Lessons Learned through Research Partnership and Capacity Enhancement in Inuit Nunangat

Abstract

Facilitating research and enhancing community research capacity through a partnered approach in Inuit Nunangat (the Inuit homeland of Canada, located in Arctic Canada) presents learning opportunities and challenges for southern-based, non-Inuit researchers and community members alike. This article outlines lessons learned through the Arctic Corridors and Northern Voices (AC-NV) project, which involved 14 communities across Inuit Nunangat. The AC-NV focused on understanding community-identified impacts and potential management options of increased shipping in Inuit Nunangat due to sea ice reductions and a changing climate. The approach used to conduct the research involved visiting researchers and community partners working together with local organizations, and training and hiring northern youth as cultural liaisons and workshop co-facilitators. We strove to develop a model of collaborative partnership and strong north-south research relationships. In this paper, we draw on our broad learning experiences from four community case studies conducted as part of the AC-NV project: Arviat, Cambridge Bay, Gjoa Haven, and Pond Inlet, Nunavut. Close partnerships were formed in each of these communities, and 32 youth were trained in participatory mapping and workshop facilitation. For our diverse team of Inuit, northern- (i.e., non-Inuit, living in Inuit Nunangat), and southern-based non-Inuit researchers, our efforts to engage in partnered research were a critical component of the research and learning experience. In this article we share methodological reflections and lessons learned from what collaborative-partnered research means in practice. In so doing, we aim to contribute to the increasing dialogue and efforts around knowledge co-production and Inuit self-determination in research. Key conclusions of this reflective exercise include the importance of 1) conducting research that is relevant to local needs and interests, 2) visiting researchers and local organizations partnering together, 3) co-creating and refining knowledge documentation tools, 4) including youth cultural liaisons as co-facilitators, 5) conducting results validation and sharing exercises, and 6) being open to forming personal friendships. For the AC-NV, this community-based partnership approach resulted in more robust research results, strengthened north-south relations, and enhanced local capacity for community-led projects.

From participatory engagement to co-production: modelling climate-sensitive processes in the Arctic

“…There was no trend in participation score over time. Carter et al, 2019Deemer et al, 2017Eerkes-Medrano et al,. 2016Ford et al, 2019Healey et al, 2011Henden et al, 2020Henry et al, 2012Idrobo and Berkes, 2012Iverson et al, 2016Jones et al, 2015Koenigstein et al, 2016Kruse et al, 2004Laidler et al, 2007Mantyka-Pringle et al, 2017Olsen et al, 2015Rosellon-Druker et al, 2019Sandström et al, 2003Steiner et al, 2019Tiller et al, 2016Turunen et al, 2016Voinov et al, 2004 No participation Consultative Collaborative Collegial Indigenous/Community Not clear Not part of process…”

“…However, shifts towards participatory methodologies in the Arctic have been limited, fragmented, and at times tokenistic (Ford et al, 2016;Jones, Cunsolo and Harper, 2018;Carter et al, 2019), and while Indigenous Peoples are increasingly involved in research, the degree to which they are involved varies hugely (Brunet, Hickey and Humphries, 2014;6 Flynn and Ford, 2020;Mosurska and Ford, 2020). There are concerns that 'participation' has become a buzzword in research and policy discourse more broadly, that lacks true attempts to engage with transformative processes (Leal, 2007;Castleden, Morgan and Lamb, 2012), and can in fact lead to further marginalisation and reinforcement of existing power relations (Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995;Guta, Flicker and Roche, 2013;Janes, 2016;Berrang-Ford et al, 2018).…”

Arctic corridors and northern voices project: Methods for community-based participatory mapping for low impact shipping corridors in Arctic Canada

“…The ACNV project utilized a collaborative methodological approach wherein southern-based university researchers involved regional and national decision makers and partnered with northern-based Inuit and northern community members during all stages of the research process. This approach was designed to actively facilitate cross-cultural (northern- and southern-based) knowledge and skills exchange and to facilitate a “co-learning” experience, which is known to elicit stronger research outcomes (see [1] ). A community-based research approach was employed where the goals involved co-generating research that is relevant at a local scale, and that enhances community-involvement and local research capacity [2 , 11] .…”

“…In aggregate form, portions of the project results are publicly available at www.arcticcorridors.ca in written reports and maps for every community. In addition, a reflection and evaluation of the research methods and approach undertaken in the ACNV project has been co-authored by community partners, community research associates and southern-based research team members (see [1] ). That manuscript provides unique insight into the benefits and challenges of engaging in community-based research and what partnered collaborative research means in practice.…”

ScIQ: an invitation and recommendations to combine science and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit for meaningful engagement of Inuit communities in research

“…All of us have worked with researchers in our communities and have seen many others coming and going. We talk to people in our communities about their experiences with research (good and not so good) and while there are many examples of research that works very well with communities (e.g., Carter et al 2019;Henri et al 2019;Dawson et al 2020;Wilson et al 2020) we know that there are ways researchers and our communities could be working much better together. Our personal observations at the community level match those of regional, national, and international organizations who suggest that Arctic communities are often not meaningfully engaged, consulted, or informed regarding research in the North (ITK and NRI 2006;Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada 2015;ICC 2018ICC , 2019ITK 2018).…”