The challenge of meaningful knowledge mobilization of climate change research in the Canadian Arctic for early-career researchers
Publication: FACETS
31 March 2025
Abstract
Communication of research related to climate change in a way that is meaningful and respectful to Indigenous Peoples is challenging. While engagement with Indigenous communities is now increasingly incorporated into the expected standard of research processes in academia, early career researchers face challenges such as funding limitations, extensive regulatory processes, and timeframes that exceed the duration of a normal graduate-level degree. To better understand the obstacles that early career researchers are faced with, and subsequently provide some guidance on how these barriers can be mitigated, six interviews with practitioners of knowledge mobilization in the Canadian Arctic were conducted. Participants suggested that, while communicating knowledge purposefully depends largely on the research context and communities involved, researchers are encouraged to be well-informed, resourceful, and flexible in their research approaches. By applying these recommendations outlined by experienced practitioners, and reviewing academic literature, early career researchers can mitigate logistical and cultural barriers and communicate knowledge in a more culturally sensitive manner. More community-based research is needed to continue to enhance the understanding of how to mobilize knowledge on climate change in a meaningful way, to create more informed guidelines and support systems, and to make them widely accessible to researchers at all stages of their careers.
Introduction
To better understand the context of climate change in the Arctic, it is important to widen the perspective on how knowledge generated should subsequently be communicated. Insights from knowledge mobilization can have far-reaching implications on national and international policymaking (Flynn and Ford 2020). Yet, the communication of climate change remains an inherently difficult task, due to the scope, complexity, and variability of change. Uncertainty has introduced controversy and skepticism among some elements of society (Ballantyne 2016). Many causal links between the changes seen and experienced are yet to be understood, which is even more apparent when discussing Arctic systems. As such, the contextualization and communication of climate change research often requires a definition of what the message will be to effectively communicate it.
Technical language is difficult to absorb and appreciate, and researchers often have a difficult time summarizing results in a way that is non-technical, yet at the same time preserves core findings (McBean and Hengeveld 2000). Intrinsically, communication about climate change requires careful thought into the purpose of the message, how it should be framed, who should frame it, and which mode or channel of communication is most appropriate (Moser 2016). There are many different conceptualizations and synonyms for communicating research in the literature, which differ slightly based on discipline. Burns et al. (2003) define science communication as “the use of appropriate skills, media, activities, and dialogue” (p. 191). This definition emphasizes that science communication should produce awareness, effective responses, interest, opinions, and understanding of the information communicated, which focuses on the intention for intervention and application as a principal mechanism for communication (Burns et al. 2003). Similarly, the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC 2021) defines knowledge mobilization as “the reciprocal and complementary flow and uptake of research knowledge between researchers, knowledge brokers, and knowledge users—both within and beyond academia”. In practice, this implies that a two-way transfer of knowledge, the demonstration of reciprocal and complementary flow, should inform research priorities, theories, and methodologies within academia. Outside of academia the ability to engage and communicate reciprocally should inform public debates and policymaking, as well as lead to informed decision-making by businesses, governments, the global media, and civilians (SSHRC 2021).
In a diverse society, effective communication and informed decision-making require the representation of all parties involved. For the Arctic, knowledge of the environment has been the foundation of the culture, heritage, and governance of Inuit for generations; yet, anthropogenic climate change has challenged multiple scales of the interconnectedness between the environment and society (Durkalec et al. 2015). Maintaining harmony and continually planning and preparing for the future are core cultural beliefs of Inuit (Tagalik 2012); however, an increasingly variable climate has directly challenged these concepts within a person’s lifetime (Watt-Cloutier 2015). Traditional provisioning related to the subsistence-sharing economy for Inuit practiced over generations has very recently been disrupted by unpredictable weather related to climate variability (Wenzel 2009; Pearce et al. 2015).
The need for more research on how climate change influences the Arctic and its Peoples is clear, but effective communication of the knowledge generated from these studies to communities is equally as important (Barber et al. 2008; Moser 2016). To ensure effective communication, researchers are encouraged to draft a communication plan in the early stages of their research, and if applicable, appoint a member of the research team with the task of overseeing the implementation of this plan. By using plain language and keeping it relevant to the community, researchers can avoid community distrust and encourage meaningful discourse with community members (ARI 2013). The importance of such discourse is reflected in the Indigenous concept of Etuaptmumk (two-eyed seeing), which was initially introduced by Mi'kmaw Elders Albert and Murdena Marshall of the Eskasoni First Nation to make scientific approaches more knowledge-inclusive (Bartlett et al. 2012). It emphasizes that a combination of Western scientific knowledge paradigms, Indigenous knowledge systems, and collaboration between scientists and Indigenous Peoples in research is key to a more holistic understanding and meaningful communication (Wright et al. 2019). While reciprocal communication and engagement with Indigenous Peoples are now recognized as a principal basis for decision-making in Canada, researchers often do not know how to initiate these conversations before, during, and after their projects (Bowie 2013; Henri et al. 2020). When the community’s and researcher’s needs and interests converge, it can lead to a highly productive collaborative partnership, through which knowledge can be co-produced in a way that benefits all parties involved. Wolfe et al. (2011) reflect on such a scenario, where an International Polar Year (IPY) project in Old Crow in the Yukon, was developed in close partnership over several years to further the understanding of the impact of climate change on the environment and society. However, many researchers continue to struggle with meaningful community involvement and communication, even if they have the right intention from the onset. This is partially due to discussions and disagreements about research agency, research impact, and appropriate methodologies which continue to get in the way of a two-way transfer of knowledge and collaboration between researchers and Indigenous communities (Gearheard and Shirley 2007).
