhich

peopleneededtolearnhowtobehaveproperlyandrespectfully.

LearnersofKunwinjkuwouldneedtounderstandthecomplexityofthekinship

systeminordertoavoidshamefulexperiencessuchasthatwitnessedattheclinic.InBininj

society,identityisestablishedthroughanumberofprocessesincludingtheskinsystemand

kinshiprelations(explainedbrieflyinPapers5and6)whichimposesrulesaboutspecific

kinrelationswhomustbeavoided.Thisisnotanabstractconcept,butplaysoutinspecific

situationssuchastheonedescribedbyNgalbangardi,wherealackofunderstandingof

suchrulesonthepartofthenon-Indigenousstaffatthecliniccausedasituationwhich

createdshameandpotentiallydamagedrelationships.Ifapatientintheclinicneededthe

toilet,theywouldfeelshameiftheyhadtospeakaboutsuchpersonalmattersinthe

presenceofcertainkin.Theimplicationofthestorywasthatifthereceptionisthad

understoodtheimportanceofavoidancerelationships,shewouldhaverecognisedthe

necessityofmakingtheoutsidetoiletavailabletocircumventsuchasituation.

40

Theroleoflanguageinpedagogicalpracticesincorporatesvariouskindsof

communityknowledgeandgovernanceandhowtheseareproducedandreproduced.

Language(whentransformedintodataasaformofdocumentation)canberepurposedfor

pedagogicalpurposes.Forexample,bookscreatedforparticularcontexts(e.g.bilingual

educationprograms)canberepurposedfornewpedagogicalcontextswhenaccessible

online,includingforteachinglanguagetonon-Indigenouslearners.Withregardtothe

creationoftheDigitalLanguageShell,theonlinetemplateneededtobesufficiently

‘innocent’andflexibletoenabledifferenttypesofpedagogicalwork–throughstoriesand

textsandimagesandaudioandgrammaticalexplanations,andtheBininjKunwokcourse

mobilisedthisbyincorporatingBininjpedagogies(seePaper7forfurtherdiscussion).

Thenextstoryshiftsthefocustoidentity,whereengagingwithlanguageauthorities

alwaysbeginswitharelationship,andhowtheseplayoutontheground.

2.2.5 Family matters

Darwin,March2012. I’m in a classroomat CharlesDarwinUniversity, as a

student in the ‘Introduction toYolŋuLanguagesandCulture’ course. I’mvery

newtoDarwin,andexcitedtohavethisopportunitytolearnaboutoneofthe

languagesoftheTopEnd.We’retalkingaboutskinnames,andhoweveryonein

aYolŋucommunityfits intothecomplexkinshipstructureandis identifiedby

oneofeightnames–fourfromeachmoiety,withvariationsformaleandfemale.

Like in many Australian Aboriginal communities, the kinship system is both

classificatory and actual, for example a person may have several ‘mothers’

beyond just theirbiologicalmother,andpersonmaybe incorporated into the

41

system without any genealogical affiliation. It is important to know who

someone‘is’inordertospeaktoandrelatetothemappropriately.Somestudents

inthegroupalreadyhaveskinnamesfromtheirworkinYolŋucommunities,the

restofusneedtobegiventhemsowecandothetaskofintroducingourselvesin

Gupapuyŋuforthefirstassignment.

Galiwin’ku,June2012.I’msittingonamatoutsidesomeone’shousewithafew

olderYolŋuladies,talkingabouttheLivingArchiveproject.I’mexplaininghow

we’d like to put those old books from the Literature Production Centre on

computer,andaskingwhocouldgivepermissionforparticularbooks.Aswechat,

oneof the ladiesasksme “Yougota skinname?” Iproudly respond, “Yes, I’m

Wämuttjan.”Sheasks“Whogaveyouthatname?”I’mabitstuckforananswer

–howcanIsayitwasrandomlyallocatedtomeinaclassroomsoIcoulddoan

assignment?HesitantlyIgivethenameoftheYolŋuteacherwhopresentedsome

ofthecoursecontent.Theladiesonthematconfer–“wellifshegaveyouthat

name,thenyoumustbemywaku,andthisladyisyourmäri.”Idutifullylearned

who each onewas, and tried to rememberwhat to call them, but felt deeply

uncomfortablethatmyskinnamewasn’tgivenappropriately,sotheconnections

theseladieswereidentifyingdidn’treallybelongtome.

Darwin, September2016. I’m in the IndigenousResearchers’ Roomat CDU,

workingontheKunwinjkulanguagecoursewithmytwoBininjcolleagues.We’ve

beenworkingtogetheronandoffforafewmonthsonresourcesandcurriculum

forthepilotKunwinjkucourse,recordingvocabulary,readingstoriesfromthe

LivingArchive,makingvideos,etc.We’retalkingaboutskinnamesandhowthey

42

shouldbeintroducedinthecoursematerials.Icommentthatit’sabitstrange

that I’vebeenworkingwiththese two ladies forsometimebut Idon’thavea

Bininj skin name. Immediately, the younger one says “You’re my sister,

Ngalkangila,youcallmeyabok.”Shepointstotheolderladyalongsideherand

says to me “She’s our grandmother, you call each other kakkak.” From that

moment, the dynamic between us changed. We weren’t just professional

colleagues,nowwewerefamily.ThisisthekindofadoptionI’dmissedwiththe

Yolŋuconnection,Iknewitwouldbeeasyenoughto ‘translate’myYolŋuskin

nameintoitsBininjequivalent,butIstillfeltuncomfortablewithclaimingthat

name.This feltmuchmoreauthentic.Now that I hadaBininj identity, Iwas

entangledinthesocialandculturallifeofallBininj.

2.2.6 Language in identity-making practices

ThisthirdethnographicstoryrecordstwowaysinwhichIasaresearcherbecame

enmeshedinthetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesidentity-makingpracticesthroughmy

relationshipwithmyIndigenouscolleagues,andhowthisopenedupnewpossibilitiesfor

respectfulcollaboration.

FortheYolŋuladiesinGaliwin’ku,myskinnamewasawayofvalidatingmypresence,

allowingthemtotranscendtheabstractmatrixofskinnamesandfitmeintothewiderand

moresignificantnetworksofexistingfleshandbloodkinship.Oncethiswasestablished,

theycoulddeterminehowtoanswermyquestionsaboutbooksintheLivingArchive.

BeforeIwasgivenanidentityintheBininjsystem,thoughIenjoyedafruitfulworking

relationshipwithmyBininjcolleagues,Iwasnotsituatedasalearnerintheappropriate

43

way.Theidentityofa‘granddaughter’(kakkakspecificallyreferstodaughter’sdaughter,a

termusedreciprocallywithone’smother’smother)comeswitharangeofresponsibilities,

particularlywheregrandmotherstakechargeofteachingtheirgranddaughtershowto

behaveappropriately.Followingmy‘adoption’,InoticedJilltakingmorecaretoteachme

aboutBininjcultureandbehaviour.

Inallthreelanguageinfrastructureprojects,Ifoundmyselfworkingwithlanguagein

theconstructionandmaintenanceofidentity.Schoolswithbilingualprogramsexpressed

aspectsoftheidentityoftheircommunitiesthroughthebookstheyproduced,thekindsof

informationtheytaughttheirstudents.TheBininjKunwokcourseforcedlearnerstoengage

withnewformsofidentityastheytookonskinnamesandbecameembeddedinstrong

kinshiptieswiththeBininjteachers.DevelopingtheDigitalLanguageShellwasameansof

creatingopportunitiesforIndigenouslanguageauthoritiestosharesomethingabouttheir

identityonline,throughlanguageandculture.

Wherethepreviousstoryrelatedtolanguageinlivedexperienceandappropriate

behaviour,thisstoryrelatestokinshipinlivedexperienceandappropriateconnectedness.

ThisconceptstronglyinfluencedthedesignoftheBininjKunwokonlinecourse.Thefocus

onskinandkintermswasnotsimplyasexplanationsforunderstandinghowBininj

interact,butwouldsituatethelearnersimmediatelyinrelationtoallBininj,andtoeach

other–asoutlinedinPapers5and6here.TheBininjcourseco-designerswereadeptat

steeringmeawayfromapurelyinstrumentalcommunicativeunderstandingoflanguage,

whichstronglyinfluencedthedevelopmentoftheonlinecourse.

44

2.2 Three types of language work

Thesethreespecifictypesoflanguagework,inpracticesoflanguagedocumentation,

ofpedagogy,andofidentitypolitics,emergedinmyexperiencedevelopingdigitaltoolsfor

languagework.Allarepartial,makingnoclaimstocompleteness,andclearlyneglectmany

othertypesoflanguagework,buttheyaresufficienttoaddresstheissuesthatconcernme

inthisthesis.Ratherthanbeingidentifiedthroughcarefulresearchonthetopicor

theoreticalimperatives,theyhaveemergedfrommyworkontheground,arisingthrough

developingtechnologiestosupportIndigenouslanguagework.

Thesestories,andmyrecognitionofthedifferenttypesoflanguageworkledmeto

consideranumberofrelatedissues,suchashowdigitaltechnologiescontributeto

activating,supportingorenablingthesetypesoflanguagework,theroleoftechnologyin

interveninginthesetypesoflanguagework,andhowthesetypesoflanguageworksupport

orundermineeachotherwhenentangledwithdigitaltechnologies.Thenextsection

exploreshowconsiderationofsuchissuesdirectedmyresearch.

SECTION 3 Methodology

Workingwiththeclaimthatallknowledgeissituated(Haraway,1988),Irecognise

myresearchasconfiguredbyandsituatedinaspecificcontextofworkinginauniversity

doinglanguageworkintheNorthernTerritoryintheseconddecadeofthe21stcentury.In

thissection,Idescribethewaysinwhichtheresearchcametogether–theprojects,the

papers,thereadings,thetheoreticalmaterial–tocreateanassemblageofsociotechnical

analysiswhichispresentedhereasmythesis.

45

3.1 Iterative inquiry

Myworkasprojectmanagerforthelanguageprojectsdescribedinthesepapers

consistentlyinvolvedvariouskindsofinquiry.Theactivitieswerenotinitiallyestablished

asresearchprojectsbutratherasinfrastructureprojects,workingtocreateproductsto

supportlanguageworkinparticularways.Thefocusonthe‘particular’isimportanthere,

andapointworthnotinginrelationtotheanalysisemergingoutoftheseprojects:the

projectssupportparticularlanguagepracticesandparticulartechnologies

inparticularsocial-politicalcontextsinwaysthatexpressparticularvalues.Assuch,they

cannotbedirectlyappliedtootherprojectsinothercircumstances.

AsIwentaboutmywork,Ibecameinterestednotonlyinthevarioustechnical,

political,social,legalandethicalaspectsoftheprojectsbutalsoindifferenttheoretical

understandingsofthework.Thecompilationofthisthesisistheresultofaniterative

processofinquiry,exploringvariousfacetsoftheprojects,howtheyemergedfromand

respondedtoparticularcontextsandimperatives,howtheyworkordon’twork,exploring

theentanglementsoflanguageandtechnologyintheseparticularcontexts.

3.1.1 First level of inquiry

ThekindsofinquiryIwasmakingasIwentaboutdoingmyjobincludedthe‘big’

questionslikehowtomaintainadigitalarchiveofIndigenouslanguagematerials?Whose

voicesneedtobeincludedinthediscussion?HowdoweincorporateIndigenous

pedagogiesintothecoursecurriculum?Howcanweconnectlearnersaroundthecountry

withBininjoncountry?Andalso,many‘small’questionsaddressingtheday-to-dayissues

thatemergedindevelopingtheseprojects,likewhatisthebestwaytomanagethe

46

technology,theprocesses,thepermissions,thedistribution,thepromotion,thereporting,

thefinances,etc?WhattoolsshouldweusetobuildaplatformforsharingIndigenous

languagesonline?Whichpluginsshouldwechoose?Howdowerecruitlearners?Howdo

weextendfromthefourpilotunitstoafullsemestercourse?

Pursuingthesequestionsledmetocertainplacesandpeople,andaskingadditional

questions.Ifoundmyselfconsideringmanydisconcertmentsandtensionsaboutmyrole

andtheconstructionofthesedigitallanguageinfrastructures,asImetwithvarious

stakeholdersintheprojects,includinganadvisorygroupfortheLivingArchiveproject,the

languagecommitteefromtheBininjKunwokRegionalLanguageCentre,andthetechnical

supportteamfromCDULibrary,eachwiththeirdifferentperspectivesonthetask.Every

decisionwascarefullyconsideredaswefocusedonthetasksofbuildingandassembling

resourcestosupportIndigenouslanguageactivities.Thiskindofarticulationwork(Star&

Strauss,1999)involves“tuning,adjusting,monitoring,andmanagingtheconsequencesof

thedistributednatureofwork.Thisistheinterplaybetweenformalandinformal.

Articulationworkisalmostalwaysinvisible(especiallywhenitisdonewell),andbecause

ofthisitisoftenoverlookedintechnologicalinnovation"(VanHouse,2003,p.281).

3.1.2 Second level of inquiry

Thesecondlevelofinquiryinturninvestigatesthequestionsandprocessesarising

frommywork.WhileIdidn’tbeginwithaspecificresearchquestionthatcouldbe

answeredbyempiricalresearch,myinitialaimwastoinvestigatetheroleofdigital

languageresourcesintheecologyofAustralianIndigenouslanguages.Thismorphedin

variouswaysacrossthefouryearsofmyenrolment,asIread,reflectedandwroteabout

47

someofthequestionsraisedbymyfirstlevelofinquiry.Anethicsapplicationgaveme

permissiontoseekinputfromIndigenouslanguageauthoritiesandotherusersofthe

variousdigitalresources(seeAppendix4forHRECapprovaldocument).Someofthis

feedbackandevaluationhasbeenincludedinthisresearchinvariousways.

AsIengagedthetheoreticalandtechnicalaspectsofmyworkthroughouttheprocess,

Iparticipatedinmanyoftheeverydayactivitiesofacademiclife–readingrelevant

literature,attendingconference,givingpresentations,etc.Engagingintheseactivities

allowediterativereflectionsontheprojectsandtheirvariouscomponentsandinteractions.

Theresultsofthissecondlevelofinquiryaretheacademicpublicationsthatmakeup

thebulkofthisthesis,writtenandrewrittenwithfeedbackfromsupervisorsandreviewers.

Theseproductsofacademicresearchemergedasoneoutcomeoftheongoingworkfor

whichIwasemployed.Eachofthepublicationsembodyoriginalresearch,presentingmy

ownfindingsbasedonthedevelopmentandanalysisofthedigitallanguageresources

underconsideration,andwrittentoaddressaudiencesfromdifferentdisciplines.

3.1.3 Third level of inquiry

Thethirdlevelofinquiryisameta-analysisoftheprojectsandpapers,collatedhere

asasinglebodyofworktosubmitasaPhDbypublication.Thislevelofinquiryinvolved

morereading,discussionswithsupervisors(eachofwhomcamefromadifferent

background–Indigenouseducation,linguistics,philosophyandappliedlinguistics),then

laterrereadingthepapersandreconsideringtheprojectstolookforoverallthemesand

connectionstodevelopathesis.Asthevariouscomponentscametogether,aresearch

questionemergedtoaccountformyvariouslevelsofworkandinquiry:whathappens

48

whendigitaltechnologiesbecomeentangledwithvarioustypesoflanguageworkin

IndigenouslanguagesoftheNorthernTerritory?

3.2 An inquiry into inquiry

Thiskindofmethodologymayseemunusual,butalsoreflectsapracticalapproachto

research,whereeverydayworkbecomesdataforacademicinquiry.Itisakindofpractice-

ledinquiry,whichhasahistoryinthecreativearts(Candlin,2000;Hawkins&Wilson,

2017),butisnowgrowinginthesocialsciencesalso,includinginnovativeworkin

documentarylinguistics.ArecentexamplecomesfromCarew(2016),whosethesisused

thecollaborativeprocessesofalanguagedocumentationandrepatriationprojecttoexplore

interculturalalliances.Sheobservesthat“inthecontextofrapidlyshiftinglanguage

ecologiesinremoteIndigenouscommunities,practice-ledresearchprovidesonewaythat

university-basedscholarscanformallianceswithlanguagepractitionersatthelocallevel”

(Carew,2016,pp.iii–iv).

Theadvantageofthistypeofapproachisthatthefocusisonproductsthatcanengage

intheworkoflanguagedescription,pedagogy,documentation,maintenanceand

revitalisation,ratherthansimplytoproducepublicationstomaintainacademiccredibility.

TheinputofIndigenouscolleaguesintheprojectscanproducearichexchangeofideasthat

benefitboththepracticalandtheoreticalwork.Theacademicwritingisnotsimplyaby-

productbutanimportantandusefulaccompanimenttotheworkofthepractitioner.

Mytaskofanalysingempiricalinstancesandarrangementsasdemonstratedinthese

assemblageshighlightstheentanglementsofpracticethatconstitutetheprojects.Doing

thisenablesmoregenerousandgenerativeanalysesoflanguageworkacrossIndigenous

49

andnon-Indigenousunderstandingsandpractices.Thisthesisitselfisanexampleofa

sociotechnicalassemblageofheterogeneousentitiesincludingacademicpublications,

referencelists,projects,theories,stories,reflections,themesandtensions.

SECTION 4 Outline of thesis

Inthissection,Iexplainmyreasoningforcollatingthisthesisasacollectionof

publicationsratherthanasasinglenarrative.Ithenoutlineeachofthepapersinthis

collection,andhowthevarioustypesoflanguageworkemerge.Iidentifyeachpaperby

number,separatefromtheintroductorychaptersandconclusion,asoutlinedinthe

‘Presentationofthesis.’

4.1 PhD by publication

Themethodofinquiryundertakenhere–attheprimaryleveldevelopingtheprojects,

atthesecondaryleveladdressingquestionsthroughwritingacademicpapers–madeita

logicalsteptoapproachthePhDasacollectionofpublications.Thisthirdlevelofinquiry

involvesnotjustcollatingthepapersbutthemeta-analyticworkoftheintroductoryand

conclusionchaptersinextrapolatingthepractice-basedprojectstogeneratebroader

insightsabouttheinteractionsbetweenlanguageandtechnologyinthecontextof

IndigenouslanguageworkintheNorthernTerritory.

HavingpublishedacademicpaperspriortoenrolmentinthePhD,bothfromthe

LivingArchiveprojectandpreviousresearchassistantrolesasnotedearlier,Iwasalready

familiarwiththeprocess,andkeentocontinuetobuildmypublicationresumé.Being

acceptedforpublicationalsosuggeststhattheresearchisofsufficientqualityandinterest

50

foranacademicaudience,andfeedbackfromjournaleditorsandreviewersimprovesthe

qualityofthewritingbeyondthatprovidedbythesissupervisors.

Thisformofdeliveryalsoenablesmyresearchtoreachavarietyofaudiencesofquite

differentinterests,fromlibrarianstoarchiviststothosewithaninterestincopyrightand

intellectualproperty,tolanguageteachersandthoseinterestedincomputer-assisted

languagelearning,plussomethingformyemerginginterestinscienceandtechnology

studies.Theintentionaltargetingofjournalsofdifferentdisciplineshasallowedmeto

maximisethereachandimpactofmyinquiry,andforcedmetoreadwidelyacrossmany

disciplines.

Thistransdisciplinaryapproachsuitedmyresearchinterestssince,asnotedearlier,

myworkgoesacrossarangeofareas,includinglinguistics,digitalarchiving,language

teaching,culturalheritagemanagement,educationanddigitalhumanities.Christieargues

that“transdisciplinaryresearchisdifferentfrominterdisciplinaryresearchbecauseit

movesbeyondthedisciplinarityoftheuniversityandtakesintoaccountknowledge

practiceswhichtheuniversitywillneverfullyunderstand”(Christie,2006,p.78).This

approachisappropriateformyinclusionofIndigenousperspectivesonlanguageand

technologywhichrecurthroughoutthisresearch.

Thepapersarenotpresentedhereintheordertheywerewritten,butinanorderthat

flowsformyoverallargument.

4.2 The papers of this collection

Intheprefacetothisthesis(‘Thepoliticsoflanguageandtechnology’–anon-peer

reviewedcontributiontotheCDUstudentmagazine),Ibrieflyreflectuponthepoliticsof

51

languageatworkatagatheringoflanguageworkers,bureaucrats,policyofficersand

Indigenousleaders.Technologywasrecognisedasanimportantcomponentinworkof

languagemaintenanceandrevival,buttherewasdisagreementastowhetheritwas‘the

solution’.Resistancetothefocusontechnologyratherthanpeoplesawtensionbetween

whatwasunderstoodby‘language’bythedifferentparticipants.

Paper1(‘TechnologyforAustralianLanguages’)addressesthequestionofhowdigital

technologiesarebeingusedfortransmission,maintenance,revival,promotionandanalysis

ofIndigenouslanguagesinAustralia.Inthispaper,thethreetypesoflanguagework–

documentation,pedagogyandidentity–arefirstidentified.Thereissomeclashingand

competingreflectedintherhetoricof‘saving’endangeredlanguages,andevident

dislocationsbetweenthosewhoworkondigitalsolutions,thosewhofundlanguage

projects,andthosewhoownlanguages.Thepaperdescribessomeofthetools,resources

andprojectscreatedtosupportIndigenouslanguagework,andaddressessomeofthe

challengesandopportunitiesinherentintheuseoftechnologyforthiswork.

Paper2(’TowardsaUniqueArchiveofAboriginalLanguages:ACollaborative

Project’),writtenforalibraryjournal,addressesthequestionofhowtheknowledge

practicesoflanguageresearchersandlibrarystaffcanworktogethertoproduceadigital

infrastructureofIndigenouslanguagematerialsforpreservationandsharing.Thepaper

describesthecollaborationbetweentheCDULibraryandtheLivingArchiveprojectteamto

provideasustainablerepositoryofIndigenouslanguagematerials.Itoutlinesanumberof

challengesaddressedinrelationtobalancingtherequirementsofbestpracticefor

informationmanagementwiththedesiretoincorporatesomeoftheIndigenous

componentsthatdon’tneatlyfitthosestructures.Thetypesoflanguageworkthataremost

52

evidentinthispaperarelanguageindocumentationandpedagogicalpractices,wherethe

productsofbilingualeducationprogramsaretransformedintodigitalartefacts.Thepaper

alsohighlightssomeoftheimplicationsforlibrarianswhomaybeinvolvedinworkingwith

Indigenouslanguagematerials.

Paper3(‘Observingandrespectingdiverseknowledgetraditionsinadigitalarchive

ofIndigenouslanguagematerials’)addressesthequestionofhowadigitallanguagearchive

cannavigatetheoftenincommensurableunderstandingsofownershipandintellectual

propertyaccordingtoIndigenousandnon-Indigenousknowledgepractices.Writtenforan

audienceofeducatorsandlibrarianswithaninterestincopyrightissues,andco-authored

withalawyer,thepaperoutlinesthenegotiationsandcompromisesinherentinaddressing

theissuesofintellectualpropertyfortheLivingArchiveproject.Inseekingawaytomove

forwardwhilerespectingtwoincongruentknowledgetraditions,thepaperdescribes

workingbetweentheworldsofAustralianIndigenousknowledgepracticesandtheworlds

ofcopyrightandintellectualproperty.Thebooksinthecollectionwereoriginallydesigned

tosupportpedagogical(literacy)andidentitywork(ancestralhistories,localpractices,etc)

underspecificprotocolsinthecontextofbilingualeducation.Astheitemsweredigitised,

theyenteredintoanewrangeofprotocolsandlegalregimes,andtheprojectteamwanted

toavoidtheeasyobscuringofimportanttraditionalIndigenousfunctionsoflanguagewhich

occurinthedevelopmentoftechnicalinfrastructures.

Paper4(‘Diversesocio-technicalaspectsofadigitalarchiveofAboriginallanguages’),

writtenforanarchivingjournal,addressesthequestionofhowthemobilisationofadigital

languagearchiveisreceivedbydifferentkindsofusersindifferentcontexts.Some

ethnographicstoriesshowhowthematerialsintheArchivetakeonanewlifewhenthey

53

enterintotheworldsofdifferentusers.AnIndigenouselderseesthepedagogicalresources

shedevelopedasateacherinabilingualprogram,butinanewsociotechnicalcontextfar

removedfromtheirorigins.Sheisdisconcertedbythegatekeepingroleofthemap

interfacewhichvisuallyrepresentsconnectionsbetweenlanguageandplace.Anon-

IndigenousschoolteacherrecognisesthepedagogicalvalueoftheArchive,connectingwith

certainmaterialsfromherpreviousroleandimaginingusesinherurbanschoolcontext.

Sheiscarefultorespecttheusagerulesofthecollection,andalsoidentifiessomemissing

featureswhichwouldbeuseful.Areviewoftheoriginalapplicationforfundingofthe

LivingArchiveprojectplacesitinacertainpoliticalandhistoricalcontext,withareflection

onhowwhatwasimaginedintheapplicationhasdevelopedintoaproductwhichisnowin

useinvariouscontexts.

FromherethefocusshiftsfromtheLivingArchivetothetworelatedprojectswhich

soughttomobilisesomeofthematerialsfromthatcollectionfornewpurposes.Paper5

(‘CollaborativelydesigninganonlinecoursetoteachanAustralianIndigenouslanguageat

university’),writtenforanaudienceoflanguageteachers,addressesthequestionofhow

academicsandIndigenouslanguageownerscancollaborateeffectivelytoproduceonline

languagecourses.Herethefocusshiftsfromthecollectionandsharingofpreviousproducts

ofknowledgepracticesintheLivingArchivetothemobilisationoftheseandothersimilar

productsfornewpedagogicalpurposes,whichalsoservesomepurposesofdocumentation

andidentity-making.Thepaperdescribesthecollaborativeengagementwithmembersof

theBininjKunwokRegionalLanguageCentretoaddresssomeoftheknownchallengesof

teachingIndigenouslanguagesatuniversityandonline.Ithighlightstheaffordancesofthis

54

contextfordevelopingnewresources,strengtheningteachers,creatingstudentdemand

andbuildingconnectionsbetweenlearnersandspeakers.

Paper6(‘IdentityworkinteachingandlearningIndigenouslanguagesonline’)

addressesthequestionofhowengagingwithlanguageinanonlinecontextcanmobilise

identityworkforlanguageownersandlearners.Inparticular,thepaperfocusesonthe

waysinwhichidentitybecamethefocalpointoftheKunwinjkuonlineuniversitycourse.

Bininjpresentationoftheirownidentities,throughskincharts,videos,explanations,were

sharedwithlearnersnotsimplyasinformationbutastoolsforthemtodeveloptheirown

imaginedidentitiesaspotentialmembersofaBininjcommunity.

Paper7(‘SociotechnicalassemblagesindigitalworkwithAboriginallanguages’)

addressesthequestionofhowthesedigitallanguageinfrastructuresfunctionas

sociotechnicalassemblages.DrawingonastatementbyWatson-VerranandTurnbull

(1995),thepaperexploreshoweachofthethreedigitallanguageinfrastructures

“constituteconnectionsandcontriveequivalences”betweentheheterogeneouselementsof

whichtheyarecomposed.ThispaperlooksatthethreeprojectsthroughthelensofScience

andTechnologyStudies,drawingonsomeoftheanalyticconceptsusedinthatfield.

SECTION 5 Summary

Thisresearchdevelopsitsanalysisbybringingtogetherthreedigitallanguage

infrastructures,allcreatedtosupporttheworkofIndigenouslanguagemaintenanceand

transmission.Theworkofheterogeneouslyengineeringthreedistinctsociotechnical

assemblagesformthedataofthisthesis.Amethodologyofiterativeinquiryinvolvedafirst

leveladdressingpractical,technical,ethicalandlegalquestionsinthecreationofthethree

55

assemblages,asecondleveladdressingacademicquestionsofhowtheserelatetolanguage

andtechnology,andathirdlevelofanalysisinvolvingthemeta-analysisofthese

sociotechnicalassemblages.Thetypesoflanguageworkfordocumentation,pedagogyand

identity-makingpurposesemergeintheprojectsthemselves,andareexploredinthe

writingofpapersabouttheprojects.

Asociotechnicalanalysisoftheseparticularassemblages(alongsideothersoutlinedin

Paper1inthebroaderAustraliancontext)allowsmetouncoversomeofthe

simultaneouslysocialandtechnicalrelationswithinthem.Focusingontheirconstruction

(theLivingArchiveinPaper2andtheDigitalLanguageShellinPaper6),specificaspectsof

thecontextsinwhichtheyexist(intellectualpropertyinPaper3anduniversitylanguage

teachinginPaper5),andtheuserswhoengagewiththemandusethemtoproducenew

knowledgeandidentitywork(fortheLivingArchiveinPaper4andtheBininjKunwok

courseinPapers5and6),highlightsthecrucialinteractionofthesocialandthetechnical.

Thisthesisemergesasanassemblageofheterogeneities–projects,papers,concepts,

academicreferences,andauto-ethnographicstories–thatisinitselfasociotechnical

assemblage.

Eachofthepublicationsinthisthesisisintroducedbyashorttextdescribinghow

eachpaperconnectstothepreviousandfollowingpapers,outliningthecontributionofthe

paper,andabriefhistoryofthepaper,includingthereasontheparticularpublicationoutlet

waschosen.Eachpaperhasitsownreferencelist,asdoeachofthesurroundingchapters.

Beforereachingtheacademicpapers,thefollowingchapteroutlinessomeofthe

analyticconceptsusedinthisresearch,andgivesmorecomprehensivedescriptionsofthe

56

threeprojects,situatingthempartiallyinsomeoftheiracademiccontexts.Followingthe

sevenacademicpublications,thefinalchapterinthisthesisbringstogetherthethirdlevel

ofinquiryasaconclusionandsummary.Idrawtogetherthevariouscomponentsofthe

projectsandthepublishedpapers,andthethemeswhichemergedineachofthem,

highlightingthesignificanceoftheresearchanditsmethodologicalandconceptual

contributions.Iconsiderthelimitationsofthestudy,andsomefuturedirectionsfor

research,includingsomemoreethnographicstories.

SECTION 6 References

Bell,J.(2007).Whywedowhatwedo!ReflectionsofanAboriginallinguistworkingonthe

maintenanceandrevivalofancestrallanguages.Ngoonjook,30,12–18.

Bell,J.(2013).Languageattitudesandlanguagerevival/survival.JournalofMultilingualand

MulticulturalDevelopment,34(4),399–410.doi:10.1080/01434632.2013.794812

Bow,C.(1997a).AdescriptionofMolokophonology[Unpublishedms].Yaoundé,Cameroon:

SILCameroon.

Bow,C.(1997b).ClassificationofMoloko[Unpublishedms].Yaoundé,Cameroon:SIL

Cameroon.

Bow,C.(1997c).LabialisationandpalatalisationinMoloko[Unpublishedms].Yaoundé,

Cameroon:SILCameroon.

Bow,C.(1999).ThevowelsystemofMoloko(MasterofArtsThesis).Universityof

Melbourne,Melbourne,VIC.

Bow,C.(2012).Trainingandsupportformissionarieslearninglanguages.Australian

JournalofMissionStudies,6(1),77–82.

Bow,C.,Hughes,B.,&Bird,S.(2003).Towardsageneralmodelofinterlineartext.

ProceedingsofEMELDWorkshoponDigitizingandAnnotatingTexts&FieldRecordings,

1–47.MichiganStateUniversity:EMELD.

57

Bow,C.,Woodward-Kron,R.,Flynn,E.,&Stevens,M.(2013).CanIaskyousomethingabout

yourpersonallife?:Sensitivequestioningininterculturaldoctor-patientinterviews.

FocusonHealthProfessionalEducation:AMulti-DisciplinaryJournal,15(2),67–77.

Bowern,C.(2008).Linguisticfieldwork:Apracticalguide.Houndmills;NewYork:Palgrave

Macmillan.

Boyukarrpi,G.,Gayura,J.,Madawirr,P.,Nunggalurr,H.,&Waykingin,M.(1994).Yolngu

waysofcommunicating.Ngoonjook,10,21–27.

Candlin,F.(2000).Practice-basedDoctoratesandQuestionsofAcademicLegitimacy.

JournalofArt&DesignEducation,19(1),96–101.doi:10.1111/1468-5949.00206

Carew,M.L.(2016).Gun-ngaypaRrawa‘MyCountry’:Interculturalalliancesinlanguage

research(PhDthesis).MonashUniversity.

Christie,M.(1993).Yolngulinguistics.Ngoonjook,8,58–77.

Christie,M.(1994).GroundedandEx-centricKnowledges:ExploringAboriginal

AlternativestoWesternThinking.InJ.Edwards(Ed.),Thinking:International

InterdisciplinaryPerspectives(pp.24–34).Highett,VIC:HawkerBrownlow.

Christie,M.(2001).Aboriginalknowledgeontheinternet.Ngoonjook,19,33–50.

Christie,M.(2006).TransdisciplinaryresearchandAboriginalknowledge.Australian

JournalofIndigenousEducation,35,78–89.

Christie,M.(2007).Yolngulanguagehabitat:Ecology,identityandlawinanAboriginal

society.InG.Leitner&I.G.Malcolm(Eds.),ThehabitatofAustralia’sAboriginal

languages:Past,presentandfuture(pp.57–78).Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Christie,M.,&Perrett,B.(1996).NegotiatingResources:Language,Knowledgeandthe

Searchfor‘SecretEnglish’inNortheastArnhemLand.InR.Howitt,J.Connell,&P.

Hirsch(Eds.),Resources,nationsandindigenouspeoples:CasestudiesfromAustralasia,

MelanesiaandSoutheastAsia(pp.57–65).Melbourne,VIC:OxfordUniversityPress.

Etherington,S.,&Etherington,N.(1998).KunwinjkuKunwok:Ashortintroductionto

Kunwinjkulanguageandsociety(Thirdedition).Gunbalanya,NT:KunwinjkuLanguage

Centre.

Evans,N.(2001).Thelastspeakerisdead—Longlivethelastspeaker!InP.Newman&M.

Ratliff(Eds.),LinguisticFieldwork(pp.250–281).Cambridge,UK:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

58

Evans,N.(2003).BininjGun-wok:Apan-dialectalgrammarofMayali,KunwinjkuandKune.

Canberra,ACT:PacificLinguistics.

Evans,N.(2011).Dyingwords:Endangeredlanguagesandwhattheyhavetotellus.

Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Gibbon,D.,Bow,C.,Bird,S.,&Hughes,B.(2004).SecuringInterpretability:TheCaseofEga

LanguageDocumentation.ProceedingsoftheFourthInternationalConferenceon

LanguageResourcesandEvaluation,1369–1372.Lisbon,Portugal:LREC.

Haraway,D.(1988).SituatedKnowledges:TheScienceQuestioninFeminismandthe

PrivilegeofPartialPerspective.FeministStudies,14(3),575–599.doi:

10.2307/3178066

Hawkins,B.,&Wilson,B.(2017).AFreshTheoreticalPerspectiveonPractice-LedResearch.

InternationalJournalofArt&DesignEducation,36(1),82–91.doi:

10.1111/jade.12074

HouseofRepresentativesStandingCommitteeonAboriginalandTorresStraitIslander

Affairs.(2012).OurLandOurLanguages:LanguageLearninginIndigenous

Communities.Canberra,ACT:ParliamentoftheCommonwealthofAustralia.

Hughes,B.,Bird,S.,&Bow,C.(2003).EncodingandpresentinginterlineartextusingXML

technologies.ProceedingsoftheAustralasianLanguageTechnologyWorkshop2003,

61–69.Carlton,VIC:AustralasianLanguageTechnologyAssociation.

Law,J.(1990).Introduction:Monsters,machinesandsociotechnicalrelations.Sociological

Review,38,1–23.doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03346.x

Marika-Mununggiritj,R.,&Christie,M.(1995).YolnguMetaphorsforLearning.

InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,113,59–62.

Merlan,F.(1981).Land,languageandsocialidentityinAboriginalAustralia.TheAustralian

JournalofAnthropology,13(2),133–148.

Müller,M.(2015).AssemblagesandActor-networks:RethinkingSocio-materialPower,

PoliticsandSpace.GeographyCompass,9(1),27–41.doi:10.1111/gec3.12192

Penton,D.,Bow,C.,Bird,S.,&Hughes,B.(2004).Towardsageneralmodeloflinguistic

paradigms.ProceedingsofEMELDWorkshop2004:LinguisticDatabasesandBest

Practice,1–15.Detroit,MI:E-MELD.

59

Star,S.L.,&Strauss,A.(1999).Layersofsilence,arenasofvoice:Theecologyofvisibleand

invisiblework.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),8(1),9–30.

VanHouse,N.A.(2003).DigitalLibrariesandCollaborativeKnowledgeConstruction.InA.

P.Bishop,N.A.VanHouse,&B.P.Buttenfield(Eds.),DigitalLibraryUse:Social

PracticeinDesignandEvaluation(pp.271–295).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Verran,H.,&Christie,M.(2013).Thegenerativeroleofnarrativeinethnographiesof

disconcertment:SocialscientistsparticipatinginthepublicproblemsofNorth

Australia.LearningCommunities:InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,

12,51–57.

Watson-Verran,H.,&Turnbull,D.(1995).ScienceandOtherIndigenousKnowledge

Systems.InS.Jasanoff,G.E.Markle,J.C.Peterson,&T.Pinch(Eds.),Handbookof

ScienceandTechnologyStudies(pp.115–139).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Williams,S.T.(2011).TheImportanceofTeachingandLearningAboriginalLanguagesand

Cultures.SurreyHills,NSW:NSWDepartmentofEducationandCommunities.

Winthereik,B.R.,&Verran,H.(2012).Ethnographicstoriesasgeneralizationsthat

intervene.Science&TechnologyStudies,25,37–51.

Woodward-Kron,R.,Fraser,C.,Pill,J.,&Flynn,E.(2015).HowwedevelopedDoctorsSpeak

Up:Anevidence-basedlanguageandcommunicationskillsopenaccessresourcefor

InternationalMedicalGraduates.MedicalTeacher,37(1),31–33.doi:

10.3109/0142159X.2014.909584

Yunkaporta,T.K.(2010).OurwaysoflearninginAboriginallanguages.InJ.Hobson,K.

Lowe,S.Poetsch,&M.Walsh(Eds.),Re-awakeninglanguages:Theoryandpracticein

therevitalisationofAustralia’sIndigenouslanguages(pp.37–49).Sydney,NSW:

SydneyUniversityPress.

Yunupingu,H.R.(1996).LookingatlanguageinaYolnguway.InM.Cooke(Ed.),Aboriginal

LanguagesinContemporaryContexts:YolnguMathaatGaliwin’ku(pp.47–50).

Batchelor,NT:BatchelorCollege.

60

Chapter 2: Projects and Analysis

Introduction

Thischapterintroducestheparticularanalyticconceptsusedinthisresearch,which

willthenexplorethethreedigitallanguageinfrastructureprojectsthatformthebasisof

thisthesis–theLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages,theDigitalLanguageShellandthe

BininjKunwokonlinecourse.Indescribingandanalysingtheseprojects,thischapteralso

placesthemintheiracademiccontext,positioningtheminlightofsomeoftherelevant

academicliterature.Thefinalsectionbringstogethertheanalyticconceptsandtheprojects,

andsetsupthereadingofthefollowingsevenpublishedpapers.

SECTION 1 Analytic concepts

AnumberofconceptsfromwithinthefieldofScienceandTechnologyStudies(STS)

havebeenhelpfulasI’vesoughtwaystoarticulateandanalysetheempiricalinstancesand

arrangementsoflanguageworkemerginginmyprojects.Whiledeliberatelyresistingstrict

definition,STShasbeencalled“aninterdisciplinaryfieldthatinvestigatestheinstitutions,

practices,meanings,andoutcomesofscienceandtechnologyandtheirmultiple

entanglementswiththeworldspeopleinhabit,theirlives,andtheirvalues”(Felt,Fouché,

Miller,&Smith-Doerr,2016,p.1).STSisinterestedinthepoliticsinherentinthedesignand

practiceoftechnologies(Winner,1980)andafocusonentanglementsofdifferent

knowledgetraditionsandwaysofgoingontogether(Verran,2001,2002).

61

MyengagementwithSTSgrewoutofmyconnectiontothenascentTopEndSTSgroup

atCDUwhoengage“particularIndigenousapproachestoknowledgeproduction,inthe

doingofacontemporarynorthernAustralianSTS”(TopEndSTS,2019).Areadinggroup

withotherstudentsandresearchersledmetonewwaysofthinkingaboutmywork,using

someoftheseparticularanalyticconcepts.

ConsideringSTSasananalytic‘method’,Lawsuggeststhat“theSTSfocusonpractice

meansthattheory,methodandtheempiricalgetrolledtogetherwithsocialinstitutions

(andsometimesobjects).Theyareallpartofthesameweaveandcannotbeteasedapart”

(Law,2017,p.32).Workinglargelythroughcasestudies,STSmethods“areshapedbythe

social;thattheyalsoshape,stageandstructurethesocial;thattheyareperformativeand

heterogeneouslyenactobjects,worldsandrealities;thattheyaresituated,productive,

essentiallypoliticalandnormative,andthattheymightbeotherwise”(Law,2017,p.48).

Inmyownwork,theory,methodandtheempiricalareallentangledintheanalysisof

themotivation,development,andmobilisationofthesociotechnicalassemblages.The

iterativemethodologyIuseinthisthesisfocusescloselyontheempiricalinthefirstlevel

(developingtheprojects),onmethodinthesecond(writingacademicpapers),andtheory

inthethird(meta-analysisofprojectsandpapers),howevercannotbeascleanly

individuatedasthissuggests.

Theterms‘assemblage,’‘heterogeneities’and‘sociotechnical’drawnfromthe

disciplineofSTSareusefulwhenseekingtotalkaboutparticularinstancesofthecoming

togetheroflanguageworkandtechnicalworkwithoutnecessarilyassuminglanguageand

technologyasseparateattheoutset.FromSTScomes“theassumptionthatrealityisalways

62

inthemakingthroughthedynamicrelationsofheterogeneousassemblagesinvolving

more-than-humans”(Blaser,2014,p.54).Asmyresearchprogressed,thisapproach

allowedmetothinkthroughsomeofthecomplexinteractionsamongtheheterogeneitiesof

political,technical,legalandepistemicconstituentsofthedigitallanguageresourcesbeing

developed.

1.1 Assemblage

Theconceptofassemblagerelatesto“amodeoforderingheterogeneousentitiesso

thattheyworktogetherforacertaintime”(Müller,2015,p.28).Theworditselfhasa

complexhistory,originallyatranslationoftheFrenchtermagencementfrom(Deleuze&

Guattari,1988),thoughtheEnglishwordhasmorefocusontheconnectionsbetweenthe

variouscomponentsthansimplytheirarrangement(Nail,2017;Phillips,2006).

Ratherthanjustseeingthewordasaconvenientshorthandforagatheringof

disparateitems,theterm‘assemblage’candousefulworkinexploringthecomplexitiesof

particulararrangementsandconnectionsbetweenvariouscomponents.Idrawonthe

descriptionprovidedbyWatson-VerranandTurnbull:

Assemblagesconstituteequivalencesandcontriveconnectionsbetweenlocalesin

knowledgesystems.Inresearchfieldsandbodiesoftechnoscientific

knowledge/practice,otherwisedisparateelementsarerenderedequivalent,general

andcohesivethroughprocessesthathavebeencalled‘heterogeneousengineering.’

(Watson-Verran&Turnbull,1995,p.117)

ThisdescriptionisusedinPaper7toexplorethethreeprojectsdescribedhere.

Thetermhasalsoappearedinappliedlinguisticsintheworkof(Pennycook,2017,

2018;Pennycook&Otsuji,2017),relatingtothespecificcoming-togetherofvarious

63

componentsinaparticularinteraction.Inonescenario,theauthorsidentifyaconversation

inaBangladeshishopinsuburbanSydneyasinvolvingtheassemblageofarangeof

productsintheshop,thelanguagechoicesofthecustomersandshopkeepers,the

demographyofthesuburb,thehistoryofmigrantmarketgardeninginSydney,the

ingredientsofinternationalcuisinesrepresentedinthesuburb,andeventhelayoutofthe

shop.

Allthesethingsandthemeaningsattachedtothemcometogetherintherelations

betweenartefacts(bittermelons,fish),places(marketgardens,fruitandvegetable

shops,freezers,theGangaandBrahmaputradeltas)andpeople(buyers,sellers,

cooksorproducers).Itisthroughthelocatednessoftheseintersectionsthatwecan

understandtheshiftingmomentsandassemblagesofthecity.(Pennycook,2017,p.

275)

Inadifferentsociolinguisticcontext,thistimeamultilingualclassroomsituation,an

assemblageincludes“pens,paper,people,thephysicalsetupofclassrooms,discourses

aboutteachingandlearning,schooldistrictpolicies,thecurriculumandsoon”(Toohey&

Dagenais,2015,p.305).Theresearchersrecognisethecomplexityoftheseassemblagesas

theyworktogetherinproducing‘reality’(p305).

ThesenotionsofassemblagesincorporateanSTSperspective,inrefusingtoseparate

‘language’asanontologicalentity–“asiflanguagespreexisttheirinstantiationinparticular

places,havingbeencarriedaroundbypeopleasmobilelanguagecontainers”(Pennycook,

2018,p.129).Thisexplicitassumptionaboutwhatlanguageis(andisnot)enablesan

approachtolanguageworkthatcorrespondstosomeextenttotheunderstandingsofthe

IndigenouspeoplewithwhomIworked.

64

PennycookchallengesthehegemonicknowledgestructuresoftheWesternacademy,

which“opensupappliedlinguisticstoanethicalengagementwithalternativewaysof

thinkingaboutlanguageandcontextfromtheGlobalSouth,sothatrenewalofapplied

linguisticscomesnotviaotherdisciplinesbutratherthroughalternativeformsof

knowledge”(Pennycook,2018,p.130).Inmyownresearch,Iattempttodrawonmyown

understandingofIndigenousperspectivesoflanguageanditsentanglementwith

technology,allowingamultiplicityofviewpointsinthediscussion.

Thedigitallanguageinfrastructureprojectsdescribedinthisthesis,aswellasthose

describedinPaper1forworkinotherIndigenousAustraliancontexts,canbeconsidered

assemblages,astheybringtogethervariouscomponents(books,texts,recordings,videos,

images,webpages,etc)intoanidentifiableobjectthatexistsforacertaintime.Whilenotas

momentaryasPennycook’sunderstandingofsemioticassemblagescomingtogetherin

termsofashopinteraction(Pennycook&Otsuji,2017),theassemblagesexploredhereare

themselvestemporary,thoughsolidifiedthroughvariouspracticesforvariouspurposes,

andcontingentonvariousexternalfactors(funding,technologies,humancapacitiesand

skills,etc).

1.2 Heterogeneities

Thenotionof‘heterogeneousengineering’comesfromLaw(1987),whoaskshow

objects,artefacts,andtechnicalpracticesbecomestabilisedandtaketheshapeorformthat

theydo(p.105).Hefocuseson“theheterogeneityoftheelementsinvolvedintechnological

problemsolving,thecomplexityandcontingencyofthewaysinwhichtheseelements

interrelate,andthewayinwhichsolutionsareforgedinsituationsofconflict”(p.105).The

65

activityofarranging“arangeofdisparateelementsofvaryingdegreesofmalleability”is

labelledheterogeneousengineering,producinganetworkofjuxtaposedcomponents

(p.107).

Myownworkinvolvesengagementwitharangeofphysicalobjects(books,

computers,permissionforms),digitalobjects(PDFs,textfiles,metadata,videos,email

messages),digitaltools(softwareforimageprocessingandopticalcharacterrecognition,

onlinetemplates,learningmanagementsystems),conceptualobjects(curricula,copyright

rules,assessmenttasks,‘bestpractice’),institutions(universities,fundingbodies,language

centres,schools),places(remotecommunities,universityoffices,sitesofhistorical

significance),andofcoursepeople(authors,illustrators,rightsholders,librarians,technical

supportteams,webdevelopers,languageauthorities,researchsupportstaff,project

leaders,linguists,teachers,languagelearners).Thegatheringofthesevariousitemsis

outlinedinPaper2fortheLivingArchiveprojectandinPaper5fortheBininjKunwok

onlinecourse.Positioningalloftheseundertheumbrellaterm‘heterogeneities’allowsfora

degreeofequivalence,wherenoneareconsideredmoreimportantthananyother,andall

arechangedintheprocessofbeingentangledtogether.Asanexample,thebooksproduced

inbilingualprogramsareallpresentedasartefactsintheLivingArchiveasiftheywere

equalintheirhistoricalcontext,wheninfactsomemayhavebeeneducationallymore

usefulthanothers,somemayhavebeenhardlyused,someusedalot,somemaybe

‘incorrect’insomeway,somemayhavecausedcontroversy,etc.Inthearchive,these

historiesareneutralised.

Asaprojectmanager,Ibecomeaheterogeneousengineer,bringingtogetherthese

heterogeneitiesandtransformingthemintonewentities,nowknownasthe‘LivingArchive

66

ofAboriginalLanguages,’the‘DigitalLanguageShell’and‘BininjKunwokonlinecourse.’

Theseassemblagesrequireconsiderablemaintenancetokeeptheheterogeneouselements

workingtogether.Inthistypeofwork“participantsareengaged,alignedandassembled,

andprojectgoalsareachievedwhentheassemblageofheterogeneouselementshasbeen

enrolledandmobilised”(Hannon,2009,p.17).Thisprocessprovokesacarefulanalysisof

howassemblagescometogetherandcohere(ornot)andtheworktheysupportorhinder.

Framingmyresearchasworkingwithheterogeneitiestoproduceassemblagesallows

metoseehowthetechnicalarrangementsofdisparateelementswereimpermanent,

unstableandcontingent.Italsorevealssomeoftheinvisiblework(Star&Strauss,1999)

involvedinassemblingandmaintainingtheseheterogeneousentitiesintoanidentifiable

andsomewhatstableunit.

1.3 Sociotechnology

Italsobecameusefulformetothinkoftheseassemblagesasbeingsociotechnical.

Thisconceptreferstotheinseparabilityofthesocialandthetechnical–theseassemblages

arealwayssocialandalwaystechnical(Bijker,1997;Bijker&Law,1992;Jasanoff&Kim,

2015;Law&Callon,1989).“Itismistakentothinkoftechnologyandsocietyasseparate

spheresinfluencingeachother:technologyandsocietyaremutuallyconstitutive”

(MacKenzie&Wajcman,1999,p.41).Theassemblagesdescribedhereareresponsesto

particularsociotechnicalscenarios,definedas“asolutiontoaninterconnectedsetof

political,bureaucratic,andstrategicproblems”(Law&Callon1988,p.287).Accordingto

Law,“thinkingsociotechnicallyinvolvesaconcernwithheterogeneity,aconcernfor

overlaps,withhowitisthatdifferentelementsarebroughttogether,andwithhow

67

differencesandsimilaritiesareconstructedandsustained”(Law,1990,p.18).These

differencesandsimilaritiesconnecttoequivalences,whereallneedtobeanalysedinthe

sameway(Callon,1984).

AsociotechnicalassemblageisexemplifiedintheworkofaYolŋuelder,Mäŋay

Guyula,performing‘place’,asdescribedbyVerranandChristie(2007).Intravelling

throughhisancestrallandsaroundtheArafuraSwampinEastArnhemLand,“Mäŋayspoke

ofitshistory,theancestraljourneysitfeaturesin,itslocationinthecomplexpatternsof

Yolŋulandownership,andthevariedresponsibilitiesforandinterestsinthatplace

investedindifferentgroupsofYolŋupeople.Mäŋayexhortedandinstructed,demonstrated

andexplained”(p216)inhisḺiya-Dhälinymirrlanguage.Thisprocesswascapturedon

digitalvideobyanon-Indigenousappliedlinguistcolleagueandeditedintosequences.

LateraninterpretationspokeninEnglishwasrecordedbyMäŋay’sbrotherYiŋiya.

TogetherthetwofilesofvideofootagewereeditedintoaDVD,whichcouldbeplayedin

eitherlanguage.Thepurposeoftherecordingwastwo-fold:“toinduct[Mäŋay’s]young

YolŋukinintoknowingandlovingtheseplacesasYolŋuplaces;heexhortsthemto

contributetotheongoingcollectivelifeoftheseplaces”(p221);andsecondlytoensurethat

non-Aboriginalpeoplewhowereplanningtheinstallationofapipelineinthearea“knew

thatthelandhasastory,andthattheplaceshavepeoplekeepingthestoryalive.Itisthe

Aboriginalpeoplewhoneedtotellthatstoryandhaveanactive,authoritativerolein

negotiationsoveraccesstothoselandsandtoresources”(p217).

TheproductofthiscomplexworkbyMäŋayandhisbrotherandothers,alongwith

thepaperofVerranandChristieanalysingthiswork,canbeseenascomprisingan

assemblageofsociotechnicalanalysis.InthatDVD,thesocial(thevariousarrangementsof

68

peopleandclansandplacesandhistories)cannotbeseparatedfromthetechnical(the

videorecordingandEnglishinterpretationandtheauthoringsoftwareusedtoproducethe

result).Theanalysis(inthepaperbyVerranandChristie)formspartofthesociotechnical

assemblagealso.Inasimilarway,thisthesisenactsasociotechnicalassemblageinvolving

thecreationandanalysisofparticularresources.

Theriskof‘engineering’Indigenousknowledgepracticesintoartefactsand

assemblagesisthattheprocesscanuncriticallytakeanacademicortechnicalapproach,

whichignoresormarginalisesthecommitmentsofIndigenouslanguageowners.Itis

throughtheembodiedparticipationofactive‘engineers’thatrisksanddangersfor

Indigenouspeopleandcountryandknowledgepracticesarereduced.Inmyroleasa

heterogeneousengineerfortheselanguageinfrastructureprojects,Ihavearesponsibility

tosupportandenablebothsetsofpractices,tocarefullyandresponsiblyre-presentthe

heterogeneitiesintheseemergentassemblages.Asaresult,myrolebringsahuman

element–anextralinkinthechain–thatdistinguishesitfromtheprocessesofanassembly

lineoranalgorithm.

1.4 Entanglement

Theconceptofentanglementscomesfromquantumphysics,andhasbeendrawninto

usewithinSTSlargelythroughtheworkofKarenBarad,whostatesthat“tobeentangledis

notsimplytobeintertwinedwithanother,asinthejoiningofseparateentities,buttolack

anindependent,self-containedexistence”(Barad,2007,p.ix).Thetermisalsousedin

anthropology,andallowsinvestigationofhowdifferententitiesmayormaynotbeseparate

orseparablefromeachother.

69

Whatholdstogethermuchoftheresearchemploying‘entanglement’isanintuition

thatsomesetofthings,commonlyheldtobeseparatefromoneanother(indeed,that

definethemselvespreciselywithreferencetotheirseparability)–scienceandjustice,

humansandnon-humans,settlersandnatives–notonlymighthavesomethingin

common,butalso,infact,maybequiteinseparablefromoneanother.(Fitzgerald&

Callard,2016,p.39)

Thusinmyworkitwasneverstraightforwardtoseparatethepracticesortheobjects

of‘language’and‘technology’.Astheterm‘sociotechnology’highlightstheinseparabilityof

thesocialandthetechnical,thenotionof‘entanglement’showshowlanguagepracticesand

digitaltechnologiescometogetherandareeachreshapedbytheentanglement.Theideaof

‘assemblages’suggestssomekindoforderandpurpose,where‘entanglements’highlights

themessinessofsuchcollectionsofheterogeneouselements.Itisimportanttopointout

thatentanglementdoesnotmeanthatthingsareillogical,orthrowntogether,ortoimplya

senseofchaos.Attendingtotheircontingent,impermanent,partialandflexiblenaturecan

potentiallygeneratenewconceptsandactivities.

1.5 Working with sociotechnical assemblages

Thereisneedforassemblagesthatmediateandproduceentitiesthatcannotbe

refractedintowords.Thereisneedforprocedureswhichre-entanglethesocialand

thetechnical.(Law,2004,p.121)

Thisresearchdescribesthecarefulworkofgatheringavarietyofheterogeneitiesinto

sociotechnicalassemblages–takingvariouscomponentsandcombiningtheminnewforms

fornewpurposes,tocreate“newmeaningsandnewentities,tomakenewworlds”

(MacKenzie&Wajcman,1999,p.7).Myroleasheterogeneousengineeristobringthem

togetherinsuchawaythathonoursboththeIndigenousandnon-Indigenousknowledge

70

practicestheyaredesignedtoserve.Thecreationoftheseassemblagesisitselfa

sociotechnicalprocessinvolvingvariousplayersandcomponents,andtheproductsare

designedtoservebothsocialandtechnicalfunctions.

