[ 2] Verran, H., M. Christie, B. Anbins-King, T. van Weeran, and W. Yunupingu. “Designing digital knowledge management tools with Aboriginal Australians.” Digital Creativity, 18, no . 3 (2007): 129-142.
administrator password. I call this the “god” password. This means that one person is responsible for the administration of the database but is also responsible for providing access to the data. This model is in contrast to Aboriginal community governance and must be addressed in the design of the system. While many have attempted to address this, to date there has not been a successful solution to this fundamental database-design issue.
The debate about the use of databases and digitizing of traditional knowledge is ongoing, but to understand the chasm between the two worlds of Aboriginal communities and information technology, we need to understand that the two are not compatible. This complexity of information technology and Aboriginal communities is best summed up by Verran et al.: “It is work that involves the intersection of two quite different knowledge traditions where little is held in common between the ways the traditions understand themselves.” [ 2] This is coming closer to the issue of where the design of the technology is routed in a tradition that is at best foreign to the Aboriginal communities upon which it is being imposed. That is, databases are not valueless as they assume there is a logical hierarchy both in data storage and also administration and access. This not only relates to the data being stored but
also the design of the database and the database management system, or DBMS, which is of more concern, as that is where the power struggle begins. The issues of and with using information technology for storing Aboriginal traditional knowledge come from the same Verran et al. article, in which they also find it difficult to match Aboriginal values with the design constraints of information technology, stating: “We look at ways of proceeding that connect well enough with both traditions in particular circumstances.” [ 2] Here lies a fundamental issue with designing information technology solutions for Aboriginal communities. The question then is, what does “well enough” mean? Well enough for whom, in what circumstances, and from whose perspective?
The DBMS design is a major consideration for Aboriginal communities because it assumes there is a hierarchy in both administration of the database and also access to the database. The design of the DBMS is such that there needs to be a database administrator who implements processes to ensure integrity and control, providing levels of access to those who want to access the data. How do you ensure the security and integrity of the database when there could be up to 10 or more members of a community that expect equal security rights and access to the database? This issue they struggle with is, who should have what type of access and who should not have access?
So rather than a single leader with total control over the database, who would normally be the database administrator, the governance of Aboriginal communities is such that the entire council of elders would expect equal access to the database, with all of the council deciding on who has access to what data. As those who presently administer databases would understand, having 10 or so database administrators would prove to be a most interesting situation from many aspects.
Over the years I have witnessed and experimented with various ways to try and overcome this problem. I have witnessed database segment encryption based on username and password so that the data can be decrypted only by using the depositor’s password. I have witnessed elders councils deciding on a leader to hold the administrator password authority, but this has led to many arguments and has altered the governance
References:
Archives