The state of arctic research

Polar research requires collaboration across cultures, worldviews, and knowledge systems; however, research practices are structurally embedded within colonial systems of power. For many Indigenous communities in the Arctic, scientific research has historically been conducted without consent, reciprocity, or respect for local knowledges and values [1,2]. The first International Polar Years (1882–83 and 1932–33) were established to better understand meteorology and earth’s magnetism, but Arctic exploration was also used to map the Arctic in an era of imperial expansion [3]. During the 1957–58 International Geophysical Year, the Arctic was viewed through the lens of military and scientific strategy, reinforcing colonial processes of land appropriation and knowledge extraction [4]. Biological samples, data, and Indigenous knowledge were collected without consent, published without acknowledgement, used to advance careers of non-Indigenous people, and bolster dominant, non-Indigenous institutions [5–7]. The Fourth International Polar Year (2007–2008) prompted significant strides toward greater engagement in the polar research community with Arctic Indigenous communities [8].

Among efforts towards inclusion, research “capacity building” remains largely focused on subsuming Indigenous people, knowledges, and governance systems into Western structures, further marginalizing Indigenous communities [9]. These extractive practices are part of a broader context of colonization, including forced relocation, residential schools, language suppression, and resource exploitation, contributing to intergenerational trauma and structural inequities in many Indigenous communities [7,10]. Today, as biophysical and socioeconomic impacts of climate change disproportionately affect Arctic communities, individuals and institutions are beginning to change how they conduct research and engage with Indigenous communities. At the same time, Indigenous scholars, leaders, and communities are making abundantly clear that research done in a good way is important for Indigenous sovereignty, Indigenous Knowledge renewal, and imagining prosperous Indigenous futures [11–14].

As Early Career Researchers, we inherit the above colonial legacies and ethical challenges as we seek to do science differently, and we also hope to conduct research in a manner that supports Indigenous sovereignty. Progress towards this end demands systemic restructuring to institutionalize positive changes and end extractive research practices that are ethically indefensible and scientifically limiting [15]. The upcoming Fifth International Polar Year (IPY5) provides a critical opportunity for the Arctic research community to reckon with its past and commit to respectful, reciprocal, and justice-oriented engagement in partnership with Arctic Indigenous Peoples.

Who we are

The Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS) and the Polar Science Early Career Community Office (PSECCO) organized a Polar Early Career World Summit (PECWS) from March 22–24, 2025 in Boulder, Colorado, on the heels of Arctic Science Summit Week and the Fourth International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP IV). As part of PECWS, PSECCO and APECS leadership organized a three-day workshop to engage polar Early Career Researchers in the process of developing priorities for the IPY5 to take place in 2032–33 [16]. Conference participants opted into 12 themes to discuss and determine overarching and specific goals and priorities. The authors of this synthesis paper developed goals and recommendations to support the theme Fostering equitable, sustainable, and relationship-centered engagement with local communities and Indigenous Peoples.

Over the three-day workshop, we discussed our varied experiences working in relation to Arctic communities within our fields. From these experiences, we distilled a list of priorities with supporting examples, and then we developed a cohesive mission and vision statement encompassing our stated priorities. We workshopped our priorities, mission, and vision, attempted to disambiguate our priorities from those of other thematic groups, introduced our draft to the larger PECWS community in attendance to get feedback, and ultimately refined our theme priorities to those represented here (See Box 2 for priorities developed at PECWS conference). After the PECWS conference, PSECCO and APECS leadership took these priorities to the larger Polar Early Career Researcher community through a series of webinars and a survey for virtual participants to provide feedback. The final synthesis report details the mission, vision, and comprehensive priorities for IPY5 from PECWS participants [16].

