The need for transformative changes in the use of Indigenous knowledge along with science for environmental decision‐making in the Arctic

Abstract

Recent attention to the role of Indigenous knowledge (IK) in environmental monitoring, research and decision‐making is likely to attract new people to this field of work. Advancing the bringing together of IK and science in a way that is desirable to IK holders can lead to successful and inclusive research and decision‐making. We used the Delphi technique with 18 expert participants who were IK holders or working closely with IK from across the Arctic to examine the drivers of progress and limitations to the use of IK along with science to inform decision‐making related to wildlife, reindeer herding and the environment. We also used this technique to identify participants' experiences of scientists' misconceptions concerning IK. Participants had a strong focus on transformative change relating to the structure of institutions, politics, rights, involvement, power and agency over technical issues advancing or limiting progress (e.g. new technologies and language barriers). Participants identified two modes of desirable research: coproducing knowledge with scientists and autonomous Indigenous‐led research. They highlighted the need for more collaborative and coproduction projects to allow further refinement of approaches and more funding to support autonomous, Indigenous‐led research. Most misconceptions held by scientists concerning IK that were identified by participants related to the spatial, temporal and conceptual scope of IK, and the perceived need to validate IK using Western science. Our research highlights some of the issues that need to be addressed by all participants in research and decision‐making involving IK and science. While exact approaches will need to be tailored to specific social‐ecological contexts, consideration of these broader concerns revealed by our analysis are likely to be central to effective partnerships. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Creating Synergies between Citizen Science and Indigenous and Local Knowledge

“…This includes collaboratively and iteratively designing the interfaces between knowledge systems so they can be mutually valuable and promote shared ownership of the outcomes (Tengö et al 2017 , Austin et al 2019 ). Wheeler and colleagues ( 2020 ) show that projects that allow for joint, and iterative, problem definition were viewed more positively by ILK holders. The case studies from the Kimberley Indigenous Saltwater Science Project in the Kimberley, Australia (Austin et al 2019 ), and the PISUNA (Piniakkanik Sumiiffinni Nalunaarsuineq) project in Greenland (boxes 1 and 2 ) provide examples of how such collaborations may play out in practice.…”

“…Data ownership and intellectual property issues are especially important to address when citizens are collecting or providing information concerning ILK, as knowledge may be culturally embedded, sacred, and not accessible for outsiders (Farhan Ferrari et al 2015 ). Scientists who work with ILK holders should discuss and mutually agree on data ownership and other intellectual property issues at the beginning of the project (Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup 2014 , Austin et al 2019 , Wheeler et al 2020 ). This requires transparent, equitable two-way dialogue with legitimate knowledge authorities or their representatives from the local communities.…”

“…In many cases, this has been aligned with work to strengthen the recognition of ILK in conservation, resources management, and planning. To achieve these interconnected targets, both CS and ILK advocates have made concerted efforts to overcome structural barriers, such as power differences, centralization and domination of decision-making by powerful actors (e.g., Hill et al 2015 ), and strengthen the respect by professional scientists for laypeoples’ truth claims (Houde 2007 , Roué and Nakashima 2018 , Wheeler et al 2020 ). Possible cognitive barriers to inclusion of nonacademic actors and their knowledge have also been identified, such as the absence of shared worldviews that are crucial to enabling collaboration and cooperation (Berkes 2015 , Austin et al 2018 ).…”

“…Although there may be similarities across these systems, there are also aspects that are incommensurable (Tengö et al 2014 ). As has long been discussed, different knowledge systems and their experts do not carry equal weight in designing and implementing environment and conservation interventions; scientific knowledge generally has a dominant position (Agrawal 1995 , Nadasdy 1999 , Wheeler et al 2020 ). Furthermore, although the evidence show that ILK systems and practices contribute to protect critical biological and cultural diversity; it is also clear that the same drivers leading to diversity loss have a strong negative impact on IPLC, their well-being and capacity to govern ecosystems (IPBES 2019 ).…”

The Concept, Practice, Application, and Results of Locally Based Monitoring of the Environment

“…Addressing whether local people are able to produce high-quality data for decision-making is in some senses uninteresting (Wheeler et al 2020 ). If local people are trained, the data collection is not technically challenging, or they are collecting information on elements of the natural world that they know well, there should be no a priori reason why they should not produce data sets as good as the data produced by scientists and field assistants.…”