Content uploaded by Jacob Prehn
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jacob Prehn on May 19, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rasw20
Australian Social Work
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rasw20
Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Social Work in
Australia
Jacob Prehn & Maggie Walter
To cite this article: Jacob Prehn & Maggie Walter (2023): Indigenous Data Sovereignty and
Social Work in Australia, Australian Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2023.2186256
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2023.2186256
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 17 May 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Social Work in Australia
Jacob Prehn and Maggie Walter
Maiam nayri Wingara; School of Social Sciences, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
ABSTRACT
In this article we argue that in Australian social work context and
practice, Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-SOV) needs to be
operationalised by enacting the principles of Indigenous Data
Governance (ID-GOV). Failure to embed ID-SOV and ID-GOV
leaves the profession open to claims that it is complicit in
disempowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in
relation to data. ID-SOV is a global movement focused on
Indigenous Peoples having access to, and ownership, control, and
possession of, their data. Social work is a profession committed to
championing equal rights and challenging injustices. Therefore, it
has an obligation to decolonise existing data structures in its
workplaces. This article outlines the Australian ID-SOV movement,
including current scholarship on operationalising ID-SOV in the
form of ID-GOV, and the challenge for social work to position
itself in alliance with the ID-SOV movement and in active
participation in changing the way Indigenous data have
traditionally been collected and used in Australia
IMPLICATIONS
.The Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-SOV) movement demands
the data rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
and is re-shaping the Australian data landscape.
.If social work is true to its stated commitment to Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander self-determination, the profession needs to
engage with ID-SOV and work to operationalise Indigenous Data
Governance (ID-GOV) across social work environments.
.A particular focus of this article is the importance of ID-SOV and
ID-GOV being operationalised within social work research and
policy in areas such as “child protection”, the criminal justice
system, health and wellbeing, and housing.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 25 August 2022
Accepted 26 February 2023
KEYWORDS
First Nations; Aboriginal;
Torres Strait Islander;
Indigenous Data
Sovereignty; Indigenous
Data Governance; Rights;
Support; Research; Child
Safety
The global Indigenous Data Sovereignty (ID-SOV) movement is focused on the rights of
Indigenous Peoples to govern the creation, collection, ownership, and application of data
pertaining to their lives (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2014). The ID-
SOV movement began in 1998 in Canada, when First Nations Peoples’data were inten-
tionally kept from them. In response, Canadian First Nations people developed the Prin-
ciples of Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession (OCAP) (Schnarch, 2004). ID-SOV
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which
this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
CONTACT Jacob Prehn jacob.prehn@utas.edu.au
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK
https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2023.2186256
networks are now active in many nations, and are particularly strong in the Anglo-colo-
nised countries of Australia, Canada, the United States and Aotearoa (New Zealand).
1
The global ID-SOV movement uses a rights-based framework and builds upon the
rights established by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations, 2008). The benefits of this framework will only
be realised when Indigenous people have rights to the ownership, control, and appli-
cation of any data pertaining to their lives (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016a). In 2019, Indigen-
ous Peoples from a range of countries including Australia came together to develop the
CARE (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics) Principles
to sit alongside the non-Indigenous FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability,
and Reuse) Principles of the open data movement (Carroll et al., 2020; Carroll et al.,
2021).
Australian Indigenous Data Sovereignty
In Australia, ID-SOV began with a global workshop called Indigenous Data Sovereignty
held at the Australian National University (ANU) in 2016. More than 20 participants,
mostly Indigenous academics from across the CANZUS countries, worked to build
upon the OCAP Principles and to develop the foundations of the ID-SOV movement.
In Australia, these became tangible at the inaugural Australian Indigenous Data Sover-
eignty Summit held in Canberra in 2018, cohosted by Maiam nayri Wingara people
(2021), the Australian Indigenous Data Sovereignty Collective, and the Australian Indi-
genous Governance Institute (2021). More than 40 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
delegates from across Australia, along with invited colleagues from Te Mana Raraunga
(2019), the Māori Data Sovereignty Network, attended. At the summit, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander leaders exercised their sovereign rights and agreed upon the
definitions of key terms (Maiam nayri Wingara, 2018, p. 1):
1. In Australia, “Indigenous Data”refers to information or knowledge, in any format or
medium, which is about and may affect Indigenous Peoples both collectively and
individually.
2. “Indigenous Data Sovereignty”refers to the right of Indigenous people to exercise
ownership over Indigenous Data. Ownership of data can be expressed through the
creation, collection, access, analysis, interpretation, management, dissemination,
and reuse of Indigenous Data.
