Community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring in Inuit Nunangat: a scoping literature review

Abstract

In Canada, the participation of Indigenous communities in research and monitoring is growing in response to calls for partnerships and heightened interest in bridging Indigenous and Western science-based knowledge. Yet, as settler scholars, we have noted inconsistencies in the articulation and operationalization of community participation in peer-reviewed literature. We conducted a scoping review of community participation in coastal and marine research and monitoring across Inuit Nunangat. This resulted in 72 studies, most of which were undertaken in Nunavut. Fourteen terms were used to articulate community participation, the most common being: participate, collaborate, community-based, consult, or variations of these terms. Among the studies that used community participation terms, we found that authors only defined terms 10% of the time. Community participation was operationalized primarily through interviews, mapping, and field observations. We assessed studies across a spectrum of community participation levels and found that most studies (81%) reflected minimal levels of participation (i.e., consultative, contractual, and less than contractual). Our results highlight the need for clarity in language use, transparency in reporting research practices, and stronger efforts to support Indigenous leadership and decision-making authority, all of which must be defined on a community or project basis.

Bridging Indigenous andWesternsciences: Decision points guiding aquatic research and monitoring inInuit Nunangat

“…This takeaway has been echoed in previous research (e.g., Drake et al, 2022;Mosurska & Ford, 2020), as missing details pose a challenge to understanding research context and decision-making regarding methods. The degree and nature of early communication between researchers and communities can influence how research objectives are derived, and how and why method bundles and sequences are chosen.…”

“…While these reviews help characterize the landscape in which researchers and communities engage, they do not detail the process of bridging Indigenous and Western sciences and corresponding methods. The lack of clarity into the operationalization of bridging in research and monitoring with Indigenous communities (Buxton et al, 2021; Drake et al, 2022; McGregor, 2008; Mosurska & Ford, 2020) renders it necessary for many researchers to “interpret for themselves what this means and how to do it in practice” (Pedersen et al, 2020, p. 326).…”

Insights from the remote co‐creation of an Indigenous knowledge questionnaire about aquatic ecosystems in Kinngait, Nunavut

“…Offering employment opportunities for community members is an important part of conducting respectful research and addressing community priorities. Often, participants are involved in the data collection/knowledge documentation phase of research but have little involvement in earlier phases (David‐Chavez & Gavin, 2018; Drake et al, 2022). Community technicians and co‐authors OM, SP and PQ took on leading roles in the questionnaire in Kinngait (i.e.…”

Learnings from collaborative monitoring of remote wildlife populations: factors affecting changes in number and distribution of nesting Hudson Bay eiders ducks in the Belcher Islands

“…challenges remain to implement these best practices in collaborative research (Buxton et al, 2021;Drake et al, 2022). Several scholars have advocated for more studies to present and critically analyze failures and challenges within collaborative research projects (Cvitanomic et al, 2022).…”

“…Best practices and respectful approaches have also been clearly articulated (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, 2018;Inuit Circumpolar Council [ICC], 2021;Pedersen et al, 2020;Yua et al, 2022) including the five priorities of the NISR (ITK, 2018). Some of these best practices, however, remain challenging to implement even by those who strongly believe in them, and few published studies identify the constraints on further progress (Buxton et al, 2021;Drake et al, 2022).…”