To understand how our individual and combined experience contributed to priority development we offer this group’s positionality: Authorship of this article is comprised of nine Early Career Researchers who attended PECWS and participated in the above theme. We are a group of gendered female European, American, Canadian, and Inuit researchers that work throughout the circumpolar North. At the time of attending PECWS, we were all master’s, PhD, and Post-doctoral researchers. The priorities, examples, and recommendations we share below are neither new nor revolutionary. They echo calls from progressive scholars and Indigenous leaders, and demand targeted attention during the IPY5. However, we as Early Career Researchers find ourselves in a unique position within the polar research ecosystem. We are a part of and beholden to institutions that commit to change in how research is done in relation to Indigenous communities, from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, to academic ethics boards [17,18]. We are also part of Arctic research projects where we have witnessed how change is happening, and good research relationships are prioritized. Yet between these two, we witness a canyon of institutional structures that stymie the wider uptake of good changes in research processes. Our priorities focus on aligning the rhetoric of good research relationships with the structural changes that are necessary to implement them.

Below we identify six priorities. Within each priority, Boxes 3 through 8 highlight a story the authors shared with each other from our research experiences that connects to the broader themes we tackle in this article. We wanted to include specific examples of how these issues appear within our work, but offer them anonymously, as every author does not carry the same level of privilege to self-identify.

Towards equitable, sustainable, and relationship-centered engagement with local communities and Indigenous Peoples

This paper is a call to action. We urge the leaders of IPY5 – scientists, policymakers, funders, and others that drive institutional decisions – to confront directly the power dynamics embedded in polar research. In this context, we refer to institutions rooted in Euro-American philosophical traditions as the key structures that govern and regulate research. These include Western universities, publishing agencies, funding bodies, and state, provincial, federal, or national research institutions. Many of the below recommendations pertain to academic institutions because academia is the lens in which we as Early Career Researchers are most familiar. However, this does not mean that our recommendations only pertain to academia. We call for structural and systemic change in research practices and relationships across institutions and systems of power to better foster equitable, sustainable, and relationship-centered engagement with Arctic Indigenous communities. This requires Indigenous leadership in science, not as a peripheral consultation but as a core driver of knowledge acquisition, evaluation, and dissemination. To combat pressing environmental and geopolitical challenges facing the Arctic and to create more inclusive and culturally sensitive research practices, the Arctic research community must decentralize the power held by Western institutions and redistribute it towards Indigenous communities.

As Early Career Researchers, our vision is to reimagine science approaches through relational, land-based, and cyclical processes. Time cannot only be conceptualized as linear; it also unfolds in cyclical patterns like seasons. Let our research processes reflect that. To achieve this vision, institutions must increase capacity within their doors to build cultural sensitivity throughout all levels of research support. Rather than asking, “How can we build research capacity for Indigenous communities?”, we challenge our colleagues to ask, “How can we invite Indigenous community priorities, values, and knowledge systems into our research community?”

We advocate for the use of holistic research processes, increased implementation of trauma-informed practices, as well as historically and culturally responsive collaboration alongside Indigenous colleagues and students. The purpose of this is to reduce harm and support the wellness of the whole person, to support researchers and community members, and to support mental and physical safety. Acknowledging that research operates in past-present-future colonial contexts, we advocate for structural and systemic changes to allow for cyclical and holistic research processes that reflect Indigenous ways of knowing and contextual realities of Arctic Indigenous communities [16]. To achieve this vision, we propose the priorities that follow. Each priority includes action items for individuals and institutions for consideration for IPY5.

Priority 1: Develop cultural sensitivity and trauma-informed trainings to support all research collaborators

