Indigenous data sovereignty and the Planning profession
Master of Arts student Emma O’Reilly’s research reveals an opportunity to advance reconciliation.
Estimated reading time: 2:25
Data is an essential element of effective decision-making. In the Planning profession, data sovereignty (managing data in accordance with jurisdictional laws) and data governance (data management processes that keep data safe and accurate) are components of ethical data stewardship. Indigenous Data Sovereignty (IDS) and Indigenous Data Governance (IDG) refer to the rights of Indigenous communities to govern and manage the data that pertain to their people, land and culture. Currently, there are no guidelines for IDS or IDG in the Planning profession.
Emma O’Reilly, a member of the Metis Nation of Alberta and a Master of Arts student in the School of Planning, has experienced the impact that Planning can have in Indigenous communities. During her undergraduate degree at the University of Calgary, O’Reilly had the opportunity to work at an Indigenous-owned planning and engagement firm, where she contributed to projects all over Alberta, including the traditional territory of her family. She was often faced with questions regarding data management and saw gaps in current practices. “I would ask myself - as a professional, how am I ensuring that I am maintaining a high standard of ethics when managing Indigenous data? Who is holding people accountable?”
O’Reilly’s experience motivated her to pursue graduate studies and learn more about Indigenous Planning. She chose the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo for its reputation among Planning professionals and for the competitive funding package. Working with Dr. Janice Barry, O’Reilly’s master’s research paper is a cross-disciplinary review of IDS and professional Planning practice.
How am I ensuring that I am maintaining a high standard of ethics when managing Indigenous data?
To complete the review, O’Reilly analyzed three existing frameworks for data sovereignty. From these frameworks, core principles were identified that would form the most complete approach to IDS and IDG. Then, codes of ethics from Planning-adjacent professions were reviewed to determine what could be learnt from other industries. These analyses would then help to create a set of recommendations for planners to operationalize IDS and IDG.
The results showed that an ideal framework for IDS and IDG should include themes on AFFECT: authority and control; findability and reuse; fair access and possession; ethical responsibility; collective benefit, and technological interoperability. These themes would ensure comprehensive and respectful data practices that could be used in Planning and other professions. When researching Planning-adjacent professions, there was a lack of policies and guidance on IDS and IDG, although some codes of ethics did align with themes present in the AFFECT framework. Ultimately, while individuals and companies may be practicing good IDS and IDG, the lack of formal frameworks in Planning and other industries continues to perpetuate colonial dynamics.
O’Reilly was surprised by the absence of IDS and IDG frameworks in Planning-adjacent professions, and in the Planning profession, but believes the topic is gaining attention. “I see it being discussed in research, especially within the last 5 to 10 years, so it’s becoming an area of more professional interest and something I hope could be more widely implemented”.
After the completion of her degree, O’Reilly will begin full-time employment with Stantec, where she is currently working part-time. Her research will be shared with the Canadian Institute of Planners as part of her funding agreement for the 2025 CIP Indigenous Communities Planning Scholarship. She hopes her research will add to the call for formal IDS and IDG frameworks so the Planning industry can continue to take steps towards reconciliation.
