This is a fascinating initiative, and I have little to say – you are certainly going about it in an admirable manner. I just wonder if the individual informed consent process is completely transferrable to the Aboriginal people. I know that when I did trials among the Maasai, it was the community elders who made a decision about community participation. The Maasai don't think of consent to participate in a research trial as an individual matter. Or didn't at the time (many years ago).

Hello Ronan and thank you for your response. In a strongly traditional community your thoughts about community elders deciding on participation of individuals in social inquiry strategies would be consistent here in Australia too. The complexity is that in Australia our indigenous populations are often disclocated from their lands due to two hundred years of forced relocations from colonisation. This has resulted in their having to create hybrid communities often with tribally mixed groups, and the traditional systems of eldership being drastically weakened. We still have elders working in some of these communities, often located in regional towns or old mission settlements on the outskirts of such towns. Addittionally, many of our indigenous peoples are living in our cities too - sometimes living a westernised life, sometimes combining westernised with traditaional/hybridised cultures and life. In many ways this sits on a blury line between cultural genocide and cultural innovation... It's complex. And all this relates, as you see, into the ways in which governance systems are recognised, strengthened, revived or invented to enable their self determination over their documented information. Sitting between western IP and a very weak recognition of indigenous cultural and intellectual property (UNDRIP and AIATSIS as my powerpoint shows) - we are exploring how to set up a system of indigenous control, development, and use of their archived information for their purposes. There is a lot more to it.... which I won't bore you with - but I am seeking papers, reports, examples on line, of protocols and practices that provide this recognition and ethically strong access within culturally strong terms.

Kaupapa Maori, Rangahau, Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, or Maori and Indigenous Analysis Ltd may be able to help you with relevant Maori research protocols.

http://www.rangahau.co.nz/about/

http://www.maia.maori.nz/

http://www.maramatanga.co.nz/

http://kaupapamaori.com/projectinfo/

Wonderful references Marian - thank you - so very inspiring.

I wonder if the development of consent protocols needs to turn around to go back to the indigenous communities to develop these rather than be led externally to these cultures. Of course, there may be a 'problem' of representivity, transferability and such like but it perhaps redresses some difficult aspects.

What we have done is go back to each submission maker and negotiate consents to reuse their data within specific terms - these include for policy and devleopment purposes to benefit Aboriginal people in the Basin only as decided by them, and only giving access to users to individuals, groups and organisations that are leggally AND culturally recognised as have the legitimate authority to do so. There are other requirements within these conditions such as restricting use to natural resource management interests. We have found about 70% of the original submission makers, of whom 95% have agreed to reuse. We practiced a very thoughtful process involving free, prior and informed consent for each person - as we saw the process as an opportunity to recognise their generosity and wisdom regarding the state of the  Basin. There are 44 nations in the Basin, and they are represented by two Traditional Owner Governance Groups who are organised around northern and southern regional locations. These governance groups are in a good position to make decisions about access. I am looking for literature and sites that exemplofy good practice in this arena. I have found a few if anyone is interested...

 I came across a data access protocol called OCAP when doing some research with multiple communities in New Zealand.  This protocal was developed by First Nations researchers in Canada.  Here is a link to a paper. http://www.afn.ca/uploads/files/rp-research_ethics_final.pdf 

Thank you Ruth - we have found that there are protocols for managing archived information, protocols for Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property, and protocols for Aboriginal research practices - these are all excellent resources but there is nothing that synthesises them. UNDRIP is a reference, but in Australia there is no obligation to comply. Western IP is focussed to individual rather than collective ownership, and ICIP focusses on traditional knowledge and doesn't do a very good job of governing the ongoing manifestation of indigenous knowledges in contemporary and ongoing colonising/decolonising circumstances. The AIATSIS Guidelines to research cover the challenges of developing knowledge - but don't go to archives - and there appear not to be any indigenous protocols for archived knowledge. Having conducted a literature review, I then developed a knowledge management protocol, which we are in the process of agreeing with the Aboriginal Nations involved. There will also be some training to use NVivo and hopefully the actual database that we developed holding contemporary Aboriginal knowledge about the Murray Darling Basin. I am uploading a powerpoint presentation that summarises the literature review - as thanks for everyone's contributions. If you wish to develop this inquiry further with me, please contact me on [email protected]