Theseassemblagescometogetherasaresultofparticularsociotechnicalimperatives

–topreserveavulnerablecollectionofIndigenouslanguagematerials,tosupport

Indigenousauthoritiestosharetheirknowledgeandmaterialsonline,andtoallow

universitystudentstolearnanIndigenouslanguageonlineunderIndigenousauthority.But

theyarenotpermanent–tofixthemtoocarefully,or‘futureproof’themwouldbothlimit

theircapacitytosupportnewknowledgeproductionactivitiesandsubvertIndigenous

perspectivesofknowledgebeingperformativeandlinkedtoparticularpeopleandplaces.

Sinceknowledgeisneverfixedbutalwaysproducedandreproduced,itisimportantto

buildsuchtoolswelltosupporttheseknowledgepractices.Itisalsoimportantto

rememberthatassemblages,entanglements,heterogeneitiesandlanguageresourcesareall

practices,activitiesthatgatherthingsincertainways,andsoshouldnotbeseenasfixed.

InthenextsectionIdrawontheseconceptsinmydescriptionofthethreeprojectsin

focusinmyresearch,asIpositionthem(partially)inthevariousacademiccontextsin

whichtheyfunction,leadingtothefollowingpublishedpapersinwhichtheprojectsare

exploredindifferentways.

71

SECTION 2 Project descriptions

2.1 Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages

TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesisadigitalarchiveofendangered

literatureinIndigenouslanguagesoftheNorthernTerritory.Theprojectwasdevelopedin

responsetoaconcernforthefateofthousandsofprintedresourcesproducedfor

vernacularliteracyinbilingualprogramsatmorethan20remoteNTschoolssincethemid-

1970s.

AstheprojectmanageroftheLivingArchivesinceitsinceptionin2012,Ihavehad

first-handexperienceofthedevelopmentanddeliveryofthiscollection.Specificelements

oftheprojectareexploredingreaterdetailinPapers2(ondevelopmentoftheArchive),3

(onthelegalissuesinvolved),and4(onresponsesofusers).Previouspublicationsrelating

totheproject(relevanttobutpre-datingthisthesis),areoutlinedhereasappropriate.

2.1.1 Background

TheprojectwasfundedthroughafederalgovernmentAustralianResearchCouncil

(ARC)LinkageInfrastructure,EquipmentandFacilitiesgrantin2012.Initiallyfundedasa

partnershipbetweenCharlesDarwinUniversity,theAustralianNationalUniversityandthe

NorthernTerritoryDepartmentofEducation(LEI120100016),asecondsuccessfulfunding

applicationin2014extendedthepartnershiptoincludeBatchelorInstituteofIndigenous

TertiaryEducation,NorthernTerritoryLibraryandtheCatholicEducationOfficeoftheNT

(LEI140100063).

Since2012,theLivingArchiveprojecthascollectedanddigitisedaround5000items

inIndigenouslanguagesoftheNT.Ithasestablishedaninfrastructurewhichhousesthe

72

digitalobjectsinPDFformatforpresentation,andTIFFformatforpreservation,plusplain

textfilesandcoverimages,alllinkedtotheavailablemetadata.Theseitemsareallhosted

intheinstitutionalrepositoryatCharlesDarwinUniversityLibrary,andover3500ofthese

arepubliclyavailableunderaCreativeCommonslicensethroughawebinterfaceat

http://laal.cdu.edu.au/.Thereisalsoanappforofflineaccesstothematerialsonmobile

devices,anaccompanyingwebsitewithotherfeaturesoftheproject(suchasnews,

researchpublications,suggestionsforuse),a‘bot’whichpostsoneitemperdaytoaTwitter

feed,plussocialmediaplatformsandablogsitetoreportupdatesandstoriesabouthow

theArchiveanditscontentsarebeingused.

Servingasbotharesearchinfrastructureandapubliclyaccessiblerepository,the

LivingArchiveprojectrevealsanumberoftensions.Principallyfundedtoserveacademic

interests(ratherthanapreservationarchive,orevenacommunityresource),therewere

fromthebeginningconstraintsuponhowtheresourcescouldbeconfiguredforboth

academicresearch,andeducationalandculturalpurposes(furtherdiscussedinPaper4).

ThesociotechnicalassemblagenowavailableastheLivingArchivedrewontheaffordances

ofdigitaltechnologiestocaptureandpresenttheseotherwiseinaccessiblematerials,while

respectingtheoriginalworkofliteratureproductioninthecommunitiesoforigininthe

daysofbilingualeducation.

Thename‘LivingArchive’predatedmyinvolvementintheproject,andisnotunique,

including(unrelated)projectsinIndigenousAustraliancontexts(theLivingArchiveof

AboriginalArtandtheLivingArchiveofAboriginalCollections–bothbasedatthe

UniversityofMelbourne).Therearealsovarioususesofthetermintheliteratureon

archiving(Ketelaar,2009;Linn,2014;McKemmish,Chandler,&Faulkhead,2019),anditis

73

usedasthetaglinefortheAustralianNationalFilmandSoundArchive.Inthecontextofthis

project,thenamewasgiventocommunicatethatthematerialsinthecollectionwerenot

simplyrenderedasmuseumartefacts,butretainedconnectiontothepeopleandplaces

fromwhichtheycame,andcouldcontinuetogeneratenewknowledgepracticeswithin

thosecommunitiesaswellasinwideracademicandeducationalspheres.

2.1.2 Contents

Figure5(Ch2.1):Screenshotofasinglerecordwithcoverandmetadata

ThecomponentsoftheLivingArchiveareentangledinvariousways,as

heterogeneitiesoftechnologies,institutions,artefacts,peopleandtheirpractices.The

physicalbooksaretransformedintodigitalartefactsthroughprocessesofscanning(using

photographicequipmenttocreateimagesofeachpage),editing(adjustingcolours,

trimmingpageedges,tidyingupunwantedmarksonpages),andopticalcharacter

74

recognition(toproduceplaintextfiles).ThecreationoftheArchiveinvolvedcareful

massagingofavailableinformationaboutthematerials–selectingandpopulatingmetadata

fieldstoprovidecataloguinginformationsuchasnamesofauthors,illustrators,translators,

editors,aswellastitles,datesandplacesofpublication(whereavailable),andidentifying

keywordstoassistwithdiscoverability(Bow,Christie,&Devlin,2015).

ThematerialsintheLivingArchivemostlyconsistofsmallbookletsof10-25pages,

rangingfromasinglewordwithalinedrawingperpagetolongnarrativeswithdetailed

artwork.MostofthesewereproducedinLiteratureProductionCentresinschoolswith

bilingualprograms,inresponsetothecallto“floodtheplacewithliterature”(O’Grady&

Hale,1974,p.3),toprovidereadingmaterialsforvernacularliteracy.Thiscallledto

productionofmanydifferentkindsofmaterials,“allaimedatgettingthechildren,and

hopefullytheadults,hookedonreadinginorderthattheywouldultimatelysucceed

academicallyintheclassroom”(Gale,1994,p.35).

ThehistoryofbilingualeducationintheNTissignificantforthecurrentresearch

becauseitunderpinsmuchoftherecenthistoryofnon-Indigenous/Indigenousinteractions

aroundlanguageandeducation,andisthesourceofmostofthematerialsintheLiving

Archivecollection.Thefraughthistoryoftheseprogramshasbeencarefullyoutlinedina

bookdescribingthepolicycontext,pedagogicalenvironmentandpersonalstories[Devlin,

DisbrayandDevlin,2017).Thedemiseofthesebilingualeducationprogramshasbeen

carefullydocumentedanddiscussed,particularlythelackofevidenceleadingtopolicy

decisions(Devlin,2011,2017;Simpsonetal.,2009;Wigglesworth&Lasagabaster,2011),

andtheimpactofitsdemiseintermsofeducationaloutcomeforIndigenousstudents

75

(Oldfield&LoBianco,2019)andhumanrightsforIndigenouspeople(Nicholls,2005;

Simpsonetal.,2009).

ThebodyoftextsthatnowmakeuptheLivingArchiveispartofthemateriallegacyof

theeraofbilingualeducation.Theseresourcescanbeseenasproductsofcollaborative

knowledgeworkthatenabledIndigenousandnon-Indigenouspedagogiestocometogether,

resultinginthepublicationofpedagogicalmaterials(Bow,Christie,&Devlin,2017;

Christie,1996)aspartofcurriculaforbilingualeducationprograms(Bunduck&Ward,

2017;Christie,2017;Disbray&Martin,2018;Murray,2017;Purdon&Palmer,2017;

Tamisari&Milmilany,2003;Yunupingu,1989).NotonlydoestheLivingArchiveserveasa

repositoryofmaterials,butalsoasareminderofthisimportanteducationalmovementin

Australia.Asbilingualeducationfadesfurtherfromtheenergyandmomentumithadatthe

time,theArchiveprovidesevidenceofwhatwashappeninginremotecommunitiesover

thatperiod,andthetypesoftextsandimagesproducedinthissignificantmomentin

AustralianIndigenouseducation.

WellbeforetheconceptionoftheLivingArchiveproject,Christieidentifiedthe

potentialvalueofthecollectionofmaterials,saying“inmyworkobservingthe

rehabilitationofAboriginalknowledgesinapostcolonialera,Ifindincreasinglythat

apparentlymarginal,apparentlypoorlyproduced,apparentlyirrelevantlittledocuments

willintimebecomecruciallandmarksintheretellingofAboriginalhistory”(Christie,1996,

p.169).TheLivingArchiveisasignificantstepinmakingthesematerialsavailableto

enablethemtodothiskindofwork.

76

ItisusefultorecognisethattheLivingArchiveisnot‘complete’inanysense.Besides

newmaterialsbeingaddedtothecollection,thereisroomfortweaksandchangesinthe

functionalityandpresentationoftheArchive.Someupdatesareroutine,butothersare

complicatedbypreviousdecisions.Forexample,whenweexploredaddinganapplication

programminginterface(API)toenableuserstointeractmoredirectlywiththecontents,

suchasthroughupdatingmetadataoruploadingpermissionforitems,wefoundthatsince

suchanoptionwasnotidentifiedintheinitialdesign,itwashighlyproblematictoaddlater.

Similarlytheadditionofacontentmanagementsystemtoenabletheteamtoprovide

dynamicupdatesforpromotionalanddocumentarypurposes,couldnotbeincorporated

withintheoriginalwebinterface.Theworkaroundwastocreateaseparatesiteusing

WordPresswhichwaslinkedtothewebinterface(availableat

https://livingarchive.cdu.edu.au/),thoughthiswashardlyaseamlessconnection.Whenthe

FirefoxbrowserchangeditssettingsregardingopeningPDFfilesinline,thatfeatureno

longerworkedwhenviewingLivingArchivebooksonFirefox,butforcedtheuserto

downloadtheitem.ThepossibilitiesformakingsuchchangesintheLivingArchivereflects

“arecognitionthatanarchiveisnotafinished,staticrepositoryfordata—instead,itisan

ever-unfinishedresearchproductthatinvolvestakinginnewinformation,digitizingold

materials,andnavigatingdevelopmentsindigitalinfrastructures,formats,andstandards”

(Henke&Berez-Kroeker,2016,p.426).

77

Figure6(Ch2.2):HomepageoftheprojectpagefortheLivingArchive

2.1.3 Previous projects

TheLivingArchivewaslargelydevelopedatCharlesDarwinUniversitywhichhasa

stronghistoryofcollaborativeknowledgeworkwithIndigenousAustralians,including

innovativeprojectsexploringhownewtechnologiescanbeputinserviceofIndigenous

knowledgepractices(summarisedinChristie&Verran,2013).Suchworkhasinvolvedboth

collaborativeresourcedevelopmentforteachinglanguagesandculture(Christie,1997,

2008b),andresearchintoAboriginalknowledgepracticesandtheirrelationtoacademic

knowledgework,andinparticulartotheemergingformsofdigitisationwhichmadethem

availabletovariousaudiences(Christie,2001,2003,2004,2005a,2005b,2008a;Christie&

Verran,2006,2013;Verran&Christie,2007,2014).

78

TheIndigenousKnowledgeandResourceManagementinNorthernAustraliaproject

(IKRMNA)(Christie,Verran,&Gaykamangu,2003)highlightedtheWesternbiasin

databases,wherepre-determiningtheuseofmetadatacategories“enforcesaparticulara

prioriontologyinhibitingandinfactprecludingthecreativeworkofmakingnewworlds,

newpossibilities,throughthecreative,connectiveworkoflanguage”(Christie,2005a,p.

65).Theprojectaimedtogive“adominantvoicetoIndigenousresearchersandconsultants

inthedevelopmentofprotocolsfordatabasestructures,protectionofintellectualproperty

rights,intergenerationaltransmissionandnegotiationofdisseminationofinformationto

resourcemanagementagenciesandacademicresearchers”(Verran,2007,p.102).Italso

calledforanewtypeofdatabase,whichreflectsIndigenousprioritiesandenablesnew

connectionsandopportunitiesforknowledge-making.

AprojectmorecloselyrelatedtotheLivingArchivewastheYolŋuLiteratureCD

project(Christie,1997),whichfocusedontextsfromthebilingualprogramsinYolŋu

communitiesofNortheastArnhemLand.WithagoalofensuringYolŋucontroloftheirown

stories,theprojectaddressedtheaffordancesoftechnologyanditspotentialforvarious

kindsofuseinthecommunity,aswellasissuesofownershipandintellectualproperty.This

projectwaslateradaptedintoanonlinedatabaseofYolŋustoriestosupporttheYolŋu

Studiescurriculum(Christie,2005b,2008b).

AssemblingusefulmaterialsforteachingandlearningYolŋulanguageseitheronCDor

onlineenabledfurtherinvestigationinto“howinformationarchitecturebothreflectsand

enactsapoliticsofknowledge”(Christie,2005b,p.55).ThisprojectandtheIKRMNAwork

ledtoarethinkingofontologies,makingthemmore‘fluid’(Duarte&Belarde-Lewis,2015;

Srinivasan&Huang,2005).Therethinkinginvolved“collapsingthestructuresofmetadata

79

andflatteningouttheircontent[to]enablethecreativeconnectingprocessesuponwhich

Aboriginalknowledge-makingdepends”(Christie,2005b,p.56).Tomakeresourcesmore

engagingandinteractiveforusers,bothYolŋuandnon-Indigenous,theprocessinvolved

carefulconsiderationofissuessuchasnamingpractices,whereindividualsmayuse

differentpersonalnames,changinginvariouscontexts(Christie,1993,1994b).Challenges

withorthographicstandardsaffectbothYolŋuintermsofliteracyandnon-Indigenous

usersintermsofpronunciation,andthesociotechnicalsolutioninvolvedenablingfuzzy

searchoptionsandlemmasearchcapabilities(Christie,2005b).

2.1.4 Creating the Living Archive

Manyoftheconsiderationsandnegotiationsinvolvedinthedevelopmentofthese

resourcesinfluencedthedevelopmentoftheLivingArchiveproject,whichfromtheoutset

wasdesignedtoenhanceratherthaninhibitIndigenousknowledgetraditions.Forexample,

useofahighlyvisualinterfacewithamapandthumbnailimagesofbookcoversdoesnot

requiretextliteracytonavigate.Forliterateusers,thesearchfunctiontranslatesbetween

specialcharactersandtheirplaintextequivalents,searchstringscallonbothtextdataand

metadata,breakingdowntheseparationbetweenthesetwo.

TheLivingArchiveprojectwasmoreambitiousthantheYolŋuLiteratureCDproject,

whichfocusedononeparticularregionoftheNTwherethereisacomplexnetworkof

closelyrelatedlanguages(Christie,1993).Thecreationofacollectionofmaterialsfromthe

wholeNTinacentralrepository,whiledonewiththesupportofcopyrightholdersand

communitymembers,issomewhatatoddswithIndigenouspractices,whereknowledgeis

locallyownedandsituated(Christie&Asmar,2012).Apreferablesolutionwouldinvolve

80

localcommunityarchivesunderlocalauthority,thoughthesecomewiththeirown

challengesandthreats(Ormond-Parker&Sloggett,2012).Thevulnerabilityofthe

materialsandthelackofasimplesolutionandfundingsourceforlocalarchivesgavethe

LivingArchiveprojectanopportunityforacoordinatedmeansofrescuingtheseextant

materials.

Fundedspecificallyasaresearchinfrastructureproject,theLivingArchivewas

designedwithafocusoncreatingastrongtechnologicaltool,thoughwithawarenessof

howIndigenoususersmightinteractwiththeinterface,andtheirperspectivesonthe

materialsandtheirintellectualproperty.Aquotefromoneofthefirstpaperswrittenbythe

projectteamabouttheArchivenotesthestrivingforabalancebetweendifferent

imperatives:

Wevisualiseourarchiveasemerginginanuncertainspaceinthemiddleofarangeof

polarities.Wearebalancing,forexample,perspectivessuchastheimaginedinsider

(languagecommunitymember)andoutsider(interestedresearcherexternaltothe

community),theresponsibilitytocreateapublicarchiveandtheneedtomaintain

traditionalauthority,thepressureforinteroperabilityandtheneedforlocal

usefulness,thetechnicalexigenciesandourvisionofthepotentialusers,while

attemptingto‘future-proof’andtakeaccountofthecreativeusesofhighlyprovisional

andcontingentresourcestypicalofAboriginalknowledgeworkinsitu.(Christie,

Devlin,&Bow,2014,p.57)

InthedesignoftheArchivetheIndigenous‘voice’waspresentintheimagined

audiencewhowereuppermostinourmindsasweaimedtodeveloptheassemblageto

meettheneedsoftheIndigenouslanguageownerswehopedtheprojectwouldserve,as

wellastheacademicaudienceswewerefundedtoserve.Awareofthedangersof

technologiesindisruptingIndigenousknowledgepractices(Christie,2001,2005b),we

81

aimedtoforegroundtheanticipatedneedsandusesofIndigenoususers,withoutsimply

allowingtheaffordancesoftechnologytotakeoverandcreatesomethingtechnically

elegantandinnovativebutwhichdidnotappropriatelyserveitsaudience.These

imperativesneededtobebalancedwiththeunderstandingthattheresultingassemblage

wouldnotstore‘knowledge’butshouldenableIndigenousknowledgepractitionersto

engageintheirownlanguageworkusingthematerialsstoredintheLivingArchive.

Asarepositoryofartefactsofpreviousknowledgework,allattachedtoparticular

moments,people,andplaces,theArchivewasdesignedtoenablebothIndigenousandnon-

Indigenousengagementandknowledgework.Indigenouslanguageownersaccessingthe

archivearelikelytobeseekingresourcestosupportanewknowledgeproductionor

agreementmakingactivity,orconnectionsofstorieswithplacesandpeople.Suchpractices

involveadifferentperspectiveonbooksandotherproductsofknowledgepractices

(Christie1994a;1995;2001).

ItseemsfromthewayAboriginalstudentsandteachersbothtreattheprintedtext,it

isnotreadasacontainerofhiddenmeaningstobedecoded,butmoreasamaterial

recordofanepisodeofcollectivemeaningmakinginwhichweallshared.The

knowledgeproducedinthatsettingwasinasenseonlytrueinthecontextofits

production.Therecordofthatactivityisnotarecordofobjectiveknowledge,butitis

aresourcefortheeverongoingbusinessofmakingknowledgeincontext.(Christie,

1996,p.168)

TheroleofsuchmaterialsforIndigenouspeopleissignificantinanumberofways:

IndigenousinterestinthedigitisationofIndigenousmaterialsisnotjustbasedona

nostalgicyearningforthepast,norisitbasedonargumentsaboutnational

significance.Digitisationisapracticalmeansforreconnectionwithknowledgeand

82

informationproducedaboutIndigenousgroups,collectedfromthemandnow

dispersedthroughculturalcollectionsacrossthecountry.Thisisknowledgeand

informationIndigenouspeoplewanttoaccessforfutureutility,forcreative

endeavoursand,importantly,foremotionalandspiritualrestorationofapeople.

(Nakataetal.,2008,pp.233–234)

TheexistenceofcollectionssuchastheLivingArchivemakesuchmaterialsavailable

todothekindofworkthatbothChristieandNakatadescribehere,howeversuchcollection

mustbedonecarefully,avoidingthe“widespreadsuspicionthatdigitaltechnologiescan

onlyworkbytreatingIndigenousknowledgeasacommodity”(Verran,Christie,Anbins-

King,vanWeeren,&Yunupingu,2007,p.130).TheLivingArchiveaimedtocreate‘common

ground’betweenIndigenousandnon-Indigenousperspectives(Christie,Devlin,&Bow,

2015;Devlin,Bow,Purdon,&Klesch,2015)toproduceeducationalandlinguisticresources

tosupportlanguageworkacrossdifferentknowledgetraditions.

TheLivingArchiveplacesmaterialscreatedforspecificpedagogicalandidentity

purposesintoanewdigitalcontextforadiverserangeofusersfromacademicstoremote

communitymemberstothegeneralpublic(Bowetal.,2017),andwascarefullydesignedto

supportnewknowledgepracticesforcommunityandacademicpurposes.Theinterfaceis

designedtomeettheneedsofthesedifferentusersbynotrequiringhightextortechnical

literacy,butstillprovidingfullsearchandbrowsefunctionalityforthosefamiliarwith

cataloguesearching.

Oneoftheaffordancesofthedigitisedresourcesisthepossibilityofrepurposing

materialscreatedforspecificpedagogicalcontextsfornewpedagogicalsituations,for

exampleintheAustralianCurriculum.Anearlypaperbytheprojectteamexploredthis

potentialforuseinthecurriculum(Devlin,Christie,Bow,Joy,&Green,2014),

83

demonstratingexamplesofusageintheclassroomandinthewidercommunity,and

proposingwaysinwhichactiveengagementwithmaterialsinthearchivecouldmutually

enhancetheclassroomexperienceandthearchivalmaterialsthemselves.Thisthemewas

extendedlater(Bow,2016),whereIexploredeachofthelearningareasintheAustralian

CurriculumandidentifiedmaterialsintheLivingArchivewhichcouldbeusedinvarious

waysinclassroomsituationstomeettherequirementtoincorporateAboriginalandTorres

StraitIslanderhistoriesandculturesasapriorityacrosstheentirecurriculum.

TheLivingArchiveprojectenabledarangeofdifferenttypesoflanguagework–in

providingaccesstothousandsoftextsinIndigenouslanguagesoftheNTitcontributesto

theworkoflanguagedocumentation.TheLivingArchivecollectionofvernacularliteracy

workinAustralianIndigenouslanguagesprovidesevidencetodispelthemyththatthese

languagesare“notwritten”,eveniftheusesofvernacularliteracyhasnothadtheexpected

impactoutsidetheeducationalcontext.Therearesomeinterestingexamplesofliteracyuse

outsidetheschoolcontext(Christie,1994a;Gale,1992,1994,1995;Goddard,1990,1994;

Kral&Ellis,2008;Kral&Falk,2004).

ThedifferentusesoftheArchivecanextendbeyondwhatthedesignersenvisaged.

Wherearchivesarecreatedforspecificpurposes,itisimpossibletoforeseethepossible

usestowhichthecontentsmaybeput,whichmayhaveimplicationsforpermissionsand

consentatthepointofcollection(Thieberger&Musgrave,2007).Thereareexamplesinthe

literatureofunexpectedusesoflanguagearchivesforethnobotanyorastronomical

information(Holton,2012),andothersdescriberevivingtraditionalculturalpractices

(Holton,2017).Thieberger(2012)proposesthatarchivesshouldbebuilttoenablesuch

discoveries.AcaseofanunexpecteduseoftheLivingArchivecamefromateacher

84

recountinghowIndigenousstudentsfromremoteNTcommunitieslivinginaboarding

schooloutsideMelbournewouldoftenlookatthematerialsintheArchivenotfor

pedagogicalpurposesbuttoseefamiliarpeopleandplaces.Aremedyforhomesicknesswas

notoneoftheexpectedoutcomesoftheproject,butalsopointstotheworkofdigitised

languagematerialsfortheworkofidentitypractices.1

TheLivingArchivecanbeseenfromanumberofdifferentperspectives(asexplored

inChristieetal.,2014).Thearchivistviewfocusesontheprocessofcollecting,digitising

andpreservingmaterialsandthedecisionsinvolvedincreatingtheinfrastructure.The

Science&TechnologyStudiesperspectivefocuseson“itscontingency,itsuncertain

emergencefromanongoing,oftenfraughtfluxofideas,technicalpossibilitiesand

constraints,interestsandagendas”(p.52).Theview“fromCountry”focusesonhow

Indigenoususersmightviewthere-presentationoftheirmaterialsinthisnewcontext,

askinghowtoavoidtheArchive“becomingamausoleum,ofinterestonlyto

anthropologistsandlinguistsandothersofaWesternknowledgetradition?Howdowe

achievethegoalofdevelopinganarchivewhichisaliveinwaysthatothersmaynotbe?”

(Christieetal.,2014,p.56).

Thedigitisationandonlinepresentationoftextsismorethanamerereplicationof

physicalobjectsinadigitalenvironment.Itispartofalargerprocessinvolving

transformingoralstoriesintowrittentextsandlaterdigitalartefacts,aproductofcomplex

negotiationbetweenIndigenousauthoritiesandnon-Indigenouspedagogies,combining

traditionalknowledgeandmoderntechnologies(Bow,Christie,andDevlin2017).Theshift

1 This story was reported in a blogpost on the Living Archive project site https://livingarchive.cdu.edu.au/worawa/

85

frompaperpublicationsforasmalllocalaudiencetoaglobalaudienceintheonline

environmentrepresentsfarmorethanasimplechangeofdeliverymode.Digitalarchives

arenotsimplyanextensionofexistingwaysdatacanbecollectedandstored,butthey

qualitativelychangethewaysinwhichknowledgeisgeneratedandshared(Widlok,2013).

Oneconcernaboutdigitalarchivingoflanguageorculturalmaterialsisthatitcanbe

basedonacompletelywesternviewofreality,whichisthencodedintothesoftware

(Christie,2005b).ResistingthispushrequiresanunderstandingofIndigenous

epistemologiesandfindingwaystoencodethem,forexamplebymobilisingtheconnection

betweenpeopleandplaceinthecodingoftheArchive.Muchoftheworkofthisthesis

involvesawarenessthatthetechnological‘solutions’maynotallowforalternative

perspectives,andfindingwaystoobserveandrespectbothknowledgesystems.

2.1.5 Access

Questionsofaccessarerelevanttoarchivesofalltypes,anddigitaltechnologies

enableaccessoptionsunavailableforphysicalarchives.AsHoltonpointsout,“accessisnot

justaboutaccessibility;accessisaboutcontrol”(Holton,2017nop.n.).Fromawiderange

ofdifferentexamples,Berez-Kroeker&Henke(2018)makethepointthatthereisnosingle

uniformapproachtolanguagearchivingparticularlyintermsofaccess.TheyusetheLiving

Archiveprojectasaspecificexampleofhow“linguistswillalsokeepworkingonsituation-

specificsolutionstoproblemsinthefieldthatpresentchallengesforaone-size-fits-all

approachtoarchiving(e.g.,Bowetal.2015)”(Berez-Kroeker&Henke,2018,p.350).This

dangerofthinkingthereisasinglesolutionthatwillfitallprojectsisreferencedinthis

86

thesisinPaper1whichoutlinesdifferentdigitalsolutions,andinPaper3specificallyabout

theintellectualpropertyissuesintheLivingArchive.

Carefuleffortshavebeenmadetomanagethedualresponsibilitiesofprovidingaccess

andprotectingtherightsofindividualsandcommunitiesdocumentedincollections

(Thorpe&Joseph,2015),includingnegotiationsofthetensionsbetweenAustralian

copyrightandintellectualpropertylawsandIndigenouspracticesofknowledgeownership

(Devlin,Bow,Purdon,&Klesch,2015)(furtherexploredinPaper3).AprojectinCapeYork

grappledwiththistension,maintaininglocalcontroloverthematerialwithcareful

selectionofwhatcouldbemadeaccessibletooutsiders(Godbold,2009).

Fromitsorigins,theLivingArchivecollectionwasintendedtobepubliclyaccessible.

Sincethematerialsweremadeinschoolcontextsandcontainednosecretorsacred

content,theArchivewasdesignedtobe‘open’,notrequiringanyloginorpasswordthat

wouldrestrictaccess.HereisoneinstancewherethesociotechnicalnatureoftheArchiveis

evident,inbuildinginrestrictionstoaccessintheunderlyingcodewhichareresponsiveto

therequirementsandpreferencesoftheIndigenousownersofthematerials.However

therearechallengesindealingwithalargecollectionfromdiversecommunities,which

locallyruncommunityarchiveswouldbeinabetterpositiontomanage(Ormond-Parker&

Sloggett,2012).

2.1.6 Interoperability, discoverability and sustainability

Bestpracticeindigitalarchivingincorporatesthepursuitsofinteroperability,

discoverabilityandsustainability.Fromatechnicalstandpoint,discoverabilityand

interoperabilityismadepossiblethroughfollowingguidelinesoutlinedbygroupssuchas

87

theOpenLanguageArchivesCommunity(OLAC)(Bird&Simons,2003;Simons&Bird,

2003)forlanguagearchives,alongsideotherstandardsforarchiving(VandeSompel&

Lagoze,2002)anddigitallibraries(Shen,Gonçalves,&Fox,2013).However

interoperabilitycanbedifficulttoachieveinprojectswithlimitedtechnical,financialand

humanresources(Sloggett&Ormond-Parker,2013,p.234),andmayalsoconflictwith

Indigenousideologieswheresharingofdataneedstobecarefullynegotiatedratherthan

takenforgranted.

WhiletheNTwastheonlyjurisdictioninAustraliawithanofficialpolicyofbilingual

education,somecommunitiesinotherstatesransimilarprogramsonasmaller-scale,or

producedotherlanguagematerialsthatcouldbestoredinasimilarform.MakingtheLiving

Archive’scodebaseavailabletootherusersmeanstheplatformcouldpotentiallybe

replicatedorexpandedtoincorporateothercollections.

ArchivalpracticesarenotalwaysconducivetoIndigenouswaysofclassifyingand

representingtheworld.Forexample,namingconventionsoflanguages,people,andplaces

tendtobefixedininformationmanagementsystems,whereIndigenouspracticesmay

resistthese,withaflexibilityinpersonalnaming,requiringmeansoflinkingdifferent

namesthroughuniqueidentifiers.Thevariablequalityandquantityofthemetadata

includedinthematerial(title,authors,date,etc)createdatensionbetweenhowthe

materialswereoriginallydescribedintheLiteratureProductionCentresandhowthey

neededto‘fit’withstandardpractices.Differentunderstandingsof‘language’asnoted

earliermaybereflectedinthedifferentwaysofidentifyingandnaminglanguageswhichdo

notalwaysconformtotheclassificationsystemoutlinedintheISO639-3codingof

languagenames(Constable&Simons,2000;SILInternational,2015).Workaroundswere

88

foundtoattendtobothsetsofpracticesinmanyofthesesituations(Bowetal.,2015),each

ofwhicharecontingentandsubjecttochallenge.HarvestingofmetadatabyOLACandthe

NationalLibraryofAustralia’sTrovesupportsdiscoverabilityofthematerialsinthe

ArchivethroughGoogleandothersearchengines.

Itiswidelyacceptedintheliteraturethatsustainabilityisanimportantgoalinthe

archivingandpreservationofIndigenouslanguageandculturalmaterial,withthe

understandingthatcollectingthematerialisonlypartofthejob.Sustainabilityhasbeen

definedasthesumofthreefactors:“gooddatacollectionandmanagement,robust

preservationproperties,andtherelevanceofmaterials”(Nathan,2006,p.57).

Sustainabilityhasbeenthetopicofrecentconferences(Soria,Besacier,&Pretorius,2018),

reviewsofolderprojects(Strathman,2019),solutionsproposedinspecificprojects(Drude,

Broeder,&Trilsbeek,2014),andrecommendationsforbestpractice(Bird&Simons,2003;

Johnson,2004).

However,theseapproachesdonotalwaysrecognisedivergentperspectivesof

Indigenouspeople.Fixinganobjectintimeandspacecanactuallydisruptknowledge

practices,whereknowledgeisalwaysnegotiatedandproductive.Issuesof‘storage’and

‘sustainability’areinvestedinpeopleandthelandratherthanproductssuchasbooksand

digitalstoragedevices.TheclaimofYolnguelderYingiyaGuyulathatthelandishis

database(ascitedinChristie,2005a,p.64)wasnotarejectionoftheaffordancesofdigital

technology.Akeyquestiontoaskis“Howcanwekeeptherelational,performative,and

dynamiccharacterofindigenousknowledges‘alive’inthedesignofknowledge

managementsoftware?”(vanDerVelden,2010,pp.8–9).

89

OneofthechallengesintheLivingArchiveprojecthasbeentobalancethe‘fixed’

natureoftechnologythatholdsthingsinplacewiththeneedfor‘flexibility’inallowingnew

knowledgepractices.TheperformativenatureofIndigenousknowledgeresiststhedesign

imperativeoftechnologyto‘fix’thingsincertainconfigurations.“Thisstabilityand

reproducibility,sovaluedbymostusersofthetechnology,isbothdangerousandinvalidin

thecontextofYolŋuknowledgepractices,whereeachinstanceofwitnessisbydefinitiona

novelperformance”(Verran&Christie,2007).Attendingtosuchconcernshasledtoseveral

decisionsinthedevelopmentoftheLivingArchivetoavoidhinderingIndigenouslanguage

practices.

ThissectionhasoutlinedthehistoryoftheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages

anditsconnectiontopartsoftheacademicliterature,intermsofitsroleasadigitalarchive

ofartefactsofIndigenousknowledge-makingpracticesandthechallengesofobservingand

respectingthoseknowledgepracticeswhilecreatingarobustandusefuldigitalarchive

accordingtorecommendationsforaccess,interoperability,discoverabilityand

sustainability.

2.2 Digital Language Shell

Adifferentsociotechnicalscenario–theinterconnectedsetofpolitical,bureaucratic,

andstrategicproblems–promptedthedevelopmentofthesecondproject.Thelackofa

low-tech,low-cost,off-theshelfplatformmotivatedtheproductionofanonlinetemplatefor

sharingIndigenouslanguageandculturalknowledgetointerestedlearnersunder

Indigenousauthority.ThedevelopmentoftheDigitalLanguageShell,availableat

https://language-shell.cdu.edu.au/,anditsentanglementwiththeBininjKunwokonline

90

courseisdescribedinmoredetailinPapers5and6,eachwithitsownliteraturereview.A

separatereport(Bow,2017)detailsthedevelopmentoftheShell,includingdeliveryofthe

pilotprogramin2016.Thisreportwassubmittedtothefundingbodyandisavailable

online(seelinkinAppendix3),howeveritwasnotpeer-reviewed.

TheDigitalLanguageShellwasdevelopedtoenableAustraliantertiarystudentsto

accessIndigenouslanguageandcultureresourcesonlineunderIndigenousauthority.The

projectaimedtoaddressthedearthofIndigenouslanguagecoursesavailablethrough

Australianuniversities(Simpson,2014)(anddiscussedfurtherbelow)byprovidinga

sociotechnicalsolution.Itwasalsopromptedbyadesiretoactivatesomeoftheresources

intheLivingArchivewhichcouldberepurposedforlanguageteachingandlearning

contextsoutsidethecommunitiesoforigin.TheprojectwasfundedbythefederalOfficeof

LearningandTeaching(SD15-5124)asapilotprogram,withthepossibilityoffurther

fundingshouldthepilotbesuccessful,howeverthefundingbodywaslaterdissolved,so

additionaldevelopmentrequiredalternatesourcesoffunding.

ThesociotechnicalassemblageoftheDigitalLanguageShellinvolvedavarietyof

heterogeneouscomponents,toincorporatetheenvisagedneedsoflanguageowners,

learners,teachersanduniversityadministrators.Itincludedfindingwaystoincorporate

displayanddeliveryofvariousmultimediacomponents(video,audio,images,text),

arrangementofcontentintounitsandlessons,managementofusersthroughloginsand

userprofiles.Theselectionofaplatform(inthiscaseWordPress)thenrequiredidentifying

appropriatethemesandplug-instoenablethesekindsofsociotechnicalworkwithinthe

Shell.

91

ManyofthedecisionsinvolvedincreatingtheShellrequiredbalancingcompeting

imperatives,suchasthedesireforflexibilityofaccesstomaterialsandrespectingthe

intellectualpropertyofthematerialsandconcernaboutmisuse(similartotheLiving

Archiveproject).Therewasalsoaneedtogiveuserstheflexibilitytoeitherallowfreeand

openaccesstoallmaterialsortochargefortheprivilegeandmakemoneyoutofit(see

Christie,2010afordiscussionofappropriatepaymentforIndigenousknowledgework).

WordPressofferedthekindofflexibilitywesought,asitsrangeofoptionsallowed

customisationforvariouspurposes.Thedesignwasintendedtobeadaptabletosupporta

rangeofusergroupswithdifferentrequirements,neutralwithregardtothehistorical

conditionofthelanguage,sothatitcouldbeusedforlanguagesinvariousstagesof

revitalisationorthosestillusedineverydaycommunitylife.Sinceitsimplementation,other

groupshaveexpressedinterestinusingtheShellfortheirownpurposes,includingover

100participantsindemonstrationworkshopsatthe2019Puliimaconference.Alanguage

centreinnorthernNSWisalreadyusingtheShelltoteachGumbaynggirrlanguageonlineto

heritagelearners(MuurrbayAboriginalLanguageandCultureCo-operative,2019)

2.2.1 CALL

TheDigitalLanguageShellsitsinthehighlymulti-disciplinaryfieldofComputer

AssistedLanguageLearning(CALL)(Levy,1997;Stockwell,2012;Thomas,Reinders,&

Warschauer,2013;Warschauer&Healey,1998),whichinvolveslanguageteachers,

learners,linguists,technologists,interfacedesignersandpedagogicalspecialists.Thisfield

hasexpandedenormouslyinrecentdecades,withdedicatedjournalsandconferences,and

handbookssummarisingkeyconceptsanddirections(Chapelle&Sauro,2017;Farr&

Murray,2016).

92

ThereareanumberofbenefitstoCALLprograms,suchasimprovingstudent

multimedialearningexperience,enhancinglearnerautonomyandwideningparticipation

(Yang&Rau,2005).Theflexibilityavailabletobothteachersandlearnersislargelyvalued,

anditisseenasbothapedagogicalinnovationandpotentiallyawayofreducingoverheads

forcontentdelivery.CALLcanprovidemeansforlearnerstoengagewithlanguage

materialsthatwouldbeotherwiseinaccessible,whichtranscendgeographicdistance,

supportlearnerautonomyandenablealternativepedagogicalapproaches.

MuchoftheresearchinthisfieldfocusesonEnglishandothermajorityworld

languages,thoughthereisagrowingbodyofworkattendingto‘less-commonlytaught

languages’,alabeldevelopedintheUStoincludeanythingexceptEnglish,French,German

andSpanish.Theseotherlanguages(suchasArabic,Japanese,Hindi,Russian,etc.)haverich

bodiesofliteratureandstronginternetfootprints,andpossibilitiesforengagementwith

naturallanguageprocessing(McShane,2003;Robin,2013).

ThereismuchlesspublishedresearchfocusedonCALLsolutionstoteachingand

learningIndigenouslanguages,forwhichtherearesmallerusergroupsandlesslinguistic

dataandresourcesavailable.Muchofthisliteraturetendstoentanglethetwoissuesof

Indigenousandendangeredlanguages,sincethemajorityofIndigenouslanguagesglobally

arealsoendangered.TherearemanyopportunitiesinthisspaceforCALLapproaches,

includingincreasedpossibilitiesforlanguagedocumentation,asaforumforcultural

expression,asacatalystforliteracytraining,andtoarouseinterestinthelanguage(Ward,

2004).

93

AnumberofconcernsdocumentedintheliteratureonCALLareparticularlyrelevant

toendangeredorIndigenouslanguages.Theseincluderesourceissues,smallenrolments,

teachertraining,(Godwin-Jones,2013),teachingissues(Wang,2009),learnerprofiles(A.V.

Brown,2009;Lee,2005),languageideologies(King,2000),learnerautonomy(Kostina,

2012;Reinders&White,2011,2016),languageissues(Gor&Vatz,2009),technical

capacityandattitudestoonlinelearning(Winke,Goertler,&Amuzie,2010),dialectalissues,

lackofsocietalsupport,lackoflanguagedocumentation,andlackofnativespeakersor

activespeakercommunity,competentlinguistsandteachers(Ward,2015).Inthe

developmentoftheDigitalLanguageShell,theissuesthatweremostinfocuswerelackof

trainedteachers,lackofresourcesandlowenrolments–theseareexploredinPaper5.The

designoftheShellwaslessconcernedwiththeotherissues,thoughinthedesignofthe

curriculumthefocuswasonincorporatingIndigenouspedagogiesandcreatingconnections

withlearners.

TheDigitalLanguageShellprojectwasspecificallydesignedforIndigenouslanguage

work,inrelatingtothecarefulwaysinwhichcontentandpedagogymustbenegotiated.

Clearlythiscanalsosupporttheworkoflanguagedocumentationorrevitalisation,which

arewelcomeoutcomesofthepotentialworkoftheShell.ThefocusoftheDigitalLanguage

Shellprojectwastoprovidealow-costandlow-techmeansofenablingIndigenous

authoritiestosharetheirowncontentundertheirownauthority,withthetechnologybeing

‘innocent’(Christie,2005b)withregardtolanguagestatus.

94

2.2.2 Creating the Digital Language Shell

ThenegotiationsaroundthedevelopmentoftheDigitalLanguageShellentailed

engagementwithwhatWardreferstoas

amuchbiggertapestrythatincludestechnological,sociological,anthropological,

political,ethnographical,andotherperspectives.Environmentalandhistorical

contextsarekeycomponentsoflearner,teacher,andCALLenvironments.Itis

importanttoconsiderthecomplexecological,sociocultural,andinstitutional

relationshipsbetweentheseenvironments(Ward,2018,p.125).

InthecaseoftheDigitalLanguageShell,theenvironmentalandhistoricalcontextsrelateto

thestatusofIndigenouslanguagesinAustralia,particularlyontheirlackofvisibilityin

academiccontexts,wheretheyareoftentreatedasobjectsofstudyratherthan

opportunitiesforlanguagelearning.

WhileCALLoffersmanyaffordancesforendangeredandIndigenouslanguages,they

arenotasolutionforeverychallenge.Holtonpointsoutthat“whileCALLcanbeaneffective

tool,language-maintenanceprojectsshouldbecautionedtocarefullyevaluatetheirgoals

beforepursuingaCALLproject”(Holton,2011,p.383).Similarly,Hugo(2014)suggests

askingimportantquestionsaboutlanguagetechnologyprojectsforendangeredlanguages,

recognisingthatthegoals,content,pedagogicalapproachandexpectationsmaybedifferent

thanforotherlanguages.WardevensuggeststhatthesocialimpactofCALLinthecontext

ofendangeredlanguagesmaybeconsideredmoreimportantthantheactuallanguage

learninggains(Ward,2004).ThisdemandscarefulconsiderationinthedesignofCALL

toolsforthesecontexts.Paper1identifiesarangeoftechnologicaltoolsandprojectswhich

95

performdifferenttypesoflanguageworkintheAustraliancontext,wheretheworkof

languagegoesfarbeyondcommunication.

AnotherchallengeisthatongoingmaintenanceanddevelopmentofCALLproducts

tendstorequireadditionalfunding,andarangeofskillsets,whichmaybebeyondsmall-

scalefundedprojects.SinceCALLissuchamultidisciplinaryfield,itcanbedifficulttokeep

abreastofchangesacrossthedomainsofpedagogyandtechnology(Ward,2002,p.293).

CALLforminoritylanguagecontextscandrawonlessonsandtoolsestablishedinlarger

languageprojects,toavoidduplicationandrepeatingerrors,andwiththepossibilityof

sharingknowledgeandreusingresources(Soria,Mariani,&Zoli,2013;Ward,2015,2016).

HowevertoolsandresourcesforCALLonmajoritylanguages“arenotalwayseasily

transferabletoendangered,Indigenous,andsmaller(intermsofspeakingpopulation)

languagecommunities,contexts,andspaces”(Galla,2018,p.392).

Giventhenumberoflimitationsinvolved,apragmaticapproachisrequired.Rather

thansimplyusingexistingCALLplatformsbasedonproprietaryandcommercialsoftware,

whichmaybecostlyandinappropriate(Galla,2009;Holton,2011),amovetowards

bespokesolutionscreatedincollaborationwithIndigenouscommunitiesisbecoming

apparent(Alexander,2018;Cassels&Farr,2019;Westwood,2017).Ward(2004)argues

thatlimitedresourceswouldbebetterspentoncommunityactivitiesandlanguage

revitalisationthanonstate-of-the-arttechnologies.Inasimilarvein,Hugostates:

Ratherthanseekingto‘reinventthewheel’foreachendangeredlanguage,itmaybe

worthlookingaroundtoseewhetherapplicationsthathavealreadybeencreatedcan

alsoaidthedocumentation,developmentanddistributionoflearningmaterialsfor

endangeredlanguageefforts.Giventhatmostendangeredlanguagesareatriskof

96

disappearinginthenottoodistantfuture,revitalizersshouldneverlosesightofthe

factthatthesetasksmayoftenbemorevital,andurgent,thandevelopinga(nother)

tailor-madeandhigh-speccomputerprogramme.(Hugo,2014,p.110)

InthecaseoftheDigitalLanguageShell,withthelimitedamountoffundingand

technicalexpertiseavailable,itwasnotpossibletocreateabespokeplatformfromscratch.

Thechallengebecametocreatealow-costandlow-techproductthatcouldbeusedbyother

groupsworkingincontextsconstrainedbybudgetandtechnicalexpertise.Our

requirementsresembledthosedescribedas“lean,low-costandreusablesolutionsthatdo

notinvolvereinventingtheCALLwheel,theproductionofCALLcoursewareinmultiple

modalitiesfromasinglesourceandcompatibilitywithlanguagedocumentationefforts”

(Ward&vanGenabith,2003,p.234).Furthermore,thoseauthorsdescribean‘ideal’CALL

solutionforendangeredlanguages:

Ideally,anEL[endangeredlanguage]CALLsolutionprovidesbothasoftware

templateandacurriculumtemplate(inadditiontotheactualcourseware)thatcanbe

maintained,reused,populatedandextendedbydifferentELCALLcourseware

developergroups.ThesegroupscanincludemembersofthelocalELcommunityas

wellaslocalandexternalacademics,educationalistsandlinguists.Tominimise

developmentcost,suchatemplateshouldbedesignedtobeportabletootherELs.At

thesametimeitshouldbefreeofchargeandleanasregardssoftwareandhardware

requirements–thiscanruleout“bleedingedge”technologyandsomeexisting,

commerciallyavailableauthoringsystems.(Ward&vanGenabith,2003,p.234)

AsolutionproposedbyHugo(2014)usesanexistinglearningmanagementsystem

(Moodle)forcreatingcoursesinIndigenouslanguage,drawingonexistingtechnologies

“thatcanmakeitpossibletohaveasingle,centralizedsystemforendangeredlanguages

thatcanhandlecontentarchiving,materialdevelopment,collaboration,distributionand

97

evensomebasicdocumentation”(p.106).Thissolutionisclosesttothedevelopmentofthe

DigitalLanguageShell,forwhichWordPressprovidedthemostflexibility.Choicesaboutthe

rangeofplug-insselectedtofurnishthetemplatewereintendedasaguideonly,withmany

otherpossiblesolutionsavailable.

InthecaseoftheDigitalLanguageShell,thesoftwaretemplatewasthefocus,withthe

understandingthatthecurriculumtemplatemustbeco-designedwithIndigenouslanguage

owners.TheonlinetemplateneededtobeflexibleenoughtoenableIndigenouspedagogies

tobeincorporated,ratherthanbeingshoehornedintoawesternparadigmforlanguage

teaching,andtomanagearangeofdifferentoptions,toallowuserstocustomisetheir

coursewareandcurriculumtoalignwiththeirownneedsandpedagogies.

Figure7(Ch2.3):ScreenshotofbackendofDigitalLanguageShell(onWordPress)

Otherexamplesintheliteratureshowinnovativeusesoftechnologyforlearning

minoritylanguages,forexampleusingvirtualcommunitiesforcommunity-basedlanguage

documentation(van’tHooft&González,2019),and‘sociallearning’usingsocialmediato

98

connectlearnerswithfluentornativespeakersonspecifictasks(Henry,Carroll,Cunliffe,&

Kop,2018).SuchactivitiescandrawontheinputofIndigenouslanguageauthorities,which

mayinvolvefurthertrainingwhichcouldbemutuallybeneficial(Bird,2018;Carew,Green,

Kral,Nordlinger,&Singer,2015;Galla,2018).

WithoutadditionalfundingtodeveloptheDigitalLanguageShellitself,itremains

experimentalandcontingent,limitedinmanywayswhencomparedtomorehighly

developedlearningmanagementsystems,yetretainingasimplicitythatmakesitattractive

tocommunitygroupswholackthebudgetandtechnicalexpertisetodeveloptheirownor

investinexistingcommercialoptions.

ThefollowingsectiondescribesthefirstinstantiationoftheDigitalLanguageShellas

itbecameengagedwithaspecificlanguagegroup.Theentanglementofthesetwo

assemblagesisthesubjectofPapers5and6.

2.3 Bininj Kunwok online course

Butmostimportantly,AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderlanguagesareAustralia’s

priceless,irreplaceablenationalheritage.Teachingtheselanguagesatuniversities

doeshelptoaffordstatusandvalueupontheselanguages.Studentsenrolinthe

knowledgethattheyareanimportantpartofeffortstomaintain,reviveandrevitalise

Australia’snationallinguistictreasures.(Amery,2020,p.407)

TheDigitalLanguageShellprojectwasfirstinstantiatedincollaborationwith

membersoftheBininjKunwokRegionalLanguageCentre.TheBininjKunwokonlinecourse

beganasafour-unit‘pilot’foraself-selectinggroupofkeenlearners.Feedbackfromthese

learnerswasincorporatedintothelaterexpansionofthecoursetoafullsemesterunit,at

theinvitationoftheAustralianNationalUniversity(ANU).Withthefurthercollaborationof

99

languageauthorities,additionalunitsandassessmenttaskswereaddedtothefourunitsof

thepilotprogram.In2019itwasdeliveredtostudentsattheANU,CDUandasmallgroup

ofnon-universitylearnersworkingoncountryorwithBininjpeople.Thecourseis

discussedfurtherinPapers5and6,eachofwhichhasitsownliteraturereview.Sectionsof

thecourseareavailablefromthewebsiteathttps://language-shell.cdu.edu.au/.

Thissectiondescribesthelanguagegroup,andplacesthecourseinthecontextof

universitylanguageteachinginAustralia,thendiscussessomeapproachestoteaching

Indigenouslanguages,andtheaudienceofnon-Indigenouslearners.

2.3.1 Kunwinjku/Bininj Kunwok

CharlesDarwinUniversity’sdevelopmentofthesuccessfulYolŋuStudiesprogramhad

ledtoopportunitiestoextendtherangeoflanguagesofferedforstudy.AnArrerntecourse

hadbeenestablishedinAliceSprings,andtheDigitalLanguageShellprojectofferedanew

possibilitytoengagewithpeoplefromanotherIndigenouslanguagegroup.Previous

connectionstopeoplewholaterformedtheBininjKunwokRegionalLanguageCentre

(outlinedinPaper6)createdanopportunitytonegotiateanewlanguageandculture

courseusingtheShell.

BininjKunwokisanameusedforachainofsixmutuallyintelligibledialectswhich

stretchfromKakaduNationalParkintheTopEndoftheNorthernTerritorysouthto

PineCreekandManyallaluk,acrosstheArnhemLandplateauandeasttotheMann,

LiverpoolandCadellRiversdistrictsandasfareastassomeoutstationssouthof

RaminginingincentralArnhemLand.BininjKunwokisperhapsbestknowninthe

anthropologicalliteraturebythenameofoneofitsdialects,namelyKunwinjku(spelt

‘Gunwinggu’beforethedevelopmentofastandardpracticalorthography).Theterms

usedbythespeakersofeachofthesixdialectsforthenameoftheirparticular

100

dialectalvarietiesare-Kunwinjku,Kuninjku,Kundjeyhmi,Kundedjnjenghmi,Kune

andMayali.(BininjKunwokProject,2017)

Figure 8 (Ch2.4): Map showing location of Kunwinjku language

(taken from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kunwinjku_map.png)

Thename‘BininjKunwok’issimilartotheterm‘YolŋuMatha’usedasacollective

nameforagroupofcloselyrelatedlanguagevarietiesthatsharemanyfeatures.Bininj

means‘people’andKunwokmeans‘language,’thusthetermmeans‘people’slanguage.’This

labelismostlyusedbynon-Bininjpeople,asBininjidentifyasbelongingtooneofthe

dialectalvarieties.

Therearearound2000speakersofBininjKunwokintheWestArnhemLandregion,

includingtheremotecommunitiesofGunbalanyaandManingridaandtheiroutstations,as

wellasinnearbytownssuchasKatherineandDarwin.Thelanguageisusedacrossall

101

generations,andistheprimarylanguageusedamongBininjfamilies.Thismakesitoneof

thefewAustralianlanguagesthatisstillconsidered‘strong’accordingtothesecond

NationalIndigenousLanguagesSurvey(NILS2)(Marmion,Obata,&Troy,2014).Yetthere

arestillconcernsforitslong-termviability,andontheExpandedGradedIntergenerational

DisruptionScale(EGIDS)itisrankedas6b‘threatened’(Eberhard,Simons,&Fennig,2019).

Thereareconcernsthatchildrenarenotusingthelanguageorlosingsomeofthe‘old’

language.LanguageshiftintheregiontendstowardsAboriginalEnglish,thoughmany

BininjcanalsocommunicateinthecontactlanguageofKriol,spokenwidelyintheNT.

AkeycomponentofthisprojectwastheinvolvementofagroupofBininjelderswho

constitutealanguagereferencegroupwithexperiencemediatingbetweentheirown

everydaylanguageworkandlanguageininstitutions(theRangermine,schools,artcentres,

etc.).ThisgroupofpeoplehasnowformedthenascentBininjKunwokRegionalLanguage

Centre,whichisbecomingalocusofcommunitylanguagework,overseeingthe

developmentofresources,providingtranslations,producingappsandbooks,etc.

BininjKunwokhaslongbeenatopicofinterestforlinguistresearchers,andisamong

themostwell-documentedAustralianlanguages.Thereisatwo-volumegrammar(Evans,

2003),anumberofsmallergrammaticaldescriptions(Carroll,1976;Harris,1969;Oates,

1964),andalearnersguide(Etherington&Etherington,1998),aswellasacademic

descriptionsofotheraspectsofthelanguageandculture.

Oneoftheimplicationsofthisworkoflanguagedocumentationistheavailabilityof

materialsaboutKunwinjkulanguageandculture.Thesematerialsstillneedtobeselectively

arrangedintoacurriculum,toaddresstheneedsofanabinitiolearner.Oneoftheideas

102

behindtheDigitalLanguageShellprojectwasasameansofactivatingsomeofthe

resourcesintheLivingArchivewhichcouldberepurposedfornewlanguageteachingand

learningcontexts.AsdescribedinPaper6,aseriesofKunwinjkuprimersweremobilisedin

theDigitalLanguageShellinvariousways,forreadingpractice,toexemplifypointsof

grammar,andtocreateassessmenttasks.Thisalignswithrecommendationstoadapt

existingmaterialsforCALLprograms,suchascreatingtalkingbooks(Holton,2011,p.383),

anapproachwhichhasalsobeenusedinManingridaforhome-basedvernacularliteracy

work(Auld,2007).

2.3.2 Teaching Bininj Kunwok

IdentifyingresourcesspecifictoBininjKunwokwaslessdifficultthanitwouldbefor

manyotherIndigenousAustralianlanguages,andsomeofthematerialscouldpotentiallybe

adaptedorusedasmodelsforresourcedevelopmentinotherlanguages.Itisimportantto

ensurethatmaterialsareculturallyappropriate,whichmeansthatitmaybenecessaryto

createnewmaterialsratherthanadaptresourcesfromotherlanguagesorcontexts,as

contentandimagesmaybetoogenericorinappropriateandnotsuitthelanguageoffocus

(Buszard-Welcher,2001;Galla,2009;Holton,2011).Referringtoendangeredlanguage

contextswhereabilitytoaccessspeakersmaybeconstrained,Wardrecommendsa

pragmaticapproach,sayingthat“PerhapstheCALLresourcesarenotthebestormost

beautifulandmaynotadheretothelatest‘correct’waytoteachalanguage,butitisbetter

thattheyexistthantowaituntilthe‘perfect’CALLresourceforthelanguagecanbe

developed”(Ward,2016,p.552).

