evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

NUST's Indigenous Knowledge in Digital World Cluster — Co-Designing Digital Tools with Namibia's San and OvaHimba Communities

Namibia · Windhoek · See the Namibia profile · See the Windhoek profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 32% 80/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2008, a NUST research cluster — now a UNESCO Chair (2025) — has co-designed digital games, VR and AI prototypes directly with Namibia's San and OvaHimba communities as design partners, culminating in a 2025 international indigenous-knowledge gathering in Windhoek.

NUST's Indigenous Knowledge in Digital World Cluster — Co-Designing Digital Tools with Namibia's San and OvaHimba Communities

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST) — Indigenous Knowledge in Digital World cluster / UNESCO Chair in Digital Technology Design with Indigenous People
Period
2008–present; UNESCO Chair established July 2025
Keywords
participatory design, indigenous knowledge, HCI research, digital heritage, universal design

Context

Since 2008, the Indigenous Knowledge in Digital World research cluster at the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST), led by Prof. Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, has co-designed digital technologies directly with San and OvaHimba communities in rural Namibia, treating community members as design partners from the outset rather than testing tools on them afterwards.

Activities

Peer-reviewed studies document San co-designers explicitly rejecting 'contemporary' interface conventions in favour of culturally relevant alternatives, and describe jointly built outputs including a digital 'innovation game' for community futuring, a VR prototype co-explored with a remote San community in the Kalahari, and participatory AI prototypes built with OvaHimba and San community members. In July 2025 this work led to a UNESCO Chair in Digital Technology Design with Indigenous People at NUST, launched via a 'Weaving Futures Knowledge Fair' in Windhoek that produced a knowledge exchange between Namibia's Ju/'hoansi San trackers and Tanzania's Hadzabe community using the CyberTracker app, and an Ocean Literacy Toolkit with the Topnaar community.

Conclusions

This is primarily a university research programme rather than a deployed public or commercial service: outputs are largely research prototypes tested with small numbers of participants in specific villages, not evaluated at population scale. The co-design methodology is well-established and peer-reviewed over 15+ years, but the UNESCO Chair itself is new and has no independent track record yet.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — University research programme funded through academic and research channels; specific budget not publicly reported. The UNESCO Chair was established in July 2025.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Running continuously since 2008; UNESCO Chair launched July 2025 with a September 2025 Weaving Futures Knowledge Fair in Windhoek.
Staffing & skills
NUST research cluster led by Prof. Heike Winschiers-Theophilus, San and OvaHimba community members as co-design partners, Sign/knowledge linguists and AI engineers

Conditions for success

  • Treating community members as design partners from the outset, not test subjects after the fact
  • Willingness to replace 'contemporary' interface conventions with culturally relevant alternatives when the community rejects them
  • Sustained multi-year relationship-building (15+ years) rather than one-off engagement

Common failure modes

  • Outputs remain research prototypes tested with small numbers of participants in specific villages, not evaluated at population scale

Where it fits

Governance type
university research programme / UNESCO Chair
Scale
village-level pilots with multi-country knowledge exchange
Income level
upper-middle-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful