Logo image
Back
Crediting and citing Indigenous Knowledges within research
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

Crediting and citing Indigenous Knowledges within research

Christine Barry, Bob Muir, Vincent Backhaus, Cynthia Coyne, Emma Donnelly, Elizabeth Evans-Illidge, Luciana C Ferreira, David Flagg, Michael-Shawn Fletcher, Adrian C Gleiss, …
Bioscience, Vol.76(6), pp.501-512
2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biag009
pdf
Published7.71 MBDownloadView
Open Access CC BY-NC V4.0

Abstract

Epistemology Aboriginal recognition autonomy systemic oversight
Knowledge exchanges between Indigenous and scientific communities occur regularly, with researchers frequently seeking and benefiting from Indigenous Knowledge holders. These exchanges inherently demonstrate the value and authority of Indigenous Knowledges within academia; however, the traditional academic system lacks formal processes for crediting and citing such Knowledges. Given the complexity, diversity, and uniqueness of Indigenous cultures around the world, different approaches to assigning appropriate credit are required for different cultural groups—there is no “one size fits all” approach. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) communities have knowledge traditions reaching back millennia, with high diversity in knowledge reproduction, partitioning, access, and governance among nations. We demonstrate the complexity of crediting and citing Indigenous Knowledges across Australia, so that other regions of the world can adapt to their own contexts; the structural complexity of First Nations groups requires careful, considered, and context-specific approaches. In this Perspective, we highlight important components that should be considered and implemented when citing Indigenous Knowledges, with the aim of supporting discussion within relevant communities. Prior to citing Indigenous Knowledges, certain prerequisites must be established and met: (i) clear definitions of “Knowledges” and free, prior, and informed consent that is neither constrained nor coerced, (ii) an established relationship between the relevant First Nations group and the researchers (the latter being either non-Indigenous or Indigenous), (iii) a clear understanding of the two-way benefits of the Knowledge transfer, (iv) an acknowledgement that citation does not replace co-authorship and the legal rights the latter confers, (v) acknowledgement that Indigenous Knowledges are dynamic, including the ways that Knowledge holders want to exercise sovereignty over their data and resources, and (vi) institutional infrastructure to support the citation process. Crediting approaches must also be available to account for heterogeneity within and across First Nations groups, such as different authorities of Knowledges, “Country” itself as an authority, as well as gendered, initiated, sensitive, or sacred Knowledges. Maintaining autonomy is essential—First Nations groups must retain the ability to retract shared information if they so desire. As such, the accompanying digital object identifier (DOI) or data repository holding the cited information must be managed within the relevant country (here, Australia) or by an organization that can meet these requirements. A homogeneous citation solution within Australia, or elsewhere, seems unlikely and potentially undermines the celebrated diversity among First Nations. We therefore suggest the development of a dynamic citation protocol, where a decision tree can assist researchers in partnering with First Nations communities to cite information in ways that support the data sovereignty aspirations of First Nations peoples, rather than a static citation protocol. Although elevating the status of Indigenous Knowledges within academia, the citation process also provides the opportunity to enhance transparency and deepen relationships between researchers and First Nations Knowledge holders in Australia and globally.

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#4 Quality Education
#10 Reduced Inequalities

Source: SDGs in the Output

Metrics

9 Record Views
3 Times Cited - Web of Science

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Citation topics
1 Clinical & Life Sciences
1.156 Healthcare Policy
1.156.1502 Indigenous Gender Health Education
Web Of Science research areas
Biology
ESI research areas
Biology & Biochemistry
Logo image