Shaping local information in Thailand: Hidden contradictions in the digitisation activities of the Provincial University Library Network (PULINET)

Abstract

Local information (LI) in Thailand covers resources related to Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK), and cultural heritage. Thailand’s provincial universities have the national responsibility of digitising LI, enforced through the Provincial University Library Network’s (PULINET’s) Local Information Working Group (LIWG). The aim of this study is to explore how the LIWG’s digitisation activities contribute to the shaping of LI as national concern and resource. Empirical data come from interviews with 23 LIWG professionals in 2016–2017. A qualitative content analysis is performed within an overall activity theory framework with emphasis on overt and unobtrosive manifestations of contradictions through a combination of Engeström’s and Blackler’s typologies. The results show that primary contradictions exist in the form of incompatible conceptions of LI between individual group members and the group’s consensus-oriented LI definition. Secondary contradictions emerge as incongruences between group members’ general conceptions of LI, and specific digitisation activities of the LIWG. In general, LI is conceptualised as dynamic, situated, collective, culture-nature integrated resources with strong applied-use value, in line with international ILK definitions and agendas. The actual LIWG activities, however, circumscribe this conception through a restricted focus on formal regional delimitations; prominent objects; societally desirable expressions; and an academic/research framing. Overall, the findings illustrate that the LIWG’s activities contribute to shape LI as a tool for national social and cultural unity that exclude marginalised groups and societally undesirable LI expressions. In these activities, the primary and secondary types of contradictions are hidden and counteracted, rather than used as constructive opportunities for learning, change, and development. The study provides a unique, internationally framed, perspective on LI and related digitisation activities in Thailand. Methodologically, the study is case specific, limited to a cross-section in time and to data from interview accounts of LIWG members.

Keywords

Activity theory cultural heritage digitisation Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK)local wisdom Thailand

Introduction

This study is concerned with what in Thai is called ‘ข้อมูลท้องถิ่น’, or ‘Kormoon Thongthin’, literally translating to ‘information of each locality’. The preferred English translation is ‘local information’ (e.g. Maejo University Archives, 2015), in the following referred to as LI. From an international perspective, the scope of LI in the Thai context is broad and overlaps with what is elsewhere and primarily in the so-called ‘Global North’ (c.f. Kloß, 2017) described as Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) (UNESCO, 2009), and cultural heritage (Nonthacumjane and Nolin, 2022). Consequently, LI in Thailand concerns not only material documents in a traditional sense such as manuscripts and texts, but also artefacts such as textiles, pottery, buildings and tools, and immaterial manifestations including songs, dances, events and practices of agriculture, religion and medicine.

Through a national political decision in 1986, Thailand’s provincial universities (the regionally placed universities outside of Bangkok and its surrounding metropolitan area) have the main responsibility for digitising and providing access to LI (PULINET, 2021). The universities in their turn have delegated these responsibilities to their library units who have designated one or several members of the staff part-time for LI work tasks and a job description as ‘local information professional’. The university libraries typically have ‘local information departments’ or ‘centers’ where the university’s collection of LI is stored and made accessible to users. To coordinate and strengthen work with these LI collections, the Provincial University Library Network (PULINET) set up a national Local Information Working Group (LIWG) in 1987. At the time of study, the LIWG comprised 25 members in the form of LI professionals from the 20 associated university libraries (PULINET, 2021), each library holding equal weight in the group. Physical group meetings occur two to three times per year at different member libraries. In between meetings, e-mail and the, for the region, popular and widespread social media service LINE, are used for communication and coordination of group activities.

For over three decades, thus, the LIWG of the PULINET has held the formal responsibility of dealing with the politically prioritised issue of LI in Thailand, placing the group as an influential actor in the shaping of LI as national resource and concern. The LI concept itself, however, is broad, vague and, from certain perspectives, contested (Nonthacumjane and Nolin, 2022), surrounded by constraining and sometimes conflicting political norms, interests, and actors. UNESCO (2009), for example, emphasises the global obligation to preserve and sustain Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) for the sake of cultural and biological diversity and for the local, cultural wellbeing, autonomy and identity of Indigenous Peoples. On state level, however, LI and similar resources are frequently associated with national cultural unity and economic progress agendas, in Thailand as well as many other nations in the Global South in particular (Mungmachon, 2012; Noble, 2019; Pornpimon et al., 2014). We therefore place particular focus on aspects of politics and power associated with the digitisation of LI in this context. In the following, we provide a brief overview of relevant socio-political conditions for LI and the local activity systems that generate, practice, sustain and transform LI – the LI holders – in Thailand and similar contexts.

Local information in political context

LI in Thailand, like similar informational and cultural resources around the world, are deeply entwined with political and often conflicting interests. Internationally, UNESCO invests greatly in areas relating to ILK (Indigenous and local knowledge), with the aim to advance understanding of the complexity and challenges associated with preserving and sustaining ILK as dynamic systems under contemporary global and national conditions (Rivière and Erdelen, 2009). One problem in specific is attributed to disciplinary boundaries and dualism of Western thought, separating: ‘. . . biological and cultural diversities, even though it has been repeatedly demonstrated that the two are inextricably interlinked [amongst Indigenous Peoples] . . . further united today by the challenges that they both face: globalization and transformation. . .’ (Rivière and Erdelen, 2009: n.p.). But whereas LI holds many similarities to what the UN defines as ILK (The United Nations [UN], n.d.), Thailand – like many other Asian nations – does not acknowledge Indigenous Peoples within its own territories¹ even though, as Baird (2019) describes, a large number of people in Thailand self-recognise as such. Instead, the government acknowledges people from various ‘ethnic groups’ (chattiphan), but without distinguishing them in terms of rights and responsibilities (Baird, 2019). Since the 1980s, the situation has improved, according to Baird (c.f. also Kosonen, 2017), up to a comparatively well-established Indigenous Peoples movement in Thailand, although state recognition is still lacking.

The cultural and ethnic composition of Thailand is also said to be downplayed or occluded in several other ways. A UNESCO report estimates that only about 50% of the Thai population speak central or standard Thai (the official language), and although ‘. . . widely spoken as a second language throughout the country . . . no data are available on the language proficiency of second language Thai speakers’ (Kosonen, 2017: 5). Minority Rights Group International (2017a, 2017b) cautions that behind official census data describing 95% of the population as being of ‘Thai ethnicity’, there are numerous regional linguistic variants that may be mutually incomprehensible. The Network of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand (NIPT, 2010) describes that the nation’s Indigenous Peoples, the ‘chao khao’, ‘hill tribes’ or ‘ethnic minorities’, belong to as many as five linguistic families, distributed across 20 provinces with geographical patterns that transgress both territorial and national borders (NIPT, 2010). Similar tendencies recur for religion: despite national accounts of all population groups formally ascribing to Theravada Buddhism, there are many other cultural beliefs and practices including Islam, Christianity, Hinduism and traditional animistic belief systems (Minority Rights Group International, 2017a, 2017b).

