Native nations have long proven their resilience against the odds, consistently paving a path forward and exercising their sovereign rights as autonomous, self-governing peoples. As we embark upon an increasingly digital age, Indigenous peoples face a new threat: datafication. Datafication is “turning nearly every aspect of human life into the pursuit of data for commodification, and transforming digital, computational, and market realities,” write Stephanie Russo Carroll and her colleagues in an article for Data for Development, a global research alliance addressing critical data development challenges. They go on to explain this new threat impacts Indigenous communities, stressing the importance of Indigenous data sovereignty and safeguarding cultural, intellectual, and educational data against exploitation from outside institutions and threats (Carroll et al., 2023).

WHAT IS INDIGENOUS DATA SOVEREIGNTY?

To begin, let’s break down and define Indigenous data sovereignty (IDS) and the ever-growing data back movement. Indigenous leaders at higher education institutions are bolstering the rights of Native communities and opposing the new colonialism of the digital era. The data back movement aims to spread knowledge and awareness about IDS and challenge open data policies and practices by exposing digitally driven power imbalances as modern forms of colonialism (Carroll et al., 2023). Data sovereignty refers to Indigenous peoples’ innate right to manage information in a way that is beneficial, culturally sensitive, and consistent with their wishes and customs. This includes consent, refusal, and reclamation of past and future Indigenous data, and recognizing that Native nations have full governance and decision making over how data is collected on Indigenous lands and in Native communities.

When defining data regarding IDS, it is important to note that it includes many types of information. Computing data, often used for scientific and medical purposes, is perhaps the most well-known form of Indigenous quantifiable data. A few examples are enrollment and admissions data, environmental data from water and soil samples, and genetic data from saliva and blood samples. Alongside these types of data, there are also sociocultural data forms. These include any information, knowledge, traditions, or histories originating from Indigenous communities, such as language, music, pottery, photographs, traditional regalia, literature, and more.

Dr. Nonabah B. Sam, a professor and curator at the Diné College (DC) Ned Hatathli Museum in Tsaile, Arizona, works with traditional forms of data every day. The museum has a beautiful and unique collection that includes ceremonial items and drawings relevant to Navajo culture alongside other Indigenous archeological and ethnographic objects. “Collecting tribal data, traditional data, is very different from collecting quantified data,” Sam says. In the process of collecting this type of data, it is important to build connections with the communities and artists. “We have to be very mindful of how we engage in those conversations when we talk about community participation and research,” says Sam.

When preparing for a new exhibit, she prioritizes building connections. As part of this effort, she personally invites artists to be a part of the exhibit and to display their work in DC’s museum. Sam’s practice of leading with compassion and respect for the community and people involved should be applied to the framework of scientific data collection in all spheres, but this is not always the case.

RESEARCHERS AND THE RESEARCHED

For far too long, Indigenous people have been ostracized from the collection and application of their data. More often than not, they’re subject to invasive non-Native research institutions and facilities conducting research that serves government requirements but doesn’t necessarily benefit Native communities.

C. Matthew Snipp was previously the director of the Institute for Research in Social Sciences (IRiSS) at Stanford University and currently is faculty in the sociology department there. His research focuses on the methodology of racial measurement and the implications it has on minorities’ economic well-being. Most of his articles focus on American Indians. In his essay “What Does Data Sovereignty Imply: What Does It Look Like?” Snipp highlights the difficulties and costly issues that occur when collecting and organizing Indigenous data. He writes, “Mobile phone technology, satellite phones, and internet access make the control of information vastly more difficult for smaller nations with more limited resources than . . . powerful and wealthy nations such as the United States. These smaller and less wealthy nations of course include Indigenous people” (Snipp, 2016). Many residents living on tribal lands are located in rural areas and do not have ready access to major institutions. Often, they are forced to outsource assistance, relying on outsiders with the requisite resources to obtain certain types of information. This typically involves significant compromises over the control of data and therefore data sovereignty (Snipp, 2016). All of this raises questions about the consent associated with sharing this data, from whom data is collected, who has access to this information, and the purpose for which collected data will be used.