3. “Indigenous Data Governance”refers to the right of Indigenous Peoples to autono-
mously decide what, how, and why Indigenous Data are collected, accessed, and
used. It ensures that data on or about Indigenous Peoples reflect our priorities,
values, cultures, worldviews, and diversity.
The Summit developed five key principles of Indigenous Data Governance (ID-GOV),
with delegates asserting that Australian Indigenous people have the right to (Maiam
nayri Wingara, 2018, p. 2):
1. Exercise control of the data ecosystem including creation, development, stewardship,
analysis, dissemination, and infrastructure.
2J. PREHN AND M. WALTER
2. Data that are contextual and disaggregated (available and accessible at individual,
community and First Nations levels).
3. Data that are relevant and empower sustainable self-determination and effective self-
governance.
4. Data structures that are accountable to Indigenous Peoples and First Nations.
5. Data that are protective and respect our individual and collective interests.
Good ID-GOV empowers Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to make effective
decisions to support their communities and First Nations in the ways that meet their
needs and aspirations (Lovett et al., 2019; Maiam nayri Wingara, 2018).
Current and Historical Issues Regarding Indigenous Data
The ID-SOV movement is a response to the historical and ongoing structures of coloni-
sation, which include troubling Indigenous data practices (Lovett et al., 2019). In Austra-
lia, Palawa sociologist and distinguished academic Maggie Walter describes Indigenous
data collection as often leading to data that reproduce deficit narratives, or to a phenom-
enon that Walter (2018, p. 1) terms “5D data”: disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dys-
function, and difference. Not only do these data focus on the Indigene as the problem,
this construction of the problematic Indigenous person/family/community/nation
forms the evidence base for Indigenous-linked policies and programs. The failure of
the first Closing the Gap (CTG) policy initiative (2008–2018), as well as the 200 years
of ineffective and failed policies prior to CTG, suggests that policies, not the people
subject to them, are the problem (Walter & Carroll, 2021).
Walter (2018, p. 1) identified the existence of an Indigenous “data paradox”, by which
she means that there are “vast amounts of data about”Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people but “very little for”them. What she describes as the “too much data”
space is occupied by significant amounts of official government statistics and administra-
tive data about Aboriginal people produced from the standpoint of non-Indigenous Aus-
tralians. In the “too little data”space, which contains data for Indigenous Peoples, there
exists what she terms a “data desert”: the absence of the types of data Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people need to make informed decisions about their lives, commu-
nities, tribes, and nations (Walter, 2018, p. 1).
Currently, much of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data landscape is over-
populated with what Walter (2018) described as BADDR data: blaming, aggregate,
decontextualised, deficit, and restricted. For social workers to avoid the BADDR data
trap, the data needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people must be considered
first and foremost, that is, above any non-Indigenous data wants.Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people need data relevant to the Indigenous lifeworld (Walter & Suina,
2019), data that are appropriately disaggregated (Davis, 2016), data that are suitably con-
textualised (Prehn et al., 2021; Walter & Carroll, 2021), data that address Indigenous pri-
orities and agendas (First Nations Information Governance Centre, 2014; Walter, 2016;
Yap & Yu, 2016), and data that are available and amendable (Walter, Lovett et al., 2021b).
BADDR data are of little relevance to the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people (Jelfs, 2016;Walter,2016). In a time whendata saturate our daily lives, discussion has
increasingly turned to issues relating to data consent, use, rights,and storage. The Australian
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 3
Indigenous data ecosystem
2
is immense, and includes data created or held by individuals,
Indigenous communities, Indigenous and non-Indigenous organisations, governments,
research institutions, and commercial entities (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016b). Many of these set-
tings involve the social work profession and social workers in areas such as child safety,
criminal justice, health and wellbeing, and housing.
As the term ID-SOV suggests, the movement is led by Indigenous Peoples exercising
their sovereignty over their own and their peoples’data. The major role for non-Indigen-
ous allies (such as the social work profession and social workers) is to provide support to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to achieve Data Sovereignty by decolonising
existing structures that disempower and marginalise Indigenous people from their data
(Jelfs, 2016; Pool, 2016; Rowe et al., 2015; Wilks et al., 2018). The point is that most Indi-
genous-related data are still collected and held by non-Indigenous organisations and enti-
ties. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, even Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander social workers, cannot change these troubling data practices by themselves.
The challenge for social work is whether their commitment to Indigenous rights includes
working within their own organisations to change the way Indigenous data are conceptu-
alised, collected, and analysed, questioning which Indigenous data are used, what they are
used for, and why (Walter, 2018). For ID-SOV, the answer to those questions must always
be to benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in terms that the latter have
defined.
