When making decisions on behalf of communities, governments should rely on accurate data (Walter et al., 2021). However, that data may not reflect the realities of communities when they have little say in how the data are collected or used. The importance of this issue arises in discussion of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS). IDS refers to the right of Indigenous peoples to control how data about their communities, lands, and knowledge systems are collected, owned, and used (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Leonard et al., 2023; Pool, 2016). Data in this context are not simply a technical resource, but are closely linked to power, governance, and self-determination.
Indigenous data encompass data about Indigenous peoples and their cultures, communities, lifeways, lands, and resources (Walter et al., 2021). Today, much of the data available about Indigenous peoples comes from national statistical systems that were developed within colonial frameworks. These systems, such as censuses, were mainly created to serve the needs of governments rather than reflect Indigenous perspectives (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Pool, 2016). As a result, colonial systems continue to play a major role in how Indigenous groups are defined and represented, which in turn shapes how Indigenous communities are understood today. This situation emphasizes the need to move away from colonial frameworks that continue to characterize data systems to approaches that recognize Indigenous authority over data. The existing systems also play a role in defining what it means to be Indigenous. In many cases, identity is distinguished by categories created by the state, rather than by Indigenous communities themselves (Snipp, 2016). The current state of Indigenous data demonstrates that data are not neutral, but closely connected to power, as they influence rights and recognition, representation in decision-making, and access to resources.
In recent years, recognition has been growing that IDS is an important factor in achieving self-determination for, and reconciliation with, Indigenous peoples. In this blog post we examine some recent efforts to move away from colonial frameworks to approaches that recognize Indigenous authority over data and reflect on why IDS is important for improving the policy-making landscape.
Reclaiming Indigenous Data: From Colonial Control to Empowered Refusal
While data sovereignty means that data follow the laws and governance practices of the country in which the data were collected and stored, data suzerainty is the informal control exercised by dominant groups like colonial settlers over Indigenous data (Pool, 2016). Pool (2016) traces how colonial empires imposed data suzerainty by demonizing Indigenous systems like the Māori whakapapa genealogies that powered pre-contact trade. By classification, engineering, and extraction, colonizers turned data into control tools, e.g., hut taxes and racial censuses, which result in surveillance data that fail to address the critical needs of communities (Pool, 2016; Walter et al., 2021).
Colonial extraction is not conducted by states alone. Researchers chasing “fresh data” through community engagement can mimic these extractive practices. Tuck and Yang (2014) argue that qualitative researchers often invaded marginalized communities to “mine” their personal stories for academic benefits. As the academy sought trauma stories, researchers extracted pain without community benefits, commodifying suffering and humiliation without fixing root causes like settler colonialism (Tuck and Yang, 2014).
In discussion of refusal as an analytic practice Tuck and Yang (2014) outline a code of ethics about selling sacred stories. Refusal to make someone or something the subject of study isn’t dodging research, it is challenging the objectification of people by shifting to a framework that studies power dynamics, silences, and institutions over personal pain (Tuck and Yang, 2014).
This approach to research is guided by three axioms:
“The subaltern can speak but is only invited to speak her/our pain” (Tuck and Yang, 2014, p. 813). Focusing on pain and humiliation is reflected in data through statistically measured disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction, and difference, otherwise known as 5D data (Walter et al., 2021).
“There are some forms of knowledge that the academy doesn’t deserve” (Tuck and Yang, 2014, p. 813). Some knowledge only belongs outside the academy. The academy functions as a colonial collector; thus, sharing data with it equates to removal and dispossession, not respect.
“Research may not be the intervention that is needed” (Tuck and Yang, 2014, p. 813). Research often fails as a meaningful intervention by assuming that more “knowing” benefits communities without challenging the invasive nature of research. External research may not acknowledge the knowledge and research done by Indigenous peoples, for Indigenous peoples, which can further uphold colonial suppression (Leonard et al., 2023).
Overcoming Current Colonial Data and Research Connotations
Colonial frameworks enacted through state-preferred policy decisions have led to data being collected on Indigenous populations that follow a narrative based on 5D data (Walter et al., 2021). The deficient narrative created through 5D data collection does not account for the reality of Indigenous peoples. Therefore, currently available state-collected data do not reflect Indigenous peoples true lived experiences and may not be effective in meeting their needs (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Pool, 2016; Walter et al., 2021), which could be exacerbated through open data initiatives.
