Search results

In the twenty-first century, data are the world’s most valuable resource. Technological capacities for the collection, storage, analysis and sharing of data are evolving rapidly, and as a result, so too are the possibilities for improving the day-to-day lives of people. However, data use can also result in exploitation and harm; nowhere is this more evident than for Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, the rapid expansion of technology has not been matched by a sufficiently robust discussion of ethics nor the development of governance frameworks. Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) has emerged as a key consideration for this cause. Beginning with the presumption of Indigenous rights to tribal/nation sovereignty, IDS weaves together Indigenous research ethics, cultural and intellectual property rights and Indigenous governance discourse, with the view to offer solutions to the challenges being presented in an open data environment. This chapter will expand on this existing literature base and consider Māori data sovereignty in the context of Aotearoa New Zealand. More specifically, it provides the basis for a discussion around how kawa and tikanga drawn from Te Ao Māori might inform approaches to data ethics and data governance.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the underlying meanings, effects and cultural patterns of metadata standards, focusing on Dublin Core (DC), and explore the ways in which anticolonial metadata tools can be applied to exercise and promote Indigenous data sovereignty.

Applying an anticolonial approach, this paper examines the assumptions underpinning the stated roles of two of DC’s metadata elements, rights and creator. Based on that examination, the paper considers the limitations of DC for appropriately documenting Indigenous traditional knowledge (TK). Introduction of the TK labels and their implementation are put forward as an alternative method to such limitations in metadata standards.

The analysis of the rights and creator elements revealed that DC’s universality and supposed neutrality threaten the rightful attribution, specificity and dynamism of TK, undermining Indigenous data sovereignty. The paper advocates for alternative descriptive methods grounded within tribal sovereignty values while recognizing the difficulties of dealing with issues of interoperability by means of metadata standards given potentially innate tendencies to customization within communities.

This is the first paper to directly examine the implications of DC’s rights and creator elements for documenting TK. The paper identifies ethical practices and culturally appropriate tools that unsettle the universality claims of metadata standards. By introducing the TK labels, the paper contributes to the efforts of Indigenous communities to regain control and ownership of their cultural and intellectual property.

The increased use of, and reliance upon, technology and digitalisation, especially in the galleries, libraries, archives and museums [GLAM] sector, has motivated innovative approaches to the curation of cultural material. These changes are especially evident when collaborating with Indigenous partners. Indigenous Data Governance [IDG] and Indigenous Data Sovereignty [IDS], with an emphasis on self-determination of Indigenous peoples, have called for an emerging focus on ethical and culturally sensitive approaches to data collection and management across a range of disciplines and sectors.

This chapter reports on broader discussions, specifically with mid-North South Australia, Indigenous community members around the appropriate and ethical collection, representation and curation of cultural material on Country applying digital formats. It investigates ways to create a ‘future identity’ through built form as well as providing a ‘safe’ place for preservation of their oral histories.

It highlights the many questions raised around the ethically and culturally sensitive aspects of the collection, curation and archiving of Indigenous cultural material. It documents the preliminary outcomes of these conversations in the context of current research on IDS best practices in the field. The non-Aboriginal authors acknowledge our supporting position in the realisation of effective IDS and self-determination of our Aboriginal partners.

This chapter provides an overview of the volume, beginning with anecdotes from the editors. These anecdotes demonstrate the range of issues facing Indigenous scholars and researchers who choose to work with Indigenous participants and/or communities. Reference is made to Indigenous research sovereignty, honouring the immense work undertaken by previous Indigenous scholars, enabling many today to work effectively with their own people as well as other Indigenous groups. This is considered a courageous act, given the vulnerability this opens Indigenous peoples up to in terms of the change that is engendered and the criticism from external non-Indigenous researchers that has often arisen. The organisation of the volume into three parts is discussed, and this chapter ends with synopses of the following 16 chapters.

For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice.

The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands.

Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research.

Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research.

The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed.

What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past.

The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.

This paper aims to contribute to indigenous entrepreneurship theory by identifying what constitutes an indigenous enterprise, focussing on Aotearoa New Zealand as a case.

