Indigenous data governance in Sápmi: the Sámi ownership and data access (SODA) principles Open Access

Over the past decade, questions of data governance, ownership, and access have gained increasing prominence within archival and information science, particularly in relation to Indigenous peoples and their data. As research, archives, and cultural heritage institutions undergo rapid digital transformation, data related to Indigenous peoples, lands, cultures, and knowledge systems are increasingly collected, stored, and circulated within digital infrastructures shaped by open science, data sharing mandates, and institutional ownership regimes. While these developments are often framed as promoting transparency, accessibility, and innovation, they have also intensified longstanding ethical and political tensions surrounding control over Indigenous data and knowledge. In this context, Indigenous data sovereignty has emerged as a critical framework for challenging extractive research practices and reasserting Indigenous peoples' rights to govern data about themselves (Kukutai and Taylor, 2016; Carroll et al., 2020).

The research problem addressed in this article concerns the persistent gap between Sámi claims to ownership, authority, and ethical governance of data and the dominant archival and research data regimes that continue to shape how Sámi data are collected, managed, accessed, and reused. Despite growing recognition of Indigenous rights in international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations, 2007), research data concerning Sámi people are still largely governed by universities, state archives, museums, and research infrastructures that assert legal, administrative, or custodial ownership. As a result, Sámi communities often have limited influence over decisions related to access, interpretation, reuse, and long-term stewardship of data that directly concern their collective history, culture, and lived experiences (Press, 2024; Siri and Axelsson, 2024).

This article enters into conversation with multiple scholarly and professional communities. First, it speaks to archival and information science scholars concerned with ethics, power, and responsibility in recordkeeping, data stewardship, and archival governance. Second, it engages with interdisciplinary scholarship on Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous research ethics, particularly work that has critiqued the limitations of open data and FAIR-oriented approaches when applied to Indigenous contexts (Carroll et al., 2020). Finally, the article addresses practitioners and policymakers working within archives, research data services, and cultural heritage institutions who are grappling with how to operationalize ethical and rights-based approaches to Indigenous data in practice.

The problem examined in this article is important not only as a scholarly concern but also as a broader social and societal issue. For Sámi people, data are not neutral or abstract resources; they are deeply entangled with histories of colonization, assimilation policies, land dispossession, and epistemic marginalization. Decisions about who owns Sámi data, who controls access to it, and who has the authority to interpret and reuse it have direct implications for cultural continuity, self-determination, and trust in research and public institutions. Recent debates surrounding Sámi archives, research ethics, and the handling of sensitive materials – such as testimonies collected by truth and reconciliation processes – highlight how data governance failures can reinforce mistrust and reproduce colonial power relations in contemporary digital environments (Drugge, 2016; Press, 2024).

Existing research has made significant contributions to understanding these issues. The field of Indigenous data sovereignty has articulated robust critiques of state- and institution-centered data regimes and has emphasized Indigenous peoples' rights to control data across the entire data lifecycle (Kukutai and Taylor, 2016). The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance have been particularly influential in reframing data governance around collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics, offering an important corrective to data-centric frameworks such as FAIR (Carroll et al., 2020). Within the Nordic context, recent scholarship has begun to examine Sámi research data governance more explicitly, highlighting both opportunities and challenges in applying Indigenous data sovereignty frameworks in Sápmi (Siri and Axelsson, 2024).

However, despite these advances, important gaps remain. Much of the existing literature on Indigenous data governance has focused on CANZUS contexts (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States), while Sámi perspectives and Nordic archival and legal frameworks remain comparatively underrepresented. Moreover, while CARE has been widely discussed, less attention has been paid to Indigenous-led frameworks that explicitly foreground ownership as a core principle. The Sámi Ownership and Data Access (SODA) principles, developed by the Saami Council, respond directly to this gap by asserting Sámi ownership of data as a foundational condition for ethical governance (Saami Council, 2024; Fjellheim, 2024). Yet, the implications of SODA for archival and information science – particularly for concepts such as custodianship, access regimes, and long-term stewardship – remain under-theorized.

