The decolonization initiative and discourse fundamentally aims to transform the role of local actors from passive subjects or mere informants to empowered, leading agents and co-creators of knowledge within the existing global knowledge infrastructures
The stakeholders involved (Sun Microsystems, the International DOI Foundation, R.R. Bowker, and elite U.S. universities) reflect a closed circle of influential Western institutions. Even in discussing governance, Norman Paskin’s role focuses on the DOI Foundation’s “business plan” and relationships with “other information organizations,” all of which operate within dominant knowledge economies. This early discussion of DOI governance assumes that powerful corporate and academic actors will define and manage the infrastructure, leaving little to no room for local or marginalized actors to shape or contest its development.
Nearly three decades later, it is only now that actors outside this founding circle are being invited to participate, and primarily to adopt and implement an already fully established system (see the 2024 announcement of the Africa PID Alliance). This raises a critical question: Are these so-called "late entrants" being given meaningful power to reshape the infrastructure, or are they merely positioned as users within a system whose rules and priorities remain firmly in the hands of its original architects?
The Africa PID Alliance positions African actors as late entrants to an already-established global infrastructure. Joy Owango states, “Africa really needs to be part of the conversation,” framing participation as integration rather than transformation. While the initiative claims leadership—“we are starting from Africa”—it simultaneously acknowledges that it is “leveraging on existing technology” and partnerships with dominant global actors like Crossref and DataCite. This positions African stakeholders primarily as users and implementers of external infrastructures, not as creators of new epistemic or infrastructural paradigms.