Contemporary understanding about how trauma affects individual wellbeing, interpersonal relationships, and institutional cultures has improved, driven largely by advancements in the fields of health and education [19]. Learning from these fields, evidence-based and trauma-informed best practices must be integrated into training, leadership, and pedagogy across Arctic research. As Early Career Researchers embedded in Arctic communities, we have seen first-hand the deleterious mental and physical impacts of trauma on our colleagues and research partners, and have experienced mental health challenges that affect the sustainability and strength of community relationships. To foster improved relationships with Indigenous communities of the Arctic, polar scientists must be educated and equipped to navigate trauma. Stress can be intensified by the immersive conditions typical of community-based research in polar environments, leading to social and physical safety risks for community members and visiting researchers [20,21]. Researchers may experience vicarious or secondary trauma when engaging with communities affected by colonization, socioeconomic inequities, and environmental loss [22,23]. Additionally, researchers unaware of the multifaceted ways trauma presents may risk retraumatizing those who have endured the intergenerational effects of colonialism [24]. Exposure to grief, inequality, or hardship can lead to burnout and compassion fatigue for researchers and for community collaborators [22,23]. These emotional and relational impacts can undermine personal wellness, the long-term sustainability of Indigenous research partnerships, and scientific achievements.

Informed by our personal experiences as Arctic researchers, we recognize the urgent need for culturally appropriate, trauma-informed practices and training to equip all research collaborators to navigate mental, emotional, and relational challenges that may arise in research, whether it concerns social science, natural science, or anything in between. We argue that training in trauma awareness and community care should be required education, not treated as optional or peripheral. To this end, Indigenous and feminist scholarship underscore the value of community care and relational accountability [22,25]. Trauma-informed care has been widely adopted in education, healthcare, and social work, where it improves outcomes and reduces harm for both providers/educators and clients/students [26]. Some higher education institutions are beginning to adopt culturally responsive, trauma-informed approaches [27]. See First Alaskan’s Institute for resources [28]. Although there are significant available resources on trauma-informed research, the integration of these lessons learned into the planning and execution of natural science fieldwork is lacking [29]. Arctic science would benefit from adapting and integrating this growing body of knowledge into research, policy, education, and field practices.

Currently, cultural sensitivity training is essential to prepare researchers to work respectfully across cultures, prevent harm, and ensure epistemological equity: that Indigenous Knowledges are valued alongside academic knowledge [30]. While cultural sensitivity training is necessary, it is not the same as developing trauma-informed research practices. Indigenous scholars emphasize that trauma-informed training must go beyond simply checking a “cultural safety” box for compliance [31–33]. Training in trauma-informed practice can teach invaluable skills for Arctic research where collaborators can benefit from understanding the external and internal dynamics that nurture safe working spaces [34].

Holistic trauma-informed research requires researchers to not only navigate the intergenerational effects of colonialization but also embrace Indigenous joy. Joy is a pathway in research towards Indigenous knowledge renewal and intergenerational knowledge transfer [11]. It can combat the gloom and doom climate change narrative that Arctic researchers risk reinforcing, and help shift policy conversations towards adaptation, resilience, and sovereignty [35–37].

Effective programs are ongoing, co-led by Indigenous experts, evaluated for impact, and embedded into institutional structures. Collective and institutionally supported trauma education can transform research systems and should be a baseline requirement for researchers, students, and administrative staff will help ensure polar research is scientifically rigorous, ethically grounded, culturally respectful, and sustainable for future generations [38–40]. It is important to note that one-off and short-term compulsory trainings can backfire [41]. Training alone rarely changes organizational practices without structural changes and increased accountability for all those engaged in the research process. Therefore, all trainings must be co-designed and community oriented [42].

To achieve this transformation, the polar research community should commit to three specific actions. First, funders and research institutions should require comprehensive, co-designed trauma-informed research practice trainings for all team members, including administrators, decision-makers, principal investigators, and Early Career Researchers. Second, these trainings should be embedded into project timelines and budgets, ensuring they are revisited throughout the research cycle rather than treated as pre-fieldwork formalities. Third, the effectiveness of these trainings should be evaluated in partnership with Indigenous communities, with feedback loops that allow for adaptation and improvement over time [33].