Operationalising Indigenous Data Sovereignty in Australian Social Work
Social work must consider how the principles of ID-SOV and ID-GOV apply to the pro-
fession, and to the institutions and organisations in which social workers conduct
research and work as practitioners. As detailed in the Australian Association of Social
Work’s(2020)Code of Ethics, the social work profession and its workers have a key
role to play in reducing social disadvantage, in supporting Indigenous Peoples to
achieve life outcomes that are equitable with their non-Indigenous counterparts, and
in empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to achieve their hopes,
dreams, and aspirations. It is our argument that ID-SOV and ID-GOV are central com-
ponents of manifesting these ambitions.
The operationalisation of ID-SOV through ID-GOV is key to prioritising Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander data needs within social work (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016b). In its
ordinary English sense, to “operationalise”is “to put into effect, to realise”(Oxford
English Dictionary, 2022, p. 1). In social research, operationalisation is the process of
defining how concepts work, and whether concepts are present or absent; how you oper-
ationalise depends on the type of work you are doing (Natalier, 2019). Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Peoples have already defined the concepts of ID-SOV and ID-
GOV, and now social work must operationalise ID-SOV by putting the five principles
of ID-GOV into action (Maiam nayri Wingara, 2018).
The breadth of where and when is as wide as the areas of social work practice, but
current priorities include social work research (Paine et al., 2021; Walter & Suina,
2019), policy (Walter, Kukutai et al., 2021a), so-called “child safety”(Hunter et al.,
2020; Krakouer, 2019; Krakouer et al., 2021), the health and wellbeing sector (Lovett,
2016;Lovett et al., 2021), and the criminal justice system (Cunneen, 2016). All of
4J. PREHN AND M. WALTER
these systems collect, maintain, and use vast amounts of data, the majority of which con-
tributes to the dominant narrative of Indigenous deficit. Often the data users in these
systems are consumed with simplistic, binary, comparative analysis between Indigenous
and non-Indigenous people. While these data do identify that Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander people experience considerably worse outcomes across many measures,
the types of data First Nations people need—to overcome disadvantage and grow
strong through being empowered to make data-driven decisions—is largely absent
(Walter & Carroll, 2021).
Operationalising ID-SOV in Australian social work requires that the five ID-GOV
principles be put into practice: that Indigenous people have control of the data ecosys-
tem, that data structures are accountable to Indigenous Australians, and that data are
contextualised, disaggregated, relevant, protective, and respectful. In so-called “child pro-
tection”, this could mean having an Indigenous Data Governance Committee for Indi-
genous data at the state or territory level, or at a level that is more appropriate for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. An Indigenous Data Governance Commit-
tee could be similar to that used in the Mayi Kuwayu National Study of Aboriginal &
Torres Strait Islander Wellbeing (MK Study, 2022). The Family Matters Report 2020
by Hunter et al. (2020) identifies ID-SOV as key to interpreting Indigenous data in a
meaningful way. However, we suggest that social work and the child protection system
need to go a step further by including ID-GOV at the data conceptualisation phase.
This is because once the data are already collected, the ability to ask the types of questions
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people need answers to is limited. Having ID-SOV
and ID-GOV embedded in the child protection system begins to change the data land-
scape to meet the needs of Indigenous people, their families, and their communities.
The criminal justice system is another site of extreme over-representation of Aborigi-
nal and Torres Strait Islander people. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
(2022) states that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youths aged 10–17 years are 16
times more likely to be under youth justice supervision than non-Indigenous Australians,
while Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults are 12 times more likely to be impri-
soned. Although this binary comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous data high-
lights the ongoing impact of colonisation and its damaging effects on Indigenous
people (Cunneen, 2016; Cunneen & Rowe, 2014), there are few to no data for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people on strengths-based factors that contribute to people and
communities being safe and healthy. Social workers practising in the criminal justice
system can support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and contribute to ID-
SOV and ID-GOV by decolonising existing data structures that disempower and margin-
alise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people from their data and the types of data
they need for meaningful change to be achieved (Jelfs, 2016; Pool, 2016; Rowe et al.,
2015). Through the process of decolonisation, the empowerment of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people regarding their data can occur. This will contribute to
enabling Australia’s First Nations Peoples to begin to Indigenise the data ecosystem to
reflect their worldviews and achieve their data needs and aspirations.
The social work profession must challenge and not be complicit in contributing to
BADDR data trends (Walter, Lovett et al., 2021b) and the 5D Indigenous data phenom-
enon (Walter, 2016). Therefore, we call on the social work profession and social workers
to:
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 5
1. Advocate for the principles of ID-SOV and ID-GOV to be enacted across their organ-
isations and in their research.