Further aspects of potential relevance to homogenisation of LI resources are associated with national approaches spurred by perceived challenges from globalisation, capitalism, environmental degradation and violent internal conflicts associated with religious, racial and ethnic conflicts. It is an outspoken strategy of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to revitalise and draw on local knowledge and local wisdom resources for economic advancement, biological sustainability, and nationally unifying purposes (e.g. Farhana and Rashidi, 2013; Kusumasari and Alam, 2012; Warraich and Malik, 2019; Wati et al., 2018). Thai researchers testify that traditional, local knowledge and wisdom are promoted as remedies to perceived cultural threats and associated problems of alcohol and drug trade and use, violence, ill-health, lack of respect for elders, and vanishing knowledge of local and rural traditions and culture. This has led to a strong emphasis on application of LI for boosting the national economy and as instrument of social and cultural coherence and homogenisation from primary school education (Pornpimon et al., 2014) to specific state supported projects (Mungmachon, 2012). Reinvigorating LI with emphasis on local wisdom in this way is thought to lead to happier, more harmonious lives with socio-environmental balance and therefore to more sustainable societies.

Finally, LI is a central concern for national economy strategies in Thailand (as well as the ASEAN in general). The importance of local culture and local wisdom as the main income source of communities has been stressed by both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister. Assisting transfer of local wisdom into tangible products is recognised as a driver of the Thai economy at both community and national levels. This commodification of certain expressions of LI has also been associated with a national strategy of strengthening the social, cultural and economic affairs in preparation of Thailand’s application for membership in the ASEAN community (e.g. Asia News Monitor, 2012, 2014; Pornpimon et al., 2014). More concretely, and drawing its inspiration from Japan’s successful One Village One Product (OVOP) programme, Thailand developed its own OTOP (One Tambon One Product) programme which encourages village communities to improve the quality and marketing of local products for national and international markets (Noble, 2019). Although similar to Japan’s approach, Noble (2019) also points out that Thailand’s operation of the policy is more top-down, with government agencies instrumental in selecting, improving and promoting local products.

As indicated by this discussion, the political entanglements of LI in Thailand run deep and broad. Nevertheless, there are few empirical studies of national and community level projects similar to the digitisation of LI in Thailand (Benyei et al., 2020; Van Klyton and Castaño-Muñoz, 2017). In the Thai context the issue remains largely unexplored in an international, library and information science perspective (c.f. however Jarusawat et al., 2018, for a notable exception). This study thereby fills a gap in this research area. The aim is to explore how the LIWG’s digitisation activities contribute to the shaping of LI as national concern and resource. We approach this aim by applying an activity theory lens with specific focus on contradictions in the LI digitisation activities of the LIWG group and its members, as motivated and described below.

Theoretical framework, problem and purpose

Activity theory is a broad theoretical perspective, with roots in early 20th century Russian cultural-historical psychology, associated with Vygotsky, Leont’ev and others. Its primary focus is on social activities through which humans act on objects with a goal-directed, transformative intent. Through this, it goes beyond individual behaviourism, to consider activities of collective entities such as organisations and communities. A central tenet is the recognition of activities as situated, shaped by and shaping norms, cultures, practices and tools that feature within the contexts of activities. This is famously described through the triangular model of mediated action, describing how subjects never engage directly with the objects of activities, but that these actions are always mediated by artefacts, or ‘tools’ (Leont’ev, 1978; Vygotsky, 1978).

Over the years, activity theory has increased in popularity for ‘. . . understanding change and development in work and social activity’ (Karanasios and Allen, 2018: 439) in a broad variety of disciplines. Common application areas include organisation studies, management, social psychology, education, Human Computer Interaction and information systems design (Karanasios and Allen, 2018: 439), as well as library and information science studies of information activities in organisations and other contexts (Wilson, 2008). As such, the theory appears well suited for framing this study of the LIWG’s digitisation of LI in Thailand. The LIWG constitutes a group with national responsibility for the selection and digitisation of LI in Thailand, and the work involves group level activities oriented towards the shared object of LI expressions. For this work, various tools are utilised, from data collection instruments and internet servers, to conceptions of and classificatory systems for LI. The tools mediate the LI oriented activities of the group, and together with related rules, division of labour, and community, they can be seen to constitute an activity system; the primary unit of analysis for activity theory.

The goal-directed interactions of the LIWG (subject) with LI (object) through the use of various tools can further, according to this theory, be expected to comprise tensions and contradictions. According to a review by Karanasios et al. (2017), however, tensions and contradictions are in important respects synonymous within interpretations of activity theory, and here we follow their recommendation to merely use contradictions to denote both. Engeström provides a baseline typology of contradictions as: Primary (occur within single elements of the activity, such as a tool); Secondary (occur between elements of the activity, such as between a tool and division of labour); Tertiary (occur between older and newer/more advanced versions of activities); and Quaternary (occur between related activities in networks) (Engeström, 1987: 103–104). Kelly (2018) describes contradictions as problems, conflicts and clashes, whereas Engeström and Sannino (2011) talk of four main discursive manifestations in terms of: Dilemmas (expressions of incompatibility); Conflicts (expressed as resistance, disagreement, argument and criticism); Critical conflicts (situations in which people face contradictory motives that they cannot solve on their own); and Double blinds (repeated processes of pressing, unacceptable and unresolvable alternatives).

Rather than seeing contradictions as problems, activity theory sees them as possibilities for learning and development. Contradictions are a natural component of collective activities and work against inertia and stasis, functioning as drivers of change and transformation. Outside of formal learning contexts, however, activity theory’s shortcomings in the form of lacking attention to power and politics have also been noted (e.g. Blackler, 2011; Kelly, 2018; Kenny, 2014). Blackler (2011: 725), for example, concludes that activity theoretical approaches in general are missing ‘. . . an appreciation of power and politics in working relationships and their place in collective development’. Certain contexts in particular may pose both specific demands of attending to power and politics, and challenges to detect and uncover the same. For situations with ‘. . . broad or complex power differentials. . ..’ Kelly asks what ‘. . . happens with power in practice, especially when conflicts and contradictions are silent or normalised . . . where contradictions remain silent and participants are unable to make conflicts audible . . .’ (Kelly, 2018: 472). As the baseline assumption here places digitisation of LI in Thailand as embedded in international and national relations of power and politics, we direct focus towards exploring contradictions in this context: where are they found, what do they concern, and what response do they yield.

