Integrating Indigenous Data Sovereignty Principles Into Learning Health Systems: Survey of Canadian PBRLNs and Framework Analysis.

Indigenous Peoples have been stewarding lands with fire for ecosystem improvement since time immemorial. These stewardship practices are part and parcel of the ways in which Indigenous Peoples have long recorded and protected knowledge through our cultural transmission practices, such as oral histories. In short, our Peoples have always been data gatherers, and as this article presents, we are also fire data gatherers and stewards. Given the growing interest in fire research with Indigenous communities, there is an opportunity for guidance on data collection conducted equitably and responsibly with Indigenous Peoples. This Special Issue of Fire presents fire research approaches and data harvesting practices with Indigenous communities as we “Reimagine the Future of Living and Working with Fire”. Specifically, the article provides future-thinking practices that can achieve equitable, sustainable, and just outcomes with and for stakeholders and rightholders (the preferred term Indigenous Peoples use in partnerships with academics, agencies, and NGOs). This research takes from the following key documents to propose an “Indigenous fire data sovereignty” (IFDS) framework: (1) Articles declared in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) as identified by the author and specified in Indigenous-led and allied Indigenous fire research in Australia, Canada, and the U.S.; (2) recommendations specific to cultural fire policy and calls for research in the 2023 Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission report; (3) research and data barriers and opportunities produced in the 2024 Good Fire II report; and threads from (4) the Indigenous Fire Management conceptual model. This paper brings together recommendations on Indigenous data sovereignty, which are principles developed by Indigenous researchers for the protection, dissemination, and stewardship of data collected from Tribal/Nation/Aboriginal/First Nations Indigenous communities. The proposed IFDS framework also identifies potential challenges to Indigenous fire data sovereignty. By doing so, the framework serves as an apparatus to deploy fire research and data harvesting practices that are culturally informed, responsible, and ethically demonstrated. The article concludes with specific calls to action for academics and researchers, allies, fire managers, policymakers, and Indigenous Peoples to consider in exercising Indigenous fire data sovereignty and applying Indigenous data sovereignty principles to fire research.

<p>Chapter 21 in the book <em><a href="http://www.africanminds.co.za/dd-product/state-of-open-data/">The State of Open Data: Histories and Horizons.</a></em></p>

Recognising Indigenous data sovereignty and implementing Indigenous data governance at the Ngangk Yira Institute for Change

American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.

This paper analyzes the current practices of Indigenous data sovereignty in environmental research and activism in the United States, as known by the settler government. The CARE principles are a widely adopted set of guidelines for Indigenous data sovereignty with guidelines being collective benefit, authority to control, respect and ethics, yet there exists little detail on current practices of operationalization and implementation of the CARE principles. This research specifically identified opportunities to further clarify how environmental data can be managed in accordance with the CARE principles. Using current literature, we examine how sustainability and Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) research could better incorporate Indigenous data sovereignty and governance. Through three interviews with Indigenous environmental practitioners, we use inductive and deductive analysis to understand current thoughts and practices. In a forestry analysis case study with the Penobscot Nation, we examine specifically how the CARE principles could be implemented into a research project. The interviews and case study reveal design considerations such as emphasizing roles in responsibility and ethics to be taken into future HCI research involving Indigenous data sovereignty in environmental contexts.

In this article we argue that in Australian social work context and practice, Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-SOV) needs to be operationalised by enacting the principles of Indigenous Data Governance (ID-GOV). Failure to embed ID-SOV and ID-GOV leaves the profession open to claims that it is complicit in disempowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to data. ID-SOV is a global movement focused on Indigenous Peoples having access to, and ownership, control, and possession of, their data. Social work is a profession committed to championing equal rights and challenging injustices. Therefore, it has an obligation to decolonise existing data structures in its workplaces. This article outlines the Australian ID-SOV movement, including current scholarship on operationalising ID-SOV in the form of ID-GOV, and the challenge for social work to position itself in alliance with the ID-SOV movement and in active participation in changing the way Indigenous data have traditionally been collected and used in Australia IMPLICATIONS The Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-SOV) movement demands the data rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and is re-shaping the Australian data landscape. If social work is true to its stated commitment to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander self-determination, the profession needs to engage with ID-SOV and work to operationalise Indigenous Data Governance (ID-GOV) across social work environments. A particular focus of this article is the importance of ID-SOV and ID-GOV being operationalised within social work research and policy in areas such as “child protection”, the criminal justice system, health and wellbeing, and housing.