2. Decolonise existing data structures that marginalise Indigenous people from their
data.
3. Empower Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to Indigenise the data
ecosystem.
4. Include Indigenous Data, ID-SOV, and ID-GOV in:
(i) the Australian Association of Social Work Code of Ethics
(ii) the Australian Association of Social Work’s(2021)Australian Social Work Edu-
cation Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS)
(iii) professional development delivered by the AASW and other entities.
Conclusion
This article has argued that Australian social work must operationalise ID-SOV through
enacting the principles of ID-GOV. To do otherwise makes the profession complicit in
disempowering Indigenous Peoples regarding their data. To date, the centrality of data
to the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has been largely overlooked
in social work. This relates especially to the areas of “child protection”, the criminal
justice system, housing, and health and wellbeing, and to the research, policy, and prac-
tice guidelines that are produced in these areas. The ID-SOV movement, steered by
strong Indigenous leadership, must have allies in the social work profession to support
them in their work.
Notes
1. This group of nations is sometimes collectively referred to as the CANZUS countries
because of their shared history and the ongoing structure of colonisation.
2. A data ecosystem is a data environment and all of its components.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
References
Australian Association of Social Work. (2020). Australian Association of Social Work Code of
Ethics 2020.https://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/1201
Australian Association of Social Work. (2021). Australian Social Work Education and
Accreditation Standards (ASWEAS) 2020 V2.1. Australian Association of Social Work.
https://www.aasw.asn.au/document/item/13629
Australian Indigenous Governance Institute. (2021). AIGI.https://www.aigi.com.au/
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health
Performance Framework - 2.11 Contact with the criminal justice system.https://www.
Indigenoushpf.gov.au/measures/2-11-contact-criminal-justice-system#keymessages
Carroll, S. R., Garba, I., Figueroa-Rodríguez, O. L., Holbrook, J., Lovett, R., Materechera, S.,
Parsons, M., Raseroka, K., Rodriguez-Lonebear, D., & Rowe, R. (2020). The CARE principles
for Indigenous data governance. Data Science Journal,19(43), 1–12.
6J. PREHN AND M. WALTER
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
Cunneen, C. (2016). When does transitional justice begin and end? Colonised peoples, liberal
democracies and restorative justice. In K. Clamp (Ed.), Restorative justice in transitional settings
(pp. 190–210). Routledge.
Cunneen, C., & Rowe, S. (2014). Changing narratives: Colonised peoples, criminology and social
work. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy,3(1), 49–67. https://doi.
org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v3i1.138
Davis, M. (2016). Data and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In
T. Kukutai, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Towards an agenda (pp. 25–38).
ANU Press.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2014). Ownership, control, access and possession
(OCAP): The path to First Nations information governance. In: First Nations Information
Governance Centre Ottawa.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2016). Pathways to First Nations’data and infor-
mation sovereignty. In T. Kukutai, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Towards an
agenda (pp. 139–156). ANU Press.
Hunter, S., Burton, J., Blacklaws, G., Soltysik, A., Mastroianni, A., Young, J., Jones, M., Jayakody,
N., Bhathal, A., Krakouer, J., Tan, W. W., Parolini, A., Tilbury, C., & Sholonsky, A. (2020). The
Family Matters Report 2020. Measuring trends to turn the tide on the over-representation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care in Australia.https://www.
familymatters.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FamilyMattersReport2020_LR.pdf
Jelfs, P. (2016). The Australian Bureau of Statistics’Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander enumer-
ation and engagement strategies: Challenges and future options. In T. Kukutai, & J. Taylor
(Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 275–290). ANU Press.
Krakouer, J. (2019, October 17). The stolen generations never ended –they just morphed into
child protection. The Guardian.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/17/
the-stolen-generations-never-ended-they-just-morphed-into-child-protection
Krakouer, J., Wu Tan, W., & Parolini, A. (2021). Who is analysing what? The opportunities, risks
and implications of using predictive risk modelling with Indigenous Australians in child protec-
tion: A scoping review. Australian Journal of Social Issues,56(2), 173–197. https://doi.org/10.
1002/ajs4.155
Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016a). Data sovereignty for Indigenous peoples: Current practice and
future needs. In T. Kukutai, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an
agenda (pp. 99–115). ANU Press.
Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016b). Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda. ANU Press.
Lovett, R. (2016). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community wellbeing: Identified needs for
statistical capacity. In T. Kukutai, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an
agenda (pp. 213–232). ANU Press.