Priority 2: Reimagine research into a cyclical rather than linear process

The dominant model of Western science follows a linear trajectory where researchers identify a problem, design a study, collect and analyze data, publish results, and then move on to the next iteration of a project. The dominant knowledge ‘production’ process can generate valuable insights, but it reinforces a system in which research is an extractive, one-way process with benefits flowing to researchers [43]. Although established researchers can sometimes benefit from a more cyclical research process, this is not always the case. However, this is not the framework Early Career Researchers have the luxury of working due to academic timelines and requirements. Early Career Researchers working with Indigenous communities and Knowledges are therefore faced with significant tension while attempting to do research in a good way.

A cyclical approach to research, rooted in Indigenous epistemologies, emphasizes relationality, recognizing that research is embedded within ongoing relationships among humans, non-humans, and the environment [12,44]. A cyclical process is an ongoing exchange where knowledges, resources, and outcomes flow bidirectionally. It honors reciprocity. Findings are returned to communities in meaningful ways with processes designed to adapt to evolving priorities, seasonal rhythms, and place-based realities [45,46]. The cyclical research framework illustrated in Fig 1 reflects this. Each stage feeds into the next, underpinned by trust, communication, and respect.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Reimagining cyclical, seasonal, non-linear research processes.

Generalized depiction of a research process imagined as cyclical and seasonal rather than linear, with key cultural and seasonal events in an Arctic community incorporated into the timeline. The diagram highlights continuous and iterative feedback, with adaptations made throughout the process in response to community needs and priorities.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000829.g001

Research conducted in an inclusive, respectful, and engaged manner at every stage of the research process and of one’s career leads to better outcomes [47]. Such an approach ensures that research produces actionable science that responds to community priorities and results in tangible benefits [43]. Central to developing cyclical research models is revaluation of disciplinary silos [48]. Arctic communities face complex challenges that require transdisciplinary expertise, such as the compounding effects of climate change, globalization, and social transformations. Therefore, breaking down disciplinary silos and working towards applied research models is particularly important within the natural sciences, while stronger research collaboration between the natural and social sciences is another prerequisite. [49–51]. How these challenges interact and impact communities cannot be understood within traditional disciplinary boundaries. They require a shift towards applied science as well as proper valuation of Indigenous Knowledge systems, lived realities, and non-academic experience and expertise [52]. Then holistic research insights can be developed that not only acknowledge the complexity of the challenges at hand but also serve to bring about Indigenous resilience.

As Early Career Researchers, we call for a fundamental restructuring that allows cyclical research practices at all career stages. Funding mechanisms and research timelines must become more flexible to accommodate the realities of Early Career Researchers conducting research in partnership with communities, rather than reinforcing rigid academic calendars and grant cycles that privilege institutional convenience. We urge funders and institutions to prioritize the development of holistic, transdisciplinary research programs that elevate applied science and directly address the Arctic community priorities. Especially important is making structural changes that allow for Early Career Researchers to engage in cyclical research in a good way. Research timelines should be aligned with the rhythms of the land, sea, ice, and community life including hunting seasons, cultural events, and local governance processes [53], so that projects reflect Indigenous and community priorities rather than academic deadlines. These structural changes are essential to ensure that research is rigorous, meaningful, actionable, and grounded in reciprocal relationships.

Priority 3: Redefine research success to be inclusive of non-Western, non-academic, non-bibliometric achievements

Dominant Western research systems value academic publishing as the prevailing marker of success [54]. Funding, graduation, and promotion decisions are largely based upon quantitative metrics such as publication reach, citation metrics, media engagement, and past success in securing grants [55]. Long-term, these measurements of success help reinforce the power dynamics in research benefiting Western researchers and their institutions [14]. Therefore, conducting ethical research in the Arctic and with Arctic communities requires a reenvisioning of how we measure success on an individual- and project-level. The goal should not be for Indigenous peoples to conform to Western academic values, but to transform academia to be inclusive of Indigenous value systems. To do this, research needs to prioritize relational values and honor commitments to community.

