Academic Librarianship labour: we ARE failing the Indigenization test

Consider this: 

Traditional Knowledge Systems (TKS)*, from what I understand, represent many layers and interconnections of being, knowing, and methods of expression, which are neither static nor homogenous, and are rooted in the different lands and environments of Indigenous Peoples. TKS promote practices that are sustainable, equitable, peace building, community centered, provide a good life within natural surroundings, and also critically interrogate and examine challenges to their continued existence. 

TKS includes language and/or traditional customs including protocols, spirituality, traditions, practices, ceremonies, histories, and teachings of a particular group of Indigenous people or peoples. This knowledge may be acquired through lived experience including listening and learning in an Indigenous language and within the contexts of living on the land, active and lengthy participation in Indigenous forms of self-determination and governance, cultural structures, and processes; and a careful study and reflection of philosophical underpinnings. Aspects of TKS may or may not be acquired through written documents, as acquiring this knowledge will have involved studying with an Indigenous Elder or Traditional Knowledge Carrier/Keeper.

Consider this: 

North American Librarianship is predicated on inculcation into Western ways of knowing and seeing, culminating in an accreditation that states, yes, you attended a library school that appropriately inculcated you into Western ways of knowing and approaching knowledge, specifically these days, into the Library of Congress or Dewey-based approaches to the organization of all knowledge, irrespective of any other cultures and frameworks prevalent within those cultures.

The problem:

Why do we require those inculcated into TKS to have a degree in our Western knowledge systems in order to promote their own TKS within the library? If the position is predicated on only representing TKS within the library, and as part of the hiring process they present a letter from an Elder or Knowledge Carrier/Keeper that states their expertise in sharing this knowledge (their proof of accreditation perhaps?) then why are we not hiring them? Why are librarians pushing for an ALA accredited degree? In what way does our Western accreditation apply to the TKS? Oh look, it does not. We have ALA-accredited degrees and cannot represent TKS effectively, as has already been noted in various venues within LIS.

Now if you want someone with expertise in both TKS and our Western knowledge systems because they are required to promote both aspects within the library, then having both (the letter as noted above and an ALA-accredited degree) makes sense…as long as the position requires both knowledges. Or if the Indigenous person in a non-TKS position wishes to shift that position to actively incorporate their TKS alongside their ALA-accredited knowledge, then having both makes sense. If they wish to shift to TKS alone, then just the letter. And give them a process to do so.

So STOP it. Stop trying to colonize TKS by requiring an ALA-accredited degree for those interested in working in TKS alone, within libraries. (And yes, I note even having a letter is a form of colonization that our HR departments will require). And by the way, stop trying to catalogue their system into ours for pete’s sake. One ring no longer rules them all. Seriously. Not with the commitments librarianship has, or our libraries have made, to TRC and MMIWG2s+.

The solution: Let them represent themselves in all ways. It is way past time. And write collective agreement language, policies and processes that allows for this. Our current trajectory I find shameful.

*Settee, P. (2007). Pimatisiwin: Indigenous knowledge systems, our time has come (Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan; Brock University collective agreement language; feedback from academic colleagues.