103

Whilemostresearchersinthisspaceacknowledgetheimportanceofinvolving

membersofthelanguagecommunityinthedevelopmentofcoursematerials,thereisalack

ofattentiontotheparticipationoflanguageauthoritiesincoursedesign.Morethanhaving

culturallyappropriatematerials,theco-designofcoursesincorporatingIndigenous

pedagogiesiscrucialtoavoidfurthercolonisingpracticesofsharingIndigenouslanguages.

Asnotedabove,theDigitalLanguageShellwasdesignedtobeneutralwithregardto

languagestatus,andPapers5and6describehowtheShellwasmobilisedwithspecific

pedagogiesonceitwasusedtoserveaparticularlanguagegroup.

ThestatusofKunwinjkusitsinanunusualspace.Muchoftheliteraturethatfocuses

onteachingandlearningIndigenouslanguagesrelatestorevitalisationforlanguageswith

fewremainingspeakers,whichoftenrelyonlegacymaterialsofvaryingqualities

(Henderson,2008;Thieberger,2011).Also,thepresumedaudienceforsuchworkisthose

whohaveculturalorfamilialconnectiontotheselanguages,suchasheritagelearners.

ThereislittlepublishedresearchonoutsiderslearningIndigenouslanguageswhicharestill

spoken.Hinton’spaperonlanguagerevitalisationandpedagogiesdistinguishesbetween

teachingforeign,majority,heritageandendangeredlanguages,yettreatsendangered

languagesasasub-categoryofheritagelanguages,statingthat“inmostcases,the

endangeredlanguageistheancestrallanguageofthelearners”(Hinton,2011,p.310).

AlthoughBininjKunwokcanbeseenasendangered,itdoeshaveacommunityofspeakers

whouseitastheireverydaylanguageinalargerangeofdomains.Inthecasedescribedin

myownresearch,andwithothercoursesin‘strong’Australianlanguages,thelearnersare

‘newcomers’oroutsiderstothecommunity,seekingtolearnforotherpurposes.

104

TheKunwinjkulanguageitselfmakesforaninterestingobjectoflearningand

teaching.Asapolysyntheticlanguage,itdiffersgreatlyfromEnglishandmanylanguages

commonlytaughtinAustralianschools.Thereareanumberofdifficultiesinherentin

learninglanguagesverydifferentfromthelearner’sown,including“depletionofattentional

resourcesandoverloadonworkingmemory,whichultimatelydelaysautomatizationofL2

processing”(Gor&Vatz,2009,p.239).

Literatureonteachingpolysyntheticlanguagesisnowdrawingontheaffordancesof

languagetechnologytoolstofacilitatethiswork,whichfallunderthecategoryofICALL

(IntelligentCALL)(Bontogon,Arppe,Antonsen,Thunder,&Lachler,2018;Ward,2017).For

example,computationalmorphologycanbeusedtoautomatetheanalysisofcomplex

wordforms,whichthengeneratesexamplesforstudentstopractice,as“it’sonethingto

illustratestructureandprocesses;it’sanothertofindwaysforstudentstopracticethem”

(Gasser,2011,p.56).

Anotherchallengeforpolysyntheticlanguagesislookingupwordsinadictionary,as

Kunwinjkuusesanumberofprefixes,makingwordrootsdifficulttoidentify.ABininj

Kunwokdictionaryincorporatingvocabularyfromallvarietieshasbeenindevelopmentfor

sometime,butnotreadyforpublication.Areducedformofthisdictionarywasreleasedas

anonlinetooltosupporttheBininjKunwokcourse.Theonlineformatispreferablefor

searchingpolysyntheticwords,whereapaperdictionaryrequiressignificantlanguage

knowledgetoidentifywordroots.ColleaguesatCDUarecurrentlyworkingonnatural

languageprocessingtoolstoassistinthisareausingKunwinjku(Lane&Bird,2019).

105

TheKunwinjkucourseresemblesthesituationdescribedin(Miyashita&Chatsis,

2013)whendevelopingauniversitycourseinBlackfoot,apolysyntheticlanguageinwhich

aninflectedverbmaycontainagreatdealofinformation.Teachinggrammarinvolved

carefulselectionofappropriatelimitednumberofforms.SimilarlyintheBininjKunwok

course,onlyasmallselectionofverbalmorphologywasintroducedtoavoidoverwhelming

thelearner.AnotherparallelwiththeBlackfootprojectisthecomplexityoflanguage

variationandthechallengeofhowthiscanbemanagedinalanguagelearningcontext

(Chatsis,Miyashita,&Cole,2013).ThisisoneareathathasyettobeexploredintheBininj

Kunwokcourse,thoughthereisscopetoincorporateothervarietiesofthelanguage.The

LanguageCentrehaverecommendedthisaddition,andthefunctionalityoftheDigital

LanguageShellshouldbeabletofacilitatethis.

2.3.3 University language learning

LanguageteachinginAustralianuniversitieshassometimesbeenconsideredin‘crisis’

(GroupofEight,2007;Martín,2005),howeverresearchindicatesincreasedenrolmentsin

recentyears(J.Brown,Caruso,Arvidsson,&Forsberg-Lundell,2019).Still,itisgenerally

acknowledgedthat“institutionsofhighereducationteachfewerlanguages,inlesssecure

ways,forlesstimeperweek,forshorterperiods,byanincreasinglycasuallyemployedstaff,

inoftenunderfunded,underappreciatedandunderstressmodes”(LoBianco,2009,p.29).

Thepressuresonalllanguagecoursesareheightenedforlesscommonlytaught

languages,whichintheAustraliantertiarycontext“embraceslanguagessuchasUkrainian

thataretaughtatasmallnumberofuniversitiesaswellaslanguageslikeIndonesianwhich,

thoughtaughtinalargernumberofuniversities,havesmallenrolments”(Dunne&

106

Pavlyshyn,2013a,p.6).Researchshowsanincreaseinthenumberoftheselanguages

offeredbetween2005-2011(Dunne&Pavlyshyn,2012),withshiftstowardsAsian

languageslikeHindi,andmovestoonlinecourses(Dunne&Pavlyshyn,2013a).Latershifts

between2011-2013wereinfluencedbycollaborativearrangementsbetweenuniversities

(Kinoshita,2018;Pauwels,2007)andrelianceonsomeprivatebenefactors(Dunne&

Pavlyshyn,2013b).

WhenitcomestotheteachingofIndigenouslanguagesinuniversity,statisticscanbe

hardtofind.IntheirauditoflesscommonlytaughtlanguagesinAustralia,Dunne&

Pavlyshyn(2012)haddifficultyidentifyingIndigenouslanguages,astheseareoftenhoused

inIndigenousstudiesratherthanlanguagedepartments.ThisisthesituationatCDU,where

theYolŋuStudiesprogramstartedintheFacultyofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslander

Studies,justasthelinguisticsdepartmentwasbeingcloseddown.TheYolŋuadviserswho

co-designedtheYolŋuStudiescoursesinsistedthatlanguageandcultureareinseparable

andmustbetaughttogether.

Thevisibilityofavailablelanguageprogramshasbeenenhancedwiththe

establishmentoftheULPAwebsite(Simpson,2014;UniversityLanguagesPortalAustralia,

2018)supportedbytheLanguagesandCulturesNetworkforAustralianUniversities

(LCNAU)(Hajeketal.,2013).OneofLCNAU’sfirstadvocacyactivitieswastocallonall

universitiestoteachIndigenouslanguages“forthebenefitofthenationandallstudents”

(Hajek&Lloyd-Smith,2011).TheULPAonlineportalhighlightsopportunitiesforpotential

studentstostudyIndigenouslanguagesatAustralianuniversities(UniversityLanguages

PortalAustralia,2018).Atthetimeofwriting(2020),therearesevenIndigenouslanguages

107

availableacrossAustralia’s44universities,thoughtherearenoofficialstatisticsavailable

regardingenrolmentnumbers.2

Simpson(2014)pointsoutdifferencesbetweenteachingIndigenouslanguagesin

revival(whichshecalls“emblemlanguages”)andthosethataremeansofeveryday

communication.Eachmayhavedifferentaudiencesandmaterialsavailable,andincluding

theminauniversitycontext“canactasasignthattheselanguagesareasrichandeffective

meansofcommunicationasanyotherlanguagetaughtatuniversity”(Simpson,2014,p.

56).

Theroleoftheuniversityissignificantnotjustasasiteforteachingandlearning

languages(Kinoshita&Zhang,2012),butfortheresearchrequiredforongoinglanguage

maintenanceparticularlyforlanguagerevitalisation(Giacon&Simpson,2012;Simpson,

2014).Solidresearchisrequiredtoengageinthenecessaryanalysisofavailablelinguistic

data,tounderstandtheprocessesinvolvedandtoprovidetrainingforthoseworkingin

languagerevitalisation(Desmoulins,Oskineegish,&Jaggard,2019;Giacon,forthcoming).

ConcernsabouttheviabilityofIndigenouslanguagesinAustralianuniversitiesare

highlightedbyAmery:

ThelackoffundingdirectedtothetertiarysectorhasstifledthestudyofIndigenous

languages,andespeciallytheteachingofIndigenouslanguages.Indigenouslanguages

arestrugglingforanichewithinthetertiarysector.Theirplaceishighlydependenton

individuals,internalpoliticsandthedemand,orlackthereof,forknowledgeofand

skillsinIndigenouslanguagesoutsidethetertiarysector.(Amery,2007,p.345)

2 Unofficial statistics collected by the nascent Australian Indigenous Languages Institute suggest that approximately

342 people studied an Indigenous language through a university-affiliated course in 2019, with at least 150 of these enrolled in accredited programs.

108

Furthermore,Amery(2020)arguesthatmajorityorworldlanguagesaretaughtin

universitiesfortheirinstrumentalvalue,suchasbusiness,trade,diplomacy,national

security,accesstoacademicliterature,orinternationaltravel.Thesereasonsdonotapply

toIndigenouslanguagesinAustralia.HegivesarangeofreasonsforstudyinganIndigenous

Australianlanguage:

BystudyinganIndigenouslanguageatuniversity,studentscanknowthattheyare

partofamovementthatvaluesIndigenouslanguagesandisworkingfortheir

continuedsurvival,inthecaseof‘strong’languages,ortheirre-introduction,inthe

caseofrevivallanguages.Whatbetterwaytobringaboutreconciliationthantoallow

studentstoexperiencefirsthandthegeniusofAboriginallanguageswiththeir

intricateandcomplexgrammars,complexpronounsystems,complexkinshipsystems,

radicallydifferentsemanticorganizationandtheirabilitytoadaptandchange?

(Amery,2020,p.479.)

ThereislittleacademicliteratureaddressingreasonsAboriginallanguageowners

themselvesmayhaveforagreeingtotheirlanguagesbeingtaughtthroughformal

institutions.Paper6addressessomeofthereasonsBininjauthoritiesgaveforsharingtheir

languageinthiscontext.Ontheotherhand,someIndigenousindividualsandgroupsmay

prefertoavoidtheappropriationorinstitutionalisationoftheirlanguageteachingby

formalinstitutions.Forexample,theLarrakiapeopleofDarwinwereconsultedabout

languagerevitalisationduringtheestablishmentoftheYolŋuStudiesprogramatCDU

(Christie,2009,p.25),butrejectedoffersofsupportforthisworkfromtheuniversityfor

variousreasons.IncreasingawarenessofIndigenouslanguagesintheacademy,and

creatingopportunitiestolearnthemcancontributetowardsbetterunderstandingand

increasedvaluingofIndigenousknowledgepractices.

109

SomeuniversitieshavedevelopedstrongrelationshipswithIndigenouscommunities

throughlanguageandotherresearchprograms.TherelationshipbetweentheKaurna

communityandUniversityofAdelaidehasbeendescribedasbeing“drivenbyalong-

standing,butpoorlydefinedpartnershipembodiedinKaurnaWarraPintyanthi(KWP),a

committeewithnolegalstanding,whichoperatesbetweentheKaurnacommunityandthe

tertiarysector”(Amery&Buckskin,2013,p.65).CharlesSturtUniversityinNSWhas

developeda“nationbuildinginitiative”initsWiradjuriprogramwhichis“ownedand

developedbyWiradjuripeopleguidedthroughuniversityprocessbythebodyofco-

curatingadvocates”(Currie,Wheat,&Wess,2018,p.8).TheYolŋuStudiesprogramatCDU

hasbeenakeypartoftheuniversity’scommitmenttoIndigenouscommunityengagement

(Campbell&Christie,2009),notonlyfortheteachingandlearninglanguagecomponentbut

asalocusforIndigenousresearchprojectswithYolŋuresearchers(Christie,2008b).The

BininjKunwokcoursefurtherdiversifiesCDU’sengagementwiththecommunitiesitserves,

andotheruniversitiescouldbenefitfromsimilarconnectionswithIndigenouslanguage

groups.

2.3.4 Teaching and learning Indigenous languages

Outsidetheuniversitycontext,thereisasmallbutgrowingrangeofprogramsfor

teachingandlearningIndigenouslanguageinAustraliainschoolorcommunityprograms,

howeverthereislittledocumentationintheacademicliteratureonthemethodsused.

TherearereportsoftheMasterApprenticemodel(Hinton,2002)forMiriwoonglanguage

inWA(Olawsky,2013),andlanguagenestsusedforGumbaynggirrinNSW(Poetsch,

Jarrett,&Angelo,2019;Poetsch,Jarrett,&Williams,2018).Thesemethodsareface-to-face

110

andrequirespeakersandteacherswithacertainleveloftraining,whichcanmakethem

highlyresource-intensiveandthereforeexpensivetorun.

Communityinvolvementisakeytothesuccessoftheseprograms,whereIndigenous

authority,perspectivesandpedagogiescanbeincorporatedintoprograms.Inthe

universitycontext,thisisexemplifiedintheYolŋuStudiesprogramatCharlesDarwin

University,whereYolŋuhadalreadyconceptualisedboth-wayseducation“without

compromisetoeitherofthecontributingtraditions”(Christie,2008b,p.32).Thecurrent

teachingmodelisbasedonthewayYolŋuchildrenlearn,focusingfirstonkinshiprelations.

“Ourapproachthuscontrastswithotherapproachesinformedmorebyanthropologicaland

ethnographicliteraturesconcerningYolŋuworldview”(Hayashi,forthcoming).Insuch

literaturetheconceptofmoietyisoftenprioritised,howeverYolŋuparentsfocusonkinship

termsaheadofmoietyinraisingtheirchildren.

RenownedYolŋueducatorDrMarikaofferedafirst-handperspectiveofteachingnon-

IndigenousstudentsoflinguisticsattheUniversityofMelbourne,identifyingsomeofthe

challengesandopportunities.ShenotedaneedtoopposethewayYolŋuhavebeen

portrayedinanthropologicalliterature“asifitwerefromafairytale,asifitweredead”

(Marika-Mununggiritj,1991,p.24).Shealsostates:“Ineedtoteachinsuchawaythatthe

studentscanseethatlearninginvolvesco-operation.Thatourknowledgeneedstobea

livingthingwhichweallbuildtogether”(Marika-Mununggiritj,1991,p.24).Thisapproach

reflectsthatoftheBininjauthoritiesindevelopingcurriculumfortheBininjKunwokonline

course.

111

Communitymembersarebestplacedtoengageinlanguagepedagogy,butitcannotbe

assumedthattheyarewillingorequippedtoteachoutsiders(Miyashita&Chatsis,2013;

Penfield&Tucker,2011).Ifformaltrainingisnotavailableorappropriate,thereisaneed

formentoringandpartnership(Hobson,2007,2013;Johns&Mazurkewich,2001).Thereis

animportantroleforappliedlinguistshere,particularlythosewillingtothink‘outofthe

box’wheremethodsandresourcesforlargelanguagesmaynotbeavailableorappropriate

inendangeredorIndigenouslanguagecontexts(Penfield&Tucker,2011).

Papers5and6outlinesomeoftheco-designactivitiesinvolvedindevelopingthe

BininjKunwokcourseincollaborationwiththelanguageauthoritiesoftheBininjKunwok

RegionalLanguageCentre,andhowIndigenousperspectivesandpedagogieswere

incorporatedintothecourse.

2.3.5 Non-Indigenous learners

TheliteratureonteachingandlearningendangeredandIndigenouslanguagesfocuses

mostlyonanaudienceofpeoplewithconnectionstothelanguage,particularlyheritage

learners(Davis,2020;Hornberger,2005;King,2000;Lee,2005;Rivera&Teske,2018;Te

Huia,2017).Thereisverylittleintheliteratureaboutnon-Indigenouspeoplelearning

Indigenouslanguageandculture(seeWeinberg,2015foroneexception).NILS2reported

thatthemajority(76%)ofAustralianIndigenousfirstlanguagespeakerswouldsupport

non-IndigenouspeoplelearningIndigenouslanguages,althoughsomestipulatedthatthis

beontheprovisothatIndigenouspeoplealsohadaccesstolearningtheirlanguage,and

thatteachersshouldbeIndigenous(Marmionetal.,2014,pp.34–35).Thissmallsample

112

cannotreflectallattitudes,andtherearesomegroupswhorestrictlanguageteachingto

thosewithadirectconnection(seeexampleoftheTasmanianlanguageinPaper1).

Forthosegroupsthatarewillingtoteachtheirlanguagetonon-Indigenouslearners,

theremaybedifferencesinthewayIndigenouspedagogiesframethisprocess.ForYolŋu,

“communicationisamatterofbuildingsharedunderstandingsandworkingtobring

narrativestogethertowardsagreementratherthantransmittingtruthsfromonemindto

another;thatis,collaborationratherthantransmission”(Christie,2008b,p.41).Hayashi

statesthatintheCDUYolŋuStudiesprogram“thecourseisanintellectualshiftfrom

renderingYolŋupeopleandtheirknowledgesandpracticeasstudyorresearchobjects,to

partneringwiththemasknowledgeexpertsandcollaborators”(Hayashi,2020,p.519).

Thesecourseswereco-designedwithIndigenousandnon-Indigenouscollaborators,and

theprocessinvolvedlearning(andunlearning)somereceivedassumptionsregarding

languageanditspractices.Asimilarprocesswasfollowedinco-designingtheBininj

KunwokcoursewithBininjauthorities.

OneofthewayslearnersareengagedinYolŋuStudieswasthroughthetraditionof

skinnames:“Ifnewcomersareadoptedintothesystem,thepracticeoffersanopportunity

forYolŋutowelcomeandcareforthemproperly,aswellasachancefortheadopteeto

learnhowtotreatotherswithcareandrespect.Consistentwiththispractice,studentsare

addedtoaclasskinshipnetwork…whichallowsthemtorelateinparticularwaystothe

lecturers,butalsotoeachother.”(Christie,2008b,p.39).Thispracticewasalsosignificant

intheBininjKunwokcourse(seePaper6),whereskinnameswerenotjusttaughtas

content,butasawayofconnectinglearnerstotheBininjteachersandtheBininj

community.Thispracticeismorecomplexthanaclassroomrole-playactivitywherea

113

learner‘pretends’toengagewithalanguagegroup,butisinfactfundamentaltoIndigenous

engagementwithoutsiders(Swain,1993).

Sincelanguageissocloselyconnectedtoplace,itcanbechallengingtoteachthe

languageifitisremovedfromitsorigin.CALLanddigitaltoolscanenableinnovative

solutions,suchasthe‘TeachingfromCountry’programdevelopedatCDUaspartofthe

YolŋuStudiesprogram(Christie,2010b;Christie,Guyula,Gurruwiwi,&Greatorex,2013).

ThisprojectsupportedIndigenousteacherstoteachfromtheirhomelandsratherthanon

the‘foreign’territoryofanurbanclassroom.Theteacherswereconfiguredas

“demonstratorsofknowledge,notsomuchaslecturers”(Clark,2005,p.80).

Oneoftheteachersinthatcoursecommentedthatpartoftheexperienceoflearning

fornon-Indigenouslearnerswasthat“firstofalltheyhavetofindoutforthemselveswho

theyreallyare.”(Gurruwiwi,2010,p.24).AccordingtoVerran,thelearnersbecomepartof

remakingplacesandthemselvesthroughstoriestoldfromcountryabouttheAncestors

makingplace(Verran,2010).ThisfocusonidentityisexploredfurtherinPaper6

Acollationoffeedbackfromnon-Indigenouslearnerswhoparticipatedinthe

experimentalTeachingfromCountryprogramincludesthiscomment:

TheYolŋuStudiescoursewasnotsimply‘anothersubject’,a‘boxtotick’ora

knowledgeforyoutodepositinyour‘bank’ofknowledgeandqualifications(though

muchworkwasdonetoensureitdidmeettheuniversity’srequirementsfor

assessment,coursereview,andstudystreams.)Studentsfelttheywerebeinggivena

greatprivilegeinbeingparticipantsintheclass.Theydidnotfeeltheyweregivena

broadorgeneralsurveyof‘knowledge’,norsimplyacourseinanAustralian

Indigenouslanguage.ThecourseofferedaninsightintoYolŋulifeandcultureandthe

learningwasunderstoodwithinthiscontext.(Clark,2010,p.78)

114

WhileKriolisaverydifferentcaseintheecologyofAustralianlanguages,alearnerof

Kriolinthe1990sstatedthat“Kriolisnotalanguagethatonemayspeak,justbecauseone

canspeakit,tootherpeoplewhoareknowntospeakit.Onehastowaitforpermissionto

speakit”(Rhydwen,1995,p.117).Shealsosuggeststhatthecontextsinwhichitis

acceptablefornon-IndigenouspeopletouseKriolmaybelessening,howeverother

researchinNgukurrsuggestsotherwise,withstrongsupportfornon-Indigenouspeopleto

learnKrioltofunctionincommunity(Hendy&Bow,inpreparation).Thereisstillan

importantsenseinwhichalearnershouldseekpermissiontolearnanIndigenous

language,torespectthetraditionsofknowledgeownershipwithinacommunity.

Outsidetheuniversitycontext,thisexamplefromthePilbararegionofWAshowsthe

benefitofnon-IndigenouspeoplelivingandworkinginIndigenouscommunitieslearning

thelocallanguage:

Thedesireofnon-Indigenouspeople(suchasteachers,nursesandothercommunity

workers)tolearnaPilbaralanguagewasrecognisedashavingthepotentialfor

positiveflow-oneffectsthroughoutthecommunity,intermsofimprovedprovisionof

keyservices(especiallyinthehealthandeducationspheres),aswellasincreased

awarenessofIndigenouspeople’slanguagerights.Bothoutcomesincreasethe

prestigeofPilbaraAboriginallanguagesandcreatespacewithinthebroader

communityforlanguagerevitalisationtooccur.(Dixon&Deak,2010,p.126)

IntheBininjKunwokcontext,thelanguagecommitteewaskeenfornon-Indigenous

peoplelivingandworkinginBininjcommunitiestohaveaccesstothelanguagelearning

materials.However,thesepotentialstudentswerenotnecessarilykeenorinapositionto

enrolinauniversitycourse.TheDigitalLanguageShellprovidedasolutionasitfunctioned

independentlyofandinconcertwithuniversitylearningmanagementsystems.Inthefirst

115

universitycoursedeliveryin2019,asmallcohortoflearnersparticipatedinthecoursein

‘workshopmode’atareducedratewithoutenrollinginuniversity,whilesomeinsimilar

situationschosetoenroljusttoparticipateinthiscourse.ThispointlinkstoSimpson’s

commentthat

TraininginIndigenouslanguages,letalonetertiary-leveltraining,israrelyavailableto

professionals.Asaresult,theystrugglewithcommunicatingvitalinformationsuchas

managementofrenaldiseaseorbailconditions.Italsomeansthattheymayoften

havelimitedunderstandingofthepeoplewithwhomtheyinteract.(Simpson,2014,p.

55)

Thissectionhasoutlinedanumberofissuesaroundthedevelopmentofanonline

courseinKunwinjkutoteachinauniversitycontextusingtheDigitalLanguageShell.In

relatingtheseissuestotheavailableliterature,ithighlightssomegaps,particularlywhere

Indigenousvoicesarenotheardwithregardtosharingtheirlanguageinthesedifferent

contextsandwithdifferentaudiences,thelackofresearchonnon-Indigenousaudiences,

andtheunusualstatusofanendangeredlanguagewhichhasareasonablystrongspeech

community.Theimportanceofco-designingsuchcourseswithIndigenousauthoritiesand

incorporatingalternatepedagogiesisexploredfurtherinPapers5and6.

SECTION 3 Linking projects to types of language work

Theanalyticconceptsofsociotechnicalassemblagesandheterogeneitiesassistin

consideringwhathappenswhenparticulardigitaltechnologiesbecomeentangledwith

differenttypesoflanguageworkinIndigenouslanguagesoftheNorthernTerritory.The

threesociotechnicalassemblagesdescribedinthischaptercanbeseenastheresultofsuch

116

entanglements,usingdigitaltechnologiestosupportlanguageworkforIndigenouspeople

andothers.Inthissection,allthreeprojectsaredescribedintermsofthesethreetypesof

languageworkandhowtheyarefacilitated.

3.1 The Living Archive project

TheLivingArchiveprojectassemblesarangeofheterogeneouselements,including

books,digitalartefacts,metadata,servers,code,people,places,spreadsheets,webpages,

socialmediaplatforms,scanners,OCRsoftware,searchfunctions,teachers,linguists,

languageauthorities,pedagogies,knowledgepractices,intellectualproperty,universities,

libraries,cost-codes,PDFs,textfiles,translations,thumbnailimages,specialcharacters,

languagecodes,OLACstandards,metadataharvestingprotocols,bilingualeducation

programs,governmentfunding,chiefinvestigators,projectmanagers,casualstaff,research

support.Thisrangeofpeople,technologies,artefacts,institutions,etc,areassembledto

enablelanguageworktohappenthroughtheresultingsociotechnicalassemblages.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesdocumentationpracticesemergesinthe

thousandsoftextsindozensofIndigenouslanguagesthatarenowavailablethroughthe

Archive,forlinguisticanalysis,newpedagogicalpurposes,orgeneralinterest.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvespedagogicalpracticesemergesbothinthe

contentoftheArchive,thosethousandsofitemsproducedinparticularpedagogical

contextsofbilingualeducationorotherIndigenouslanguageandcultureprogramsfrom

aroundtheNToverafortyyearperiod,andintheaffordancesofthosematerialsnow

availableforfurtherpedagogicalpurposes.Educatorscandrawontheminnewcontexts,

suchasthroughthecurrentIndigenousLanguageandCultureprogramsinschoolsunder

117

thenewNTguidelines(NorthernTerritoryGovernment,2016)orthecross-curricular

priorityoftheAustralianCurriculum(Bow,2016),thetypesofworkdescribedintheLiving

Archiveblog,andmanyotheras-yet-unknowncontexts.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesidentity-makingalsoemergesintheArchive

projectthroughthecontentsofthebooksthemselves,inwhichIndigenouspeoplenegotiate

andmanagetheiridentityandconnectiontoplaceandlanguagethroughtheirstoriesand

pedagogicalmaterials,andthestructureoftheArchiveallowsuserstoconnectwiththose

identitypracticesandnegotiatetheirownidentitiesthroughengagementwiththe

materialsandmakingtheirownconnectionswithandthroughthem.TheArchivewas

carefullydesignedtoenableallthesetypesoflanguagework,thoughnotexplicitlystatedat

theoutset.

3.2 The Digital Language Shell project

TheDigitalLanguageShellprojectusesdigitaltechnologiestoentanglethe

heterogeneitiesofopen-sourceplatforms,contentmanagementsystems,themes,plugins,

web-design,learningmanagementsystems,units,lessons,templates,videos,audiofiles,

photos,languageauthorities,linguists,projectmanagers,paymentoptions,userprofiles,

logins,glossaries,dictionaries,taskmanagers,educators,servers,spreadsheets,forums,

codecs,etc.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesdocumentationpracticesissupportedhere

throughtheestablishmentofa‘keepingplace’forIndigenousauthoritiestobothstoreand

displaytheirmaterialsforvariouspurposes.Whilenotsufficienttoserveasanarchivefor

thesematerials(Thieberger,2017),itoffersawayofcollectingandcuratingthem,

118

arrangingtheminvariousways(aslessonsorpagesfocusedonparticularcategoriesfor

example).Dependingonhowtheaccessconditionsareestablished(andWordPressoffers

manyoptionsforthis),itispossibletouploaditemsandchoosetodisplayorhidethem

fromvarioususers.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvespedagogicalpracticesissupportedthrough

theDigitalLanguageShellinthewaysnotedaboveandinPapers5and6,inallowing

Indigenousauthoritiestosharetheirknowledgepracticesundertheirownauthority,using

aplatformthatis‘neutral’withregardtolanguagestatus,andflexibleenoughtoallow

differentpedagogicalpractices.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesidentity-makingpracticesissupported

throughenablingIndigenouslanguageauthoritiestodeterminehowtheywanttheir

materialstobeviewedandshared,retainingappropriatelinkstopeopleandplaces,with

capacitytoapplyappropriaterestrictions.

WhiletheDigitalLanguageShellisnotassophisticatedorcomplexaspurpose-built

systemssuchasMukurtu(Christen,2012;Christen,Merrill,&Wynne,2017)andorAṟa

Irititja(Hughes&Dallwitz,2007;Scales,Burke,Dallwitz,Lowish,&Mann,2013),ithasa

lowbarriertoentrybothfinanciallyandtechnically,andmaybesufficientforsome

communityneeds,orusefulasasteppingstonetowardsusingmorecomplextools.

3.3 The Bininj Kunwok online course project

TheBininjKunwokonlinecourseprojectusesdigitaltechnologiestoentanglemanyof

thesameheterogeneitiesusedintheDigitalLanguageShell,pluslanguagecommittees,field

officers,assessmenttasks,grammaticaldescriptions,examplesentences,primers,stories,

119

cartoons,learnerprofiles,grades,universitystructures,cross-institutionalenrolments,

extensionrequests,pairworkactivities,meetings,forumposts,feedback,fundingsupport,

officehours,somanyemails,classlists,duedates,uploadingmedia,websearches,

weblinks,promotionalactivities,unitcodes,learningoutcomes,etc.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesdocumentationpracticesissupported

throughthecollectionandcurationofresourcesfromvarioussources–inthiscase

includingvideoscreatedbyotherorganisationsthatcanbelinkedfromYouTube,or

academicarticleslinkedasappropriatefromwebsitesorlibrarycatalogues(respecting

publisheraccessconditions).Inaddition,acourseforlearningalanguagesupportsthe

workoflinguistsandotherresearchersworkingonKunwinjkutobuildbetterrelations

withtheirBininjcolleaguestosupportbetterresearchoutcomes.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvespedagogicalpracticesissupportedthrough

thedeliveryofexplicitteachingofthelanguageusingBininjlinguisticandpedagogical

approaches(e.g.storytelling,useofskinnamesandkinshipconnections),aswellasnon-

Indigenousformsoflanguageteaching(e.g.explicitgrammaticalexplanations,assessment

tasks).TheprojectconfigurestheBininjlanguageownersasuniversitylecturers,and

supportstheirownpedagogicalpracticestoinformcurriculumtoteachtheirlanguageto

outsiders.

Thetypeoflanguageworkthatinvolvesidentity-makingpracticesissupported

throughtheBininjauthoritiesexpressingtheirpedagogicalpracticesthroughidentity–

insistingthatthefirstthinglearnersshouldunderstandisaboutidentitythroughkinship

andskinsystems.Thisidentityworkisthenmobilisedbythelearnerswhoselectaskin

120

namewhichentanglestheminthenetworkofBininjrelationships.Theiridentityasa

learnerisconfiguredasapartialinsider,alegitimateperipheralparticipant(Lave&

Wenger,1991),fromwhichtomaketheirownconnectionstopeople,placeandlanguage.

3.4 Iterative reconfiguring

Eachoftheseproducts–thesesociotechnicalassemblages–arenot‘new’but

reconfigurationsofexistingpracticesandtechnologies.TheLivingArchivetakespreviously

publishedbooksandusesexistingtechnologies–PHP,Twitterbootstrap,SOLR,otherweb

technologies–topresentparticularmaterialinaparticularway.TheDigitalLanguageShell

usesexistingWordPressthemesandaddspluginstoconfiguretheshellforparticularuses.

TheBininjKunwokcourseusesthisShellandassemblesavailablemultimediafilesand

grammaticaldescriptionsincertainwaystofacilitateteachingandlearning.

Thisformofheterogeneousengineeringcreatesassemblageswhicharefixedenough

tofunctionbutflexibleenoughtoenablenewformsofknowledgeproduction.Eachwas

deliberatelydesignedtonotlimitpossibilities,tonotforceusersintocertainwaysof

interacting.Theprojectswerecreatednotto‘storeknowledge’,buttoenableIndigenous

knowledgepractitionerstoengageintheirownlanguagework,andbeopenfornon-

Indigenouspeopletodothesame.Theyneedtocomplywithtechnical,legaland

administrativerequirements,buttheseshouldbemanagedcarefully,soastonotoverwrite

orlimitIndigenousknowledgepractices.

Thisapproachresiststheviewoftechnologyasapanacea,thattheappropriate

assemblageofdigitaltoolswillprovidethe‘solution’tovariousissues.Focusingonthe

sociotechnicalnatureoftheundertakinghighlightstheinclusionofthe‘social’tocounter

121

thepotentialoverreachofthe‘technical’.ThereisadangerinentanglingIndigenous

knowledgepracticesintodigitalforms,asChristiestates:“WhenAboriginalknowledgeis

uncriticallyabsorbedintothemachineofWesternscienceandhumanities,aviolenceis

donetoit,itismisrepresented,anditsownersaremarginalisedfromtheprocess”(Christie,

2006,p.79).

Thesociotechnicalanalysisoftheassemblagesandtheirheterogeneouselements

describedhereisnotintendedasageneralprescriptionforhowtocreatedigitaltoolsto

supportIndigenouslanguagework.Eachprojectishighlysituatedandlocalised,

respondingtoaparticularsociotechnicalscenario,sotheanalysisisnotaimedatdrawing

generalisations.

SECTION 4 Summary

Inthischapter,Ihaveintroducedthekeyanalyticconceptsusedinthisanalysis.

DrawnfromSTS,theconceptsofassemblage,heterogeneitiesandsociotechnologyhave

helpedmetoanalysethethreedigitallanguageprojectsdevelopedtosupportdifferent

typesofIndigenouslanguagework.Ithendescribedeachoftheprojectsindetail,

describingtheirmotivation,development,someoftheissuesfaced,andtheacademic

contextinwhichtheysit.FinallyIshowedhowtheprojectsfunctionassociotechnical

assemblages,identifyingtheheterogeneitiesofwhichtheyareproduced,andhowthey

supportthreespecifictypesoflanguageworkthatinvolvepracticesofdocumentation,

pedagogyandidentity-making.

122

AshighlightedinthePrefacetothisthesis,thetechnologyaffordssomuch,butpeople

arethekeyfeature–asdevelopers,teachers,linguists,languageowners,users,and

audiencesofvarioustypes.Itisimportantnotbetoodistractedbytheaffordancesofthe

technologyandoverlooktheimportanceofpeople,particularlytheIndigenouspeoplefor

whomthesetoolsarepurportedlydesignedtoserve.Thereisaneedtoavoidthe

“widespreadsuspicionthatdigitaltechnologiescanonlyworkbytreatingIndigenous

knowledgeasacommodity”(Verranetal.,2007,p.130),whichcanbedonebyintentionally

includingIndigenousvoicesinthedesignanddeliveryofthetools.

Theseinitialchapterslayoutthegroundworkforthepublicationswhichfollow.

Havingoutlinedtheprojects,theirmotivation,developmentandpositionwithinthe

academicliterature,aswellasdefinedtheanalyticconceptsusedthroughoutthisthesis,the

followingpaperspresentanempiricalaccountofthedevelopmentofeachofthese

assemblages,andtheemergenceofdifferenttypesoflanguageworkineachoftheprojects.

123

SECTION 5 References

Alexander,B.(2018).ContextualizingTechnology:DesigningIndigenousLanguageCALL

Programs(MasterofArtsthesis).UniversityofArizona,Tucson,AZ.

Amery,R.(2020).TeachingAboriginallanguagesatuniversity:Towhatend?InJ.

Fornasiero,S.M.A.Reed,R.Amery,E.Bouvet,K.Enomoto,&H.L.Xu(Eds.),

IntersectionsinLanguagePlanningandPolicy:EstablishingConnectionsinLanguages

andCultures(pp.475–489).Cham:SpringerInternationalPublishing.doi:

10.1007/978-3-030-50925-5_29

Amery,R.(2007).Aboriginallanguagehabitatinresearchandtertiaryeducation.InG.

Leitner&I.G.Malcolm(Eds.),ThehabitatofAustralia’sAboriginallanguages:Past,

presentandfuture(pp.327–353).Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Amery,R.,&Buckskin,V.(Jack)K.(2013).HavingitBothWays:TowardsRecognitionofthe

KaurnaLanguageMovementWithintheCommunityandWithintheUniversitySector.

InM.J.Norris(Ed.),Proceedingsofthe17thFELConference(pp.65–72).Ottawa,CA:

FoundationforEndangeredLanguageswithCarletonUniversity,Canada.

Auld,G.(2007).Talkingbooksforchildren’shomeuseinaminorityIndigenousAustralian

languagecontext.AustralasianJournalofEducationalTechnology,23(1),48–67.

https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.1273

Barad,K.(2007).MeetingtheUniverseHalfway:QuantumPhysicsandtheEntanglementof

MatterandMeaning.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.

Berez-Kroeker,A.L.,&Henke,R.E.(2018).LanguageArchiving.InK.L.Rehg&L.Campbell

(Eds.),TheOxfordHandbookofEndangeredLanguages(pp.347–369).Oxford;New

York:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bijker,W.E.(1997).OfBicycles,Bakelites,andBulbs:TowardaTheoryofSociotechnical

Change.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Bijker,W.E.,&Law,J.(Eds.).(1992).Shapingtechnology/buildingsociety:Studiesin

sociotechnicalchange.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

124

BininjKunwokProject.(2017).BininjKunwok—Kunwokdjamankarrekadberre—Our

language,ourculture.Retrieved24April2019,fromBininjKunwokwebsite:

http://bininjkunwok.org.au/

BininjKunwokRegionalLanguageCentre.(2019).BininjKunwokOnlineDictionary.

RetrievedfromBininjKunwokdictionarywebsite:https://www.njamed.com/

Bird,S.(2018).Designingmobileapplicationsforendangeredlanguages.InK.L.Rehg&L.

Campbell(Eds.),TheOxfordHandbookofEndangeredLanguages(pp.842–861).

Oxford;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bird,S.,&Simons,G.(2003).SevenDimensionsofPortabilityforLanguageDocumentation

andDescription.Language,79(3),557–582.https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0149

Blaser,M.(2014).Ontologyandindigeneity:Onthepoliticalontologyofheterogeneous

assemblages.CulturalGeographies,21(1),49–58.

Bontogon,M.,Arppe,A.,Antonsen,L.,Thunder,D.,&Lachler,J.(2018).IntelligentComputer

AssistedLanguageLearning(ICALL)fornêhiyawêwin:AnIn-DepthUser-Experience

Evaluation.CanadianModernLanguageReview,74(3),337–362.

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.4054

Bow,C.(2016).UsingauthenticlanguageresourcestoincorporateIndigenousknowledges

acrosstheAustralianCurriculum.LearningCommunities:InternationalJournalof

LearninginSocialContexts,20,20–39.https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2016.20.03

Bow,C.(2017).Activatingcommunity-basedIndigenouslanguageandcultureresourcesfor

universityteaching–Reportonthedevelopmentofadigitalshellandpilotdelivery.

Canberra,ACT:DepartmentofEducationandTraining.

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2015).ShoehorningcomplexmetadataintheLiving

ArchiveofAboriginalLanguages.InA.Harris,N.Thieberger,&L.Barwick(Eds.),

Research,RecordsandResponsibility:TenyearsofPARADISEC(pp.115–131).Sydney,

NSW:SydneyUniversityPress.

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2017).Digitalfuturesforbilingualbooks.InB.Devlin,S.

Disbray,&N.R.F.Devlin(Eds.),HistoryofBilingualEducationintheNorthern

Territory:People,ProgramsandPolicies(pp.347–353).Singapore:Springer.

125

Brown,A.V.(2009).LessCommonlyTaughtLanguageandCommonlyTaughtLanguage

Students:ADemographicandAcademicComparison.ForeignLanguageAnnals,42(3),

405–423.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01036.x

Brown,J.,Caruso,M.,Arvidsson,K.,&Forsberg-Lundell,F.(2019).On‘Crisis’andthe

pessimismofdisciplinarydiscourseinforeignlanguages:AnAustralianperspective.

ModernaSpråk,113(2),40–58.

Bunduck,D.F.,&Ward,T.(2017).TheProgramatWadeye,PastandPresent.InB.Devlin,S.

Disbray,&N.R.F.Devlin(Eds.),HistoryofBilingualEducationintheNorthern

Territory(pp.285–292).Singapore:Springer.

Buszard-Welcher,L.(2001).CantheWebHelpSaveMyLanguage?InL.Hinton&K.Hale

(Eds.),TheGreenBookofLanguageRevitalizationinPractice(pp.331–345).Leiden;

Boston:Brill.

Callon,M.(1984).Someelementsofasociologyoftranslation:Domesticationofthescallops

andthefishermenofStBrieucBay.TheSociologicalReview,32(1_suppl),196–233.

Campbell,M.,&Christie,M.(2009).Researchingauniversity’sengagementwiththe

Indigenouscommunitiesitserves.LearningCommunities:InternationalJournalof

LearninginSocialContexts,5,2–22.

Carew,M.,Green,J.,Kral,I.,Nordlinger,R.,&Singer,R.(2015).GettinginTouch:Language

andDigitalInclusioninAustralianIndigenousCommunities.LanguageDocumentation

&Conservation,9,307–323.

Carroll,P.J.(1976).Kunwinjku:AlanguageofWesternArnhemLand(MasterofArtsthesis).

AustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra,ACT.

Cassels,M.,&Farr,C.(2019).MobileapplicationsforIndigenouslanguagelearning:

Literaturereviewandappsurvey.WorkingPapersoftheLinguisticsCircleofthe

UniversityofVictoria,29(1),1–24.

Chapelle,C.A.,&Sauro,S.(Eds.).(2017).TheHandbookofTechnologyandSecondLanguage

TeachingandLearning.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.

Chatsis,A.,Miyashita,M.,&Cole,D.(2013).AdocumentaryethnographyofaBlackfoot

languagecourse.ThePersistenceofLanguage,257–90.

Christen,K.(2012).Mukurtu:AnIndigenousarchiveandpublishingtool.Retrievedfrom

http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/M6Q06X

126

Christen,K.,Merrill,A.,&Wynne,M.(2017).ACommunityofRelations:MukurtuHubsand

Spokes.D-LibMagazine,23(5/6).https://doi.org/10.1045/may2017-christen

Christie,M.(1993).Yolngulinguistics.Ngoonjook,8,58–77.

Christie,M.(1994a).Connections:WritingfromBatchelorCollegeAboriginalLanguages

Fortnight.Ngoonjook,10,28–29.

Christie,M.(1994b).GroundedandEx-centricKnowledges:ExploringAboriginal

AlternativestoWesternThinking.InJ.Edwards(Ed.),Thinking:International

InterdisciplinaryPerspectives(pp.24–34).Highett,VIC:HawkerBrownlow.

Christie,M.(1995).TheYolnguregaintheirliteracy.FinePrint,17(2),14–17.

Christie,M.(1996).The‘Aboriginalisation’ofAboriginaleducationintheNTanditsimpact

onliteratureandlibraries.InS.Bailey(Ed.),Proceedingsofthe8thNationalLibrary

TechniciansConference(pp.166–170).Darwin,NT.

Christie,M.(1997).TheYolnguliteratureCDproject.Ngoonjook,13,31–39.

Christie,M.(2001).Aboriginalknowledgeontheinternet.Ngoonjook,19,33–50.

Christie,M.(2003,September).DatabaseswhichsupportratherthaninhibitAustralian

Aboriginalwaysofknowingandmakingknowledge.SeminarpresentedattheFaculty

ofIndigenousResearchandEducationSeminar,CharlesDarwinUniversity.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.cdu.edu.au/centres/ik/pdf/Databases_seminar.pdf

Christie,M.(2004).ComputerDatabasesandAboriginalKnowledge.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,1,4–12.

Christie,M.(2005a).AboriginalKnowledgeTraditionsinDigitalEnvironments.The

AustralianJournalofIndigenousEducation,34,61–66.

Christie,M.(2005b).Words,OntologiesandAboriginalDatabases.MediaInternational

Australia,IncorporatingCulture&Policy,116,52–63.

Christie,M.(2006).TransdisciplinaryresearchandAboriginalknowledge.Australian

JournalofIndigenousEducation,35,78–89.

Christie,M.(2008a).DigitalToolsandtheManagementofAustralianDesertAboriginal

Knowledge.InP.Wilson&M.Stewart(Eds.),GlobalIndigenousMedia:Cultures,

PracticesandPolitics(pp.270–286).Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.

Christie,M.(2008b).YolnguStudies:AcasestudyofAboriginalcommunityengagement.

Gateways:InternationalJournalofCommunityResearchandEngagement,1,31–47.

127

Christie,M.(2009).EngagingwithAustralianIndigenousKnowledgeSystems:Charles

DarwinUniversityandtheYolnguofNortheastArnhemLand.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,7,23–35.

Christie,M.(2010a).MoneyMatters:PaymentfortheParticipationofAboriginal

KnowledgeAuthoritiesinAcademicTeachingandResearchWork.Learning

Communities:InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,2,60–66.

Christie,M.(2010b).TeachingfromCountry:IncreasingtheParticipationofIndigenous

KnowledgeHoldersinTertiaryTeachingThroughtheUseofEmergingDigital

Technologies.StrawberryHills,NSW:AustralianLearningandTeachingCouncil.

Christie,M.(2017).DevelopingLocalCurriculumMaterials—LearningMetaphors,

InsightfulCollaborations,CommunityInvolvement.InB.Devlin,S.Disbray,&N.R.F.

Devlin(Eds.),HistoryofBilingualEducationintheNorthernTerritory(pp.113–126).

Singapore:Springer.

Christie,M.,&Asmar,C.(2012).Indigenousknowersandknowledgeinuniversityteaching.

InL.Hunt&D.Chalmers(Eds.),Universityteachinginfocus:Alearning-centered

approach(pp.214–232).Camberwell,VIC:AustralianCouncilforEducational

Research.

Christie,M.,Devlin,B.,&Bow,C.(2014).TheBirthoftheLivingArchive:Anemerging

archiveofAustralianAboriginallanguagesandliterature.Archifacts,October2014,

48–63.

Christie,M.,Devlin,B.,&Bow,C.(2015).Findingcommongroundinadigitalarchiveof

Aboriginallanguages.InH.Huijser,R.Ober,S.O’Sullivan,E.McRae-Williams,&R.

Elvin(Eds.),FindingCommonGround:Narratives,ProvocationsandReflectionsfrom

the40YearCelebrationofBatchelorInstitute(pp.75–79).Batchelor,NT:Batchelor

Press.

Christie,M.,Guyula,Y.,Gurruwiwi,D.,&Greatorex,J.(2013).TeachingfromCountry:

ConnectingremoteIndigenousknowledgeauthoritieswithuniversitystudents

aroundtheworld.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan

(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.127–138).Canberra,

ACT:AIATSISResearchPublications.

128

Christie,M.,&Verran,H.(2006).Usingdigitaltechnologiesindoingindigenousplacesin

Australia.ICTs,DevelopmentandIndigenousKnowledges.Lausanne,EuropeanAssoc.

fortheStudiesofScienceandTechnology.

Christie,M.,&Verran,H.(2013).DigitallivesinpostcolonialAboriginalAustralia.Journalof

MaterialCulture,18(3),299–317.

Christie,M.,Verran,H.,&Gaykamangu,W.(2003).IKRMNA-makingcollectivememory

withcomputers.RetrievedfromIndigenousKnowledgeandResourceManagementin

NorthernAustraliawebsite:http://www.cdu.edu.au/centres/ik/ikhome.html

Clark,C.(2005).TheIndigenousKnowledgeResourceManagementNorthernAustralia

Project:Garma2004.Retrievedfrom

http://www.cdu.edu.au/centres/ik/pdf/CK_Garma2004.pdf

Clark,C.(2010).TeachingfromCountrystudentforum.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,2,75–83.

Constable,P.,&Simons,G.(2000).LanguageidentificationandIT:Addressingproblemsof

linguisticdiversityonaglobalscale.SILElectronicWorkingPapers.

Currie,G.,Wheat,J.,&Wess,T.(2018).BuildingFoundationsforIndigenousCultural

Competence:AnInstitution’sJourneyToward“ClosingtheGap”.JournalofMedical

ImagingandRadiationSciences,49(1),6–10.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmir.2017.12.003

Davis,J.L.(2020).GoodNeighborsandSupportiveGrandfathers:Contextualizing

NonheritageLearnersofChickasaw.AmericanAnthropologist,122(1),169–173.

https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13373

Deleuze,G.,&Guattari,F.(1988).Athousandplateaus:Capitalismandschizophrenia.

Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinneapolisPress.

Desmoulins,L.,Oskineegish,M.,&Jaggard,K.(2019).ImaginingUniversity/Community

CollaborationsasThirdSpacestoSupportIndigenousLanguageRevitalization.

LanguageandLiteracy,21(4),45–67.

Devlin,B.(2011).Thestatusandfutureofbilingualeducationforremoteindigenous

studentsintheNorthernTerritory.AustralianReviewofAppliedLinguistics,34(3),

260–279.

129

Devlin,B.(2017).PolicyChangein2008:Evidence-BasedoraKnee-JerkResponse?InB.

Devlin,S.Disbray,&N.R.F.Devlin(Eds.),HistoryofBilingualEducationinthe

NorthernTerritory(pp.203–218).Singapore:Springer.

Devlin,B.,Bow,C.,Purdon,A.,&Klesch,M.(2015).Digitaltechnologiesandlanguage

resources–findingcommonground.InH.Huijser,R.Ober,S.O’Sullivan,E.McRae-

Williams,&R.Elvin(Eds.),FindingCommonGround:Narratives,Provocationsand

Reflectionsfromthe40YearCelebrationofBatchelorInstitute(pp.80–84).Batchelor,

NT:BatchelorPress.

Devlin,B.,Christie,M.,Bow,C.,Joy,P.,&Green,R.(2014).ExploringtheLivingArchiveof

AboriginalLanguages.CurriculumPerspectives,34(3),39–47.

Devlin,B.,Disbray,S.,&Devlin,N.R.F.(Eds.).(2017).HistoryofBilingualEducationinthe

NorthernTerritory.Singapore:Springer.

Disbray,S.,&Martin,B.(2018).CurriculumasKnowledgeSystem:TheWarlpiriTheme

Cycle.InG.Wigglesworth,J.Simpson,&J.Vaughan(Eds.),LanguagePracticesof

IndigenousChildrenandYouth:TheTransitionfromHometoSchool(pp.23–48).

https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-60120-9_2

Dixon,S.,&Deak,E.(2010).Languagecentreaslanguagerevitalisationstrategy:Acase

studyfromthePilbara.InJ.Hobson,K.Lowe,S.Poetsch,&M.Walsh(Eds.),Re-

awakeninglanguages:TheoryandpracticeintherevitalisationofAustralia’sIndigenous

languages(pp.119–130).Sydney,NSW:SydneyUniversityPress.

Drude,S.,Broeder,D.,&Trilsbeek,P.(2014).TheLanguageArchiveanditssolutionsfor

sustainableendangeredlanguagescorpora.Book2.0,4(1–2),5–20.

Duarte,M.E.,&Belarde-Lewis,M.(2015).Imagining:Creatingspacesforindigenous

ontologies.Cataloging&ClassificationQuarterly,53(5–6),677–702.

Dunne,K.,&Pavlyshyn,M.(2012).Swingsandroundabouts:Changesinlanguageofferings

atAustralianuniversities2005–2011.InJ.Hajek,C.Nettelbeck,&A.Woods(Eds.),

SelectedProceedingsoftheInauguralLCNAUColloquium,2011(pp.9–19).Sydney,

NSW:LCNAU.

Dunne,K.,&Pavlyshyn,M.(2013a).Endangeredspecies?Lesscommonlytaughtlanguages

inthelinguisticecologyofAustralianhighereducation.Babel,47(3),4–15.

130

Dunne,K.,&Pavlyshyn,M.(2013b).LesscommonlytaughtlanguagesinAustralianhigher

educationin2013:Plusçachange...SelectedProceedingsoftheSecondNationalLCNAU

Colloquium,9–17.Canberra,ACT:LCNAU.

Eberhard,D.M.,Simons,G.F.,&Fennig,C.D.(Eds.).(2019).Ethnologue:Languagesofthe

World(22ndedition).Retrievedfromhttps://www.ethnologue.com/

Etherington,S.,&Etherington,N.(1998).KunwinjkuKunwok:Ashortintroductionto

Kunwinjkulanguageandsociety(Thirdedition).Gunbalanya,NT:KunwinjkuLanguage

Centre.

Evans,N.(2003).BininjGun-wok:Apan-dialectalgrammarofMayali,KunwinjkuandKune.

Canberra,ACT:PacificLinguistics.

Farr,F.,&Murray,L.(Eds.).(2016).TheRoutledgeHandbookofLanguageLearningand

Technology.London;NewYork:Routledge.

Felt,U.,Fouché,Miller,C.A.,&Smith-Doerr,L.(Eds.).(2016).TheHandbookofScienceand

TechnologyStudies.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Fitzgerald,D.,&Callard,F.(2016).Entanglingthemedicalhumanities.InA.Whitehead

(Ed.),TheEdinburghcompaniontothecriticalmedicalhumanities(pp.35–49).

Edinburgh,UK:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Gale,M.-A.(1992).Publishorperish?:ObservationsonthereasonsforwritinginAboriginal

languages.AustralianAboriginalStudies,2,42–48.

Gale,M.-A.(1994).DhangumDjorra’wuyDhawu:ABriefHistoryofWritinginAboriginal

Languages.AboriginalChildatSchool,22(2),33–42.

Gale,M.-A.(1995).Pirrarninganimparnaluyanu...‘Yesterdaywewent...’:Storytellingin

Warlpirianditsimplicationsforliteracy.InternationalJournaloftheSociologyof

Language,113(1),37–58.

Galla,C.(2009).Indigenouslanguagerevitalizationandtechnologyfromtraditionalto

contemporarydomains.InJ.Reyhner&L.Lockard(Eds.),IndigenousLanguage

Revitalization:Encouragement,Guidance&LessonsLearned(pp.167–182).Flagstaff,

AZ:NorthernArizonaUniversity.

Galla,C.(2018).TechnologyTrainingandPraxisattheAmericanIndianLanguage

DevelopmentInstitute:ComputerApplicationsforIndigenousLanguageCommunities.

131

CanadianModernLanguageReview,74(3),388–433.

https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.4044

Gasser,M.(2011).ComputationalMorphologyandtheTeachingofIndigenousLanguages.

InS.Coronel-Molina&J.H.McDowell(Eds.),ProceedingsoftheFirstSymposiumon

TeachingIndigenousLanguagesofLatinAmerica(pp.52–61).Bloomington,IN:

IndianaUniversity.

Giacon,J.(forthcoming).HowuniversitiescanstrengthenAustralianIndigenouslanguages:

TheAustralianIndigenousLanguagesInstitute.InJ.Fornasiero(Ed.),Intersections—

Proceedingsofthe2017LCNAUcolloquium.Adelaide,SA:LCNAU.

Giacon,J.,&Simpson,J.(2012).TeachingIndigenouslanguagesatuniversities.Selected

ProceedingsoftheInauguralLCNAUColloquium,2011,61–73.Melbourne,VIC:LCNAU.

Godbold,N.J.(2009).User-centredDesignvs.‘Good’DatabaseDesignPrinciples:ACase

Study,CreatingKnowledgeRepositoriesforIndigenousAustralians.Australian

Academic&ResearchLibraries,40(2),116–131.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2009.10721390

Goddard,C.(1990).EmergentgenresofreportageandadvocacyinthePitjantjatjaraprint

media.AustralianAboriginalStudies,(2),27–47.

Goddard,C.(1994).ThePitjantjatjarastory-writingcontest.InD.Hartman&J.Henderson

(Eds.),AboriginalLanguagesinEducation(pp.316–323).AliceSprings,NT:IADPress.

