Reflecting on the readings and our class discussion from last week, I have come to reexamine some of my prior beliefs about access and openness in relation to cultural heritage materials in digital contexts. A key question that now stands out is: for whom does this access serve? Does the ideal of openness align with the beliefs and cultural practices of Indigenous communities?
Coming from a library science background, I was taught that open access to information and the removal of digital barriers were fundamental ideals, cornerstones of information sharing. However, these principles were rarely, if ever, critically examined in terms of their impact on Indigenous heritage.
In “Does Information Really Want to be Free? Indigenous Knowledge Systems & the Question of Openness”, Kimberly Christen critiques this embrace of openness. She argues that the Open Access movement often exhibits a form of cultural blindness, particularly when it comes to Indigenous knowledge systems. Christen writes, “The ‘Information wants to be free’ meme does a disservice to the task of understanding the ethics of information circulation, both within the digital realm and in a post-colonial world order where we cannot so neatly carve out the digital from the political and the historical” (Christen, 2012, p. 2877). Rather than viewing access as a simple binary (open versus restricted), she calls for a more nuanced, culturally sensitive approach to information sharing that respects Indigenous values.
This complexity is further illustrated in Deidre Brown and George Nicholas’s article, “Protecting Indigenous Cultural Property.” Brown and Nicholas trace the insidious legacy of colonialism through the acquisition, control, and commodification of Indigenous cultural heritage. Importantly, they highlight the deep misalignment between traditional copyright laws and Indigenous customary law. For example, within Canadian First Nations and Maori traditions, intellectual property is often understood in communal terms, with knowledge and heritage deeply tied to people and place. The authors argue that digital spaces must be reimagined to account for these cultural perspectives, ensuring that respect guides the circulation of Indigenous materials.
A powerful example of this reimagining is the Mukurtu CMS, a content management system developed with and for Indigenous communities. Mukurtu allows communities to implement their own cultural protocols in the curation and sharing of digital heritage. One case we examined in class was the Blackfoot Digital Library. This archive incorporates culturally relevant search terms, such as location and relational connections that are rooted in Blackfoot knowledge systems. According to its About page, “The Apani Blackfoot Digital Library is both indebted and dedicated to akaitapii – our ancestors who observed the radical changes being forced upon our communities in the context of colonization, and who took it upon themselves to record their knowledge for the benefit of future generations” (Heavy Head & Pard, n.d.).
In addition to formal platforms like Mukurtu, Indigenous communities are using mainstream social media to reclaim and share their cultural narratives. I found it particularly interesting how platforms such as Facebook and Ancestry are being used not only for storytelling but also to challenge traditional tribal hierarchies. These spaces offer new opportunities for cultural dialogue, connection, and empowerment. For example, Maori communities are using genealogical websites to reconnect with family, trace ancestry, and strengthen communal ties. These platforms offer a more accessible and informal space for Indigenous peoples to engage in discussions about heritage and identity.
Through these readings and our class discussions, I’ve come to recognize that access and openness are not neutral concepts. Rather, they are embedded in histories of power and control. Moving forward, it is essential for information professionals, especially those in library and archival fields, to critically assess who benefits from open access and whose rights or beliefs may be compromised. Embracing culturally responsive frameworks will lead to a more inclusive digital future.
Heavy Head, Danielle, and Allen Pard. “About the Apani Blackfoot Digital Library.” Apani Blackfoot Digital Library CONTENTDM. Accessed September 8, 2025. https://www.blackfootdigitallibrary.com/digital/collection/bdl/custom/about.
Katherine, for the longest time I also had the same belief about openness always being a gold standard. Open access is viewed as inherently “good”– it is the opposite of “closed,” which sparks notions of limitations, restrictions, and paywalls. Of course there are times when certain information should be open access, while at the same time it is critical to consider how “openness” should be responsive to cultural contexts. I like how you describe these concepts as “not neutral,” because when we project our own ideas of openness onto other communities and cultures, it may create more harm than benefits.