CARE data practices for art researchers
Digitization projects have significantly transformed the way we access and work with cultural materials over the past decade. While this shift has opened remarkable research possibilities, it has also created ethical obligations that many of us are still learning to navigate. The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance offer a framework that can help us approach these responsibilities more thoughtfully, whether working with Indigenous cultural materials and knowledge systems or data originating from other communities.
Understanding the Indigenous origin of CARE principles
CARE principles were developed by the Global Indigenous Data Alliance (GIDA) in 2019 to ground Indigenous data in Indigenous worldviews and realise opportunities within the knowledge economy.
The organization explains CARE principles as “people and purpose-oriented, reflecting the crucial role of data in advancing Indigenous innovation and self-determination. These principles complement the existing FAIR principles, encouraging open and other data movements to consider both people and purpose in their advocacy and pursuits.”
CARE stands for “collective benefit,” “authority to control,” “responsibility,” and “ethics.”
Collective benefit requires that research using Indigenous data serve Indigenous community goals, not just scholarly interests. This means designing projects that actively contribute to community priorities like cultural preservation and education.
Authority to control recognizes Indigenous Peoples' inherent rights over their cultural data. Communities should have decision-making power over how materials related to their heritage are collected, stored, accessed, and used, regardless of which institution holds those materials.
Responsibility demands transparency about how research supports Indigenous self-determination. We need to be clear about methods, findings, and potential impacts to maintain ongoing accountability to the communities whose materials are being studied.
Ethics places Indigenous Peoples' rights and wellbeing at the center of practice throughout the entire research process. This goes beyond legal compliance to consider the broader implications of our work with Indigenous communities.
With CARE principles, GIDA aims to progress International Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Indigenous Data Governance in order to advance Indigenous control of Indigenous Data. This includes “asserting Indigenous Peoples rights and interests in data, advocating for data for the self-determined well-being of Indigenous Peoples, and reinforcing the rights to engage in decision-making in accordance with Indigenous values and collective interests.”
Applying collective benefit
Applying the collective benefit principle requires researchers to design projects that actively support the cultural goals of Indigenous communities. This shifts the attention from extractive research models toward genuine partnership. The Alaska Native Heritage Center digital collections provide a useful example. Rather than digitizing objects primarily for external researchers, they prioritize creating resources that Alaska Native communities can use for cultural education and language revitalization. Its object descriptions combine scholarly information with traditional knowledge shared by community members, serving multiple audiences while keeping community needs central. Collective benefit can be implemented by involving Indigenous communities as research partners from the project's inception. This may involve sharing findings in community-accessible formats, contributing to community-led cultural preservation projects, or ensuring that any commercial benefits derived from work are shared fairly.
Navigating authority to control
The authority to control within digital collections requires art researchers to communicate clearly that technical access doesn't automatically confer the right to use materials in research. Even when materials are publicly available online, ethical practice requires consulting with relevant communities about appropriate use, especially for sacred or sensitive objects.
This principle presents particular challenges in digital environments, where cultural materials can be easily copied, shared, and recontextualized in ways that may violate Indigenous protocols. The Mukurtu content management system offers one practical solution. Developed through collaboration between Warumungu community members and Washington State University, Mukurtu allows communities to implement traditional cultural protocols in digital spaces. Different user groups may access different levels of detail or different objects entirely, reflecting the complex access rights that govern many Indigenous cultural materials.
The First Nations Information Governance Centre in Canada has also developed protocols requiring researchers to obtain community consent not just for initial access but for any subsequent uses of data, including publication and sharing. This practice acknowledges that the relationship between Indigenous communities and their cultural materials extends far beyond initial research encounters.
Taking responsibility seriously
The responsibility principle requires researchers to demonstrate how projects actively support Indigenous self-determination and collective benefit. This translates into three key tenets of practice that reshape how we conduct and share our work: transparency, accountability, and accessibility.
Transparent accountability necessitates researchers clearly document and communicate how research methods, data use, and findings serve Indigenous community priorities. This requires being explicit about partnerships, funding sources, and intended outcomes from a project’s inception. Rather than treating accountability as an afterthought, it’s essential to build transparency into every stage of the research process, from initial community consultations through final dissemination.
Accessible distribution ensures research reaches Indigenous communities in formats and venues that serve their needs, not just academic audiences. This might involve translating findings into community reports, presenting at tribal councils or cultural centers, contributing to Indigenous-led publications, or creating digital resources that communities can use for their own cultural preservation and educational efforts. The Journal of the Native American and Indigenous Studies Association exemplifies this approach by encouraging scholarship grounded in Indigenous research methodologies and prioritizing work that extends understanding across epistemological boundaries.
Ethical considerations in practice
The ethics principle requires researchers to move beyond legal compliance toward deeper consideration of how research practices affect Indigenous communities. This is particularly important in digital contexts, where online platforms can amplify both positive and negative impacts globally. Regularly reviewing digitization practices with Indigenous communities, removing materials when requested, updating descriptions based on community input, using appropriate controlled vocabularies, and creating a data architecture for the multiplicity of perspectives and meanings are all part of this project. The University of British Columbia's approach to its digital collections offers helpful examples of how these processes operate in practice. Importantly, its iterative approach and continual dialogue with Indigenous groups demonstrate that applying CARE principles is an iterative process and ongoing commitment rather than a one-time achievement.
The expansive benefits of applying CARE principles to all cultural heritage data
CARE data practices not only ensure ethical practices but also lead to richer, more nuanced research outcomes. They enhance research quality and rigor and, through the prevention of extractive research practices, they increase innovation and collaboration. It’s imperative to apply CARE data principles when working with Indigenous data and other marginalized communities, but it’s also beneficial to use them for all cultural heritage data.
This approach to data allows local communities and scholarly fields to benefit from research, highlighting the popular but false conception that community interests and academic rigor are mutually exclusive. Ethical practice and intellectual excellence are complementary rather than competing goals.
The application of CARE data principles in the field
Professional organizations are beginning to recognize the importance of CARE principles in our work. The College Art Association has started incorporating discussions of Indigenous data sovereignty into its programming, while universities are developing policies that require community consultation for research involving Indigenous cultural materials.
Museums are also adapting their digital practices. The National Gallery of Canada has revised its digitization protocols to incorporate community consultation processes, acknowledging that ethical digitization necessitates ongoing relationships with Indigenous communities, not just technical capabilities.
Some graduate programs already incorporate training on Indigenous data governance principles, recognizing that ethical digital scholarship requires an understanding of these frameworks from the outset of our careers, rather than learning them as an afterthought.
Expanding CARE data principles for the future
The implementation of CARE data principles represents more than ethical compliance. It offers an opportunity to create more inclusive, collaborative, and meaningful scholarship. By centering Indigenous rights and perspectives in our data practices, we can contribute to the decolonization of art history while producing research that serves broader community needs.
Digital transformation is ongoing, and the choices we make today regarding data practices will shape our field for generations to come. By embracing CARE principles, we can ensure this transformation serves not only scholarly advancement but also Indigenous rights, cultural preservation, and community empowerment.
