The Decolonial Project and Pathways to University Transformation
Decolonialisation is first and foremost a materialist and concrete project. Indigenous sovereignty entails concrete self-determination and autonomy over life, labour, and land, as well as recognition, respect, equality, emancipation, and the preservation of cultures. However, concrete material emancipation is dialectically intertwined with superstructural (ideological, symbolic, discursive, pedagogical) emancipation. In the late-capitalist digitalised economies, First Nations self-determination in thought, subjectivity and self-cultivation then is structurally anchored to the question of data landscape, sovereignty and governance. In the words of Caroll et al. (2020), data sovereignty is the idea that ‘First Nations peoples have to manage the collection, ownership and use of data about them, their country, knowledge and resources’ (p. 2). Indigenous Data Governance then allows for the reclaiming of ideological, symbolic, discursive, and narrative sovereignty. Conversely, ideological sovereignty is the first step towards the concrete continuum of emancipation and liberation from the colonial settler state’s grip.
This step then requires understanding the scale and depth of universities’ complicity in data colonialism. It demands an equally comprehensive agenda of decolonial transformation. Incremental tweaks and rhetorical commitments to ‘diversity’ will not disrupt the status quo. Instead, in line with the materialist decolonial project then universities must undertake a radical, institution-wide reckoning guided by the imperatives of Indigenous data sovereignty. This entails, at minimum, the following five interlocking actions, actions which should be taken as only one strategy in the strategically heterogeneous and materialist decolonial project.
Work progressively towards Indigenous data governance while acknowledging systemic constraints.
Given the deeply embedded colonial structures of university governance, the path to Indigenous data sovereignty requires both immediate practical steps and long-term structural transformation. In the immediate term, universities must maximise Indigenous control over data within existing frameworks by: (a) recognising and supporting the authority of Indigenous peoples to govern data about their communities, knowledge systems, and territories (Smith, 2016); (b) ensuring all administrative and research data concerning Indigenous students and staff falls under Indigenous governance protocols; and (c) developing robust internal protocols that strictly adhere to Indigenous data sovereignty principles of Indigenous ownership, control, access, and possession.
However, we must acknowledge that true data sovereignty remains constrained by colonial governance structures that universities are legally required to maintain. Therefore, while building partnerships with Indigenous data stewardship bodies (from the National Centre for Indigenous Genomics to grassroots Indigenous data hubs) and transferring the maximum possible resources and control (Hudson et al., 2020), universities must simultaneously work to transform the underlying systemic barriers that prevent full Indigenous data sovereignty. This dual approach recognises that meaningful progress requires both practical steps within current constraints and active commitment to dismantling those constraints.
Overhaul research and ethics protocols to empower Indigenous communities.
Universities must fundamentally transform their approaches to research involving Indigenous peoples to uphold Indigenous data rights and enable Indigenous-led knowledge production. This requires, at minimum: (a) Requiring Indigenous governance and oversight of all Indigenous-related research; (b) Mandating the negotiation of Indigenous-led research agreements that ensure free, prior and informed consent, community ownership of data, and tangible benefits to Indigenous communities; (c) Developing accountability mechanisms, such as regular audits and penalties for non-compliance, to ensure these protocols are upheld (AIATSIS, 2020).
Centre Indigenous belief systems, knowledge and pedagogies across curricula.
Decolonising the university requires a wholesale recalibration of what counts as authoritative knowledge and how it is transmitted. Indigenous knowledge systems – philosophies, methodologies, modes of oral transmission – must move from the margins to the centre of curriculum design across all disciplines (Yunkaporta, 2019).
Dramatically scale up the Indigenous students, academic, technical staff and data workforce.
Indigenous people remain starkly underrepresented in academia broadly and data-related fields specifically. Achieving Indigenous data sovereignty requires a critical mass of Indigenous experts with the capacity to steer data practices, policies, and ethics across the university and beyond. Universities must enact robust, targeted measures to recruit, retain, and promote Indigenous scholars, data practitioners, and community knowledge holders at all levels of the institution. This includes establishing Indigenous-directed training pathways, research centres that work with activists and social movements, and leadership positions to amplify Indigenous voices and agency.
Forge robust partnerships with Indigenous nations to advance collective self-determination.
Universities do not exist in isolation but are embedded within the settler colonial and capitalist socio-legal order that continues to deny Indigenous sovereignty. True Indigenous data sovereignty cannot be achieved solely through surface-level partnerships or data-sharing agreements – it requires actively supporting Indigenous nations’ efforts to remake institutional governance from the ground up. Universities thus must wield their immense resources and influence to support Indigenous nations’ self-determination and nation-building priorities beyond the campus. This means establishing formalised agreements to share data capacity, expertise, and infrastructure with Indigenous nations as they work to (re)build their own data institutions and governance processes (Carroll et al., 2017). While this transformation must necessarily unfold over time, universities cannot shy away from the scope of change required – nothing less than a complete reconstitution of institutional power relations will suffice. This includes advocating for changes to government legislation and accreditation requirements that currently enforce colonial governance models.
Critically, this agenda must be understood as a small quantitative measure towards a radical qualitative change that is structural. In the end, the restructuring of the digital infrastructure and with it the processes of cultural and meaning making also necessitates systematic and holistic changes. The path forward requires both pragmatic interim steps and an unwavering commitment to supporting Indigenous nations as they work to (re)build their own data institutions and governance processes.
The Road Ahead
Implementing Indigenous data sovereignty and decolonising universities is a long-term process requiring sustained commitment. Universities must remain accountable, and transparent, and invest resources while elevating Indigenous people to decision-making roles. Successful Indigenous data sovereignty implementation would be a significant victory for Indigenous communities, enabling self-determined knowledge production and healing historical wounds. The implications extend beyond Indigenous rights, as Indigenous peoples are crucial for planetary survival, biodiversity preservation, and sustainable living. Universities have a unique responsibility in advancing this paradigm shift. By embracing Indigenous data sovereignty, they can repay debts to Indigenous communities and forge a new ethical approach to knowledge production benefiting all of humanity.
Yet, it must be noted that Indigenous data sovereignty must only be a quantitative step in a systemic, holistic, and structural reconfiguration of society. As Frantz Fanon in his seminal text The Wretched of the Earth (1963) posits, decolonisation is a ‘violent event’ that inverts the existing order and relations. It is a concrete, material, and open-ended system that brings about a qualitative rupture. It builds on ideological and superstructural changes but, at the last instance, it requires overcoming state hierarchical configurations of the social body, ending the capitalist commodification of labour, life, nature, and knowledge, and building radically different ethical and ideological belief systems.
Universities, as sites of enlightenment and radical egalitarian norms, must enter into this process with intent and humility. They must acknowledge that their existing structures and assumptions are products of a capitalist-colonial worldview and be willing to relinquish control as Indigenous people and social movements claim decision-making power. This will be profoundly discomforting for many within academia, as it demands devolving their accumulated authority and privileges. Yet this discomfort is essential for Indigenous healing and resurgence. Universities cannot expect to partake in this liberatory project without undergoing radical undoing and remaking in turn.
Acknowledgements
We thank the editors for inviting our paper on Indigenous data sovereignty in higher education and reviewers for their insightful comments to improve this work. We’re honoured to contribute to this crucial conversation advancing Indigenous rights and self-determination.