开放和数字平台上的土著作者:社会正义进程和潜力

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Journal of Interactive Media in Education Pub Date : 2020-05-11 DOI:10.5334/jime.560
Johanna Funk, Kathy Guthadjaka
{"title":"开放和数字平台上的土著作者:社会正义进程和潜力","authors":"Johanna Funk, Kathy Guthadjaka","doi":"10.5334/jime.560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Online digital platforms can increase access to educational opportunities for marginalised students, authors and communities, but digital platform design can further marginalise Indigenous knowledge because such platforms are structured according to western epistemological assumptions. They do not accommodate for Indigenous or alternative knowledge frameworks. In addition, the premium placed on openness by certain platforms and licenses contradicts the approaches preferred by Indigenous knowledge authorities who tie the sharing of some types of knowledge to the identity and authority level of the intended audience. Knowledge in this context is not understood as discrete units of information that can be abstracted from their communities, easily shared on public platforms, but rather as sensitive materials that can only be shared by recognized knowledge authorities for specific purposes. The processes by which Indigenous knowledge authorities engage with knowledge sharing on digital platforms comprise a complex landscape in which social justice concerns come into play. This paper discusses how, within institutional design contexts, open educational practice (OEP) by Northern Australian Indigenous authors can enable different forms of social justice and work incrementally towards achieving greater recognition of Indigenous intellectual sovereign acts with due respect to the wider significance of Indigenous Sovereignty (Rigney 2001). It examines three sets of Indigenous open resources to gauge the extent to which open digital platforms allow for the expression of Indigenous knowledge authority, one necessary feature for achieving social justice in the Australian context. It examines the resources using Fraser’s social justice framework (2005) as modelled by Hodgkinson-Williams and Trotters’ (2018) and Lambert’s (2018) approach to educational resources, and how design decisions can result in greater justice in knowledge affirmation and transformation but originate in offline decision making.","PeriodicalId":45406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interactive Media in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Indigenous Authorship on Open and Digital Platforms: Social Justice Processes and Potential\",\"authors\":\"Johanna Funk, Kathy Guthadjaka\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/jime.560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Online digital platforms can increase access to educational opportunities for marginalised students, authors and communities, but digital platform design can further marginalise Indigenous knowledge because such platforms are structured according to western epistemological assumptions. They do not accommodate for Indigenous or alternative knowledge frameworks. In addition, the premium placed on openness by certain platforms and licenses contradicts the approaches preferred by Indigenous knowledge authorities who tie the sharing of some types of knowledge to the identity and authority level of the intended audience. Knowledge in this context is not understood as discrete units of information that can be abstracted from their communities, easily shared on public platforms, but rather as sensitive materials that can only be shared by recognized knowledge authorities for specific purposes. The processes by which Indigenous knowledge authorities engage with knowledge sharing on digital platforms comprise a complex landscape in which social justice concerns come into play. This paper discusses how, within institutional design contexts, open educational practice (OEP) by Northern Australian Indigenous authors can enable different forms of social justice and work incrementally towards achieving greater recognition of Indigenous intellectual sovereign acts with due respect to the wider significance of Indigenous Sovereignty (Rigney 2001). It examines three sets of Indigenous open resources to gauge the extent to which open digital platforms allow for the expression of Indigenous knowledge authority, one necessary feature for achieving social justice in the Australian context. It examines the resources using Fraser’s social justice framework (2005) as modelled by Hodgkinson-Williams and Trotters’ (2018) and Lambert’s (2018) approach to educational resources, and how design decisions can result in greater justice in knowledge affirmation and transformation but originate in offline decision making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interactive Media in Education\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interactive Media in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.560\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interactive Media in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在线数字平台可以增加边缘化学生、作者和社区获得教育机会的机会,但数字平台设计可能会进一步边缘化土著知识,因为这些平台是根据西方认识论假设构建的。它们不适应土著或替代知识框架。此外,某些平台和许可证对开放性的重视与土著知识主管部门偏好的方法相矛盾,后者将某些类型的知识共享与预期受众的身份和权威级别联系起来。在这种情况下,知识不被理解为可以从其社区中提取、在公共平台上轻松共享的离散信息单元,而是只能由公认的知识权威机构出于特定目的共享的敏感材料。土著知识当局在数字平台上参与知识共享的过程构成了一个复杂的环境,社会正义问题在其中发挥作用。本文讨论了在制度设计背景下,澳大利亚北部土著作者的开放教育实践(OEP)如何能够实现不同形式的社会正义,并在适当考虑土著主权的更广泛意义的情况下,逐步实现对土著知识主权行为的更大承认(Rigney,2001)。它审查了三组土著开放资源,以衡量开放数字平台在多大程度上允许表达土著知识权威,这是在澳大利亚实现社会正义的一个必要特征。它使用Fraser的社会正义框架(2005)来研究资源,该框架以Hodgkinson Williams和Trotters(2018)以及Lambert(2018)的教育资源方法为模型,以及设计决策如何在知识肯定和转化中产生更大的正义性,但源于离线决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Indigenous Authorship on Open and Digital Platforms: Social Justice Processes and Potential
Online digital platforms can increase access to educational opportunities for marginalised students, authors and communities, but digital platform design can further marginalise Indigenous knowledge because such platforms are structured according to western epistemological assumptions. They do not accommodate for Indigenous or alternative knowledge frameworks. In addition, the premium placed on openness by certain platforms and licenses contradicts the approaches preferred by Indigenous knowledge authorities who tie the sharing of some types of knowledge to the identity and authority level of the intended audience. Knowledge in this context is not understood as discrete units of information that can be abstracted from their communities, easily shared on public platforms, but rather as sensitive materials that can only be shared by recognized knowledge authorities for specific purposes. The processes by which Indigenous knowledge authorities engage with knowledge sharing on digital platforms comprise a complex landscape in which social justice concerns come into play. This paper discusses how, within institutional design contexts, open educational practice (OEP) by Northern Australian Indigenous authors can enable different forms of social justice and work incrementally towards achieving greater recognition of Indigenous intellectual sovereign acts with due respect to the wider significance of Indigenous Sovereignty (Rigney 2001). It examines three sets of Indigenous open resources to gauge the extent to which open digital platforms allow for the expression of Indigenous knowledge authority, one necessary feature for achieving social justice in the Australian context. It examines the resources using Fraser’s social justice framework (2005) as modelled by Hodgkinson-Williams and Trotters’ (2018) and Lambert’s (2018) approach to educational resources, and how design decisions can result in greater justice in knowledge affirmation and transformation but originate in offline decision making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Journal of Interactive Media in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Digital Scholarship from the Periphery: Insights from Researchers in Chile on Academia.edu and ResearchGate Interacting through Blogs in Theatre/Drama Education: A Greek Case Study Factual vs. Fake News: Teachers’ Lens on Critical Media Literacy Education in EFL Classes An Overview of Student Perceptions of Hybrid Flexible Learning at a London HEI Investigating the Views and Use of Stackable Microcredentials within a Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1