In the current data‐driven landscape of wildlife conservation, data sovereignty (i.e. governance and security) is fundamental to determining how knowledge is created and applied to pressing biodiversity concerns. Western science increasingly champions open data, which uplifts data stewardship and sharing to make data more accessible. At the same time, Indigenous Peoples stress the importance of Indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) to assert Indigenous rights over Indigenous data. These two philosophies offer distinct approaches to data sovereignty, creating possible tensions in collaborations between Western scientists and Indigenous Peoples. Awareness of this issue in wildlife conservation is slowly growing, and practical guidance is needed for balancing IDS and open data in collaborations. Here, we review current literature to identify challenges in bringing IDS and open data together in collaborative wildlife conservation. We include specific commentary for wildlife sensors (camera traps and autonomous recording units) due to the growing use and demonstrated interest in open data practices for these technologies and their appeal in Indigenous‐led conservation. We describe three nested themes of data sovereignty: collaborative relationships, data governance and data stewardship. Within these themes, we identify nine recommendations to navigate potential IDS and open data tensions in collaborations, stressing the need to focus on relationship building, support Indigenous data governance agendas and to discuss upfront expectations for data stewardship. Additionally, we suggest reflective questions to consider throughout the data life cycle. This provides a framework for understanding the sociocultural implications of wildlife data and supporting IDS throughout the collaborative process, while identifying opportunities to apply open data stewardship practices. Synthesis and applications: Our work demonstrates the need for explicit recognition of IDS principles for wildlife data and proposes general guidance for addressing data sovereignty in collaborative initiatives. We recognize that our recommendations are not exhaustive and that each collaborative context brings unique challenges and opportunities. We invite continued discussion on data governance and stewardship to promote shared learning. Our recommendations can be applied more broadly to facilitate a new approach to data sovereignty in collaborations across the natural sciences. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

This study explores the current state and dynamics of the global Indigenous data sovereignty movement-the movement pressing for Indigenous peoples to have full control over the collection and governance of data relating to their lived realities. The article outlines the movement's place within the broader push for Indigenous self-determination; examines its links to big data, open data, intellectual property rights, and access and benefit-sharing; details a pioneering assertion of data sovereignty by Canada's First Nations; outlines relevant UN and international civil society processes; and examines the nascent movement in Africa. The study identifies a fundamental tension between the objectives of Indigenous data sovereignty and those of the open data movement, which does not directly cater for Indigenous peoples' full control over their data. The study also identifies the need for African Indigenous peoples to become more fully integrated into the global Indigenous data sovereignty movement.

Topic: Perspectives on Linkage Involving Indigenous dataIndigenous populations across the globe are reaffirming their sovereignty rights in the collection and use of Indigenous data. The Indigenous data sovereignty movement has been widely influential and can be unsettling for those who routinely use population-level linked data that include Indigenous identifiers. Ethical policies that stipulate community engagement for access, interpretation and dissemination of Indigenous data create an enabling environment through the critical process of negotiating and navigating data access in partnership with communities. This session will be designed to create space for leading Indigenous voices to set the tone for the discussion around Indigenous population data linkage.
 Objectives:
 
 To provide participants with an opportunity to build on the themes of Indigenous Data Sovereignty presented in the keynote session as they apply to diverse Indigenous populations.
 To explore approaches to the linkage of Indigenous-identified population data across four countries, including First Nations in three Canadian regions.
 To share practical applications of Indigenous data sovereignty on data linkage and analysis and discussion.
 To center Indigenous-driven data linkage and research.
 
