Decolonized Participatory Design: Sustainable Tech Adoption in Northern and Indigenous Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper critically examines the interplay of innovation, policy, and purpose in the context of northern and remote Indigenous communities in Canada and explores the intersection of technology adoption and decolonized participatory design (DPD). By focusing on technology adoption, specifically drawing on highlights from a community-based study on telehealth adoption in Northern Canada, the paper seeks to challenge conventional approaches to leading, managing, and organizing technology projects. As these communities face unique challenges, innovation must be redefined to prioritize inclusivity, community collaboration, and sustainable socio-economic development. The study reveals early challenges in telehealth implementation, underscoring the importance of considering community needs, local resources, and capacity and emphasizing the broader socio-cultural and technical factors in technology design, adoption, and assessment. The study highlights a mismatch between technologies designed for southern contexts and their relevance in the north, emphasizing the importance of community-driven approaches and a DPD framework informed by Science and Technology Studies and Indigenous perspectives. It underscores the potential of DPD to reshape decision-making for technology solutions aligned with community needs. The paper contributes to community-engaged innovation management research by emphasizing equitable resource distribution, responsible innovation, and Indigenous knowledge for sustainable innovation in community contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".