The Decolonial Turn in Data and Stories: the Global South and Beyond

How do we define the Global South and its role in decolonization? The Global South cannot be simply defined by which land masses and peoples live below the Earth’s equator. Rather, there are a plurality of Souths, which exist in every corner of the world, even in the far North. This article will explore the decolonial turn and how it applies to the Global South. Then it will explore case studies from the Inuit in Northern Canada, to show how decolonization can be implemented at the research stage of collecting data, followed by another case study from the Inuit which gives an example of digital colonialism’s effects on communities who traditionally have lived far-from-digital lives.  

The Decolonial Turn and Pluralizing the Souths 

In a recent article by Nick Couldry and Ulises A. Mejias, the decolonial turn was discussed in detail, which links data extraction everywhere, whether in the Global North or Global South, to the colonial underpinnings of capitalism by looking through  “. . . the long-term historical lens of attempts to justify the unequal distribution of the world’s resources that began in earnest 500 years ago”. (2021) This, they said, is crucial to acknowledge when addressing contemporary discourses such as Big Data and AI for Social Good. Researchers, corporations, and governments need to account for the implications of governing human life and freedom through data extraction practices which are colonial in nature. (Couldry & Mejias, 2021)

In another article by Stefania Milan and Emiliano Treré, the authors complicate the idea of the Global South by pluralizing it to be the Souths, as tracing disempowerment geographically through data does not always follow a North-South dichotomy; however there are undeniable inequalities seen where datafication is weaponized by institutions and corporations to manage people, hitting harder where human rights and laws are the most fragile. (Milan and Treré, 2019)  

The plurality of the Souths extends into the North and West, for discrimination and inequality know no boundaries, and people who are in any way different or silenced can be found everywhere. That is why in this discussion on the Global South, I will actually be reviewing case studies from the far North, among the Inuit in Northern Canada, to also shed light on counter powers in the form of decolonizing research and understanding the impact of datafication and digitization on indigenous communities. 

Decolonizing Research to Decolonize Data: Digital Storytelling

Decolonizing data starts with decolonizing research, through the process of collecting and exhibiting data while ensuring representation and lowering harm. Digital storytelling is a process involving immersive workshops where the relationship of researcher-researched transforms into teller-listener, and personal stories and narratives are related with a mix of voice, video, photographs, artwork and music to create a sort of first-person mini-movie. (Willox et al. 2013) 

In the study by Willox et al, a mix of indigenous and non-indigenous individuals teamed up in 2009 in northern Canada to engage with a remote community to develop a digital narrative method which examined the connection between climate change, and health and well being by uniting digital media with storytelling as a way to celebrate the individual and the collective. (Willox et al. 2013)  The authors found that “. . .by uniting the finished stories together, a rich, detailed, and nuanced tapestry of voices emerge providing context and depth to localized narratives and collective experiences.” (Willox et al. 2013)

Digital storytelling requires a high level of trust, and has great potential as a more participatory and democratic form of social research. However, it still brings up a lot of personal and political questions while creating this raw form of narrative “data.” Researchers have to decide which stories to share, if they should interfere with how the community is represented to give voice to peoples and issues which are generally silenced without perpetuating stereotypes or misunderstandings. Digital storytelling can disrupt, alter and/or reverse power dynamics in narrative research by removing the researcher as the teller of others’ stories and build a powerful source of data coming straight from lived experiences of individuals, creating “. . . the opening to listen, reflect, learn, trust, and then listen again.” (Willox et al. 2013)

Digital Colonialism and IQ

Inuit traditional knowledge is referred to as IQ (Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit) which represents a set of skills to be constantly practiced and adapted to a changing world. As opposed to knowledge that can be held or recited, rather, IQ is cultivated by experiences in the natural world and learned from elders. Unlike Western forms of objective knowledge, there is not the separation between knowledge and knowledge-holder (Laugrand and Oosten, 2010), and it cannot be learned from reading or watching videos. (Young, 2019)  In Jason C. Young's research in Igloolik, he heard repeatedly in interviews the sentiment that the internet is killing IQ culture, due to community members spending less time on the land or with elders and more time online. (Young, 2019)  

“Digital engagement is undermining two key aspects of the IQ system—embodied socialization and experiential learning out on the land. Time spent online can trade off with embodied play outdoors, visits at the homes of other Iglulingmiut, and visits to elders outside of the community.” (Young, 2019)

Due to the nature of IQ being about adapting to change, community members seek ways to balance technology and lived experiences. One example is a Facebook group called “Nunavut Hunting Stories of the Day”, which allows Nunavummiut to share hunting stories and knowledge meant to inspire others, mainly youth, to get out on the land themselves and have their own learning experiences.  (Young, 2019) I took a look at the group, or a different version than what was listed in the article, called “Inuit Hunting Stories of the Day” and found it very educational. I noted that on some of the posts, in the comments, different people from different communities of Inuit peoples throughout the North shared the names of the animals in their own dialects. The open sharing of culture and language in this format is a way to carve out space for Inuit knowledge and data. It is also a space for people to ask and answer questions about hunting and Inuit knowledge. 

Conclusion

There are ways that data, AI, and related technologies can be used for promoting culture and Indigenous knowledge, however, it does not come automatically. What comes automatically are the patterns laid forth by colonialism, capitalism, consumerism, and development, which serve to further separate the ideas of Global North or West and Global South. When considering Indigenous Data Sovereignty, in the Global South and beyond, as a core tenet for designing global data governance, it is important to see it from all sides. Data should be shared back to the communities whom it belongs to, and it should benefit them, not harm them. It should serve to bring people together, not further apart and further from the land which they live on. It should be a compliment to life, not what governs life itself. 

Resources

Nick Couldry & Ulises Ali Mejias (2021): The decolonial turn in data and technology research: what is at stake and where is it heading?, Information, Communication & Society, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2021.1986102

Milan, S., & Treré, E. (2019). Big Data from the south(s): Beyond data universalism. Television & New Media, 20(4), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419837739 

Cunsolo Willox, A., Harper, S. L., & Edge, V. L. (2012). Storytelling in a Digital age: Digital Storytelling as an emerging narrative method for preserving and promoting indigenous oral wisdom. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112446105 

Young, J. C. (2019). The new knowledge politics of Digital Colonialism. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 51(7), 1424–1441. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x19858998