 Facilitator:Jennifer Walker. Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Health, Laurentian University and Indigenous Lead, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.
 Collaborators:
 
 Alberta: Bonnie Healy, Tina Apsassin, Chyloe Healy and William Wadsworth (Alberta First Nations Information Governance Centre)
 Ontario: Carmen R. Jones (Chiefs of Ontario) and Jennifer Walker (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences)
 British Columbia: Jeff Reading (Providence Health Centre) and Laurel Lemchuk-Favel (First Nations Health Authority)
 Australia: Raymond Lovett (Australian National University)
 Aotearoa / New Zealand: Donna Cormack (University of Otago)
 United States: Stephanie Rainie and Desi Rodriguez-Lonebear (University of Arizona)
 
 Session format: 90 minutesCollaborators will participate in a round-table introduction to the work they are doing. Collaborators will discuss the principles underlying their approaches to Indigenous data linkage as well as practical and concrete solutions to challenges. Questions to guide the discussion will be pre-determined by consensus among the collaborators and the themes will include: data governance, community engagement, Indigenous-led linkage and analysis of data, and decision-making regarding access to linked data. Other participants attending the session will be encouraged to listen and will have an opportunity to engage in the discussion and ask questions.
 Intended output or outcome:The key outcome of the session will be twofold. First, those actively working with Indigenous linked data will have an opportunity for an in-depth and meaningful dialogue about their work, which will promote international collaboration and sharing of ideas. Second, those with less experience and knowledge of the principles of Indigenous data sovereignty and their practical application will have an opportunity to listen to Indigenous people who are advancing the integration of Indigenous ways of knowing into data linkage and analysis.
 The output of the session will be a summary paper highlighting both the diversity and commonalities of approaches to Indigenous data linkage internationally. Areas where consensus exists, opportunities for collaboration, and challenges will be highlighted.

Data have become the new global currency, and a powerful force in making decisions and wielding power. As the world engages with open data, big data reuse, and data linkage, what do data-driven futures look like for communities plagued by data inequities? Indigenous data stakeholders and non-Indigenous allies have explored this question over the last three years in a series of meetings through the Research Data Alliance (RDA). Drawing on RDA and other gatherings, and a systematic scan of literature and practice, we consider possible answers to this question in the context of Indigenous peoples vis-á-vis two emerging concepts: Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance. Specifically, we focus on the data challenges facing Native nations and the intersection of data, tribal sovereignty, and power. Indigenous data sovereignty is the right of each Native nation to govern the collection, ownership, and application of the tribe’s data. Native nations exercise Indigenous data sovereignty through the interrelated processes of Indigenous data governance and decolonizing data. This paper explores the implications of Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance for Native nations and others. We argue for the repositioning of authority over Indigenous data back to Indigenous peoples. At the same time, we recognize that there are significant obstacles to rebuilding effective Indigenous data systems and the process will require resources, time, and partnerships among Native nations, other governments, and data agents.

American Indians, Alaska Natives and other Indigenous Peoples throughout the world continue to experience research abuse. Data that draw on Indigenous knowledge, including intellectual property, oral histories, interviews, cultural expressions and other qualitative data are especially at risk of appropriation, theft and misrepresentation and threaten cultural sovereignty. As more Indigenous Peoples assert their right to govern research in their communities, universities must consider their role in this growing movement of Indigenous research rights. Overall, the expectations, requirements and processes of university institutional review boards generally do not support Indigenous Data Sovereignty. In this chapter, I discuss political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty and Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the United States. I also discuss the role of universities in addressing Indigenous Data Sovereignty by exploring select United States university institute review board guidelines that specifically address research with Indigenous Peoples. Finally, I offer recommendations for universities and university-affiliated researchers to support Indigenous Data Sovereignty.

