A team of university and Tribal researchers announced on Apr. 7 the development of a blueprint to guide research agreements that aim to enable respectful collaboration with Tribes and on Tribal lands. The new guidance addresses shortcomings in existing research policies, which are often created without input from Tribes, leaving them with unclear protections and limited control over data related to their lands and people.
This issue is important because many research efforts involving Tribal resources have historically lacked meaningful consultation with Tribes, leading to concerns about extractive practices and the safeguarding of sensitive cultural or ecological information.
“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,” said Christina Perella, corresponding author of a paper on the work and a Ph.D. student at North Carolina State University.
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, said: “There’s a long history of research involving Tribes, but it’s really been research on Tribes.” He added: “Both historically and recently, that research has been largely extractive, and Tribes weren’t consulted in a meaningful way. 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.”
The guidance compiles existing resources focused on data sharing developed by or for Tribes into one place while providing recommendations based on real experiences from collaborations between universities like NC State University—where Perella is based—and groups such as the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. According to Jelena Vukomanovic, co-author of the paper: “Most people are aware that these types of agreements exist… 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?”
The document details four types of potential agreements—including memoranda outlining relationships as well as specific data-sharing terms—and includes decision tools plus templates from actual partnerships. The authors hope this resource will help especially those tribes with limited administrative capacity make informed choices about protecting their interests.
Looking ahead, Perella said: “Our guidance also discusses other issues that can facilitate effective collaboration between Tribes and external researchers… For example… including funds in the research budget that can be used to increase Tribal research capacity – such as more robust data-storage infrastructure.” However she cautioned this may trigger federal requirements regarding open records requests—a concern for tribal sovereignty.
Vukomanovic concluded: “The onus should be on researchers who want to work with Tribes to familiarize themselves with the history… Being prepared and respectful will make the research process smoother…” The full paper appears in From the Field – Elevating Indigenous Voices.