To conclude, we approach this study from an overall activity theory approach with particular focus on contradictions in the digitisation activities of the LIWG as a means to uncover how these activities and the object (LI) develop and transform under the influence of such forces. This theoretical focus is combined with the contextual understanding that digitisation of LI in Thailand is embedded within complex constellations of power and politics from international ILK-sustaining political agendas to national ideas of economic progress and cultural unity. Theoretically and empirically, we make a delimitation to contradictions within and between general LI conceptions and actual LI digitisation activities of the LIWG.

Against this background, we express the aim of the study as to explore how the LIWG’s digitisation activities contribute to the shaping of LI as national concern and resource. Two questions guide the analysis:

- What general conceptions of LI are expressed by LIWG members?

- What contradictions can be found between LIWG members’ conceptions of LI and the actual LI digitisation activities of the LIWG?

The remaining structure of the article proceeds from here to a description of the study’s methodology, including data collection methods and adaptation and application of the theoretical framework for data analysis. Thereafter, the results of the analysis are presented, structured thematically in accordance with the two research questions with sub-themes. The text closes by presenting a discussion of the results, conclusions and suggestions for further research.

Methods

Here, we describe the study’s data collection methods, data analysis, ethical considerations and limitations of the study.

Data collection

The study is based on semi-structured interviews with 23 LI professionals in the LIWG. Data collection was conducted in 2016–2017 as part of a larger research project on the PULINET’s digitisation of LI in Thailand in the form of a PhD thesis project of the first author of this article. At the time of study, the LIWG consisted of 25 members from 20 universities. All members were asked to participate in the study, but two declined – one because of ill-health, and another due to lack of active participation in group activities.

The semi-structured interviews with the remaining 23 LI professionals in the LIWG were conducted through the LIWG’s own preferred social media platform LINE (c.f. above). Although the interviewer is native to, and a resident of, Thailand, the interviews were conducted when the interviewer was out of the country and thus at a spatiotemporal distance from the participants. LINE allows for video calls, but only sound was used for the interviews, due to consideration of possibly weak internet connections on behalf of participants, and for reasons of minimisation of personal data processing. The interviewer used a computer connection, whereas study participants connected to the scheduled LINE calls through the LINE smart phone application. The interviews comprised questions concerning the participants’ own conceptions of LI; their views on roles and responsibilities of the LIWG; roles and duties of the LIWG members; and the digitisation activities and related projects of the LIWG. The interviews were conducted in Thai, lasted between 20 and 60 minutes, and were recorded as audio files.

Data analysis

Upon completion, the audio recorded interviews were transcribed in Thai, and adjusted to written language form. The first round of analysis was performed on the Thai transcripts, and translation to English occurred after an initial, rough, thematic selection of quotes and passages had been made. For the analysis, the overall activity theory approach provided a guiding theoretical framework within which expressions of contradictions within and between conceptions of LI and actual digitisation activities were sought.

Although not directly observable, contradictions can be studied as manifestations, in words and actions. The analytical process of identifying contradictions, however, is said to be underarticulated in much activity theory research, although most commonly taking the form of examining ‘. . . misfits, within and between, elements of activity systems’ (Karanasios et al., 2017, section 2.2.). Identifying potential contradictions in contexts characterised by complex and unequal power dynamics of the sort that we associate with the context for this study poses further analytical challenges. Blackler (2011: 731), for example, suggests that power and politics in such settings manifest as either overt (‘easy to see’) or unobtrusive (‘hard to spot’). And Kelly expresses this as a need to focus on what is excluded and what is included: ‘Paying critical attention to what is cut, subjugated . . . or “submerged,” and what is added, rationalised, or “elevated” along a temporal activity chain enables us to locate unequal power dynamics’ (Kelly, 2018: 472). Analytical sensitivity to both these types of expressions may, thus, help reveal contradictions that are silent or less visible.

In applying this above described theoretical understanding, the analytical process took the form of an explorative, guided qualitative content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) of relevant LIWG activities as represented in the empirical material of interview transcripts. Themes describing contradictions in the form of ‘misfits’ between individuals’ general conceptions of LI, and actual LI digitisation activities of the group, were sought out. This required an analytical process in several steps, starting with identifying themes of general LI conceptions, then proceeding with an analysis of descriptions of the group’s LI digitisation work and projects, with particular attention to what may be described as misfits between them. As will be demonstrated in the presentation of results, this analysis revealed a consistently more restricted approach to LI in the actual digitisation activities compared to general conceptions of LI.

Ethical considerations

The study follows international research ethical recommendations (Bryman, 2016; Wager and Kleinert, 2011). Participation was informed, voluntary and confidential. In the report of empirical data, study participants are pseudonymised with ID:s (P01, P02 etc.), and identifying elements such as named places and organisations have been removed. Another research ethical consideration concerns the choice to represent Indigenous LI communities, where appropriate and when more specific names of tribes are not possible to provide, as ‘Indigenous [Peoples]’ with capitalisation as a sign of recognition and inclusion, as recommended by for example, Younging (2018).

Limitations

All data used for the analysis presented here was collected at an earlier point in time as part of a larger PhD project. From this extensive dataset, a number of publications have been produced prior to the one presented here which has led to a time lapse between data collection and presentation of results, for which due caution is necessary. The results describe a set of conceptions and digitisation activities of the LIWG group in 2016–2017, and cannot be generalised outside of this time frame. Most notably, the results illustrate a clear dominance of local wisdom, local history and cultural heritage aspects of LI, and very little concerning more mundane and political types of community information. This emphasis is reflected in the focus of LIWG work at the time of study, which was largely concentrated on the development of two national LI databases of ‘local Thai textiles’ and ‘important local temples’. Whether the emphasis on these aspects of LI is temporary or representative of a more general approach of the LIWG is not possible to deduce from the material at hand. Follow-up studies will be needed for extended and temporally updated perspectives. As a further shortcoming, the study is based on interviews with LIWG members, and does not include data on other pertinent aspects such as organisational and project related concerns (although c.f. Nonthacumjane et al., 2022, for this perspective), actual documentation practices and outcomes, and first-person perspectives of LI holders and users.

Results

The presentation of results follows the thematic structure of the two research questions. Each theme contains subthemes, whilst a crosscutting focus remains on various expressions of contradictions, as central to the overall activity theory framework.

General conceptions of LI

The LIWG members’ general conceptions of LI are well in line with the sort of traditional, situated knowledge that in an international context is described in terms of Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) (UN, n.d.) and similar terms. These conceptions are primarily connected to LI dimensions associated with ‘local history’ and ‘local wisdom’. Four main themes emerge in the analysis: a non-dualistic, culture-nature integrated view of LI; an understanding of LI as collectively formed and in situ (locally) preserved; a strong emphasis on present-day and future applied value of LI; and a strongly consensus oriented group approach.

