在不符合土著数据主权的研究政策中引导大学开放:案例分析。

Q2 Social Sciences
Molly Wick, Deanna Erickson, Joel Hoffman, Lucinda Johnson, Ted Angradi
{"title":"在不符合土著数据主权的研究政策中引导大学开放:案例分析。","authors":"Molly Wick,&nbsp;Deanna Erickson,&nbsp;Joel Hoffman,&nbsp;Lucinda Johnson,&nbsp;Ted Angradi","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Indigenous nations and communities in the United States have rights as sovereign governments to exercise control and ownership over all data and information generated by or from the tribes, tribal members, or tribal resources. Indigenous nations exercise these rights through data ownership policies established in response to unethical research practices in research involving Indigenous communities. Most universities in the U.S. have “openness in research” policies to ensure academic freedom to publish freely, exercised by retaining university control of data. Here, we describe our study of cultural ecosystem services in the St. Louis River estuary region (Nagaajiwanaang in the language Ojibwemowin) in Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, U.S., an area that includes portions of the 1854 and 1842 Ceded Territories and reservation lands of a local band of Ojibwe (hereafter referred to as “the Band”). In this university-led, Band-supported study, both the university and the Band sought ownership of data collected based on their respective policies, resulting in a research delay of nearly a year. We found that open research policies that do not consider Indigenous sovereignty can hamper collaboration between university researchers and tribal nations, even when there is broad agreement on research goals and objectives. University open research policies that do not explicitly address Indigenous sovereignty fall short of the open research principles they intend to support and should be revised. Formal adoption of principles for ethical research with sovereign tribal governments by universities is needed to improve coordination and trust among university and tribal researchers and members.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"46 2","pages":"2-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500202","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Navigating University Openness in Research Policy Inconsistent with Indigenous Data Sovereignty: A Case Analysis\",\"authors\":\"Molly Wick,&nbsp;Deanna Erickson,&nbsp;Joel Hoffman,&nbsp;Lucinda Johnson,&nbsp;Ted Angradi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500202\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>Indigenous nations and communities in the United States have rights as sovereign governments to exercise control and ownership over all data and information generated by or from the tribes, tribal members, or tribal resources. Indigenous nations exercise these rights through data ownership policies established in response to unethical research practices in research involving Indigenous communities. Most universities in the U.S. have “openness in research” policies to ensure academic freedom to publish freely, exercised by retaining university control of data. Here, we describe our study of cultural ecosystem services in the St. Louis River estuary region (Nagaajiwanaang in the language Ojibwemowin) in Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, U.S., an area that includes portions of the 1854 and 1842 Ceded Territories and reservation lands of a local band of Ojibwe (hereafter referred to as “the Band”). In this university-led, Band-supported study, both the university and the Band sought ownership of data collected based on their respective policies, resulting in a research delay of nearly a year. We found that open research policies that do not consider Indigenous sovereignty can hamper collaboration between university researchers and tribal nations, even when there is broad agreement on research goals and objectives. University open research policies that do not explicitly address Indigenous sovereignty fall short of the open research principles they intend to support and should be revised. Formal adoption of principles for ethical research with sovereign tribal governments by universities is needed to improve coordination and trust among university and tribal researchers and members.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"46 2\",\"pages\":\"2-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/eahr.500202\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国的土著民族和社区作为主权政府,有权对部落、部落成员或部落资源产生的所有数据和信息行使控制权和所有权。原住民通过针对涉及原住民社区的不道德研究行为而制定的数据所有权政策来行使这些权利。美国大多数大学都有 "研究开放 "政策,通过保留大学对数据的控制权来确保自由发表论文的学术自由。在此,我们将介绍我们在美国明尼苏达州德卢斯市和威斯康星州苏必利尔市的圣路易斯河河口地区(奥吉布韦莫温语 Nagaajiwanaang)开展的文化生态系统服务研究,该地区包括 1854 年和 1842 年割让的部分领土以及当地奥吉布韦部落(以下简称 "部落")的保留地。在这项由大学主导、部落支持的研究中,大学和部落都根据各自的政策寻求对所收集数据的所有权,导致研究延迟了近一年。我们发现,不考虑土著主权的开放式研究政策会阻碍大学研究人员与部落民族之间的合作,即使双方就研究目标和目的达成广泛一致。没有明确解决土著主权问题的大学开放研究政策没有达到其想要支持的开放研究原则,因此应该进行修订。大学需要正式采纳与主权部落政府进行道德研究的原则,以改善大学与部落研究人员和成员之间的协调和信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Navigating University Openness in Research Policy Inconsistent with Indigenous Data Sovereignty: A Case Analysis

Navigating University Openness in Research Policy Inconsistent with Indigenous Data Sovereignty: A Case Analysis

Indigenous nations and communities in the United States have rights as sovereign governments to exercise control and ownership over all data and information generated by or from the tribes, tribal members, or tribal resources. Indigenous nations exercise these rights through data ownership policies established in response to unethical research practices in research involving Indigenous communities. Most universities in the U.S. have “openness in research” policies to ensure academic freedom to publish freely, exercised by retaining university control of data. Here, we describe our study of cultural ecosystem services in the St. Louis River estuary region (Nagaajiwanaang in the language Ojibwemowin) in Duluth, Minnesota, and Superior, Wisconsin, U.S., an area that includes portions of the 1854 and 1842 Ceded Territories and reservation lands of a local band of Ojibwe (hereafter referred to as “the Band”). In this university-led, Band-supported study, both the university and the Band sought ownership of data collected based on their respective policies, resulting in a research delay of nearly a year. We found that open research policies that do not consider Indigenous sovereignty can hamper collaboration between university researchers and tribal nations, even when there is broad agreement on research goals and objectives. University open research policies that do not explicitly address Indigenous sovereignty fall short of the open research principles they intend to support and should be revised. Formal adoption of principles for ethical research with sovereign tribal governments by universities is needed to improve coordination and trust among university and tribal researchers and members.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信