The development of the SODA Principles must also be understood in relation to broader Sámi political and institutional discussions concerning research ethics, cultural heritage governance, and digital self-determination. The principles did not emerge in isolation, but through ongoing Sámi-led conversations about how existing archival, museum, and research infrastructures continue to reproduce asymmetrical power relations in Sápmi. In particular, debates concerning the circulation of culturally sensitive materials, the governance of testimonies collected through truth and reconciliation processes, and the storage of Sámi knowledge within state-controlled infrastructures highlighted the inadequacy of conventional custodial and open-access models. SODA therefore reflects a collective attempt to articulate governance principles grounded in Sámi political priorities, relational accountability, and long-standing concerns regarding extractive research practices.

The principles also emerged alongside increasing international attention to Indigenous data sovereignty movements, including Māori data governance initiatives such as the principles developed through Te Mana Raraunga (2025), the First Nations Principles of OCAP® in Canada (FNIGC, 2024), the ATSILIRN protocols in Australia (ATSILIRN, 2012), and the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials in the United States (First Archivists Circle, 2007). In this sense, SODA can be understood as part of a wider Indigenous movement seeking to reposition Indigenous peoples from data subjects to data rights-holders and governance authorities. However, SODA is distinct in explicitly foregrounding collective Sámi ownership as a foundational governance claim within Nordic legal and archival contexts where ownership has traditionally been vested in state institutions.

The purpose of this article is to develop an analytical framework for examining Indigenous data governance in archival and research data contexts, using the Sámi Ownership and Data Access (SODA) principles in dialog with the CARE Principles and in contrast to FAIR-oriented data regimes. Rather than treating CARE and SODA solely as normative statements, the article operationalizes them as analytical lenses for interrogating how dominant archival and data infrastructures distribute power through assumptions about ownership, custodianship, access, and ethical responsibility. Building on Sámi historical and political contexts and on Indigenous data sovereignty scholarship, the article clarifies how CARE and SODA articulate distinct but complementary governance logics and why these differences matter for archival and information practice. To anchor this analysis, the article introduces a comparative synthesis of FAIR, CARE, and SODA principles (Table 1) and uses it to structure an operational framework focused on four dimensions – ownership, authority, access, and ethical accountability – through which archival and research data practices can be critically assessed.

The article contributes to archival and information science in three interrelated ways. First, it positions Indigenous data governance as a core archival question – rather than a peripheral issue of research ethics – by showing how recordkeeping practices and data infrastructures become sites where Indigenous rights are either upheld or undermined. Second, it introduces SODA as a Sámi-led governance intervention that sharpens and extends CARE by explicitly foregrounding collective ownership, thereby challenging institutionalized assumptions embedded in Nordic archival mandates and open science policy environments. Third, by translating CARE and SODA into an operational analytical framework, the article provides conceptual tools that archivists, records managers, and information professionals can use to evaluate whether governance arrangements meaningfully support Indigenous self-determination or reproduce colonial power relations in digital and archival environments.

This study is situated within an awareness of the historical and ongoing impacts of colonialism on Sámi people, including the role that archives, research institutions, and data infrastructures have played in processes of dispossession, misrepresentation, and unequal control over Indigenous knowledge. It is grounded in a commitment to reflexivity, accountability, and respect for Indigenous self-determination, and proceeds from the understanding that archival and data governance practices are shaped by power relations rather than operating as neutral technical processes.

The author does not claim to represent Sámi perspectives or speak on behalf of Sámi communities. Rather, this article engages with Sámi-led frameworks for Indigenous data governance, particularly the Sámi Ownership and Data Access (SODA) Principles, and examines their implications for archival and information science. This approach is informed by research in Indigenous data governance, archival ethics, digital governance, and decolonial approaches to information infrastructures, while recognizing the limitations of the author's positionality and expertise.

The study approaches the SODA Principles as an important Sámi-led intervention that challenges institutional assumptions regarding ownership, authority, access, and stewardship of Indigenous data. Recognizing the diversity of Sámi communities, experiences, and perspectives, the article does not seek to present a singular Sámi viewpoint. Instead, it aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about how archival and information systems can better support Indigenous rights, self-determination, and ethical forms of data governance within Sápmi and beyond.

The Sámi are an Indigenous people whose traditional lands, collectively referred to as Sápmi, span across the northern regions of present-day Norway, Sweden, Finland, and the Kola Peninsula in Russia. Sápmi is not a nation-state but an Indigenous homeland that predates the establishment of contemporary national borders. As such, Sámi society, culture, and governance have historically developed independently of, and often in tension with, the states that later asserted territorial control over the region (Valkonen et al., 2022). This transboundary condition continues to shape Sámi political organization, cultural practices, and legal struggles, including questions related to land rights, cultural heritage, and data governance.

