CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 273Indigenous Peoples' Rights and LawIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsIndigenous Cultures and History

Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy

Open access
Walter, Maggie, Kukutai, Tahu, Carroll, Stephanie Russo, Rodriguez-Lonebear, Desi·2020·Routledge eBooks
DOI 10.4324/9780429273957
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Book description This book examines how Indigenous Peoples around the world are demanding greater data sovereignty, and challenging the ways in which governments have historically used Indigenous data to develop policies and programs. In the digital age, governments are increasingly dependent on data and data analytics to inform their policies and decision-making. However, Indigenous Peoples have often been the unwilling targets of policy interventions and have had little say over the collection, use and application of data about them, their lands and cultures. At the heart of Indigenous Peoples’ demands for change are the enduring aspirations of self-determination over their institutions, resources, knowledge and information systems. With contributors from Australia, Aotearoa New Zealand, North and South America and Europe, this book offers a rich account of the potential for Indigenous data sovereignty to support human flourishing and to protect against the ever-growing threats of data-related risks and harms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9780429273957

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • GenAI tools remain fundamentally misaligned with Indigenous knowledge systems, which are oral, land-based, intergenerational, and relational.

    “Yet such tools remain fundamentally misaligned with Indigenous knowledge systems, which are oral, land-based, intergenerational, and relational (Walter et al., 2020).”

    From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Walter et al., 2020

  • The exclusion of Indigenous knowledge from GenAI systems is a continuation of colonial logics that have historically dictated which knowledge is recognised and legitimised in educational contexts.

    “The exclusion of Indigenous knowledge from GenAI systems is not merely a technical oversight, but a continuation of colonial logics that have historically dictated which knowledge is recognised and legitimised in educational contexts (Mohamed et al., 2020;Walter et al., 2020).”

    From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Walter et al., 2020

  • Indigenous knowledge systems do not align with the logics of abstraction, standardisation, and individualised cognition that underpin dominant AI training architectures.

    “Indigenous knowledge systemsoral, experiential, land-based, and deeply relationaldo not align with the logics of abstraction, standardisation, and individualised cognition that underpin dominant AI training architectures (Walter et al., 2020).”

    From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Walter et al., 2020

  • Indigenous Legal Orders are juridical infrastructures that enforce rights such as FPIC, ensuring these are ongoing, revocable, and codified in law rather than reduced to rhetorical gestures.

    “Indigenous Legal Orders: juridical infrastructures that enforce rights such as Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), ensuring these are ongoing, revocable, and codified in law rather than reduced to rhetorical gestures (UN, 2007;Walter et al., 2020).”

    From Towards a decolonial AI sovereignty model for indigenous educational settings (2026) · cites this paper as Walter et al., 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Walter, M., Kukutai, T., Carroll, S. R., & Rodriguez-Lonebear, D.
ORCID
Venue
Routledge eBooks
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2020-10-29
DOI
10.4324/9780429273957
OpenAlex
W3042557844
Cited by
273
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 59 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 1
FWCI
86.93
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • BiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • BiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) (submittedVersion)
  • Directory of Open access Books (OAPEN Foundation) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Otago
  • University of Waikato
  • International Development Research Centre
  • Australian National University
  • University of Auckland
  • Victoria University of Wellington
  • Victoria University
  • National Science Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Indigenous Peoples' Rights and Law
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
Keywords
Indigenous data sovereignty, indigenous peoples, data governance, Indigenous self-determination, data-driven policy, data analytics, indigenous knowledge, data ethics, indigenous rights

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