Another concern that arises when outside institutions propose conducting research in Indigenous communities is that these communities are often excluded from the planning process. Dr. Tyler Parisien, an Indigenous researcher and enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, is the director of the Medical Laboratory Technician Program at Turtle Mountain College (TMC) in Belcourt, North Dakota. In his years working with both Native and non-Native researchers, he’s found that more often than not, outside research institutions “have this great idea that they’re going to come here [the Turtle Mountains] and conduct research. But they don’t actually involve the community, the researchers, or the professionals here in the planning stage. They come to us after the fact.” Such practices lead to potentially harmful assumptions about Indigenous peoples.

Ace Charette, the director of research, assessment, and accreditation at TMC, is tasked with maintaining and sustaining relationships needed for compliance, which he does through Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting. Accredited universities that receive Pell funding have to report to IPEDS, a national higher education reporting system. By writing these reports, Charette ensures that the data being used and collected on the TMC campus is appropriate and beneficial to the Turtle Mountain community. Charette has been a leader in Turtle Mountain’s data protections and policies and continues to lead the conversation on IDS.

Charette agrees with Parisien that outside research institutions usually approach with good intentions, but their methods do not always align with Indigenous perspectives. This leads to misunderstandings, and “those misunderstandings may be coming from a harmful stereotypical perception from the past, that is still being reverberated in the current times,” Charette says.

In the past, non-Native researchers haven’t taken into careful consideration the cultural and spiritual elements embedded in the land and people they are researching, instead focusing solely on their scientific endeavors and goals. This can be extremely harmful and disruptive to Native communities. “As we begin to talk more and more about data sovereignty, it’s really about having outsiders understand that our research is not for sale. We are not for sale anymore,” says Nonabah Sam. “Indigenous data is not expendable; these communities have the sovereign right to say no, this is restricted material. They are not obligated to share their internal data.”

Indigenous data sovereignty is not only about collecting data in Native communities, but also about the current lack of data available and the implications of under-reported quantified data. Tribal nations need data to make informed decisions for their people. A recent example is data about the infection rate and other COVID- 19 reporting in 2020. The COVID-19 data was essential for devising mitigating policies for Native people residing in rural parts of the nation. Aggie J. Yellow Horse and Kimberly R. Huyser wrote a paper focusing on IDS and COVID-19 data issues for Native Americans. They found that open data initiatives during the pandemic “saw little (if any) oversight from Indigenous peoples” (Yellow Horse & Huyser, 2021). As Dr. Parisien stated, Indigenous people are often ostracized from planning and organizing research and devising remedies for problems impacting Native communities.

Misclassification issues also influence the lack of data and underreporting. “Misclassification occurs at the level of the individual when an individual is inaccurately categorized in reporting race and ethnicity” (Yellow Horse & Huyser, 2021). Race misclassification is substantial for Indigenous peoples, as most states do not offer the option to select multiple racial and ethnic categories when data is collected. Native Americans with Hispanic heritage cannot choose both options on government forms. Instead, they are forced to choose one or the other and are often lumped into larger groups. For example, on many forms, American Indians are coupled with Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. While these groups all represent people of Indigenous descent, they are vastly different in culture, traditions, and representation. And when people select the “other” option in data collection, they become placed in a separate category, often resulting in further misclassification. In their paper, Yellow Horse and Huyser (2021) write, “Through race misclassification of [Indigenous] populations as ‘other,’ [Indigenous] populations and Tribal Nations are rendered invisible in the public health discourse on the disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on racialized and minority populations.” The effects of COVID-19 were devastating to the Navajo Nation due to insufficient healthcare preparation, which could have been implemented with earlier access to quantifiable data.