Archaeological, historical, and oral sources indicate that Sámi people have inhabited northern Fennoscandia for thousands of years, adapting to diverse ecological conditions through livelihoods such as fishing, hunting, gathering, and reindeer herding (Sámi Information Centre, 2018). Sámi society has never been homogeneous; rather, it comprises multiple regional, linguistic, and cultural groups, including North Sámi, Lule Sámi, South Sámi, Ume Sámi, Skolt Sámi, and others. Today, nine Sámi languages are recognized, all of which are classified as endangered or seriously endangered, reflecting the long-term impacts of assimilation policies and linguistic marginalization (Valkonen et al., 2022).

A foundational social, political, and economic unit in Sámi society has historically been the siida, a community-based system that regulated land use, livelihoods, and collective decision-making. The siida functioned as a governance structure grounded in customary law, relational accountability, and shared stewardship of territory and resources. Although state policies have significantly disrupted these systems, the siida remains an important reference point in Sámi understandings of governance, responsibility, and collective rights (Valkonen et al., 2022). These Indigenous governance traditions are highly relevant to contemporary discussions of data ownership and control, as they foreground collective authority rather than individual or institutional ownership.

Colonization of Sápmi by Nordic states involved processes of land dispossession, resource extraction, racialization, and assimilation, including restrictive reindeer herding legislation, residential schooling, language suppression, and racial biology research. These policies not only targeted Sámi land and bodies but also Sámi knowledge, memory, and modes of self-representation (Drugge, 2016; Valkonen et al., 2022). Archives, museums, and research institutions played a central role in these processes by collecting Sámi cultural materials, human remains, and knowledge without Sámi consent, often framing Sámi people as objects of study rather than as rights-bearing subjects.

In contemporary contexts, Sámi people are recognized as an Indigenous people under international law, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (United Nations, 2007). In Sweden, Norway, and Finland, Sámi parliaments have been established as representative bodies, though their mandates and levels of political authority vary significantly. Despite formal recognition, Sámi self-determination remains constrained, particularly in areas related to land use, cultural heritage governance, and control over knowledge and data (Sámi Information Centre, 2018; Press, 2024).

Questions of identity and belonging are also complex and politically charged. Sámi identity is not determined solely by ancestry but involves self-identification, language, kinship, and community recognition. State-administered definitions – such as those used for electoral rolls to Sámi parliaments – have significant implications for who is recognized as Sámi and who is excluded, reinforcing the entanglement of identity, governance, and bureaucratic classification (Sámi Information Centre, 2018). These dynamics are mirrored in data practices, where external categorization and metadata schemas may conflict with Sámi self-definitions and worldviews.

Understanding the Sámi people as a diverse, transboundary Indigenous society with distinct epistemologies, governance traditions, and historical experiences of dispossession is essential for situating debates on Sámi data governance. Data related to Sámi people cannot be treated as neutral research outputs or administrative records; they are deeply embedded in struggles over recognition, authority, and self-determination. For archival and information science, this context underscores why Sámi claims to ownership and control over data – articulated through frameworks such as the Sámi Ownership and Data Access (SODA) principles – must be understood not as technical preferences, but as expressions of Indigenous rights rooted in history, law, and lived experience.

Indigenous data governance and Indigenous data sovereignty have emerged as critical frameworks for addressing the historical and ongoing marginalization of Indigenous peoples within data, archival, and research systems. At their core, these frameworks assert that data relating to Indigenous peoples, communities, lands, cultures, and knowledge systems are not neutral informational resources but are intrinsically connected to Indigenous rights, self-determination, and governance (Kukutai and Taylor, 2016). Indigenous data sovereignty refers to the right of Indigenous peoples to govern the collection, ownership, access, use, and reuse of data about them, in accordance with their own laws, values, and priorities (Rainie et al., 2017).

Unlike conventional data governance models, which are typically grounded in state authority, institutional ownership, and individual consent, Indigenous data sovereignty emphasizes collective rights and responsibilities. It is grounded in international legal instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which affirms Indigenous peoples' rights to maintain, control, protect, and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and manifestations of their sciences and cultures (United Nations, 2007). From this perspective, data governance is not merely a technical or administrative matter, but a political and ethical practice tied to sovereignty, accountability, and power.