These changes need to be instituted at every stage of academia. Admissions, graduation requirements, hiring, funding, and promotion criteria should value Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous language proficiency, and community expertise. Scholarship and programmatic funding criteria should be expanded beyond academic programs to include Indigenous-led trainings, apprenticeships, and community learning programs. Additionally, academic systems have a great need for Indigenous staff, Elders-in-residence, and culturally relevant student support systems that are necessary for cultivating cultural safety [56]. But to attract this labor, academic institutions must be spaces where Indigenous employees are valued and celebrated as their whole selves. This labor needs to be appropriately recognized, because Indigenous scholars disproportionately carry the burden of academic service work such as reconciliation committees, community engagement and outreach that is institutionally undervalued [9].

Westernized concepts of success can and do impact how research projects are carried out in communities [12]. Instead of prioritizing bibliometric successes, project evaluation can prioritize benefits for Indigenous communities - as defined by communities. Community partners may prioritize specific outcomes outside of or in addition to peer-reviewed journal articles. Achieving such outcomes requires Indigenous oversight throughout the research process with opportunities for reflection built in to enable project adaptation as necessary. Assessment reports on the social and environmental impacts of research should be led by the values of and conducted in ways that are culturally relevant to the Arctic communities in which the research takes place.

Doing research in this way requires more relationship building, longer timelines, and funding structures set up in a manner to accommodate identifying research questions, methods, and successes as part of a community-involved process rather than the pre-condition of funding. Centering relationality and trust building between researchers and community partners can result in fruitful long-term relationships [57]. Relationship building requires cross-cultural communication skills that academic institutions often fail to recognize as a strength [58]. Academic institutions need to embrace the reality that prioritizing community-facing products often means slower development of conventional academic-facing products such as journal publications. The Translational Science Benefits Model (See Luke et al., 2018) can be a resource to assess intangible and long-term benefits of research projects to communities in this way [59]. Results dissemination and knowledge mobilization should be culturally aware to include appropriate methods such as sharing circles, workshops, one-on-one dialogues, radio, video, and Facebook [60]. Furthermore, Indigenous scholars and community members must travel for conferences that are held in Western formats in Western institutions, even as these scholars are the subject matter experts. More effort should be made to convene experts and Early Career Researchers on the land as modes for knowledge and process sharing [43,58].

Priority 4: Decentralize institutions as arbiters of research processes

Historically and today, Western institutions largely control research funding, academic credentialing, knowledge production, and knowledge dissemination, which results in control over what and how research is done, even within Indigenous lands and waters and with Indigenous communities [7,61]. To address these inequities, we must prioritize Indigenous research sovereignty, meaning the power Indigenous communities have to dictate the research that takes place within their territories and communities [30,62,63]. This will require Western institutions and researchers to create space and invest in Indigenous leadership in research [64]. By decentralizing their role and enabling community leadership, academia can contribute to, rather than dominate, research objectives and process. Western research institutions rarely control research funds outright, which constrains their ability to decentralize. However, they can make space for Indigenous leadership by shifting authority and supporting direct community funding.

Academic programs are expanding to provide pathways to credentialing and research rooted in Indigenous Knowledge systems. For example, the University of Alaska Fairbanks’ Tamamta Program and Ilisimatusarfik’s (University of Greenland) SILA program are examples of higher education systems that have progressed towards greater incorporation of Indigenous Knowledge, land-based learning, and Indigenous leadership [65,66]. The Dechinta Centre for Research and Learning in Yellowknife, Canada, provides accredited opportunities for students entirely rooted in land-based pedagogy, signifying an alternative pathway to redistribute education from centralized Western institutions towards Indigenous-led systems [67]. Currently, Inuit Tapariit Kanatami in Canada is developing an Inuit Nunangat University that plans to accept students starting in 2030 [68].

Many Tribal Colleges and Universities empower communities to drive research agendas based on their own needs and values. While the above examples offer accredited degrees, they are still small in scale and funding compared to traditional Western universities [69]. Moving forward, we want to see more integrated programs at traditionally Western universities, as well as increased recognition and resources for Indigenous-led education systems. This priority is critical as the current U.S. administration is drastically reducing funding for these programs and colleges, especially as the U.S. is the largest funder of Arctic research [70,71].

