Australian Universities’ Review - Indigenous data sovereignty in higher education - Towards a decolonised data quality framework - Paper

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man

Indigenous data sovereignty in higher education examines persistent challenges to engaging and retaining Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students, highlighting the absence of culturally informed data quality frameworks in the sector. It argues that rigorous inquiry is required into what data is needed and sought, developed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators, researchers, evaluators, and communities. The paper calls for a collaborative, decolonised Indigenous data framework addressing stewardship, ownership, and culturally beneficial outcomes while working with government, independent organisations, and non-Indigenous researchers.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages11

Reading Time28 min

AccessFree to download

Introduction

Critiquing value-laden data practices

Challenges in data collection and quality

University funding pressures and policy gaps

A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W Indigenous data sovereignty in higher education Towards a decolonised data quality framework Judith Wilks, Gillian Kennedy, Neil Drew University of Notre Dame, Australia Katie Wilson Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand In the Australian higher education sector, the challenges to successful engagement and retention experienced by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander students and communities are considerable. They persist despite many well-intentioned attempts to address this issue and to strengthen equity in participation in the sector. Implicated in this is the absence of a culturally-informed data quality framework for the sector, and the resulting persistence of associated issues such as confusion with data ownership; consistency; standards; usage; and storage. In this paper we argue it is essential that rigorous inquiry be carried out into the type and nature of data required or sought in the higher education sector on, for and with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This inquiry must involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators, researchers, evaluators and communities to bring into effect their aspirations for data sovereignty including stewardship and ownership of data, and for culturally beneficial outcomes relating to the use and application of data. It also mandatesa collaborative approach with existing government and independent organisations, and Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers from higher education institutions, working together towards the development and implementation of an agreed-upon and decolonised Indigenous data framework for the sector. Keywords: Indigenous data quality framework; data sovereignty, self-determination, decolonisation Introduction Data and statistics on and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have been collected, interpreted and used for countless and contested reasons, purposes and interests by government departments,independent groups and researchers, for decades (Jordan et al. , 2010;Yu, 2012; Biddle, 2014) . Data and statistics are not value free, and one cannot assume impartiality in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data collection in Australia. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander values and perspectives have been excluded from data collected about them at the hands of dominant (Western) epistemologies and methodologies (Rigney, 1999; Martin, 2003; Smith 2012; Walter & Andersen, 2013; Bodkin-Andrews & Carlson, 2016) . To remedy this,Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, 4 Indigenous data sovereignty in higher education Judith Wilks, Gillian Kennedy, Neil Drew & Katie WIlson vol. 60, no. 2, 2018 A U S T R A L I A N U N I V E R S I T I E S ’ R E V I E W and indigenous peoples globally, are asserting their rights to data sovereignty, particularly in the areas of population data, health, and wellbeing (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016a) . Indigenous scholars have challenged the colonising and deficit-based narratives that created and have continued to dominate discourses about Indigenous data (Kukutai & Taylor, 2016a) . Walter (2016) in particular has named theracialised reality of data, perpetuated and promulgated by the five ‘Ds’: disparity, deprivation, disadvantage, dysfunction and difference. This has the effect of homogenising, pathologising, demonising and exoticising Indigenous peoples almost always to their disadvantage. She does not ipso facto reject data on inequalities perse but rather the data desert that surrounds Indigenous data from strengths-based approaches. 5D data serves to further marginalise Indigenous peoples, fostering not only marginalising discourses and exclusionary practices but also paternalistic practices that hark back to the days of‘saving’Indigenous people from themselves. In the higher education context, data collection processes have developed over time with limited formal planning or evaluation processes

FAQs

Why does the paper argue that a culturally informed data quality framework is missing in higher education?

It links the absence of such a framework to ongoing issues in data ownership, consistency, standards, usage, and storage that undermine effective engagement and retention.

What does the paper propose for developing Indigenous data sovereignty in the higher education sector?

It calls for rigorous inquiry into required data types conducted with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators, researchers, evaluators, and communities, alongside collaboration with government and independent organisations.

How does the paper describe the impact of deficit-based narratives in Indigenous data?

It explains that data narratives dominated by Western epistemologies can racialise reality through the ‘five Ds’, leading to homogenising, pathologising, demonising, and exoticising Indigenous peoples and supporting exclusionary practices.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Mary Man