BC Freedom of Information and Privacy Association
Your Data Your Rights
7 Insights for OCAP-Friendly Information Governance and Data Management Practices
Katie Punia drafted the following as part of her professional experience placement at FIPA from the UBC Master of Library and Information Science program. While here she applied FIPA’s records classification and retention schedule and completed the OCAP® program through the First Nations Information Governance Centre. In combination we had her consider the intersection of her program, OCAP and an organization like FIPA. We are pleased to be able to post the following.
Increasingly, information professionals may be questioning how their organizational commitments to reconciliation and reciprocity intersect with their work, particularly when undertaking data management programs that are balancing access and privacy considerations. In rethinking approaches to organizational information governance, information professionals must consider how information management systems and practices for collecting, storing, and providing access to records or other data used within their organizations are not functioning to adequately support the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples (Thorpe et al., 2021, p. 17). As a response “to the role of knowledge production in reproducing colonial relations,” the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) has established the four core principles of Indigenous information and data management: ownership, control, access, and possession commonly referred to and trademarked in 2014 as OCAP® (FNIGC, 2016, p.148). Acting as an excellent entry point into beginning ones’ organizational journey in supporting First Nations data sovereignty was mentioned in B.C. FIPA’s previous blog post on the reintroduction of OCAP by the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). It is foundationally important that if your organization maintains, houses, or otherwise works with First Nations data that your information professionals take the OCAP course so that your organization can assert and respect the First Nations data governance principles of OCAP as a means to support nuanced articulations of First Nations data sovereignty.
This blog post provides an introduction for non-Indigenous information professionals who are seeking to inform their information governance programs in alignment with, and in support for, First Nations data sovereignty and governance principles based on the OCAP course and the work of information professionals at B.C. FIPA. It must first be acknowledged that Indigenous-led information governance groups have and continue to provide guidance and advocacy for Indigenous data sovereignty work in practice, and this blog post is meant to bolster and support this work. Understanding assertions and respectful recognition of OCAP is critical in the Canadian context where there have been calls and legislation to enact full adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
When focused through a lens of Indigenous data sovereignty and governance, non-Indigenous information professionals must understand how their information governance program upholds the essential rights protected by UNDRIP (2007). This includes Article 18, which specifies that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions,” and Article 31(1), which reaffirms that Indigenous Peoples “have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their intellectual property,” including Traditional Knowledge (TK) and cultural expression (p.16, 23).
The following insights can be a starting place to ensure your organization asserts and respects the principles of OCAP; however, organizations should both review the in-depth resources provided by the FNIGC found here as well as work to build trust and accountability through ongoing relationship building with the appropriate and applicable Nations and Indigenous communities.
1. Recognize that First Nations data is not limited to physical records
Cultural context concerning First Nations’ records in information management must begin by expanding perceptions of what constitutes Indigenous and First Nations data. First Nations data includes both data from and about First Nations and is not limited to quantifiable data. It includes data that captures information about cultures, languages, and oral histories as well as information about the lands and resources that First Nations have stewarded, protected, and have inherent rights to (FNIGC, n.d.). It also includes demographic, health, and other population data about First Nations that may have been taken with or without free, prior, and informed consent. First Nations have a right to their data and non-Indigenous individuals and organizations have a responsibility to respect the principles of OCAP or any other Indigenous worldview that expresses and asserts their right to data sovereignty (FNIGC, n.d.).
2. Data governance informed by OCAP must look at the entire lifecycle of data
The principles of OCAP are concerned with the “entire lifecycle of data collection,” ranging from creation and use to disclosure and destruction (FNIGC, n.d.). Traditional Western and Eurocentric records and information management (RIM) practices are frequently defined by their strict retention schedules, disposition, and transfer to an archive for long-term preservation. This approach, particularly in the context of records life cycle model, where records move from active to semi-active to inactive, does not align with the cultural context of records creation, use, maintenance, and preservation by Indigenous communities.
3. Critique your data quality: Is it useful to applicable First Nations communities in its current form?
Taxonomy and metadata design practices facilitated through most platforms used in information governance programs often do not have the capacity to realize Indigenous identifiers, metadata, and access protocols. Organizations are responsible for ensuring appropriate data quality and establishing clear ownership or stewardship guidelines prior to data collection; both of which can in turn facilitate the usefulness of the data and (FNIGC, n.d.).
4. Consider and consult on data sharing or stewardship agreements
Data sharing agreements are binding contracts between First Nations and those who hold, may wish to have access to, or may have been asked to hold First Nations data (FNIGC, n.d.). Meaningful data sharing agreements can arise through asserting and respecting OCAP. Collaborative data sharing agreements demonstrate the success of participatory and relationship-based information governance structures in practically asserting and respecting Indigenous data sovereignty. Examples of data sharing agreements can both be found in the OCAP course and in Rowe and Bull’s (2021) book chapter “Indigenous self-determination and data governance in the Canadian Policy Context.”