Indigenous Peoples should not need to be codified within academic systems to be eligible for direct research funding. In response to strong advocacy from Indigenous communities across the Arctic and the Inuit Circumpolar Council, many agencies that fund Arctic research have made progress in requiring community engagement and notification for research activities, providing resources for co-generated research, and supporting the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge in research design [72,73]. Regardless, there is a pressing need for democratization of funding support to facilitate Indigenous communities’ direct access to funding to ensure they can conduct research on topics that are most relevant to their priorities and executed in ways that are culturally appropriate [30,74]. We advocate for funding organizations to establish grant mechanisms that allow for funding to be held directly by Indigenous communities rather than distributed to research institutions and redistributed to Indigenous community research partners via contracts and sub-awards. For example, increased availability of seed funding and long-term funding options that are dedicated to establishing, building, and maintaining fundamental research infrastructure within Indigenous communities [30]. This would empower communities to define their own research agendas and address the issues most critical to their cultural, environmental, and social well-being. Addressing structural barriers in grant funding in Indigenous communities requires Western research institutions to strengthen support for tribally directed research infrastructure, including through grants management training and improved communication about funding opportunities.

Where relevant, prioritizing funding towards institutions that incorporate Indigenous Knowledge, land-based learning, and Indigenous leadership may encourage interdisciplinary adoption of such approaches. The structural changes in funding mechanisms that we call for should be seriously considered as policymakers, research priorities, and agenda setting are established for the IPY5.

Priority 5: Improve infrastructure for researcher-community communication

Communities have long expressed the need for greater transparency and regular updates from researchers [73,75,76]. Equitable engagement between researchers and communities requires clear, consistent, and accessible communication infrastructure. In nearly all cases, in-person visits are the most efficient way for researchers to understand community priorities. Researchers must understand the local, specific, and community contexts in the places they work to conduct ethically engaged research. To do this, communities ask researchers to care about the communities in which they work, and care about how research done on Indigenous lands can have myriad consequences for the communities themselves [12,14,57,77]. Therefore, it is important for researchers to spend time in community to build trust, establish relationships, and understand local customs and values [78,79]. These genuine face-to-face interactions allow researchers to engage more deeply with community members by creating opportunities for informal conversations that can reveal insights often missed in modes of communication more normalized in the academic space [80]. However, given the international nature of Arctic research, we advocate for the following considerations when improving communication of community priorities using digital technologies.

Indigenous communities in the Arctic frequently face limited internet connectivity and few opportunities for digital literacy or skill development [81]. Home satellite internet systems (i.e., Starlink) have significantly improved digital connectivity in Arctic communities, creating new opportunities for education, communication, and access to information [81]. While younger generations adopt internet-based education and digital training, many older community members remain largely disconnected from technologies that academic researchers may be accustomed [82]. For example, Elders in Nuiqsut, Alaska, have voiced that major oil exploration and development projects have been approved without their full participation due to online community input meetings with federal agencies, limiting the participation of Elders without internet access [83].

Although there are gaps in technology access among many Indigenous communities of the Arctic, there are still many people who regularly use internet-based social media platforms for communication. In fact, these platforms may often be preferred to email, text, and virtual meetings [84]. Recognizing that conventional academic communication channels, including email, are not widely used within some communities, we encourage researchers to adapt their approach by using platforms and practices more familiar to the community partners in which they work. These can include Facebook posts, messenger groups, videos, radio, and in-person updates delivered during community gatherings.

Over the past 30 years, participatory research strategies have advanced equity and transparency in research with, or research that affects, Arctic Indigenous communities. Despite this progress, as contemporary Early Career Researchers, we advocate for outright Indigenous leadership of research activities that directly impact Indigenous lands and communities. Community-based roles that support research, such as data collectors, translators, guides, and local research coordinators remain important infrastructure to ensure that research is culturally grounded and contextually relevant [85]. Individuals who serve in these roles are critical for providing continuity between projects that have occurred in their community. However, supportive roles being staffed by Indigenous community members does not equate to Indigenous control over research priorities [86,87]. At the least, formal structures such as community research committees or advisory councils provide platforms through which community voices can be systematically integrated into research agendas [88].