Culture-nature integration

Regarding the culture-nature relation, local wisdom dimensions of LI in particular are seen to be related to specific local lifestyles and identities (culture), for which the geological and biological context (nature) is seen as decisive. The participants describe LI in terms of local wisdom in general as knowledge, abilities, ideas and beliefs that the people in each locality get from experiences accumulated through adjusting to live in the ecosystem of their natural and sociocultural environments. The understanding that such local wisdom is highly revered, in some ways seen as superior to other types of knowledge, also shines through in descriptions depicting it as ‘. . . important and interesting because it is the foundation of society’ (P01). Some participants even indicate local wisdom as the origin of the conception of LI. Through expressions of this type, the locally situated and dynamic culture-nature integration appears particularly clearly, but is also apparent in conceptions that emphasise local history dimensions.

When emphasising local history dimensions, LI is connected to people in local communities and the nature of particular places. Geographical variations of regions are understood to affect LI so that, for example, the Northern people are described as having developed knowledge, skills and agricultural practices and technology based on traditional values of their region, in natural agriculture, integrated agriculture, mixed farming and gardening. This Northern agricultural wisdom is perceived as different from the wisdom of other regions due to various natural factors such as climate and soil conditions, which have given rise to locally specific agricultural tools and work practices. The participants emphasise that people in Thailand need to learn the knowledge and traditions of their own local area as a tool for adapted living: ‘Each locality is different, but it is important to all local people to understand their local areas so that they can live within their locality’ (P17). The natural surroundings are thus understood as shaping the ways of subsistence and lifestyle, and knowledge of this is described as vital for local community members: ‘Local information is the knowledge that belongs to persons and their location. It reflects the lifestyle of Thai people living in a region that is rich in resources and biodiversity. It is an important part [of life] that determines how to eat and to live’ (P01). The social dimensions of LI inherent in these conceptions can also be viewed as a separate theme, as described in the next section.

Collective, in situ generation and preservation

The participants’ descriptions also reveal a local wisdom dominated conception of LI as dynamic and situated; collectively generated and preserved in each locality – in situ. Local wisdom is understood to reside in communities as living, embodied, and tool-mediated activities and thereby constitutes a common good of a locality: ‘It is the knowledge from local wisdom of persons in a community that arises from the process of inheriting knowledge, ideas, experiences, inventions and the transmission of new knowledge’ (P17). LI in this sense is emphasised as a collective resource, passed on and sustained over time through shared and situated activities: ‘. . . local wisdom, which is the knowledge that comes from the life-experience of people through learning processes in terms of observing, thinking, analysing, and becoming intellectual’ (P02). It is also recognised as situated Indigenous knowledge, as: ‘. . . knowledge that arises from indigenous knowledge . . . inherited from generation to generation’ (P01).

The collective, in situ, nature of LI as described in this view underscores not only a local application value, but a temporal equivalent as well. Although LI has long historical roots, it retains (local) relevance in contemporary times. Inherited and passed on through local cultural practices, it is used to solve problems of everyday life: ‘It produces the skills and expertise that the people can use to fix problems and develop resources so they can live appropriately in this era’ (P17). The descriptions thus hint at sociocultural adaptations of practices as necessary knowledge for sustainable livelihood in a more social sense, as foundation for collective, situated customs, values, and norms. This is further described in the third and final theme relating to general conceptions of LI, presented below.

Present and future applied value

The dynamic conceptions of LI, emphasising its value for ongoing everyday life uses as foreshadowed above, are pervasive in the material. It is in fact rare to see conceptions of LI that are closer to the often more ‘static’ cultural heritage concerns with the disappearance of artefacts and knowledge as a primary argument for conservation and preservation efforts. One participant expresses sentiments to this effect due to external pressure: ‘The world is changing fast, so the local information still alive means something that shows the uniqueness of each locality. It is necessary to do fieldwork to collect local data because this data might be lost’ (P22). Almost all other descriptions, however, illustrate primarily dynamic understandings of LI as living, ongoing concern with direct and often necessary applied use-value.

There is a local history dimension in the conceptions of LI as described by the LIWG members, but it differs from Western notions of the same (e.g. Reed, 1975; Samuel, 1976; Stone, 1971) in important ways. The similarity can be found in explanations of LI as connected to the history of local people, institutions, places and the natural environment of a community: ‘Local information is historical data in terms of the history of the past, ancestors, and our roots’ (P20). It is ‘. . . the history of [a] locality in each period. If we have recorded the events that happened, we would see the historical timeline of each community’ (P12). The difference compared to Western conceptions lies in the continuous, interconnected, and dependent perception of timelines and sociocultural development whereby past events, learning, knowledge, and practices are seen to provide value and guidance in the present and for the future. Even historical knowledge such as that of a traditional local folk market is valued in this sense as ‘. . . the root of the present-day market’ (P06), and having knowledge of this through LI is ‘. . . like creating prosperity to the present’ (P06).

Overall, the temporal perceptions of LI are clearly linear with considerable deterministic tendencies: ‘If we want to know the future or present, it is a must to learn from the past first. The past will lead to the present and the future. That is, if we understand the local information of the past, we will be able to understand the present and use it in the future for planning the development’ (P04). It is emphasised that local people can apply historical LI for planning the development of their locality, since: ‘. . . local information is the foundation of the present’ (P06), the ‘. . . foundation for and evolution of the way of life and living of Thai people’ (P21).

The general LI conceptions presented in this theme respond well to norms and ethical values of ILK as global concern (Benyei et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2009; Vandebroek et al., 2011). The following theme illustrates, in contrast, how the actual digitisation activities of the LIWG also in some ways introduce certain restrictions to these.

Project restrictions to LI

In an activity theory perspective, the selection and digitisation of LI by the LIWG can be seen as introducing contradictions between the general LI conceptions of LIWG members and the joint, formal group activities. The selection of LI resources is subject to a set of restrictions that stem from or are adopted into the LIWG as collective entity. At the time of study, this set of restrictions comprises delimitations of LI to: formally defined regions; prominent objects; societally desirable content; and an academic/research framing of LI uses and users.

Regional delimitations

Arguably, the only delimitation to conceptions of LI explicitly mentioned by study participants is connected to the term ‘local’. In fact, the perception of LI as object of activity seems completely unrestrained by any other factor than that of local relevance: ‘Local information is information about content that is related to every subject of the local area’ (P20). However, ‘local’ in this sense is not primarily tied to local cultures wherever they are found and however they spread out in a geographic sense, but rather to formally defined and delimited regions and provinces: ‘For example, the information of the Southern provinces refers to all information about every subject matter in the Southern provinces, consisting of Pattani, Satun, Yala, and Narathiwat’ (P20). ‘Local’, thus, is predominantly equated with formal, politico-administrative, geographical entities such as regions and provinces, and the single most influential tool for the selection of LI for the group’s digitisation activities. This focus and delimitation is central to the related work at LI departments as well: ‘I am a librarian at a local information center in the provincial university library in the [X] region. My responsibilities include [X region] collection development. I select and collect the information that is relevant to the [X region] in all aspects, including history’ (P13).