5. Research data must have the consent, approval, review, and input from First Nations
Data gathered about First Nations must be informed by OCAP to support “better quality and more relevant data” (FNIGC, n.d.). If undertaking research about First Nations, do not collect information beyond the requirements and scope of the project. Fully informed consent means ensuring that studies including benefits and potential harm are explained to First Nations in a language or manner that ensures fully informed consent (FNIGC, n.d.). Results must be returned to the community in a usable and accessible way.
6. Expand view of “harm” to include community harm in research
The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2), acts as the “ethical guidance document for public research in Canada,” however, at this time it is not able to fully realize the principles of OCAP (FNIGC, n.d.). Ethical frameworks must expand viewing harm from a lens limited to the individual when dealing with First Nations data. Respecting and asserting an OCAP means taking a more holistic approach to understanding potential research harm, by mitigating risks of “spiritual, cultural, or Nation-level” harm (FNIGC, n.d.).
7. Advocate for expansion of Copyright and Intellectual Property law
Canadian laws focused through privacy-related legislation and intellectual property challenge the assertion of OCAP principles. Canadian copyright and intellectual property law are structured to align with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In doing so, intellectual property rights focus on “maximizing the ‘creative commons’ (the ‘public domain’) to protect individual creators” but have a limited understanding of co-ownership or co-creation (Tsosie, p. 219). Under this focus, Indigenous culture, heritage, and knowledges are at risk of commodification and commercialization. Intellectual property law in Canada should align with Article 31(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which reaffirms that Indigenous Peoples “have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their intellectual property” including Traditional Knowledge and cultural expression (p.16, 23).
References and Resources.
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), 108-108.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2016). Pathways to First Nations’ data and information sovereignty. In Taylor J., & T. Kukutai (Ed.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda (pp. 139-156). The Australian National University (ANU) Press.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (n.d.). The First Nations Principles of OCAP. Accessed April 29th, 2024
Rowe, R., & Bull, J. (2021). Indigenous self-determination and data governance in the Canadian Policy Context. In M. Walter., D. Rodriguez-Lonebear., & S. Russo (Ed.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (pp. 81-98). Routledge.
Thorpe, K., Christen, K., Booker, L., & Galassi, M. (2021). Designing Archival Information Systems through Partnerships with Indigenous Communities: Developing the Mukurtu Hubs and Spokes Model in Australia. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 1-22.
Tsosie, Rebecca.(2021). The legal and policy dimensions of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS). In M. Walter., D. Rodriguez-Lonebear., & S. Russo (Ed.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (pp. 1-20). Routledge.
United Nations General Assembly. (2007, September 13). United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
VICTORIA, June 6, 2024
Katie Punia drafted the following as part of her professional experience placement at FIPA from the UBC Master of Library and Information Science program. While here she applied FIPA’s records classification and retention schedule and completed the OCAP® program through the First Nations Information Governance Centre. In combination we had her consider the intersection of her program, OCAP and an organization like FIPA. We are pleased to be able to post the following.
Increasingly, information professionals may be questioning how their organizational commitments to reconciliation and reciprocity intersect with their work, particularly when undertaking data management programs that are balancing access and privacy considerations. In rethinking approaches to organizational information governance, information professionals must consider how information management systems and practices for collecting, storing, and providing access to records or other data used within their organizations are not functioning to adequately support the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples (Thorpe et al., 2021, p. 17). As a response “to the role of knowledge production in reproducing colonial relations,” the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC) has established the four core principles of Indigenous information and data management: ownership, control, access, and possession commonly referred to and trademarked in 2014 as OCAP® (FNIGC, 2016, p.148). Acting as an excellent entry point into beginning ones’ organizational journey in supporting First Nations data sovereignty was mentioned in B.C. FIPA’s previous blog post on the reintroduction of OCAP by the First Nations Information Governance Centre (FNIGC). It is foundationally important that if your organization maintains, houses, or otherwise works with First Nations data that your information professionals take the OCAP course so that your organization can assert and respect the First Nations data governance principles of OCAP as a means to support nuanced articulations of First Nations data sovereignty.
This blog post provides an introduction for non-Indigenous information professionals who are seeking to inform their information governance programs in alignment with, and in support for, First Nations data sovereignty and governance principles based on the OCAP course and the work of information professionals at B.C. FIPA. It must first be acknowledged that Indigenous-led information governance groups have and continue to provide guidance and advocacy for Indigenous data sovereignty work in practice, and this blog post is meant to bolster and support this work. Understanding assertions and respectful recognition of OCAP is critical in the Canadian context where there have been calls and legislation to enact full adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
When focused through a lens of Indigenous data sovereignty and governance, non-Indigenous information professionals must understand how their information governance program upholds the essential rights protected by UNDRIP (2007). This includes Article 18, which specifies that “Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own Indigenous decision-making institutions,” and Article 31(1), which reaffirms that Indigenous Peoples “have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their intellectual property,” including Traditional Knowledge (TK) and cultural expression (p.16, 23).
The following insights can be a starting place to ensure your organization asserts and respects the principles of OCAP; however, organizations should both review the in-depth resources provided by the FNIGC found here as well as work to build trust and accountability through ongoing relationship building with the appropriate and applicable Nations and Indigenous communities.