Indigenous data governance can be understood as the practical and operational expression of Indigenous data sovereignty. It encompasses the policies, principles, protocols, and decision-making structures through which Indigenous peoples exercise authority over data across the entire data lifecycle – from data creation and documentation to storage, access, sharing, reuse, and long-term stewardship (Lovett et al., 2019). In archival and information science contexts, this includes decisions about appraisal, description, metadata, access conditions, custodianship, and preservation, as well as questions of who has the authority to define meaning and context in records and datasets.

These debates also raise important conceptual questions regarding the relationship between “records” and “data”, distinctions that are often blurred within digital archival environments. Archival traditions have historically emphasized records as contextualized evidentiary objects embedded within institutional processes (McKemmish, 2001; Upward, 2005), whereas contemporary data governance discussions frequently frame data as modular, reusable informational assets (Wilkinson et al., 2016). In Indigenous contexts, however, both records and data may involve forms of co-creation, relational knowledge production, and collective cultural significance that exceed institutional definitions. Official state records concerning Indigenous peoples, for example, may simultaneously function as administrative documents, community memory, and evidence of colonial governance practices. Discussions within Indigenous archival scholarship, including work associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander data governance initiatives such as ATSIDA (ATSILIRN, 2012; ATSIDA, 2025; Lovett et al., 2019), have therefore emphasized the need to move beyond rigid distinctions between records and data in favor of governance approaches attentive to relationality, context, and Indigenous authority across the entire information lifecycle.

A key intervention in this field has been the articulation of the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance – Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics – which were developed to complement the FAIR principles that dominate research data management and open science agendas (Carroll et al., 2020). While FAIR prioritizes technical qualities that facilitate data sharing and reuse, CARE recenters people, purpose, and power, explicitly addressing the historical exclusion of Indigenous peoples from decisions about data that affect them. The CARE Principles have been influential in reshaping conversations about ethical data stewardship, but scholars have also noted that their implementation remains uneven, particularly within institutional and archival settings that continue to prioritize openness and accessibility over Indigenous control (Siri and Axelsson, 2024).

Within archival and information science, Indigenous data governance challenges foundational assumptions about ownership, custodianship, and access. Traditional archival models have often positioned institutions as neutral custodians of records, with authority derived from legal mandates and professional expertise. Indigenous data sovereignty disrupts this logic by asserting that authority over Indigenous data resides first and foremost with Indigenous peoples themselves, regardless of where the data are physically stored or legally administered (Kukutai and Taylor, 2016). This has significant implications for post-custodial archives, community archives, participatory description practices, and the governance of digital research infrastructures.

Importantly, Indigenous data governance is not a one-size-fits-all framework. Indigenous peoples are diverse, and governance models must be grounded in specific cultural, legal, and historical contexts. As such, Indigenous-led frameworks – such as tribal research codes, community data protocols, and regionally grounded principles – play a crucial role in translating the broader concept of Indigenous data sovereignty into actionable governance practices (Rainie et al., 2017). In the Nordic context, this has led to increasing attention to Sámi-specific approaches to data governance that reflect Sámi governance traditions, legal realities, and experiences of colonization.

Understanding Indigenous data governance and sovereignty is therefore essential for archival and information science scholars and practitioners seeking to develop ethical, rights-based, and decolonial approaches to data and recordkeeping. These frameworks call not only for procedural adjustments but for a fundamental rethinking of whose knowledge counts, who holds authority, and how power is exercised in data-intensive and archival environments. In this sense, Indigenous data governance represents both a critique of existing systems and an invitation to reimagine archival and information practices in ways that support Indigenous self-determination and long-term cultural continuity.

The CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance constitute a foundational intervention in contemporary debates on data governance, particularly in response to the limitations of dominant data management frameworks within research, archival, and information infrastructures. Developed by the Research Data Alliance's International Indigenous Data Sovereignty Interest Group and the Global Indigenous Data Alliance, the CARE Principles articulate four core dimensions – Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, and Ethics – that foreground Indigenous peoples' rights, values, and interests in data practices (Carroll et al., 2020). Unlike data-centric frameworks that prioritize technical interoperability and openness, CARE is explicitly people- and purpose-oriented, emphasizing that data governance must be grounded in historical context, social justice, and power relations.

