Native communities need accurate, comprehensive data to chart their economic futures. At the same time, sharing their data raises risks. Data that are measured inaccurately or disseminated under unclear terms may be used in ways that harm the originating community.¹ Even when researchers act in good faith, tension can arise between the need for more and better data and a community’s right to protect and self-govern its data.

The data-sovereignty movement wrestles with this tension. Governing bodies such as tribal governments seek to re-establish authoritative property rights over their data to mitigate the risk of data being used in ways counter to their interests. With secure property rights over data, tribes and other governing bodies have the sovereign authority to use, control, and transfer data to serve their communities on their own terms.

To shed light on this issue, we asked a large sample of Native Americans² about their data-sharing preferences. Questions were administered via the Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), a national survey housed at the University of California, Los Angeles, which solicits American public opinion following national elections. Nearly 2,000 self-identified Native Americans responded between December 2020 and February 2022. We found that when there was a specific purpose, more respondents strongly supported sharing tribal data.

Data sovereignty

Ethical concerns around data ownership and use are prevalent in many contexts, especially when it comes to Native American and other communities previously harmed by data used in disquieting ways—such as for purposes that do not have the community’s consent or in ways that portray the community negatively. As a response to these concerns, the data-sovereignty movement has gained traction not only in the United States, but in other countries such as Canada and Australia.

For many Native Americans, historical experience with their data being misused led to significant mistrust in research. As Native communities address modern data needs, history points to the importance of carefully considering research procedures and purpose. Community members might want to know with whom the data are being shared—and to what end.

When it comes to a given Native American’s views on data sharing, these two factors are likely intertwined. On the one hand, they may be concerned that data sharing could lead to exploitation or harm, particularly if they had past negative experience with research and if data are shared with external researchers or organizations who do not have meaningful engagement with the community. On the other hand, they may value the benefits that data sharing can offer: improved data quality, improved decision-making, and ultimately, better economic outcomes.

When tribal leaders and researchers have a good sense of public opinion on the appropriate purposes of data sharing, they can determine whether, how, and with whom to share data to achieve those specific purposes.

Opinions on data sharing

Working through the CMPS, we asked a large sample of nearly 2,000 individuals who identified as Native American about their preferences for data sharing. We expected that Native Americans thinking about data sharing implicitly balance feelings about their right to exercise data sovereignty, the risks of data sharing, and the desire for their families and communities to potentially benefit from data sharing. To solicit respondent views on these issues, we asked the following question: “American Indian tribes can keep financial data private, or tribes can choose to make data public. To what extent do you think your tribe should share data?” To address the broader question, respondents were asked to rate their agreement with a series of data-use statements on a five-point scale (Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, or Strongly disagree).

First, we asked respondents to rate their agreement with the following general statement: “My tribal government should NOT share financial data outside the tribe.” We then asked respondents to rate their agreement with three statements about data sharing for specific purposes:

• My tribal government should share financial data outside the tribe IF it means that my family’s financial situation would improve.
• My tribe should share data IF it means that my tribe’s economic development would improve.
• My tribe should share data IF it means that economic development for all Native Americans would improve.

When asked to react to the statement, “My tribal government should NOT share financial data outside the tribe,” 17.9 and 16.6 percent of respondents said they strongly agreed or agreed, respectively. However, 7.5 and 9.5 percent said they strongly disagreed or disagreed, and nearly half of respondents—48.6 percent—said they neither agreed nor disagreed.

When asked about general data sharing with a specific purpose in mind, more respondents strongly supported data sharing. As shown in Figure 1, over 35 percent of respondents agreed to data sharing in each instance. And as the benefits of data sharing became more widespread, the percentage of respondents supporting data sharing increased.

Despite this increased support for data sharing for specific purposes, over 10 percent of respondents disagreed to some extent with data sharing in each instance, consistent with our expectations that the potential downsides of data sharing are concerns for many Native Americans. Notably, a large proportion of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with any of the statements. One way to interpret this is that, as is common in survey research, respondents without strong preferences chose the middle-of-the-road answer. That said, it could also be that Native Americans care a lot about how data are shared, and the specific purpose of data sharing is insufficient for them to form a strong preference. It is also possible that data sharing is not a polarizing issue for many Native Americans.

