Research and the collection of data relating to Indigenous peoples, lands, and resources have long served to uphold colonial relations. Much of the data collected about Indigenous peoples has been assembled by government entities without Indigenous input or participation, and as such does not reflect the diverse values, knowledge systems, or governance structures of Indigenous communities (Walter et al., 2021). This approach not only causes harm by misrepresenting Indigenous realities but can also perpetuate cycles of data dependency, where external actors control all aspects of Indigenous data collection and use (Walter et al., 2021). Disconnecting Indigenous peoples from ownership and control of Indigenous data limits their self-determination in decision-making related to Indigenous interests (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016).
In this blog post, we explore how Indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) offers a decolonizing pathway to reclaim authority over data and ensure that research aligns with Indigenous governance priorities (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Leonard et al., 2023; Walter et al., 2021). The prevailing issue of Indigenous communities’ lacking control, ownership, possession, and access over the data collected about them is fundamentally an issue of sovereignty. IDS asserts that Indigenous peoples must govern their own data – ensuring that collection methods, access, and data use reflect Indigenous governance structures and priorities (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). This shift is critical for moving away from externally imposed research agendas and toward Indigenous-led research frameworks that support self-determination (Walter et al., 2021).
Tensions between western and Indigenous laws and governance frameworks
Tensions between western and Indigenous laws and governance frameworks create significant barriers to IDS and make it difficult to align data collection with Indigenous values and priorities. Many government agencies collect data on Indigenous communities without their input into how Indigenous data are defined and represented (Walter et al., 2021). Western data governance (including data collection frameworks) often standardizes and aggregates data across populations and geographic regions. This process reinforces government-imposed structural biases that can statistically erase the distinct and diverse cultural and geographical diversity of Indigenous communities (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Walter et al., 2021). Furthermore, many western legal frameworks fail to recognize Indigenous peoples’ rights to govern their own data, marginalizing their influence in shaping research and policy decisions (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). As a result of these tensions, Indigenous data are often not representative of Indigenous realities, limiting its usefulness, accessibility, and applicability for Indigenous decision making and self-determination.
Indigenous knowledge systems – including legal traditions, governance models, and environmental stewardship practices – have been omitted from mainstream decision-making processes. As a result, data about Indigenous communities have often been used to “service the government” rather than support the well-being and priorities of Indigenous peoples (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016, p. 3). Western data collection methods often overlook the holistic, relational, and place-based nature of Indigenous knowledge systems, resulting in policies that fail to reflect Indigenous worldviews or governance priorities (Leonard et al., 2023). To meaningfully support Indigenous self-determination and IDS, data collection must align with Indigenous knowledge systems and legal traditions (Leonard et al., 2023), use indicators that accurately reflect the realities and needs of Indigenous peoples (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016), and prioritize Indigenous leadership in data governance processes to prevent misuse and misrepresentation (Walter et al., 2021).
Colonial structures and exclusion from decision-making
Walter et al. discuss how settler-colonial states tend to collect Indigenous data that focuses on “disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction and difference” – a framework that reinforces deficit narratives and misrepresents the lived experiences and strengths of Indigenous communities (2021, p. 144). Deficit-based narratives perpetuate cycles of disempowerment by framing Indigenous realities as inherently problematic while disregarding their resilience, strengths, and self-determination (Walter et al., 2021). In utilizing this method as a framework for data collection, researchers risk reinforcing justifications for external control over Indigenous peoples, lands, and resources, further entrenching colonial power dynamics. Leonard et al. (2023) explore this subject through the concept of water colonialism, where settler-colonial states assert control over water (and water data), alienating Indigenous peoples from their waterways and removing their agency in water governance. Water colonialism and deficit-based narratives exemplify how colonial hierarchies are embedded in western data governance structures. Settler-colonial states continue to deprive Indigenous peoples of the ability to make decisions about their data, land, and water (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Walter et al., 2021; Leonard et al., 2023).