Other dangers occur when there is a lack of information shared with participants of data collection. Indeed, a lack of information led 41 members of the Havasupai tribe to consent to genetic research that did not align with their beliefs and wishes. The infamous case Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona Board of Regents (2010) is a testament to the dangers of sharing Indigenous data without proper policies and transparency. In 1990, the Havasupai tribe was concerned with high levels of diabetes in their community and asked Arizona State University (ASU) researchers to investigate the issue. Tribal members shared blood samples with ASU researchers for the specific purpose of contributing to diabetes studies. However, the DNA that was extracted from the blood was widely shared with other researchers who had little to no interest in diabetes. These researchers used this DNA to study unrelated questions regarding mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins. Participants were not granted full transparency with the use of their blood samples and did not have adequate information from the researchers to be able to give informed consent. These studies contradicted the traditional stories and values of the Havasupai people, causing immense emotional distress to tribal members, especially the elders. The tribe sued and won the lawsuit in April of 2010, resulting in the return of the blood samples, funds to build a local clinic, and punitive damages of $700,000 paid by the university. This case highlights the ethical concerns in genetic research when working with Indigenous communities.

TRIBAL COLLEGES TAKING THE LEAD

Today, tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) are taking the initiative to protect and reclaim Indigenous data. TCUs are conducting and participating in academic research that aligns with the interests and concerns of Native communities, creating major impacts throughout Indian Country. A great example is the pollinator research, stewardship, and advocacy taking place at the Institute of American Indian Arts (IAIA) in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Melanie M. Kirby, an educator and pollinator specialist, explains how IAIA’s pollinator research efforts revolve around stewardship and connections to place, integrating cultural and biodynamic relationships rooted in ancestral and Indigenous traditional ecological and technical knowledge (Kirby, 2025).

Indeed, the remedy to issues concerning IDS is simple: give control of Indigenous data collection to Indigenous people. “Expertise in the production and management of data of all types is absolutely essential,” says Snipp. “The ability to conduct surveys and censuses, manage and process administrative data, and carry out qualitative fieldwork is essential for a community wishing to create and control its own data” (Snipp, 2016). TCUs help students obtain and enhance this expertise by encouraging them to pursue fields related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) or engage in other areas involving data retrieval, like museum studies and social work. Programs in these fields at TCUs give students technical skills in managing data, including within websites and archives. As these skills are obtained in Native communities, there should be no need for outside affiliations or aid in processing data. Rather, Native students are becoming the experts and using their skills to uplift their communities.

As emphasized by Sam’s practices of data collection, it is important to establish connections with the community and build trust with individuals. Participants may have resistance or hesitation toward a study due to past traumas and difficulties, making it vital that Native experts utilize Indigenous methodologies when leading research in Native communities. Using these practices results in less biased data because participants are more likely to answer honestly if trust is established beforehand. In recent years, TCUs have created specific policies, principles, and positions to combat colonial threats to Indigenous data. “I will say that our community, Turtle Mountain, has done a lot of work over the last decade, if not longer, to protect our community and protect our college,” says Parisien.

TMC requires that all new research proposals are approved by the TMC Research Committee before proceeding to the subsequent step of obtaining approval from the Tribal Nations Research Group (TNRG), a national research review board within the Turtle Mountain community. “There is something called the Tribal Research Act within the Turtle Mountain community here. It is a legal document that establishes TNRG as the entity responsible for protecting research dynamics and data practices for the entire nation,” explains Charette. He works closely with these committees and review boards, supplying the information and data they need to make informed decisions. Charette’s work promotes data literacy, data availability, and data transparency to a variety of stakeholders across the TMC campus.

Charette also reports to the American Indian Higher Education Consortium’s (AIHEC’s) American Indian Measures of Success (AIMS) key indicator system. “They have a specific report just for tribal colleges because . . . there are more indicators and ways of looking at data that are more nuanced for tribal colleges that we value in a different way and we believe are better metrics for us as a classification group to follow,” he says.

