NFDI4Culture, the consortium for research data on material and immaterial cultural assets, has declared the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance to be of paramount importance in its work program. The aim of this guideline is to create a shared understanding of the principles among the members of the consortium and to promote consistent and appropriate handling of them. It provides a foundation of background knowledge and recommendations on how to communicate content about and related to the CARE Principles.
The CARE Principles were published in 2019 by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance with the aim of strengthening the participation of Indigenous groups in decision-making processes related to data that concerns them and guaranteeing their data sovereignty. The principles require the involvement of Indigenous communities in the collection, ownership, and use of data, and address questions of power and control over data. The definition of the principles is as follows (the complete version of the Principles each with its three sub-aspects, can be found at https://www.gida-global.org/care):
Collective Benefit: „Data ecosystems shall be designed and function in ways that enable Indigenous Peoples to derive benefit from the data.“
Authority to Control: „Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests in Indigenous data must be recognized and their authority to control such data empowered. Indigenous data governance enables Indigenous Peoples and governing bodies to determine how Indigenous Peoples, as well as Indigenous lands, territories, resources, knowledges and geographical indicators, are represented and identified within data.“
Responsibility: „Those working with Indigenous data have a responsibility to share how those data are used to support Indigenous Peoples’ selfdetermination and collective benefit. Accountability requires meaningful and openly available evidence of these efforts and the benefits accruing to Indigenous Peoples.“
Ethics: „Indigenous Peoples’ rights and well-being should be the primary concern at all stages of the data life cycle and across the data ecosystem.“
In contrast to the FAIR principles, the CARE principles refer to an attitude and require the involvement of people. They do not specify any technical requirements.
The principles are not legally binding per se. They do not derive from the higher education laws of the German federal states, EU regulations on research data, or other standards in the field of RDM. However, it can be inferred from these regulations that researchers are expected to engage in ethical reflection and consider the consequences of applying scientific knowledge. This idea has been incorporated into the higher education laws of various states through the jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court (judgment of March 1, 1978 – Hessian University Law). The specific implementation, however, varies significantly: some states require an ethics committee (Berlin, Brandenburg, Schleswig-Holstein, etc.) and supplement the self-responsibility of researchers, while others (Bavaria) omit self-responsibility altogether. In external perception, however, this makes no difference, as all research institutions applying for funding at the German Research Foundation (DFG) are practically required to align their own research with ethical standards. The DFG's announcement of December 22, 2022 has strengthened the obligation to consider the revised Code of Conduct "Guidelines for Safeguarding Good Research Practice" in one's own research activities. According to the „Notes on implementation“, these were to be implemented by the institutions in the form of their own internal policies and to secure their implementation by July 31, 2023. This Code of Conduct also explicitly requires good research practice in an ethical sense (guideline 10): "[Researchers] comply with rights and obligations, particularly those arising from legal requirements and contracts with third parties, and where necessary seek approvals and ethics statements and present these when required." It also mentions that potential consequences should be evaluated and ethical aspects assessed. This means that we as part of the NFDI4Culture consortium, are bound to engage with ethical principles.
The following list of best practices in dealing with indigenous communities is not intended to be exhaustive. All measures require investing time and resources in individually adapted solutions to consider the specific marginalized interests. This list is constantly being updated and reviewed in collaboration with experts, preferably with members of the concerned Indigenous groups.
Best Practices for CARE Measures:
Rule of thumb: Only in cases dealing with Indigenous contexts and resulting unequal power relationships are the CARE Principles relevant and should be explicitly mentioned with the respective context and preferably as „CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance“. In other cases referring to general ethical aspects, we should speak about "data ethics". The guidelines for good scientific practice apply to these aspects too. Since there are no general data ethics, these are always to be considered in their specific context.
The FAIR Principles and the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance are very different frameworks. While the FAIR Principles relate more to technical requirements, the CARE Principles relate to an attitude towards the representation of Indigenous contexts in data. A simplified juxtaposition or combination like "FAIR/CARE term", "FAIR and CARE" etc. is therefore to be avoided.
When selecting media, such as accompanying materials to texts, appropriate representation of people and contexts needs to be ensured. If indigenous groups are depicted, the source situation and CARE conformity should be checked before publication of the text. For example, the image source should be checked to see if the indigenous group was involved in the publication. Depending on the purpose of use and especially in the case of high reach in social media, representatives of Indigenous communities should be asked if they agree to a publication. If this is not possible, it is advisable to refrain from using or publishing the image.