i.      Indigenous cultures in the digital era: Governance, design & justice

Compared with our 2004 review–which identified very little scholarship engaging Indigenous peoples or cultures–the past two decades show a marked expansion of work in this area. This growth reflects shifts in the normative and policy landscape: the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations General Assembly, 2007) asserts rights to culture, language, and self-determination, and national reconciliation processes (e.g., Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to action (TRC, 2015) have reframed digital initiatives as matters of governance and justice rather than access alone. Parallel movements around Indigenous Data Sovereignty have articulated principles for Indigenous authority over information and infrastructures (Carroll et al., 2019; Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). Against this backdrop, recent studies examine digital technologies as potential instruments of cultural revitalization and political agency–but also as vectors of renewed colonization when not co-designed and governed by communities themselves.

Recent scholarship examines how digital technologies present a double set of possibilities for Indigenous peoples–offering tools for empowerment while risking further cultural infiltration. Real benefits are evident, but only when technologies align with Indigenous cultural aims and self-determination (see for example Abdelnour-Nocera & Densmore, 2017; Srinivasan, 2013; Tierney, 2018; Wagner, 2019).

Studies in the current corpus describe how communities are using digital media to capture, preserve, and revitalize cultural knowledge at risk amid rapid change (Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2021; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2019; Young & Asino, 2020). Digital technologies can support linguistic revitalization for example, through conferencing, social networks, and virtual environments that increase exposure to heritage languages and counter intergenerational loss of elder speakers (Young & Asino, 2020). Digital platforms also enable self-representation, from community websites to broadcast rights, and facilitate the development and circulation of Indigenous cultural content via databases, apps, and online platforms; new media appropriations further open avenues for collective action and participation in public debate. Many communities are proactively adopting tools to shape their futures (Young & Asino, 2020).

Nonetheless, scholars detail persistent misalignments. Digital systems can perpetuate computer-mediated colonization when they encode prevailing assumptions–for example, by treating culture as a codifiable worldview–while sidelining Indigenous understandings grounded in land, kinship, and spiritual traditions (Ess, 2020; Wagner, 2019; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2019). The architecture of websites and databases may devalue Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS), exposing tensions between digital knowledge infrastructures and Indigenous epistemologies (Eijkman, 2009; Wagner, 2019; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2021). Too often, Indigenous people are not meaningfully engaged in the design of learning technologies, leading to representations that lack reflexivity and sometimes reproduce biased portrayals (Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2019; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2021).

In response, authors argue that Indigenous communities should decide how and when to access and use technologies, and they advocate community-based co-design (CBCD) to create culturally appropriate tools. A transcultural, plurality-oriented approach seeks to embed not only Indigenous content but also underlying epistemologies and values within technological design (Wagner, 2019; Winschiers-Theophilus et al., 2021).

Because digital participation is always normative and uneven, research and practice must foreground ethics, equity, and governance–making visible who benefits, who is burdened, and how fairer alternatives can be built.