Integration of Digital Technologies in Ethnomathematics Research: A Scoping Review (2015–2026)

This registration documents a scoping review that maps the empirical and conceptual evidence on how digital technologies are integrated into ethnomathematics research in educational contexts. Ethnomathematics links mathematics teaching to the practices of cultural groups, and digital technologies (dynamic geometry and other software, mobile apps, web-based environments, augmented and virtual reality, artificial intelligence, digital games) offer new ways to represent and teach those practices. Previous reviews of the field are bibliometric, systematic or meta-analytic and have not mapped technology integration as such. Objective: to identify trends, predominant technologies, educational levels, geographic distribution, study designs and research gaps. Four research questions guide the review: (RQ1) which digital technologies have been integrated into ethnomathematics research in education; (RQ2) at which educational levels and in which contexts; (RQ3) with which designs, theoretical frameworks and evaluation approaches; and (RQ4) which gaps are reported or observed. Methods: the review follows the Arksey and O'Malley framework, the Levac et al. enhancements and the JBI guidance, and is reported according to PRISMA-ScR, with a PRISMA 2020-style flow diagram. The question was structured with the SPIDER framework. Scopus and Web of Science were searched on 10 October 2026 with a three-block Boolean string (ethnomathematics terms AND technology terms AND education terms), restricted to 2016–2026 in Scopus (journal articles) and 2015–2026 in Web of Science. Eligible documents address ethnomathematics, ethnomodeling or indigenous/cultural mathematics; involve an explicit digital technology; and have an educational component. Reviews, meta-analyses and bibliometric studies were excluded. Records were deduplicated by DOI and normalized title and screened at title and abstract level. Data were charted for year, country, technology, educational level, study design and reported gaps, and synthesized descriptively with frequencies, cross-tabulations and a narrative synthesis. No formal critical appraisal was performed, in line with scoping review guidance. Transparency statement: this is a retrospective registration, submitted after the search and the screening were completed, so it is not a prospective protocol. The question, eligibility criteria and search strings were documented in an internal process report before screening. Screening and coding were done by a single reviewer with the assistance of a large language model (Claude, Anthropic) and the reviewer's supervision; the reviewer changed six screening decisions and checked the full text of eight records. Deviations and limitations are reported in the manuscript.