Godwin-Jones,R.(2013).Emergingtechnologies:Thetechnologicalimperativeinteaching

andlearninglesscommonlytaughtlanguages.LanguageLearning&Technology,

17(1),7–19.

Gor,K.,&Vatz,K.(2009).LessCommonlyTaughtLanguages:IssuesinLearningand

Teaching.InM.H.Long&C.Doughty(Eds.),TheHandbookofLanguageTeaching(pp.

234–249).Chichester,UK;Malden,MA:Wiley-Blackwell.

GroupofEight.(2007).LanguagesinCrisis:ArescueplanforAustralia.GroupofEight.

(https://go8.edu.au/oldcontent/sites/default/files/agreements/go8-languages-in-

crisis-discussion-paper.pdf).

Gurruwiwi,D.(2010).Teachingstudentstoknowthemselves.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,2,23–24.

132

Hajek,J.,&Lloyd-Smith,A.(2011,October5).LanguagesandCulturesNetworkfor

AustralianUniversities(LCNAU)MediaRelease.Retrievedfrom

http://www.lcnau.org/pdfs/lcnau-media-release.pdf

Hajek,J.,Nettelbeck,C.,&Woods,A.(2013).Leadershipforfuturegenerations:Anational

networkforuniversitylanguages[Finalreport2013].Sydney,NSW:Officefor

LearningandTeaching.

Hannon,J.(2009).Breakingdownonlineteaching:Innovationandresistance.Australasian

JournalofEducationalTechnology,25(1),14–29.

Harris,J.K.(1969).DescriptiveandcomparativestudyoftheGunwingguanlanguages(PhD

thesis).AustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra,ACT.

Hayashi,Y.(2020).Yolŋulanguagesintheacademy:Reflectingontwentyyearsoftertiary

teaching.InJ.Fornasiero,S.M.A.Reed,R.Amery,E.Bouvet,K.Enomoto,&H.L.Xu

(Eds.),IntersectionsinLanguagePlanningandPolicy:EstablishingConnectionsin

LanguagesandCultures(pp.507–521).Cham:SpringerInternationalPublishing.doi:

10.1007/978-3-030-50925-5_31

Henderson,J.(2008).Capturingchaos:Renderinghandwrittenlanguagedocuments.

LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,2(2),212–243.

Hendy,C.,&Bow,C.(inpreparation).ShouldMunangalearnKriol?Exploringattitudesto

non-IndigenousacquisitionofKriolinNgukurr.

Henke,R.,&Berez-Kroeker,A.L.(2016).ABriefHistoryofArchivinginLanguage

Documentation,withanAnnotatedBibliography.LanguageDocumentation&

Conservation,10,411–457.

Henry,M.,Carroll,F.,Cunliffe,D.,&Kop,R.(2018).Learningaminoritylanguagethrough

authenticconversationusinganonlinesociallearningmethod.ComputerAssisted

LanguageLearning,31(4),321–345.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1395348

Hinton,L.(2002).Howtokeepyourlanguagealive:Acommonsenseapproachtoone-on-one

languagelearning.Berkeley,CA:HeydayBooks.

Hinton,L.(2011).Languagerevitalizationandlanguagepedagogy:Newteachingand

learningstrategies.LanguageandEducation,25(4),307–318.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.577220

133

Hobson,J.(2007).TrainingteachersforIndigenouslanguageseducation:What’shappening

overseas.WarraWiltaniappendi:StrengtheningLanguages.Proceedingsofthe

InauguralIndigenousLanguagesConference(ILC),97–105.Adelaide,SA:Universityof

Adelaide.

Hobson,J.(2013).PotholesintheroadtoaninitialteachertrainingdegreeforAustralian

revivallanguages.SelectedProceedingsoftheSecondNationalLCNAUColloquium,

193–206.Canberra,ACT:LCNAU.

Holton,G.(2011).Theroleofinformationtechnologyinsupportingminorityand

endangeredlanguages.InP.K.Austin&J.Sallabank(Eds.),TheCambridgeHandbook

ofEndangeredLanguages(pp.371–399).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Holton,G.(2012).Languagearchives:They’renotjustforlinguistsanymore.InF.Seifart,G.

Haig,D.Jung,A.Margetts,&P.Trilsbeek(Eds.),PotentialsofLanguageDocumentation:

Methods,Analyses,andUtilization:Vol.SpecialPublicationNo.3(pp.105–110).

Honolulu,HI:UniversityofHawai’iPress.

Holton,G.(2017).FromCommunitytoArchiveandBack:Languagearchivesanddigital

return.ProceedingsoftheFoundationforEndangeredLanguagesConference,17–23.

Alcanena,Portugal:FoundationforEndangeredLanguages.

Hornberger,N.H.(2005).Openingandfillingupimplementationalandideologicalspacesin

heritagelanguageeducation.TheModernLanguageJournal,89(4),605–609.

Hughes,M.,&Dallwitz,J.(2007).AṟaIrititja:TowardsCulturallyAppropriateITBest

PracticeinRemoteIndigenousAustralia.InL.E.Dyson,M.A.N.Hendriks,&S.Grant

(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenousPeople(pp.146–158).Hershey,PA:

InformationSciencePublishing.

Hugo,R.(2014).Endangeredlanguages,technologyandlearning:Immediateapplications

andlong-termconsiderations.InM.C.Jones(Ed.),EndangeredLanguagesandNew

Technologies(pp.95–110).Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Jasanoff,S.,&Kim,S.-H.(2015).DreamscapesofModernity:SociotechnicalImaginariesand

theFabricationofPower.

https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226276663.001.0001

134

Johns,A.,&Mazurkewich,I.(2001).TheroleoftheuniversityinthetrainingofNative

languageteachers.InL.Hinton&K.Hale(Eds.),TheGreenBookofLanguage

RevitalizationinPractice(pp.355–66).Leiden;Boston:Brill.

Johnson,H.(2004).Languagedocumentationandarchiving,orhowtobuildabettercorpus.

LanguageDocumentationandDescription,2,140–153.

Ketelaar,E.(2009).Alivingarchive,sharedbycommunitiesofrecords.InJ.A.Bastian&B.

Alexander(Eds.),CommunityArchives:Theshapingofmemory.London:Facet

Publishing.

King,K.A.(2000).LanguageIdeologiesandHeritageLanguageEducation.International

JournalofBilingualEducationandBilingualism,3(3),167–184.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050008667705

Kinoshita,Y.(2018).Educationalimpactofreplacingon-campuscourseswithcross-

institutionalarrangements:Alanguageprogrammecasestudy.TheLanguage

LearningJournal.https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1448431

Kinoshita,Y.,&Zhang,Y.(2012).Whydoweteachlanguagesatuniversities?Re-

conceptualizationofforeignlanguageeducation.InJ.Hajek,C.Nettelbeck,&A.Woods

(Eds.),SelectedProceedingsoftheInauguralLCNAUColloquium,2011(pp.87–99).

Sydney,NSW:LCNAU.

Kostina,M.V.(2012).Independence,Interaction,InterdependenceandInterrelation:

LearnerAutonomyinaWeb-basedLessCommonlyTaughtLanguageClassroom.

JournaloftheNationalCouncilofLessCommonlyTaughtLanguages,11,31–51.

Kral,I.,&Ellis,E.M.(2008).Children,languageandliteracyintheNgaanyatjarralands.InG.

Wigglesworth&J.Simpson(Eds.),Children’sLanguageandMultilingualism:

IndigenousLanguageUseatHomeandSchool(pp.154–172).London;NewYork:

ContinuumPublishingCompany.

Kral,I.,&Falk,I.(2004).Whatisallthatlearningfor?:IndigenousadultEnglishliteracy

practices,training,communitycapacityandhealth.Adelaide,SA:NCVER.

Lane,W.,&Bird,S.(2019).TowardsaRobustMorphologicalAnalyzerforKunwinjku.

Proceedingsofthe17thAnnualWorkshopoftheAustralasianLanguageTechnology

Association,1–9.Sydney,NSW:AustralasianLanguageTechnologyAssociation.

135

Lave,J.,&Wenger,E.(1991).Situatedlearning:Legitimateperipheralparticipation|

Developmentalpsychology.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Law,J.(1987).Technologyandheterogeneousengineering:ThecaseofPortuguese

expansion.InW.E.Bijker,T.P.Hughes,&T.Pinch(Eds.),Thesocialconstructionof

technologicalsystems:Newdirectionsinthesociologyandhistoryoftechnology(pp.

105–128).Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Law,J.(1990).Introduction:Monsters,machinesandsociotechnicalrelations.Sociological

Review,38,1–23.doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1990.tb03346.x

Law,J.(2004).Aftermethod:Messinsocialscienceresearch.London;NewYork:Routledge.

Law,J.(2017).STSasMethod.InU.Felt,R.Fouché,C.A.Miller,&L.Smith-Doerr(Eds.),The

HandbookofScienceandTechnologyStudies(Fourthedition,pp.31–58).Cambridge,

MA:MITPress.

Law,J.,&Callon,M.(1988).EngineeringandSociologyinaMilitaryAircraftProject:A

NetworkAnalysisofTechnologicalChange.SocialProblems,35(3),284–297.

Law,J.,&Callon,M.(1989).Ontheconstructionofsociotechnicalnetworks:Contentand

contextrevisited.KnowledgeandSociety,8,57–83.

Lee,J.S.(2005).ThroughtheLearners’Eyes:ReconceptualizingtheHeritageandNon-

HeritageLearneroftheLessCommonlyTaughtLanguages.ForeignLanguageAnnals,

38(4),554–563.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-

[email protected]/(ISSN)1944-9720.language-community

Levy,M.(1997).Computer-assistedlanguagelearning:Contextandconceptualization.

Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Linn,M.S.(2014).Livingarchives:Acommunity-basedlanguagearchivemodel.Language

DocumentationandDescription,12,53–67.

LoBianco,J.(2009).RevitalisinglanguagesinAustralianuniversities:Whatchance?Babel,

43(3),28–30.

MacKenzie,D.,&Wajcman,J.(1999).Thesocialshapingoftechnology.Maidenhead,UK:

OpenUniversityPress.

Marika-Mununggiritj,R.(1991).HowcanBalanda(whiteAustralians)learnaboutthe

Aboriginalworld?Ngoonjook,5,17–25.

136

Marmion,D.,Obata,K.,&Troy,J.(2014).Community,identity,wellbeing:Thereportofthe

secondNationalIndigenousLanguagessurvey.Canberra,ACT:AustralianInstituteof

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies.

Martín,M.D.(2005).Permanentcrisis,tenuouspersistence:Foreignlanguagesin

Australianuniversities.ArtsandHumanitiesinHigherEducation,4(1),53–75.

McKemmish,S.,Chandler,T.,&Faulkhead,S.(2019).Imagine:Alivingarchiveofpeopleand

place“somewherebeyondcustody”.ArchivalScience,19(3),281–301.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-019-09320-0

McShane,M.(2003).Applyingtoolsandtechniquesofnaturallanguageprocessingtothe

creationofresourcesforlesscommonlytaughtlanguages.IALLTJournalofLanguage

LearningTechnologies,35(1),25–46.

Miyashita,M.,&Chatsis,A.(2013).CollaborativedevelopmentofBlackfootlanguage

courses.LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,7,302–330.

Müller,M.(2015).AssemblagesandActor-networks:RethinkingSocio-materialPower,

PoliticsandSpace.GeographyCompass,9(1),27–41.

https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12192

Murray,F.(2017).TheDevelopmentofSuccessfulBilingual,BiliterateandBicultural

Pedagogy:PlaceforTiwiTeachersandTiwiLanguageinLearning.InB.Devlin,S.

Disbray,&N.R.F.Devlin(Eds.),HistoryofBilingualEducationintheNorthern

Territory(pp.113–126).Singapore:Springer.

MuurrbayAboriginalLanguageandCultureCo-operative.(2019).OnlineCourses—

Gumbaynggirr.Retrieved15November2019,fromMuurrbayAboriginalLanguage

andCultureCo-operativewebsite:https://muurrbay.org.au/publications-and-

resources/online-courses/

Nail,T.(2017).WhatisanAssemblage?SubStance,46(1),21–37.

https://doi.org/10.3368/ss.46.1.21

Nakata,M.,Nakata,V.,Gardiner,G.,McKeough,J.,Byrne,A.,&Gibson,J.(2008).Indigenous

DigitalCollections:AnEarlyLookattheOrganisationandCultureInterface.Australian

Academic&ResearchLibraries,39(4),223–236.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2008.10721360

137

Nathan,D.(2006).Proficient,permanent,orpertinent:Aimingforsustainability.InL.

Barwick&N.Thieberger(Eds.),SustainableDatafromDigitalFieldwork:From

CreationtoArchiveandBack(pp.57–68).Sydney,NSW:UniversityofSydney.

Nicholls,C.(2005).DeathbyaThousandCuts:IndigenousLanguageBilingualEducation

ProgrammesintheNorthernTerritoryofAustralia,1972–1998.InternationalJournal

ofBilingualEducationandBilingualism,8(2–3),160–177.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050508668604

NorthernTerritoryGovernment.(2016).KeepingIndigenousLanguagesandCultures

Strong.Darwin,NT:NorthernTerritoryDept.ofEducation.

Oates,L.F.(1964).AtentativedescriptionoftheGunwinggulanguage.Sydney,NSW:

UniversityofSydney.

O’Grady,G.,&Hale,K.(1974).Recommendationsconcerningbilingualeducationinthe

NorthernTerritory.Darwin,NT:DepartmentofEducation.

Olawsky,K.(2013).TheMaster-Apprenticelanguagelearningprogramdownunder:

ExperienceandadaptationinanAustraliancontext.LanguageDocumentation&

Conservation,7,41–63.http://hdl.handle.net/10125/4569

Oldfield,J.,&LoBianco,J.(2019).ALongUnfinishedStruggle:LiteracyandIndigenous

CulturalandLanguageRights.InJ.Rennie&H.Harper(Eds.),LiteracyEducationand

IndigenousAustralians:Theory,ResearchandPractice(pp.165–184).

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8629-9_10

Ormond-Parker,L.,&Sloggett,R.(2012).Localarchivesandcommunitycollectinginthe

digitalage.ArchivalScience,12(2),191–212.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-011-

9154-1

Pauwels,A.(2007).StrengtheninglanguagesinAustralianhighereducationthrough

collaborativearrangements.Chippendale,NSW:CarrickInstituteforLearningand

TeachinginHigherEducationLtd.;UniversityofNewEngland.

Penfield,S.D.,&Tucker,B.V.(2011).Fromdocumentingtorevitalizinganendangered

language:Wheredoappliedlinguistsfit?LanguageandEducation,25(4),291–305.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.577219

Pennycook,A.(2017).Translanguagingandsemioticassemblages.InternationalJournalof

Multilingualism,14(3),269–282.https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2017.1315810

138

Pennycook,A.(2018).Appliedlinguisticsasepistemicassemblage.AILAReview,31(1),113–

134.https://doi.org/10.1075/aila.00015.pen

Pennycook,A.,&Otsuji,E.(2017).Fish,phonecardsandsemioticassemblagesintwo

BangladeshishopsinSydneyandTokyo.SocialSemiotics,27(4),434–450.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2017.1334391

Phillips,J.(2006).Agencement/Assemblage.Theory,Culture&Society,23(2–3),108–109.

https://doi.org/10.1177/026327640602300219

Poetsch,S.,Jarrett,M.,&Angelo,D.(2019).LearningandteachingGumbaynggirrthrough

story:Behindthescenesofprofessionallearningworkshopsforteachersofan

Aboriginallanguage.LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,13,231–252.

Poetsch,S.,Jarrett,M.,&Williams,G.(2018).Buildingonachievements:Trainingoptionsfor

Gumbaynggirrlanguageteachers.InP.Whitinui,C.RodriguezdeFrance,&O.McIvor

(Eds.),PromisingpracticesinIndigenousteachereducation(pp.175–187).Singapore:

Springer.

Purdon,A.,&Palmer,I.(2017).WeDidIt!ACaseStudyofBilingual/BiculturalEducationat

LtyentyeApurteCatholicSchool.InB.C.Devlin,S.Disbray,&N.R.F.Devlin(Eds.),

HistoryofBilingualEducationintheNorthernTerritory(pp.293–306).Singapore:

Springer.

Reinders,H.,&White,C.(2011).Learnerautonomyandnewlearningenvironments.

LanguageLearning&Technology,15(3),1–3.

Reinders,H.,&White,C.(2016).20yearsofautonomyandtechnology:Howfarhavewe

comeandwheretonext?LanguageLearning&Technology,20(2),143–154.

Rhydwen,M.(1995).KriolisthecolorofThursday.InternationalJournaloftheSociologyof

Language,113(1),113–120.

Rivera,A.V.,&Teske,K.(2018).TheCriticalIntersectionofHeritageLanguageLearning

ande-TandemLearningEnvironments.IALLTJournalofLanguageLearning

Technologies,48,97–112.

Robin,R.M.(2013).CALLandlesscommonlytaughtlanguages.InM.Thomas,H.Reinders,

&M.Warschauer(Eds.),ContemporaryComputer-AssistedLanguageLearning(pp.

303–321).London:BloomsburyAcademic.

139

Scales,S.A.,Burke,J.,Dallwitz,J.,Lowish,S.,&Mann,D.(2013).TheAṟaIrititjaProject:Past,

present,future.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan

(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.151–169).Canberra,

ACT:AIATSISResearchPublications.

Shen,R.,Gonçalves,M.A.,&Fox,E.A.(2013).Keyissuesregardingdigitallibraries:

Evaluationandintegration.SanRafael,CA:Morgan&Claypool.

SILInternational.(2015).ISO639-3.RetrievedfromISO3RegistrationAuthoritywebsite:

http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/default.asp

Simons,G.,&Bird,S.(2003).BuildinganopenlanguagearchivescommunityontheOAI

foundation.LibraryHiTech,21(2),210–218.

Simpson,J.(2014).TeachingminorityIndigenouslanguagesatAustralianuniversities.InP.

Heinrich&N.Ostler(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe18thFELConference(pp.54–58).

Okinawa,Japan:FoundationforEndangeredLanguages.

Simpson,J.,Caffery,J.,&McConvell,P.(2009).GapsinAustralia’sIndigenousLanguage

Policy:DismantlingbilingualeducationintheNorthernTerritory.Canberra,ACT:

AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies.

Sloggett,R.,&Ormond-Parker,L.(2013).Crashesalongthesuperhighway:Theinformation

continuum.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan(Eds.),

InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.227–246).Canberra,ACT:

AIATSISResearchPublications.

Soria,C.,Besacier,L.,&Pretorius,L.(Eds.).(2018).CCURL2018SustainingKnowledge

DiversityintheDigitalAge.InSustainingknowledgediversityinthedigitalage.

Miyazaki,Japan:EuropeanLanguageResourcesAssociation.

Soria,C.,Mariani,J.,&Zoli,C.(2013).Dwarfssittingonthegiants’shoulders–howLTsfor

regionalandminoritylanguagescanbenefitfrompiggybackingmajorlanguages.

ProceedingsofXVIIFELConference,73–80.Ottawa,CA:FoundationforEndangered

Languages.

Srinivasan,R.,&Huang,J.(2005).Fluidontologiesfordigitalmuseums.International

JournalonDigitalLibraries,5(3),193–204.https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-004-

0105-9

140

Star,S.L.,&Strauss,A.(1999).Layersofsilence,arenasofvoice:Theecologyofvisibleand

invisiblework.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),8(1),9–30.

Stockwell,G.(Ed.).(2012).Computer-assistedlanguagelearning:Diversityinresearchand

practice.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Strathman,N.(2019).DigitizingtheAncestors:IssuesinIndigenousDigitalHeritage

Projects.InternationalJournalofCommunication,13,3721–2738.

Swain,T.(1993).Aplaceforstrangers:TowardsahistoryofAustralianAboriginalbeing.

Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Tamisari,F.,&Milmilany,E.(2003).DhinthunWayawu-LookingforaPathwayto

Knowledge:TowardsaVisionofYolngueducationinMilingimbi.TheAustralian

JournalofIndigenousEducation,32,1–10.

TeHuia,A.(2017).ExploringtheRoleofIdentityinMāoriHeritageLanguageLearner

Motivations.JournalofLanguage,Identity&Education,16(5),299–312.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15348458.2017.1319282

Thieberger,N.(2011).Buildingalexicaldatabasewithmultipleoutputs:Examplesfrom

legacydataandfrommultimodalfieldwork.InternationalJournalofLexicography,

24(4),463–472.

Thieberger,N.(2012).Usinglanguagedocumentationdatainabroadercontext.InF.

Seifart,G.Haig,N.P.Himmelmann,D.Jung,A.Margetts,&P.Trilsbeek(Eds.),

PotentialsofLanguageDocumentation:Methods,Analyses,andUtilization:Vol.Special

PublicationNo.3(pp.129–134).Honolulu,HI:UniversityofHawai’iPress.

Thieberger,N.(2017,November16).Awebsiteisnotanarchive!!!!!![Blog].Retrievedfrom

EndangeredLanguagesandCultureswebsite:

http://www.paradisec.org.au/blog/2017/11/a-website-is-not-an-archive/

Thieberger,N.,&Musgrave,S.(2007).Documentarylinguisticsandethicalissues.Language

DocumentationandDescription,4,26–37.

Thomas,M.,Reinders,H.,&Warschauer,M.(Eds.).(2013).ContemporaryComputer-Assisted

LanguageLearning.London:BloomsburyAcademic.

Thorpe,K.,&Joseph,M.(2015,February2).DigitalengagementandtheATSILIRNprotocols:

IndigenousAustralianexperiencesandexpertiseguidingtheuseofsocialmediain

Libraries.PresentedattheAttheEdge:ALIAInformationOnline2015,Sydney,NSW.

141

Toohey,K.,&Dagenais,D.(2015).Videomakingassociomaterialassemblage.Languageand

Education,29(4),302–316.https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2015.1006643

TopEndSTS.(2019).DoingdifferencedifferentlyinNorthernAustraliatoday:The

beginningsofTopEndSTS.EASSTReview,38(1),48–51.

UniversityLanguagesPortalAustralia.(2018).WherecanIstudyanAustralianIndigenous

language?RetrievedfromUniversityLanguagesPortalAustraliawebsite:

http://www.ulpa.edu.au/where-can-study-indigenous-languages/

VandeSompel,H.,&Lagoze,C.(2002).Notesfromtheinteroperabilityfront:Aprogress

reportontheOpenArchivesInitiative.InternationalConferenceonTheoryand

PracticeofDigitalLibraries,144–157.Berlin:Springer.

vanDerVelden,M.(2010).Designforthecontactzone:Knowledgemanagementsoftware

andthestructuresofindigenousknowledges.1–18.Perth,WA:MurdochUniversity.

van’tHooft,A.,&González,J.L.(2019).Nenek:DigitalSelf-documentationforMinorityand

Under-resourcedLanguages.ProceedingoftheInternationalConferenceonLanguage

TechnologiesforAll(LT4All):EnablingLinguisticDiversityandMultilingualism

Worldwide.PresentedattheLT4All,Paris.

Verran,H.(2001).ScienceandanAfricanLogic.Chicago,IL:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Verran,H.(2002).Apostcolonialmomentinsciencestudies:Alternativefiringregimesof

environmentalscientistsandaboriginallandowners.SocialStudiesofScience,32(5–6),

729–762.

Verran,H.(2007).Theeducationalvalueofexplicitnon-coherence:Softwareforeducating

Aboriginalchildrenaboutplace.InD.W.Kritt&L.T.Winegar(Eds.),Educationand

Technology:CriticalPerspectives,PossibleFutures(pp.101–124).Lanham,MD:

LexingtonBooks.

Verran,H.(2010).OnBeinga‘LanguageandCulture’LearnerinaYolŋuWorld.Learning

Communities:InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,2,84–90.

Verran,H.,&Christie,M.(2007).Using/designingdigitaltechnologiesofrepresentationin

AboriginalAustralianknowledgepractices.HumanTechnology,3(2),214–227.

Verran,H.,&Christie,M.(2014).PostcolonialDatabasing?SubvertingOldAppropriations,

DevelopingNewAssociations.InJ.Leach&L.Wilson(Eds.),Subversion,conversion,

142

development:Cross-culturalknowledgeencounterandthepoliticsofdesign(pp.57–77).

Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Verran,H.,Christie,M.,Anbins-King,B.,vanWeeren,T.,&Yunupingu,W.(2007).Designing

digitalknowledgemanagementtoolswithAboriginalAustralians.DigitalCreativity,

18(3),129–142.https://doi.org/10.1080/14626260701531944

Wang,S.C.(2009).PreparingandSupportingTeachersofLessCommonlyTaught

Languages.TheModernLanguageJournal,93(2),282–287.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00860_8.x

Ward,M.(2002).ReusableXMLtechnologiesandthedevelopmentoflanguagelearning

materials.ReCALL,14(2),285–294.

Ward,M.(2004).TheadditionalusesofCALLintheendangeredlanguagecontext.ReCALL,

16(2),345–359.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344004000722

Ward,M.(2015).CALLandlesscommonlytaughtlanguages:Challengesandopportunities.

InF.Helm,L.Bradley,M.Guarda,&S.Thouësny(Eds.),CriticalCALL–Proceedingsof

the2015EUROCALLConference,Padova,Italy(pp.549–552).Dublin:Research-

publishing.net.

Ward,M.(2016).CALLandlesscommonlytaughtlanguages–stillawaytogo.InS.

Papadima-Sophocleous,L.Bradley,&S.Thouësny(Eds.),CALLcommunitiesand

culture–shortpapersfromEUROCALL2016(pp.468–473).

https://doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.eurocall2016.608

Ward,M.(2017).ICALL’srelevancetoCALL.InK.Borthwick,L.Bradley,&S.Thouësny

(Eds.),ShortpapersfromEUROCALL2017(pp.328–332).Southampton,UK:

EUROCALL.

Ward,M.(2018).Qualitativeresearchinlesscommonlytaughtandendangeredlanguage

CALL.LanguageLearning&Technology,22(2),116–132.

Ward,M.,&vanGenabith,J.(2003).CALLforendangeredlanguages:Challengesand

rewards.ComputerAssistedLanguageLearning,16(2–3),233–258.

https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.2.233.15885

Warschauer,M.,&Healey,D.(1998).Computersandlanguagelearning:Anoverview.

LanguageTeaching,31(02),57.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444800012970

143

Watson-Verran,H.,&Turnbull,D.(1995).ScienceandOtherIndigenousKnowledge

Systems.InSJasanoff,G.E.Markle,J.C.Peterson,&T.Pinch(Eds.),Handbookof

ScienceandTechnologyStudies(pp.115–139).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Weinberg,M.(2015).Puttingthefourthcrowinthesky:Usingnarrativetounderstandthe

experiencesofonenon-heritagelearnerofanendangeredlanguage.Linguisticsand

Education,30,125–136.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2015.03.005

Westwood,V.(2017).CriticaldesignforIndigenouslanguagelearning:Acriticalqualitative

studyofCALLdesigninanAustralianAboriginallanguage(PhD).MurdochUniversity,

Perth,WA.

Widlok,T.(2013).TheArchiveStrikesBack:EffectsofOnlineDigitalLanguageArchivingon

ResearchRelationsandPropertyRights.InM.Turin,C.Wheeler,&E.Wilkinson(Eds.),

OralLiteratureintheDigitalAge.ArchivingOralityandConnectingwithCommunities

(pp.3–19).Cambridge,UK:OpenBookPublishers.

Wigglesworth,G.,&Lasagabaster,D.(2011).Indigenouslanguages,bilingualeducationand

EnglishinAustralia.InC.Norrby&J.Hajek(Eds.),UniformityandDiversityin

LanguagePolicy:GlobalPerspectives(pp.141–156).Bristol,UK:MultilingualMatters.

Winke,P.,Goertler,S.,&Amuzie,G.L.(2010).Commonlytaughtandlesscommonlytaught

languagelearners:AretheyequallypreparedforCALLandonlinelanguagelearning?

ComputerAssistedLanguageLearning,23(3),199–219.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.486576

Winner,L.(1980).DoArtifactsHavePolitics?Daedalus,109(1),121–136.

Yang,M.,&Rau,D.(2005).AnIntegratedFrameworkforArchiving,Processingand

DevelopingLearningMaterialsforanEndangeredAboriginalLanguageinTaiwan.

ProceedingsoftheFifthWorkshoponAsianLanguageResources(ALR-05)andFirst

SymposiumonAsianLanguageResourcesNetwork(ALRN),32–39.JejuIsland,Korea:

AsianFederationofNaturalLanguageProcessing.

Yunupingu,M.(1989).Languageandpower:TheYolngurisetopoweratYirrkalaSchool.

Ngoonjook,2,1–6.

144

Chapter 3 (PAPER 1): Technology for Australian languages

Bow,C.(acceptedforpublication).TechnologyforAustralianLanguages.InC.Bowern(Ed.),

OxfordHandbookofAustralianLanguages.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Thisfirstpublishedpapersetsthecontextofmyresearch.Itgivesanoverviewofthe

currentstateoftechnologyinAustralianlanguages,describinganumberoftoolsand

resourcescurrentlyinuse,aswellashighlightingsomeofthechallengesandopportunities

inthisfield.

Thecontributiontothethesisisintheidentificationoftheroleoftechnologyindifferent

typesoflanguagepractices,languagedocumentationpractices(wherelanguage

ispressentedasasdatawhichcanbecaptured,analysed,preservedandre-presentedin

variousways),languageinpedagogicalpractices(incorporatingprocessesofformaland

informalteaching,sharinginformationwithingroupsandacrossgroups),andlanguagein

practicesofidentitypolitics(involvingclaimstoland,law,culture,ceremony,etc).Asa

chapterforaHandbook,itdidnotdemandahighlytheoreticaloracademicapproach,but

aimstoprovideausefulbackgroundforsomeonepossiblynewtotheareatodevelopan

understandingofthetypesoftoolscurrentlyinuse,aswellastheissuessurroundingthis

field.

Thepaperwaswritteninresponsetoaninvitationfromtheeditorofthe‘OxfordHandbook

ofAustralianLanguages’inAugust2017tocontributethechapteron‘Technology’.Overthe

twoyearsofwritingandrewriting,Iwasacutelyawareofthechangesintechnology,with

newexamplesoftechnologicaltoolsandresourcesappearingregularlywhichcouldeasily

fitintothischapter.

TheversionsubmittedintheoriginalthesiswasacceptedforpublicationinMay2019,and

theversionincludedherewasrevisedinNovember2020withfeedbackfrommythesis

examiners.Itisthepre-publicationversion(withoutsectionnumbering),priortocopy

editing.Thefinalvolumewasexpectedtobepublishedin2020,buthasbeendelayeddueto

COVID19issues.

145

Abstract

DigitaltechnologiesareentangledinAustralianIndigenouslanguageworkinavariety

ofways,andmaybedifferentlymobilisedaccordingtohowtheysupportandenable

someofthesocialfunctionsoflanguage.Thischapterfocusesonthreetypesof

languagework:languagedocumentationpractices,languageinpedagogicalpractices,

andlanguageinpracticesofidentitypolitics.Itpresentsasnapshotofcurrenttools

andresources,withafocusonthecontextsandpurposesoftheirdevelopmentand

implementation,andadiscussionofsomeofthechallengesandopportunities

inherentintheuseoftechnologyforthiswork.

Introduction

DigitaltechnologieshavebecomeentangledinAustralianIndigenouslanguagework

inacomplexrangeofcontextsandpurposes.Thesetechnologiesareoftenmobilisedquite

differentlyaccordingtohowtheysupportandenablecertaintypesoflanguagepractices.

Focusingonlanguagedocumentationpracticespresentslanguageasdatawhichcanbe

captured,analysed,preservedandre-presentedinvariousways.Focusingonlanguagein

pedagogyincorporatesprocessesofformalandinformalteachingpractices.Focusingon

languageinpracticesofidentitypoliticsinvolvesindividualandcommunalclaimsto

countryandceremony.Whilenotanexhaustivelistofthewayslanguagecanbe

understood,thesetypesoflanguagepracticearenotmutuallyexclusive,andcanwork

togetherinproductiveways,allpotentiallyenabledandsupportedthroughdigital

technologies.

146

ThesocialecologyofAustralianlanguagesishugelycomplex,rangingfromlanguages

withnospeakersandnoextantdocumentation,throughtoafewremainingcommunities

wherelanguagesarestillspokenacrossgenerations.Thereisconsiderablelinguistic

interestinlanguagesacrossthefullrange,andastechnologiesbecomelessexpensiveand

moreaccessible,morepeopleareusingdigitaltoolsandresourcesintheworkoflanguage

maintenanceandrevival.Beyondtranscribingtextsusinggenericwordprocessing

software,orrecordingstoriesandsongsonmobilephones,newtechnologiesarebeing

developedspecificallytoaddresstheneedsoflanguageworkers,linguists,researchers,

speakersandowners.Existingtoolsarecustomisedforspecificpurposes,andbespoke

resourcesarebeingcreatedandsharedwithothergroups.Theuseoftechnologycreatesa

generativecyclewherebylanguagepracticesaretransformedintodatawhichcanbe

analysedandarchived,andinturnproducenewmaterialsandgeneratenewdatawhich

cansupporttheworkofdocumentation,pedagogyandidentity,producingnewanalyses

andmaterialsforarchiving.Thecyclecancontinuetoreproducenewaffordancesfor

differenttypesoflanguagepractices.

Allactivityofthisnaturereliesonarangeofcontingentalliancesbetweenvarious

groupsofpeople(Indigenouslanguageauthorities,speakers,linguists,teachers,learners,

archivists,programmers),institutions(fundingbodies,languagecentres,schools,

universities),technologies(software,hardware,interfaces,platforms,devices),artefacts

(texts,recordings,images),pedagogiesandknowledgepractices(bothofwhichcomein

Indigenousandnon-Indigenousforms).Thesealliancesarealltentativeandvulnerable

arrangements,opentothreatsofmanykinds.Apersonleavesalanguageproject,asoftware

updateisnotcompatiblewithaparticulartool,aformatbecomesobsolete,ariftemerges

147

betweenalanguagecommunityandalinguist,aninstitutionwithdrawsfinancialsupport–

allareeverydayexamplesofthevulnerabilityoftheseallianceswhichthreatenthe

sustainabilityofdigitallanguageresources.Whenresourcesarenolongerfunctional,itis

vitaltoconsiderwhathappenstothedatatheycontainandhowtheirpurposescanbe

servedinotherways.Theinevitabilityofchangeshouldinformthedevelopmentofnew

digitaltoolsfornewcontextsandpurposes.

Thischapterexploressomeofthewaysinwhichdigitaltechnologiesarebeingused

fortheworkofdocumentation,pedagogyandidentitypracticesforIndigenouslanguagesin

Australia.Thesnapshotofcurrenttoolsandresourcesislikelytodatequickly,sothefocus

hereisonthecontextsandpurposesoftheirdevelopmentandimplementation.Thenext

sectionaddressestheroleoftechnologyinlanguagedocumentationpractices,including

tools,issuesofaccess,andthere-presentationofdata.Thethirdsectionconsiderstherole

oftechnologyinpedagogicalpractices,withafocusononlinelanguageteaching,andtools

tosupportcross-culturalcommunication.Thefollowingsectionexplorestheroleof

technologyinidentitypoliticsforIndigenouslanguages,consideringissuesofauthority,

recognitionandculturalcontinuity.Thefinalsectionhighlightssomeofthechallengesand

opportunitiesinherentintheuseoftechnologyforthisspace.Adeliberatefocuson

Australianresearchunderliesthechapter,withoutdiscountingtheimportantandvaluable

workdoneinternationallyinthisspace(seeforexampleCarpenteretal.,2016;Littelletal.,

2018forreflectionsonthesituationinCanada).

148

Language documentation practices

Frombarkpaintingstellingstoriesofdifferentclangroupsandtheirlanguages,to

videorecordingsongsandceremonies,IndigenousAustralianshavealongtraditionofusing

technologiestoperform,shareanddocumentlanguagepractices.Otherkindsoflanguage

documentationhavebeenundertakenbynon-Indigenouspeople,fromearlycolonistsand

explorerswritingwordliststomodernlinguistsusinghigh-techequipmenttocollectand

analyselanguagepractices.Contemporaryformsoflanguagedocumentationcapture

languageandturnitintodatawhichcanthenbeenriched,analysed,sharedandarchived.

Theresultingdatacanthengeneratenewlanguagepracticesandconsequentlymoredata.

Tools for language documentation

Beyondtheuseofvideoandaudiorecorderstocollectdata,linguistscommonlyuse

readilyavailablelinguisticsoftwareproducedforexamplebyresearchinstitutions(suchas

ELAN,2020;Wittenburg,Brugman,Russel,Klassmann,&Sloetjes,2006)orbytheSummer

InstituteofLinguistics(FLEX,Saymore,Toolbox,etc.‘SILLanguageTechnology’,2019),for

documentationandanalysis(Rice&Thieberger,2018).Customisedtoolshavealsobeen

developedinAustraliatoenableIndigenouspeopletodocumenttheirownpractices.

MiromaasoftwarewascreatedbyIndigenousdevelopersfromNSW,andsupportsaudio,

video,imagesanddocumentsinvariousformats(MiromaaAboriginalLanguage&

TechnologyCentre,2016).Thesoftwarefacilitatesanalysisandpresentationthrough

dictionariesandapps,andisnowsharedwithotherlanguagegroupsnationallyand

internationallytosupportreclamationanddocumentationactivities.

149

OthertoolsdevelopedinAustraliadrawonfamiliartechnologiessuchasmobile

phonestoenablelanguagecommunitiestodocumenttheirownlanguages.TheAikuma

mobileappusesnetworkedsmartphonestocollectspokendata(Bird,Hanke,Adams,&Lee,

2014),withcapacityforre-speakingandtranslatingtextsonthefly,requiringnotext

literacyandminimaltechnicalproficiency.TheMa!project(Birch,2013)developeda

mobileapptoenablecrowdsourcingofdictionaryentries,withasimpleinterfacefor

languagespeakerstorecordwordsandsyncaudio,video,textandimagedatatoanonline

databaseforbuildingdigitaldictionaries.Suchappsrequireongoingmaintenanceandoften

redevelopment,andwhenthealliancesthatinitiatedtheircreationarenolonger

operational,questionsremainoverwhathappenstothedatacontainedinthetools.

Access to language data

Oncelanguagepracticesaredocumentedtheycanbepreservedandmadeavailable

foraccess.Digitaltechnologiesoffermanyaffordancesforpreservationofandaccessto

languagedata,fromscanningandarchivingwordlistscollectedintheearlydaysof

colonisationtothecreationoflargecorporaoftextualandmultimediamaterials.Thevalue

ofpreservationishighlightedinlanguagerevivalprograms,whereonlymaterialsthathave

beenpreservedcanberepurposed,butisalsosignificantwherelanguagesarestillin

everydayuse,ascertainlanguagepracticessuchassongsandceremoniesarebecoming

endangered,andolderformsoflanguagearebeinglost.Changesintechnology,language

vitality,culturalandfamilyconsiderationsshouldbereflectedinconstantrenegotiations

overaccessconditions(Singer,2019),thoughsuchworkisoftenimpractical.

150

Digitalarchivesoflanguagedataraiseimportantquestionsaboutaccessand

authority,withconcernsaboutmisuseorinappropriatesharingoflanguagecontent.A

tensionexistsbetweentraditionalIndigenouspracticesofknowledgesharingandthe

contemporarypushforopennessofdata(Wilkins,1992;Withey,2012).Technologycan

providemeansofstructuringaccesstomaterials,byestablishingformsofgatekeeping

throughpasswordsanduserprofiles.Technicalsolutionsneedtobeinformedby

consultationwithlanguageauthoritiesaboutwhohastherighttodecidewhocanaccess

materials(Anderson,2005).Peopledevelopingsuchresourcesrequireanunderstandingof

thepoliciesandpracticesofcopyrightandintellectualpropertylawinAustralia,andhow

thesedoanddonotprotectIndigenouslanguageandknowledgepractices(Janke,1998;

Janke&Sentina,2018).Thereisawiderangeofviewsabouthowlanguagedatashouldbe

shared,withsomegroups(oftenthosewithveryfewlanguageresources,suchasthe

revivedTasmanianlanguage(TasmanianAboriginalCentre,2005))mandatingthatcontent

onlybesharedwithIndigenouspeopleconnectedtothatlanguage.Viewsalsodifferwithin

communities,andcanchangeovertime,suggestingtheneedtobuildflexibilityintosystems

todealwithsuchchanges.

Thetensionsbetweenprovidinginformationtothepublicandseekingtoprotectthe

rightsofIndigenousknowledgeauthorities(Koch,2010)havebeenaddressedindifferent

waysindigitalarchivesatnational,regionalandlocallevels.TheAustralianInstituteof

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies(AIATSIS)isthefederalgovernment’s

official‘keepingplace’forinformationaboutAustralia’sIndigenouscultureandheritage.

Manylanguagematerialsheldtherehavebeendigitisedforpreservationandaccess

(Lewincamp&Faulkner,2003;Ormond-Parker,2019),withsomematerialsavailable

151

onlineandotherssuppliedonlytoIndigenousauthoritiesasappropriate.ThePacificand

RegionalArchiveforDigitalSourcesinEndangeredCultures(PARADISEC)digitisesand

archivesaudio,textandvisualrecordsofminoritylanguages,balancingtheneedto

conformtointernationalstandardsfordigitalarchivingwiththerequirementtoprovide

accesstointerestedcommunities.Thisprocessismanagedthroughassigninglicencesto

eachitem,andameansfordepositorstoassignrightstoindividualswhilekeepingitems

closedtogeneralusers(Thieberger&Barwick,2012).

Therearealternativewaystohandlethissensitiveissueforprojectswithdifferent

purposes.TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages(Bow,Christie,&Devlin,2014)

collectedanddigitisedmaterialsproducedinremoteschoolsduringtheeraofbilingual

educationintheNorthernTerritory.Thematerialsarefreelyavailableonlinewiththe

permissionofboththecopyrightholdersandthemoralrightsholdersunderaCreative

Commonslicense(Bow&Hepworth,2019).Similarly,BatchelorInstitute’sCentrefor

AustralianLanguagesandLinguistics(CALL)hasacollectionofmaterialscollectedfrom

staff,studentsandcommunities.Theycreatedacustomrangeofcommunityandcreator

consentforms,culturalprotocols,andthreeEndUserLicensesforthegeneralpublic,

educationpurposesandIndigenouscommunityusers(CALLCollection,2017).

Atalocallevel,digitaltoolshavebeendevelopedspecificallytoaddressissuesof

accessandincorporationofculturalprotocols.TheAṟaIrititjaprojectrespondedtothe

requestofIndigenouscommunitiesofCentralAustraliatostoreandmakeavailable

materialsofculturalandhistoricalsignificance(Dallwitz,Dallwitz,&Lowish,2019;Scales,

Burke,Dallwitz,Lowish,&Mann,2013).Thisproprietarysoftwareallowslanguage

authoritiestoupload,label,sortandviewphotos,videos,documents,etc.,withappropriate

152

restrictionsasneeded.Anopensourcealternative,Mukurtuwasdevelopedwiththe

WarumungucommunityofTennantCreektohousereturneddigitalmaterialsaswellas

newlyproduceddigitalcontent(Christen,Merrill,&Wynne,2017;Withey,2008).Using

threestatuslevels,eachwithdifferentrights,enablessomeknowledgetoberestrictedto

specificgroups(bygender,clan,etc).Theconcernwithallcollectiontoolsofthisnatureis

thesustainabilityofthedataovertime,particularlyifthereisnoprovisionforexportingto

anappropriatearchivallocation.

Re-presentation of curated data

Theproductsoflanguagedocumentationactivitiesvarywidely,frompublished

grammarsandwordliststocollectionsofannotatedstoriesandsubtitledvideos.The

increasingamountoflinguisticdataavailableindigitalformhasledtonewmodelsand

toolsfordisplaying,analysingandsharingmaterialsonline.Thisre-presentation(interms

of‘makingpresentagain’)oflinguisticdataalsoinvolvesrecontextualisation,whichinturn

createsnewaffordancesforanalysisandsharingoflanguagematerials.

CollectionsofextantdatafromAustralianlanguagescanbere-presentedfor

communityaccessandlinguisticanalysis.TheconversionofmaterialsinNunggubuyu

languagetoahypertextformat(Musgrave&Thieberger,2012)connectsthegrammar,

dictionaryandtextcollectiontoenablefurtheranalysisandmodeldatastructuresfor

electronicgrammars.CHIRILA,alexicaldatabasecollatedfromarangeofsources(Bowern,

2016),containsover780,000wordsfromalloverAustralia.TheDaisyBatesproject

(Thieberger,2016a)contains23,000pagesofvocabularymanuscriptscollectedviaa

questionnairesentaroundWesternAustraliain1904.Thematerialshavebeendigitised,

153

transcribed,andencodedusingtheTextEncodingInitiative(TEI)guidelines(Renear,

2004),andpresentedonaninteractivewebsite.SuchprojectsfacilitateIndigenouspeople’s

accesstovocabulariesoftheirtraditionallanguages,aswellasprovidingarichdatasetfor

linguisticanalysisandresearch.

There-presentationofcuratedmaterialscanalsorevealgapsinthefunctionalityof

existingtools,leadingsometoengineertheirownsolutions.Audiamuswasdevelopedto

linktexttomediaexamplesforverification(Thieberger,2004),andtheEthnographicE-

ResearchOnlinePresentationandAnnotationSystem(EOPAS)tolinkinterlineartexts

withtime-alignedtranscriptsofrecordedlanguage(Schroeter&Thieberger,2006).The

OnlineLanguageCommunityAccessPilot(OLCAP)wasdevelopedtoenablecommunity

memberstoaccesslanguagedocumentationonline(Lee&McConvell,2008).Thesetools

areamongmanycreatedtoaddressspecificsituations,yettheynolongerfunction,again

raisingconcernsaboutthedatacontainedwithinthem.

Dictionaries

Dictionariesareacommonproductoflanguagedocumentationefforts,andserve

multiplepurposes,includingtranslation,languagelearning,languagerevitalisation,and

vernacularliteracyprograms.Theinterfaceofstructureandcontentiscrucial–evenbasic

wordprocessingsoftwarecanproduceapublishableoutput,howevertheunderlying

contentwillnotbestructuredappropriatelyforreusingthedatainotherformats

(Thieberger,2011,2016b).Thoughnotwithouttheirchallenges,digitaldictionariescan

supportavarietyoffeatures,suchaslinkingtosoundfiles,imagesandcontextual

information(Simpson,2003).TheuseoflexicographicsoftwaresuchasToolbox,Flexand

154

AppBuilder(‘SILLanguageTechnology’,2019)alsofacilitatedynamicupdatingandvarious

distributionformats.

Digitaltoolsforlanguagedictionariesalsoenablethereimaginationoflexicographic

records.Aprototypetocreatevisualisationsofdictionarydata,Kirrkirrwasdevelopedfor

Warlpirilanguage,withtheaimofprovidingusefultoolsforendusers(Manning,2014),

includingnativespeakerswhomaynotnaturallyreachforahardcopydictionary(Manning

&Parton,2001).Whilenolongermaintained,Kirrkirrisstillusedinsomecommunities,

anditsincorporationoffeaturessuchasfuzzysearchandsemanticnetworkshavebeen

takenupinotherAustraliandictionaryprojects.Anexampleoffuzzysearchisincorporated

intheYolnguMathaDictionary(Greatorex,2014),whereusersselectfromarangeof

lettersatdifferentpointsintheword,returningresultsfromthelexiconforallpossible

matches.Thisfeatureisespeciallyusefulforlanguageswithspecialcharactersanda

numberofoptionsforplaceofarticulationforcertainsounds,whichcanmakespellingvery

challenging(Christie,2005b).

Technicalandculturalconsiderationscanimproveanonlinedictionary’sfunctionality

asacommunityresource.AnonlinedictionaryofAustraliansignlanguages,IltyemIltyem

usesvideotodocumentandsharesignlanguagepracticesfromdifferentIndigenous

communities(Carew&Green,2015).Thisprojectfocusednotonlyontheproductsof

documentationbutalsoonincreasingcapacityforlanguageauthoritiestodevelopdigital

literacy.Controloflanguagedocumentationcanbegivenbacktothelanguagecommunities

throughactivitiessuchasparticipatorydesignworkshopsanddigitalliteracytraining

(Carew,Green,Kral,Nordlinger,&Singer,2015;Gawne,2015;Bird,2018).

155

Thissectionhasoutlinedsomeofthedigitaltoolsandresourcesusedtosupport

practicesoflanguagedocumentation,creatingdatawhichcanbeanalysed,preservedand

re-presented.ForIndigenouspeople,languageisnotanendinitself,butameansof

connectingandcaringforlandandpeople,andsodoesnotneedtobecaptured,configured

andcommodifiedtodoitsgenerativework.Documentationisnecessarilyreductionistasit

cannotreplaceoraltransmissionbetweengenerationsandpersonalinteractionsinreallife

contexts,yetitalsoservesavaluableroleinmaintainingandpreservinglanguagepractices

astheybecomeendangered.

Language in pedagogical practices

Digitaltechnologiescansupportandenhancetheroleoflanguageinpedagogical

practicesinvariousways,throughkeepinglanguagesstrongincommunity,teaching

languagestointerestedoutsiders,andrevivingsleepinglanguages.Suchactivitiesoften

involvealliancesbetweenIndigenouslanguageowners,educators,andtechnicians.As

digitaltechnologiesmaketheproductionanddistributionofpedagogicalcontentmore

accessibleandlessexpensive,theycanfacilitatelanguageandknowledgesharingwithina

languagegrouporacrossgroups,includingtonon-Indigenousaudiences.Thissectionwill

considerafewareasinwhichdigitaltechnologiessupportthesharingofIndigenous

languagesinpedagogicalpractices.

Online language teaching

Theaffordancesoftheinternetsupportlanguageteachingonvariousscales.Massive

OpenOnlineCourses(MOOCs)arebeingusedtoeducatelearnersaroundtheworldabout

thelinguisticsituationinAustralia.In2015aMOOCon“LanguageRevival:Securingthe

156

FutureofEndangeredLanguages”(Zuckermann&Amery,2015)presentedbythe

UniversityofAdelaideattractedover10,000participantsglobally.In2018Curtin

UniversityincollaborationwiththeNoongarcommunityofWesternAustraliaproducedthe

firstMOOCteachinganAustralianlanguage(Kickett&Forrest,2018).Suchplatformshave

enormousreach,allowingaglobalaudienceaccesstoIndigenouslanguagecontent.

Beyondtherangeofcommercialtoolsavailableforonlineteaching,thereare

examplesofcustomisationofexistingsoftwaretoenablesharingwithothergroups.A

DigitalLanguageShellwasdevelopedasanonlinetemplateusinglow-costandlow-tech

toolstoenablelanguageauthoritiestosharetheirlanguageandcultureonline(Bow,2017).

TheshellwasusedtorunacourseinKunwinjkulanguage,developedincollaborationwith

BininjKunwoklanguageauthorities,foratargetaudienceofnon-Indigenouslearnersat

universities(Bow,2019),butcaneasilybeadaptedforotherpurposesandaudiences.This

projectwasinfluencedbythelongstandingYolŋuStudiesprogramatCharlesDarwin

University,whichincorporatedaninnovativemodelofTeachingfromCountry(Christie,

2010;Christie,Guyula,Gurruwiwi,&Greatorex,2013)inresponsetoYolŋuconcernsthat

onlineteachingalienateslanguagesfromtheirplaces.Bespokewebsiteswhichincorporate

analysisofcommunityknowledgesharingprocesseshavealsobeendevelopedfor

languagesofNSW(Kutay,2016).

Visualandperformingartscancombinewithtechnologytopromoteandteach

language.TheNgapartjiNgapartjiprojectinvolvedmembersofPitjantjatjaraspeaking

communitiescreatingcontentforbothanonlinelanguagecourseandatouringtheatre

show(Sometimes&Kelly,2010).Theprojectarosefromconcernforlanguagemaintenance

inthePitjantjatjaracommunity,andwasalsosharedonlineforotherinterestedpeopleto

157

learnthelanguage.Theactiveengagementofbothlocalpeopleandthegeneralpublicin

languagemaintenanceandrevitalisationsupportedcommunitybuildingandsocial

cohesion(Palmer,2010).

Cross-cultural communication

Besideslanguagelearningprograms,thereareothermeansofsupporting

communicationbetweenIndigenousandnon-Indigenouspeopleacrosslanguagebarriers.

TheUtiKulintjakuinitiativeintheAPYlandsofCentralAustraliadevelopedanappto

supportcommunicationformentalhealthandwellbeinginremotecommunities(NPY

Women’sCouncil,2014;Togni,2017),andisnowexploringvirtualrealityoptions(Fryer,

2019).Similarly,theCommdocapp(NorthernTerritoryGeneralPracticeEducation,2015)

aimstofacilitatecommunicationbetweenhealthprofessionalsandpatientsbyproviding

basicvocabularyin16Indigenouslanguages.TheRumbalpuyDhäwuapp(ARDS

AboriginalCorporation,2019)explainsanatomy,pathologiesandproceduresinplain

EnglishandseveralYolŋulanguages.TheiTalklibraryhasdevelopedresourcesand

educationaltoolsusingpicturesandspeechinIndigenouslanguagesandsimpleEnglish,

producingover100videosontopicssuchasdomesticviolence,gambling,foodhandling,

disability,crocodilesafety,andmentalhealth(iTalkStudios,2016).

Thissectionhasoutlinedsomeofthewaysinwhichtechnologiescanenablenew

formsofsharinglanguageinpedagogicalpractices,focusingonthosewhichenablenon-

IndigenouspeopletoengagewithIndigenouslanguagesandtheirspeakers,whichcan

increaseawareness,recognitionandunderstandingofIndigenouswaysofknowingand

being.

158

Language in identity practices

FormanyIndigenousAustralians,languageisinherentlyconnectedtoidentity,

belongingtoparticularpeopleorgroupswithenduringlinkstoland.Beyondsimplya

meansofcommunication,languagegivesshapetotheland,itsspeciesanditshuman

identitiesandpolitics(Christie,2007;Evans,2011;Merlan,1981).Thisconnectionisstill

maintainedevenifthelanguageisnolongerspoken.Indigenouslanguageowners

increasinglyusedigitaltechnologiesfortheirownculturalandpoliticalpurposes,for

regeneratingcollectivelife,reconnectingplacesandfamilies,andclaimingauthorityor

rightstoparticularresources(Verran&Christie,2007).Muchofthisworkissmall-scale,

localandunfunded,oftenundertakenwithouttheinvolvementoflinguists,andmaynotbe

visibletothewiderpublic.Thissectiondescribessomedigitaltoolsdevelopedtosupport

theworkofIndigenouslanguagesinidentitypractices.

Authority

Technologiescanbeusedtorepresentsomeaspectsoftraditionallanguagepractices.

TheWelcometoCountryapp(WeeriannaStreetMedia,2015)drawsonAboriginal

traditionsofwelcomingvisitorstocertainterritories.UsingGPStechnologyandvideotools,

theapppresentsanintroductiontothelocalcountryandculture,includingbasiccultural

protocolsappropriateforthatland.Theapphomepagewarnsagainstusingthevideosasa

substituteforanofficialin-personWelcometoCountry,topreventthetechnologybeing

usedasasubstituteforhumanengagement.

VisualrepresentationsofcountryandlocalIndigenousauthorityalsodrawon

mappingtechnologies.TheGambaymap(FirstLanguagesAustralia,2014b)wasdeveloped

159

incollaborationwithregionallanguagecentresto‘crowdsource’adynamicmapof

Australianlanguagesthatreflectsthenamesandgroupingsfavouredbythecommunity,

whichincludesvideosoflocalauthoritiesspeakinginandabouttheirlanguage.The

underlyingdatasetcanalsobesharedforotherpurposes,suchasaprojectaimingtocollect

50wordsinallAustralianlanguagesasaneducationalresourceanddisplayoflinguistic

diversity(ResearchUnitforIndigenousLanguage,2019).

Recognition

Digitalresourcescanservetoclaimaspaceintheonlineenvironmenttopresenta

languagegroupasalegitimateentity,evenwhenthatlanguageisnolongerspoken.Such

representationmakestheinternetaspacewhereIndigenouslanguagescansitalongside

Englishandmajorityworldlanguages.AsIndigenousacademicMarciaLangtonstated,the

internet“allowsIndigenouspeoplestopositionthemselvesoutsidecolonialnation-states,

inthenewcyberspace”(Langton,2013,p.vi).

