However, when asked about who drives or will drive relevant initiatives, the answers varied. In most cases, either the university or the library was driving or planned to drive the decolonisation initiatives. Some participants said that the archive was leading relevant activities, while personal interest and academic/ user interest also seemed to play an important role in driving decolonisation in several cases. Fewer respondents said that the museum was leading decolonisation activities or chose ‘other’, while there were two cases where the question was not applicable. Yet, these responses should be viewed alongside the information related to the sectors where respondents belonged to. As the majority of those completing the survey came from the academic or library sectors, this has probably had an impact on the results of this question, showing the university or library to be leading initiatives around decolonisation in most cases.
Moreover, when delegates were asked about whether sufficient human resource is allocated to support decolonisation initiatives in the cases where institutions were delivering or planning to deliver these, the majority replied that this was not enough. There were some delegates who said that some human resource was allocated while, only in three cases, institutions allocated sufficient human resource to plan and deliver relevant activities. There were five participants saying that the question was not relevant to them.
Thinking about whether responsibilities related to decolonisation were part of the survey participants’ job role and/ or part of their objectives, it was found that this was true in several cases but not formally. Some delegates said that duties related to decolonisation were not part of their day job or objectives. Three said that these were formally part of their role or objectives, and another three replied that these were only partially part of their role or objectives. There was also one respondent who chose ‘other’.