A team of university and Tribal researchers has developed a blueprint for creating research agreements that enable respectful research with Tribes and on Tribal lands. The guidance was developed to address shortcomings in most research policies that are written without Tribal input, often leaving Tribes with unclear protections, data vulnerabilities, and limited control over how information about their lands and people is used.
The new guidance allows for the creation of agreements that clearly define the rights of Tribes and researchers with regard to both research planning and ownership of the resulting data, with the goal of avoiding extractive practices that leave many Tribes feeling taken advantage of by the research community.
"It can be difficult for Tribes and university researchers to develop agreements that enable research involving Tribal resources, culture and expertise that benefit both Tribes and researchers and respect the autonomy of Tribes," says Christina Perella, corresponding author of a paper on the work and a Ph.D. student at North Carolina State University.
"There's a long history of research involving Tribes, but it's really been research on Tribes," says Caleb Hickman, co-author of the paper and supervisory fish and wildlife biologist with the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians' Office of Fisheries and Wildlife Management.
"Both historically and recently, that research has been largely extractive, and Tribes weren't consulted in a meaningful way," Hickman says. "Tribal nations steward some of the most ecologically rich and culturally important lands in North America, yet research done on or about those lands has not always protected Tribal rights, knowledge or data. Data-sharing agreements offer a practical solution: they clearly define who owns information, how it can be used and how it must be protected. Our work provides simple guidance for Tribes and researchers on choosing the right type of agreements, safeguarding sensitive cultural and ecological information, and ensuring that Tribal sovereignty is upheld in areas such as conservation and climate research."
"There are already a lot of resources focused on data sharing and research agreements that have been developed by and for Tribes," Perella says. "However, there is no centralized location for accessing all of those resources, and it can take time to find these resources and choose the right agreement type for a particular collaboration. The goal of this guidance is to synthesize the existing information and provide our own experiences to give Tribes and researchers tools they can use to develop agreements that are tailored to the goals of the project and respect the needs of all parties involved."
The guidance may be particularly valuable for Tribes that have limited administrative infrastructure and associated capacity for developing and reviewing research proposals.
"Research involving Tribal lands can rely on several types of agreements, each serving a different purpose in protecting Tribal rights and clarifying responsibilities," Hickman says. "For example, a memorandum of understanding outlines the overall relationship and expectations between partners, while a data-sharing agreement specifies who owns the information collected, how it will be stored, and what can be shared publicly. Together, these tools allow Tribes and researchers to define clear boundaries, prevent misuse of information, and build more ethical and transparent research relationships."
The guidance document lays out four types of agreements that Tribes and researchers may want to consider. The four agreement categories are not mutually exclusive.
- Data-Sharing Agreements (DSA) or Information-Sharing Agreements;
- Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) or Memoranda of Agreement (MOA);
- Cost-Sharing Agreements, Service Agreements or Research Agreements; and
- Non-Disclosure Agreements.
"Most people are aware that these types of agreements exist," says Jelena Vukomanovic, co-author of the paper and an associate professor of parks, recreation and tourism management at NC State. "What our guidance contributes is a discussion of the circumstances in which Tribes might want to consider entering into each type of agreement. When might you want an MOU versus an MOA? When might you need a DSA? Why?"
To that end, the guidance offers a decision tree that can be used to identify which agreements are best suited to any given scenario. The co-authors of the paper also provide the agreement they developed between the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and NC State as a template, detailing the specific challenges and considerations that went into developing the language and structure of that agreement.
"We're optimistic that this guidance can help Tribes make decisions that protect them from extractive practices and allow for respectful collaboration while preserving their data sovereignty," says Hickman.
"Our guidance also discusses other issues that can facilitate effective collaboration between Tribes and external researchers," says Perella. "For example, when writing grants, researchers may want to consider including funds in the research budget that can be used to increase Tribal research capacity - such as more robust data-storage infrastructure. However, even here, it is important to consult with Tribal collaborators, because making use of federal grant funding may also trigger federal data-sharing requirements. Certain agreements may help prevent Tribal information from becoming vulnerable to federal open-records requests, an issue many Tribes have raised as a threat to data sovereignty."
"The onus should be on researchers who want to work with Tribes to familiarize themselves with the history of research in these spaces and the need for these types of agreements," says Vukomanovic. "Being prepared and respectful will make the research process smoother and more fruitful."
The paper, "Data sharing agreements for conservation science and management," appears in the inaugural issue of From the Field - Elevating Indigenous Voices, a journal published by the Native American Fish & Wildlife Society.
This work was done with support from the U.S. Geological Survey Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center under grant G24AC00006-00.