Anentry-levelmeansofcreatingaspaceinthedigitalrealmforIndigenouslanguages

isthroughawebpresence.Asimplewebsitecanbecreatedatminimalcostandwithout

requiringgreattechnicalskill.Itmayincludesomelanguagecomponents,fromawordof

greetingorsomecommonvocabulary,throughtoextensivelinguisticmaterialsuchas

dictionaries,texts,recordingsandlearningmaterials.Asitewhichcontainsinformation

abouttheGamilaraayandYuwaalaraaylanguagesofNSW(CatholicSchoolsOffice,2008)

includesonlinelessons,adictionaryapp,recordedstories,andlinkstootherresources.

GamilaraaywasoneofthefirstIndigenouslanguagesintheworldtoappearonline(Austin,

2008),andthewebdictionary(Austin&Nathan,1996)isstillavailableandfunctioning

160

afterovertwodecades.Suchresourcesallowdifferentaudiencestoaccessmaterials–the

Gamilaraaydiasporawantingtoreconnectwiththeirheritagelanguage,teachersinNSW

schoolswantingtoincludelocalIndigenouslanguagecontentinlinewithnewlegislation

(AboriginalAffairsNSW,2017),researchersinlanguagerevitalisation,studentsat

universitywhereGamilaraayisoneofonlyahandfulofIndigenouslanguagestaughtat

tertiarylevel(Simpson,2014),andinterestedmembersofthepublic.

Websitescanserveotherpurposes,suchassharinginformationaboutlanguage

endangermentandrevitalisation.MyGrandmother’sLingofocusesontheMarralanguage

ofsouth-eastArnhemLand(SBS,2016).Thisinteractivesiteintroducesvisitorstotheissue

oflanguageendangermentinAustraliathroughoneyoungwoman’sstruggletopreserve

andreviveherheritagelanguage.Itincludeseducationalresourcestoraiseawareness

abouttheculturalandlinguisticimportanceofendangeredlanguages(Munro,2017).While

visuallyengaging,thelinguisticcontentofthesiteisminimal–itsroleinlanguage

revitalisationbeingmoreinrepresentationthanincontent.

Digitalresourcesthatprovidesimpletemplatescanbepopulatedwithcontentfrom

differentlanguagegroupswithoutincurringsignificantexpense.TheJilaframework

(ThoughtWorks,2015)wasdevelopedwiththeYawurucommunityofBroomeasa

customisabletemplate.AppsbuiltonthisframeworkinYawuruandMiriwoonglanguage

includedictionarieswithaudiorecordings,andalearningareawithgames.Theframework

hasalsobeenusedtocreatebirdappsinanumberoflanguages,presentingthenamesof

birdsaccompaniedbypicturesandrecordingofthesoundoftheircalls,plussomeshort

storiesinvariouslanguages(Carewetal.,2015).Suchresourcesprovideopportunitiesfor

161

languagegroupstoberepresentedintheappspace,enablingrecognitiononabroader

scale.

Indigenousgroupscanalsodrawontheaffordancesofwell-knownonlineplatforms

tostaketheirclaimforrecognition.TheNoongarpediaproject(‘Noongarpedia’,2017)

claimsspaceinoneofthemostpopularsitesontheinternet,usingWikipediatopresent

localknowledgeandlanguage.Thisproject–thefirstofitskindinAustralia–exploresthe

opennatureofaplatformwhichhighlightsandforegroundstheopennessofallknowledge

whilerespectingtheappropriateauthoritystructuresoftheNoongarcommunity,working

withelderstodevelopprocedurestopreventaccesstocertaininformationbythegeneral

public(Buchananetal.,2016).

Beyondsimplyconsumingcontent,accesstodigitaltechnologyandtoolsenables

Indigenouspeopletobecomeactiveculturalproducers,usingvideoproductiontoolsand

localbroadcastingtosupporttheirownaspirations(Michaels,1986;Kral,2013).The

popularityofYouTubeinIndigenouscommunitieshasledtothedevelopmentof

IndigiTUBE(FirstNationsMedia,2018)whichstreamsIndigenous-producedvideos

online.ICTV(IndigenousCommunityTelevisionLimited,2019)broadcastscontributions

fromlocalIndigenousmediatomuchofregionalandremoteAustraliaandisnowavailable

online,witharoundhalftheircontentpresentedinIndigenouslanguages.

Cultural continuity

ThemeansbywhichIndigenousauthoritiesusetechnologiesforculturalcontinuity

naturallydifferfromtheworkoflinguistsinlanguagedocumentationandanalysis.There

aremanyexamplesofspeakersandeldersexercisingauthorityovertheirlanguagerecords,

162

contrastingwiththeoutdatedmodeloflinguistswithholdingrecordsandmaintaining

controlofthetechnology.

Culturalandenvironmentalknowledgecanbesharedindigitalformatsspecificallyfor

usebylocallanguagecommunities.TheWalyakuproject(SouthernTanamiIPA,2016)

transformsanenvironmentalmanagementplanintoadigitalstorybookwithvideos,

animations,aseasonalcalendarandinteractivemaps.ThesiteisallinWarlpirilanguage,

withsomeEnglishsynopsesavailable.Otherappsdevelopedforrangersworkingon

naturalresourcesmanagementcanincludefeaturessupportingdatacollectioninlocal

languages(AtlasofLivingAustralia,2018).

VideogamesareincreasinglyusedforsharingIndigenouscultureandlanguage,as

contentcanbeembeddedwithinthenarrativeandstructureofthegame.Tjinariisan

onlinevideogamedevelopedatANUincollaborationwiththeNgaanyatjarracommunityof

theWesternDesert.Schoolchildrenfromthatcommunitywereincorporatedinits

developmentasbothcreatorsandtargetaudience(Morelli,2016).Growthinuseofvideo

gamesinIndigenouslanguagesoftheAmericas(Ząbecki,2020)islikelytoinfluencethe

Australiancontextinthefuture.

TheworkofIndigenouslanguagesinidentitypracticescangeneratedifferenttools

andresourcesforIndigenouspeople,whichmaybehardertopromotetolinguisticfunding

bodies,butmayattractculturalorphilanthropicfundingorotherformsoffinancial

support.Localexamplesincludestoriesofeldersaccessingtraditionalsongsthatarethen

sharedasringtonesamongyoungcommunitymembers,orvideorecordingceremonial

dancesforverificationofcorrectpractice.Suchactivitiesmaybelessvisible,sharedlocally

163

ratherthanpubliclyavailableonline,andgenerallyundocumentedinacademicliterature.

Theresourcesidentifiedinthissectionrepresentoutputsoffundedprojects,asproducts

whichcanbepromotedandshowcased,whereasmanyintangiblebenefitsoflanguagework

forcommunitiesreceivelessattentionoutsidethecommunity(Bedford&Casson,2010).

Challenges and opportunities

Themanychallengesinthedomainoflanguagetechnologiesarenotuniquetothe

AustralianIndigenouslanguagecontext,andaddressingthesecanleadtoinnovative

solutionsandnewopportunities.Theexponentialrateofchangeinthetechnologysector

makesitalmostimpossibletomaintaincurrencyinanever-changingenvironment.

Warningsfromearlythiscenturyabout“technologicalquicksand”(Bird&Simons,2003,p.

557)remainsalienttoday,consideringthelimitedlifespanofmanysystems,versionsand

formats.Languagecentresandresearchprojectswithshort-termfundinghavelimited

capacitytocontinuallyupdatetoolsandresources,leavingagraveyardofappsandweb

linksthatareunused,unsupportedorobsolete.

Whiledigitaltechnologiesholdthepromiseoflongevityforlanguagedocumentation

andrecording,thisriskofobsolescenceremainsanongoingandcriticalissue.Digitaldata

canbebelostorcreatedinformatsthatbecomequicklyinaccessibleeventothecreator

(Thieberger,2014).Simplycollectingsomethinginadigitalform–whetherborndigitalor

transformedfromanalogue–isnotsufficienttopreserveit.Publishingonlineissometimes

consideredareliablemeansofstoringdata,yetURLsarenotoriousfortheirlackof

persistence(Bird&Simons,2003).Morebluntly,“awebsiteisnotanarchive”(Thieberger,

164

2017),sinceanarchiveprovidesbackups,determinesaccessconditions,maintainsformats,

optimisesdiscoverability,etc.Therearecautionarytalesofdatabecominginaccessible

throughlackofbackups,forgottenpasswords,outdatedhardware,systemupdates,and

poormetadatarecording,damagedhardwareandhumanerror.Considerationof

sustainabilityandaccesstoresourcesshouldbekeycomponentsofdecision-making

processesindesigningorcustomisingdigitallanguageresourcesandtools(Sloggett&

Ormond-Parker,2013).However,Christie(2005b)warnsofthewaysinwhichlinguists’

andtechnologists’insistenceupon‘future-proofing’and‘interoperability’cancompromise

thehere-and-nowoflanguageauthoritiesmobilisingdigitisingtechnologiesfortheirown

purposes.Thetensionbetweenimmediateresultsandongoingsustainabilityshouldbe

consideredaproductivespacefornegotiationsandinnovativesolutions.

The‘digitaldivide’isachallengeinAustralia,disadvantagingregionalandremote

communitieswheretraditionallanguagesmaystillbestrong.Thereisgreatvariationin

networkaccess,costsandconsistencyofservice(Leung,2014;Rennieetal.,2016).Beyond

theprovisionofinfrastructure,betteraccesstofacilities,training,anddevelopmentof

relevantcontentarealsorequired(Featherstone,2013).Moreover,becausedigitalrecords

areeasiertoaccessremotely,increasedcoverageanddeliveryofdigitalrecordsisrequired

toensurethatappropriatelanguageandculturalauthoritiesarenotexcludedfromaccess

duetolocation.Innovativetoolsandresourcesareuselessiftheintendedaudiencelacks

theinternetaccess,hardware,softwareorskillsrequiredtobenefitfromthem.

Fortunately,therearealsomanypositivestoriesofcreativeusesofdigital

technologiesinremotelocationstodocumentandsharelocalknowledge,aswellas

problemsolving,collaborativeandcross-generationallearning,literacydevelopmentand

165

innovativeusesofmultimedia(Kral,2013,2014).InyouthcentresintheWesternDesert

forexample,youngpeopleareexploringdigitaltoolstocreatemusicandfilmprojects,

whichcanthenbesharedgloballythroughsocialandbroadcastmedia(Kral,2010;Kral&

Schwab,2012).ProjectssuchasIndigimob(FirstNationsMedia,2019)areincorporating

languagecontentintotheirresourcesforimprovingdigitalinclusion.

Thefieldofcommunity-basedIndigenouslanguageworkinAustraliaisrelatively

smallandscattered,soopportunitiestoshareknowledgearecrucial.Thekeyforumfor

suchexchangeisPuliima,thebiennialnationalIndigenouslanguageandtechnologyforum,

whichbringstogetherlanguageworkers,researchersandtechnologiststoexploreprojects,

productsandequipmentforIndigenouslanguagesprojects(MiromaaAboriginalLanguage

&TechnologyCentre,n.d.).TheworkofFirstLanguagesAustralia,thepeakbody

representinglanguagecentresandlanguageprojectsaroundthecountry,alsoplaysan

importantroleinsharingideasandcommunicatingamongthescatteredcentres.Their

AngketyMap:DigitalResourceReport(FirstLanguagesAustralia,2014a)provides

valuableinformationforcommunitygroupsorthosestartingoutinthisfield,exploring

issuesofaccess,commercialisation,customisation,andsustainability,witharangeof

examplesfromaroundthecountry.Boththeseenterprisesarefundedthroughthefederal

government’sIndigenousLanguagesandArtsprogram,whichiscurrentlythemainsource

offundingforlanguageworkinAustralia.Bothprojectsalsoprioritisepeopleover

technologies,providingopportunitiestonetworkandshareknowledgeandideas.

AnotableshiftintheroleoftechnologyinIndigenouslanguagepracticesis

exemplifiedbythetake-upofsocialmediaplatformsamongIndigenouspeople(Carlson&

Frazer,2018;Rice,Haynes,Royce,&Thompson,2016).Whilethereareconcernsthatthese

166

modesofcommunicationmayexacerbateinstancesoffightingandbullying(Vaarzon-

Morel,2014),theycanalsoconnectthelocaltotheglobalcommunity(Kral,2013).Such

toolstendtoprivilegetheuseofEnglish,andthoughvarioususergroupsengagein

languageontheseplatforms,littlepublishedinformationexistsontheuseofIndigenous

languageinthisspace(Auld,Snyder,&Henderson,2012;Brady,Dyson,&Asela,2008;

Oliver&Nguyen,2017).Thereareinstructionsavailableforchangingtheinterfaceof

FacebookintoIndigenouslanguages(Scannell,2012),whichhasrequiredgrapplingwith

thetranslationofcertainconcepts,suchashowto‘friend’someoneinacommunitywhere

everyoneisrelated(Dickson,2012;Garde,2012).

Text and literacy

Muchinteractionwithtechnologyreliesontextliteracy,particularlyinEnglish.

Howeverinmanycommunities,particularlyinremoteareas,peoplestruggletoreadand

writeinEnglishorintheirhomelanguage,especiallywherethelanguageofeducationis

notthelanguageofthecommunity(Gawne,Wigglesworth,Morales,Poetsch,&Dixon,2016;

Simpson,2013).BarriersofliteracyforsomeIndigenouspeoplecanpreventtheir

interactionwiththetoolsdesignedtoservetheirlanguageneeds,andlimittheir

involvementinthedevelopmentanddistributionofsuchdigitalresources.However,new

digitaltechnologiescaneitherbypasstextliteracy,withtoolsthatdonotprivilegetext(Kral

&Schwab,2012),orwhichsupportlocalliteracypractices(Auldetal.,2012;Kral,2012).

Soundprintingtechnologyusesanaudioplayerlinkedtoacodeembeddedinthepage,

allowingtheusertolistentoapre-recordedsoundfilewhilereadingthetext.This

technologyhasbeenusedforexampleforposterssharingcommunitymessages(Lorimer,

2017),andinapublicationofstoriesintheBurarralanguageofManingrida(England,

167

Litchfield,England,&Carew,2014),makingtheproductsoflanguagedocumentationmore

accessibletothelanguagecommunity.

WritingsystemsforallAustralianlanguagesarebasedonaLatinalphabeticscript,

withsomerequiringspecialcharacterssuchasunderscoreanddiacritics.Sincetheseare

notalwaysreadilyavailableonastandardkeyboard,digitaltoolshavebeencreatedto

supporttypinginYolŋuandAṉangulanguages(AustralianSocietyforIndigenous

Languages,n.d.).Textinteractioncouldbeenhancedthroughtoolssuchasspell-checking,

predictivetext,andautocorrectoptions,whicharenotcurrentlyavailableforany

Australianlanguage.

Transcriptionisoneofthemosttime-consumingaspectsoflanguagedocumentation,

relyingonhumaneffortbythosewhoknowthelanguage.TheTranscriptionAcceleration

ProjectisusingdatafromanumberofIndigenouslanguagestotrainmachinestorecognise

andtranscribelinguisticmaterials(CentreofExcellencefortheDynamicsofLanguage,

2017b).Suchresearchismakingmachinelearningspeechtechnologiesavailabletopeople

workingwithlanguageswithminimaldata,withafocusonIndigenouslanguages(Foleyet

al.,2018).OthertoolssuchasPersephone(Adams,2017)fortheautomaticunderstanding

ofunwrittenlanguagesarebeginningtobedevelopedandappliedtoAustralianlanguages.

Looking ahead

Despitethemanyprojectsandinitiativesalreadydiscussed,advancesinlanguage

technologyandthedigitalhumanitieshaveyettomakeasignificantimpactonAustralian

languages,eitherduetosmallpopulationsmakingsucheffortscommerciallyunviable,or

thelackofsufficientcorporaonwhichsuchtoolsrely.Therearecurrentlyeffortsto

168

developlargedatasetsofAustralianlanguageswithsufficientanalyticaldetailtofacilitate

languageprocessingofthisnature(CentreofExcellencefortheDynamicsofLanguage,

2019).AfewexamplesofthesetechnologiesbeingusedforAustralianlanguagesare

available,suchasnaturallanguagegenerationforproducingcommentary-styletextual

descriptionsofAustralianFootballLeaguegamesinEnglishandArrernte(Lareau,Dras,&

Dale,2011),statisticalmachinetranslationforWarlpiriandWikMungkan(Zwarts&Dras,

2007),deeplanguageprocessingforMurrinh-Patha(Seiss&Nordlinger,2012),semantic

webontologiesforinvestigatingAustralianIndigenousknowledgesystems(Corn&Patrick,

2019),andmorphologicalanalysisofthepolysyntheticlanguageKunwinjku(Lane&Bird,

2019).Furtherresearchintheseareaswillnotonlysupporttheworkoflanguage

maintenanceandrevivalinAustralia,butcouldbenefitIndigenouspeoplewantingto

interactwithtechnologyintheirownlanguageorwithoutusingwrittentext.

Lookingahead,itisexpectedthatnewtrendsincomputersciencewillbefeltinthe

domainofAustralianlanguagework.Linguistsandlanguageauthoritiesarelookingtonew

technologiessuchasvirtualandaugmentedrealitytosupportlanguagepreservation,

presentationorpromotion.Projectsinvolvingculturalartefacts(suchas‘Indigital’,2017),

oralhistory(Wallworth,2016),andceremonialactivities(GongWanhurr,2017)arelikely

tospreadtothelanguagedomain.Amovetowardsdatavisualisationisenablingnewforms

ofanalysisoflanguagematerialsusingtechnologiesdevelopedinotherareas.Archivesand

othercollectionscanbeinterrogatedanddiscoveryaidedthroughinnovativevisualisation

tools(Thieberger,2018).Experimentalworkwithsocialandhumanoidrobots(Centreof

ExcellencefortheDynamicsofLanguage,2017a;Keane,Chalmers,Boden,&Williams,

2019),andemergingworkon‘tangibles’(suchasatalkingtoycrocodileinTayloretal.,

169

2020)canencouragelanguageuseinindividualandsocialactivities,andmayleadtonew

insightsintoengagementwithtechnologyforlanguagework.

Conclusion

Storiesaboutendangeredlanguagesoccasionallyemergeinthepopularpresswitha

narrativeoftechnologiesasthe‘saviour.’Headlinespromote“HowAustralia’snewest

technologycanbeusedtosaveitsoldestlanguages”(Carmody,2014)and“Smartphone

appsusedtosaveendangeredIndigenouslanguages”(James,2014).Thereissomething

alluringaboutthenarrativeofmoderntechnologies‘saving’ancienttraditionaltongues.It

makesforgoodheadlinesandphotoopportunities,butvastlyoversimplifiesanintriguingly

complexstory.IndigenousAustralianshavealonghistoryofadaptingnewtechnologiesto

suittheirownpurposes,fromtradingimplementswithMacassanstousingcolonialtools

suchasguns,4WDsandmobilephones.Theuseofdigitaltechnologiestosupportthe

continuingtransmissionofknowledge,themaintenanceofrelationships,andcaringfor

country,isanaturalprogression.

Unfoundedclaimsaboutthesavingpowersoftechnologyarepotentiallyhazardous,

implyingthatthetechnologiesthemselvescanrescueorresuscitatelanguagepractices.

Whilethetechnologieshavesomeagency,itisthecustodiansofthoselanguagepractices

whowilldeterminetheircontinuation,withorwithouttheuseoftechnology.Beyondthe

click-baitheadlines,thereisoftenanacknowledgementthatthetechnologiesthemselves

willnotsavethelanguage,butrathertheagencyiswithpeople,whomayormaynotchoose

170

tousedigitalresourcestosupporttheirlanguageactivities.Anewnarrativeisemerging

thatsays‘technologywon’tsavelanguages,peoplewill’.

Technologyhasimpactedlanguagedocumentation,description,analysis,and

preservationenablingrichlinguisticanalysis.Nonetheless,transforminglanguageintodata

fundamentallychangesthenatureoftheobject.Digitalobjectsdonotinthemselvescontain

knowledge,butaresimplyseriesofonesandzeros,artefactsofearlieractsofknowledge

performanceorproduction(Christie,2004,2005a).Digitaltechnologiescanfacilitatethe

preservationandsharingoftheseartefacts,butinthemselvesareunlikelytochange

practiceswithouttheagencyofthelanguagespeakersandauthorities.

Theaffordancesofdigitaltechnologiesexploredthroughoutthischapterarenot

alwaysrealised.Thecomplexrangeofcontextsandpurposesinwhichlanguagesexist

requiredifferentformsofaccess–whetherpractical(internet,hardware,software,

funding),skills-based(textanddigitalliteracy),orknowledge-based(languageknowledge,

authority),andthemulti-facetedinteractionofalltheseelements.Thosewiththepractical

resourcesmaylacklanguageknowledge,andviceversa,sotheaffordancesmaybe

theoreticalratherthanactual.Attendingtothedynamicsoftheseinteractionscanreveal

someoftheinequitiesandassumptionswhichunderpinthisspace.

Indigenouslanguageownersaregrowingincreasinglyconcernedthatgovernment

fundingisoftendivertedtowardstechnologicalsolutionsforendangeredlanguages,rather

thansupportingpeopletodolanguageworkontheground(Bedford&Casson,2010;Gale,

2016).Outcomesthataredifficulttomeasure,suchascommunitywell-beingorincreased

useoflanguage,tendtoberatedlesshighlyinfundingdecisions.Tangibleproductsare

171

oftenfavouredovercapacitybuildingincommunity,andtherequirementsforreceiving

grantscanexcludecertaingroups(Gale,2016).Alternatesourcesoffundingarerequiredto

evadethevagariesofgovernmentpolicyregardingthevalueandcostofmaintaining

Indigenouslanguages.Thereisalsoanalarminglackofevidenceforthecarefuland

thoroughevaluationofmostofthetechnologicalsolutions,andlittlesupportforsuch

activities,whichrisksendangeringmuchlinguisticdata.

Inrecentyearstheuseofdigitaltechnologieshassupportedandenabledvarious

languagepractices,includinglanguagedocumentation,pedagogicalandidentitypractices,

amongmanyothers.Thecontextsandpurposesofthetoolsdescribedinthischapterwill

change,aswillthetechnologies,thevitalityoflanguages,andtheculturalconsiderations

involved.DesignofnewtechnologiesisbeinginformedbytheinclusionofmoreIndigenous

peopleinlanguageworkandtheengagementoflinguistswiththesocialandpoliticallifeof

languages.Thefutureislikelytoholdinterestinginnovations,collaborationsand

theoreticalinsightsasdigitaltechnologiescontinuetoinhabittheworldofAustralian

languagesandthosewhousethem.

References

AboriginalAffairsNSW.(2017).NSWAboriginalLanguagesLegislation.Retrievedfrom

AboriginalAffairswebsite:https://www.aboriginalaffairs.nsw.gov.au/policy-

reform/language-and-culture/nsw-aboriginal-languages-legislation

Adams,O.(2017).Automaticunderstandingofunwrittenlanguages(PhDThesis).University

ofMelbourne,Melbourne,VIC.

172

Anderson,J.(2005).IndigenousKnowledge,IntellectualProperty,LibrariesandArchives:

CrisesofAccess,ControlandFutureUtility.AustralianAcademic&ResearchLibraries,

36(2),83–94.doi:10.1080/00048623.2005.10721250

ARDSAboriginalCorporation.(2019).RumbalpuyDhäwu:Yolŋu-mathaHealthDictionary.

Darwin,NT:ARDSAboriginalCorporation.

AtlasofLivingAustralia.(2018).TheTracksHub.Retrievedfrom

https://biocollect.ala.org.au/trackshub

Auld,G.,Snyder,I.,&Henderson,M.(2012).Usingmobilephonesasplacedresourcesfor

literacylearninginaremoteIndigenouscommunityinAustralia.Languageand

Education,SpecialIssue:DigitalLiteracies,26(4),279–296.doi:doi:

10.1080/09500782.2012.691512

Austin,P.(2008).TheGamilaraay(Kamilaroi)language,northernNewSouthWales—A

briefhistoryofresearch.InW.McGregor(Ed.),EncounteringAboriginallanguages:

StudiesinthehistoryofAustralianlinguistics(pp.37–58).Canberra,ACT:Pacific

Linguistics.

Austin,P.,&Nathan,D.(1996).Kamilaroi/GamilaraayWebDictionary.Retrievedfrom

Kamilaroi/GamilaraayWebDictionarywebsite:

http://www.dnathan.com/language/gamilaraay/dictionary/GAMDICTF.HTM

AustralianSocietyforIndigenousLanguages.(n.d.).KeyboardInterfaces.Retrievedfrom

AuSILwebsite:http://ausil.org.au/node/3719

Bedford,P.N.,&Casson,S.K.(2010).Conflictingknowledges:Barrierstolanguage

continuationintheKimberley.TheAustralianJournalofIndigenousEducation,39(S1),

76–86.

Birch,B.(2013).TheMa!Project:CrowdsourcingSoftwareforLanguageDocumentation.

PresentedattheResearch,RecordsandResponsibility:TenyearsofthePacificand

RegionalArchiveforDigitalSourcesinEndangeredCulturesconference,Melbourne,

VIC.Retrievedfromhttps://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/9858

173

Bird,S.(2018).Designingmobileapplicationsforendangeredlanguages.InK.L.Rehg&L.

Campbell(Eds.),TheOxfordHandbookofEndangeredLanguages(pp.842–861).

Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bird,S.,Hanke,F.R.,Adams,O.,&Lee,H.(2014).Aikuma:AMobileAppforCollaborative

LanguageDocumentation.Proceedingsofthe2014WorkshopontheUseof

ComputationalMethodsintheStudyofEndangeredLanguages,1–5.Baltimore,MD:

AssociationforComputationalLinguistics.Retrievedfrom

http://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W14-2201

Bird,S.,&Simons,G.(2003).SevenDimensionsofPortabilityforLanguageDocumentation

andDescription.Language,79(3),557–582.doi:10.1353/lan.2003.0149

Bow,C.(2017).Activatingcommunity-basedIndigenouslanguageandcultureresourcesfor

universityteaching–Reportonthedevelopmentofadigitalshellandpilotdelivery.

Canberra,ACT:DepartmentofEducationandTraining.

Bow,C.(2019).CollaborativelydesigninganonlinecoursetoteachanAustralian

Indigenouslanguageatuniversity.Babel,54(1/2),54–60.

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2014).DevelopingaLivingArchiveofAboriginal

Languages.LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,8,345–360.

Bow,C.,&Hepworth,P.(2019).Observingandrespectingdiverseknowledgetraditionsina

digitalarchiveofIndigenouslanguagematerials.JournalofCopyrightinEducationand

Librarianship,3(1),1–36.doi:https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7485

Bowern,C.(2016).Chirila:ContemporaryandHistoricalResourcesfortheIndigenous

LanguagesofAustralia.LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,10,1–44.

Brady,F.,Dyson,L.E.,&Asela,T.(2008).IndigenousAdoptionofMobilePhonesandOral

Culture.InF.Sudweeks,H.Hrachovec,&C.Ess(Eds.),CulturalAttitudesTowards

CommunicationandTechnology(pp.384–398).Perth,WA:MurdochUniversity.

Buchanan,J.,Collard,L.,Cumming,I.,Palmer,D.,Scott,K.,&Hartley,J.(2016).KayaWandjoo

NgalaNoongarpedia.London:CulturalScienceSociety.

174

CALLCollection.(2017).CALLCollection:UsingtheWebsite.RetrievedfromBatchelor

Institute—CALLCollectionwebsite:

http://callcollection.batchelor.edu.au/UsingTheWebsite#call-collection-end-use-

licences

Carew,M.,&Green,J.(2015).MakinganonlinedictionaryforCentralAustraliansign

languages.LearningCommunities:InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts

SpecialEdition:IndigenousSignLanguages,16,40–55.

Carew,M.,Green,J.,Kral,I.,Nordlinger,R.,&Singer,R.(2015).GettinginTouch:Language

andDigitalInclusioninAustralianIndigenousCommunities.LanguageDocumentation

&Conservation,9,307–323.

Carlson,B.,&Frazer,R.(2018).Socialmediamob:BeingIndigenousonline.Sydney,NSW:

MacquarieUniversity.

Carmody,B.(2014,December3).HowAustralia’snewesttechnologycanbeusedtosaveits

oldestlanguages.RetrievedfromSmartCompanywebsite:

https://www.smartcompany.com.au/startupsmart/news-analysis/local/how-

australias-newest-technology-can-be-used-to-save-its-oldest-languages/

Carpenter,J.,Guerin,A.,Kaczmarek,M.,Lawson,G.,Lawson,K.,Nathan,L.P.,&Turin,M.

(2016).DigitalAccessforLanguageandCultureinFirstNationsCommunities

[KnowledgeSynthesisReportforSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncilof

Canada].Vancouver,Canada:UniversityofBritishColumbia.

CatholicSchoolsOffice.(2008).YuwaalaraaygaayGamilaraaygaray.Retrievedfrom

http://www.yuwaalaraay.org/index.html

CentreofExcellencefortheDynamicsofLanguage.(2017a).OpieRobots:Indigenous

LanguageRobotsforcommunity-ledrevitalisation.RetrievedfromOpieRobots

website:http://www.opierobots.com/

CentreofExcellencefortheDynamicsofLanguage.(2017b).TranscriptionAcceleration

Project.RetrievedfromComplex&IntelligentSystems,UniversityofQueensland

website:https://www.itee.uq.edu.au/research/projects/tap

175

CentreofExcellencefortheDynamicsofLanguage.(2019).CorpusDevelopment.Retrieved

fromhttp://www.dynamicsoflanguage.edu.au/research/language-diversity/corpus-

development/

Christen,K.,Merrill,A.,&Wynne,M.(2017).ACommunityofRelations:MukurtuHubsand

Spokes.D-LibMagazine,23(5/6).doi:10.1045/may2017-christen

Christie,M.(2004).ComputerDatabasesandAboriginalKnowledge.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,1,4–12.

Christie,M.(2005a).AboriginalKnowledgeTraditionsinDigitalEnvironments.The

AustralianJournalofIndigenousEducation,34,61–66.

Christie,M.(2005b).Words,OntologiesandAboriginalDatabases.MediaInternational

Australia,IncorporatingCulture&Policy,116,52–63.

Christie,M.(2007).Yolngulanguagehabitat:Ecology,identityandlawinanAboriginal

society.InG.Leitner&I.G.Malcolm(Eds.),ThehabitatofAustralia’sAboriginal

languages:Past,presentandfuture(pp.57–78).Berlin:MoutondeGruyter.

Christie,M.(2010).Teachingfromcountry,learningfromcountry.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,2,6–17.

Christie,M.,Guyula,Y.,Gurruwiwi,D.,&Greatorex,J.(2013).TeachingfromCountry:

ConnectingremoteIndigenousknowledgeauthoritieswithuniversitystudents

aroundtheworld.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan

(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.127–138).Canberra,

ACT:AIATSISResearchPublications.

Corn,A.,&Patrick,S.W.J.(2019).ExploringtheapplicabilityoftheSemanticWebfor

discoveringandnavigatingAustralianIndigenousknowledgeresources.Archivesand

Manuscripts,47(1),131–152.doi:10.1080/01576895.2019.1575248

Dallwitz,D.,Dallwitz,J.,&Lowish,S.(2019).AṟaIrititjaandAṟaWinkiintheAPYLands:

Connectingarchivestocommunitiesthroughmobileappsonportabledevices.

ArchivesandManuscripts,47(1),35–52.doi:10.1080/01576895.2018.1547652

176

Dickson,G.(2012,February24).FacebookinKriol![Blog].RetrievedfromThatmunanga

linguistwebsite:http://munanga.blogspot.com.au/2012/02/facebook-in-kriol.html

ELAN.(2020).Nijmegen:MaxPlanckInstituteforPsycholinguistics.Retrievedfrom

https://archive.mpi.nl/tla/elan

England,C.B.,Litchfield,P.M.,England,R.W.,&Carew,M.(2014).Gun-ngayparrawa:My

country.Batchelor,NT:BatchelorPress.

Evans,N.(2011).Dyingwords:Endangeredlanguagesandwhattheyhavetotellus.

Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Featherstone,D.(2013).TheAboriginalinventionofbroadband:HowYarnanguareusing

ICTsintheNgaanyatjarraLandsofWesternAustralia.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.

Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenous

Communities(pp.27–52).Canberra,ACT:AIATSISResearchPublications.

FirstLanguagesAustralia.(2014a).Angketymap:Digitalresourcereport.Brisbane,QLD:

FirstLanguagesAustralia.

FirstLanguagesAustralia.(2014b).Gambay—LanguagesMap.RetrievedfromGambay—

LanguagesMapwebsite:http://www.gambay.com.au

FirstNationsMedia.(2018).IndigiTUBE.Retrievedfromhttps://www.indigitube.com.au/

FirstNationsMedia.(2019).InDigiMOB.Retrievedfromhttps://indigimob.com.au/

Foley,B.,Arnold,J.,Coto-Solano,R.,Durantin,G.,Ellison,T.M.,vanEsch,D.,Heath,S.,

Kratochvíl,F.,Maxwell-Smith,Z.,Nash,D.,Olsson,O.,Richards,M.,San,N.,Stoakes,H.,

Thieberger,N.,&Wiles,J.(2018).Buildingspeechrecognitionsystemsforlanguage

documentation:TheCoEDLEndangeredLanguagePipelineandInferenceSystem

(ELPIS).The6thInternationalWorkshoponSpokenLanguageTechnologiesfor

Under-ResourcedLanguages,200–204.https://doi.org/10.21437/SLTU.2018-42

Fryer,B.(2019,October2).WomenfromAPYLandslaunchVRprojectatfestivalinSydney.

RetrievedfromNITVwebsite:

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2019/10/02/women-apy-lands-launch-vr-

project-festival-sydney

177

Gale,M.-A.(2016).Ahitch-hiker’sguidetoAboriginallanguageretrievalandrevival.InP.K.

Austin,H.Koch,J.Simpson,&J.Simpson(Eds.),Language,LandandSong:Studiesin

HonourofLouiseHercus(pp.539–554).London:ELPublishing.

Garde,M.(2012,March26).FacebookkoreKunwinjkudjaGundjeihmikun-wok!Retrieved

fromBininjKunwokwebsite:http://bininjgunwok.org.au/2012/facebook-kore-

kunwinjku-dja-gundjeihmi-kun-wok/

Gawne,L.(2015).Languagedocumentationanddivision:Bridgingthedigitaldivide.Digital

Studies/LeChampNumérique,5.doi:10.16995/dscn.38

Gawne,L.,Wigglesworth,G.,Morales,G.,Poetsch,S.,&Dixon,S.(2016).MakingtheESL

classroomvisible:IndigenousAustralianchildren’searlyeducation.InV.A.Murphy&

M.Evangelou(Eds.),EarlyChildhoodEducationinEnglishforSpeakersofOther

Languages(pp.111–136).London:BritishCouncil.

GongWanhurr.(2017).TheWangurriGallery:VirtualRealityprototype2017.Retrieved

fromhttp://gongwanhurr.org.au/projects.html#wangallery

Greatorex,J.(2014).YolnguMathaDictionary.RetrievedfromCharlesDarwinUniversity

website:http://yolngudictionary.cdu.edu.au/

IndigenousCommunityTelevisionLimited.(2019).ICTV.RetrievedfromICTVPLAY

website:https://ictv.com.au/

Indigital.(2017).RetrievedfromIndigitalwebsite:https://www.indigital.net.au

iTalkStudios.(2016).ITalkvideolibrary.Retrievedfrom

http://www.italkstudios.com.au/library/

James,F.(2014,October28).SmartphoneappsusedtosaveendangeredIndigenous

languages.RetrievedfromABCNewswebsite:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-

10-28/phone-apps-used-to-save-endangered-indigenous-language/5847640

Janke,T.(1998).OurCulture:OurFuture.ReportonAustralianIndigenousCulturaland

IntellectualPropertyRights.Canberra,ACT:AustralianInstituteofAboriginaland

TorresStraitIslanderStudies.

178

Janke,T.,&Sentina,M.(2018).IndigenousKnowledge:Issuesforprotectionand

management.Canberra,ACT:IPAustralia.

Keane,T.,Chalmers,C.,Boden,M.,&Williams,M.(2019).Humanoidrobots:Learninga

programminglanguagetolearnatraditionallanguage.Technology,Pedagogyand

Education,28(5),533–546.doi:10.1080/1475939X.2019.1670248

Kickett,M.,&Forrest,S.(2018).NoongarLanguageandCulture[MOOC].Retrievedfrom

EdXwebsite:https://www.edx.org/course/noongar-language-and-culture

Koch,G.(2010).Ethicsandresearch:Dilemmasraisedinmanagingresearchcollectionsof

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslandermaterials.AustralianAboriginalStudies,2,48–

59.

Kral,I.(2010).Pluggedin:RemoteAustralianIndigenousYouthandDigitalCulture(CAEPR

WorkingPaperNo.69/2010).Canberra,ACT:CentreforAboriginalEconomicPolicy

Research.

Kral,I.(2012).Talk,TextandTechnology:LiteracyandSocialPracticeinaRemote

IndigenousCommunity.MultilingualMatters.

Kral,I.(2013).Theacquisitionofmediaasculturalpractice:RemoteIndigenousyouthand

newdigitaltechnologies.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.

O’Sullivan(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.53–73).

Canberra,ACT:AIATSISResearchPublications.

Kral,I.(2014).Shiftingperceptions,shiftingidentities:Communicationtechnologiesandthe

alteredsocial,culturalandlinguisticecologyinaremoteIndigenouscontext.The

AustralianJournalofAnthropology,25(2),171–189.doi:10.1111/taja.12087

Kral,I.,&Schwab,R.G.(2012).LearningSpaces:Youth,LiteracyandNewMediainRemote

IndigenousAustralia.Canberra,ACT:ANUPress.

Kutay,C.(2016).SupportingLanguageTeachingOnline.ProceedingsoftheLREC2016

Workshop:CCURL2016,38–45.Portorož,Slovenia:LREC.

179

Lane,W.,&Bird,S.(2019).TowardsaRobustMorphologicalAnalyzerforKunwinjku.

Proceedingsofthe17thAnnualWorkshopoftheAustralasianLanguageTechnology

Association,1–9.Sydney,NSW:AustralasianLanguageTechnologyAssociation.

Langton,M.(2013).Foreword.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.

O’Sullivan(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.v–x).

Canberra,ACT:AIATSISResearchPublications.

Lareau,F.,Dras,M.,&Dale,R.(2011).Detectinginterestingeventsequencesforsports

reporting.Proceedingsofthe13thEuropeanWorkshoponNaturalLanguage

Generation,200–205.Nancy,France:AssociationforComputationalLinguistics.

Lee,J.,&McConvell,P.(2008).OLCAP:OnlineLanguageCommunityAccessPilot.Retrieved

from

http://www.academia.edu/34523529/OLCAP_Online_Language_Community_Access_

Pilot

Leung,L.(2014).Availability,accessandaffordabilityacross‘digitaldivides’:Australian

JournalofTelecommunicationsandtheDigitalEconomy,2(2),1–13.

Lewincamp,B.,&Faulkner,J.(2003).Akeyholetothecollection:TheAIATSISLibrary

DigitisationPilotProgram.TheAustralianLibraryJournal,52(3),239–245.

Littell,P.,Kazantseva,A.,Kuhn,R.,Pine,A.,Arppe,A.,Cox,C.,&Junker,M.-O.(2018).

IndigenouslanguagetechnologiesinCanada:Assessment,challenges,andsuccesses.

Proceedingsofthe27thInternationalConferenceonComputationalLinguistics,2620–

2632.SantaFe,NM:AssociationforComputationalLinguistics.

Lorimer,A.(2017).OneTalkTechnology.RetrievedfromOneTalkTechnologywebsite:

http://www.onetalktechnology.com.au/

Manning,C.(2014).Kirrkirr:Softwarefortheexplorationofindigenouslanguage

dictionaries.Retrievedfromhttps://nlp.stanford.edu/kirrkirr/

Manning,C.D.,&Parton,K.(2001).What’sneededforlexicaldatabases?Experienceswith

Kirrkirr.ProceedingsoftheIRCSWorkshoponLinguisticDatabases,167–173.

Philadelphia,PA:UniversityofPennsylvania.

180

Merlan,F.(1981).Land,languageandsocialidentityinAboriginalAustralia.TheAustralian

JournalofAnthropology,13(2),133–148.

Michaels,E.(1986).TheAboriginalInventionofTelevisioninCentralAustralia,1982-1986:

ReportoftheFellowshiptoAssesstheImpactofTelevisioninRemoteAboriginal

Communities.Canberra,ACT:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalStudies.

MiromaaAboriginalLanguage&TechnologyCentre.(n.d.).WhatisPuliima?Retrievedfrom

PuliimaNationalIndigenousLanguageandTechnologyForumwebsite:

http://www.puliima.com/home/about

MiromaaAboriginalLanguage&TechnologyCentre.(2016).Miromaa.Retrievedfrom

MiromaaAboriginalLanguage&TechnologyCentrewebsite:

http://www.miromaa.com.au/miromaa.html

Morelli,L.(2016,October12).NewonlinegameinNgaanyatjarrablendstraditionwith

technology.RetrievedfromNITVwebsite:

https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/article/2016/10/12/new-online-game-ngaanyatjarra-

blends-tradition-technology

Munro,K.(2017).Documentaryandtechnology:Acommittedrelationship?Metro

Magazine:Media&EducationMagazine,(193),122–125.

Musgrave,S.,&Thieberger,N.(2012).Languagedescriptionandhypertext:Nunggubuyuas

acasestudy.LanguageDocumentationandConservation:SpecialEdition-Electronic

Grammaticography,4,63–77.

Noongarpedia.(2017).InWikipedia.Retrievedfrom

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Noongarpedia

NorthernTerritoryGeneralPracticeEducation.(2015).CommDoc:Community

ConsultationLanguageApp.RetrievedfromCommDocwebsite:

https://www.ntgpe.org/commdoc/

NPYWomen’sCouncil.(2014).UtiKulintjaku:Acompendiumofwordsfortalkingabout

mentalhealth.NgaanyatjarraPitjantjatjaraYankunytjatjaraWomen’sCouncil

181

AboriginalCorporation.Retrievedfromhttps://www.npywc.org.au/what-we-

do/ngangkari-traditional-healers/

Oliver,R.,&Nguyen,B.(2017).TranslanguagingonFacebook:ExploringAustralian

AboriginalMultilingualCompetenceinTechnology-EnhancedEnvironmentsandits

PedagogicalImplications.CanadianModernLanguageReview,1–25.doi:

10.3138/cmlr.3890

Ormond-Parker,L.(2019).Deadline2025:AIATSISandtheaudiovisualarchive.Archives

andManuscripts,47(1),3–19.doi:10.1080/01576895.2019.1567355

Palmer,D.(2010).NgapartjiNgapartji:Theconsequencesofkindness.BighART.Retrieved

fromhttps://www.bighart.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/03/BIghART_Evaluation_ConsequencesofKindness.pdf

Renear,A.H.(2004).TextEncoding.InS.Schreibman,R.Siemens,&J.Unsworth(Eds.),A

CompaniontoDigitalHumanities.Oxford,UK:Blackwell.

http://digitalhumanities.org/companion/.

Rennie,E.,Hogan,E.,Gregory,R.,Crouch,A.,Wright,A.,&Thomas,J.(2016).Internetonthe

outstation:ThedigitaldivideandremoteAboriginalcommunities.Amsterdam:Institute

ofNetworkCultures.

ResearchUnitforIndigenousLanguage.(2019).50words.Retrievedfrom50wordsonline

website:http://50words.online/

Rice,E.S.,Haynes,E.,Royce,P.,&Thompson,S.C.(2016).Socialmediaanddigital

technologyuseamongIndigenousyoungpeopleinAustralia:Aliteraturereview.

InternationalJournalforEquityinHealth,15(81),1–16.doi:10.1186/s12939-016-

0366-0

Rice,K.,&Thieberger,N.(2018).Toolsandtechnologyforlanguagedocumentationand

revitalization.InK.L.Rehg&L.Campbell(Eds.),TheOxfordHandbookofEndangered

Languages(pp.225–247).Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.

SBS.(2016).MyGrandmother’sLingo.Retrievedfrom

https://www.sbs.com.au/mygrandmotherslingo/

182

Scales,S.A.,Burke,J.,Dallwitz,J.,Lowish,S.,&Mann,D.(2013).TheAṟaIrititjaProject:Past,

present,future.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan

(Eds.),InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.151–169).Canberra,

ACT:AIATSISResearchPublications.

Scannell,K.(2012).TranslatingFacebookintoendangeredlanguages.Proceedingsofthe

16thFoundationforEndangeredLanguagesConference,106–110.Auckland,NZ:

FoundationforEndangeredLanguages.

Schroeter,R.,&Thieberger,N.(2006).EOPAS,theEthnoERonlinerepresentationof

interlineartext.InL.Barwick&N.Thieberger(Eds.),SustainableDatafromDigital

Fieldwork:FromCreationtoArchiveandBack(pp.99–124).Sydney,NSW:Sydney

UniversityPress.

Seiss,M.,&Nordlinger,R.(2012).AnElectronicDictionaryandTranslationSystemfor

Murrinh-Patha.EUROCALL2011,135–138.Nottingham,UK:EUROCALL.

SILLanguageTechnology.(2019).RetrievedfromSILInternationalwebsite:

https://software.sil.org/

Simpson,J.(2003).Representinginformationaboutwordsdigitally.InL.Barwick,A.Marett,

J.Simpson,&A.Harris(Eds.),Researchers,Communities,Institutions,SoundRecordings.

Sydney,NSW:UniversityofSydney.Retrievedfromhttp://hdl.handle.net/2123/1517

Simpson,J.(2013).What’sdoneandwhat’ssaid:Languageattitudes,publiclanguage

activitiesandeverydaytalkintheNorthernTerritoryofAustralia.Journalof

MultilingualandMulticulturalDevelopment,34(4),383–398.doi:

10.1080/01434632.2013.794811

Simpson,J.(2014).TeachingminorityIndigenouslanguagesatAustralianuniversities.InP.

Heinrich&N.Ostler(Eds.),Proceedingsofthe18thFELConference(pp.54–58).

Okinawa,Japan:FoundationforEndangeredLanguages.

Singer,R.(2019).ReflectionsonlinguisticfieldworkinAustralia.InB.McDonnell,A.L.

Berez-Kroeker,&G.Holton(Eds.),ReflectionsonLanguageDocumentation:20Years

183

afterHimmelmann1998(pp.267–275).Honolulu,HI:UniversityofHawai’iPress.

http://hdl.handle.net/10125/24800.

Sloggett,R.,&Ormond-Parker,L.(2013).Crashesalongthesuperhighway:Theinformation

continuum.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan(Eds.),

InformationTechnologyandIndigenousCommunities(pp.227–246).Canberra,ACT:

AIATSISResearchPublications.

Sometimes,B.,&Kelly,A.(2010).NgapartjiNgapartji:Indigenouslanguageinthearts.InJ.

Hobson,K.Lowe,S.Poetsch,&M.Walsh(Eds.),Re-awakeninglanguages:Theoryand

practiceintherevitalisationofAustralia’sIndigenouslanguages(pp.84–89).Sydney,

NSW:SydneyUniversityPress.

SouthernTanamiIPA.(2016).Walyaku—SouthernTanamiIndigenousProtectedArea

StorybookPlanofManagement.RetrievedfromNgurraWalaljaWarraWarraKanjaku

Kurlulu-WarnuTanamiYapaMarlpaWalyakuwebsite:http://walyaku.org.au/#/st/0

TasmanianAboriginalCentre.(2005).PolicyandProtocolforUseofpalawakaniAboriginal

Language.TasmanianAboriginalCorporation.Retrievedfrom

http://tacinc.com.au/programs/palawa-kani/

Taylor,J.L.,WujalWujalAboriginalShireCouncil,Soro,A.,Esteban,M.,Vallino,A.,Roe,P.,&

Brereton,M.(2020).CrocodileLanguageFriend:TangiblestoFosterChildren’s

LanguageUse.ExtendedAbstractsofthe2020CHIConferenceonHumanFactorsin

ComputingSystems,1–14.Honolulu,HI:AssociationforComputingMachinery.doi:

10.1145/3334480.3383031

Thieberger,N.(2004).Documentationinpractice:Developingalinkedmediacorpusof

SouthEfate.LanguageDocumentationandDescription,2,169–178.

Thieberger,N.(2011).Buildingalexicaldatabasewithmultipleoutputs:Examplesfrom

legacydataandfrommultimodalfieldwork.InternationalJournalofLexicography,

24(4),463–472.

184

Thieberger,N.(2014).Digitalhumanitiesandlanguagedocumentation.InL.Gawne&J.

Vaughan(Eds.),SelectedPapersfromthe44thConferenceoftheAustralianLinguistic

Society,2013(pp.144–159).Melbourne,VIC:AustralianLinguisticSociety.

Thieberger,N.(2016a).DaisyBatesinthedigitalworld.InP.K.Austin,H.Koch,&J.

Simpson(Eds.),Language,LandandSong:StudiesinHonourofLuiseHercus(pp.102–

114).London:ELPublishing.

Thieberger,N.(2016b).Whatremainstobedone—Exposinginvisiblecollectionsinthe

other7,000languagesandwhyitisaDHenterprise.DigitalScholarshipinthe

Humanities,32(2),423–434.doi:doi:10.1093/llc/fqw006

Thieberger,N.(2017,November16).Awebsiteisnotanarchive!!!!!![Blog].Retrievedfrom

EndangeredLanguagesandCultureswebsite:

http://www.paradisec.org.au/blog/2017/11/a-website-is-not-an-archive/

Thieberger,N.(2018).Language-archives.services.RetrievedfromARCCentreofExcellence

fortheDynamicsofLanguageLabswebsite:https://language-archives.services/

Thieberger,N.,&Barwick,L.(2012).KeepingrecordsoflanguagediversityinMelanesia:

ThePacificandRegionalArchiveforDigitalSourcesinEndangeredCultures

(PARADISEC).LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,5,239–53.

ThoughtWorks.(2015).Yawuru&Jila.RetrievedfromThoughtworks.comwebsite:

https://www.thoughtworks.com/clients/yawuru-jila

Togni,S.J.(2017).TheUtiKulintjakuProject:ThePathtoClearThinking.AnEvaluationof

anInnovative,Aboriginal-LedApproachtoDevelopingBi-CulturalUnderstandingof

MentalHealthandWellbeing.AustralianPsychologist,52(4),268–279.doi:

10.1111/ap.12243

Vaarzon-Morel,P.(2014).PointingthePhone:TransformingTechnologiesandSocial

RelationsamongWarlpiri.TheAustralianJournalofAnthropology,25(2),239–255.

doi:10.1111/taja.12091

Verran,H.,&Christie,M.(2007).Using/designingdigitaltechnologiesofrepresentationin

AboriginalAustralianknowledgepractices.HumanTechnology,3(2),214–227.

185

Wallworth,L.(2016).Collisions.RetrievedfromCollisionswebsite:

http://www.collisionsvr.com/

WeeriannaStreetMedia.(2015).WelcometoCountry.RetrievedfromWelcometoCountry

website:http://www.welcometocountry.mobi/

Wilkins,D.(1992).Linguisticresearchunderaboriginalcontrol:Apersonalaccountof

fieldworkincentralAustralia.AustralianJournalofLinguistics,12(1),171–200.doi:

10.1080/07268609208599475

Withey,K.C.(2008).ArchivalChallengesandDigitalSolutionsinAboriginalAustralia.SAA

ArchaeologicalRecord,8(2),21–24.

Withey,K.C.(2012).DoesInformationReallyWanttobeFree?IndigenousKnowledge

SystemsandtheQuestionofOpenness.InternationalJournalofCommunication,6,

2870–2983.

Wittenburg,P.,Brugman,H.,Russel,A.,Klassmann,A.,&Sloetjes,H.(2006).ELAN:A

professionalframeworkformultimodalityresearch.5thInternationalConferenceon

LanguageResourcesandEvaluation,1556–1559.Genoa,IT.

Ząbecki,K.(2020).PromotingandPreservingIndigenousLanguagesandCulturesinthe

AmericasThroughVideoGames.InS.D.Brunn&R.Kehrein(Eds.),Handbookofthe

ChangingWorldLanguageMap(pp.1785–1802).Cham:SpringerInternational

Publishing.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_114

Zuckermann,G.,&Amery,R.(2015).LanguageRevival:SecuringtheFutureofEndangered

Languages[MOOC].RetrievedfromEdXwebsite:

https://www.edx.org/course/language-revival-securing-future-adelaidex-lang101x-1

Zwarts,S.,&Dras,M.(2007).StatisticalMachineTranslationofAustralianAboriginal

Languages:MorphologicalAnalysiswithLanguagesofDifferingMorphological

Richness.ProceedingsoftheAustralasianLanguageTechnologyWorkshop2007,134–

142.Melbourne,VIC:AustralasianLanguageTechnologyAssociation.

186

Chapter 4 (PAPER 2): Towards a unique archive of Aboriginal languages:

a collaborative project

Mamtora,J.,&Bow,C.(2017).TowardsaUniqueArchiveofAboriginalLanguages:A

CollaborativeProject.JournaloftheAustralianLibraryandInformationAssociation,66(1),

28–41.https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2017.1282845

Wherethefirstpaperpresentedanoverviewofthestateoftheartintechnologyfor

Australianlanguages,thenextpapermovestoaspecificdigitallanguageinfrastructure.

Thecontributionofthispaperistoidentifysomeimplicationsforpracticeregardingthe

benefitofcollaborationbetweenresearchersandlibrarystaffforauniqueprojectinvolving

Indigenouslanguagematerials.

ThispaperbeganasaconferencepresentationfortheVALA2016conference:Libraries,

TechnologyandtheFuture,promptedbyaninvitationfromJayshreeMamtora,theresearch

librarianfromCDULibrary.Itwasco-authoredwithNeilGodfrey,theCDULibrary

metadatalibrarian(whoregretfullydeclinedtoparticipateintheadaptationofthe

conferencepapertoajournalarticle).

Godfrey,N.,Mamtora,J.,&Bow,C.(2016).PreservingalivingarchiveofIndigenouslanguagematerial.VALA2016:Libraries,TechnologyandtheFuture.PresentedattheVALA2016:Libraries,TechnologyandtheFuture,Melbourne,VIC.Retrievedfromhttp://www.vala.org.au/vala2016-proceedings/vala2016-session-5-mamtora

TheexpandedpaperwaspublishedinanAustralianlibraryjournal,appearinginthefirst

issueofa‘new’journalresultingfromamergeroftwolongstandingjournalsinthefield,the

AustralianLibraryJournal(1951–2016)andAustralianAcademicandResearchLibraries

(1970–2016).Assuch,thepaperreachesanaudienceoflibraryresearchersand

practitionersfromacrosstheacademic,government,technicalandcommunitylibrary

space.

Theversionpresentedhereistheacceptedmanuscriptversion.SeeAppendix1.1forsigned

statementofcontributionfromthefirstauthor.

187

ThisisanAcceptedManuscriptofanarticlepublishedbyTaylor&FrancisinJournalofthe

AustralianLibraryandInformationAssociation,66:1,28-41,availableonlineat

http://www.tandfonline.com/https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2017.1282845

Abstract

CharlesDarwinUniversityLibraryisdirectlyhelpingtosustainandpreserve

Aboriginallanguageandculturalmaterialsthatencountermanyhurdlesfortheir

long-termsurvival.TheLibraryissupportinganARC-fundedprojectknownasthe

LivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages,byprovidingarepository,webapplication,

digitisationprogramandprofessionaladvice.ThecollaborationbetweentheLibrary

andresearchteamaddressedanumberofchallengesinrelationtoappropriateways

torepresentcomplexandvariablemetadata,widelyvaryingcontentfromdiverse

sourcesandinvariousconditions,andinmakingthesefragileandendangered

materialsaccessibletoaglobalaudience.TheopenaccessArchivenowincludes

thousandsofitemsindozensofNorthernTerritoryIndigenouslanguages,providinga

sustainablerepositoryforresearchersandallowingIndigenouscommunitiestoshare

theirlanguages,histories,knowledgesandpracticesaroundtheworld.Theproject

servesasarichcasestudydemonstratinghowacademiclibrariescanworkwith

researcherstosupportthearchivingofculturalheritage.

