Module 06 - Indigenous data sovereignty

There is no shortage of think-pieces that contextualise the FAIR and CARE Guiding Principles, and a growing number of empirical examples that facilitate Indigenous People’s Rights in Data and Indigenous data sovereignty (e.g., Indigenous Peoples’ Rights in Data: a contribution toward Indigenous Research Sovereignty). There are many ways these goals can be achieved. Here, we focus on helping researchers translate these principles into meaningful actions to empower Indigenous research partners.

Developing relationships with Indigenous research partners

We encourage researchers to learn more about the global and local impacts of colonisation. In doing so, researchers will be able to better appreciate that Indigenous communities are operating against a backdrop of colonialism, and may be at different stages along the path to reconciliation. As such, it is important to recognise that Indigenous researchers and research partners may have limited capacity to engage with research projects that may be only one of many concerns that the community will be engaging with. In some cases, communities may have become disconnected from culturally significant species, sites, and knowledge. These factors may impact the ability of Indigenous communities to engage with research. Take care not to confuse a lack of capacity for engagement with a lack of interest in the research. In addition, not all Indigenous communities will have established frameworks for research engagement. It can be challenging to know where, and with whom, to start a conversation, but don’t be discouraged. Leveraging existing networks is a good place to start.

As with any professional relationship, identifying mutual goals and defining boundaries will be key for establishing an effective working environment. It is imperative to build relationships prior to any research journey. Being aware of the needs and aspirations of Indigenous research partners goes a long way towards developing mutually beneficial, trust-based relationships. Meeting community research partners where they are and in a culturally-safe setting facilitates open discussion, and will allow ample time and space for both parties to ask questions and address concerns, both at the inception of a project and regularly throughout the research life cycle.

As biodiversity researchers, it is our responsibility to our Indigenous research partners to familiarise ourselves with the tools and infrastructures available to support their interests (e.g., access-controlled repositories, metadata inclusion and/or privacy, Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Labels). Being able to present a range of the available data management options including storage, access, and use, and being knowledgeable about the ins and outs of each will be invaluable. By being adequately prepared and patient, we also reduce the workload (and the urgency) for our Indigenous research partners, who may be donating their time and expertise as a service to their community. Indeed, addressing that particular inequality through resource provisioning (i.e., funding as a contribution to recognise their time and expertise) may be one way in which researchers can support their Indigenous research partners.

Publishing and reuse of restricted-access data

When working with culturally significant data sets, it is important to keep a flexible mindset. In doing so, we can develop practices that are ultimately responsive to specific community needs now and into the future. While it may be tempting to rely on existing precedents, there is no single 'best' data management strategy that will suit all situations. Rather, needs and aspirations will vary between Indigenous communities, research contexts, and through time and space.

Data storage options may range from local (institute-based or Indigenous community-controlled), to national or international (cloud-based) servers. The Aotearoa Genomic Data Repository is one such national-level example. Details of the underlying principles and considerations incorporated into the development of this platform are found in Aotearoa genomic data repository: An āhuru mōwai for taonga species sequencing data. Each storage option will likely offer different levels of data access, from closed (no access), restricted (password protected access available on application), to full open access. Using tools such as the Traditional Knowledge and Biocultural Labels can facilitate connections between Indigenous research communities and data, indicating how, when, and where data can be accessed and used (e.g., for commercial or non-commercial purposes, at specific times of year, or by specific groups of people), and appropriate channels for engagement. Having a good understanding of the available options to share with Indigenous research partners can facilitate those conversations.

There appears to be a misconception that because many journals now require 'Data Accessibility' statements, that only open access data can be published. This is perhaps conflated with journal publications being open access themselves. While many journals indicate a preference for data to be publicly archived in established international repositories (e.g., NCBI, SRA), this may not limit the publication of data that is not open access. In recognition of the need to facilitate Indigenous data sovereignty, a growing number of journals are accepting various data access requirements as part of the publication process. As a result, researchers may want to keep an open mind when presenting data accessibility options for Indigenous research partners. Through conversations with our Indigenous research partners, we can find a point on the data access spectrum that satisfies multiple needs and aspirations, by being as open as possible, and as closed as necessary.

Journal guidelines to authors may also help to indicate those journals that are more sympathetic to Indigenous data sovereignty needs. Note where journals make mention of data accessibility or benefit-sharing in line with the Convention on Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing agreements, as this can be an indicator that the journal is more likely to be responsive to the needs of Indigenous partners where a limited data access model has been agreed on. If there is push-back from Editors around data accessibility, then that may be a red flag indicating that the journal’s values are not well-aligned with those of your research team, and it may be best to submit your research elsewhere.

Additional resources

For background on the Aotearoa New Zealand context that we operate within, we suggest looking to resources such as the work led by Te Mana Raraunga | Māori Data Sovereignty Network and a recent discussion paper led by Tahu Kukutai on Māori Data Sovereignty and Privacy, along with the guidelines laid out in Te Kāhui Raraunga | Māori Data Governance Model. There is also the Māori engagement framework for biodiversity genomics presented in Embedding indigenous principles in genomic research of culturally significant species: a conservation genomics case study, with an example of the implementation of these practices in Weaving place-based knowledge for culturally significant species in the age of genomics: Looking to the past to navigate the future.

While these resources are framed around the Aotearoa New Zealand context, they draw from examples across Indigenous perspectives globally, such as Access and Management: Indigenous Perspectives on Genomic Data Sharing, Data governance for Native Nation Re-building, Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data, and Indigenous peoples and local communities as partners in the sequencing of global eukaryotic biodiversity, among many others.