While these challenges are not limited to any particular group of researchers, they add an additional layer of complexity for early career researchers (ECRs). There is currently no universal clear-cut definition for ECRs. In practice, ECRs are often defined based on their age, career duration, or academic experience (Frandsen and Nicolaisen 2024). Here, ECRs are defined by university students (bachelor, master, and doctoral candidates) and post-doctoral researchers (Bohleber et al. 2020). In other words, this study refers to researchers who are contracted for a short period, typically ranging from 2 to 4 years depending on program requirements. As such, given that community-based approaches to research take time, ECRs can often struggle with the allotted time window associated with their undergraduate or graduate programs. While budgetary obstacles are always an issue, the lack of time to gain the amount of experience necessary to conduct meaningful engagement with Indigenous Peoples is a primary challenge, especially for ECRs (Tondu et al. 2014). Likewise, meaningful knowledge mobilization requires an enhanced understanding of local contexts, followed by clear guidelines on how engagement should occur and how communication can be improved on the individual research scale—which in practice takes years of experience and collaboration to develop. Ford and Flynn (2020) suggest that there is no one success formula for knowledge mobilization, but rather a general guideline that needs to be adapted into specific cultural contexts within the North American Arctic. Three key principles are suggested for effective knowledge mobilization: respect, mutual understanding, and researcher responsibility (Ford and Flynn 2020). In practice, however, this implementation remains challenging, especially within the natural sciences, where researchers receive very little training on community-based research (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). Additionally, while these guidelines are addressing knowledge mobilization for researchers more broadly, there currently remains limited guidance on how to overcome some of these logistical challenges outlined above, specifically directed at ECRs who may face additional obstacles due to limited experience and access to resources (Tondu et al. 2014; Flynn and Ford 2020).
Here, we establish how experienced practitioners of knowledge mobilization in the Arctic recommend ECRs to approach communication of climate change-related research in the Canadian Arctic. By drawing on the perspectives of experienced practitioners, we (1) outline common challenges and barriers for ECRs to conduct and communicate their research in a way that is meaningful to the target audience, (2) provide informed guidelines as starting points for ECRs to engage in more meaningful science communication despite common challenges, and (3) highlight knowledge gaps for future work to advance the current understanding and guidelines on how climate change research should be communicated in practice. Through these reflections on challenges and recommendations outlined by practitioners, the goal was to contribute to the ongoing discussion about how to make science communication more community-focused, while also encouraging researchers to think about their role in the purposeful mobilization of knowledge early on in their research process.
Methods
Research approach
This research addresses typical challenges with community engagement and knowledge mobilization in the early research experience of ECRs. We aim to outline typical challenges, provide recommendations, and highlight remaining knowledge gaps to guide future research. As such, the intention was to get recommendations from experienced practitioners on how ECRs can overcome these barriers in practice, while also providing an insight into the current practices of knowledge mobilization in the Arctic. This approach, informed by practitioners of knowledge mobilization of research, allows for well-informed perspectives while keeping flexibility for more detailed discourse into experts’ insights (Ahlin 2019). As such, semi-structured interviews with experienced practitioners in the Canadian Arctic were chosen as an appropriate and feasible method to answer these three research objectives.
Preparation and ethics approval
It is often difficult to know how to disseminate knowledge to communities in a meaningful and effective way, which requires engagement in the current best practices of knowledge mobilization. Initial conversations with the Aurora Research Institute (ARI) and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC) helped frame the scope and focus of this project (Fig. 1). Following these discussions, the three research objectives for this study were drafted by the lead researcher to capture and summarize the main points of mutual research interest identified during virtual meetings with the IRC. Subsequently, a Knowledge Co-Production Agreement was drafted between the researchers and the IRC to specify the terms of collaboration and shared data ownership. Feedback on the research approach and design was sought from Indigenous organizations in July 2023. Based on these initial conversations, many of which were conducted in person or via Microsoft Teams, two Research Ethics Board (REB) applications were submitted in parallel to Dalhousie University (REB No. 2023-6747) and the ARI. A pre-existing Natural Science research license (Northwest Territories Scientific Research License No. 17199) was amended by the ARI to incorporate the social-scientific aspects of this research project. A provisional approval from the REB at Dalhousie University was subsequently submitted to the ARI for their approval, which was then accepted by the Dalhousie REB. A Nunavut Research Institute license was not required for seeking an organizations policy or direction on how communities are consulted, or how the results of data collection are presented.
Fig. 1.