CARE was formulated as a complementary framework to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), which have become deeply embedded in research data management, open science, and digital archival policies. While FAIR has contributed to improved data stewardship and reuse, it largely abstracts data from their social and cultural contexts. When applied to Indigenous data, FAIR-oriented approaches risk perpetuating extractive knowledge practices by prioritizing openness and reuse without adequately addressing Indigenous authority, consent, or collective rights (Carroll et al., 2020; Siri and Axelsson, 2024). CARE responds to this gap by explicitly re-centering Indigenous peoples as rights-holders rather than data subjects.

Within archival and information science, the CARE Principles challenge long-standing assumptions about institutional custodianship, professional neutrality, and legal ownership. Principles such as Authority to Control and Collective Benefit call into question archival practices that treat Indigenous records as institutional assets governed primarily by state legislation or professional norms. Instead, CARE emphasizes relational accountability and the need for archival and data practices to actively support Indigenous wellbeing, governance, and self-determination.

Building on the CARE framework, the Sámi Ownership and Data Access (SODA) principles represent a Sámi-led articulation of Indigenous data governance grounded in the specific historical, political, and legal context of Sápmi. Developed by the Saami Council, SODA responds to the reality that Sámi data are dispersed across state archives, research institutions, museums, and digital infrastructures governed by Nordic nation-states. While CARE emphasizes authority and ethical responsibility, SODA foregrounds ownership as a foundational principle, asserting that data concerning Sámi people, culture, lands, and knowledge systems are collectively owned by the Sámi people, regardless of where such data are physically stored or administratively managed (Saami Council, 2024; Fjellheim, 2024).

By explicitly naming ownership, SODA addresses a critical blind spot in many data governance frameworks. In Nordic archival and research environments – where legal ownership is typically vested in institutions and access is regulated through public records legislation – SODA poses a direct challenge to prevailing governance models. It reframes questions of access and reuse not as matters of institutional discretion or technical feasibility, but as rights-based issues that must be negotiated with Sámi communities as data owners. In doing so, SODA extends Indigenous data sovereignty into concrete governance claims that directly confront archival and information infrastructures.

Table 1 illustrates how the Sámi Ownership and Data Access (SODA) principles both build upon and diverge from the CARE and FAIR frameworks, particularly by foregrounding ownership as a foundational dimension of Indigenous data governance.

Importantly, SODA also introduces practical governance questions concerning how decisions about access, reuse, and stewardship are to be negotiated over time. Rather than assuming that access is permanently fixed, SODA implies that access may be conditional, contextual, and revisable according to Sámi priorities, community wellbeing, or changing political circumstances. In practice, this may mean that certain materials are accessible for educational or community purposes while remaining restricted for commercial reuse or external research. It may also mean that materials previously made openly available could later become subject to additional restrictions if communities determine that harms, misrepresentation, or inappropriate uses are occurring. Such an approach contrasts sharply with dominant archival paradigms in which openness is generally presumed to be permanent and cumulative.

This conditional and relational understanding of access has parallels in other Indigenous governance protocols and in Sámi governance traditions more broadly. Historically, authority within siida governance structures involved negotiated and context-sensitive responsibilities concerning land, resources, and collective stewardship. Contemporary Sámi governance debates concerning cultural heritage, language revitalization, and land use similarly emphasize relational accountability rather than universalized public access. Within archival contexts, this suggests that stewardship may need to be understood not as a static legal condition but as an ongoing governance relationship requiring continuous dialog with Sámi communities.

Comparable developments can also be observed in Indigenous archival and data protocols internationally. For example, the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials (First Archivists Circle, 2007), the First Nations Principles of OCAP® in Canada (FNIGC, 2024), the ATSILIRN protocols in Australia (ATSILIRN, 2012), and Māori data governance initiatives (Te Mana Raraunga, 2025) have similarly challenged assumptions of unrestricted access and institutional neutrality by foregrounding Indigenous authority, culturally appropriate access conditions, and collective rights. Positioning SODA within this wider Indigenous governance landscape highlights that Sámi claims are part of a broader global effort to decolonize archival and data infrastructures while adapting these principles to the specific legal and political realities of Sápmi.

This article operationalizes the CARE and SODA principles as an analytical framework for examining Indigenous data governance in archival and research data contexts. Rather than treating these principles as aspirational or purely normative guidelines, they are used as evaluative lenses through which dominant data governance practices can be interrogated, compared, and reoriented. Table 1 serves as a conceptual anchor for this analysis by making visible the different governance logics embedded in FAIR-, CARE-, and SODA-oriented approaches.