Open data allows data to be shared and used more effectively in decision making across governments (Walter et al., 2021). However, open data frameworks may currently be “seeing like a state” (Walter et al., 2021, p. 148) or may be reliant on “parachute data” (Leonard et al., 2023) which only portray a small section of Indigenous realities or an abstraction of such realities created through the eyes of external researchers. IDS frameworks, such as OCAP [Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession] and CARE [Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics] principles, and advocacy that such frameworks and principles be incorporated into open data legislation (Walter et al., 2021) may be crucial to ensure current colonial data frameworks and their harms are mitigated.
Further, prioritizing Indigenous voices in and through research is key to ensuring that data collected and disseminated accurately portray Indigenous perspectives and realities. Leonard et al. (2023) state that Indigenous voices are often left out of scholarly debates, further exacerbating colonial scholarship and control over the disseminated data and research. Indigenous research methodologies and Indigenous knowledge must be engaged to move away from colonial frameworks to avoid diminishing traditional data practices (Leonard et al., 2023; Pool, 2016). Upholding the rights and responsibilities of Indigenous peoples is key to sovereignty, self-determination, and overcoming current incomplete narratives perpetuated by colonial states (Leonard et al., 2023; Tuck and Yang, 2014). In practice, this approach means upholding the principles outlined in this post, namely that Indigenous peoples have control over their own data/information and the research that is conducted for/by them and also have the right to refuse research activities conducted on their people and their territories.
Limitations
Although supporting IDS is of key importance in self-determination, power, and governance, IDS does not occur without challenges. Indigenous peoples are not a monolith – they have diverse values, beliefs, and understanding and knowledge of how their data should be collected, used, and disseminated — making implementing legislation and research practices difficult. Additionally, refusal practices can contribute to a lack of representation. By choosing not to document or analyze specific data, marginalized communities may remain invisible and unheard. Without reporting proper context, refusal can be interpreted as a lack of effort rather than a deliberate, ethical stance. Indigenous knowledge and voices continue to be undervalued, and community research ignored, which affects decision making about resources, governance, and culture.
Conclusion
IDS is necessary for the self-determination and governance of Indigenous communities. When data are managed by outside, colonial settler populations, the data can be used in ways that negatively affect Indigenous peoples. Research should focus more on power structures and dynamics than on deficit frameworks in order to enhance equitable decision making and avoid 5D data narratives. Incorporating Indigenous data and research governance frameworks into current and future projects is key to mitigating the harms done by colonial systems and moving towards a future where sovereignty is mandated among all research initiatives.
References
Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (Eds.). (2016). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016
Leonard, K., David-Chavez, D., Smiles, D., Jennings, L., ʻAnolani Alegado, R., Tsinnajinnie, L., Manitowabi, J., Arsenault, R., Begay, R. L., Kagawa-Viviani, A., Davis, D. D., van Uitregt, V., Pichette, H., Liboiron, M., Moggridge, B., Carroll, S. R., Tsosie, R. L. & Gomez, A. (2023). Water back: A review centering rematriation and Indigenous water research sovereignty. Water Alternatives, 16(2). 374-428. https://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/alldoc/articles/vol16/v16issue2/707-a16-2-10/file
Pool, I. (2016). Colonialism’s and postcolonialism’s fellow traveller: The collection, use and misuse of data on Indigenous people. In T. Kukutai & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 57-76). ANU Press.
Snipp, C. M. (2016). What does data sovereignty imply: What does it look like? In T. Kukutai & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 39-55). ANU Press.
Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). Unbecoming claims: Pedagogies of refusal in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 811-818. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414530265
Walter, M., Lovett, R., Maher, B., Williamson, B., Prehn, J., Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Lee, V. (2021). Indigenous data sovereignty in the era of big data and open data. Australian
Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 143-156. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.141
Authors: Amy Dolland, Dorothy Lawson, Susan MacNeil-Singh
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Information Use & Influence; Public Policy & Decision Making; Student Submission