The empirical material comprises no mentions of the origins and grounds for this delimitation of ‘local’. The Thai LI expert Somboonanek’s definition of LI, however, is prominently referenced by the participants and seemingly influential for the work and conceptions of LI in the LIWG. To a certain extent, this definition is tailored to the PULINET members, describing not only LI as all sorts of information related to a geographical area or locality, but even more specifically to areas that are ‘. . . relevant to the geographical locations of the PULINET members’ (Somboonanek, 2001: 55). As not least many Indigenous (or ethnic) groups of Thailand form cultural communities that transgress regional and provincial borders (NIPT, 2010), there is a risk that an overreliance on politico-administrative definitions of ‘local’ may hide or exclude LI expressions that transgress or otherwise fail to conform to formal regional classifications.

Prominent objects

As previously mentioned, at the time of study the LIWG worked on two national databases on textiles and temples in particular. The LI objects described to be chosen for inclusion in these databases can be said to be of ‘flagship’ character, focusing on LI expressions that are high profile, famous or otherwise ‘attractive’. A participant working with an LI database for a city in [X region], illustrates this: ‘I work on the project “The important persons of [X city] database.” The main objective of this project is to collect the biographies and works of important and famous people of [X city]. This project has the purpose of being a source for research’ (P09). Conversely, there is little mention of rural and Indigenous, small scale, locally unique, marginalised and rare or non-conformant persons or other types of LI resources. We can also see that the LI resources selected by the LIWG are such that can be found across the country with regional variation. For example, every main region will have similar, yet uniquely varied, textiles and temples.

Similar focus on prominent objects is also described by participants in relation to an older group project, ‘. . . a database that is called “Local information on the internet” . . . launched through the Local Information Working Group website in 2012’ (P20), and for which ‘[e]ach member was assigned to search for information about their city on the World Wide Web’ (P19; c.f. also P04; P20; P22). Through recollections and descriptions of past LIWG digitisation activities in this way, the apparent tendency to favour the ‘grand’, well known, and attractive is further underlined. It can be argued that this focus of LI work in the LIWG suits a project of this kind, aiming to represent every region in the nation in similar ways in databases connected through a web portal. It is nonetheless evident that this focus produces consequences of excluding character. With this focus and view of the objects of activity, minorities, locally unique, divergent, and perhaps controversial forms of LI will have a lesser (if any) chance of becoming selected, digitised, and made accessible. This theme is closely related to the following, the favorisation of societally desirable content.

Societally desirable content

UNESCO, as other previous research, emphasises values of ILK for both the Indigenous communities themselves and the global community. ILK is seen to contribute to biodiversity conservation and environmental management; food production and health enhancement increasing local knowledge-holders’ wellbeing; communities’ cultural heritage and identity; provision of tools for resilient livelihoods, especially in contexts of social-environmental change; and to global cultural diversity (UNESCO, 2017; c.f. also Benyei et al., 2020). Such statements, however, are not without contestation. Other scholars portray ILK as restricted to local issues, not scientifically validated, and outdated or primitive with little value to problem solving in modern society (c.f. Vandebroek et al., 2011). Thailand is no exception, and their Indigenous Peoples (or ‘ethnic groups’) are sometimes perceived in directly negative terms. The Urak Lawoi tribe (or ‘Sea Gypsies’), for example, have been perceived as ‘subsistence consumers’, who will not adapt adequately to environmentally sustainable lifestyles as they transgress from traditional ways of life to modern conditions and market economy (Wongbusarakum, 2009). Likewise, the Akha (a ‘hill tribe’), is described as primitive and ill-adapted to optimal contemporary farming, healthcare, education, and similar social requirements and responsibilities (Apidechkul, 2011).

Against this background, and turning to the LIWG, their focus on utility and use of LI for everyday activities (c.f. above) can be construed in a positive sense, making LI a living concern, imbued with dynamic value in the present and for the future. However, this pronounced emphasis on utility for beneficial effects for individuals and communities may also risk introducing certain forms of bias in the selection of LI to be included in the digitisation activities of the LIWG. If one of the main purposes of this digitisation is perceived to be to guide people’s current and future views, values and activities, this represents a profoundly ideological and normative undertaking with associated risks of overly prioritising only those expressions of LI that are deemed desirable from a national, political perspective.

As there are no expressions in the empirical material of participants’ attention to ‘undesirable’ LI expressions, the omissions and silences may also be interpreted (c.f. Blackler, 2011; Kelly, 2018), especially in relation to the explicitly verbalised views that unanimously associate LI with positive values in the past and for the present and future. One participant explains that ‘Local information tells the story of the roots of Thai identity, prosperity through eras’ (P05), and another as: ‘. . . a tool that allows the local people to see the roots of the local community and [gain] a sense of self-esteem and take pride in what they have inherited from their ancestors in each locality’ (P18). The applied value remains, illustrating a close association of LI resources to knowledge of ‘the right ways’ of action: ‘Local information is important to Thai society because it helps the local persons understand their roots, local history, and the way they live; solve problems of each locality appropriately according to the ways of each locality’ (P20). There is much focus on LI as a promoter of pride in both former achievements and current progress, leading to conclusions such as: ‘We should continue to conserve this local information to encourage the local people to be proud and love their locality’ (P04). The tendencies point to conservative values that glorify the past and present a selection of history that promotes a dominant Thai culture for a homogeneous future.

Academic/research framing

Another theme of LIWG related restrictions compared to the broader LI conceptions expressed by individual study participants is described here in terms of an academic and research oriented framing. The academic connection is not only physically manifested through the political, formal designation of LI digitisation and access provision as a provincial university concern. It also shines through in expressions such as providing ‘academic services’ for ‘learning and studying’. In the words of this participant, the users of their university library’s LI departments are: ‘. . . scholars, researchers, students, and local people [interested] in learning and studying, in the education about the history of the community, local and national’ (P18). Another participant describes how: ‘I also have my duty to promote and disseminate [X region] information services to a variety of users, such as students, faculty, researchers, and other interested people, so they can access this information to learn and conduct their research studies or projects about the locality and community in the [X] regions’ (P13; c.f. also P04).

