The Global Indigenous Data Alliance defines four principles for Indigenous data governance: Collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (Carroll et al., 2020). In this paper, I briefly examine two datasets, one about forests and ecosystems in Nova Scotia (Matsumoto, 2025), and one about Indigenous historical periodicals (Ruddock et al., 2024). Both were retrieved from the Borealis Canadian dataset repository.

Intact forests and natural ecosystems in Nova Scotia, Canada

This dataset combines forestry geospatial data with human intervention geospatial data in an effort to exclude areas of human development and gain a clearer understanding of intact forests and natural ecosystems (Matsumoto, 2025). The data developed is confined to the borders of Nova Scotia. It was compiled in 2025 by Patricia Matsumoto, Mehedi Hassan, Emma Brooks with assistance from the Wicked Problems Lab and Saint Mary’s University. Source data were obtained from public sources including provincial and federal geospatial datasets provided by the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Canada.

At first glance, this dataset does not appear to relate directly to Indigenous peoples. None are named as collaborators or participants, and the topic of the research does not mention Indigenous cultures. Carroll et al. encourage us to take a broad view of what constitutes Indigenous data, including data that may impact Indigenous peoples and environments (Carroll et al., 2021). Since Nova Scotia is within the unceded lands of the Mi’kmaq, and since this dataset could be used as a basis for environmental and natural resource research and policy, it would be included in this broader view, and should be subject to the CARE principles.

Unfortunately, the authors of this dataset have made no mention of these principles in their publication. Both the dataset’s metadata and contents show Matsumoto et al. placed the data under a CC0 license, ceding ownership to the public domain, and there is no indication that Indigenous communities exercise any control or governance over how the data is accessed, shared, or used. There are no benefits identified for Indigenous communities whose lands were analyzed. While there is documentation related to the origins of the data, there is no acknowledgement of the role Indigenous communities have played in their development, nor of responsibility or accountability to Indigenous communities. There is no indication of any engagement with Indigenous communities related to cultural protocols, rights, or values. There is no cultural context provided, including acknowledgement of Nova Scotia as the unceded land of the Mi’kmaq people, and there is no indication that any data sovereignty for Indigenous communities whose lands are described by this dataset was considered.

Indigenous historical periodicals dataset

This dataset contains information on periodicals created by Indigenous communities across Canada and some northern states in the United States (Ruddock et al., 2024). It includes data collected by the Indigenous Historical Publications Working Group of the Council of Prairie and Pacific University Libraries. The data are periodically updated, with the current version 4.0 released in 2024.

The researchers here did marginally better. The connection to Indigenous peoples is direct and obvious, so even a narrow construction of Indigenous data would apply here. There is explicit acknowledgement that the periodicals are data are about, produced by, and produced for Indigenous peoples. Unfortunately, that appears to be the extent of the efforts made by these researchers to uphold their responsibility to those communities.

While Indigenous communities could benefit from this data, there is no explicit indication from the authors that that would be the case, nor are specific communities or benefits enumerated beyond “facilitating collaboration.” This dataset is also released under a CC0 license into the public domain, so Indigenous communities do not have any rights regarding this data under Western IP laws within Canada for how the data is accessed, shared, or used. There is no evidence of any Indigenous governance structure, nor acknowledgement of responsibility or accountability of the authors to the Indigenous communities whose periodicals they have listed. There is no indication that Indigenous communities were engaged during the creation or maintenance of the data. The identified sources for the data do not include any direct interaction with Indigenous communities, and the authors note that “accuracy of these lists is unknown and not validated by Indigenous communities to our knowledge.” While the authors welcome input from Indigenous individuals and communities, there is no indication of proactive efforts by the authors to engage with those individuals and communities. There is no indication that cultural protocols, rights, or values of the Indigenous communities that produced the periodicals was considered in the curation of the dataset. The periodicals are identified by publication language and by non-Indigenous province of origin. No other cultural context is provided for the data, for example which Indigenous community published each periodical, or even an indication of whether they were produced by First Nations, Inuit or Métis.

