Search results

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.

Two trends mark the contemporary international scholarship on conflict and resolution. The scholarship on conflict has begun to look systematically at intra-state conflicts and track the role of non-state actors, along with the more established trend of analysing inter-state conflict. Conflict resolution has also moved beyond looking at states and national and global-level NGOs to the role of local, non-state actors in preventing and/or minimising conflict. While the “mainstream” scholarly work emphasises a linear process of reaching resolutions in the aftermath of a conflict (e.g. Burton, 1990; Galtung, 1965), a range of “related” scholarship has begun to focus on factors that prevent conflict and their rapid diffusion over wider areas, as well as factors that contribute to longer term, peaceful, resolution (e.g. Das, Kleinman, Lock, Ramphele, & Reynolds, 2001; Sabet, 1998; Varshney, 2001). These related literature look beyond political solutions such as conflict management, boundary adjustments, and treaties, and the role of international and national formal bodies to resolve and manage conflict; their emphasis is on conflict prevention, the healing of conflict victims, and building and sustaining peace. With the recognition, in the 21st century, of the escalating production and spread of weaponry, the power of non-state actors to generate significant conflict, as well as the rapidly growing proportion of people who suffer from and cope with the aftermath of such conflict, the expanded frames for understanding conflict and resolution, requires further attention.