188

ImplicationsforPractice

• Collaborationbetweenresearchersandlibrarystaffbenefitsbothsides.Inthis

caselibrarystafflearntagreatdealaboutIndigenousknowledgeswhilethe

researchteamlearntagreatdealaboutinformationmanagement

• NegotiationwithIndigenousauthoritiesiscrucialtothesensitiveandcareful

managementofIndigenouslanguagematerials

• Referencetothewealthofestablishedguidelines,protocolsandbestpractice

recommendationstoprovidedirectionforthedevelopmentofIndigenous

collectionsisanimportantcomponentofsuchaproject

• Suchcollaborationcandrawonthewiderangeofskillswithintheteamand

outsourceskillswheretheyarelacking

Introduction

ThisarticlepresentsacasestudyofacollaborativeprojectbetweentheCharles

DarwinUniversityLibraryandaresearchteamfromtheNorthernInstituteofthe

University.Theresearchteam,comprisingeducationalandlinguisticexperts,was

successfulinsecuringanAustralianResearchCouncilgranttopreserveandmakewidely

availablearichcollectionofIndigenouslanguagematerialsfromtheNorthernTerritory.At

thetime,manyofthematerialswerebeinglostandsomeofthelanguageswereonthe

vergeofextinctionmakingitimperativethattheybegatheredanddigitisedforlong-term

preservation.TheLibrary,withitsspecialskillsandexpertise,wasinvitedtoassistwiththe

189

digitisationandpresentationofthesevaluablematerials.In2012,thecollectionwas

developedasanopenaccess,onlinerepositoryknownastheLivingArchiveofAboriginal

Languages.

Background

Inthelast20yearsorso,therehasbeenaconcertedworldwideeffortforlibrariesto

digitiseresourcesofcultural,historicalorlinguisticimportancefortheirlong-term

preservation.AttheWorldSummitontheInformationSociety,heldinTunisin2005,the

signatoriescommittedthemselvesto“…localcontentdevelopment,translationand

adaptation,digitalarchives,anddiverseformsofdigitalandtraditionalmedia”in

recognitionthat“theseactivitiescanalsostrengthenlocalandIndigenouscommunities”

(WorldSummitontheInformationSociety,2005).Furthermore,accordingtotheUN

DeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples(2007)underArticle13,Indigenouspeople

havetheright“torevitalise,use,developandtransmittofuturegenerationstheirhistories,

languages,oraltraditions,philosophies,writingsystemsandliteratures”.

InAustralia,MartinNakata,anIndigenousacademic,haswrittenabouttheincreasing

rolelibrariescanplayintheprovisionofservicestotheirIndigenouscommunities,

improvingdigitalaccesstoIndigenousknowledge,andthe“needtobringinformation

closertothecommunitythroughnewtechnologiesandmultipurposevenues”(Nakata,

2007,p.99).Librariansandarchivistsplayasignificantroleinmanagingsuchknowledge,

as“mediators,inthesensethattheyoccupyanintermediatespacebetweenthosewho

produceandarethelegalownersofknowledgeandthosewhorequireaccessto

knowledge”(Nakata&Langton,2005,p.5).Nationally,theAustralianInstituteof

190

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies(AIATSIS)inCanberrahasbeenthekeeping

placeformaterials,howeverwithcollectionsbecomingmoredispersed,access

requirementschanging,andtheaffordancesofthedigitalera,newstandardsarebeing

establishedtomeetfreshchallenges.Inthiscontext,bothpreservationandaccessare

equallyimportantareasthatneedtobeaddressed.

InrecentyearsinAustraliatherehavebeenimportantinitiativesonthepartof

nationalandstatelibrariesandothercollectinginstitutionstodevelopappropriate

guidelinesandprotocolsforthemanagementofIndigenousknowledgeandcultural

materials.TheAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderLibrary,InformationandResource

NetworkdevelopedaseriesofprotocolsfortherespectfulhandlingofIndigenous

knowledgeandmaterialsinlibraries(ATSILIRN,2012).TheNSLA(NationalandState

LibrariesAustralasia,2016)hassetupanIndigenousWorkingGroupsolelytopromote

“bestpracticeforthecollectionandpreservationofmaterialsrelatingtoAboriginaland

TorresStraitIslander(ATSI)peoples.”Aspartofthisstrategy,ithasdeveloped:guidelines

forlibrariesandIndigenouscommunitiestosuccessfullycollaboratewitheachother;a

NationalPositionStatementforATSIservicesandcollections;andaDigitalInfrastructure

forIndigenousCollections.TheWorkingGrouphasalsocollaboratedwithFirstLanguages

AustraliatomakeIndigenouslanguagematerialmoreaccessibletotheircommunities.The

reportontheNationalIndigenousLanguagesCollectionsStrategynotesthat“little

contemporarymaterialrepresentingthelives,knowledgeandculturesofAboriginaland

TorresStraitIslanderpeopleisbeingcollectedwithinmanyofthekeycollectionagencies”

(FirstLanguagesAustralia,2015,p.3).Italsoemphasisestheimperativeforagenciesand

institutionstoreconceptualisethesecollectionsandtheneedsofIndigenouspeoplesin

191

respecttoaccesstotheirownmaterials.Severalstatelibrarieshavedevelopedspecific

projectsrelatingtothemanagementofsuchcollections,suchastheStateLibraryofNew

SouthWale’seffortstosupportaccesstolanguagematerials(Thorpe&Galassi,2014),

repatriation(Nichollsetal.,2016),serviceimprovement(Thorpe&Galassi,2015),andthe

useofsocialmedia(Thorpe&Joseph,2015).TheStateLibraryofQueenslandhas

developedaportaltoIndigenouslanguagematerialsandknowledge(StateLibraryof

Queensland,2016)andmaintainsaninformativeblog(Crump,2016).

IntheNorthernTerritory,KnowledgeCentreswereestablishedinremote

communitiesbytheNorthernTerritoryLibraryasrepositoriesofmaterialsoflocal

significance(Gibson,2007;Nakata,2007).However,avastbodyofliteratureinlocal

vernacularlanguagesnotcollectedininstitutionalrepositoriesremainedscatteredand

vulnerable,andrequiredsignificanteffortsinpreservationandcarefulnegotiations

regardingaccess.

Development of the Living Archive

Around30%ofthepopulationofAustralia’sNorthernTerritory(NT)isIndigenous,a

largeproportionofwhomliveinremotecommunitiesandspeakanIndigenouslanguageat

home.Thereareupto100differentlanguagesaroundtheNT,ofwhichallareendangered

andmanyhavenoremainingfluentspeakers.Anestimated40languagesarestillin

everydayuseintheTerritory(NorthernTerritoryGovernment,2016),eachwithitsown

setofculturaltraditionsandpractices.Ingeneral,literacyratesarelowinEnglish,whichis

oftenasecond,thirdorfourthlanguage.

192

Inthe1970s,theAustralianFederalGovernmentestablishedaprogramofbilingual

educationinselectedremoteNorthernTerritoryschoolstoenablechildrentobeeducated

firstintheirmothertongue,beforetransitioningtoEnglish(Devlin,Disbray,&Devlin,

2017).Bilingualeducationwasintroducedinaround20schools,manyofwhichestablished

LiteratureProductionCentres(LPCs)toproducebooksandteachingmaterialsinthe

Indigenouslanguagesofthosecommunities(Bow,Christie,&Devlin,2014).Anestimated

4000smallbookswereproducedindozensoflanguages.Thebookswereoftenonlyafew

pages,printedlocallyinsmallproductionrunsof50–200copies,andusuallyrichly

illustratedbylocalartistsorwithphotographsorsimplelinedrawings.Topicsinclude“old

timechildren’sstories,pre-andpost-contacthistories,booksabouttheenvironment,

hunting,bushmedicines,ghoststories,creationstories,storiesofmemorableevents…life

stories,conceptionstories,andcautionarytales”(Christie,Devlin,&Bow,2014,p.49).

Thesestorieswereproducedforschoolprogramsanddidnotincludeanysecretorsacred

knowledgethatshouldnotbesharedpublicly.

Sincethe1990s,governmentsupportforbilingualprogramsintheNorthernTerritory

hasbeenprogressivelyreduced(Devlin,2009),andmanyprogramsandLPCshaveclosed

(thoughsomeschoolsstillmaintainprograms).Thishasresultedintheserious

endangermentofthisrichcollectionofliteratureinAboriginallanguages,asthebookswere

putintostorageorsometimeslostordestroyed.WhilesomeLPCsdepositeditemsatthe

NationalLibraryofAustraliaorAIATSIS,therewasnosystematiccollectionofthese

resourcesandhardcopieswerescatteredaroundprivatecollectionsandlibraries,orleft

vulnerableinharshenvironmentsinstorageinremotecommunities.Somedigitisation

193

effortswereconductedinrecentyears,butalargeproportionoftheitemswasatriskof

beinglostforever.

In2011,theAustralianResearchCouncilfundedaresearchteamfromCharlesDarwin

University(CDU),jointlywiththeAustralianNationalUniversity(ANU)andtheNT

DepartmentofEducation,todevelopadigitalarchiveofthesematerials.TheLivingArchive

ofAboriginalLanguagesbeganin2012asaresearchinfrastructureprojectthatwould

enableacademicstoaccessthesematerials.Inaddition,amajorgoaloftheprojectwasto

makethelanguagematerialsaccessibletotheIndigenouscommunitiesthatoriginally

producedthem,thusincorporatingthe‘repatriation’calledforbyNakata(2007,p.100).

Digitalarchivingprovidesameanstopreservethesematerialsofenormousculturalvalue,

aswellasopportunitiestoallowaccessforawideaudience.Additionalfundingwas

awardedin2014,whichsawnewpartnersjointheresearchteam.TheyweretheNorthern

TerritoryLibrary,BatchelorInstituteofIndigenousTertiaryEducation,andtheNTCatholic

EducationOffice,andtheirinvolvementexpandedtheprojecttoincludematerialsfrom

othercommunitiesthatdidn’thavebilingualeducationprogramsbuthadproduced

languagematerials.

AsnotedbyNakataandLangton(2005)amongothers,theimportanceofnegotiation

withtheappropriateIndigenousauthoritiesisacrucialcomponentinanyprojectofthis

nature.WhiletheresearchteamhasnoIndigenousrepresentation,theteamregularlydrew

onitsconnectionswithIndigenouscommunitiesandindividualsdevelopedovermany

years,invitingdiscussionandnegotiation,sharingideasandimplementingsuggestions.In

callingtheprojecta‘Living’Archive,theaimwastogobeyondthesimplepreservationof

historicaldocumentsbycreatingaspaceforthecelebrationandrevitalisationoftheserich

194

resources,incollaborationwiththeoriginalcreatorsofthematerials.Thechallengeof

negotiatingthevarioustechnical,performativeandpedagogicalaspectsoftheproject

proved“adifficultandunpredictablebalancingact,mediatingbetweendifferentknowledge

practicessothatthearchiveitselfisdevelopinginmultipleways”(Christie,Devlin,&Bow,

2014,p.49).

Collaboration

TheLivingArchiveprojectresearchteamrequiredassistancewiththeappropriate

meansofdigitising,storingandmakingaccessiblethesethousandsofsmallbooks.The

LibraryatCDUofferedsupport,whichturnedintoastrongcollaborationofmutualbenefit

totheresearchteamandtheLibrary.Giventheincreasingroleoflibrariansinresearchdata

management(ANDS,2016),theLibrarybroughtitsspecialisedskillsandknowledgeand

combinedthemwiththeskillsandknowledgeofthelinguists,educatorsandothers

involvedintheproject.Priortothisproject,CDULibraryhadbeencarefullymaintaininga

specialcollectionofNTIndigenouslanguagematerialsinhardcopy,butwithlimitson

accesstothesevulnerablematerials.Aroundthesametimeasthedevelopmentofthe

LivingArchive,theLibrarywasalsoengaginginresearchwiththeUniversity’sSchoolof

EducationtoembedAustralianAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderKnowledge,Culture

andLanguageintheBachelorofTeachingandLearningprogram.Thisledtothe

developmentofaLibGuideallowingasinglepointofaccesstoawiderangeofmaterials

focusedonIndigenousknowledges(Ford,Prior,Coat,&Warton,2014).TheLivingArchive

projectgavetheLibraryanopportunitytoextenditscapacitytomanageIndigenous

195

knowledgematerials,notjustforusewithintheUniversity,buttoapotentiallyglobal

populationonline.

Theresearchteambroughttotheprojectthethousandsofhardcopiesoflanguage

materialssourcedfromaroundtheNT,throughitsnetworkofconnectionswithschools,

communityleaders,individualsandorganisations,whichalsoenabledfruitful

conversationsabouttheprocessofpreservationandguidelinesforaccessrequirements.

Theteamalsohadthelinguisticknowledgeandexpertisetomakedecisionsaboutthe

materialsandestablishedtheprojectmethodology,buthadminimalexperiencein

archivingormetadata.Thisprojectwasuniqueinthatitfocusedonlyontextualmaterials

inlanguagesoftheNorthernTerritory,deliberatelyexcludinglinguisticnotesandother

typesofresearchorpublicationsinEnglishabouttheselanguages,culturesorpeople.It

wasalsoimportanttomakethecollectionopenaccesswithpermissionfromthe

appropriateauthorities:itwastobeatoolnotonlyforlinguistsandotherresearchersbut

alsoforthemembersoftheAboriginalcommunitiesthatproducedtheliteratureinthefirst

place.Otherculturalarchives,suchasthoseofAIATSIS,havewidercollectionpolicies,but

morerestrictedaccessprotocols,whichisappropriatefortheirstatutoryrequirements,but

meansthatcertainmaterialsarenotreadilyavailabletothepublic.

TheCDULibrarywasabletodrawonitsexperienceinhandlingresearchdatato

providetheresearchteamwithsupport,trainingandadvice,aswellasonlinestorageand

sustainabilityforthematerials.TheLibrarywasresponsiblefortherepository,web

applicationanddigitisationprogramtopreservetheendangeredIndigenousresourcesand

tofacilitatebothIndigenouscommunityengagementandinternationallinguisticresearch.

AkeycontributiontotheprojectwastheLibrary’sexpertiseinknowledgeandresource

196

organisationandmanagement,whichinformedthecreation,storage,preservationand

sharingofthematerialsincludedintheLivingArchive.Furthermore,theLibraryplayeda

crucialroleintheestablishmentoftheArchivebyprovidingongoingtechnicalinformation

managementsupportneededtoensureitssuccessandsustainability.TheLibraryhosted

theArchiveinitsinstitutionalrepository,knownasCDUeSpace,whichallowedtheproject

teamtouploadmetadataanddigitalartefacts,whichcouldbeaccessedthroughacustom-

madewebsite,aswellasbeharvestedbyOAI-PMHandotherrelevantharvesters,suchas

OLAC(theOpenLanguageArchivesCommunity).

Digitisation and storage

TheLibraryteamdevelopedaworkflowfordigitisingthematerialsonitsin-house

scanningequipment.Toensurequalityandenablethetechnicalaspectsofthedigitisation

process,theLibrarybegantheprocessofdigitisationwithitsexistingequipment,software

andexpertise,learningthesettingsrequiredfortheequipmentandimageeditingsoftware,

developingappropriateworkflows,followingbestpractice,andfromtheretrainingothers

fromtheresearchprojectteamtotakeovertheresponsibility.TheLibrarycollaborated

withANUwhereothermaterialswerebeingscanned,toensureconsistencyofquality,size,

etc.,andalsosoughtadvicefromotherexpertsinthefield.Thishadthedualoutcomeof

providingahighstandardofdigitalmaterialfromthehardcopysources,butalsoextending

theskillsandknowledgeoftheLibrarystaffinhandling,scanningandstoringvaluable

culturalmaterials,includingdigitalimageprocessingandOpticalCharacterRecognition

(OCR).Aworkflowwasdesignedtomaintainarecordof‘actions’,toenabletrackingeach

197

itemthroughthevariousstagesofprocessing(astheitemisdigitised,OCRed,uploaded,

etc.).

Thecollectionrequiresapproximately2Tbofstorage,includingmetadataandthe

digitalartefacts(bothpresentationversionsinPDFformatandpreservationversionsas

TIFFfiles).Storingtheseintheinstitutionalrepositorywithitssystemsformaintenance

andbackupallowedforgreatersustainabilityoverthelong-termthanifastandaloneweb

archivewascreated.Thisalsoensuresanongoingcommitmenttothecollectionatan

institutionallevelbeyondtheprojectfundingcycle.Furtherassuranceofsustainabilitywas

initiatedbyarrangingabackupcopyoftheentirecollectiontobestoredoffsiteatAIATSIS.

Metadata

TheLivingArchivecollectionofmaterialsincludedbasicreaders,learningprimers,

storiesofhistoricalreminiscences,creationstories,storiesofdailylife,translationsfrom

English,inmultiplelanguagesandmultiplegenres.Whileinsomecasesitwasa

straightforwardtasktoidentifyappropriatecategories,theresearchteamwantedto

maintainaflatstructure,as“collapsingthestructuresofmetadataandflatteningouttheir

contentmayenablethecreativeconnectingprocessesuponwhichAboriginalknowledge-

makingdepends”(Christie,2005b,p.56).WiththefocusonbuildingtheArchivetoserve

theneedsofanaudiencerangingfromacademicresearcherstolanguagespeakersin

remotecommunities,itwasimportantnottoconstrainthesecategoriestoomuch,orto

imposeaWesterntypologyonIndigenouscategories.

Thecombinationofexpertisefromtheresearchteam(inIndigenousknowledgesand

linguistics)andtheLibraryteam(incataloguingandclassification)ledtovaluable

198

discussionascommongroundwasfound.Asalanguagearchive,theresearchteamchoseto

usetheguidelinesprovidedbyOLAC(Simons&Bird,2003),anextensionofDublinCore,so

acrosswalkwascreatedtomapbetweentermsusedinOLAC,MARCandMODS.

CustomisationoftheeSpaceenvironmentforthesespecificrecordswasfacilitatedbythe

technicalteam,whowerealsorequiredtomaintainastablelibrarysystemforits

institutionalobligations.

Negotiationabouthowtheresourcesweretobedescribed,browsedandsearchedled

toasatisfyingoutcomedesignedtomeettheneedsofthediverseaudiences,aswellas

conformingtobestpracticeinbothlibraryandlinguisticstandards.Muchofthiswasbuilt

onchiefinvestigatorChristie’spreviousworkonIndigenousknowledgesindigitalcontexts

(Christie,2001,2004,2005b,2005a;Christie&Verran,2013;Verran&Christie,2007,

2014).Wherethereexistednostandardcontrolledvocabulariesspecificallycateringforthe

languagematerials,thelibrarians’skillsincataloguingandmetadatamadesignificant

contributionstothewaythematerialswereorganised,structuredanddescribed.‘Place’

and‘Language’werechosenastheprimaryclassificationsofthematerials,eventhough

therewasrarelyaone-to-onecorrelationbetweenthetwofields,asinmostcaseseach

communityincludedseverallanguages,orinsomecasesonelanguagewasspokenacross

severalcommunities.

Thenegotiationofadditionalfieldstobeincludedinthecataloguewasanongoing

process,withnewmaterialscreatingnewquestionsaboutclassification(Bow,Christie,&

Devlin,2015).TheLibraryteamwasalsoabletoadviseonthebestwaytoclassify

particularitems,asitwasnotalwaysastraightforwardtasktodistinguish‘form’from

‘genre’from‘subject’forexample,especiallyinalanguageunknowntoeithertheresearch

199

teamortheLibraryteam.Dataentryformsweredevelopedtoassisttheresearchteamwith

thecataloguingofmaterials,usingcontrolledvocabularylistswherepossibletoensure

consistency.Alonglistof‘authortypes’wasadded,includingillustrators,photographers,

translatorsandeditors.However,insomecasesbookslistedawholeclassroomofchildren

astheauthors(allbyfirstnamesonly).Aboriginalnamingpracticessometimesconfounded

theissue,withasinglecontributorbeingknownbyanumberofdifferentnames,orwith

differentspellings.Questionsaboutfinedistinctionsbetweencategories(suchasthe

differencebetweena‘Seriesnumber’anda‘Partnumber’,orbetween‘Geographicalorigin’

and‘Originofstory’),ortheinclusionofkeywords(inEnglishand/orthelanguageofthe

publication),orthecorrectwaytohandlemissingmetadata,werethetypesofdiscussion

thattheLibraryteamwasabletoresolvefortheresearchteam.

Access

EnsuringtheopenaccessstatusoftheLivingArchivecollectionwasnotaroutine

outcomeofsimplyaddingtherecordsandattachmentstotherepository.Issuesof

ownershipandcopyrightwerecarefullynegotiatedbytheresearchteam,involving

licensingfrominstitutionalcopyrightholdersandpermissionformsfromindividuals

namedascontributors(Devlin,Bow,Purdon,&Klesch,2015).Asnotedearlier,the

resourcescollectedhavenoaccessrestrictions,withnosecretorsacredknowledgeinthe

booksproducedforthebilingualprograms.However,itwasimportanttotheresearchteam

toensurethattheIndigenouscreatorsofthematerialswereincludedinthenegotiations,so

visitstocommunitiesinvolveddiscussionwithknowledgeauthoritiesabouttheproject,

andshowingpeopleinvolvedinthecreationofthematerialshowthesewerebeingsafely

200

storedandmadeavailablethroughtheArchivewebsite(Bowetal.,2014).Feedbackfrom

thecommunitymemberswasconsistentlypositive,andmanysuggestionsandrequests

wereimplementedintheArchive.TheLibraryassistedwiththetechnicalaspectsofaccess

managementinthecollectionbyenablingaccessrightstoitemsastheywerereleasedto

publicview,andrestrictionofaccesstoothersforwhichpermissionhadnotyetbeen

secured.Theprocessinvolvedfacilitatingtheprojectteamtomanagethemovementof

recordsacrossthesedifferentdomainsinasimpleandtransparentmanner.A‘take-down’

policywasalsopublicisedandimplemented,withanyconcernsaboutaccesstomaterialin

thecollectionbeingaddressedimmediately.Thesenegotiationscompliedwiththe

ATSILIRNProtocols,specifically12.6whichrecommends“Work(ing)cooperativelywith

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeoplestopromotethecreation,collectionand

managementofdigitalmaterials”and12.7“Educateusersoftheircollectionsaboutthe

potentialbenefitsandrisksofsharingdigitalcontentinanonlineenvironment”(ATSILIRN,

2012).

Theaimoftheprojecttomakethematerialsaccessibletoawiderangeofaudiences

requiredcarefulconsiderationofhowtopresenttheArchiveonline.Thelanguagematerials

haveadifferentsignificancetospeakersofthoselanguagesthantheydotoacademic

researchers,ortothegeneralpublic,andsotheArchivewouldneedtosupportthedifferent

waysusersmightinteract.ThestandardinterfacetotheLibrary'srepositorywas

consideredtoocomplexforuserswhoarenotfamiliarwithlibraryonlinedatabases.What

wasneededwasprimarilyagraphicalpublicwebpagewherepotentialuserswithrelatively

littleexperienceinnavigatinglibrarypagescouldaccessandusethematerialsinthe

Archive.Itwasessentialthatthegraphicinterfaceworkseamlesslywiththerepository

201

collection.TheresearchteamandLibraryteamworkedtogetherwithatalented

programmertodesignandimplementawebsitethatwouldaccommodatethe

requirementsoflow-techusersandhighlyliterateusers,whilerespectingtheintegrityof

thecollectionasbothculturallyvaluableandappropriatelysearchable.Theresultisavisual

webpageincorporatinganinteractivemapoftheNorthernTerritoryandclearlymarked

accesspointsvialanguageareas(representedbycolouredshapes),andcommunities

(representedbygeo-locationpoints)(Figure9).Theinclusionofthumbnailimagesofthe

bookcovers(Figure10)wasnotsimplyanaestheticdecision,butprovidedacrucialservice

forusersinremotecommunitieswithlimitedliteracyskills.Usingthemapandthumbnails

allowsuserstonavigatethesitewithoutneedingtotypeorreadmuchtext.Thisdesign

makesthisArchivequitedifferentfromthosedesignedspecificallyasresearch

infrastructure,yetmaintainsitsintegrityinthatrole,whileappealingtoabroader

demographicthanjustresearchers.AvideoscreencastdemonstratestheuseoftheArchive

site(http://laal.cdu.edu.au/app/public/images/videos/LAAL_demo_complete.mp4),and

anaccompanyingprojectsitegivesbackgroundandtopicalinformationabouttheproject

andrelatedactivities.Theprojectteamalsomaintainsasocialmediapresencefor

promotionandengagement.

202

Figure9(Ch4.1):Homepageshowingmapaccessbyplaceorlanguage

Figure10(Ch4.2):ScreenshotofBrowseviewofcollectionshowingthumbnailswithbasic

metadataplusdisplayandfilteroptions

203

AnotherimportantaspectofmakingtheArchiveeasilyaccessiblewasthecapacityto

makethedataharvestablebyothersystems.Thecarefulselectionofmetadatacategories

notedabovemakesthematerialinteroperablewithboththeOLACsystemandtheNational

Library’sTrovedatabase.IncollaborationwithTrovestaff,theCDULibraryteamarranged

forthemetadatafromtheLivingArchivetobeharvestedandpresentedasadiscrete

collection,thatis,notmixedupwithothercollectionsthathadbeenharvested(forexample,

researchpapers,historicalphotographs).Suchnegotiationimprovedthequalityand

accessibilityoftheArchiveitself,aswellasstrengtheningthecapacityoftheLibraryteam

tomanagesuchprojects.WhileitwasnotconsiderednecessarytoconsultwithIndigenous

knowledgeauthoritiesonalltechnicalaspectsoftheproject,theteamwascarefulto

explainhowthematerialswouldbemadeavailableonline,andtheopennessoftheArchive

waswidelysupported.Accesswasalsoenhancedinresponsetoarequestfromaremote

Indigenouscommunityforofflineaccesstothematerials.TheLibraryworkedwitha

developertocreateamobileapptoenabledownloadingofmaterialsfromthecollectionto

amobiledeviceforofflineusage(CorrelLink,2015).

Challenges

Someofthechallengesfacedintheprojectwereresolvedthroughcollaborative

discussionbetweentheteams,withinputfromIndigenousauthoritiesasappropriate.Two

specificchallengesareoutlinedhere,withothersrecordedelsewhere(Bowetal.,2014,

2015).Forthematerialstobemaximallyusefultobothresearchersandthelocal

community,itwasdecidedthattextversionsshouldbeavailableforeachitem.Thenature

ofthematerialsandthevarietyoflanguagespresentedachallengeforOpticalCharacter

204

Recognition(OCR).Someofthematerialswereoldorfaded,usedavarietyoffonts,some

handwrittenorwithwordscutofftheedgeofpages.WhiletheOCRsoftwaregavea

reasonablefirstdraftofthetext,eachpageneededtobecarefullyeditedtomatchthe

sourceimage.Thiswastime-consumingandchallengingforthosedoingdataentry,noneof

whomwerespeakersofanyofthelanguages.Someofthelanguagesusespecialcharacters,

howeverthemultilingualsupportavailablewithintheOCRsoftwaredoesnotextendto

AustralianIndigenouslanguages.TheLibraryteamexperimentedwithaddingcustom

dictionariestoassisttheOCRprocessbyaidingwordrecognition,butwithsomany

languagestoworkwiththis,andlackingdictionariesinmanyoftheselanguages,thetask

becameuntenable.ItwaspossibletoaddUnicodeversionsofthespecialcharactersusedin

severaloftheselanguagestothesearchdatabaseoftheOCRsoftware,butthesecharacters

(suchasä,ḏ,ŋ,etc.)werestillregularlyoverlookedormisrecognisedandhadtobeentered

manually.Inaddition,someadjustmentswererequiredtoSOLRqueryingwithintheCDU

eSpacerepositoryandthewebsite,tocorrectlysearchanddisplaythesecharacters.

Afurtherchallengewastheuseofcodestoidentifylanguages.Followingbestpractice

recommendationsinlanguagedocumentation(Bird&Simons,2003),theinternational

standardISO639-3wasused.However,insomecasesthesedidnotmeettherequirements

ofAboriginallanguageswiththeirownuniquestructuresandrelationshipsandnaming

conventions.DiscussionamongtheLibraryandprojectteam,withadvicefromexpertsin

Indigenouslanguagesandcomputing,resultedinasolutionthatinvolvedretainingtheISO

639-3codesandsupplementingthesewithinternal-uselanguagecodes(Bowetal.,2014).

Thisensuredconformitywithbestpracticeandinternationalstandardswhileallowing

someflexibilityinreflectingIndigenousmeansofclassifyingandcategorisinglanguages.

205

Engagement

TheestablishmentoftheLivingArchivehascreatedmanyopportunitiesfor

communitiestore-engagewiththematerialsindigitalformats.Thisengagementhastaken

anumberofforms,withanecdotalevidenceforpositiveresponsestotheavailabilityofthe

materialsindigitalform(manyofthesestoriesaresharedontheproject’sblogat

http://www.cdu.edu.au/laal/blog/).Forexample,inanEnglish-onlyschoolinsouthern

ArnhemLandwithnohistoryofbilingualeducation,anon-Indigenousteachershareda

KriolstoryfromtheLivingArchivewithherclass.Hearingtheirlanguageusedinthe

classroom,theteachersaidthestudentswere“atsuchease…Iwasaskingthemtorecount

andtheywererecountingwith100%accuracy…Ihadkidswhorarelyspeakanswering

questions”.Alinguistidentifiedaparticularexpressionthatwassharedacrossanumberof

differentlanguages,yetdidnotappearinmanydictionaries,andwaspresentedincontext

withillustrationstoconveyadditionalmeanings.Adigitalstorycompetitioninvitedusers

toselectastoryfromtheArchiveand,withthepermissionofthestoryowner,bringitto

life,e.g.byanimation,addingaudio,actingitout,creatingadance,etc.Thiscreated

opportunitiesforengagementwiththestories,aswellasintergenerationallanguagework,

andproducedarangeofmultimediamaterialsinvariousformatswhichhavebeenaddedto

theArchive,andadditionalmaterialscontinuetobeuploaded.Therequirementforall

learningareasinthenewAustralianCurriculumtoincludeAboriginalandTorresStrait

Islanderhistoriesandculturesasacross-curriculumpriority(AustralianCurriculum

AssessmentandReportingAuthority,n.d.)allowsfurtherengagementwiththeauthentic

resourcesintheArchivefromschoolsaroundthecountry(Bow,2016).TheLibrary’s

engagementwiththeresearchprojecthasledtoidentificationoffurtherpossible

206

contributionsitcanmaketoIndigenousknowledgemanagement,suchasanascentproject

creatingadatabaseforIndigenousresearcherprofilesandrepresentationsofknowledge.

Lessons learnt

ThiscollaborativeprojectexpandedthecapacityoftheUniversityLibrarystaffin

severalways.Thetechnicaldirectorreflectedthatthestafflearnt“alotmoreaboutlocal

Indigenousculturesandtheirverydifferentworldview,howlanguageisaninseparable

partofcultureandhowsomeconceptsarejustnotabletoberepresentedinthesameway

outsidetheirnativelanguages.”(AnthonyHornby,personalcommunication).Staff

deepenedtheirunderstandingofhowtomanageIndigenouslanguagesonline,fromfont

selectionandmodification,toOLACmetadataskills,tomodifyingtheSOLRsearchand

indexingengine,whichforcedtheteamtoupskillinanumberofareasthatarevaluablefor

otherLibraryprojects.Theimprovedskillsandworkflowsarounddigitisationofprint

materialsincludingdevelopmentofworkflowsalsoenabledtrainingofpeopleoutsidethe

Libraryhowtousethedigitisationequipment.Involvementindiscussionaboutonline

rightsmanagement,particularlyCreativeCommons,andthespecificissuesrelatingto

Indigenousknowledgemanagement,hasbuiltcapacityandunderstandingwhichwillserve

theUniversityandthewidercommunitybetterinthisarea.Theprojecthasalsoraised

interestoutsidetheNorthernTerritory,andhasbeenpickedupbymediaandshared

online,whichhasbeenusefulinunderstandinghowtheprofileoftheLibraryanditsother

activitiescanberaised.

207

Conclusion

TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesprojectdemonstrateshowacademic

librariescanworkwithresearcherstosupportthearchivingofculturalheritageand

valuableresearchdata.Inthisinstance,theculturalheritagebroughtwithitunique

challengesthatwereresolvedbynegotiationandcollaborationbetweentheresearchteam

andLibraryteam.Thishasresultedinthedevelopmentofaninnovativeonlineresource

containingvaluablematerialsfromendangeredlanguagesintheNorthernTerritory.Some

ofthelessonslearnedfromthiscollaborationinpreservingandprovidingaccessto

materialsofculturalheritagemaybeusefultootherlibrariesseekingtoaddresssimilar

issues.

References

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderLibrary,InformationandResourceNetwork.(2012).

ATSILIRNprotocolsforlibraries,archivesandinformationservices.Retrievedfrom

http://atsilirn.aiatsis.gov.au/protocols.php.

AustralianCurriculumAssessmentandReportingAuthority.(n.d.).AboriginalandTorres

StraitIslanderhistoriesandcultures.Retrievedfrom

http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities/Aboriginal-and-

Torres-Strait-Islander-histories-and-cultures.

AustralianNationalDataService.(2016).DataManagementSkills.Retrievedfrom

http://www.ands.org.au/working-with-data/data-management/overview/data-

management-skills.

Bird,S.,&Simons,G.(2003).SevenDimensionsofPortabilityforLanguageDocumentation

andDescription.Language,79(3),557–582.https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0149.

208

Bow,C.(2016).UsingauthenticlanguageresourcestoincorporateIndigenousknowledges

acrosstheAustralianCurriculum.LearningCommunities:InternationalJournalof

LearninginSocialContexts,20,20–39.https://doi.org/10.18793/LCJ2016.20.03.

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2014).DevelopingaLivingArchiveofAboriginal

Languages.LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,8,345–360.

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2015).ShoehorningcomplexmetadataintheLiving

ArchiveofAboriginalLanguages.InA.Harris,N.Thieberger,&L.Barwick(Eds.),

Research,RecordsandResponsibility:TenyearsofPARADISEC(pp.115---131).Sydney:

SydneyUniversityPress.

Christie,M.(2001).Aboriginalknowledgeontheinternet.Ngoonjook,19,33–50.

Christie,M.(2004).ComputerDatabasesandAboriginalKnowledge.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,1,4–12.

Christie,M.(2005a).AboriginalKnowledgeTraditionsinDigitalEnvironments.The

AustralianJournalofIndigenousEducation,34,61–66.

Christie,M.(2005b).Words,OntologiesandAboriginalDatabases.MediaInternational

Australia,IncorporatingCulture&Policy,116,52–63.

Christie,M.,Devlin,B.,&Bow,C.(2014,October).TheBirthoftheLivingArchive:An

emergingarchiveofAustralianAboriginallanguagesandliterature.Archifacts,

October2014,48–63.

Christie,M.,&Verran,H.(2013).DigitallivesinpostcolonialAboriginalAustralia.Journalof

MaterialCulture,18(3),299–317.

CorrelLink.(2015).LAALReader[Android;iOS].Darwin,N.T.:CharlesDarwinUniversity.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.cdu.edu.au/laal/reader-app/

Crump,D.(2016).IndigenousLanguagesblog.Retrievedfrom

http://blogs.slq.qld.gov.au/ilq/author/dcrump/

Devlin,B.(2009).BilingualeducationintheNorthernTerritoryandthecontinuingdebate

overitseffectivenessandvalue.PresentedattheAIATSISResearchSymposium:

BilingualEducationintheNorthernTerritory:Principles,policyandpractice.

Canberra,A.C.T.

Devlin,B.,Bow,C.,Purdon,A.,&Klesch,M.(2015).Digitaltechnologiesandlanguage

resources–findingcommonground.InH.Huijser,R.Ober,S.O’Sullivan,E.McRae-

209

Williams,&R.Elvin(Eds.),FindingCommonGround:Narratives,Provocationsand

Reflectionsfromthe40YearCelebrationofBatchelorInstitute(pp.80–84).Batchelor,

N.T.:BatchelorPress.

Devlin,B.,Disbray,S.,&Devlin,N.R.F.(Eds.).(2017).HistoryofBilingualEducationinthe

NorthernTerritory:People,ProgramsandPolicies.Singapore:Springer.

FirstLanguagesAustralia.(2015).NationalIndigenousLanguagesCollectionsStrategy.

Newcastle,NSW:FirstLanguagesAustralia.Retrievedfrom

http://www.firstlanguages.org.au/projects/collections.html

Ford,P.L.,Prior,J.,Coat,B.,&Warton,L.(2014).TheIncorporatingIndigenousKnowledge

LibGuide:CharlesDarwinUniversityEmbeddingAustralianAboriginalandTorres

StraitIslanderKnowledge,CultureandLanguage.AustralianAcademic&Research

Libraries,45(2),111–120.https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.910859

Gibson,J.(2007,August).Indigenousculturalmaterialindigitalform:thecollectionand

flowofdigitalobjects.PresentedattheInitiatives,IdeasandInteraction:Sharingour

Story,AliceSprings.

Nakata,M.(2007).Indigenousdigitalcollections.AustralianAcademic&ResearchLibraries,

38(2),99–110.

Nakata,M.,&Langton,M.(2005).AustralianIndigenousKnowledgeandLibraries(No.0-

8680-4563–2)(36,1–211).AustralianAcademic&ResearchLibraries.

NationalandStateLibrariesAustralasia.(2016).Indigenous.Retrievedfrom

http://www.nsla.org.au/projects/Indigenous

Nicholls,S.,Booker,L.,Thorpe,K.,Jackson,M.,Girault,C.,Briggs,R.,&Jones,C.(2016).From

principletopractice:communityconsultationregardingaccesstoIndigenous

languagematerialinarchivalrecordsattheStateLibraryofNewSouthWales.

ArchivesandManuscripts,44,1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2016.1239116

NorthernTerritoryGovernment.(2016).IndigenouslanguagesinNT.Retrieved3October

2016,fromhttps://nt.gov.au/community/interpreting-and-translating-

services/aboriginal-interpreter-service/Indigenous-languages-in-nt

StateLibraryofQueensland.(2016).AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderlanguages.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.slq.qld.gov.au/resources/atsi/languages

210

Thorpe,K.,&Galassi,M.(2014).RediscoveringIndigenousLanguages:TheRoleandImpact

ofLibrariesandArchivesinCulturalRevitalisation.AustralianAcademic&Research

Libraries,45(2),81–100.https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.910858

Thorpe,K.,&Galassi,M.(2015).Diversity,Recognition,Respect:EmbeddingIndigenous

ServicesattheStateLibraryofNewSouthWales,Australia.InIFLAWorldLibraryand

InformationCongress:81stIFLAGeneralConferenceandAssembly.

Thorpe,K.,&Joseph,M.(2015).DigitalengagementandtheATSILIRNprotocols:

IndigenousAustralianexperiencesandexpertiseguidingtheuseofsocialmediain

Libraries.PresentedattheAttheEdge,Sydney,NSW:ALIA.

UnitedNations.(2007).UnitedNationDeclarationontheRightsofIndigenousPeoples.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf

Verran,H.,&Christie,M.(2007).Using/DesigningDigitaltechnologiesofRepresentationin

AboriginalAustralianKnowledgepractices.HumanTechnology,3(2),214–227.

Verran,H.,&Christie,M.(2014).PostcolonialDatabasing?SubvertingOldAppropriations,

DevelopingNewAssociations.InJ.Leach&L.Wilson(Eds.),Subversion,conversion,

development:cross-culturalknowledgeencounterandthepoliticsofdesign(pp.57–

77).Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.

WorldSummitontheInformationSociety.(2005).TunisAgendafortheInformation

Society.Retrievedfromhttp://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

211

Chapter 5 (PAPER 3): Observing and respecting diverse knowledge

traditions in a digital archive of Indigenous language materials

Bow,C.,&Hepworth,P.(2019).Observingandrespectingdiverseknowledgetraditionsina

digitalarchiveofIndigenouslanguagematerials.JournalofCopyrightinEducationand

Librarianship,3(1),1–36.https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7485

HavingdescribedthecreationoftheLivingArchiveprojectincollaborationwiththeCDU

Libraryteam,thenextpaperaddressesoneofthemostchallengingissueswhichemerged

inthecreationofthisproject.

Thecontributionofthispapertotheoverallthesiscomesthroughacarefulanalysisofthe

intellectualpropertyissuesinherentintheLivingArchiveproject,andthemeanswefound

toaddresstheseissues.Thesearchforatechnicalsolutionthatwouldconformtoboth

CommonwealthandAboriginallawinvolvedentanglementsofownership,authorship,

permission,laws,protocolsandlicenses,aswellaspeople,artefactsandtechnologies.

Thepaperwasco-authoredwithlawyerTrishHepworthwhoatthetimewastheExecutive

OfficerfortheAustralianDigitalAllianceandalsotheCopyrightAdviserfortheAustralian

LibrariesCopyrightCommittee(ALCC).Wemetatacopyrighttrainingworkshopshe

presentedforALCCinDarwininJuly2015.Followingtheworkshopwehadaproductive

discussionabouttheLivingArchiveasaninterestingcasestudy,andlaterIproposed

collaborationonapapertoenableustoexploretheissuesindepth.(SeeAppendix1.2for

signedstatementofcontribution).

Thepaperwaspublishedinanewinternationalopenaccessjournal,withthegoalof

reachinganaudienceofbotheducatorsandlibrarians,whomaybeusersoftheLiving

Archiveprojectaswellaspractitionersfacingsimilarchallengeswiththeirowncollections

ofmaterials. Thefinalversionofthepaperispresentedhereasavailablefromtheopen

accessjournalwebsite.

212

OriginallypublishedintheJournalofCopyrightinEducationandLibrarianship,Vol.3,

Issue1:https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7485

Abstract

AustraliancopyrightlawandIndigenousCulturalandIntellectualProperty(ICIP)

havealwayssatuncomfortablytogether,eachwiththeirowninternallogicand

legitimacy,butforcingcertainarrangementsandcompromiseswhenappliedto

specificcontexts.ThecollectionofIndigenouslanguagematerialsintoadigitalarchive

hasrequiredfindingmeanstoobserveandrespectthesetwoincongruentknowledge

traditions.TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages,anopenonlinerepository

containingthousandsofbooksindozensoflanguagesfromIndigenouscommunities

ofAustralia’sNorthernTerritory,offersopportunitytoexplorehowtheneedto

attendtobothknowledgetraditionsledtospecificdecisionsandpractices.In

particular,wheretheAustraliancopyrightlawwassatisfied,additionalstepswere

neededtorespectfullyincorporateIndigenousperspectives.Thispaperoutlinesthe

negotiationsandcompromisesinherentinseekingasolutionwhichobservesand

respectsbothIndigenousandwesternknowledgepracticesinauniquecollectionof

culturalheritagematerials.

Keywords

Indigenouslanguages,NorthernTerritory,digitalarchive,ICIP,intellectualproperty,

copyright

213

I’m sitting on a mat in the dust outside a house in a remote community,

explainingtoasmallgroupofseniorIndigenouswomenthatwewanttotake

thoseoldbooksfromtheschool’sbilingualprogramandputthemoncomputer

foranyoneintheworldtosee.Iftheythinkit’sokayforustodothat,canthey

pleasesignthispermissionform.WhiletheyarehighlycompetentinEnglish,it

may be their fourth or fifth language. I’m explaining in English, the form is

writteninEnglish,Idon’thaveanybookstoshowthem,orademonstrationof

how the bookswill look on a computer. They talk among themselves in their

language,askaboutsomeofthepeopleinvolved,askmeifI’vebeengivenaskin

nameandbywhom.Theythensigntheforms.I’muncertainhowmuchthey’ve

understood about what they’re actually agreeing to. Am I just another well-

intentionedwhitepersonwithaclipboardaskingthemtosignapieceofpaper?

TheexperienceoftheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesproject,3increatingan

openonlinerepositoryofthousandsofbooksindozensoflanguagesfromIndigenous

communitiesinAustralia’sNorthernTerritory,hasinvolvedexploringtheprocessesand

resolutionofissuesofownership,permission,andaccessundertwolargelyincongruous

knowledgetraditions:IndigenousCulturalandIntellectualProperty(ICIP)4andAustralian

copyrightlaw.Theprojectdemonstratessomeofthechallengesinherentindigitizingand

makingaccessibleaculturalheritagecollectionproducedinalargelypre-digitaleraundera

dualsetof“laws”(Indigenousandwestern),eachwiththeirowninternallogicand

legitimacy,andattemptstoobserveandrespectbothsetsoftraditionsandpracticesinthe

3 The project website and archive collection are available at www.livingarchive.cdu.edu.au 4 Regarding terminology, the term ICIP is commonly used in Australia, while internationally the term Traditional

Cultural Expression (TCE) is also widely used (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2016).

214

digitalera.Policiesandpracticesregardingdigitizationanddisseminationhaveemergedas

aneffectoftheeverydayworkofbuildingthearchive,astheprojectteamseekstobalance

respectfortheIndigenousknowledgetraditionsfromwhichthematerialsoriginally

emerged,alongsideincreasedunderstandingoftherequirementsofAustraliancopyright

law.Thelongevityandsustainabilityofthearchivedependsonopennesstofurther

negotiationandinformedresponsestocommunityconcernsandchangesinlegislation,as

wellastechnologicalandculturaldevelopments.

Thepurposeofthispaperistoofferaworkedexampleofaspecificsituationinwhich

meanswerefoundtoobserveandrespectbothICIPandAustraliancopyrightsystems.The

solutionsofferedherearenotintendedtobenormative,aseveryprojectisuniqueandsits

withinaveryspecificcontextandpurpose.However,theprocessesdescribedinthispaper

mayinformandassistothersfacingsimilarchallenges.Thepaperoutlinestheoriginsofthe

LivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesproject(hereafterreferredtoastheLivingArchive,

ortheArchive)anditsuniquenessincomparisonwithothersimilarprojects.Thetwolegal

systemsarebrieflyintroduced,withafocusonthekeyfeaturesofICIPwhichconcernthis

project.ThewaysinwhichtheprojectaddressedthecopyrightandICIPissuesarethen

describedinturn,fromthestraightforwardcasestotheproblemworksandthesolutions

identified,followingtheoutlinepresentedinTable1(Figure11).

Finally,issuesrelatingtoaccessandusageareaddressed.Thesesectionsare

interspersedwithreflectionsfromtheprojectmanagerandfirstauthor,presentedinitalics,

whichgroundsomeoftheseissuesinspecificcontexts.

215

Western ICIP

Who Copyrightholders Namedcreators

How Licenses/agreements Signedpermission

Challenges 3rdpartyworks Authorship,orphanworks

Solutions s200AB,takedownpolicy Take-downpolicy,hiddenitems

Figure11(Ch5.1):Outlineofpaper

Background to the Living Archive Project

From1973totheearly2000s,alargerangeofbooksandothermaterialsinlocal

AboriginallanguageswereproducedinLiteratureProductionCentres(LPCs)inremote

schoolswithbilingualeducationprogramsinAustralia’sNorthernTerritory(NT).This

corpusincludesthousandsofbooksindozensoflanguages,mostofwhichwerecreatedto

enablechildrenwhospokeIndigenouslanguagesathometolearntoreadandwriteintheir

ownlanguagebeforetransferringtoEnglishliteracy(Harris,1995;Devlin,Disbray,&

Devlin,2017).Thisproducedarichbodyofliteraturecreatedforspecificlocalcontextsbut

withpotentiallywidersignificanceandutility.Thematerialsweremostlysmallbooksof

around10–20pages,locallyprintedinrunsof50–100copies,withillustrationsbylocal

artists,andsomeincludingEnglishtranslations.Therearestoriesoftraditionaland

contemporaryAboriginallife,includingcreationstories,instructionaltexts,cautionary

tales,localknowledge,historicalreminiscences,ethno-scientificworks,translations,and

adaptationsfromotherlanguages.

216

WiththeshiftawayfrombilingualeducationintheNTsincethemid-2000s(Nicholls,

2005;Simpson,Caffery,&McConvell,2009;Devlinetal.,2017),mostLPCsceased

production.Hardcopiesofexistingmaterialswereleftinharshenvironmentsinremote

communities,vulnerabletorapiddeterioration,orscatteredaroundlibrariesandprivate

collections.Therewasnosystematiccataloguingorcollectionoftheseresources,which

becamelargelyinaccessiblenotjusttointerestedresearchersbutinsomecaseseventothe

communitiesinwhichandforwhomtheywereproduced.

ConcernforthefutureofthesematerialsledtotheestablishmentoftheLiving

Archivein2012.5Thisfederally-fundedcollaborationbetweenuniversitiesandkey

stakeholderswascreatedtocollect,digitize,preserve,andallowaccesstothisendangered

corpusofIndigenousliteraturefromaroundtheNT(Bow,Christie,&Devlin,2014).Itis

hostedatCharlesDarwinUniversityonthelibrary’sdigitalrepository.

Theprojecthadseveralkeyaims:re-engagementwithowners,storytellers,and

descendants,includingnewpossibilitiesforengagementandcollaboration;

recontextualizationandenhancementofmaterials(forexamplebylinkingaudiofilesto

works);digitalpreservationofendangeredphysicalitems;anddisseminationtoanewand

wideraudience(Christie,Devlin,&Bow,2014).Thisreconnectionofthematerialswith

theircommunities,andtheirsubsequentuseandreuse,wasintendedtocreatea“Living

5 The Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages is supported under the Australian Research Council’s Linkage,

Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities funding scheme (LE120100016 and LE140100063) as a collaboration between Charles Darwin University, Northern Territory Department of Education, Australian National University, Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education, Northern Territory Library, and Northern Territory Catholic Education Office. The chief investigators are Professor Michael Christie (CDU), Dr Brian Devlin (CDU), Professor Jane Simpson (ANU), and Maree Klesch (Batchelor Institute).

217

Archive.”Bytheendof2018,theprojecthaddigitizedover5,000worksrepresenting50

Indigenouslanguagesfrom40communitiesaroundtheNT.

Drawingonthechiefinvestigators’longhistoryofworkingwithremoteIndigenous

communitiesintheNT,andpreviousexperiencewithsimilarprojects(Christie,1997,

2005b;Christie&Verran,2006;Christie,Guyula,Gurruwiwi,&Greatorex,2013),the

projectproposedtocollectanddigitizeallbooksproducedinschoolswithbilingual

programsandpublishthemonline,withnorestrictionsonaccess.Thiswouldmakethem

availabletodiversegroups,includingotherIndigenouscommunitymembers,academics,

researchers,educators,andthegeneralpublic.Thisinitialplanwasbasedonthefactthat,

indiscussionswithkeystakeholdersincludingtheNTDepartmentofEducation(aproject

partnerandthecopyrightholderofmostofthematerialsinthecollection)andmany

Indigenousauthorities,therewasawillingnesstomakethesematerialsopenlyavailable

online,withoutrequiringanykindofloginorpassword.Thisisconsistentwith

fundamentalarchivalprinciples,whereby“archivesaremadeaccessibletoeveryone,while

respectingthepertinentlawsandtherightsofindividuals,creators,ownersandusers”

(InternationalCouncilonArchives,2011).Openaccesswouldalsoincreaserecognitionof

Indigenouslanguagesandallowaccesstoarichbodyofpreviouslyunknownliterature,

challengingthenotionthatthesemostlyoralcultureshavefewwrittendocumentsintheir

languages.Asthematerialswereproducedforschoolcontexts,theydidnotcontainsecret

orsacredknowledgethatshouldnotbemadepublic.

Astheprojectunfoldedandtechnicalrequirementswereestablished,itbecameclear

thatamorenuancedapproachtodigitizationandaccesswouldberequired,torespect

218

Aboriginalclaimsofownershipandlocatedness(Christie,Devlin,&Bow,2015)while

satisfyingthelegalrequirementsofAustralianlaw.

Key Distinctives

ThedevelopmentoftheLivingArchiveplacesthesepreviouslyhiddenmaterialsinto

anexistingarchivalecosystemofIndigenouslanguagematerials,amenabletosharingand

reuse.SignificantdigitalarchivingofAustralianIndigenousmaterialshasbeensuccessfully

realizedinothercontexts,thoughnonearedirectlycomparabletotheLivingArchive.

UnlikethecollectionsoftheAustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslander

Studies(AIATSIS),thisprojectwasnotmanagingthedigitizationofanexistingphysical

collection(Lewincamp&Faulkner,2003),subjecttoaccessrequirementsimposedby

depositors(Koch,2010).IncontrasttothePacificAndRegionalArchiveforDigitalSources

inEndangeredCultures(PARADISEC),whicharchivesaudioandvideomaterialsand

linguisticfieldnotesordescriptions(Thieberger,2010;Thieberger&Barwick,2012),the

LivingArchivedealswithtext-basedprimarymaterials,storieswrittenbyandfor

Aboriginalpeople.Unlikestatelibrarycollections(Thorpe&Galassi,2014;Nichollsetal.,

2016),theLivingArchiveisnotsubjecttorequirementssuchaslegaldeposit,nordoesit

containmaterialswhichrequirespecialconditionsofaccess(Byrne&Moorcroft,1994).It

doesnotfocusonaparticularlanguageorpeoplegroup,unlikemanyothercollections

(Barwick,Marett,Walsh,Reid,&Ford,2005;Christen,2005;Hughes&Dallwitz,2007;

Cawthorn&Cohen,2013;Gumbula,Corn,&Mant,2013;Scales,Burke,Dallwitz,Lowish,&

Mann,2013);howeveritisrestrictedgeographicallytotheNT.Thematerialsinthis

collectiondifferfromthoseoftendiscussedintheliteratureaboutIndigenousknowledgein

archivalcollections(Anderson,2005;Janke&Iacovino,2012),whereIndigenouspeople

219

werethesubjectsoftherecordandnottheowners(Iacovino,2010;McKemmish,

Faulkhead,Iacovino,&Thorpe,2010),becoming“captivesofthearchive”(Fourmile,1989).

Instead,thiscollectionrepresentsmaterialscreatedlargelybyandforIndigenoususers,

albeitcreatedaspartofawesterneducationsystemandlegallyownedbywestern

authorities.Thetransferofknowledgefromoraltowrittentodigitalformsinthesebooks

(Bow,Christie,&Devlin,2017)createsnewaffordancesforsharingandtransmission,while

alsocreatingnewcontextsunderbothlegaltraditions.

OveralltheLivingArchiveisanunusualbeast.Itisbasedonacorpusofphysical

worksbutisentirelydigital,withnohardcopyaccesstomanage.Itissituatedina

universitycontextbutisnotdirectlyconnectedtoanyspecificteachingprogram.Itis

partneredwithalibraryfortechnicalsupportbutisnotdirectlyinvolvedinlocal

disseminationofthematerials(whichareavailablethroughanylibraryoranyinternet

connection).Itisassociatedwiththeschoolsystembuthasnodirectimpactoneducation.It

isanarchiveofculturalmaterialsbutnotakeyculturalinstitution.Theprojectaimsto

makethedigitalresourcesentirelyopentothepublic,yetnearlyone-thirdoftheitemsare

notyetpubliclyavailable(pendingapprovalfromcopyrightholders).Itrepresentsawide

rangeoflanguageandculturalgroups,containedwithinthebordersoftheNT.Likemany

archives,theprojectteamhadnoresponsibilityoverhowthematerialsormetadata(title,

author,etc.)wereoriginallycreated,butonlyhowtheyshouldbemanagednow.In

commonwithmanyarchivesofculturalheritage,theprojectteamrecognizesthe

challengesinherentintakingcustodyofmaterialwithouttakingownership(Janke&

Iacovino,2012).Acknowledgingtheexistingecosystem,andthesimilaritiesandpointsof

differencebetweenthisandotherprojects,theteamhasworkedtoensurethatwhilethe

220

LivingArchiveprimarilyfocusesonitscorpus,thestepstakeninregardtoICIPand

copyrightwillallowthematerialstoparticipateinthiswiderarchivalenvironmentof

Indigenouslanguagecollections.

The Framework: Copyright and ICIP

Withnodirectlycomparableprojectstodrawon,andintheabsenceofclear

frameworks,theLivingArchiveprojectteamhadtoreturntofirstprinciplestonavigatethe

differentmanifestationsoflawaccordingtotheIndigenous(ICIP)andnon-Indigenous

intellectualproperty(IP)practices,withintheaimsoftheproject.Bothlegalcontexts

neededtobeaddressedandrespected,yetitwasalsonecessarytofindwaystomovethe

projectforwardinthecontextoftwolargelyincommensurablesystems.Focusingon

followingtherequirementsofjustoneofthesesystemswouldnotachievetheaimsofthe

project,andwouldlimitboththecontentandtheaudienceoftheArchive.Whileithasbeen

arguedthatthelegalissuesofsuchaprojectmaybemorestraightforwardthantheethical

issuesfromalinguist’sperspective(O’Meara&Good,2010),thispaperexploresthewaysin

whichethicalissuesareresolvedwhenthelegalframeworkisproblematic.

ICIPrightsrefertoIndigenousAustralian’srightstotheirheritage.AsJankenotes,

“heritageconsistsoftheintangibleandtangibleaspectsofthewholebodyofcultural

practices,resourcesandknowledgesystemsdeveloped,nurturedandrefinedby

Indigenouspeopleandpassedonbythemaspartofexpressingtheirculturalidentity””

(Janke,1998,pp.XVII).