Lovett, R., Jones, R., & Maher, B. (2021). The intersection of Indigenous data sovereignty and
closing the gap policy in Australia. In M. Walter, T. Kukutai, S. R. Carroll, & D. Rodriguez-
Lonebear (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty and policy (pp. 36–50). Routledge.
Lovett, R., Lee, V., Kukutai, T., Cormack, D., Rainie, S. C., & Walker, J. (2019). Good data practices
for Indigenous data sovereignty and governance. In A. Daly, S. K. Devitt, & M. Mann (Eds.),
Good data (pp. 26–36). Institute of Network Cultures.
Maiam nayri Wingara. (2018). Indigenous data sovereignty communique: Indigenous Data
Sovereignty Summit 20/06/2018. Maiam nayri Wingara. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/
5b3043afb40b9d20411f3512/t/5b6c0f9a0e2e725e9cabf4a6/1533808545167/Communique%2B-
%2Bindigenous%2BData%2BSovereignty%2BSummit.pdf
Maiam nayri Wingara. (2021). Maiam nayri Wingara. https://www.maiamnayriwingara.org/
MK Study. (2022). Mayi kuwayu: The national study of Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander well-
being. ANU. https://mkstudy.com.au/
AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL WORK 7
Natalier, K. (2019). Research design. In M. Walter (Ed.), Social research methods (pp. 29–56).
Oxford University Press.
Oxford English Dictionary. (2022). Operationalize, v. Oxford University Press. https://www.oed.
com/view/Entry/131754?redirectedFrom=operationalise
Paine,S.-J.,Cormack,D.,Reid,P.,Harris,R.,&Robson,B.(2021). Kaupapa Māori-informed
approaches to support data rights and self-determination. In M. Walter, T. Kukutai, S. R. Carroll,
& D. Rodriguez-Lonebear (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty and policy (pp. 187–203). Routledge.
Pool, I. (2016). Colonialism’s and postcolonialism’s fellow traveller: The collection, use and misuse
of data on Indigenous people. In T. Kukutai, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty:
Toward an agenda (pp. 57–78). ANU Press.
Prehn, J., Krakouer, J., & Todd, F. (2021). The intersectionality of indigeneity and gender in
Australian social work. In B. Bennett (Ed.), Aboriginal fields of practice (pp. 3–25). Red
Globe Press.
Rowe, S., Baldry, E., & Earles, W. (2015). Decolonising social work research: Learning from critical
indigenous approaches. Australian Social Work,68(3), 296–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0312407X.2015.1024264
Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination
applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some
options for First Nations communities. International Journal of Indigenous Health,1(1), 80–95.
Snipp, C. M. (2016). What does data sovereignty imply: What does it look like. In T. Kukutai, & J.
Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 39–55). ANU Press.
Te Mana Raraunga. (2019). MaoriData Sovereignty Network.https://www.temanararaunga.maori.nz/
United Nations. (2008). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United
Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/development/desa/
Indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-of-Indigenous-peoples.html
Walter, M. (2016). Data politics and Indigenous representation in Australian statistics. In T.
Kukutai, & J. Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 79–97).
ANU Press.
Walter, M. (2018). The voice of Indigenous data: Beyond the markers of disadvantage. Griffith
Review,60, 256–263.
Walter, M., & Carroll, S. R. (2021). Indigenous data sovereignty, governance and the link to
Indigenous policy. In M. Walter, T. Kukutai, S. R. Carroll, & D. Rodriguez-Lonebear (Eds.),
Indigenous data sovereignty and policy (pp. 1–20). Routledge.
Walter, M., Kukutai, T., Carroll, S. R., & Rodriguez-Lonebear, D. (2021a). Indigenous data sover-
eignty and policy. Routledge.
Walter, M., Lovett, R., Maher, B., Williamson, B., Prehn, J., Bodkin-Andrews, G., & Lee, V.
(2021b). Indigenous data sovereignty in the era of big data and open data. Australian Journal
of Social Issues,56(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.141
Walter, M., & Suina, M. (2019). Indigenous data, Indigenous methodologies and Indigenous data
sovereignty. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,22(3), 233–243. https://doi.
org/10.1080/13645579.2018.1531228
Wilks, J., Kennedy, G., Drew, N., & Wilson, K. (2018). Indigenous data sovereignty in higher edu-
cation: Towards a decolonised data quality framework. Australian Universities’Review,60(2),
4–14.
Yap, M., & Yu, E. (2016). Data sovereignty for the Yawuru in Western Australia. In T. Kukutai, & J.
Taylor (Eds.), Indigenous data sovereignty: Toward an agenda (pp. 233–252). ANU Press.
8J. PREHN AND M. WALTER
