Operationalising Indigenous data sovereignty in environmental research and governance

Abstract

In the face of climate change, Western environmental research and governance processes and institutions are increasingly seeking to learn from and harness Indigenous peoples knowledges, perspectives, and practices of land and water management. There are both opportunities and risks for Indigenous groups seeking to exploit these opportunities to (re)connect with their homelands and reinvigorate dormant cultural practices. This article considers these issues by highlighting the barriers, risks, and opportunities, across three case environmental study sites – cultural burning, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) mapping, and marine science. We offer Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous data governance as both guiding principles and a practical blueprint that can make safe these intercultural environmental collaborations by mitigating against perverse or unintended consequences of Indigenous knowledge theft, as well as maximising opportunities to foster sustainable self-determination and self-governance.

Expert knowledge, collaborative concepts, and universal nature: naming the place of Indigenous knowledge within a public-sector cultural burning program

“…The sheer quantity of environmental research generated in line with these logics sustains extractive approaches to Indigenous knowledge, removing it from relational accountability to serve the purposes of others (Welch and Coimbra 2019). In response, Indigenous scholars have prioritized influencing research and public-sector agendas (Rigney 1999, Hemming et al 2010, Williamson et al 2022.…”

“…[1] This study investigated how Indigenous and non-Indigenous individuals grapple with the roles of three different knowledge communities: Indigenous, wildfire science, and ecological science in relation to a public-sector cultural burning program. Landscape burning is practiced by Indigenous people globally, and has come to be called cultural burning to signify its uniqueness to others (Eriksen and Hankins 2014, Neale et al 2019, Welch and Coimbra 2019, Fletcher et al 2021, Marks-Block and Tripp 2021, Smith et al 2021, Cavanagh 2022, Williamson et al 2022. I considered whether cultural burning is a "collaborative concept": one that facilitates respectful learning across Indigenous and non-Indigenous differences (Whyte 2013).…”

Indigenous research sovereignties: Sparking the deeper conversations we need

“…We wonder though why this unethical and illegal breach of Indigenous data is still allowed by academic institutions and publishers? As Melissa Nelson (2023) outlines in her commentary, data from and about Indigenous communities are frequently taken in a less than honorable harvest by researchers, who then share their data in ways that harm the community. There are numerous illustrative examples with some clearly demonstrating malice while others are thoughtless or reckless.…”

“…In addition to the two commentaries by Nelson (2023) and Brewer et al (2023), three original articles also engage with the importance of Indigenous data sovereignty, particularly in the area of environmental research (Nakhwotsii et al, 2023; Williamson et al, 2023) and agricultural systems (Paul et al, 2023).…”

“…At the end of this themed issue, you'll also find three commentaries that seek to highlight an area within our work, or that connects this work to previous publications and those within the special edition. These commentaries explore aspects of research sovereignty from unique angles, furthering our understanding and expanding the ways in which we pursue an honorable research engagement and harvest of data (see Nelson, 2023).…”