Knowledge sovereignty and Indigenous self-determination
Indigenous people are disproportionately affected by climate change because of their dependence on and cultural connections to the land (Leonard et al., 2023). Yet, Indigenous knowledge systems and traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) are often excluded from research (and therefore data) that identifies how climate change is impacting Indigenous lands and resources. To support Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination better, Leonard et al. (2023) recommend that researchers form meaningful relationships with Indigenous knowledge holders and incorporate two-eyed seeing into environmental governance. This framework is grounded in mutual respect and relationship building and encourages both Indigenous and western perspectives to be used in parallel, accounting for Indigenous knowledge systems in the generation of Indigenous data.
Globally, there are increasing efforts to make publicly held data openly accessible (open data). While open data offer many advantages, these efforts do not necessarily support Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination. Settler-colonial states often misunderstand or disregard Indigenous ways of knowing. Many Indigenous communities fear that making TEK widely accessible without cultural understanding and appropriate protocols for access and use could result in direct harm to Indigenous communities as well as data misuse (Walter et al., 2021). IDS can help address these fears by asserting the right for Indigenous peoples to control how their data and knowledge is used and by whom (Walter et al., 2021; Leonard et al., 2023).
Legal and policy reform is essential
To support meaningful Indigenous participation in decision-making, legal and policy frameworks must shift away from colonial models and instead recognize Indigenous authority over land, water, and data (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Walter et al., 2021). Many current legal and policy frameworks continue to exclude Indigenous peoples from controlling information that directly affects them. These frameworks often prioritize national or institutional interests and fail to reflect Indigenous laws or governance traditions (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016).
International standards such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) offer strong principles to guide how frameworks could be reformed. However, a gap remains between these commitments and their application in national policies (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Leonard et al., 2023). In Canada, the OCAP® principles provide a promising model by outlining how First Nations should own, control, access, and possess their data (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016). However, even this model requires stronger legal protections and widespread institutional adoption to become truly effective (Walter et al., 2021).
Rematriation refers to returning decision-making power, knowledge, and responsibility for Indigenous lands and resources to Indigenous peoples, recognizing their self-determination in governance (Leonard et al., 2013). Rematriation efforts such as community-led stewardship of land and water demonstrates that data sovereignty is inseparable from environmental and cultural self-determination (Leonard et al., 2023). Until national policies fully support Indigenous legal traditions and leadership, including IDS, Indigenous communities will continue to be denied the tools they need to govern their futures (Walter et al., 2021).
Limitations
While we highlighted important considerations for IDS, these insights are drawn from specific Indigenous contexts from Australia and Aotearoa (New Zealand), which may not fully reflect the global diversity of Indigenous experiences (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Walter et al., 2021). As such, the recommendations we emphasized are high-level, and may be limited in their capacity to guide practical options for implementing IDS across varying complex legal systems. Finally, we provided reflections from academic perspectives on IDS, and more direct engagement with community voices could offer deeper insight into the issue and make concepts more locally applicable (Leonard et al., 2023).
Conclusion
IDS is about justice, governance, and the right of Indigenous communities to shape their futures through self-determination. When controlled by external institutions, data can serve as another mechanism of colonial dominance. However, when Indigenous communities reclaim authority over their data, they can become a powerful tool for self-determination and resilience (Walter et al., 2021; Kukutai & Taylor, 2016; Leonard et al., 2023). Efforts like OCAP® and rematriation offer meaningful paths forward, but institutional and legal systems need to support them. IDS is one essential step in a broader movement toward Indigenous-led governance that honours the land, culture, and knowledge systems that sustain Indigenous communities.
References
Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016
Leonard, S., Jackson, S., & Baldwin, C. (2023). Water back: A review centering rematriation and Indigenous water research sovereignty. Environmental Research Letters, 18(4), 043001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/acbe5b
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: Emily Benson, Caroline Mahoney, and Erin Keast
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