Statements of the type presented above suggest that the academic connection also may favour an emphasis on LI for local studies purposes. Local studies in this sense revolves around the use of local cultural-historical resources for systematic studies and research related activities by professional researchers and interested lay persons as described by both Western (e.g. Dewe, 2002; Nichols, 1979; Reid and Macafee, 2007) and Thai (e.g. Somboonanek, 2001) scholars. Tendencies to portray digitised LI resources as intended for ‘research’ within the context of university library settings, however, risks hindering marginalised LI holders and users from access through an excluding language, and represents a contradiction to ideas in the general conceptions of LI values, uses, and users.

Group consensus

The final restriction to LI conceptions and thereby the construction of LI as an actual object of activity for the LIWG found in the analysis is connected to perceived needs of homogenised conception of LI within the group. Group work, in other terms, is described as demanding unity of perception of LI as object, alongside shared understandings of the group’s focus and work practices in general. The strive for, and valuation of, consensus is primarily discernible through the ways in which the absence of the same, or deviations from it, are described as central problems for the group.

Group members’ different levels of knowledge of, and experience with, LI and related work, as well as differences in their conceptions of LI altogether are frequently described as causes of problems. Underlying such assumptions, an implicit understanding of LI as a construct with a clear and unified meaning is discernible. Group members whose LI conceptions do not align with this perceived unified concept of LI are seen to cause problems for group work and to negatively affect possibilities of completing group projects (e.g. P23). Age differences are also mentioned in this context: ‘Generational differences might cause problems [relating to] understanding the concept of local information in the group. Some of them [group members of younger generations; authors’ note] have various perceptions and experiences of local information work that differ from other members’ (P23). A closely related dimension of this perceived challenge to group work is the issue of changing members, which consumes time and budget and hinder work: ‘The working group has frequent changes in its members. It definitely affects the group’s work, requiring that it is paused or stopped’ (P15).

Activities to overcome challenges of this type are all aiming to support the establishment of coherent, shared conceptions of LI. External (to the LIWG) experts in LI serve an important function for this purpose. The participants frequently describe the value of guidance from such authorities in various ways as acquired through publications, group meetings, field trips, and social media interactions. One participant describes how: ‘The viewpoints of the experts on local information are invaluable, and these ideas should be used as inspiration for the Local Information Working Group in moving forward to pursue the development of local information as the identity of PULINET and Thailand as well’ (P23). The examples illustrate the many ways in which top-down expertise, guidance, and mentoring are deployed to homogenise conceptions of LI in the LIWG.

Considerable efforts towards the same goal are also found within the LIWG itself. They continually provide orientations, training and mentoring on LI conceptions, projects and related issues for new members: ‘The group must organise training sessions for new members to understand the scope of local information conceptions, and of work within the group. These activities consume time and cause delays in group work’ (P15). Social media and other ICT mediated communication possibilities in-between formal LIWG meetings are also overwhelmingly seen as tools to support the establishment of shared conceptions of LI, LI work, and group activities.

Discussion

The aim of this study has been to explore how the LIWG’s digitisation activities contribute to the shaping of LI as national concern and resource. Two research questions guided the analysis:

- What general conceptions of LI are expressed by LIWG members?

- What contradictions can be found between LIWG members’ conceptions of LI and actual LI digitisation activities of the LIWG?

The results illustrate that the general conceptions of LI expressed by individual LIWG members are well in line with international definitions and values associated with so-called Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK). The conceptions portray an understanding of LI as culture-nature integrated local wisdom and history, collectively generated and preserved in situ, with strong applied-use value for present and future everyday life activities (c.f. Benyei et al., 2020; UNESCO, 2009; Van Klyton and Castaño-Muñoz, 2017). The actual digitisation activities of the LIWG, however, introduce a number of restrictions to these broad and inclusive conceptions. Most significantly, the connotation of ‘local’ is equated with top-down formulated politico-administrative entities such as regions and provinces, rather than bottom-up identified culturally coherent LI expressions. Other restrictions are associated with tendencies to favour prominent and societally desirable LI resources; an emphasis on academic and research use and users; and the strong consensus oriented approach of the LIWG towards conceptions of LI.

Although not described as such by the participants, we suggest through the theoretical framework that these incongruences between conceptions and actual digitisation can be understood as contradictions of primary and secondary character (Engeström, 1987: 103–104). Primary contradictions occur within a single element of an activity, such as a tool, and here we find such contradictions in connection with individual group members’ differing conceptions of LI. Conceptions of LI are important tools for the activity system under study, yet vague and broad (‘contested’, c.f. Nonthacumjane and Nolin, 2022). This vagueness opens up for differences in interpretation and conception that causes clashes or disjoints between the group members’ conceptions of LI in general. The manifestations of these contradictions in the statements of participants correspond to dilemmas in the typology of contradictions offered by Engeström and Sannino (2011), as examples of incompatible interpretations. These primary, conceptual contradictions do not, however, go so far as to become what Engeström and Sannino (2011) describe as conflicts, that is, outspoken resistance and criticism. Rather, the extent and significance of these types of contradictions appears to be downplayed in the descriptions offered in the interviews, which makes them difficult to fully detect and assess.

Although in theory, the sort of clashes of view and interpretation between individual LIWG members’ conceptions of LI found in the analysis could be thought to lead to conflicts regarding the object of activities – what is meant to be selected for digitisation and representation – we find that in practice, the group counteracts events that might lead to those types of consequences. Although the divergent LI conceptions mentioned are often ascribed to younger and newly joined group members, their alternative conceptions are not seen as opportunities for learning and change, but rather as incongruences and inconveniences. The group continuously strives to align new and divergent views with the previously established conceptions of the LIWG through senior mentoring and internal education, even though it takes considerable time and resources. The methods and processes of dealing with these types of conflicts, especially when originating from newcomers and younger persons, are in line with a culture where tradition and seniority in both age and experience is given prominence. From an activity theory perspective, however, this means that the group hereby foregoes potential opportunities to learn, expand, and transform itself, its LI conceptions, and LI digitisation work.

The circumscription of the LI concept when applied for selection and representation of LI resources in practice represents another type of contradiction that we categorise as being of secondary order – occurring between several elements of an activity (Engeström, 1987: 103–104). In this case, the contradiction is between conceptions of LI as (supposed) tool for digitisation activities, and the performance of actual digitisation activities, with particular emphasis on what becomes selected for digitisation, and what becomes excluded. This type of contradiction is not at all explicitly acknowledged by the LIWG members, and it is therefore impossible to say to what extent they are aware of it. As Blackler (2011) argues, contradictions are particularly ‘hard to spot’ in large-scale contexts of unequal power dynamics, and Kelly’s (2018: 472) recommendation to pay critical attention to, among other things, what is ‘. . . cut, subjugated . . . or “submerged” . . . along a temporal activity chain. . .’ in order to ‘. . . locate unequal power dynamics’ was decisive in this study for the uncovering of this type of contradiction. The manifestations of this contradiction are, in other words, unobtrusive (Blackler, 2011: 731) – hidden from view – and only appear upon the close comparison between group members’ general LI conceptions and the group’s actual goal-directed activities that this study facilitates through methodological and theoretical design.