In an increasingly digital world, we are continuously being met with novel and unprecedented challenges, the likes of which we have never encountered in our human history. Not only are we engaged in the balancing act of protecting individual and personal rights and freedoms with respect to both positive and negative rights, but we are also working to balance the interests of our communities, societies, and the greater global world in this novel forum. We have seen a growth in the desire for equality and equity for under-recognized and marginalised social groups, including the interest in indigenous rights and data sovereignty, as well as greater environmental accountability and transparency with regard to the inner workings of data centres and large technological infrastructure projects. Finally, we are seeing the fast-paced growth of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the corresponding concerns relating to human rights and ethics. These topics, and many more, are the ones which we will have to face as emerging topics in data sovereignty and digital governance in the months and years to come.In this chapter, we will discuss some of the major emerging topics in data sovereignty and digital governance, including the concept of digital rights, indigenous data sovereignty, the issues associated with data centres and data mines, digital self-determination, artificial intelligence, social responsibility, and data policing.KeywordsDigital rightsIndigenous data sovereigntyData centres and minesDigital self-determinationArtificial intelligence

Yarning is a trusted, culturally integral way of creating new knowledge that is different from focus groups. This article is a reflection piece from an Aboriginal Researcher engaging with Indigenous Standpoint and auto-ethnographic approaches to explore how yarning interfaces with Indigenous data sovereignty. It is argued through the themes of deep listening, tension, relationality, and power—from memories and lived experiences—that yarning upholds the rights of Indigenous data sovereignty because it enables intimacy, connection, and recognition of cultural knowledge holders. IMPLICATIONS Indigenous Data Sovereignty recognises the rights of Indigenous people to determine the means of collection, ownership, and dissemination of data pertaining to Indigenous Peoples. The level of intimacy and connection between First Nations Peoples obtained through yarning is at risk of being compromised if non-Indigenous researchers conflate yarning with focus groups.

The Australian Universities Accord Final Report offers a historic yet insufficient opportunity to advance Indigenous self-determination in higher education. Its goals will remain hollow without dismantling the entrenched colonial foundations embedded in universities’ governance and data practices. This paper demands that Indigenous data sovereignty – the inherent right of Indigenous peoples to control data about their communities, knowledge systems, and territories – become the unyielding cornerstone of university transformation. Building on the critical work of Indigenous scholars and decolonial theorists, it presents a radical agenda: (1) advance Indigenous data governance despite systemic constraints, (2) overhaul exploitative research protocols, (3) embed Indigenous knowledge systems, (4) invest in Indigenous data infrastructures, and (5) forge alliances that centre Indigenous nationhood. This agenda challenges universities to abandon symbolic reforms and confront their colonial legacies. By embracing Indigenous data sovereignty, universities can honour their obligations and lead the charge towards a just, humane, and decolonised future.

Indigenous Data Sovereignty, in its proclamation of the right of Indigenous peoples to govern the collection, ownership, and application of data, recognises data as a cultural and economic asset. The impact of data is magnified by the emergence of Big Data and the associated impetus to open publicly held data (Open Data). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, families and communities, heavily overrepresented in social disadvantage–related data will also be overrepresented in the application of these new technologies, but in a data landscape, Indigenous peoples remain largely alienated from the use of data and its utilization within the channels of policy power. Existing data infrastructure, and the emerging Open Data infrastructure, neither recognise Indigenous agency and worldviews nor consider Indigenous data needs. This is demonstrated in the absence of any consideration of Indigenous data issues in Open Data discussions and publication. Thus, while the potential benefits of this data revolution are trumpeted, our marginalised social, cultural and political location suggests we will not share equally in these benefits. This paper discusses the unforeseen (and likely unseen) consequences of the influence of Open Data and Big Data and discusses how Indigenous Data Sovereignty can mediate risks while providing pathways to collective benefits.