The framework begins with the recognition that FAIR-oriented data governance remains the dominant paradigm in archival and research infrastructures. FAIR privileges technical qualities – such as interoperability and reusability – and often treats data as institutional assets governed through standardized procedures. CARE and SODA are mobilized here as counter-frameworks that shift the analytical focus from data characteristics to governance relations, power, and rights.

Drawing on Table 1, the analysis is structured around four interrelated dimensions: ownership, authority, access, and ethical accountability.

Ownership is operationalized by examining whether Sámi data are treated as institutional property or recognized as collectively owned by Sámi people. While CARE addresses ownership implicitly through authority and control, SODA enables an explicit interrogation of whether Sámi ownership is acknowledged, negotiated, or overridden in archival policies, research contracts, and data infrastructures.

Authority refers to decision-making power across the data lifecycle, including appraisal, description, access conditions, reuse, and long-term stewardship. Using CARE, the analysis examines whether Sámi communities are recognized as legitimate authorities in data governance. SODA strengthens this dimension by foregrounding Sámi governance structures as rights-bearing authorities rather than consultative stakeholders.

Access is analyzed as a relational and contextual practice rather than a default condition of openness. CARE is used to assess whether access regimes support collective benefit and minimize harm, while SODA evaluates whether Sámi communities determine the terms under which access is granted, restricted, or withdrawn. This dimension is particularly salient in archival contexts governed by public access legislation, where tensions between transparency mandates and Indigenous rights become visible.

Ethical accountability is operationalized by examining whether responsibility for ethical data use is embedded in governance structures or delegated to individual professionals. CARE provides the primary lens by emphasizing ongoing responsibility and relational ethics, while SODA frames ethical accountability as inseparable from Sámi ownership and self-determination.

CARE and SODA are treated as complementary rather than interchangeable frameworks. CARE functions as a broadly applicable ethical lens that enables critique of extractive and data-centric practices, while SODA anchors the analysis in Sámi-specific claims to ownership, authority, and sovereignty. Together, they enable a systematic examination of whether archival and information practices reproduce colonial power relations or contribute to their transformation.

A hypothetical example helps illustrate how the operationalization of CARE and SODA may differ from conventional data governance. Consider a university archive that holds oral history interviews with Sámi community members collected during a publicly funded research project in the 1990s. Under a conventional FAIR-oriented model, the archive may prioritize digitization and broad online accessibility in the interest of transparency and scholarly reuse. Applying CARE and SODA, however, would require a different governance process. Sámi representatives or governance bodies would participate in determining whether the interviews should remain openly accessible, whether portions contain culturally sensitive knowledge, whether descendants or communities should be consulted, and under what conditions reuse could occur. Access might therefore become conditional, time-limited, or community-mediated rather than universally open.

Such examples demonstrate that Indigenous data governance is not reducible to adding ethical metadata or consultation procedures to existing infrastructures. Rather, it may require substantial institutional transformation, including revised access protocols, shared governance arrangements, dynamic consent practices, and mechanisms through which Indigenous communities can reassess governance decisions over time. These dynamics are particularly significant in digital environments where materials can be rapidly circulated, copied, and detached from their original cultural and relational contexts.

By operationalizing CARE and SODA in this way, the framework challenges foundational assumptions within archival and information science, including notions of custodianship, institutional ownership, and access. It reframes data governance as a matter of rights, relationships, and accountability, providing a structured approach for evaluating whether archival and data infrastructures meaningfully support Indigenous self-determination.

This article set out to examine the Sámi Ownership and Data Access (SODA) principles as a Sámi-led framework for Indigenous data governance and to analyze their implications for archival and information science. By situating SODA in dialog with the CARE Principles and in contrast to FAIR-oriented data regimes, the article has demonstrated that dominant data governance models continue to privilege institutional ownership, technical openness, and procedural compliance, often at the expense of Indigenous rights, authority, and self-determination. The analysis underscores that Indigenous data governance is not a peripheral ethical concern but a foundational issue that challenges core assumptions about ownership, custodianship, access, and responsibility in archives and research data infrastructures.