221

IncontrasttotherelativelyrecentarrivalofcopyrightlawtoAustralianshores,

Indigenousgroupsrecognizeacontinuous60,000-yearhistoryoflivingculture,spanning

severalhundredlanguagegroups.Formsofculturalexpressionhavealwaysbeensubjectto

localunderstandingsofintellectualproperty,withIPrulesandproceduresimposingcertain

obligationsandresponsibilitiesoverIndigenousknowledgesandpractices(Janke&

Quiggin,2005).Manyaspectsofculturearelinkedtocertaintraditionalunderstandings,

whichdonotalwayssitwellwithwesternunderstandings.

StoriesandimagesareprotectedwithintheIndigenouscontextinwhichtheyare

produced,andaresubjecttoIndigenouslawbeforetheybecomeimplicatedinAustralian

law(Christie,2005a).Certainnegotiationsenablethemtobepublishedinmaterialformfor

aspecificcontext,suchascuratinganartexhibitionorproducingbooksforbilingual

educationprograms.Thetransferofmaterialstoadigitalrealmforpreservationandaccess

requiresnewnegotiations,whichneedtotakeseriouslybothknowledgetraditionsand

theirpractices(Christen,2005).BookspublishedinIndigenouslanguagesarenot

traditionalartefactsofIndigenousknowledge(suchasdance,song,visualart),however

theyperformsomeofthesameworkinmaintainingandbuildingcommunityrelationships

andsharingknowledge.Assoonasthebooksthatmakeupthebulkofthearchival

collectionwerecreated,theywereimplicatedinthewesternIPsystemascopyright

protectedworks.

LikemanyformerBritishcolonies,Australiahasacommonlawsystemofcopyright,

currentlycodifiedintheCopyrightAct1968(Cth),theCopyrightRegulations1969(Cth)as

amendedfromtimetotime,andenforceablethroughthecourts.Distinctively,copyright

lawisbasedonaconceptofproperty,protectingoriginalexpressiononlywhenitis

222

reducedto“materialform”(suchasbeingwrittendownorrecorded),andvestingrights

overthatpropertyintheowner(or“rightsholder”)suchastherightsofsaleanduse.This

notionisanuncomfortablefitwithIndigenousknowledgeproductionandtransmission,

whichisoftencommunalandnotinamaterialform.ItisonlywhenICIPisassimilatedinto

westernknowledgetraditionsthatitisprotectedthroughAustralianlawandassignedan

“owner.”Bydefault,theowneristhe“author”ofthework,consideredtobetheemployerif

theworksarecreatedinthecourseofemployment.

In2000,Australiaintroducedlegallyenforceablerightsthatpertainsolelytothe

author,knownasmoralrights.Theseare“(a)arightofattributionofauthorship;or(b)a

rightnottohaveauthorshipfalselyattributed;or(c)arightofintegrityofauthorship”

(CopyrightAct1968,s.189).Moralrightsonlyapplytoworksinwhichcopyrightsubsists,

andrequirethecreatorsorartiststoestablishauthorshipintermsofcopyrightlaw,which

maybeproblematicforIndigenousknowledgeauthorities(Janke&Iacovino,2012).

Australia’scopyrightlawonlyrecognizesaparticularviewofauthorship,usuallyconnected

toanindividual,whichdiffersfromIndigenouspracticesofattributingownership(the

“author”as“authority”)toaclanorothergroup(AustralianInstituteofAboriginaland

TorresStraitIslanderStudies,2015).ForthematerialscomprisingtheLivingArchive

collection,the“author”formoralrightsisthepersonwhowrotedownthestoryordrew

theillustrations,ratherthanthewiderIndigenousheritageonwhichtheydraw.

Bothknowledgesystemsareequallyconcernedaboutprotectionofknowledgeandof

thecreatorsorcustodiansofthatknowledge.Howevertheprocessesandpracticesinwhich

theymanifestarevastlydifferent:intheunderstandingofhowthatknowledgeis

constituted(inmaterialformornot);itsownershipstatus(individualorcommunal);its

223

value(commercialorcultural);anditstimeframe(lifeofauthorplus70yearsorin

perpetuity)(Janke,1998).

AttemptstoshoehornIndigenousknowledgepracticesintowesternstructuresare

inherentlyunsatisfactory(Anderson,2005,2010;Janke,1998;Janke&Iacovino,2012),

particularlyifIndigenousknowledgepracticesaresimplyseenasanalternativebut

commensuratesystem,suchascomparingAustralianlawtoUSorUKlaw.Thedistinctions

aremuchmoreofanontologicalnature.Inaddition,Indigenousknowledgepracticesare

notuniformacrossthehundredsofpeoplegroupsacrossAustralia,soasingle“law”will

notsatisfythisdiversity.YolŋueldersfromArnhemLandstate:

WhateverthereisinourlawthattheancestralcreatorshavegivenusineastArnhem

Land,theyareinseparable.It’stheland,theplaces,thekinshipnetworksconnect

themtogether.ItmakesupourversionofanIntellectualPropertytree,thatmakesup

ourfoundation.(Guyula&Gurruwiwi,2010,p.53)

Yolŋucopyrightlawisinplace,nottoprotecttheartist,buttoprotecttheimage.

Aboriginaltraditionalimages,likeAboriginalland,donotbelongtoanyoneindividual

person.Theybelongtoagroupofpeoplewhorelatetotheimageinaparticularway.

(Marika,1993,p.14)

Despitemorethanadozendomesticreviewsandstudiesthathavetouchedupon

theseissues(ProductivityCommission,2016),includingrecommendationsforanational

frameworklinkinggovernment,community,andindustry(Ormond-Parker&Sloggett,

2012),thereisnoshort-termprospectoflegislativereformtoresolvetheinherenttension

betweenthesetwosystems.Internationally,thereareeffortstodeveloplegalinstruments

toprotecttraditionalknowledgeandtraditionalculturalexpressions(WorldIntellectual

PropertyOrganization,2016).However,ICIPlacksconsistentdefinitionacrossdifferent

224

jurisdictionalboundaries,andissubjecttopowerpositionsandinterests,including

colonialism,thatdisenfranchiseanddispossessmanyIndigenousgroups(Anderson,2012).

Intheabsenceofregulation,bestpracticehasbeencodifiedinprotocols(Nakata,

Byrne,Nakata,&Gardiner,2005),whichhavethebenefitofbeingamoreflexiblemeansof

establishingprotection,andcanbeadaptedtoparticularsubjectmatter(Janke,2016).

Protocolsmayberecognizedbyacommunityofpracticeasdefiningstandardsorofficial

proceduresandrules,howevertheydonotprovidelegalprotectionforinstitutionsorfor

Indigenousauthorities(Nakataetal.,2008).Thereareanumberofdifferentsetsof

guidelinesandprotocolsavailabletoguiderespectfulandappropriatehandlingof

Indigenousculturalheritagematerial,suchasthosecreatedforlibraries(Aboriginaland

TorresStraitIslanderLibrary,InformationandResourceNetworkInc,2012;Garwood-

Houng&Blackburn,2014),museums(MuseumsAustralia,2005),archives(McKemmishet

al.,2010),linguists(Zuckermann,2015),thoseworkingwithAboriginalauthors(Australian

InstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies,2015)andartists(Australia

CouncilfortheArts,2007),andcollectinginstitutionsworkingwithborndigitalmaterials

(deSouza,Edmonds,McQuire,Evans,&Chenhall,2016),aswellasinternationalguidelines

formuseums,libraries,andarchives(Torsen&Anderson,2010).Thesehaveinformedthe

LivingArchiveprojectteam’sactivities;howevernoexistingprotocolsaredirectly

applicabletothisuniqueproject.

Whileinfringementofcopyright,includingmoralrights,poseslegalrisktotheproject,

failuretorespectICIP,althoughnotlegallyenforceable,ispotentiallymoreserious,

indicatingalackoftrustandabreakdowninworkingrelationshipswithIndigenous

communities.Suchanoutcomecouldthreatenthecharacteroftheprojectascreatinga

225

“livingarchive,”breakgoodfaithconnectionswiththerepresentedcommunitiesandother

stakeholders,and/orriskdamagingfutureattemptsatcollaborationwiththese

communitiesforotherprojectsandotherresearchers.Nakataetal.(2008)describe

professionalsnegotiatingIndigenousinterestwithcopyrightinterestsas“movingbetween

arockandahardplace”(p.227),withrisksofinfringementofcopyrightorproviding

inappropriateaccesstomaterialsbeingpotentiallyruinoustoaprojectorcollection.

IfAustralianlawsandprotocolsarenotadequatetoprotectintellectualproperty

aroundAboriginalmaterialculture,itisevenmoreproblematiconcematerialculture

emergesindigitalform.Theuseofdigitaltechnology,withitssubstantivecapacityto

expandthecreation,collection,anddistributionofIndigenousknowledgewellbeyondthe

intendedpurposeofthecreatedmaterials,raisesadditionalcomplexquestions(Hudson&

Kenyon,2007;deSouzaetal.,2016).Thetransformationoftheseresourcestoelectronic

formatschangestheirnature,whichraisesconcernsaboutwhocaninteractwiththe

materialsandhow.AsChristie(2005a,p.46)pointsout,“theworkofAboriginalcultural

productiondoesnotlieinsidedigitalobjects,butitliesintheperformancesand

negotiationsoverthoseobjects.Thecultural,politicalandreligiousworkliesintheir

assessmentandexchange.”

Emergentunderstandingsofhowtoobserveandrespectboththewesterncopyright

andICIPcontextsinformedtheprocessofcreatingtheLivingArchiveasadigitalrepository

ofculturalheritage.Incollecting,digitizing,andmakingavailablethiscorpusofendangered

languagematerials,theprojectteamhadadesiretoensureanequitable“two-way”

exchangebetweenIndigenouspeopleandacademicresearchers(McConvell,2000),andto

findcommonground(Christieetal.,2015;Devlin,Bow,Purdon,&Klesch,2015)that

226

satisfiedtherequirementsofbothknowledgetraditionsintermsoftheirlegalsystemsand

practices.Workingthroughissuesofcopyrightownershipanduseandmeaningful

engagementwithcommunitiesthroughanICIPframeworktakestime,resources,and

carefulconsiderationofpractice.Thesolutionswhichhaveemergedinthecontextofthe

LivingArchiveprojectaresufficientfortheongoinglifeofthisproject,butareprovisional

andsituational,respondingtothespecificsofthisprojectanditsaimsinparticularsocial,

legal,andtechnicalcontexts.

Addressing Copyright Issues

I’minaformerLiteratureProductionCentre,workingthroughpilesofbooksin

thelocallanguageproducedoverdecadesandstoredinmoldycupboards,dusty

bookshelves,andrustyfilingcabinets.Therearesomematerialspublishedinthe

school’s short-lived bilingual education program, others attributed to the

communitylibraryorlanguagecentre,severalone-offitemswithnoindication

of authorship, and commercially published books in English with vernacular

translations physically pasted over the English text. The local Aboriginal

authoritiesI’vespokentowantthemallpreserved,soweaddthemalltothepile

ofmaterialstotakebacktoDarwinforscanning.We’llworkouttheIPdetails

later.

TheLivingArchiveprojectwasdevelopedinpartnershipwiththeNTDepartmentof

Education(hereafter,theDepartment),underwhoseauspicesmostofthebooksinthe

collectionwerecreatedthroughthebilingualprogramsinselectedgovernmentschools.As

227

mostofthecreatorsofthematerialswereworkingintheschools,theworksarecrown

copyrightaccordingtosections176and177oftheCopyrightAct,asunlessotherwise

agreed,governmentsowncopyrightinmaterialcreatedbytheiremployeesandthose

workingundertheirsupervision(CopyrightAct1968).Itisunclearwhetherthose

employeeswereawareofthisfactatthetimetheycreatedthematerials,particularlysince

itwouldhavebeenaremarkablecontrastwithIndigenousunderstandingsofownershipof

knowledgepractices.Nonetheless,theDepartmenthastherighttoassertitspositionas

copyrightholder,the“legalowner”forthemajorityoftheworksinthecollection.

TheDepartmentagreedthattheworkscouldbeconvertedtodigitalformatsandput

onlineontheArchive’sopenaccesswebsite.TheexecutivedirectoroftheDepartmentsent

aletterofsupporttothoseschoolswherematerialshadbeenproduced,invitingthemto

sharethoseresourceswiththeLivingArchive.Membersoftheprojectteamvisitedthese

sitesandcollectedhardcopiesofthebooksforscanning.Theinitialverbalagreementwith

theDepartmentwaseventuallynegotiatedasanon-exclusivelicense,grantingCharles

DarwinUniversitytherighttodigitizeandpublishthesematerialsonlineunderanopen

license,whileretainingcopyrightfortheCrown.Therewasasubstantialgapintime

betweentheverbalandformalwrittenagreements,whichinvolvedsignificantnegotiations

astotheexactwording.

Asmallerbutsizeablesubsetofmaterialswascreatedinnon-governmentschools

(Catholicandindependent)withbilingualprograms.Theseworkswerealsomadeby

languageandliteracyworkersandotherstaff,bothIndigenousandnon-Indigenous,during

thecourseoftheiremployment,andtothatextentcopyrightinthebooksbelongstothe

employer(undersection35(6)oftheCopyrightAct).Theseotherorganizationsendorsed

228

theworkoftheLivingArchive,andtheteamwereabletomakeagreementswiththese

copyrightholdersunderequivalenttermsasthelicensewiththeDepartment,includingone

independentschoolwhoseboardgaveapproval.

Asecondstageofprojectfundingin2014extendedtheArchivetoincludematerials

fromcommunitieswhichdidnothavebilingualeducationprograms,whichalsoexpanded

thenumberofcopyrightholders.Similararrangementshavebeennegotiatedwithother

organizationswhichholdcopyrightofmaterialdigitizedintheArchive.

Making Digital Copies and Preservation

UndertheCopyrightAct,theprojectteamcanlegallycreatedigitalcopiesofallthese

materials,thankstocertainexceptionsintheAct.Despitehavingnophysicalhome,the

LivingArchiveisconsideredanArchiveundersection10(4).6Thearchival“preservation

andotherpurposes”exception(s.51A)atthetimeallowedanarchivetomakeacopyofa

publishedworkthatformsorformedpartofitscollectionifithas“beendamagedorhas

deterioratedforthepurposeofreplacingthework”aslongas“acopy(notbeingasecond-

handcopy)ofthework,oroftheeditioninwhichtheworkisheldinthecollection,cannot

beobtainedwithinareasonabletimeatanordinarycommercialprice”(CopyrightAct

1968).Asthemajorityofthesebookswereneveravailableforsale,thecommercial

availabilitytestisnobarriertomakingacopy,andthereisnolimitationastotheformat

thatcopymaytake.Additionally,theArchivemayalsomakecopiesfor“administrative

purposes”whichallowstheprojectteamtodealwiththedigitalitemsinanefficient

6 Section 10(4) defines an archive as (a) a collection of documents or other material of historical significance or

public interest that is in the custody of a body, whether incorporated or unincorporated, is being maintained by the body for the purpose of conserving and preserving those documents or other material; (b) the body does not maintain and operate the collection for the purpose of deriving a profit (Copyright Act 1968).

229

mannerandcreatecopiesforinternaluse.Boththeadministrativeandpreservation

copyingprovisionshaverecentlybeenupdatedwithamendmentstotheCopyrightAct1968

(Cth)commencinginDecember2017.Theamendmentsremovetheonecopyrestrictionon

preservationcopiesandinsteadallowtheArchivetousetheworksinwhateverwayis

necessaryforpreservationpurposes,whichmaybeusefulifanyfurthermaterialsare

received,orbetter-qualitypreservationcopiesneedtobemade.

Withpermissionfromthelegalrightsholderstocreatedigitalcopiesofthematerials,

theworksweretransferredtodigitalform.Eachpageofeverybookwasscannedor

photographed,andtheoutputssavedasPDFforpresentationandTIFFforpreservation,

pluscoverimagesinJPGformatandplaintextversionsofthetextsextractedthrough

OpticalCharacterRecognition(Mamtora&Bow,2017).Insomecases,materialspreviously

transferredtodigitalformatsthroughlocalinitiativeswereprovidedtotheprojectteamin

already-digitalform.ThedigitalartefactswerestoredonCharlesDarwinUniversity

Library’sinstitutionalrepository,withawebinterfaceforeasyaccess.7

Problem Works

Astheprojectcontinuedandmoreworkswerecollected,differentissuesemerged.

Morecomplexandnuancedresponseswererequiredtohandlematerialswithless

straightforwardortransparentissuesofauthorshipandownership,particularlythosefor

whichtheNTGovernment,Catholicorindependentschoolsdidnotholdallthecopyrightin

thework.Severaldifferentformsofthese“third-partyworks”wereidentified,including

commercially-producedworkswhichwereadaptedforuseintheschool,forexampleby

7 This is available at http://laal.cdu.edu.au/

230

translatingthetextintothelocalvernacularandeitherreprintinginthelocallanguageor

simplypastingthewordsontopoftheEnglishtext.Somematerialsincorporatedphotos

fromothercopyrightedmaterials,orotherwiseproducednewmaterialsbasedonexisting

works.TheseworkspotentiallyhaveadditionalcopyrightownersorpersonswithanICIP

interestwhoarenotcoveredbytheagreementswiththegovernmentandschools.

Duetotheincompletenatureofmuchofthemetadatainthematerials(Bowetal.,

2015),third-partyworkswerenotalwaysclearlyidentifiable.Forexample,booksmayhave

beenadaptedintoalocallanguagewithnoreferencetotheoriginalwork,orimagesused

fromanothersourcewithnoattributiontotheoriginalcreator.Somebooksincluded

imagesfromothersources(sometimesreferredtointhemetadata,sometimesindicating

associatedrights),whichmakesthecopyrightstatusoftheentirebookmoreproblematic.

Evenwhenthird-partyworkswereidentifiable,therewerenorecordsavailableof

anycopyrightarrangementsmadeatthetimeofproduction.Inthe1970sand80swhenthe

majorityofthebookswereproduced,theaudiencewasrestrictedtothelocalschooland

community.WhilesomeitemsweresenttoAIATSISortheNationalLibraryforlegal

deposit,theirreachwasneverexpectedtogofarbeyondthelocalcommunity.Inthesenon-

commercialcircumstances,itislikelycopyrightissueswerenotahighpriority,and

possiblywereneverevenconsidered.ThenetresultisthattheLivingArchiveteamcannot

withcertaintyidentifythird-partyworksandtheconditionsunderwhichtheywerecreated

anddistributed.

Thecollectionofthesevariousmaterialsfromdifferentsourcesresultedinfour

differentcategoriesofworksfromalegalperspective:(1)thoseownedbytheDepartment

231

orotherbodieswhichcanbeusedunderagreement,(2)knownworkswiththird-party

copyright,(3)anunknownnumberofworkswhichmayhavethird-partycopyright,and(4)

anumberof“orphans”withnoattributionofauthorship.Eachonetechnicallyrequires

differentmeansofmanagement;howeverasthecollectiongrewandtheprojectteam’s

resourcesdwindled,itbecamemoredifficulttoaddressthesecategoriesseparately.

Varioussolutionswereimplementedwiththegoalofmakingallmaterialspublicly

available.Wherethethird-partycopyrightholderscanbeidentified,theworkscanbedealt

withonacase-by-casebasis.Approachestocommercialpublishersandothercopyright

holdershavebeenmetwithgoodwillinmostcases.Forexample,anAustraliancartoonist

approvedinclusionofaseriesofbookscreatedincollaborationwithalocalcommunity.

Thelicenseesofthe“Phantom”comicsapprovedinclusionoftranslationsoftheseworks

intotheMaunglanguage,onconditionthatacopyrightstatementandtrademarklogobe

attachedtotheitem.Approachingotherorganizationsandpublishershasbeenanongoing

task,butitislikelythatmanyitemswillneverbeavailablethroughtheLivingArchive

website.Thealternativewouldbetoadopta“high-risk”strategyofputtingthemupingood

faith,andrelyingonthe“take-down”policytoalerttheteamtoanyconcerns.

Forthoseworkswhosecopyrightownercannotbeidentifiedorlocated(knownas

“orphan”works)theArchivemaybeabletoworkunderanexceptiontocopyright.In2006

theCopyrightActintroducedanewsection,the“flexibledealing”exception(s.200AB),to

covercertainusesofworksbylibrariesandarchives.Thisexceptionallowsorganizations

suchasarchivestousecopyrightedmaterialforsociallybeneficialpurposes,without

permissionandwithoutpayment,providedcertaincriteriaaremet(CopyrightAmendment

Bill2006[Cth]).ThissectionoftheCopyrightActappearstobeausefulreferencepointfor

232

manyoftheproblematicworksintheLivingArchive,inprincipleallowingmanyofthemto

goonline.Totakeorphanworksasanexample,thereisnootherexceptionthatwould

allowtheseworkstobepublishedonline,theuseisnon-commercialandforasocially

beneficiallypurpose,theusewouldnotconflictwiththenormalexploitationofthework(as

theworksarenotbeingused),theusewouldnotprejudicethecopyrightholderandtheuse

isaspecialcase.

Thereissomedebateaboutthelimitsoftheexception.TheAustralianCopyright

Counciltakesquiteaconservativeview,notingthatsection200ABismorelikelytoapplyif

“thenumberofpeopletheuseisforissmall;thetime-frameoftheuseisshort;the

proportionoftheworkyouareusingissmall”(AustralianCopyrightCouncil,2014,p.2).

Thisallowslibrariesandeducationalinstitutionstomakeacopyavailabletoauserfora

specificpurpose.However,theLivingArchiveisintendedforabroadpublic,andwillbe

onlineforanextendedperiod,andcontainscompleteworksratherthansmallproportions.

ItseemsthattheAustralianGovernmentexpectedthatthesectionwouldbeusedin

somecasesoforphanworks,astheExplanatoryMemorandumstatesthats.200AB“might

bedeterminedbyacourt,forexample,toallowalibraryorarchivetomakeauseofawork

whereacopyrightowner’spermissioncannotbeobtainedbecauseheorshecannotbe

identifiedorcontacted”(CopyrightAmendmentBill2006,s52).Memoryinstitutionshave

useds.200ABforagrowingnumberofdigitizationprojectssincethesectionwas

introduced(Coates,Robertson,&vandeVelde,2016),includingcaseswhereitwas

impossibletoidentifycopyrightthird-partyworks(vanDyk,2010).Astheexceptionwas

designedtobeflexibleinorderto“enablecopyrightmaterialtobeusedforcertainsocially

beneficialpurposes”(CommonwealthofAustralia,2006),itisarguablethatthewishesof

233

andbenefitstotheIndigenouscommunitieswhohaveexpressedtheirdesiresforthe

materialstobeplacedonlinecouldalsobetakenintoaccount,tobolstertheargumentfor

placingthematerialsonline.Whileitappearsthatthisexceptionwouldcoveranumberof

theproblemworkswithintheLivingArchive,asyetnocaseshavereachedthecourt,so

thereisnocaselawtoguidelegislativeinterpretation.Assuchtheprojectteamstillhas

somehesitationsaboutrelyingontheexception.

Addressing ICIP Issues

YolŋuelderandcurrentmemberoftheNTLegislativeAssemblyYiŋiyaGuyula,in

discussingtheuseofhisteachingmaterialsinaCharlesDarwinUniversitycourse,stated:

Beforethingsgouponawebsite,theuniversityshouldhavesomepracticesinplaceto

lookafterandbetterprotectmywork.Theycanholditandprotectit.Theyhave

knowledgethroughthewhiteman’ssystemofprotectingworkthatIdon’t

understand.ButIhaveknowledgeofhowtheYolŋucopyrightsystemworks.Oneday

we’llcometounderstandeachother’ssystemsofintellectualpropertiesandcopyright

protectionandbothsystemsmayworktogether.(Guyula&Gurruwiwi,2010,p.56)

Alongsidethecollection,digitizationandpreservationprocesses,theprojectteamalso

addressedissuesrelatingtothepublishingofthematerialsonline.Licensesfromthe

copyrightownerwereunderstoodtogivetheprojecttherighttomakeallworksopenly

availablethroughthepublicwebsite.However,althoughtherewasnolegalrequirementfor

anycommunityconsultation,fromanICIPperspectivesuchconsultationwasessential,to

includethevoicesoftheIndigenousownersofthematerialsintheprocessofmakingtheir

materialsavailableonline.ThisprocessrequiredmorecaretoensurethatICIPwas

234

properlyrespected,andentailedsignificantadditionalworktoseekindividualpermissions

ratherthanrelyingonthegeneralgoodwillofthecommunities.

WithacollectionspanningdozensofcommunitiesandlanguagegroupsacrosstheNT,

itisimportanttoacknowledgethevariousformsofcustomarylawindifferent

communities,whicharepractisedatdifferentlevelsofoperation,oftendependentonthe

impactofwesterninfluenceonIndigenouscultures,traditions,andlifestyles(Janke&

Quiggin,2005).UnlikewesternIPlaw,thereisnosingleone-size-fits-allsystemacross

differentpeoplegroups.Logisticallyhowever,itwasnotpossiblefortheprojectteamto

haveanin-depthknowledgeofalltherulesrelatingtoculturalandintellectualpropertyfor

eachgroup.

Therefore,inordertoavoidbecominganotherexampleofwell-meaningbut

inappropriatedecision-makingwhichassumesthatpublicaccesstoIndigenouslanguage

materialswouldbeseenasbeneficialandwelcomedbycommunitymembers,itwas

essentialthatthecommunitiesandtheoriginalcreatorsofthematerialsshouldbe

consultedabouttheirworksbecomingpubliclyavailableonline.Thisapproachisderived

fromfirstprinciplessuchasrespect,consultation,andconsent(AustraliaCouncilforthe

Arts,2007),andbuildsupontherelationshipsandconsultationswithindividualsand

communitieswhichhadinformedandmotivatedtheprojectfromtheoutset.

Theprojectteamelectedtoseekpermissionfromallthenamedcontributorstothe

originalmaterials,orfromtheirdescendantsiftheywerenolongerliving.Asimple

permissionformwasdesigned(seeAppendixA.1),explainingtheprojectandhow

materialswouldbeopenlyavailableviatheinternet.Workingwithalawyerprovidedby

235

theDepartmentofEducationin2014,thepermissionformwaslaterupdatedtoinclude

morerobustlegallanguage,withaparallel“plainEnglish”version(AppendixA.2).The

projectmanagervisitedcommunitiesandspoketomanyofthepeopleinvolvedinthe

productionofthesematerials,whoreadilyagreedtosignthepermissionform.Todateonly

twopeoplehavechosennottosign,butgavenoreasonfortheirdecision.

Locatingindividualsinremotecommunitiestosignpermissionformswasonerous,

yetalsoproductiveforpromotingawarenessofandengagementwiththeproject.Tripsto

communitieswithlonglistsofnamesofpeopletofindtooksignificanttimeandresources.

Theselistsofnameswerecirculatedamongpartneragenciesandothersworkingin

Indigenouscommunities,andanytimesomeonevisitedacommunitytheywereaskedto

locateindividualsandinvitethemtosignapermissionform.Someofthechallengesofthis

processrelatetoeverydaycommunitylifeoveranyperiod,wherepeoplemoveaway,pass

onorsometimeschangenames.Thenamesofnon-Indigenouscontributorsinthelistswere

alsoproblematic;theymayhavebeenateacherintheschoolwhocontributedtoabookor

acreatorofthird-partymaterialsnotedabove,whomayhavehadnoconnectiontothe

community.

Challenges and Solutions

Whileitseemssimpletostatethatpermissionshouldbesoughtfromtherelevant

people,discerningwhotherelevantpeoplearewasalsochallenging.Moralrightsinclude

therightofattribution,whichrequiresanavailableandmeaningfulidentificationofthe

namesofcontributors.InmanymaterialsintheArchive,metadataisincomplete,

inconsistent,orsometimesincorrect,sothecreatorscannotalwaysbeunambiguously

236

identified(seeexamplesinBow,Christie,&Devlin,2015).Inonecase,aprolificauthorand

translatorfromonecommunitywasaskedaboutaseriesofbooksfromthe1980sforwhich

shewaslistedasatranslator,butshehadnorecollectionofthestories.Suchsituations

offeropportunitiestoexploresomeofthedifferentunderstandingsofauthorshipwithin

thetwodifferentknowledgesystems,andalsorequireanegotiationofwhichsystemis

prioritizedinthesolution.Inthiscase,thetranslators’nameremainedattachedtothe

books,asadecisionwasmadetorespecttheoriginalmetadata.

Theprojectteamhadlittlechoicebuttotakethemetadataatfacevalue,asitwas

impossibletotracetheoriginofeachindividualbook.Insomecaseslocalknowledgefilled

insomemissingattributions,withadditionalinformationaddedfromsomecommunities

andindividualswhowereabletoidentifyauthorsorillustratorsofspecificitems.Callshave

beenmadethroughtheproject’smailinglistandsocialmediapagesforadditional

informationtobeprovided,andfurthercrowdsourcingoptionshavebeenexplored.

A colleague took a set of books out to a community with a short history of

bilingualeducation.Aseriesofreaderswereproduced,someofwhichlistedthe

creators;othersdidnot.HesatwiththeladieswhousedtoworkintheLiterature

ProductionCentreandmadenotesastheyrecalledwhowrotewhichbooks,and

whodrewwhichpictures.Collectivememorycanbearichsourceofinformation,

buthowcan the resourcesbe sharedonline to find thecreators,without first

findingthecreatorstoallowthemtobesharedonline?

Aspreviouslynoted,attributionofauthorshipcanalsobequitedifferentunder

traditionalIndigenouslaw,whereownershipofstoryasacollectiveinIndigenouscontexts

237

competeswithwesternrequirementsforattributingauthorshiptoindividuals.Wherelocal

knowledgepracticeswouldinvestauthorityoveraparticularstoryinaclanorgroup,the

metadataintheseitemsmayonlyrecordanindividualasthe“author.”Insomecases,this

termmayhavebeenusedasaconvenience,wheretermssuchas“translator,”“transcriber,”

or“storyteller”mayhavebeenmoreaccurate.Forexample,thestoryof“TheLittleFrog”

hasseveraldifferenttranslationsintheArchive,withsomeversionsattributedtodifferent

authors.Thisambiguitymakesitdifficulttoknowwhosemoralrightsareatstake.Seeking

thepermissionofthenamedcontributorstotheworkshastheundesiredoutcomeof

perpetuatingtheassumptionofindividualauthorityovertheirworks,despite

acknowledgingthecommunalnatureofknowledgeandstory.

AnumberofworksintheArchivehavenoindicationofauthorship.Initiallythe

projectteamassumedthatthesecouldbefreelyincludedintheopenaccesscollection,

howeverlegaladviceindicatedthattheholderofthecopyrightormoralrightsmaybe

identifiedlateranddisapproveofwhathasbeendonewiththeirworks.Lackofattribution

isnotadefense,whichmakesmanagingcasesofthisnatureparticularlyproblematic.The

valueinmakingthemavailableonlinemaywelloutweightheriskoflitigation,particularly

asthereislittleornocommercialinterest.Atake-downmessagewasincludedwithevery

recordintheArchive,stating:

Effortshavebeenmadetoidentifyandcontactthepersonorpeopleresponsiblefor

creatingthesematerialstorequestpermissiontoincludetheminthisarchive.Ifyou

haveanyconcernsaboutmaterialsbeingmadepubliconthissite,pleasecontactus

andwewillremovetheitemfromdisplayuntilanyconcernshavebeenaddressed.

238

Todatetherehavebeennorequeststotakedownanymaterials,thoughthisshouldnotbe

takenasevidencefortheefficacyofthemeasuresputinplace.

Thepermissionformprovidedafocusfordiscussionabouttheprojectandtheuses

andprospectsofthosesometimeslong-forgottenmaterials.Wherepossible,localcontacts

wereinvitedtoexplaintheprojectandthepermissionforminthelocallanguage,andin

somecasesverbalapprovalsweredocumentedonthesameforms.Oncethepublicwebsite

wasupandrunning,demonstrationsofthesiteandverbalexplanationsofwhatpeopleare

allowedtodowiththematerialsweregivenalongsidethepermissionform.

Thedecisiontocollectsignedpermissionformswasanattempttoappeasethe

demandsofthewesterntraditionwhileincorporatingconsiderationofIndigenous

practicesandprotocols.Itcannotbeassumedthatallthoseinvolvedindiscussionsover

permissionformswerefullyawareoftheimplicationsoftheirsignature,especiallywith

thoseforwhomEnglishisnottheirstrongestlanguage.Therequirementtouse

appropriatelycomplexlegallanguageonthepermissionformmadeitmuchless

comprehensibletothosetowhomitwasaddressed,makingitmorenecessarytorelyona

simpleexplanation,presentedinplainEnglishtoamultilingualaudience,orusinga

communityinterpreter.Intheend,theverbalexplanationsofthewrittentextareunlikely

tosatisfyeitherthelegalrequirementsofthedocumentortheculturalunderstandingsof

thesignatories.However,theprocessfunctionedsufficientlytoallowtheworkofthe

projecttocontinue.

Thedisconcertmentofusingawesterntool(seekingsignedwrittenpermission)inan

Indigenouscontextisnotuniquetothisproject.Seadle(2002)pointsoutthatpermission

239

“includesboththeexplicitpermissionoftheinformantsandanyunspokenrulesthatmight

limithowtheinformationisused.Ofcourse,aresearchermaynotreallyunderstandallthe

impliedlimitsonaninformant’spermissionimmediately,ifever.”Nakataetal.(2008)note

that“thethorninthesideofestablishedpracticeisnotjusttheonerousburdenofgaining

permissionsandclearancestosatisfylegalcomplianceandIndigenousinterests.Attending

tothelegalandculturalsensitivitiesissueshasanimpactonallaspectsofthedecision-

makingprocess”(p.230).ThishascertainlybeenthecasefortheLivingArchiveproject.

Ihadamessagefromacolleagueinadesertcommunitywhohadbeenoutwith

alistofpeopletofindtoaskthemtosignpermissionforms.Shewasnotthefirst

to gooutwith sucha list, and localswereaskingwhy they couldn’t just give

community approval. I explained the (western) legal system’s reliance on

individualnamedauthorship,butthecommunitymembersdidn’t feelthatthe

individualsshouldbetheonesgivingpermission.ThebookswereproducedBY

and FOR the entire community so the community should give approval. The

elders wrote a letter stating their request to have all the languagematerial

producedintheschool’sLPCavailableviatheLivingArchivewebsitewithoutall

individualssigningpermissionforms.I’msurethelawyerswon’tlikeit,butwhich

lawshouldbeprioritizedwhenthepracticesaresodifferent?

Likemanyprojectsofthisnature,theLivingArchiveprojecthadlimitationsofboth

timeandresources,makingitdifficulttoaddresseachindividualiteminthecollectionwith

theappropriateauthorities.Theresultisthatthestraightforwardcasesmaketheirwayto

thefrontoftheline,whilemorecomplexcasesremainhidden.Thepublicwebsiteincludes

onlyrecordsanddocumentswithappropriatepermissions,whereasthemetadataof

240

recordswhichhavebeenscannedbutarenotpubliclyavailableishiddenwithinthesystem,

onlyvisibletomembersoftheprojectteamandtechnicalsupportstaff.Thismakesit

impossibleforuserstoknowwhichitemshavebeenscannedbutarehiddenbecause

permissionhasnotyetbeengiven.Thisresultsintheparadoxthatthemoreunidentified

materialsaremadeavailableonline,theeasieritistoidentifythemandgetpermission;but

thematerialscannotbeputonlinewithoutappropriatepermission.Returningtofirst

principlesofcommunication,consultation,andconsent,itisdifficulttoshareinformation

aboutworksthatcan’tyetbemadepublicwithoutmakingthempublic.Theteamhasbeen

workingtowardsatechnicalsolutionwhichwouldallowaccesstothe“hidden”itemsviaa

logintoenable“crowdsourcing”ofadditionalinformation,aprocesswhichwouldlikelybe

impossibleifthematerialswerenotindigitalform.

Theteamareawaretheyarealsobattlingagainsttime.Thelongertheperiodbetween

creationanddistribution,thelesschancethereisthatsomeoneinthecommunity

recognizestheworksfromthetimetheyweremade.Ifthetimeperiodistoolongthere

maybenobodyleftwiththefirst-handmemoryoftheworks’creation.

ThefactthattheArchivehasreceivedstrongsupportfromtheIndigenousauthorities

incommunitiesrepresentedinitscollectionmaybetakenintoaccountasstrengtheningthe

project’spurpose(toprotectandmakesignificantmaterialavailable)andthespecialcase

analysisthatdealswithmaterialsofspecialimportancetoaspecificcommunity.Collecting

institutionsvaryintheirpractices(Nakataetal.,2008),butsomeseeriskmanagementas

preferabletostrictcompliance.Theriskofinfringingcopyrightmustbeweighedagainst

thebenefitofaccesstothecommunitywhichhassomemoral,ifnotlegalclaim,tothe

material(Coatesetal.,2016).Whilesuchanapproachmaybe“legallyprecarious”(Corbett

241

&Boddington,2011,p.13),thealternativeseverelyconstrainswhichitemscanbeviewed

online,defeatingtheinitialpurposeoftheArchive.Inmanagingeachoftheseissues,

solutionswerefoundwhichallowedtheprojecttomoveforward.Problemworksinthe

Archiveindefinitelyremainindigitalformbutarenotpubliclyavailable;howevertheycan

besuppliedtocommunitiesorresearchersunderothersectionsoftheCopyrightAct.

Access and Usage

Thedigitizationanddisseminationofculturalheritagematerialsisvaluablefor

preservationandpromotionalpurposes,butalsomakethemvulnerableto

misappropriationandmisuse(Anderson,2005;Dyson&Underwood,2006;Talakai,2007).

OncethematerialswereconvertedtodigitalformatsandmadepublicthroughtheArchive,

considerationwasneededregardinghowtheworkscouldbeusedbythoseaccessingthem

throughthewebsite.

Theprojectteamwaskeentoenableuserstoaccessandenjoythematerialsavailable,

butalsotoprotecttheirintegrityandrespecttheauthorityofthecreators.Currentweb

technologiesallowandevenencouragemash-upsofwork,takingsectionsofdifferentitems

andcombiningthemtocreatenewformsforentertainmentoreducationalpurposes.There

isaculturallyconstructedtensionbetweencreativityandmisappropriation,andtheproject

teamsoughtappropriatewaystomanagethistension,topreventinappropriateuseofthe

materialswithoutrestrictingopportunitiesforIndigenouscommunitiesinwhichtheymay

beused.

242

VisitorstotheLivingArchivewebsitearerequiredtoviewa“warning”noticethat

states:“StoriesandpicturesinthisarchivebelongtotheAboriginallanguageowners,

creatorsofthematerialsandtheirdescendants.”EntrancetotheArchiverequiresagreeing

tothetermsandconditionsdescribedintheUserLicenseAgreement8,whichwas

developedinconsultationwithalegalteamprovidedbytheDepartmentofEducation.In

addition,everyrecordintheArchiveincludesa“goodfaith”noticewhichincludesaclear

statementofthetake-downpolicy,asnotedabove.EachPDFinthecollectionalsohasa

copyrightstatementappendedtothefinalpage(seeAppendixB).

Evenwiththesestrategiesinplace,thereisanawarenessthatoncesomethingis

digitizedandmadeavailableonlineitisimpossibletoguaranteethattheworkwillnotbe

misused.Rightsareparticularlydifficulttoenforceoverseas,wherethecostofbringing

proceedingsisprohibitive,evenifthereisclearinfringement(ProductivityCommission,

2016).Makingthematerialsavailableinthiswayimpliesthatthebenefitsofonlineaccess

shouldoutweightherisks.Suchjudgmentsaremadeinlightofcurrentunderstandings,

whichcannotaccuratelypredictfuturecontextswhichmayrendersuchjudgments

inappropriate.

Sincetheworksremainundercopyright,considerationofwhattermsandconditions

wouldbeattachedtotheworkswasimportant,asthesecontrolwhocouldmakeuseof

themandinwhatways.Thevariouslegaloptionsavailableincludedreservingallrights,

assigningrightstotheindividualcreators(requiringuserstoseekpermissiontouseany

materials),puttingallworksinthepublicdomain,orusingaCreativeCommonslicense.

8 This is available at http://www.cdu.edu.au/laal/user-license-agreement/.

243

TheprojectteamselectedaCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-

NoDerivatives3.0Australia(CCBY-NC-ND3.0AU)license(CreativeCommons,n.d.),which

allowsuserstocopyandredistributethematerialaslongasappropriateattributionis

given,noderivativesaremade,andthematerialisnotusedforcommercialpurposes.This

wasseenasthemostappropriatelicensetoenableuseofthecollectionwhilestillretaining

theintegrityofthematerials.

ThedecisiontolicensethemunderCreativeCommonsdeliberatelyusesa“some

rightsreserved”pathtonavigatetheissuesincopyrightlaw,whileallowingtheworkstobe

usedinwaysthatrespectIndigenousauthority.Thislicenseisproblematicforthird-party

works,asonlytherightsholdercangivepermissionfortheirworkstobeopenlylicensed,

meaningthatthereareanumberofworksthatmaybeabletobescannedandputonline

undercopyrightexceptions,butnotlicensedforreuse.Thelicensealsotheoretically

restrictswhatcommunitymemberscandowiththeirownmaterials,restrictingtheir

abilitytoreusetheworkslegally,thoughneitherthecopyrightholdersnortheprojectteam

wouldtakeactionagainstthem.Thesolutionisnotideal,butitisafunctionalcompromise

inanimperfectsystem.

InanefforttoencourageengagementwiththematerialsintheLivingArchive,

weranacompetitionin2015,invitingpeopletoselectanitemfromthecollection

andcreateanewdigitalresource,withthepermissionofpeoplewho“own”the

story.Entriesincludedanimations,songs,websites,andvideos,mostlyfromthe

communitiesoforiginofthosestories.Wereothersdeterredbytheprospectof

seekingpermission,evenwithsuggestionsofhowtogoaboutthisincludedwith

thecompetitiondetails?Theprizewasfinallysharedbytwoseparategroupsin

244

thesamecommunitywhopresentedquitedifferentversionsof the samebook

(Bow,2015).

Conclusion

TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesprojectdemonstrateshowaspecific

projectworkedthroughsomeofthechallengesinherentindigitizingaculturalheritage

collection,andattemptingtoobserveandrespectadualsetofknowledgetraditionswhich

emergeaswesternandIndigenous“laws.”Everyarchiveandculturalheritageprojectis

uniqueandfacesitsownchallenges,andtherewillbenosinglesolutionthatwillmeetthe

individualneedsofsuchdiverseprojects.Thispaperisaworkedexampleofaspecific

situationandthemeansthatwerefoundtoallowtheprojecttocontinueinafinebalance

betweentwolargelyincommensurablelegalsystems.Somedecisionsprivilegedonesystem

overtheother,astheteammanagedincompleteunderstandingsofbothsystemsandfound

workablesolutionsthatareunlikelytofullysatisfyeithertradition.Theprojectrecognizes

themultiplicityofknowledgesystemsasnotsimplyvariationsofthesamesystem,noras

uniformacrossallIndigenousgroups,andconnectionsbetweentheseknowledgetraditions

acknowledgethisoverarchingdissonanceanddisparity.

Thesolutionschosenforthisprojecthavenotyetbeentestedbyanylegalchallenges

orreportsofdissatisfaction,andhavegenerallybeensupportedbythecommunities

representedintheArchive.Allproposedsolutionsarenecessarilytentativeandsubjectto

changewithregardtocommunityrequestsandinalignmentwithanychangesinthelaw,

245

whichisyettoproduceasatisfactorysolutiontotheproblemsinherentinthespaces

betweentraditionalandcontemporarylaw.

Whicheverwayitturnsout,peopleworkingwithinAustralianlawtoprotect

Aboriginalknowledgeneedtolookcarefullyathowtraditionallawisalreadystarting

togovernwaysinwhichdigitalenvironmentsareconfiguredandmanaged.Acareful

analysismighthelpwiththedevelopmentofalawreformagendaandalegalpractice

whichisequallycommittedtoprotectfromfracturetheskeletonofprincipleof

Aboriginallaw.(Christie,2005a,p.49)

IncallingtheprojecttheLivingArchive,theprojectteamwaskeentoincludethe

voicesoftheIndigenouscreatorsofthematerials.Licensesfromthecopyrightholdersto

scanandpublishmaterialsonline,coupledwithexceptionsfromtheCopyrightAct,were

legallysoundandsufficienttoenabletheteamtocreateandpopulatethearchive.However,

itwasfeltthatthisneglectedthevoiceoftheoriginalcreatorsofthematerialsandwould

notrespectICIP.Coveringthebreadthofcontentacrossnumerouscommunitiesmeantthat

individualnegotiationswithspecificgroupswasnotlogisticallypossible.Withoutwanting

tobeyetanotherbandofwell-intentionednon-Indigenousresearchers,takingIndigenous

materialsandappropriatingthemforanon-Indigenousaudience,itwasimportantforthe

teamtoinvitetheIndigenousownersandcreatorsofthematerialstohaveasayinwhat

happenedtotheirmaterials.ThelongevityandsustainabilityoftheArchivedependson

opennesstofurthernegotiationandinformedresponsestochangesinlegislatureand

communityconcernsthatwilloutlastanyresearchfundingcycle.

246

AppendixA

1. Originalconsentform

247

2. Revisedformfollowinglegaladvice

248

AppendixB

CopyrightstatementattachedtoallPDFsdownloadedfromtheLivingArchivewebsite

249

References

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderLibrary,InformationandResourceNetworkInc.

(2012).ATSILIRNprotocolsforlibraries,archivesandinformationservices.Retrieved

fromhttp://atsilirn.aiatsis.gov.au/protocols.php

Anderson,J.(2005).ThemakingofIndigenousknowledgeinintellectualpropertylawin

Australia.InternationalJournalofCulturalProperty,12(3),345–371.

Anderson,J.(2010).Indigenous/traditionalknowledge&intellectualproperty.Durham,NC:

DukeUniversityCentrefortheStudyofthePublicDomain.

Anderson,J.E.(2012).Onresolution|IntellectualpropertyandIndigenousknowledge

disputes|Prologue.LandscapesofViolence,2(1),4–14.

https://doi.org/10.7275/R5BG2KWX

AustraliaCouncilfortheArts.(2007).ProtocolsforworkingwithIndigenousartists.

Retrievedfromhttp://www.australiacouncil.gov.au/about/protocols-for-working-

with-Indigenous-artists/

AustralianCopyrightCouncil.(2014).The‘specialcase’or‘flexibledealing’exception:Section

200AB(InformationSheetNo.G115v03).StrawberryHills,NSW:AustralianCopyright

Council.

AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies.(2015).Guidelinesfor

theethicalpublishingofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderauthorsandresearch

fromthosecommunities.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorresStrait

IslanderStudies.

Barwick,L.,Marett,A.,Walsh,M.,Reid,N.,&Ford,L.(2005).Communitiesofinterest:Issues

inestablishingadigitalresourceonMurrinh-pathasongatWadeye(PortKeats),NT.

LiteraryandLinguisticsComputing,20(4),383–397.

https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqi048

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2014).DevelopingaLivingArchiveofAboriginal

Languages.LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,8,345–360.

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2015).ShoehorningcomplexmetadataintheLiving

ArchiveofAboriginalLanguages.InA.Harris,N.Thieberger,&L.Barwick(Eds.),

250

Research,recordsandresponsibility:TenyearsofPARADISEC(pp.115–131).Sydney:

SydneyUniversityPress.

Bow,C.,Christie,M.,&Devlin,B.(2017).Digitalfuturesforbilingualbooks.InB.C.Devlin,S.

Disbray,&N.R.F.Devlin(Eds.),HistoryofbilingualeducationintheNorthern

Territory:People,programsandpolicies(pp.347–353).Singapore:Springer.

Bow,C.(2015,November27).LAALcompwrap-up.Retrievedfrom

http://livingarchive.cdu.edu.au/laalcomp-wrap-up/

Byrne,A.,&Moorcroft,H.(1994).Secretandsacred:howshouldlibrariesandarchives

handleAboriginalandIslanderinformationresources?NorthernPerspective,17(1),

10-15.

Cawthorn,M.,&Cohen,H.(2013).Digitalarchivesanddiscoverability:Innovatingaccessto

theStrehlowcollection.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.

O’Sullivan(Eds.),InformationtechnologyandIndigenouscommunities(pp.185–196).

Canberra:AIATSISResearchPublications.

Christen,K.(2005).Gonedigital:Aboriginalremixandtheculturalcommons.International

JournalofCulturalProperty,12(03).https://doi.org/10.1017/S0940739105050186

Christie,M.(1997).TheYolnguliteratureCDproject.Ngoonjook,13,31–39.

Christie,M.(2005a).Fracturingtheskeletonofprinciple:Australianlaw,Aboriginallaw,

anddigitaltechnology.Ngoonjook,26,44–49.

Christie,M.(2005b).Words,ontologiesandAboriginaldatabases.MediaInternational

Australia,IncorporatingCulture&Policy,116,52–63.

Christie,M.,Devlin,B.,&Bow,C.(2014).ThebirthoftheLivingArchive:Anemerging

archiveofAustralianAboriginallanguagesandliterature.Archifacts,October,48–63.

Christie,M.,Devlin,B.,&Bow,C.(2015).Findingcommongroundinadigitalarchiveof

Aboriginallanguages.InH.Huijser,R.Ober,S.O’Sullivan,E.McRae-Williams,&R.

Elvin(Eds.),Findingcommonground:Narratives,provocationsandreflectionsfromthe

40yearcelebrationofBatchelorInstitute(pp.75–79).Batchelor:BatchelorPress.

Christie,M.,Guyula,Y.,Gurruwiwi,D.,&Greatorex,J.(2013).TeachingfromCountry:

ConnectingremoteIndigenousknowledgeauthoritieswithuniversitystudents

aroundtheworld.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan

251

(Eds.),InformationtechnologyandIndigenouscommunities(pp.127–138).Canberra:

AIATSISResearchPublications.

Christie,M.,&Verran,H.(2006).UsingdigitaltechnologiesindoingIndigenousplacesin

Australia.PaperpresentedattheEuropeanAssociationfortheStudiesofScienceand

Technology,Lausanne,Switzerland.

Coates,J.,Robertson,B.M.,&vandeVelde,J.(2016).Dealingwithcopyrightlongafterithas

exhaustedyou…ProposingacopyrightriskmanagementframeworkforAustralian

libraries.PaperpresentedattheAustralianLibraryandInformationAssociation

NationalConference,Adelaide.Retrievedfrom

http://www.nsla.org.au/publication/dealing-copyright-long-after-it-has-exhausted-

you

CommonwealthofAustralia.(2006).CopyrightAmendmentBill2006Explanatory

Memorandum.Canberra,CommonwealthofAustralia.

CopyrightAct1968(Cth),C2014C00291(Austl.)Retrievedfrom

https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2014C00291

CopyrightAmendmentBill2006(Cth),Pub.L.No.158(Austl.)

Corbett,S.,&Boddington,M.(2011).Copyrightlawandthedigitisationofculturalheritage

(WorkingPaperNo.77).Wellington,NZ:VictoriaUniversityofWellington.

CreativeCommons.(n.d.).CreativeCommons—Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs3.0

Australia.Retrievedfromhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/

deSouza,P.,Edmonds,F.,McQuire,S.,Evans,M.,&Chenhall,R.(2016).Aboriginal

knowledge,digitaltechnologiesandculturalcollections:Policy,protocols,practice

(ResearchPaperNo.4).Melbourne:UniversityofMelbourne.

Devlin,B.,Bow,C.,Purdon,A.,&Klesch,M.(2015).Digitaltechnologiesandlanguage

resources–findingcommonground.InH.Huijser,R.Ober,S.O’Sullivan,E.McRae-

Williams,&R.Elvin(Eds.),Findingcommonground:Narratives,provocationsand

reflectionsfromthe40yearcelebrationofBatchelorInstitute(pp.80–84).Batchelor:

BatchelorPress.

Devlin,B.,Disbray,S.,&Devlin,N.(2017).Athematichistoryofbilingualeducationinthe

NorthernTerritory.InB.C.Devlin,S.Disbray,&N.R.F.Devlin(Eds.),Historyof

252

bilingualeducationintheNorthernTerritory(pp.1–10).Singapore:Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2078-0_1

Dyson,L.E.,&Underwood,J.(2006).Indigenouspeopleontheweb.JournalofTheoretical

andAppliedElectronicCommerceResearch,1(1),65–76.

Fourmile,H.(1989).Whoownsthepast?Aboriginesascaptivesofthearchives.Aboriginal

History,13(1/2),1–8.

Garwood-Houng,A.,&Blackburn,F.(2014).TheATSILIRNprotocols:Atwenty-firstcentury

guidetoappropriatelibraryservicesforandaboutAboriginalandTorresStrait

Islanderpeoples.TheAustralianLibraryJournal,63(1),4–15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2014.890018

Gumbula,J.,Corn,A.,&Mant,J.(2013).Discoveringtheearliestshadows:AYolŋu-led

approachtomanagingcommunityaccesstoarchivedculturalresources.InL.

Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan(Eds.),Information

technologyandIndigenouscommunities(pp.207–217).Canberra:AIATSISResearch

Publications.

Guyula,Y.,&Gurruwiwi,D.(2010).Intellectualproperties.LearningCommunities:

InternationalJournalofLearninginSocialContexts,2,50–59.

Harris,S.(1995).EvolutionofbilingualeducationtheoryinNorthernTerritoryAboriginal

schools.InternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguage,113(1),7–22.

Hudson,E.,&Kenyon,A.T.(2007).Withoutwalls:Copyrightlawanddigitalcollectionin

Australianculturalinstitutions.SCRIPTed,4,197.

Hughes,M.,&Dallwitz,J.(2007).AraIrititja:TowardsculturallyappropriateITbest

practiceinremoteIndigenousAustralia.InL.E.Dyson,M.A.N.Hendriks,&S.Grant

(Eds.),InformationtechnologyandIndigenouspeople(pp.146–158).Hershey:

InformationSciencePublishing.

Iacovino,L.(2010).Rethinkingarchival,ethicalandlegalframeworksforrecordsof

IndigenousAustraliancommunities:Aparticipantrelationshipmodelofrightsand

responsibilities.ArchivalScience,10(4),353–372.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-

010-9120-3

253

InternationalCouncilonArchives.(2011).Universaldeclarationonarchives.Paris:

InternationalCouncilonArchives.Retrievedfromhttps://www.ica.org/en/universal-

declaration-archives

Janke,T.(1998).Ourculture:Ourfuture.ReportonAustralianIndigenousculturaland

intellectualpropertyrights.Canberra:AustralianInstituteofAboriginalandTorres

StraitIslanderStudies.

Janke,T.(2016).Indigenousculturalprotocolsandthearts.Sydney:TerriJankeand

CompanyPtyLtd.

Janke,T.,&Iacovino,L.(2012).Keepingculturesalive:ArchivesandIndigenouscultural

andintellectualpropertyrights.ArchivalScience,12(2),151–171.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-011-9163-0

Janke,T.,&Quiggin,R.(2005).Indigenousculturalandintellectualpropertyandcustomary

law(AboriginalCustomaryLawsBackgroundPaperNo.12).Perth:LawReform

CommissionofWesternAustralia.

Koch,G.(2010).Ethicsandresearch:Dilemmasraisedinmanagingresearchcollectionsof

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslandermaterials.AustralianAboriginalStudies,(2),48–

59.

Lewincamp,B.,&Faulkner,J.(2003).Akeyholetothecollection:TheAIATSISLibrary

DigitisationPilotProgram.TheAustralianLibraryJournal,52(3),239–245.

Mamtora,J.,&Bow,C.(2017).TowardsauniquearchiveofAboriginallanguages:A

collaborativeproject.JournaloftheAustralianLibraryandInformationAssociation,

66(1),28–41.https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2017.1282845

Marika,B.(1993,November).Whatiscopyright?Yän,pp.14–17.

McConvell,P.(2000).Two-wayresearchforAustralianIndigenouslanguages:Positioning

resourcesinthegarma.PaperpresentedattheWorkshoponWeb-BasedLanguage

DocumentationandDescription,Philadelphia:InstituteforResearchinCognitive

Science(IRCS),UniversityofPennsylvania.

McKemmish,S.,Faulkhead,S.,Iacovino,L.,&Thorpe,K.(2010).AustralianIndigenous

knowledgeandthearchives:Embracingmultiplewaysofknowingandkeeping.

ArchivesandManuscripts,38(1),27–50.