1. Recognize that First Nations data is not limited to physical records
Cultural context concerning First Nations’ records in information management must begin by expanding perceptions of what constitutes Indigenous and First Nations data. First Nations data includes both data from and about First Nations and is not limited to quantifiable data. It includes data that captures information about cultures, languages, and oral histories as well as information about the lands and resources that First Nations have stewarded, protected, and have inherent rights to (FNIGC, n.d.). It also includes demographic, health, and other population data about First Nations that may have been taken with or without free, prior, and informed consent. First Nations have a right to their data and non-Indigenous individuals and organizations have a responsibility to respect the principles of OCAP or any other Indigenous worldview that expresses and asserts their right to data sovereignty (FNIGC, n.d.).
2. Data governance informed by OCAP must look at the entire lifecycle of data
The principles of OCAP are concerned with the “entire lifecycle of data collection,” ranging from creation and use to disclosure and destruction (FNIGC, n.d.). Traditional Western and Eurocentric records and information management (RIM) practices are frequently defined by their strict retention schedules, disposition, and transfer to an archive for long-term preservation. This approach, particularly in the context of records life cycle model, where records move from active to semi-active to inactive, does not align with the cultural context of records creation, use, maintenance, and preservation by Indigenous communities.
3. Critique your data quality: Is it useful to applicable First Nations communities in its current form?
Taxonomy and metadata design practices facilitated through most platforms used in information governance programs often do not have the capacity to realize Indigenous identifiers, metadata, and access protocols. Organizations are responsible for ensuring appropriate data quality and establishing clear ownership or stewardship guidelines prior to data collection; both of which can in turn facilitate the usefulness of the data and (FNIGC, n.d.).
4. Consider and consult on data sharing or stewardship agreements
Data sharing agreements are binding contracts between First Nations and those who hold, may wish to have access to, or may have been asked to hold First Nations data (FNIGC, n.d.). Meaningful data sharing agreements can arise through asserting and respecting OCAP. Collaborative data sharing agreements demonstrate the success of participatory and relationship-based information governance structures in practically asserting and respecting Indigenous data sovereignty. Examples of data sharing agreements can both be found in the OCAP course and in Rowe and Bull’s (2021) book chapter “Indigenous self-determination and data governance in the Canadian Policy Context.”
5. Research data must have the consent, approval, review, and input from First Nations
Data gathered about First Nations must be informed by OCAP to support “better quality and more relevant data” (FNIGC, n.d.). If undertaking research about First Nations, do not collect information beyond the requirements and scope of the project. Fully informed consent means ensuring that studies including benefits and potential harm are explained to First Nations in a language or manner that ensures fully informed consent (FNIGC, n.d.). Results must be returned to the community in a usable and accessible way.
6. Expand view of “harm” to include community harm in research
The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS2), acts as the “ethical guidance document for public research in Canada,” however, at this time it is not able to fully realize the principles of OCAP (FNIGC, n.d.). Ethical frameworks must expand viewing harm from a lens limited to the individual when dealing with First Nations data. Respecting and asserting an OCAP means taking a more holistic approach to understanding potential research harm, by mitigating risks of “spiritual, cultural, or Nation-level” harm (FNIGC, n.d.).
7. Advocate for expansion of Copyright and Intellectual Property law
Canadian laws focused through privacy-related legislation and intellectual property challenge the assertion of OCAP principles. Canadian copyright and intellectual property law are structured to align with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). In doing so, intellectual property rights focus on “maximizing the ‘creative commons’ (the ‘public domain’) to protect individual creators” but have a limited understanding of co-ownership or co-creation (Tsosie, p. 219). Under this focus, Indigenous culture, heritage, and knowledges are at risk of commodification and commercialization. Intellectual property law in Canada should align with Article 31(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which reaffirms that Indigenous Peoples “have the right to maintain, control, protect, and develop their intellectual property” including Traditional Knowledge and cultural expression (p.16, 23).
References and Resources.
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), 108-108.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (2016). Pathways to First Nations’ data and information sovereignty. In Taylor J., & T. Kukutai (Ed.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty: Toward an Agenda (pp. 139-156). The Australian National University (ANU) Press.
First Nations Information Governance Centre. (n.d.). The First Nations Principles of OCAP. Accessed April 29th, 2024
Rowe, R., & Bull, J. (2021). Indigenous self-determination and data governance in the Canadian Policy Context. In M. Walter., D. Rodriguez-Lonebear., & S. Russo (Ed.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (pp. 81-98). Routledge.
Thorpe, K., Christen, K., Booker, L., & Galassi, M. (2021). Designing Archival Information Systems through Partnerships with Indigenous Communities: Developing the Mukurtu Hubs and Spokes Model in Australia. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 25(1), 1-22.
Tsosie, Rebecca.(2021). The legal and policy dimensions of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS). In M. Walter., D. Rodriguez-Lonebear., & S. Russo (Ed.), Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Policy (pp. 1-20). Routledge.
United Nations General Assembly. (2007, September 13). United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
VICTORIA, June 6, 2024