The lack of discursive manifestations of the above described secondary types of contradictions also means that they cannot be categorised with the (discursively oriented) typology of Engeström and Sannino (2011). But they can be understood as manifesting in terms of misfits (Karanasios et al., 2017, section 2.2.) in another sense; here, between conceptions and actions. And even though ‘hidden’ from direct view for external researchers and maybe also for the activity system itself, these contradictions exist, and they affect activities directed towards the shared object of LI. In light of this, the activity theory approach provides the understanding that if activity systems do not acknowledge the existence of contradictions, these contradictions cannot be used and function in the positive sense as drivers of change, as dialectical tools of development (Blackler, 2011; Engeström, 1987; Karanasios et al., 2017).

The consensus oriented approach of the LIWG can hereby also be understood as conservative, as it hides and counteracts contradictions and rather strives to maintain established views and activities. This is also a likely explanation for the lack of manifestations of contradictions of tertiary type, that is, contradictions between older and newer or more advanced versions of activities (Engeström, 1987: 103–104). As the group’s activities are repeated and conserved, rather than allowed to transform and evolve over time, ‘new’ versions of activities may not have been introduced thus far. A quaternary type of contradiction is discernible in the empirical material, concerning how time and money are scarce resources which causes competition between LI digitisation and other work tasks. This contradiction, however, falls outside the scope of this study as it goes beyond our focus on contradictions between conceptions of LI and actual LI digitisation activities (c.f. however Nonthacumjane et al., 2022, for an elaboration of this).

Conclusions

The analysis shows that the LI digitisation activities of the LIWG above all contribute to shape LI as a tool for national identity and unity, a conclusion that is also supported by other studies (Mungmachon, 2012; Pornpimon et al., 2014). The pillars of these normative, ideological and conservative activities of the LIWG emphasise traditional, rural values and knowledge. The approach, further, is unobtrusive or ‘hidden’, which requires analytical attention to both to what is included – ‘elevated’ – and what is excluded – ‘subjugated’ (Kelly, 2018). While open and inclusive concerning various formats and origins of LI expressions (e.g. valuing local knowledge holders’ expertise), the activities exclude marginalised cultures and societally undesirable LI. The consequences risk creating a limited view of Thailand’s history, cultures, and Peoples. The LIWG’s activities are not seen, however, to contribute to the shaping of LI as a tool and resource for national economic advancement, as suggested in other contexts (e.g. Noble, 2019; Pornpimon et al., 2014).

Overall, thus, we find that several significant contradictions of primary and secondary character (Engeström, 1987: 103–104) exist in the context of activities studied here, but that they are largely hidden – downplayed, unacknowledged (c.f. Blackler, 2011; Kelly, 2018) and counteracted. This means that the LIWG is not utilising the constructive potential of contradictions suggested by activity theory to learn, transform and evolve with regard to what is selected and how this is accomplished in the LI digitisation activities. Even severe contradictions, according to this theory, hold potentials of constructive learning and development. There has to be, however, an incentive for, or interest on behalf of, the activity system and its politically and institutionally anchored mandate to learn, change, and evolve in the first place. At this point, such conditions are not ostensibly present in the context of the LIWG’s LI digitisation activities.

Following this general exploration of voids and silences (unobtrusive or hidden contradictions, c.f. Blackler, 2011), a brief note on the LIWG’s (as well as Thailand’s) contradictory relation with the term ‘Indigenous’ is also warranted. Whereas excluded from state politics through careful motivation and crafting of arguments (c.f. Baird, 2019; NIPT, 2010), the LIWG members do in fact mention ‘Indigenous’ at regular intervals when describing their general conceptions of LI. But when describing the group’s application of the LI concept in practice, for selecting and digitising LI, it is not mentioned. The LIWG’s seemingly formal avoidance of the term may therefore contradict in yet another way with individual group members’ informal conceptions of LI. The formal avoidance on all levels is also likely to cause detrimental restraints to national and international perspectives on values and characteristics of LI in Thailand, as it is may hinder Thai researchers, librarians, politicians and LI holders from connecting with global ILK discussions.

All aspects presented here are understudied and warrant continued inquiry for the enhancement of knowledge and understanding of Thai LI. In particular, studies focusing on LI holders’ conceptions of and (inter)actions with Thai LI, both in general and as physical and digital collections at university and public libraries, would provide important complements to the knowledge contribution offered here. Similarly, there is need for studies examining the actual results of LI digitisation – the LI databases and other possibly related output – both as close, situated case studies of specific LI resources and LI holder communities, and as large-scale and longitudinal studies aiming to explore and describe the national digitised LI collections of Thailand as a whole, and over time.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work has been funded by the Chiang Mai University, Thailand, and the University of Borås, Sweden.

ORCID iDs

Pussadee Nonthacumjane

Veronica Johansson

Notes

Author biographies

Pussadee Nonthacumjane is a doctoral student at the Swedish School of Library and Information Science (SSLIS), University of Borås, Sweden. Her research interests include local information, local studies, local history and genealogy, cultural heritage, social media and user studies.

Veronica Johansson is senior lecturer in library and information science at the Swedish School of Library and Information Science (SSLIS), University of Borås, Sweden. Her main research interests concern social perspectives on data and visualisations with particular focus on related aspects of ethics, privacy, critical literacy and critical design.

References

Apidechkul

(2011) Health status, the local wisdom in folk medicine, and community-base health-promotion of Akha in Thailand. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 65(1): A374–A375.

Asia News Monitor (2012) Thailand: PM Yingluck urges more focus on local wisdom towards ASEAN Community. Asia News Monitor, 10 August.

Asia News Monitor (2014) Thailand: OTOP products – A way to promote Thai local wisdom and culture. Asia News Monitor, 1 July.

Baird

(2019) Indigenous Peoples in Thailand: A contradictory interpretation. The Asia Dialogue. Available at: https://theasiadialogue.com/2019/11/29/indigenous-peoples-in-thailand-a-contradictory-interpretation/ (accessed 30 December 2021).

Benyei

Arreola

Reyes-García

(2020) Storing and sharing: A review of indigenous and local knowledge conservation initiatives. Ambio 49: 218–230.

Blackler

(2011) Power, politics, and intervention theory: Lessons from organization studies. Theory & Psychology 21(5): 724–734.

Bryman

(2016) Social Research Methods, 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dewe

(ed.) (2002) Local Studies Collection Management. New York, NY: Ashgate Publishing.

