2024-12-05: meeting

Operationalizing the CARE and FAIR Principles for Indigenous data futures

Published

December 5, 2024

Attendees

Trey Stafford, Matt Fisher, Julia Collins, Ann Windnagel, Andy Barrett, Robyn Marowitz

Discussion

  • CARE
    • Collective benefit
    • Authority to control
    • Responsibility
    • Ethics
  • Operationalizing = Make evaluation more objective, less subjective
    • The FAIR equivalent: FAIR Data Maturity Model
  • FAIR seems easier to implement. CARE has more of a human dimension.
  • Julia: Links to what appears to be the latest recommendation for the FAIR data maturity model working group: https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/fair-data-maturity-model-wg/outputs/?output=94549 And the article is presumably trying to add CARE to this
  • Robyn: Earth Science Data Repositories: Implementing the CARE Principles
  • Trey: From QGreenland perspective. Many individual efforts duplicative. Funders are increasingly emphasizing CARE principles.
  • Andy: NNA office burdensome on indigenous communities, inundated by requests for partnership for grants. This doesn’t happen quickly. Relationships have to be built. It’s “invisible” work. The fact that this doesn’t fit in the standard funding model is a barrier to adopting CARE principles.
  • Julia: As an introvert steeped in numerical analysis, the amount of personal interaction involved to engage with a community before starting the science is immense.
  • Andy: discussion about rain on snow database with communities in Alaska. They care about how the impacts on hunting/travel, and how data might influence policymakers. Not finding trends and publishing papers.
  • Julia: And how will applying these principles make lives better?
    • e.g. indiginous communities managing biodiversity via breeding locations, herd populations/ranges, and similar data.
  • What is cultural metadata?
    • Andy: https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08477
  • OCAP: Ownership, Control, Access, Possession https://fnigc.ca/OCAP
  • https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.08477