This paper combines policy (quantitative survey) and academic research (qualitative interviews) to answer the same question, what is an indigenous enterprise in Aotearoa New Zealand?

The authors found a degree of consistency as to what counts as an indigenous enterprise in the literature (e.g., identity, ownership, values), yet a consensus on a definition of Maori business remains elusive. They also found that an understanding of the indigenous economy and indigenous entrepreneurial policy are impeded because of definitional uncertainties. The authors propose a definition of Maori business which accounts for indigenous ownership, identity, values and well-being.

The main limitation is that the literature and research use different definitions of indigenous enterprise, constraining comparative analysis. The next step is to evaluate our definition as a basis for quantifying the population of indigenous enterprises in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The research assists indigenous entrepreneurs to identify, measure and account for their contribution to indigenous self-determination and sustainable development.

This research has the potential to reconceptualise indigenous enterprise as a distinct and legitimate alternative institutional theory of the firm.

The research challenges assumptions and knowledge of entrepreneurship policy and practice generally and the understanding of what is the nature and extent of an indigenous firm.

The aim of this paper is to document the operationalization of the OCAP^® principles in the context of the work of a medical anthropologist and Whapmagoostui First Nation (FN). The authors describe their recent collaboration with Whapmagoostui FN to digitize and transfer the research data archive to the community.

Beginning with a description of the data collection process from the late 1980s to early 1990s, this study describes recent efforts to digitize the research data archive and work with Whapmagoostui FN to develop a plan for access and safekeeping. The authors focus on the work required to implement the OCAP^® principles locally, including the need to address questions of ownership rights/transfer, information technology systems and community capacity.

This study describes the necessary work that is required to operationalize the OCAP^® principles on a local level, including obstacles to this work. This study also underscores how the process of OCAP^® implementation is distinct for each community and research context. Based on these considerations, the authors calls for increased resources and new legal mechanisms in support of achieving indigenous data sovereignty (IDSov) in FNs, Inuit and Métis communities across Canada.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study makes an original contribution to the literature on IDSov. This study provides a valuable case study, illustrating how the OCAP^® principles can be operationalized in the context of a longstanding partnership between an academic researcher and an indigenous community.

Insofar as the digital layer cannot be detached from the current democratic challenges of the 21st century including neoliberalism, scales, civic engagement and action research-driven co-production methodologies; this chapter advances trends, aftermaths and emancipatory strategies for the post-pandemic technopolitical democracies. Consequently, it suggests a democratic toolbox encompassing four intertwined trends, aftermaths and emancipations including (1) the context characterised by the algorithmic nations, (2) challenges stemming from data sovereignty, (3) mobilisation seen from the digital rights perspective and (4) grassroots innovation embodied through data co-operatives. This chapter elucidates that in the absence of coordinated and interdependent strategies to claim digital rights and data sovereignty by algorithmic nations, on the one hand, Big Tech data-opolies, and on the other hand, the GDPR led by the European Commission might bound (negatively) and expand (positively), respectively, algorithmic nations' capacity to mitigate the negative side effects of the algorithmic disruption in Western democracies.

This chapter develops a conceptual taxonomy of five emerging digital citizenship regimes: (1) the globalised and generalisable regime called pandemic citizenship that clarifies how post-COVID-19 datafication processes have amplified the emergence of four intertwined, non-mutually exclusive and non-generalisable new technopoliticalised and city-regionalised digital citizenship regimes in certain European nation-states’ urban areas; (2) algorithmic citizenship, which is driven by blockchain and has allowed the implementation of an e-Residency programme in Tallinn; (3) liquid citizenship, driven by dataism – the deterministic ideology of big data – and contested through claims for digital rights in Barcelona and Amsterdam; (4) metropolitan citizenship, as revindicated in reaction to Brexit and reshuffled through data co-operatives in Cardiff; and (5) stateless citizenship, driven by devolution and reinvigorated through data sovereignty in Barcelona, Glasgow and Bilbao. This chapter challenges the existing interpretation of how these emerging digital citizenship regimes together are ubiquitously rescaling the associated spaces/practices of European nation-states.