Indigenous Data Sovereignty

University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Behavioral Scientist
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2018

Fingerprint

North American Indians
Research Ethics Committees
American Indian
sovereignty
Guidelines
Research
community
Information Dissemination
Ownership
Referral and Consultation
cultural sovereignty
Interviews
Intellectual Property
Theft
Music
Alaska Natives
university
Research Personnel
abuse
oral history

Keywords

  • American Indian and Alaska Native
  • Indigenous data sovereignty
  • Indigenous people
  • qualitative data

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Cultural Studies
  • Education
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

@article{0415c6e71b104d8fa9ef3024b71409ab,
title = "Indigenous Data Sovereignty: University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities",
abstract = "American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.",
keywords = "American Indian and Alaska Native, Indigenous data sovereignty, Indigenous people, qualitative data",
author = "Tennille Marley",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0002764218799130",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "American Behavioral Scientist",
issn = "0002-7642",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Indigenous Data Sovereignty

T2 - University Institutional Review Board Policies and Guidelines and Research with American Indian and Alaska Native Communities

AU - Marley, Tennille

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.

AB - American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people throughout the world have undergone and continue to experience research abuses. Qualitative data such as intellectual property, Indigenous knowledge, interviews, cultural expressions including songs, oral histories/stories, ceremonies, dances, and other texts, images, and recordings are at risk of exploitation, appropriation, theft, and misrepresentation and threaten the cultural sovereignty of American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people. These issues are potentially magnified with the increasing use of big data. Partly as a result of past and current research abuse, the Indigenous data sovereignty, the control, ownership, and governance of research and data, is growing. In this article, I discuss American Indian political sovereignty, cultural sovereignty, and Indigenous data sovereignty, with an emphasis on qualitative data sovereignty. In addition, I explore whether Arizona’s public universities—Northern Arizona University, Arizona State University, and University of Arizona—policies and guidelines support Indigenous data sovereignty and the extent to which they align with the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy that governs relations between the three Arizona universities and Arizona American Indian nations. Overall expectations, requirements, and processes do not go far enough in supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. Although each university has specific research policies that follow the Arizona Board of Regent’s tribal consultation policy, the university guidelines differ in scope in term of supporting Indigenous data sovereignty. In addition, none of the policies address qualitative data sharing, including those in big data sets. Based on the findings I make several recommendations for researchers, including supporting the Indigenous sovereignty movement and to reconsider big data use and past positions about qualitative data ownership and sharing with regard to American Indians, Alaska Native, and other Indigenous people.

KW - American Indian and Alaska Native

KW - Indigenous data sovereignty

KW - Indigenous people

KW - qualitative data

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059961251&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059961251&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0002764218799130

DO - 10.1177/0002764218799130

M3 - Article

JO - American Behavioral Scientist

JF - American Behavioral Scientist

SN - 0002-7642

ER -