Charette is currently working with a group of individuals in partnership with the American Indian College Fund and the Kauffman Foundation—a nonprofit focused on boosting entrepreneurship through education programs. Together, they are devising specific principles relevant to institutional researchers at Indigenous institutions like TMC. It is believed that no such principles exist at this point, meaning the members of this group are designing them from scratch. Developing these principles is an important step in building a framework and understanding. “With data it is not just about compliance and program review and strategic enrollment management, it is also about how we capture the mission of our campus through a data lens,” explains Charette. TCUs are unique because of their distinct mission to uphold, uplift, and celebrate the languages, cultures, and identities of Native communities. They ask questions such as, “how does this research reflect the values of Indigenous institutions?” and “how can this data help Native communities?” Once compiled and completed, these principles can benefit new institutional researchers within the tribal college network, giving them a steppingstone toward understanding the amount of care and consideration that are necessary when working with Indigenous data.

Institutional review boards (IRB) have become a common part of academia. Many tribes and several TCUs have integrated them into their policies and procedures to monitor and protect Indigenous data. At Diné College, for example, the IRB is responsible for assessing all research proposed or involving their faculty, staff, students, and affiliates. The IRB meets twice monthly and consists of Navajo Nation community members and DC professors from various areas, leading to a broader understanding of the research taking place. Sam is thrilled to have traditional practitioners sit on the IRB and thinks it’s extremely important because it “sets the tone for what kind of cultural knowledge is being shared in this research, giving the community a better understanding of what is happening when we talk about research.” Community involvement helps alleviate one-sided narratives that may cause harm to the Navajo people.

DC has also implemented a specific policy to safeguard cultural artifacts and archives, allowing only practitioners and their apprentices to access specific cultural elements of their beautiful collection at the Ned Hatathli Museum. As Sam states, “We don’t relinquish that data to outsiders specifically for cultural reasons.” This policy supports students and Navajo people and guarantees their access to culturally relevant artifacts and materials. Sam also explains it as “keeping sacred, sacred.” This policy teaches students— future Indigenous leaders—to exercise their sovereign rights and lead with Indigenous perspectives and values.

IDS FOR THE FUTURE

When it comes to IDS, investment is key. To ensure that Indigenous perspectives and aspirations are reflected in research and preservation of culture, we must shift the power imbalances away from imposing digital colonial sources. That means investing and empowering tribal colleges and taking steps like creating IRBs to protect and discuss Indigenous data.

Indigenous people should govern and steward their data, determining who has access to that data and how it is collected, exercising their sovereign rights to shield data and keep it within tribal lands and TCUs. Comparing this notion to sewing and regalia, Sam says it best: “Sometimes those stories are not meant for anyone else except the person who is going to wear it. Every stitch has a story, just as every object has a breath.” It is important to keep these objects, this data, in interior Native spaces, especially for those who need it to breathe, who take pride in their culture, their language, their music, their art, and their data.

Kalista Peña is a journalist and writer based in Durango, Colorado.

REFERENCES

Carroll, S., Chung, P., Kukutai, T., Rowe, R.K., Siri, S., & Walter, M. (2023, August 13). Indigenous Data Sovereignty. Data for Development. Retrieved from https://www.d4d.net/news/indigenous-data-sovereignty-and-the-state-ofopen- data/

Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation v. Arizona Board of Regents and Therese Ann Markow, 204 P.3d 1063 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).

Kirby, M.M. (2025). Vibrations of the World: Pollinator Stewardship and Advocacy at the Institute of American Indian Arts. Tribal College: Journal of American Indian Higher Education, 36(3), 30–34.

Snipp, C.M. (2016). What Does Data Sovereignty Imply: What Does It Look Like? In T. Kukutai & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Towards an Agenda (pp. 39–55). Canberra: Australian National University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.22459/caepr38.11.2016.03

Yellow Horse, A.J., & Huyser, K.R. (2022). Indigenous Data Sovereignty and COVID-19 Data Issues for American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes and Populations. Journal of Population Research, 39, 527–531. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12546-021-09261-5

---