Developing structural capacity to support research sovereignty includes investing in infrastructure that enables communities to lead and manage research on their own terms. This is especially relevant in data sovereignty to ensure information about Indigenous lands, waters, and people are owned by, operable by, and accessible to, communities in which the research takes place [89–91].

Institutions should facilitate mechanisms that bridge community-defined research priorities with academic research goals and tools. For example, platforms that allow Indigenous communities to articulate their research needs can help match communities with researchers who share aligned interests. Such structures not only foster more meaningful collaboration but also advance community self-determination in the research process [74]. Arctic observing networks should be envisioned to be bi-directional to not only facilitate data gathering but to convey community research priorities, needs, and facilitate connections in expertise across knowledge systems. In this way, community priorities can be advertised to the Arctic research community and paired with appropriate personnel, rather than researchers seeking the best geographic or community “fit” for their research interests.

Priority 6: Make education on Indigenous ways of knowing and doing mandatory in undergraduate and graduate programs, and a prerequisite for participation in community-driven research in the Arctic

Implementing mandatory education in Indigenous ways of knowing, being, and doing is essential for ethical and effective research in the Arctic. Such training should be embedded in undergraduate and graduate programs as a core component of education for future researchers. However, Indigenous Peoples are researchers, scholars, and scientists in their own right - not just community members to engage for the purpose of conducting research [92]. Many Early Career Researchers arrive to northern communities to conduct research with little or no prior training on Indigenous Knowledge systems, methodologies, or the historical and political context of colonialism [93]. Engaging respectfully and meaningfully in Indigenous contexts requires more than just cultural awareness and “integrating” Indigenous perspectives; it demands an understanding of the epistemologies and experiences that guide Indigenous ways of knowing and doing [94]. This means that education must go beyond cultural awareness training to include Indigenous research methodologies. By approaching Indigenous methodologies as valid on their own terms, students can expand their understanding of multiple ways of knowing, broadening rather than replacing Western science approaches. Without education on Indigenous science and methodologies, even well-intentioned research risks replicating extractive practices and reinforcing colonial power structures.

Researchers should not view Indigenous methodologies as something that can “fit” into existing Western research frameworks. As Shawn Wilson (2008) states, Indigenous research paradigms are complete systems of knowing and doing in their own right [12]. They are not simply tools to be applied to Indigenous “subjects” or communities, but ways of being that shape every stage of research – from the questions asked to how knowledge is shared and who benefits. However, the structure of Western institutions makes it challenging to teach Indigenous studies using Indigenous ways [95]. For example, a central component of Indigenous education involves land-based learning. Land-based learning is not only a cultural practice but a mode of teaching and knowing, and it is fundamentally different from classroom-based or didactic instruction [92,96]. While lectures and readings can introduce concepts, they are not sufficient for understanding Indigenous Knowledge, which is relational, experiential, and grounded in place. Here, land is pedagogy; knowledge is inseparable from the land (See Simpson, 2014; Deloria and Wildcat, 2001; Todd, 2016; Wilson, 2008; Harris, 2002) [12,92,95,97,98]. Without engagement with the land, Indigenous education cannot be taught in a way that reflects the knowledge system it seeks to represent. Land-based learning should thus be a required component of any Indigenous methodology training, not as a symbolic gesture or a cultural experience but as a core method of learning. In Arctic Indigenous communities, land is not just the backdrop to research, it’s an active participant in the creation of knowledge. Seasons and other ecosystem cycles offer guidance on timing, methods, and priorities, and it’s important to engage with these cycles of the environment (Fig 2). When science is more grounded in the landscape and researchers learn on, from, and with the land alongside Indigenous partners, the research will be more informed by lived, place-based experience, rather than merely abstracted from it, benefitting the community and improving scientific outcomes [99].