Engeström

(1987) Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Orienta-Konsultit: Helsinki.

10.

Engeström

Sannino

(2011) Discursive manifestations of contradictions in organizational change efforts: A methodological framework. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24(3): 368–387.

11.

Farhana

LAN

Rashidi

(eds) (2013) Retracing Tradition for a Sustainable Future: The Malaysian Experience. Kuala Lumpur: Penerbit.

12.

Hsieh

H-F

Shannon

(2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15(9): 1277–1288.

13.

Jarusawat

Cox

Bates

(2018) Community participation in the management of palm leaf manuscripts as Lanna cultural material in Thailand. Journal of Documentation 74(5): 951–965.

14.

Karanasios

Allen

(2018) Activity theory in information systems research. Information Systems Journal 28: 439–441.

15.

Karanasios

Riisla

Simeonova

(2017) Exploring the use of contradictions in activity theory studies: An interdisciplinary review. In: Presented at the 33rd EGOS Colloquium: The Good Organization, Copenhagen, 6–8 July. Available at: https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/conference_contribution/Exploring_the_use_of_contradictions_in_activity_theory_studies_An_interdisciplinary_review/9499139 (accessed 13 December 2022).

16.

Kelly

(2018) An activity theory study of data, knowledge, and power in the design of an international development NGO impact evaluation. Information Systems Journal 28: 465–488.

17.

Kenny

(2014) Power and the construction of independence in ICTD organizations. Information Technology for Development 20(1): 6–22.

18.

Kloß

(2017) The Global South as subversive practice: Challenges and potentials of a heuristic concept. Global South 11(2): 1–17.

19.

Kosonen

(2017) Language of instruction in Southeast Asia: Background paper prepared for the 2017–18 Global Education Monitoring report Accountability in Education: Meeting Our Commitments. UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259576 (accessed 30 December 2021).

20.

Kusumasari

Alam

(2012) Local wisdom-based disaster recovery model in Indonesia. Disaster Prevention & Management 21(3): 351–369.

21.

Leont’ev

(1978) Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

22.

Maejo University Archives (2015) Local information. Available at: https://archives.mju.ac.th/web/?page_id=124 (accessed 13 December 2022).

23.

Minority Rights Group International (2017a) Thailand. Available at: https://minorityrights.org/country/thailand/ (accessed 30 December 2021).

24.

Minority Rights Group International (2017b) Thailand. Highland indigenous peoples. Available at: https://minorityrights.org/minorities/highland-ethnic-groups/ (accessed 30 December 2021).

25.

Mungmachon

(2012) Knowledge and local wisdom: Community treasure. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2(13): 174–181.

26.

Nichols

(1979) Local Studies Librarianship. London: Clive Bingley.

27.

The Network of Indigenous Peoples in Thailand (2010) Indigenous Peoples of Thailand. Focus 62, December. Asia-Pacific Human Rights Information Center (HURIGHTS Osaka). Available at: https://www.hurights.or.jp/archives/focus/section2/2010/12/indigenous-peoples-of-thailand.html (accessed 30 December 2021).

28.

Noble

(2019) Mobilities of the One-Product policy from Japan to Thailand: A critical policy study of OVOP and OTOP. Territory, Politics, Governance 7(4): 455–473.

29.

Nonthacumjane

Maceviciute

Wilson

(2022) Organizational aspects of collaboration on local information management by Thai provincial university libraries. Journal of Library Administration 66(6): 771–792.

30.

Nonthacumjane

Nolin

(2022) Four typologies for understanding local information. Global Knowledge, Memory and Communication. Epub ahead of print 20 January 2020. DOI: 10.1108/GKMC-05-2021-0083.

31.

Pornpimon

Wallapha

Prayuth

(2014) Strategy challenges the local wisdom applications sustainability in schools. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 112: 626–634.

32.

PULINET (2021) Provincial University Library Network. Available at: http://www.pulinet.org/en/pulinet-about/ (accessed 30 December 2021).

33.

Reed

(1975) Local history today: Current themes and problems for the local history library. Journal of Librarianship 7(3): 161–181.

34.

Reid

Macafee

(2007) The philosophy of local studies in the interactive age. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 39(3): 126–141.

35.

Rivière

Erdelen

(2009) Foreword. In: Bates

Chiba

Kube

, et al. (eds) Learning and Knowing in Indigenous Societies Today. Paris: UNESCO.

36.

Samuel

(1976) Local history and oral history. History Workshop 1: 191–208.

37.

Somboonanek

(2001) Local information and library new trends. Journal of Academic 10(3): 52–62. (in Thai)

38.

Stone

(1971) English and United States local history. Daedalus 100(1): 128–132.

39.

The United Nations (n.d.) Indigenous Peoples at the United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/about-us.html (accessed 30 December 2021).

40.

UNESCO (2009) Learning and Knowing in Indigenous Societies Today, Edited by Bates

Chiba

Kube

, et al. Paris: UNESCO.

41.

UNESCO (2017) What is local and indigenous knowledge? Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/priority-areas/links/related-information/what-is-local-and-indigenous-knowledge (accessed 30 December 2021).

42.

Vandebroek

Reyes-García

de Albuquerque (2011) Local knowledge: Who cares? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 7: 35.

43.

Van Klyton

Castaño-Muñoz

(2017) Local information services in Medellin: Technology, institutions, communities and power. Technology in Society 50: 20–30.

44.

Vygotsky

(1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

45.

Wager

Kleinert

(2011) Responsible research publication: International standards for authors. In: A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment (eds T Mayer and N Steneck), Singapore, 22–24 July 2010, pp.309–316. Singapore: Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing.

46.

Warraich

Malik

(2019) Managing and preserving indigenous newspapers in an information management era: A case of a developing country. The Serials Librarian 77(3–4): 84–92.

47.

Wati

Sumarwati

Saddhono

(2018) Culture conservation through implementation of local wisdom in tradition ceremony of Dhukutan in Javanese language learning. In: Proceedings of the international seminar on recent language, literature, and local cultural studies (BASA 2018). Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, vol. 280, pp.584–590. Available at: https://www.atlantis-press.com/article/25906142 (accessed 30 December 2021).

48.

Wilson

(2008) Activity theory in information seeking. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 42(1): 119–161.

49.

Wongbusarakum

(2009) Loss of traditional practices, loss of knowledge, and the sustainability of cultural and natural resources: A case of Urak Lawoi people in the Adang archipelago, Southwest Thailand. In: Bates

Chiba

Kube

, et al. (eds) Learning and Knowing in Indigenous Societies Today. Paris: UNESCO, pp.73–86.

50.

Younging

(2018) Elements of Indigenous Style: A Guide for Writing By and About Indigenous Peoples. Edmonton, AB: Brush Education.