The comparative analysis of FAIR, CARE, and SODA highlights how different governance logics produce materially different outcomes for Indigenous peoples. While FAIR has become deeply institutionalized within archival and research infrastructures, its data-centric orientation risks reproducing extractive knowledge practices when solely applied to Indigenous data. CARE offers an essential corrective by re-centering people, purpose, and ethics, foregrounding collective benefit and Indigenous authority. However, the analysis shows that CARE alone may be insufficient in contexts where ownership remains legally and administratively vested in institutions. SODA addresses this limitation by explicitly asserting Sámi ownership as a non-negotiable foundation for ethical data governance, thereby transforming abstract ethical commitments into concrete claims about rights, authority, and control.

Operationalizing CARE and SODA as analytical lenses reveals how archival and information practices – often perceived as technical or neutral – are deeply political and historically situated. Decisions about appraisal, metadata, access regimes, and long-term stewardship are not merely professional choices but sites where power, recognition, and exclusion are enacted. From this perspective, the notion of the archive as a neutral custodian is untenable when dealing with Indigenous data. Instead, the analysis supports a shift toward governance models that recognize Indigenous peoples as rights-bearing data owners and legitimate authorities over their records and data, regardless of where such materials are physically stored.

For archival and information science, these findings have several important implications. First, they call for a re-examination of institutional claims to ownership and custodianship, particularly in publicly funded archives and research infrastructures. Second, they challenge prevailing access paradigms by demonstrating that openness cannot be treated as an absolute good when it conflicts with Indigenous rights and wellbeing. Third, they underscore the need for governance arrangements that move beyond consultation toward shared or Indigenous-led decision-making structures. Engaging with CARE and SODA thus requires not only ethical reflection but institutional transformation, including changes to policy, professional training, and infrastructure design.

At a societal level, the issues addressed in this article extend beyond archives and data management. Sámi data governance is deeply intertwined with broader struggles over land, cultural heritage, political recognition, and historical justice. Failures in data governance risk perpetuating mistrust toward public institutions and reinforcing colonial power relations in digital form. Conversely, Sámi-led frameworks such as SODA offer pathways toward rebuilding trust, supporting cultural continuity, and enabling Indigenous self-determination in data-intensive societies.

This article contributes to archival and information science by advancing Indigenous data governance as a central analytical and normative concern rather than a specialized subfield of research ethics. By introducing SODA as a Sámi-specific framework and examining its relationship with CARE, the article draws attention to Nordic Indigenous approaches within a research field that has largely been shaped by CANZUS-based scholarship. It also provides archivists, records managers, and information professionals with conceptual tools to critically assess whether their practices align with decolonial, rights-based approaches to data governance.

Limitations and avenues for future research should be noted. This article focuses on conceptual and analytical dimensions rather than empirical case studies. Future research could examine how CARE and SODA are negotiated in concrete archival settings, such as national archives, university repositories, or digital cultural heritage platforms. Comparative studies across Nordic countries would also deepen understanding of how different legal frameworks shape the possibilities for Sámi data ownership and control. Additionally, further research is needed on how Indigenous data governance frameworks intersect with emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and automated decision-making systems.

The long-term success of the SODA Principles will also depend on how they are operationalized, evaluated, and potentially revised over time. Indigenous governance frameworks are not static; they evolve in response to changing technological, political, and community contexts. Similar developments can be observed in other Indigenous governance initiatives, including ATSILIRN and related Indigenous archival protocols, where iterative revision and community engagement have formed part of ongoing governance practice. Future assessment of SODA implementation could therefore examine how effectively institutions adopt Sámi-led governance arrangements, how communities experience these processes, and whether the principles continue to address emerging challenges associated with digital infrastructures, artificial intelligence, and transnational data circulation.

Importantly, the implementation of SODA may also require new institutional capacities and governance mechanisms within archives and research infrastructures. Existing archival systems are often designed around assumptions of institutional ownership, permanence of access, and standardized metadata practices. Adapting these systems to support conditional access, collective governance, and ongoing renegotiation of authority may require substantial policy reform, technical redesign, and professional education. As such, SODA should not be understood merely as an ethical supplement to existing archival practice, but as part of a broader decolonial transformation of archival and information governance.

In conclusion, this article argues that meaningful engagement with Indigenous data governance requires more than the ethical adaptation of existing data regimes. It demands a fundamental rethinking of ownership, authority, and accountability in archival and information systems. The CARE and SODA principles together provide a powerful framework for this rethinking – one that challenges colonial legacies in data governance and opens possibilities for more just, accountable, and Indigenous-led approaches to managing data and memory. For archival and information science, embracing this challenge is not only an ethical imperative but a necessary step toward the future relevance and legitimacy of the field.