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Nunatsiavut seasonal calendar.

Reproduced with permission from authors from Cadman et al., 2025 [53]. This seasonal round is drawn by Jessica Winters from Nunatsiavut. It represents Labrador Inuit relationships to their environment through the seasons.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000829.g002

Training in Indigenous methodologies is relevant for anyone who will or does work with Indigenous peoples in the Arctic, regardless of discipline, background, or the nature of the research. Research is a tool of colonization, and shifting its future requires restructuring how we teach across disciplines [14]. Indigenous methodologies are often misrepresented as only applicable to the social sciences or Indigenous studies, when in fact they offer valuable frameworks for natural sciences, health research, and environmental monitoring, particularly when grounded in community contexts [12,44]. To truly shift the culture of Arctic research, Indigenous methodologies must not be disciplinarily siloed (i.e., relegated to seminars or certain disciplines).

Several existing programs provide models for embedding Indigenous onto-epistemologies into formalized educational instruction. The forementioned Dechinta Centre for Research and Learning and SILA program at Ilisimatusarfik are examples [66,67]. Additionally, the University of Northern British Columbia Northern Studies Program provides interdisciplinary training on northern issues, centering Indigenous perspectives [100]. The Indigenous and Rural Health PhD Program at Montana State University prepares scholars to address health inequities through community-based research grounded in Indigenous ways of knowing, allowing practitioners in and from rural contexts to serve their communities directly [101]. Since 2019, the University of Alaska system requires that undergraduate students complete 3 credits in an Alaska Native-themed course as a general education requirement, marking progress towards institutionalizing Indigenous alongside Western pedagogy [102]. Each of these institutions represent the forefront of Indigenous-centered education that we wish to see embraced by Arctic-serving research and educational institutions.

Universities engaged in Arctic research should require graduate and undergraduate students to take Indigenous methodology courses – ideally Indigenous-led with land-based components – for all students working in or with Indigenous communities, regardless of their discipline. These experiences must be carefully designed in partnership with Indigenous communities to avoid performativity or extractive learning.

Next steps towards IPY5 in 2032–33

The Fifth International Polar Year must represent a turning point towards research that centers equity, reciprocity, and Indigenous leadership. By stepping away from extractive, one-directional research and toward iterative, relationship-centered processes, science can more fully reflect and serve the realities of the Arctic and its inhabitants, and be better prepared to combat the growing threats of climate change. As Early Career Researchers, we write this article not as a manual for ethical Arctic research, but to empower everyone within their respective institutions to take meaningful steps towards decolonizing their research practices and the structures and processes that enable them.

For researchers across career stages, this is an opportunity for reflection and accountability. We invite readers to consider their own positions of power within institutional systems that perpetuate harmful research practices [103]. We challenge you to identify concrete ways to push for change within your own institutions, departments, and research teams. We encourage you to use this article as a starting point for lab group discussions, or as an annotated bibliography of Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars who have long articulated the priorities we condense above. For principal investigators and lab leaders, we urge you to foster open dialogues with your students and early career colleagues about these issues, especially those of us who do or may spend time in Arctic communities. See Kaikkonen et al. 2025 for recommendations on how to do so effectively [104].

For institutions and those that hold power, especially as they are connected to designing the path and priorities towards IPY5 and beyond, consider implementation of Early Career Researcher priorities. Early Career Researchers often spend more time in the field and in direct relationships with communities than those who make funding and institutional decisions [105]. Our insights matter. We emphasize that the changes we call for are holistic. They cannot be reduced to a checklist of best-practices or one-off initiatives. Real transformation requires commitments to relationality, accountability, and justice across all levels and structures of research. Only through such comprehensive change can polar research move beyond its colonial legacies and towards a more equitable, sustainable, and relationship-centered future.