CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 14Ethics and Social Impacts of AIIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsIndigenous Peoples' Rights and Law

Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge Systems into AI Governance: Enhancing Ethical Frameworks with Maori and Navajo Perspectives

Open access
Ray, Shawn·2024·AI and Ethics
DOI 10.20944/preprints202410.2112.v2

Preprint — published as 10.1007/s43681-025-00970-8

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper proposes a paradigm shift in AI governance by integrating Indigenous knowledge systems to foster inclusivity and cultural sensitivity. Traditional AI governance frameworks are primarily Western-centric, often overlooking the community-oriented values and ethical considerations essential to Indigenous cultures. This study highlights principles such as Kaitiakitanga from Māori culture, which emphasizes guardianship and environmental stewardship, and Hózhó from Navajo philosophy, which stresses harmony and balance. By engaging Indigenous leaders and knowledge holders throughout the AI lifecycle, this approach ensures technology aligns with community values, addressing critical issues like data sovereignty, ethical technology use, and cultural sensitivity. This paper underscores the necessity of relational accountability in AI governance, which includes prioritizing the health of ecosystems alongside community welfare. This model advocates for an AI framework that not only rectifies historical marginalization but also empowers Indigenous communities to shape the technologies affecting their lives. Furthermore, integrating Indigenous perspectives strengthens the ethical foundation of AI systems, advancing sustainability, social justice, and cultural responsiveness in technology applications. The proposed framework illustrates how Indigenous ethical concepts can transform AI governance by aligning technological progress with values of ecological stewardship and community welfare, creating an AI landscape that respects and reflects diverse cultural contexts. Ultimately, this research demonstrates that Indigenous knowledge systems can significantly enhance AI’s effectiveness and equity, paving the way for more sustainable and culturally attuned technological solutions.

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 · 10.20944/preprints202410.2112.v2

Cites

66 of 66 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?

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: 5

  1. Boyd, A., & Shilton, S. (2021). "Adapting Ethical Sensitivity as a Construct to Study Technology Design Teams." Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-20. doi:10.1145/3463929. · DOI
  2. Lee, J., Mika, M., & Millar, C. (2021). "Artificial Intelligence in Undergraduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review." Academic Medicine, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 1-10. doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004291. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Owe, M., & Baum, S. (2021). "Kaitiakitanga: A Māori Perspective on Environmental Stewardship." Journal of Indigenous Studies, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 45-60.
  4. Rahman, M. (2024). "Integrating Māori Values into AI Development: Ethical Considerations." AI Ethics Journal, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 22-35.
  5. Ryan, J., & Stahl, B. (2020). "Hózhó and AI: Navajo Ethical Principles in Technology Governance." Journal of Technology and Ethics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 78-92. doi:10.1007/s43681-020-00013-5. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ray, S.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Ray, Shawn
ORCID
Ray, Shawn
Venue
AI and Ethics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2024-11-25
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2730-5953 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.20944/preprints202410.2112.v2
OpenAlex
W7125519768
Cited by
12
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 2
FWCI
57.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • AI and Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Carnegie Mellon University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
Keywords
indigenous knowledge, AI governance, AI ethics, data sovereignty, environmental stewardship, relational accountability, indigenous environmental management, Indigenous health, fairness, accountability, and transparency

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