Institutional Engagement with Indigenous Knowledge: A Global Scientometric Analysis

Year : 2026 | Volume : 13 | Issue : 02 | Page : 55 69
By

Sarfraz Ahmed,

Sudharma Haridasan,

  1. Research Scholar, Department of Library and Information Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India
  2. Professor, Department of Library and Information Science, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive global scientometric analysis of institutional engagement with Indigenous Knowledge (IK) research from 1992 to 2025. It seeks to chart the transition from traditional preservation to contemporary digital curation and identify key geopolitical and disciplinary shifts. A corpus of 304 peer-reviewed publications was retrieved from Scopus. The study utilized science mapping via VOSviewer and performance metrics through the R-package Bibliometrix to assess longitudinal changes and thematic clusters. The field exhibits a 10.86% annual growth rate, with a marked “governance turn” after 2018. Library and Information Science (LIS) has emerged as the disciplinary anchor. The geographical distribution of research output exhibits structural asymmetries, with the United States and India serving as primary nodes of productivity. While Anglophone nations maintain a lead, this concentration highlights a persistent participation paradox regarding knowledge production in the Global South. Thematic evolution shows a shift toward digital curation, metadata standards, and data sovereignty. The study is limited to English-language peer-reviewed documents indexed in Scopus. This may exclude localized indigenous-language scholarship and “grey literature” not present in major citation indices. The findings advocate for the adoption of the CARE Principles and the development of decolonized metadata standards. It highlights the need for institutional investment in digital infrastructures in underrepresented regions to foster epistemic justice. This is the first empirical, longitudinal mapping of the institutional IK landscape, offering a unique “macro-view” of how memory institutions are professionalizing the management of Indigenous wisdom.

Keywords: Indigenous knowledge management, Digital preservation, Metadata, Institutional governance, Thematic evolution, Knowledge organization systems (KOS)

[This article belongs to Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences ]

How to cite this article: Sarfraz Ahmed, Sudharma Haridasan. Institutional Engagement with Indigenous Knowledge: A Global Scientometric Analysis. Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences. 2026; 13(02):55-69.
How to cite this URL: Sarfraz Ahmed, Sudharma Haridasan. Institutional Engagement with Indigenous Knowledge: A Global Scientometric Analysis. Journal of Advancements in Library Sciences. 2026; 13(02):55-69. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/joals/article=2026/view=250738

References

  1. Battiste M. Indigenous knowledge and pedagogy in First Nations education: A literature review with recommendations. Ottawa: National Working Group on Education; 2002 Oct 31.
  2. Berkes F. Sacred ecology. Routledge; 2017 Sep 1.
  3. Mazzocchi F. Western science and traditional knowledge. The EMBO Reports. 2006 May;7(5):463-6.
  4. Gómez-Baggethun E, Reyes-García V, Olsson P, Montes C. Traditional ecological knowledge and community resilience to environmental extremes: A case study in Doñana, SW Spain. Global Environmental Change. 2012 Aug 1;22(3):640-50.
  5. Boast R. Neocolonial collaboration: Museum as contact zone revisited. Museum anthropology. 2011 Mar;34(1):56-70.
  6. Sithole J. The challenges faced by African libraries and information centres in documenting and preserving indigenous knowledge. IFLA journal. 2007 Jun;33(2):117-23.
  7. Ngulube P. Managing and preserving indigenous knowledge in the knowledge management era: challenges and opportunities for information professionals. Information development. 2002 Mar;18(2):95-102.
  8. Shiri A, Howard D, Farnel S. Indigenous digital storytelling: digital interfaces supporting cultural heritage preservation and access. International Information & Library Review. 2022 May 11;54(2):93-114.
  9. Srinivasan R, Boast R, Furner J, Becvar KM. Digital museums and diverse cultural knowledges: Moving past the traditional catalog. The information society. 2009 Jul 14;25(4):265-78.
  10. Johnson N, Druckenmiller ML, Danielsen F, Pulsifer PL. The use of digital platforms for community-based monitoring. BioScience. 2021 May;71(5):452-66.
  11. Rollo MF. Interconnected nature and people: Biosphere reserves and the power of memory and oral histories as biocultural heritage for a sustainable future. Sustainability. 2025 Apr 30;17(9):4030.
  12. McGregor D. Indigenous knowledge systems in environmental governance in Canada. Kula. 2021;5(1):1-0.
  13. Agrawal A. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge. Development and change. 1995 Jul;26(3):413-39.
  14. Carroll SR, Garba I, Figueroa-Rodríguez OL, Holbrook J, Lovett R, Materechera S, Parsons M, Raseroka K, Rodriguez-Lonebear D, Rowe R, Sara R. The CARE principles for indigenous data governance.
  15. Team P. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Boston, MA: Posit Software, PBC; 2024. Accessed December. 2025;1.
  16. Sarkhel JK. Strategies of indigenous knowledge management in libraries. Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries. 2016;5(2):427-39.
  17. Lwoga ET, Ngulube P, Stilwell C. Managing indigenous knowledge for sustainable agricultural development in developing countries: Knowledge management approaches in the social context. The International Information & Library Review. 2010 Sep 1;42(3):174-85.
  18. Nakashima D. Indigenous knowledge in global policies and practice for education, science and culture.
  19. Smith LT. Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples.
  20. Jennings L, Anderson T, Martinez A, Sterling R, Chavez DD, Garba I, Hudson M, Garrison NA, Carroll SR. Applying the ‘CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance’to ecology and biodiversity research. Nature ecology & evolution. 2023 Oct;7(10):1547-51.
  21. Walter M, Carroll SR. Indigenous data sovereignty, governance and the link to Indigenous policy. InIndigenous data sovereignty and policy 2020 Oct 29 (pp. 1-20). Routledge.
  22. United Nations. Convention on Biological Diversity. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations; 1992.
  23. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. scientometrics. 2010 Aug;84(2):523-38.
  24. Hjørland B. Citation analysis: A social and dynamic approach to knowledge organization. Information processing & management. 2013 Nov 1;49(6):1313-25.
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 13
Issue 02
Received 12/06/2026
Accepted 20/06/2026
Published 25/07/2026
Publication Time 43 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics