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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Informed Consent in Genomics and Genetic Research
McGuire, A. L., & Beskow, L. M. (2010) · Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · doi:10.1146/annurev-genom-082509-141711 · Cited by 204 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hummel, P., Braun, M., Tretter, M., & Dabrock, P. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/2053951720982012 · Cited by 422 · see citing works
- Authors
- Marley, T. L.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Marley, Tennille L.
- ORCID
- Marley, Tennille L.
- Venue
- American Behavioral Scientist
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-09-12
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 722-742
- ISSN
- 0002-7642 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3381
- OpenAlex
- W2890251656
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 4.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Behavioral Scientist (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
- Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Data Analysis and Archiving
- Keywords
- Indigenous data sovereignty, American Indian and Alaska Native communities, research ethics policy, cultural sovereignty, indigenous knowledge, big data, data sharing, intellectual property
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