Conclusion

The principle of collective benefit requires that the collection, use, and sharing of data related to Indigenous peoples and their lands directly benefit them, and that the processes around the data be used as opportunities to increase inclusion and engagement. Authority to control puts decisions about collection, use, and sharing in the hands of Indigenous peoples, recognizing their rights and interests in the data. Responsibility refers to the responsibility of the data’s creators and managers to provide transparency and accountability to the Indigenous peoples to whom the data pertains, to create and maintain positive relationships, and to accurately reflect Indigenous languages and worldviews. The principle of ethics requires a minimizing of harm and a commitment to ethical use of the data now and in the future (Carroll et al., 2020). This is a much higher standard than a simple acknowledgement.

Borealis does not provide metadata fields related to Indigenous data sovereignty directly, nor do they provide instructions on their website related to entering the relevant information in more general purpose fields. However, there are general purpose information fields that these authors could have used for this purpose, and they could have included this information within the contents of the dataset (for example in a README file). This presents an opportunity for improvements to the platform and its documentation to encourage ethical conduct for Indigenous datasets, and would apply to many other domain-specific and general data repositories. However, this assumes that the issue is with annotating the dataset correctly; if the researchers failed in their obligations, there will be nothing to document.

Most ethics oversight is intended to be applied to research conducted directly with human participants, and these datasets are based on digital models and bibliometric data rather than human participation. This sidesteps the ethical provisions related to Indigenous data and research described in the Tri-Council Policy Statement CORE-2022 (Canadian Institutes of Health Research et al., 2022). However, both datasets involve the resources and history of Indigenous communities, and have potential impacts on those communities. A broader interpretation of “participant” to include those with a stake in the origin or application of the research would likely significantly improve adherence to CARE principles in research projects like these. At the very least, a disclosure of ethics oversight, even to state that it wasn’t a requirement due to the nature of the research, would be a reasonable minimum standard.

The authors of these two datasets have an ethical responsibility to uphold the CARE principles even without systemic requirements. However, there are significant opportunities for the Tri-Council and other funding agencies, the Canadian Association of Research Ethics Boards and other professional ethics associations, data repositories, institutions, libraries, and other organizations to encourage, support, document, and require adherence to CARE principles in their policies the same way that they do for the FAIR principles, the standards for human participation, and the prohibition of plagiarism. Until they do, it is our responsibility as information professionals to fill those policy gaps as we support researchers in ethical research data management practices.

Neither dataset made any mention in contents or metadata related to ethical oversight provided by a research ethics board. Neither documented any adherence to the CARE principles in contents or metadata. It is possible that appropriate ethical oversight and engagement with Indigenous communities with regards to the CARE principles were both undertaken. Without the documentation, we cannot know. If I were a researcher, I imagine I would have a lot of other responsibilities and might struggle with how to prioritize my time. Figuring out how to navigate respectful Indigenous inclusion and engagement seems daunting having never done so before. Having this opportunity to examine and apply the CARE principles helps lessen both of these barriers, and I look forward to additional opportunities to chip away at them.

References

Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. (2022). Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. https://ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique_tcps2-eptc2_2022.html

Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S., Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., Rowe, R., Sara, R., Walker, J. D., Anderson, J., & Hudson, M. (2020). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance. Data Science Journal, 19, 43. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2020-043

Carroll, S. R., Herczog, E., Hudson, M., Russell, K., & Stall, S. (2021). Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures. Scientific Data, 8(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-021-00892-0

Matsumoto, P. (2025). Intact forests and natural ecosystems in Nova Scotia, Canada [Dataset]. Borealis. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/9ARPMQ

Ruddock, K., Reid, L., Brigham, D., Kaufhold, M., Chatterley, T., Everall, K., Ford, L., & Laroque, S. (2024). Indigenous historical periodicals dataset (Version 4.0) [Dataset]. Borealis. https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/JGN15S