Sustainable Data Management/20201009 telcon notes

To connect

• Join from computer, tablet or smartphone at: https://www.gotomeeting.com/join/618011013

• Dial in using your phone: :United States: +1 (571) 317-3122
  • Access Code: 618-011-013

Agenda

RECORDED (contact margaret for mp4, transcript)

1. Introduce guest (Shelley): Stephanie Carrol (stephaniecarroll@arizona.edu)
2. Review work from Sept
3. FAIR-CARE-TRUST continued.
   1. CARE principles: https://www.gida-global.org/care
   2. FAIR:
   3. TRUST:

Attending

• Margaret O'Brien (scribe)
• Megan Carter
• Corinna Gries
• Erin Antognoli
• Heather ____
• Philip Tarrant
• Rebecca Koskela
• Bob Downs
• Shelley Stall
• Stephanie Carrol

Regrets

• Ruth Duerr

Notes

• Session was recorded, link: (see agenda)
• Intro from Stephanie
  • Existing policy frameworks (FAIR) were more focused on measurements, and did not address ethics or high level concerns
  • TRUST did not exist at that time
  • Result: CARE Principles: https://www.gida-global.org/care

Carroll et al 2020 (DSJ): https://datascience.codata.org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2020-043/

C1 discussion

Definition of indigenous data: can be very broad. Some aspects must be started much earlier in the process than the repo (which may be a steward of products, and not involved in their generation or use.)

AZ: there is an understanding for human subjects data that tribal permission has been obtained, ownership acknowledged.

Ruth had some experience with these aspects in Alaska.

Bob: some ethics policies also covered in current frameworks, e.g., human subjects, locale. Citizen science: are there layers of consent here?

Stephanie: deals with lots of consent forms (e.g., public health research) - many are individual consent. there may be a need for collective consent. With citizen science, consent is generally community driven, not top down (citizen-scientists generally not considered human subjects, even if indigenous). Although the difference is blurred (ie, what is/is not human subjects research).

Philip Tarrant: when principles developed, were there many discussions about what is indigenous knowledge? some 'western' knowledge has roots in indigenous (e.g., fairy tales). Definition of "indigenous" is also problematic.

Stephanie: generally tabled that disc. there is always the issue of 'who decides'. depending on group, it may be reduced to only native american, but also includes polynesian, alaskan, etc.some of the issues might be addressable by provenance.

Shelley: data like counts of organisms on indigenous land: Ruth's example - for one kind of data, they only wanted governance over data related to hunting. did not request control of all data. for a dataset, this means governance rules might be sub-dataset, very granular.

Stephanie: correct. sometimes all data is embargoed based on a few records. categories: open, open sometimes (eg, time of year), never open.

Shelley: probably best to consider way to go forward first for new data, not legacy data. enrichment techniques might become more evident for those as we work on new data.

Do you think that some data is not going in at all because of governance issues? yes. related issue is that tribes also want to use existing data and dis

C2 discussion

"improve decision-making": some alignment with the T in TRUST (Transparency).

decision making at many levels (fed, state, tribes) affects tribes (e.g., covid results). cannot evaluate those decisions without having the supporting data. tribes themselves rarely have repos, but cannot get hold of data when it has been deposited somewhere because it is embargoed, and tribes a) does not know its there, b) cannot see it, c) has no access.

Action Items

• RDA webinar, noon eastern 11/12 (Shelley is co-org)
• Stephanie can join us at next meeting, 11/13