Who supports data sharing

To further explore the results, we looked closer at who expressed agreement (as agreeing or strongly agreeing) that their tribe should share data for each purpose. On the whole, respondents tended to express preferences in the same direction across the three scenarios, meaning that respondents who agreed with data sharing for one purpose tended to also agree with the other two purposes.³

Respondents under age 29 were more likely to support data sharing, as were those assigned male at birth and those who had at least some college education—and these differences were statistically significant. Respondents were also more likely to support data sharing if they indicated stronger connection to their Native identity, including having attended Native cultural events, speaking a Native language to any degree, or perceiving being Native American as important to their identity (results not shown).

Of particular relevance for tribal governments and policymakers was that those who vote in tribal elections were more likely to support data sharing, as well as those living in ZIP Codes associated with a reservation.⁴ To illustrate this point, Figure 2 replicates Figure 1 but distinguishes between those who do and do not vote in tribal elections. While a similar pattern between voters and non-voters holds for all three questions, more voting respondents supported their tribal government sharing data if it would help Native American economic development. While only 18.9 and 22.6 percent of non-voters said they strongly agree or agree with data sharing if it helps Native American economic development, 24.2 and 29.0 percent of voting respondents said they do.

We also found that those who signaled more faith in the economy—by being hopeful about their personal economic well-being or the state of the national economy—were more supportive of data sharing. Support for data sharing was also higher among those who indicated more faith in the U.S. political system, as measured by believing that public officials at least sometimes work hard on behalf of Native Americans, or that Native Americans at least sometimes have a say in how the government handles important issues (results not shown).

Overall, results from the CMPS survey of nearly 2,000 Native Americans suggest that more Native Americans support data sharing than not, particularly as the potential benefits of sharing data increase. Support was more pronounced among Native Americans who indicated a strong connection to their Native identity, active engagement with tribal governance, and optimism over the potential benefits of data sharing to Native American economic development. As Indian Country gains momentum in building out data resources, communications about the potential benefits of data collection and sharing will likely enhance public support.

Establishing data guardrails

Addressing concerns about research procedures and uses also remains central to perspectives on data sharing. Tribes and data partners are establishing new procedures to help safeguard data collection and use.

For example, some tribes have established formal Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to assist with these considerations. An IRB operates as an arm of the tribal government that establishes guidelines for research on the tribe and its citizens. The IRB holds the authority to review research applications, proposed processes, and final products from potential researchers. While IRBs in academia focus on ensuring that research prevents harm to human subjects, innovative tribal IRBs include provisions that prevent harm to the tribe and its culture. Tribal IRBs can ensure that when tribal governments and related entities collect data, the tribe retains ownership over the data and the authority to share it or not, consistent with tribal regulations and governance institutions.

Research partners are also advancing their understanding of what it means to partner with Native communities in ways that honor self-determination. For example, the Center for Indian Country Development worked with tribal stakeholders to develop Principles for Research and Data Use intended to ensure that tribal data sovereignty and governance are honored in data collection and research.

As Native communities and research partners address harmful data gaps, our findings suggest the importance of carefully considering and communicating data purposes—and of those purposes explicitly benefiting the economic development of Native communities.

Appendix: About the data

We administered questions on tribal data sharing via the Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS), a national survey housed at the University of California, Los Angeles, which solicits American public opinion following national elections. We focused on respondents who self-identified as American Indian/Native American, whether singularly or in combination with other racial or ethnic groups. Nearly 2,000 self-identified Native Americans responded between December 2020 and February 2022.

Based on U.S. Census regions, approximately 38 percent of the nearly 2,000 respondents lived in the South, 31 percent in the West, 17 percent in the Midwest, and 13 percent in the Northeast. The CMPS oversamples groups within the U.S. population that are often underrepresented in national data-collection efforts, including Native Americans. Respondents who are registered voters were drawn from national voter registration files. For respondents who are not registered voters, CMPS principal investigators worked with nationally reputable survey vendors to randomly select respondents in a way that maximized coverage of traditionally underrepresented groups.

Endnotes

1 For examples of how to appropriately use data about tribal communities, see Brockie et al. (2022).

2 In the context of this analysis, Native Americans refers to those who self-identify as American Indian/Native American, singularly or in combination with other racial or ethnic groups.

3 Correlations are above 0.6 across the three variables.

4 Note that those living on reservations are likely underrepresented in the data. Out of the 1,956 respondents, only 182 lived in ZIP Codes that contained a reservation.