CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 483Research Data Management PracticesData Analysis and ArchivingIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights

Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures

Open access
Carroll, Stephanie Russo, Herczog, Edit, Hudson, Maui, Russell, Keith, Stall, Shelley·2021·Scientific Data
DOI 10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0PMC PMC8052430
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This discussion emerged from two joint, virtual conference sessions that integrated parallel processes at the Research Data Alliance (RDA): “Operationalising Be FAIR and CARE” ( https://www.rd-alliance.org/operationalising-be-fair-and-care ) and “Implementing the CARE Principles: The CARE-full Process” ( https://www.rd-alliance.org/implementing-care-principles-care-full-process ). The FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group, hosted by the Research Data Alliance, was endorsed for activity in September 2018 with the primary objective to develop a core set of criteria that would be used across all the existing implementation methods for FAIR Data Principles 1 (see https://www.rd-alliance.org/group/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/case-statement/fair-data-maturity-model-wg-case-statement ). With this common set of criteria, outcomes of different assessment methods could be compared and provide a better understanding of the true status across the research community as we move towards meeting the criteria defined. Following a year-long public discussion and building on Indigenous Data Sovereignty network activities, the Global Indigenous Data Alliance released the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance in September 2019 2 . After the launch of the CARE Principles, the RDA International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group, which produced the CARE Principles, and the RDA FAIR Data Maturity Model Working Group joined together to begin to explore how to operationalize FAIR with CARE. This manuscript briefly introduces the CARE Principles and describes CARE in the context of scientific data, FAIR in the context of Indigenous data, how FAIR and CARE intersect, and implications and next steps for actionable change toward operationalizing FAIR with CARE.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The CARE Principles are in the early stages of implementation, with some entities leading the way by collaborating with GIDA to operationalize the principles within repositories, national ethics frameworks, and United Nations open science guidance.

    “The CARE Principles are in the early stages of implementation, with some entities leading the way by collaborating with the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) to operationalize the principles within repositories, national ethics frameworks, and United Nations open science guidance (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2020; Carroll et al., 2021; United Nations”

    From Using Indigenous Standards to Implement the CARE Principles: Setting Expectations through Tribal Research Codes (2022) · cites this paper as Carroll et al., 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Tools like the CARE Principles and Local Contexts' Traditional Knowledge Labels illustrate pathways for embedding relational governance within infrastructures.

    “Tools like the CARE Principles and Local Contexts' Traditional Knowledge Labels illustrate pathways for embedding relational governance within infrastructures (Anderson & Christen, 2019a;Carroll et al., 2021;Local Contexts, 2019).”

    From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Carroll et al., 2021

  • Research sovereignty is a form of Indigenous self-determination concerned with securing Indigenous Peoples' control over acquisition, use, storage, and reuse of their data not only under their authority but especially in the custody of researchers and research institutions.

    “Accordingly, we view research sovereignty as a form of Indigenous self-determination concerned with securing Indigenous Peoples' control over acquisition, use, storage, and reuse of their data not only under their authority but especially in the custody of researchers and research institutions, e.g., funders, sponsors, repositories, publishers (AIATSIS, 2020; Carroll et al., 2021).”

    From Indigenous Peoples and research: self-determination in research governance (2023) · cites this paper as Carroll et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [4]Kukutai, T. & Taylor, J. Data sovereignty for Indigenous Peoples: Current practice and future needs. In: Kukutai, T. & Taylor, J. (eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, 1–22. (Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press 2016).
  2. [6]Davis, M. Data and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In Kukutai T. & Taylor J. (Eds.) Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda, 79–97. (Canberra, Australia: Australian National University Press, 2016).
  3. [8]Rainie, S.C. et al. Issues in open data: Indigenous data sovereignty. In: Davies, T., Walker, S., Rubinstein, M. & Perini, F. (eds.), The State of Open Data: Histories and Horizons, 300–319 (Cape Town and Ottawa: African Minds and International Development Research Centre, 2019).
  4. [9]Walter M The voice of Indigenous data: Beyond the markers of disadvantage Griffith Review. 2018 60 256 263
  5. [12]Hudson M Rights, interests and expectations: Indigenous perspectives on unrestricted access to genomic data Nat. Rev. Genet. 2020 21 377 384 10.1038/s41576-020-0228-x 32251390 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [13]Anderson J Christen K ‘Chuck a copyright on it’: Dilemmas of digital return and the possibilities for Traditional Knowledge licenses and labels Museum Anthropology Review. 2013 7 105 26
  7. [16]Ambler J Including digital sequence data in the Nagoya Protocol can promote data sharing Trends in Biotechnology. 2021 39 116 125 10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.06.009 32654776 · DOI
  8. [17]Riginos C Buildling a global genomics observatory: Using GEOME (the Genomic Observatories Metadatabase) to expedite and improve deposition and retrieval of genetic data and metadata for biodiversity research Mol Ecol Resour. 2020 20 1458 1469 10.1111/1755-0998.13269 33031625 · DOI
  9. [18]Higman R Bangert D Jones S Three camps, one destination: The intersections of research data management, FAIR and Open Insights. 2019 32 18 10.1629/uksg.468 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Carroll, S. R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K., & Stall, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Waikato (NZ)
  • Australian Research Data Commons (AU)
  • American Geophysical Union (US)
Corresponding author
Carroll, Stephanie Russo
ORCID
Venue
Scientific Data
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-04-16
Volume
8
Issue
1
Pages
108-108
ISSN
2052-4463 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0
PMC
PMC8052430
OpenAlex
W3155390850
Cited by
483
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 119 · 2025: 131 · 2024: 104 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 7
Type
data paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Scientific Data (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Rural Development Administration
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Research Data Management Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Keywords
CARE principles, FAIR principles, Indigenous data sovereignty, Indigenous data governance, research data management
MeSH terms
Indigenous Peoples, Humans, Human Rights, Access to Information, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review