254

MuseumsAustralia.(2005,February).Continuouscultures,ongoingresponsibilities:

PrinciplesandguidelinesforAustralianmuseumsworkingwithAboriginalandTorres

StraitIslanderculturalheritage.Canberra:MuseumsAustralia.

Nakata,M.,Byrne,A.,Nakata,V.,&Gardiner,G.(2005).Indigenousknowledge,thelibrary

andinformationservicesector,andprotocols.AustralianAcademic&Research

Libraries,36(2),7–21.https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2005.10721244

Nakata,M.,Nakata,V.,Gardiner,G.,McKeough,J.,Byrne,A.,&Gibson,J.(2008).Indigenous

digitalcollections:Anearlylookattheorganisationandcultureinterface.Australian

Academic&ResearchLibraries,39(4),223–236.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2008.10721360

Nicholls,C.(2005).Deathbyathousandcuts:Indigenouslanguagebilingualeducation

programmesintheNorthernTerritoryofAustralia,1972–1998.InternationalJournal

ofBilingualEducationandBilingualism,8(2–3),160–177.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050508668604

Nicholls,S.,Booker,L.,Thorpe,K.,Jackson,M.,Girault,C.,Briggs,R.,&Jones,C.(2016).From

principletopractice:CommunityconsultationregardingaccesstoIndigenous

languagematerialinarchivalrecordsattheStateLibraryofNewSouthWales.

ArchivesandManuscripts,44(3),1–14.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2016.1239116

O’Meara,C.,&Good,J.(2010).Ethicalissuesinlegacylanguageresources.Language&

Communication,30(3),162–170.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2009.11.008

Ormond-Parker,L.,&Sloggett,R.(2012).Localarchivesandcommunitycollectinginthe

digitalage.ArchivalScience,12(2),191–212.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10502-011-

9154-1

ProductivityCommission.(2016).Intellectualpropertyarrangements(InquiryReportNo.

78).Canberra:ProductivityCommission.Retrievedfrom

https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/intellectual-

property/report/intellectual-property.pdf

Scales,S.A.,Burke,J.,Dallwitz,J.,Lowish,S.,&Mann,D.(2013).TheAraIrititjaProject:Past,

present,future.InL.Ormond-Parker,A.Corn,C.Fforde,K.Obata,&S.O’Sullivan

255

(Eds.),InformationtechnologyandIndigenouscommunities(pp.151–169).Canberra:

AIATSISResearchPublications.

Seadle,M.(2002).Whoserules?:Intellectualproperty,cultureandIndigenous

communities.D-LibMagazine,8(3).https://doi.org/10.1045/march2002-seadle

Simpson,J.,Caffery,J.,&McConvell,P.(2009).GapsinAustralia’sIndigenouslanguage

policy:DismantlingbilingualeducationintheNorthernTerritory.Canberra:Australian

InstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies.

Talakai,M.(2007).Intellectualpropertyandsafeguardingculturalheritage:Asurveyof

practicesandprotocolsintheSouthPacific.Geneva:WorldIntellectualProperty

Organization.

Thieberger,Nicholas.(2010).Anxiousrespectforlinguisticdata:ThePacificandRegional

ArchiveforDigitalSourcesinEndangeredCultures(PARADISEC)andtheResource

NetworkforLinguisticDiversity(RNLD).InM.Florey(Ed.),Endangeredlanguagesof

Austronesia(pp.141–158).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Thieberger,Nick,&Barwick,L.(2012).KeepingrecordsoflanguagediversityinMelanesia:

ThePacificandRegionalArchiveforDigitalSourcesinEndangeredCultures

(PARADISEC).LanguageDocumentation&Conservation,5,239–53.

Thorpe,K.,&Galassi,M.(2014).RediscoveringIndigenouslanguages:Theroleandimpact

oflibrariesandarchivesinculturalrevitalisation.AustralianAcademic&Research

Libraries,45(2),81–100.https://doi.org/10.1080/00048623.2014.910858

Torsen,M.,&Anderson,J.(2010).Intellectualpropertyandthesafeguardingoftraditional

cultures.Geneva:WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization.

vanDyk,R.(2010).Digitalpreservation:Theproblemsandissuesinvolvedinpublishing

privaterecordsonline:Lessonslearntfromthewebpublishingofthenotebooksand

diariesofC.E.W.Bean.InVALA2010Proceedings.Melbourne:VALA.

WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization.(2016).Traditionalknowledgeandintellectual

property.Geneva:WorldIntellectualPropertyOrganization.

Zuckermann,G.(2015).ENGAGING:Aguidetointeractingrespectfullyandreciprocally

withAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderpeople,andtheirartspracticesand

intellectualproperty.Canberra:AustralianGovernment:IndigenousCultureSupport.

256

Chapter 6 (PAPER 4): Diverse socio-technical aspects of a digital archive

of Aboriginal languages

Bow,C.(2019).Diversesocio-technicalaspectsofadigitalarchiveofAboriginallanguages.

ArchivesandManuscripts,47(1),94–112.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2019.1570282

HavingoutlinedthecreationoftheLivingArchiveproject(Paper2)andexploredthelegal

issuesitentailed(Paper3),thenextpaperexploresadifferentaspectoftheLivingArchive

project,seeingitsuseinthehandsofdifferentkindsofusers.

Thecontributionofthispaperisinitsconsiderationofsomeofthedifferentwaysinwhich

theonlinearchiveisusedandperceived.ThecreationoftheArchivewasnotsimplyfor

preservationofthematerials,butinvolvedcarefulconsiderationaboutaccess,imagininga

rangeofdifferentusersandtheirpurposesforusingtheArchiveandthematerials

containedinit.

ThispublicationcameoutofasessionIpresentedaspartoftheInformationTechnologies

inIndigenousCommunities(ITIC)symposiumattheAustralianSocietyofArchivists

conferenceinMelbournein2017.ThepaperIpresentedthereaddressedthethemeofthe

conference,andwasentitledDiverseworlds,diverseideologiesinadigitalarchiveof

Aboriginallanguages.Iwasinvitedtosubmitapapertothisspecialissueofthejournal

ArchivesandManuscriptswhichwouldbepublishedasanoutcomeofthisevent.Thisisthe

scholarlyjournaloftheAustralianSocietyofArchivists,andwhilenotanopenaccess

journal,itiswidelyreadamongthearchivingcommunityinAustralia.

Theversionincludedhereisthe‘authoracceptedversion’–seeAppendix2.2for

permissionfromthepublishertoincludethisversioninthethesis.Endnotesintheoriginal

havebeenconvertedtofootnotesforconsistencywiththethesis,howeverthereisno

separatereferencelist,asrequiredbythejournalguidelines.

257

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Archives and

Manuscripts on 17 February 2019, available online at:

https://doi.org/10.1080/01576895.2019.1570282

Abstract

Asocio-technicalapproachistakentoexploreadigitalarchiveofAustralian

Indigenousculturalheritage.TheLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesis

consideredintermsofwhatitiscurrentlydoingandwhatitwasintendedtodo.Two

ethnographicstoriesfocusingonuserinteractionsandtheoutcomesofanonline

surveyservetoevaluatetheeffectivenessoftheArchivefromtheperspectiveof

differentusers.Thisisthenjuxtaposedwithaconsiderationoftheoriginalgrant

application,outliningwhatwasenvisagedfortheproject.Thisanalysisservesto

highlightsomeofthecontingentrelationsanddiversesocio-technicalaspectsofa

specificknowledgeinfrastructure,asitallowsmultipleformsofinteraction,new

connectionsandgenerativeactivitiesaspeoplediscover,accessandinteractwiththe

contentnowandintothefuture.

Keywords

Indigenouslanguages;digitalarchive;languagemaps;knowledgeinfrastructure;user

interaction

258

Introduction

Tellingapurelyhistoricalstory…makesitpossibletoseethearchive’scomplexity,

butmaybedifficulttoseeitscontingency,itsuncertainemergencefromanongoing,

oftenfraughtfluxofideas,technicalpossibilitiesandconstraints,interestsand

agendas....(Analternative)perspectivefocussesuponthemanydifferentmoment-by-

momentdecisionsmadebycountlesspeoplewho,littlebylittlemakeitwhatitis:the

occasionaldisagreement,thesuddeninsightsofpossibility,thetechnicalhiccups,and

theluckybreaks,andthereforehowitcontinuestogrowuncertainly,andhowitmay

becomefrustratedinitsattemptstofulfilthesomewhatill-definedpurposeswhich,in

ouroriginalfundingapplication,weclaimeditwouldserve.9

Thisremarkcomesfroma2014paperdescribingthebirthoftheLivingArchiveof

AboriginalLanguages,adigitalarchiveofAustralianIndigenousculturalheritage.The

LivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguagesprojecthascollectedanddigitisedthousandsof

textsinIndigenouslanguagesoftheNorthernTerritory(NT),andmadethemavailable

onlineatwww.livingarchive.cdu.edu.au.10InthispaperIforegroundsomeofthediverse

socio-technicalaspectsoftheArchive,beginningwithtwostoriesofmyexperiencesitting

withusersastheyengagewiththearchivewebsite,firstanAboriginalelderandlanguage

authority,andsecondlyanon-Indigenousteacher.Thesestoriesnarrateusers’responses

9 M Christie, B Devlin and C Bow, ‘The Birth of the Living Archive: An emerging archive of Australian Aboriginal

languages and literature’, Archifacts, October, 2014, pp. 48–63, pp. 52–53. 10 The Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages is supported under the Australian Research Council’s Linkage,

Infrastructure, Equipment and Facilities funding scheme (LE120100016 and LE140100063). The author’s research is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. The project is also discussed in: C Bow, M Christie and B Devlin, ‘Developing a Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages’, Language Documentation and Conservation, vol. 8, 2014, pp. 345–360; C Bow, M Christie and B Devlin, ‘Shoehorning complex metadata in the Living Archive of Aboriginal Languages’, in A Harris, N Thieberger and L Barwick (eds), Research, Records and Responsibility: Ten years of PARADISEC, Sydney University Press, Sydney, 2015, pp. 115–131; C Bow, M Christie and B Devlin, ‘Digital futures for bilingual books’, in BC Devlin, S Disbray and NRF Devlin (eds), History of Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory: People, Programs and Policies, Springer, Singapore, 2017, pp. 347–353.

259

whichexpressbothpositiveandnegativeexperienceswiththedigitalarchiveatthattime.

Mycommentaryonthesestoriesidentifiesseveralsocio-technicalfactorsthatwere

influentialinshapingthecurrentformoftheLivingArchive,someofthe‘contingencies’

alludedtointheopeningquote.Outcomesofanonlinesurveyarethenusedtohighlight

someofthesocio-technicalaspectsraisedinthosestories.Followingthis,Ireflectonthe

initialgrantapplicationdocumentasawayofconsideringtheemergenceoftheArchiveat

itsbeginnings,priortomyinvolvementasprojectmanager.Juxtaposingwhatwasimagined

ininitiatingtheprojectworkthatestablishedtheArchivewithwhathassincebeen

achievedenablesanidentificationofdiversepushesandpullsthatstillinfluencetheform

theArchivetakestoday.Thequotationabovehighlightstheuncertaintyinvolvedinthe

productionofaspecificsocio-technicalknowledgeinfrastructure,inthiscaseanonline

archiveofIndigenouslanguageteachingandlearningmaterials.Whatwasoriginally

envisagedintheproposaltofundershasemergedassomethingthatsomehowholds

together,asuserswithradicallydifferentinterestsandpurposesengagewithit.Theuseof

asociotechnicalapproachhighlightshowthetechnicalandthesocialaremutually

constituted,formulating“aviewofhumanculturethatprivilegesneitherthesocialnorthe

technologicalandinwhichneitherisreducibletotheother”.11

TheLivingArchiveprojectsitsattheintersectionofparticularsetsofarchival

practicesoflanguagedocumentation,Indigenousknowledgesandtheroleoflibrariesand

11 DM. Levy, ‘Documents and Libraries: A Sociotechnical Perspective’, in Ann Peterson Bishop, Nancy A. Van

House and Barbara Pfeil Buttenfield (eds), Digital Library Use: Social Practice in Design and Evaluation, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2003, p. 33.

260

digitaltechnologies,12 eachofwhichbringtheirownsetsofstandardsandassumptions.The

ArchivecontainsdigitalcopiesofmanyrarebooksinIndigenouslanguages.Many

IndigenouscommunitiesinAustraliacurrentlyengagedinlanguagerevivalcraveany

extantrecordsordocumentationthatmayassistinexpandingunderstandingoftheir

languageheritage.13 Digitisingsuchmaterialsisapracticalmeansforreconnectionwith

‘knowledgeandinformationIndigenouspeoplewanttoaccessforfutureutility,forcreative

endeavoursand,importantly,foremotionalandspiritualrestorationofapeople.’14While

thematerialsintheArchivemayholdadifferentsignificanceforthosewhoselanguagesare

stillstrong,theyarelikelytocontainmultipleaffordancesforthosewhorelyonolder

materialstoconnectwiththeirlanguage,noworinthefuture.CurrentusesoftheArchive

maynotanticipatefutureuses–liketheearlymissionariesorcolonistswhorecorded

12 For language documentation see for example PK Austin, ‘Language documentation in the 21st century’,

JournaLIPP, no. 3, 2014, pp. 57–71; R Henke and AL Berez-Kroeker, ‘A Brief History of Archiving in Language Documentation, with an Annotated Bibliography’, Language Documentation and Conservation, vol. 10, Emergent Use and Conceptualization of Language Archives, 2016, pp. 411–457; K Rice and N Thieberger, ‘Tools and technology for language documentation and revitalization’, in KL Rehg and L Campbell (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Endangered Languages, Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, 2018. For the role of libraries in Indigenous knowledge spaces see for example M Nakata, A Byrne, V Nakata and G Gardiner, ‘Indigenous Knowledge, the Library and Information Service Sector, and Protocols’, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, vol. 36, no. 2, 2005, pp. 7–21; M Nakata and M Langton, Australian Indigenous Knowledge and Libraries, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, v. 36, no, 2, 1 June 2005, pp. 1–211; S Nicholls, L Booker, K Thorpe, M Jackson, C Girault, R Briggs and C Jones, ‘From principle to practice: community consultation regarding access to Indigenous language material in archival records at the State Library of New South Wales’, Archives and Manuscripts, vol. 44, no. 3, 2016, pp. 1–14; K Thorpe and M Galassi, ‘Rediscovering Indigenous Languages: The Role and Impact of Libraries and Archives in Cultural Revitalisation’, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, vol. 45, no. 2, 2014, pp. 81–100. For work on Indigenous knowledge practices in digital contexts see for example M Christie, ‘Computer Databases and Aboriginal Knowledge’, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, vol. 1, 2004, pp. 4–12; M Christie, ‘Words, Ontologies and Aboriginal Databases’, Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture and Policy, vol. 116, 2005, pp. 52–63; H Verran, M Christie, B. Anbins-King, T Van Weeren, and W. Yunupingu, ‘Designing digital knowledge management tools with Aboriginal Australians,’ Digital Creativity, v. 18, no.3, 2007, pp. 129–142.

13 For example, R Amery, Warraparna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian language, University of Adelaide Press, Adelaide, S.A., 2016; J Giacon, Yaluu. A recovery grammar of Yuwaalaraay and Gamilaraay: a description of two New South Wales languages based on 160 years of records, Asia-Pacific Linguistics, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, 2017.

14 M Nakata, V Nakata, G Gardiner, J McKeough, A Byrne and J Gibson, ‘Indigenous Digital Collections: An Early Look at the Organisation and Culture Interface’, Australian Academic and Research Libraries, vol. 39, no. 4, 2008, p. 233–4.

261

wordlistsoflocalIndigenouscommunities,withnoideaofanyfuturepurposetheymight

beputto,archivingtheseresourcesallowsthemtobecomepartoffutureknowledge-

makingactivities.

RatherthanviewingtheLivingArchiveasadigitalobjectwhichcontainslanguage

materials,itispresentedhereasaknowledgeinfrastructurethatenablesvariouskindsof

activitythroughthepresentationofdigitalartefactsofIndigenouslanguageandknowledge

work.15Theinfrastructureitselfisanetworkofrelationsthatkeepthingsgoing,technically,

politically,sociallyandontologically,andcanbeanalysedthroughasocio-technicallens

whichinvolvesameshingofthesocial,politicalandtechnicalaspectsoftheArchive.

Watertonidentifies‘amovetowardtheexposureofthegutsofourarchivesanddatabases,

towardexposingthecontingencies,theframing,thereflexivity,andthepoliticsembedded

withinthem.’16 Staradvocatesanalysinginfrastructuresusingthetoolsofethnographic

fieldwork,andthepresentanalysiscanbeconsideredaformofarchivalethnography,17

whichenablesthecomplicatedagencyoftheArchivetobeproblematisedthroughtracing

usernarratives.Thetwouserstoriespresentedherearenarrationsofmyownexperiences

onthefield,thefirsttoldasapersonalreflectionsometimeaftertheencounter,andthe

secondwithdirectquotesbasedonrecording.Theuseofimpersonalpronounspreserves

15 GC Bowker, K Baker, F Millerand and D Ribes, ‘Toward Information Infrastructure Studies: Ways of Knowing in

a Networked Environment’, in J Hunsinger, L Klastrup and M Allen (eds), International Handbook of Internet Research, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2009, pp. 97–117; PN Edwards, SJ Jackson, MK Chalmers, GC Bowker, D Ribes, M Burton and S Calvert, Knowledge Infrastructures: Intellectual Frameworks and Research Challenges, Deep Blue, Ann Arbor, MI, 2013, p. 41; H Karasti, F Millerand, CM Hine and GC Bowker, ‘Knowledge infrastructures: Part I’, Science and Technology Studies, vol. 29, no. 1, 2016, pp. 2–12.

16 C Waterton, ‘Experimenting with the Archive: STS-ers As Analysts and Co-constructors of Databases and Other Archival Forms’, Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 35, no. 5, 2010, pp. 645–676, p. 647.

17 SL Star, ‘Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: Working on the fringes’, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 14, no. 2, 2002, pp. 107–122; KF Gracy, ‘Documenting Communities of Practice: Making the Case for Archival Ethnography’, Archival Science, vol. 4, no. 3–4, 2004, pp. 335–365.

262

anonymityoftheparticipants,andthestoriesservetolinkthetechnicalwiththesocialin

discussionoftheLivingArchiveasaknowledgeinfrastructure.

A user from country

IamsittingwithanIndigenousAustralianelderinherremotedesertcommunity,

relievedthatitisnotthehotseasonhere,butitisstillsodryanddustyonher

veranda.Wecanhearthesoundsofthelocalfootballcompetitioncloseby.Isense

thatshewouldratherbeatthefootballoval,wheretherestofthecommunity

hasgathered,butshehasgraciouslyagreedtositwithmeforabit.Afewfamily

memberslingernearby,occasionallyengaginginourdiscussion.TheelderIam

workingwithhasbeeninvolvedwithbilingualeducationprogramsinthepast,

teachinginthelocalgovernmentschoolforyearsbeforetheprogramwasshut

down.Wetalkforawhileabouttheolddays,whenlanguagetookaleadingrole

intheclassroom,andweshareourdisappointmentthatonlyEnglishistolerated

now. We talk about all those wonderful books that were created to teach

vernacularliteracy,andhowtheyhavebeenlockedawaynow,protectedfrom

harmbutalso fromuse. I tellheraboutourprojecttocollectanddigitisethe

booksproducedinbilingualprogramsallaroundtheTerritory,tokeepthemsafe

andmakethemavailableonline.She’sheardaboutthisprojectbefore,andhas

previouslysignedapermissionformtoallowmaterialsshecreatedtobeincluded

inthecollection.

Iinvitehertolookatthewebsite.Sheisfamiliarwithdigitaltechnologies,using

thedesktopcomputersinthecommunitycentretoaccessbankingandCentrelink

263

services, with assistance from her grandson or one of the digital mentors

employed there. She has used iPads and laptops occasionally with non-

Indigenous researchers likeme, so she is not daunted by the technology, but

neither is she dependent on it, besides relying heavily on her phone to stay

connectedtofamily.Myscreenishardtosee,withglareanddustyfingerprints,

butIcallupthehomepage.I’vemanagedtoaccessthewifi,butitisquiteslow,

andIamconsciousofnotwantingtouseupthecommunity’ssmallallocation.18

The home page of the Living Archive site presents a map of the Northern

Territory,markedoutinamosaicofcoloursrepresentingthedifferentlanguage

areas.Tropicalregionsnearthecoastarecolouredvariousshadesofgreen,while

inthedesertregionmoreredsandorangesareused.Thereareareasofgrey,

mostlyacrossthemiddlewithsomepocketselsewhere,showingregionswhere

thecollectionlacksmaterials.Aswenavigatearoundthemap,differentlabels

appear in response to the movement of the cursor, displaying the names of

languagesorplaces.Ishowherhowtousethecontrolstozoomintoacertain

area,thenbackouttothebiggerpicture,andhowtotickaboxtodisplaythe

names of the languages or the places – it gets too crowdedwhen they’re all

visible,soweswitchthatfeatureoff.Thecolourediconsmarkinglocationsuse

differentcolourstodifferentiatevariousproducersofliteracymaterials:redfor

the Literature Production Centres (LPCs) set up in many of the government

schoolswithbilingualprograms,blueforLiteracyCentresatsomeofthesmaller

18 Later a mobile app was developed to enable offline access to materials from the Archive CorrelLink, LAAL

Reader, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, N.T., 2015.

264

programs,purple for theCatholicor Independentschoolswhichhadbilingual

programs,greenforcommunitylanguagecentres,andyellowforcommunities

thatproducedlanguagematerialswithoutanyoftheseinfrastructures.Wefind

thecolouredareacorrespondingtoherlanguage,andclickontheiconforher

community,revealingahandfulofbookcoverstotherightofthemap.Iexplain

howclickingononeofthebookswilltakeusintothearchivetoseethewhole

bookwithpictures,orjustintextform.

But she stops and wants to look at themap a bit longer. I zoom in further,

embarrassedbythesharpedgesofthepolygonsthatbecomevisibleifyougoin

too far. I remember the long discussions between the project team, graphic

designerandprogrammerabouthowtopresentthemap.Howfarshouldusers

beabletozoom?Shouldweletthemmovearoundthewholeworld,orzoomin

close enough to see buildings in their community? How many latitude and

longitudepointsalongtheimaginedbordersofeachlanguageregionshouldbe

markedtodefineeachpolygon?Morepointsmaketheedgessmoother,butless

definition avoids making claims about boundaries. Should we use standard

invertedteardropstomarklocations,orsomethingdifferent?Howmuchdetail

should therebeon theunderlyingmap tohelporient theuser?Weendedup

choosingasmoothsurfaceonwhichtomaplanguagesandcommunities,without

further interruptionofman-made impositionsbesides stateborders, andonly

markingcommunitieswherematerialswereproduced.

She looks carefully at themap of her language region, and those around its

borders.Withoutthemarkingofroads,riversorotherfeatures,itisdifficultto

265

determineexactlyhowtheborderhasbeendetermined,thoughthere’satinybit

oftopographicaldetailifyouzoominfarenough.Hersistercomesandlooks,and

theytalktogether intheir language.TheonlywordsIrecognisearenamesof

placesorlanguages,butIcan’ttellifthey’reexpressingconcernoradmiration

forwhattheyseeonthewebsite.Thesisterwandersoff,theeldernodsandallows

me to continue. I click on a book and we go to a page headed ‘Respecting

ownership’–IexplainthatthisremindsusersaboutAboriginalauthorityover

thebooks,andthatthebooksinthecollectionmustn’tbemisusedorsold.Iclick

thegreenbuttonmarked‘Yes’andwemoveontolookingatsomebooksinher

language.Ishowherhowtosearchandbrowseanddownload.

Aswecontinue,Ifindmyselftalkingtoomuch,explainingallaboutthesiteand

whatwehavetriedtodowithit,butIsensethatsheisbecominglessengaged.I

thankherforhertime,andgiveheraliftinmyrented4WDtojointherestofthe

communityatthefootballoval.Thereshewillcontinuetoengagewithfamilyin

contemporary,dynamiclanguagepractices,asshe’sdoneforyears.I’mstruckby

thedisconnectbetweenthisreal-lifeuseoflanguageandthedigitalartefactsI

havebeensharingfrommycomputer.

266

Figure12(Ch6.1):LivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguageshomepage

AsmuchasIenjoyedmyinteractionwiththiselderasauseroftheLivingArchive

website,Iwasalsodisconcertedbyherapparentlossofinterestinthewebsiteafterweleft

themappage.Somemonthslater,IreceivedanemailfromacolleagueinAliceSprings,who

hassharedthewebsitewithvariousschoolsandindividualsthroughherworkwiththe

DepartmentofEducation.Shesaidshehadbecomehesitanttoshowthesitesometimes,

becausepeopleinsomecommunitieswere‘unhappywiththeLAALmap.Ithassomany

wrongboundariesandtoomanycommunitiesinthewronglanguagegroup’.Thisfeedback

267

seemedtoilluminatetheresponseoftheIndigenouselder,alertingmetotheagencyofthe

mapbeyonditsaffordancesasanavigationtooltoaccessthecontentsoftheArchive.

Potentialusersmaybewaryofitscapacitiestostiruptroublebetweenusersandownersof

languagesinuseindifferentplaces.Perhapstheconcernisthatgatheringallthese

resourcesinacentralrepositoryisactuallyatoddswithIndigenouspractices,where

knowledgeislocallyownedandsituated.Theveryconstructofanarchiverequiresongoing

negotiationineachoftheplacesrepresentedonthemap.

TheuseofamapastheentrypointfortheLivingArchivewasanearlydecisionforthe

projectteam.Motivatedtomaintainthestrongconnectionbetweenlanguageandplaceand

toconnectbookstostoriesthatcirculateinparticularplaces,theplanwastomakethe

digitalartefactsaccessiblethroughlinkingmappedlanguageandplacenameswithbooksin

theArchive.WeconsideredthespatialityofamapinterfacewouldsuitIndigenous

Australianuserswhomayprefertousespatialandvisualliteracythantextliteracy.19

AmapwouldalsohighlighttherangeoflanguagesacrosstheNorthernTerritory,

situatethem,anddepicttheirdistribution–manylanguagesclustercloselytogetheronthe

coast,butspreadwidelyacrossthesparselypopulateddesert.Itwashopedtheuseof

colourcouldhighlighttheabsenceofcollectedmaterialsfromcertainareas,implicitly

invitingpotentialuserstooffermaterialsinordertobringcolourtothoseregions.The

projectteamwasconsciousofthepoliticsofmapping,howdifferentmaps‘showdifferent

kindsofargumentsandaudiences,anddifferentwaysofdealingwiththeproblem,ornot

dealingwithit’.20Wewerereluctanttoassertanyauthorityinmappinglanguage

19 Christie et al., ‘The Birth of the Living Archive’, p. 58. 20 Star, ‘Infrastructure and ethnographic practice’, p. 114.

268

boundaries,butrathertouseabstractshapesaspointsofaccesstothebooksinthe

collectionassociatedwiththatlanguageorregion.Themapispurposefullydesignedasan

explicitoversimplification,tofunctionlargelysymbolically.21Thisapproachwaschosenas

analternativetoattemptingaccuraterepresentationsofthedetailedgeographyoflanguage

areasorthecomplexmultilingualismofmanycommunities,toavoidgivingthefalse

impressionthatonlyonelanguageisspokenineachregion.Thisoversimplificationof

linguisticandspatialdistributionisonlyoneofseveralembeddedinthedesignofthe

Archive,offeringonewayofrepresentingcomplexinformationinausableform.Thechoice

oflanguagenamesandspellingisalsoaconsciousdecision,usingthenamesaspresentedin

thematerialintheArchive,ratherthanon‘official’(yetstillhighlyproblematic)sources

suchasISO639-3.22

AsapointofentrytotheLivingArchive,themapinterfaceisanodeinthenetworkof

relationsthatkeepthearchivegoing;technically,politically,sociallyandontologically.The

processesbehindtheserelations,thecontestedboundariesandrevisions,thediscussions

thatresultedinspecificdecisionshavebecomeembeddedintheworkingofthemap

interfaceitself.Theremaybesomeevidenceburiedinatrailofemailsandmeetingnotes,

annotatedprintoutsandscreenshots,butthesedecisionsarenotvisibletotheuser.

ConfiguringtechnologiesinwaysweconsiderwillbenefitIndigenousAustralian

communityusersoftheArchivedoesnotdisorientordisadvantageacademicusers,asit

21 For discussion of the use of ‘technologies of representation’ in the performativity of Indigenous knowledges, see H

Verran and M Christie, ‘Using/designing digital technologies of representation in Aboriginal Australian knowledge practices’, Human Technology, vol. 3, no. 2, 2007, pp. 214–227.

22 SIL International, ISO 639-3, ISO 3 Registration Authority, 2015, viewed 31 May 2017, http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/default.asp ; JA Bickford, ‘The ethics of language identification and ISO 639’, Listening: Journal of Communication Ethics, Religion, and Culture, vol. 51, no. 1, 2016, pp. 21–34.

269

maintainstheexpectedfunctionalitysuchasstandardsearchandbrowseoptions.The

developmentprocesshastakenseriouslytheimperfect,problematicrelationbetweenthe

technicalandsocialchallengesofconstructingthedigitalarchive,whilesomehowmanaging

towork.

A user from the classroom

Theairconditioninginthecomputerlaboratoryattheuniversityisanenormous

relief from the oppressiveDarwinhumidity.My colleague from theComputer

ScienceDepartmenthasagreedtoassisttheprojectteambyfacilitatingauser

evaluationof theLivingArchive.We’reusinga think-aloudprotocol toaccess

someoftheuser’sthoughtsastheyengagewiththesite,followingasequenceof

tasks and questions. I am there only as an observer, under instructionnot to

intervene,evenwhentheusersaystheycannotdosomethingthatIknowthey

coulddo.Asaresult,Ifindtheprocessequalpartsilluminatingandfrustrating.

Wehavealreadybeenthroughtheuserevaluationprocesswithtwoacademic

researchers,nowwearesittingwithanon-Indigenousteacherwhousedtowork

inaremoteNorthernTerritoryschoolwithabilingualprogramandanactive

LiteratureProductionCentre(LPC).Shenowworksinanurbanschoolwitha

high proportion of Indigenous students, and has tried to incorporate some

languageintotheprogram,despiteherminimalcompetencyinanIndigenous

language,andthestudents’variedlanguagebackgrounds.

Aftersomesmalltalkandcollectionofbasicdemographicinformation,weturn

ourattentiontotheLivingArchivewebsite.Theteachernavigatesstraighttoher

270

oldschool,andinstantlyrecognisessomeofthebookcoversthatdisplaynextto

themaponthehomepage.SheisimmediatelytakenbacktotheLPC,saying‘I

canalmostsmellwhatthoseshelveslooklike’.Sheclicksthroughthemapand

glancesatthe‘Respectingownership’page,saying‘I’mreallypleasedthisishere

because I think everyone needs to be reminded that just because it’s on the

internetit’snotopenslather.’Inoticethatshedoesnotreadthroughthetexton

thescreen,justclicksthegreenbuttonthatallowsherentrancetotheArchive.

Identifyingafamiliarbook,shefondlyrecallsthetraditionalownerwhotoldthat

story – her classificatory grandmother according to Indigenous kinship

connections.SheclicksonthecoverimageandasthePDFopens,shecomments

‘Wow, so thesewhole books are on here?’ Perhaps she thought it was just a

catalogue,awindowintoacollectionthatwasstoredelsewhere,butisclearly

delighted to see the entirebookwith its colourful illustrationsanda cultural

significancesheappreciatedwithouteverfullyunderstanding.

Theteacherclicksthe‘Download’button,anddiscoversshecansavethatbook

to her own device, noting that the PDF is much more flexible outside the

constraints of the online view. She wonders about the ‘Text’ button, but is

disappointed that it reveals only a plain text file, so drab compared to the

vibrancyofthebookitself.NoticingtheEnglishtranslationatthebottomofthe

textfile,shesaysitwouldbegoodtohavethisalongsidetheoriginallanguage–

thenremembersthatthebookswerecreatedtofocusonthelanguage,withthe

English text only includedas a concession to teacherswho could not read or

speakthelanguage.Thenshewondersifshecancutandpastefromthetextfile

271

tomakewordcardsandworksheets,buthesitates.‘Iwanttogobackandcheck

whatIcandowiththis, I’mconsciousthatstuffhasbeenrippedoff foryears,

wherewasthatwarningagain?’Sheinfersthatherrelationshipswithpeoplein

thecommunity,andherunderstandingofsomeoftheissuesofownershipand

sharing of knowledge according to Indigenous law have made her ‘overly

sensitive,Iwouldn’tthinktwiceaboutrippingitofffromanyothersite’.

She findsthearrowsatthesideof thescreenthatallowhertoscroll through

booksoneatatime,andnotesthat‘someofitisreallyold,Idon'tthinkcurrent

teacherswoulduseit,butlinguistswould.There'sreallynewflashstuffavailable

now’.Sheiscuriousaboutonetitle,wantingtocheckwhenitwasproduced,but

nodateisprovided.Laterwhenshediscoversabuttonthatenablesdifferentsort

optionsshetriestosortbydate,butitisclearthatmissingdatesinthemetadata

arenothandledwellbytheArchive.

Mycolleaguesetsherataskinadifferentcollectionofbooks,soshegoestothe

oppositeendofthemap,curiousabouthowdifferentthebookswouldbethere.

She clearly does not have the same connection to these titles, butmore of a

detachedinterest.Shenotesoneauthorwithmanybooksattributedtoherand

comments ‘I’d like to knowmore about her – is she Indigenous? Is that her

western name?’ She scrolls through a few books, focusing on ones with

interestingimages,glossingoverthe‘boring’ones.Sheexpressesuncertaintyas

she is presented with a large number of books in a language and from a

communityshedoesnotknow:‘I’mnotsurewhattodowiththese.’Thereisno

finding aid to help her filter the results: ‘if I was looking for material for a

272

particularclass,howwouldIknowwhattolookfor?’Rememberingalessonshe

isdevelopingaboutturtles,shewondersifthereareanyrelevantstoriesinthe

collection–shetypesthewordintothesearchboxandseveralbooksappearin

variouslanguages.Sheisagaindisconcerted:‘Ithoughtitwouldonlyfinditfor

thelanguageIwaslookingat.’Noneappeartohavetheword‘turtle’inthetitle

so ‘thesemustbethewords intheother languages’.Buthowwouldsheknow

which books might be appropriate for a year 9 science class? She browses

through the results, amix of stories abouthuntingand cooking turtles, some

morescientifictextsaboutthelifecycleandhabitsofturtles,andsomecreation

stories–butshedoesnotcommentonthedifferentgenres.Ithinksheissimply

enjoyingthenicepicturesofturtles.

Shefiltersforthecategory‘Song’andclicksonsomebookcovers,asking‘CanI

hearthesongs?It’snotmuchgoodifthey’rejustwritten,Iwanttohearthem’.

She thinks about how shemight use somematerials from the Archive in her

current teaching role, where not all the Indigenous students have strong

connectionstolanguage:‘Icoulddisplaythebookontheinteractivewhiteboard

…butitwouldbehardtouseifwecan’thearthelanguage.’Sheisnotsurehow

herstudentswouldmanagenavigatingthesiteandsays‘itmightbenicetohave

anavatarcometoexplainstuff’.Butshecanseepotentialforusingsomeofthe

materialsinherlessons–‘I’dmakesureitwasalldownloadedandready’–and

decidesshecouldexploremore,endingthesessionwith‘IknowwhatI’llbedoing

thisweekend.’

273

Figure13(Ch6.2):Screenshotoftheresultsofasearchfortheword‘turtle’in

theLivingArchiveofAboriginalLanguages

274

Thisinteractionwithateacherleftmedisconcertedinquiteadifferentwaythanmy

experienceofworkingwiththeIndigenouselderasarchiveuser.Itwasencouragingtosee

someonewithaconnectiontothematerialsandapurposeforengagingwiththem,buther

useoftheArchivealsohighlightedmanyoftheabsencesandshortcomingsofthewebsite

andtheprojectworkwhichunderliesthesite.SeveraltimesIhavehearduserslamentthe

lackofaudio–manypeoplewhocanunderstandthelanguagebutarenotliterateare

excludedfrominteractingwiththematerialsincertainways.Yettext-to-speechtechnology

isalongwayfromautomatingtheprocesswithoutbutcheringthepronunciation,andour

nascenteffortstorecordspeakersreadingbooksaloudhavebeenlimitedbytimeand

resources.The‘oldstuff’inthecollectionoffersopportunitiesforupdatingandreworking

materialsinandfortheclassroom,engagingstudentswithtechnologiesandstoriesand

peopleandcurriculum,buttheseaffordancesmaynotbevisiblewithinthesiteitself,and

busyteachersmaynothavetimeorenergytotakeuptheopportunitiestherein.

Theteacher’suncertaintyaboutwhattodowhenfacedwithawiderangeofresources

inlanguagessheisnotfamiliarwithpiquedmyinterest.Manyofthepotentialusersofthe

Archivewilllackconnectiontoanycommunityorlanguagerepresentedtherein,andwill

needtofindwaystonavigatethesocio-technicalrelationofthousandsofbooksindozensof

languages.Iamconstantlyseekingmorebooksinmorelanguages,forgettinghow

overwhelmingitmaybetosomeusers.Iwroteanarticlesuggestingwaysofusing

materialsintheLivingArchivetoresourcethecross-curriculumpriorityofincorporating

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderhistoriesandculturesinalllearningareasofthe

275

AustralianCurriculum.23ThetechnicalarrangementoftheArchiveisnotprescriptiveabout

itsnavigation.Asaprojectteamwehaddiscussedissuesofcategorisationandclassification

ofmaterialsintheArchive,concernedwithservingtheneedsofnon-Indigenoususersbut

wantingtoavoidtheimpositionofanon-Indigenous(mainstreamAustraliananglophone)

setofcategoriesonthecorpus.Oneoftheprojectteamhaswrittenextensivelyaboutthe

structuresofmetadatareducingratherthanenhancingtheproductiveandcreativewaysin

whichwordsinAboriginallanguagesrelateandconnectacrosscategories,andprivilegea

westernobjectivistontology.24Thematerialsareforcedintocertainconfigurationsbythe

existingmetadataandthetechnicalrequirementsofthedatabase.Wechosetolimitthe

browseoptionsto‘Language,’‘Place’and‘People,’andbuildthesearchtooltosearchboth

metadataanddata.WhilethisfailstoachieveChristie’sunattainableidealofcreatingan

‘ontologicallyflatandepistemologicallyinnocentdatabase’whichencodesnoassumptions

aboutthenatureoftheworldandofknowledge,25itworkstowardsthisbystructuringthe

dataatabasiclevelintermsfamiliartobothIndigenousandnon-Indigenoususers,

supportingmultipleontologies.Thesebehind-the-scenesnegotiationsresultinaninterface

thatbothrequiresandenablesuserstomaketheirownconnectionsastheynavigatethe

collection.

23 C Bow, ‘Using authentic language resources to incorporate Indigenous knowledges across the Australian

Curriculum’, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, vol. 20, 2016, pp. 20–39.

24 M Christie, ‘Computer Databases and Aboriginal Knowledge’, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, vol. 1, 2004, pp. 4–12; M Christie, ‘Words, Ontologies and Aboriginal Databases’, Media International Australia, Incorporating Culture and Policy, vol. 116, 2005, pp. 52–63; M Christie, ‘Boundaries and Accountabilities in Computer-Assisted Ethnobotany’, Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, vol. 1, no. 3, 2006, pp. 285–296; Verran and Christie, ‘Using/Designing Digital technologies of Representation in Aboriginal Australian Knowledge practices’.

25 Christie, ‘Words, Ontologies and Aboriginal Databases’, p. 60.

276

Theteacher’sdesiretoshowrespectforthematerialsbyadheringtotheconditions

wasencouraging,asIexpectusersunfamiliarwithIndigenousownershipofstorytobeless

concernedbytheseissues.The‘greenbutton’thatactsasatechnologicalgatekeeperto

alloworprevententrytotheArchivesubjectstheusertoaregimeofcopyrightlawwhich

establishescertainrestrictionsarounduseanddistributionofmaterials.Thetextonthe

‘RespectingOwnership’pagehighlightstheIndigenousownershipofthestoriesandbriefly

outlineswhatuserscanandcannotdowiththematerialsintheArchive.Permissionwas

grantedbytheholdersofbothcopyrightandmoralrightstopublishthebooksonlineunder

aCreativeCommonslicense.Thoughthetextonthispagewascarefullyworded,thereis

minimalexpectationofcarefulreading,anditbarelyscratchesthesurfaceofthecomplex

interactionofIndigenousandnon-Indigenousunderstandingsofintellectualproperty.26.By

clickingthegreen‘Yes’button,theuseragreestoparticipateinthisregimeandispermitted

entrytothecollection.TheIndigenouseldermayhaverejectedthisinvitationtoengage

withthematerialsbecauseofconcernsabouttherepresentationsmadebythemap,while

theteacheracceptedtheinvitation,mindfulthatthiswoulddemandcertainbehavioursof

herassheengagedwiththematerials.

Online survey outcomes

AstheLivingArchivewebsitewasdesignedtobecompletelyopenaccess,withno

barrierstoentrysuchasloginsorpasswords,ithasbeendifficulttogaugeuseractivityon

thesite.GoogleAnalyticsgivesomerawfiguresaboutpageviews,numberofusers,average

26 C Bow and P Hepworth, ‘Observing and respecting diverse knowledge traditions in a digital archive of Indigenous

language materials’, Journal of Copyright in Education and Librarianship, 3(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.17161/jcel.v3i1.7485

277

timespent,etc.,27 howeverthisinformationprovideslittleinsightintoourusersandtheir

motivationandengagement.Tofillthisgap,asimpleonlinesurveywascreatedtoseekuser

feedback.

Thesurveywasopenforonemonthin2018,andpromotedontheproject’s

newsletterlistandsocialmediachannels.Atotalof55peoplerespondedtoquestionsabout

theiruseoftheArchive,alongwithsomebasicdemographicinformation.28 Thisverysmall

sampleindicatedthatmostusersarenon-Indigenous,livingincitiesorregionaltowns,but

manyhavesomeconnectionwithanAustralianIndigenouslanguageorcommunity.Users

identifiedasresearchers,students,teachers,witharangeof‘other’types.Aroundhalfhave

visitedthesitemorethanfivetimes,andthemostcommonacquisitionwasvia

‘friend/wordofmouth’followedbysocialmedia.Mostrespondentssaidtheywouldvisit

thesiteagainandtellsomeoneelseaboutit,withsomesayingtheywouldsharecontentfor

educationalorpersonalpurposes,andthemostpositiveresponsesrankedaccessto

materials,easeofnavigationandselectionofmaterialsmosthighly.

Someoftheconcernsexpressedbytheusersreportedherewereechoedinthe

qualitativefeedbackfromthesurvey,particularlythedesirefortheinclusionofaudio

materials.Theteacher’sconcernsaboutrespectfuluseofthematerialswerealsoreflected

insomeresponses,withrequeststhatthematerialsbe‘updatedandimproved’or

‘corrected,editedandaugmentedsothattheyaremoreusable’.Suchcommentsreflectthe

27 Google Analytics showed that in the 12 months from 1 October 2017 the site had over 6000 visits from 3870

users, of which 84% were new visitors, and that each user spent an average of 11 minutes and visited 4.5 pages per session, leading to a total of 27,556 overall page views in one year. This gives an average of just over 16 visits and 10 users per day, and 84% of users were in Australia.

28 A more complete report on the outcomes of the survey can be found at the project’s blog site at http://livingarchive.cdu.edu.au/survey-outcomes/

278

tensionidentifiedintheprojectbetweensafeguardingtheintegrityoftheoriginal

publicationsandwantingthemtobedynamicandusableincontemporarycontexts.

Likethetwouserstoriesreportedhere,therewasageneralsatisfactionthatthese

culturalheritagematerialswerenowavailableonline,withcommentssuchas‘fabulous

archivesandlovethatmaterialisopenaccess’and‘agreatresource,particularlyforanon-

Indigenousteacherlikeme!’Liketheteacherstoryreportedhere,havinga‘connection’

withanIndigenouslanguageorcommunityappearstobeakeyindicationofengagement,

givingpeopleapurposeandtargetfortheirnavigationofthesite.Therewasnodiscussion

ofthemapinterfaceoritsclaims,whichmayappearlesssalienttonon-Indigenoususers

thantoIndigenousAustralians.Thesocialaspectoftheconnectiontoplaceorlanguageis

enhancedinthisprojectbythetechnicalcomponents,whichconfigurethematerialsand

theusersinspecificways.

ThesurveydatagavesomeindicationofuseoftheArchive,butisclearlyskewedto

thosealreadyfamiliarwiththeprojectandsympathetictoitsgoals.Itwasnotexpectedto

deliveracomprehensiveoverviewoftheuserbase,andinparticularwasunlikelytoevoke

responsesfromremoteIndigenouscommunitymembers,forwhomanonlinesurveyisnot

aneffectivewaytoelicitfeedback.Theresultsofthesurveyreflectedthisbias,and

thereforerepresentsonlyaverysmallandsupportivepopulationofusers.

Imagining an Archive

Ibeganthispaperwithaquotationfromthefirstacademicarticletheprojectteam

published,notlongaftertheLivingArchivewebsitehadgonelive.Thestoriesofuser

interactionsrelatedaboverecall‘thedifferentmoment-by-momentdecisionsmadeby

279

countlesspeoplewho,littlebylittlemakeitwhatitis.’Thequoteforegroundstheoften

unacknowledgedtruththattoalargeextenttheprojectteamwasmakingitupaswewent

along,notrecklesslybutwithcare,inorder‘tofulfilthesomewhatill-definedpurposes

which,inouroriginalfundingapplication,weclaimeditwouldserve’.29Iwascuriousto

considerthepurposesenvisagedintheoriginalapplicationtotheAustralianResearch

Council(ARC)in2011,priortomyinvolvementasprojectmanager.Inrevisitingthe

applicationdocument,Isoughttorelatetheparticularsocio-technicalarrangementthat

wasproposedintheapplicationtowhatactuallycametolifeoverthenextfewyears–the

Archivethattheusersinmytwostoriesandsurveyparticipantsexperienced.

Themotivationfortheapplicationwasasharedconcernforthefateofprinted

materialsproducedforbilingualeducationprogramsintheNorthernTerritoryfrom1974

tothe2000s.TheARC’sLinkage,Infrastructure,EquipmentandFacilitiesgrantschemeis

typicallyusedinthenaturalsciencestofundmachineryandtoolstofacilitateresearch.An

applicationtocollectanddigitisevulnerablematerialsfromremoteIndigenous

communitiesasinfrastructureforhumanitiesandsocialsciencesresearcherswasrelatively

unusualandthesuccessoftheapplicationwassomewhatsurprisingtotheapplicants.

Thehistoricalcontextoftheapplicationprobablycontributedtoitssuccess.Bilingual

educationprogramsinremoteschoolsintheNorthernTerritoryhavebeenthroughvarious

wavesofpolicysincetheirestablishmentinthemid-1970s.30Bytheearly2000s,onlyafew

29 Christie et al., ‘The Birth of the Living Archive’, pp. 52–53. 30 C Nicholls, ‘Death by a Thousand Cuts: Indigenous Language Bilingual Education Programmes in the Northern

Territory of Australia, 1972–1998’, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 8, no. 2–3, 2005, pp. 160–177; B Devlin, S Disbray and N Devlin, ‘A Thematic History of Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory’, in BC Devlin, S Disbray and NRF Devlin (eds), History of Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory, Springer, Singapore, 2017, pp. 1–10.

280

programscontinued,andthesewereunderminedbythe2008decisiontomandatethefirst

fourhoursoftheschooldayfortuitioninEnglish,relegatingfirstlanguageprogramstothe

marginsoftheschoolcurriculum.Thiswidely-criticiseddecisioncontrastedwithincreased

internationalconcernoverthefateofIndigenouslanguages,31witharenewedemphasison

languagedocumentationanddescriptionofendangeredlanguages,andtheimportanceand

valueoflanguageineducationgenerallyandinIndigenouscontextsspecifically.32

Thesepolicyfluctuationshadleftvulnerablethevastrangeofmaterialsproducedfor

vernacularliteracyeducationintheseprograms.In2012,aparliamentaryenquiryinto

languagelearninginIndigenouscommunitiesrecommended‘improvingcommunityaccess

tolanguagematerialsthroughadedicatedIndigenouslanguagesarchiveattheAustralian

InstituteofAboriginalandTorresStraitIslanderStudies(AIATSIS)andthesharingof

resourceswithschoolsandeducationalinstitutions’.33AIATSIS,Australia’sleadingresearch,

collectionsandpublishinginstitutioninthefieldofAustralianIndigenousstudies,was

undergoingareview,andtherewereconcernsaboutitscapacitytocollectanddigitise

materials,withlongwaitingtimesforcommunitieswantingaccesstotheirownmaterialsin

31 B Devlin, ‘Policy Change in 2008: Evidence-Based or a Knee-Jerk Response?’, in BC Devlin, S Disbray and NRF

Devlin (eds), History of Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory, Springer, Singapore, 2017, pp. 203–218; J Oldfield, ‘Anangu Muru Wunka - Talking Black Fella: A Critical Policy Analysis of the Northern Territory First Four Hours of English’, PhD, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 2016; J Simpson, J Caffery and P McConvell, Gaps in Australia’s Indigenous Language Policy: Dismantling bilingual education in the Northern Territory, AIATSIS Discussion Paper, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra, 2009.

32 NP Himmelmann, ‘Documentary and descriptive linguistics’, Linguistics, vol. 3, no. 6, 1998, pp. 161–196; UNESCO, Education in a multilingual world, UNESCO Education Position Paper, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, 2003; NH Hornberger, ‘Multilingual education policy and practice: Ten certainties (grounded in Indigenous experience)’, Language Teaching, vol. 42, no. 2, 2009, pp. 197–211.

33 House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Our Land Our Languages: Language Learning in Indigenous Communities, The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, ACT, 17 September 2012. p.viii.

281

thecollections.34Inthiscontextofheightenedawarenessoftheneedfordigitalpreservation

ofculturalheritagematerial,thetimingoftheLivingArchiveproposalwassignificantand

thefundingapplicationwassuccessful.Iwasemployedonaone-yearcontracttomanage

theproject,thoughmybackgroundisinlinguisticsratherthanarchivingordata

management.

Inrevisitingtheoriginsofthisknowledgeinfrastructure,itisworthconsideringthe

characteristicsoftheinstitutionsinvolved.Theapplicationrequireda‘linkage’between

organisations:inthiscaseCharlesDarwinUniversity(CDU),asmall,younginstitution

basedinAustralia’ssmallestandnorthernmostcapital;theAustralianNationalUniversity

(ANU),amedium-sized,prestigious,highly-rankedinstitutioninthenation’scapital;and

theNorthernTerritoryDepartmentofEducation,whichoversawthebilingualeducation

programsandunderwhoseauspicesmostofthematerialswhichwouldmakeupthe

collectionwerecreated.Beyondpartnershipbetweeninstitutions,theapplicationwasa

collaborationbetweenindividualsemployedbythoseorganisations,allwithclosetieswith

Indigenouscommunities.Twoofthechiefinvestigatorshadbeeninvolvedinbilingual

educationprogramsinnortheastArnhemLand,andtheotherconnectedwithvarious

languagegroupsinCentralAustralia.35Similarly,themaincollaboratorsfromthe

34 ACIL Allen Consulting, M Rose and M McMillan, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

Studies Independent Review, ACIL Allen Consulting, Brisbane, QLD, 2014, p. 165. Concerns about wait times are mentioned in House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Our Land Our Languages, pp. 207–208.

35 M Christie, ‘Developing Local Curriculum Materials – Learning Metaphors, Insightful Collaborations, Community Involvement’, in B Devlin, S Disbray and NRF Devlin (eds), History of Bilingual Education in the Northern Territory, Springer, Singapore, 2017, pp. 113–126; B Devlin, ‘Language Maintenance in a Northeast Arnhem Land Settlement’, EdD, Columbia University, New York, 1986; J Simpson, Warlpiri morpho-syntax: A lexicalist approach, vol. 23, Springer Science and Business Media, Dordrecht, 1991; J Simpson, ‘Warumungu (Australian - Pama-Nyungan)’, in A Spencer and AM Zwicky (eds), The Handbook of Morphology, Blackwell, Oxford, 1998, pp. 707–736.

282

governmentbelongedtotheDepartmentofEducation’sIndigenousLanguageandCulture

team,andalsohadparticularconnectionswithlanguagecommunitiesacrosstheTerritory.

Cognisantthatgrantfunderslookforbothindividualandinstitutionalcapacity,the

applicationhighlightedCDU’slonghistoryofinstitutionalinvolvementwithIndigenous

communitiesandlanguages,includingthelongstandingYolnguStudiesprogram,the

innovativeTeachingfromCountryproject,andapreviousARCprojectonIndigenous

KnowledgeandResourceManagementinNorthernAustralia.36ANUhighlightedthe

researchersandprojectsthatwouldbenefitfromthedevelopmentofsuchanarchive,

includinglinguistic,anthropological,ethnomusicologicalwork,andtheCentrefor

AboriginalEconomicPolicyResearch.ItseemsthatANUhadtheprofiletoattractfunding

foraprojectofthisnature,butitscloseconnectionswithAIATSISandPARADISEC

precludeditfromcreatingaseparatearchiveforthismaterial,whileCDUhadthecapacity

andon-the-groundconnectionstoruntheprojectbutnottheprofiletoattractCategory1

funding.TheinclusionoftheDepartmentofEducationasapartnerwascomplexand

strategic:theirfinancialandin-kindcontributionindicatedaninvestmentinthefutureof

thepedagogicalproductsofthebilingualeducationera,whiletheirpolicynolongeractively

supportedbilingualprogramsfromwhichtheseproductsemergedandcouldcontinuetobe

36 M Christie, ‘Yolngu Studies: A case study of Aboriginal community engagement’, Gateways: International

Journal of Community Research and Engagement, vol. 1, 2008, pp. 31–47; M Christie, ‘Engaging with Australian Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Charles Darwin University and the Yolngu of Northeast Arnhem Land’, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, vol. 7, 2009, pp. 23–35; M Christie, Teaching from Country: Increasing the Participation of Indigenous Knowledge Holders in Tertiary Teaching Through the Use of Emerging Digital Technologies, Australian Learning and Teaching Council, Strawberry Hills, NSW, 2010; M Christie, ‘Teaching from country, learning from country’, Learning Communities: International Journal of Learning in Social Contexts, vol. 2, 2010, pp. 6–17; M Christie, H Verran and W Gaykamangu, IKRMNA - making collective memory with computers, Indigenous Knowledge and Resource Management in Northern Australia, 2003.

283

activelyused.Theyalsoheldcopyrightoverthemajorityofthematerialsthatmadetheir

wayintotheLivingArchive.

Theoriginalfundingapplicationincludedseveralassumptions.Firstitclaimedthat

therewasnoexistingarchivesuitableforhousingthiscollection;seconditinsistedthatthe

Archiveshouldbedigital;andthirdthattheworkofcollectinganddigitisinghardcopies

couldbeachievedinoneyear.Thepracticeofsendinghardcopiesofbookspublishedtothe

NationalLibraryofAustraliaorAIATSISmakesthematerialsavailabletothoseoutsidethe

communitiesoforigin,thoughitcanalsohavetheeffectofdistancingbooksfromthose

samecommunities.Newdigitalinfrastructureprogramswereputtinginternetaccessand

mobiletechnologiesintoremotecommunities.Soadigitalarchivewouldhavethedual

purposeofpreservingthematerialsinaformthatcouldbere-awakenedandre-purposed,

whilealsomakingaccesspossible(indigitalforms)forpeopleforwhomthebookswere

physicallyinaccessible.Theone-yeartime-framewasanunrealisticgoal,butcareful

budgetingmeantthefundsextendedtotwoyears,andasecondapplicationwassuccessful..

SustainabilitybeyondthefundingcyclewasprovidedbyCDULibrary’soffertohostthe

materialsoninstitutionalservers,alsoprovidingprofessionaladviceonmetadataand

scanning.37

Concernsaboutcopyrightandintellectualpropertyissuesaresurprisinglyabsent

fromtheoriginalapplication,yetfromtheearlydaysofprojectwork,thistopiccreated

muchdiscussionandabsorbedmuchtimewithintheprojectteam.Wewerenotdealing

withthetypeofmaterialsthatareoftendiscussedintheliteratureaboutIndigenous

37 J Mamtora and C Bow, ‘Towards a Unique Archive of Aboriginal Languages: A Collaborative Project’, Journal of