Researchers from New York University, the University of Arizona, and Harvard University have developed a new global standard for recording data about Indigenous Peoples. This standard was adopted last week by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a major international standards organization.
The new IEEE standard requires that any data involving Indigenous Peoples include proper disclosure of their relationships to the data. Previously, there were no specific guidelines for documenting the origin or use of knowledge and practices shared by Indigenous communities. As a result, these contributions often went uncredited or their sources remained unclear.
IEEE manages over 1,000 active technology standards used in more than 160 countries. These standards guide researchers and industry professionals in developing technologies ranging from smartphones to artificial intelligence and infrastructure systems.
The lack of crediting mechanisms led to the rise of the Indigenous data sovereignty movement about ten years ago. This movement emphasizes that Indigenous Peoples should have control over how information about their people, lands, and cultures is collected and used.
“Provenance details the history of a particular set of data,” said Stephanie Russo Carroll, associate professor at the University of Arizona and chair of the Indigenous Data Working Group responsible for creating the new standard. “It tells you where it originated from. It should also tell you how it’s moved over time and how it’s potentially changed over time.”
Jane Anderson, an anthropologist at New York University and vice chair of the working group, has worked on tools addressing cultural impacts caused by intellectual property laws. Anderson co-founded Local Contexts—a labeling tool that helps communities manage provenance, protocols, and permissions for Indigenous data worldwide. She described her experiences in Australia observing copyright law’s failure to protect Indigenous communities:
“I was able to see firsthand the legacy of having non-Indigenous people become the copyright holders of the photographs, the films, the sound recordings, the language materials, and the ethnographic texts of Indigenous Peoples,” Anderson said. “When the copyright holder is the name that is in the record and the one that is remembered, then we are also able to see more clearly the role of the law in furthering non-Indigenous authorship, rights fields, and projects of erasure. Poor provenance records for Indigenous collections are a by-product of the law’s inherent incapacity to serve Indigenous interests.”
Camille Callison—a member of Tahltan Nation who chairs both an Indigenous caucus within this working group as well as Canada’s National Indigenous Knowledge and Language Alliance—emphasized another reason for tracking provenance: ensuring accurate interpretation through cultural literacy.
“Essentially, we’re trying to direct people back to the communities who own the knowledge to be able to work with them,” Callison said.
The group believes these protections could encourage greater participation from Indigenous subjects in research efforts.
“Ultimately, the hope is that Indigenous data are used in a respectful, ethical manner,” said Randy Akee, director at Harvard Project on Indigenous Governance and Development at Harvard Kennedy School. “It’s this idea of creating incentives on both sides so that there’s better data and, ultimately, better outcomes.”