Semi-structured interview process
Practitioners from four Arctic organizations, which were identified as experts in climate change-related research with respect to Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic, were invited, either via phone or email, to participate in a 30–60 min interview on how academic researchers in Canada should approach knowledge mobilization. In this research context, relevant expertise was defined as meeting both of the following recruitment criteria: (1) Working for a local, regional or national organization in the Canadian Arctic related to scientific research, (2) current or previous work experience in a role related to community engagement and knowledge mobilization in climate change research. Participation was voluntary and each participant was provided an opportunity to have informed consent; the ability to review the study objectives and agree to interview questions on their own time before the scheduled interview date. All meetings were conducted virtually via Microsoft Teams. At the start of each interview, the participant was verbally briefed on the information outlined on the consent form, including the purpose of the research, the right to withdraw, data management procedures, and measures of confidentiality (see supplementary material), and asked for permission for audio recording. All semi-structured interviews were conducted in English. The researcher followed an interview guide with a list of qualitative questions and conversational prompts (see supplementary material). After each interview, participants were asked to review their choices made on the consent form and apply any changes if wished. Participants were informed that they would be recontacted for any direct use of their knowledge, such as quotes, for approval.
Thematic content analysis
Interviews were transcribed promptly after the completion of each interview. The transcript from each participant was shared for review and correction if necessary. Recordings were subsequently deleted. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed using content analysis with NVivo 12 software. Key themes and subthemes were identified using the iterative categorization method, a mixture of deductive and inductive coding as described by Neale (2016), to identify commonalities among the participants’ responses. For this process, two key themes (Challenges and Recommendations) were deductively identified from the research objectives as reflected within the interview guide, while all sub-nodes were inductively and iteratively identified based on the content of participants’ responses. To do so, interview transcripts were read closely, and responses from each participant were manually coded in the form of descriptive inductive nodes in the software. To reduce redundancy and complexity of the dataset, these nodes were then merged into apparent sub-themes based on commonality and sorted under the matching key theme (Table 1). Quotations from transcripts to reinforce topics were chosen and shared with participants for permission for use.
Table 1.
| Key-theme (deductive codes) | Sub-theme (grouped inductive codes) | Sub-codes (inductive codes) | Interviewee response (real text example) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenges | Finances | High cost | “I totally understand that sometimes the researcher, young researcher may be brought on to a project that the supervisor has tofundingfor, and you're not necessarily able to access some of those dollars.” (P6) |
| Remoteness | “We don't have trains or buses or highways. All we can do is fly, so thecostbecomes a factor for the external researchers to come in.“ (P1) | ||
| Timelines | “Within that two years of a masters or four years of a PhD or three years of afunding cycle, that's well within the time limits, but for community members, a lot has happened in a year or two years or three years.“ (P3) |
Limitations
Due to time and budget constraints, the total sample size of this study was limited to six participants. However, knowing these limitations ahead of time, particular care was taken during the recruitment process to involve practitioners from organizations at the local, regional, and national level. In this way, while this sample may not be representative of all organizations in the Canadian Arctic, it does give a broad insight into the practices and experiences across these institutional levels. Each participant was selected for their professional experience and expertise with community engagement and knowledge mobilization in the Canadian Arctic. While it may have been insightful to use focus groups or workshops, including both ECRs and experienced practitioners to discuss challenges and recommendations together, this was not feasible due to the time and budget constraints faced by the lead researcher (who is an ECR). This would have also required a more extensive ethics and license process for data collection that would likely exceed the timeframe of a master’s degree. In a way, these limitations in themselves provide further justification for the necessity of future work in this field, as it highlights the barriers that ECRs face within their research process.
Results
The goal of this research was to scope out common challenges with community engagement and meaningful knowledge mobilization in the Canadian Arctic faced by ECRs, address those challenges by providing generally applicable guidelines to overcome these challenges, and identify important knowledge gaps for future research. As such, interview participants were selected for their professional experience with community engagement and knowledge mobilization of research in the Canadian Arctic. A total of six practitioners from the Northwest Territories and Nunavut were interviewed (Table 2). Half of the participants indicated that they grew up in the Canadian Arctic, while the other half indicated that they moved to the Arctic for work at a later stage in life. Five of the participants interviewed identified that they were currently in a profession that is directly involved with knowledge mobilization of climate change research, while one indicated to have worked in this capacity in a previous role. The following sections outline the challenges and recommendations based on the content analysis of these six expert interviews.
Table 2.
| Participant Code | Affiliation | Involvement |
|---|---|---|
| P1 | Territorial organization | Conservation projects Community outreach International conferences |
| P2 | Territorial organization | Research promotion Community outreach Press releases |
| P3 | Regional organization | Community-based programs Community research priorities |
| P4 | Territorial organization | Research training Community outreach National conferences |
| P5 | Territorial organization | Research licensing Research logistical support Community outreach |
| P6 | National organization | Research strategy Policy advice Community outreach (Inter)national conferences |
All participants mentioned that they, or their organization, are frequently consulted by external researchers on how to communicate their research back to Arctic communities in a meaningful way—and all six participants agreed that there is a need for better and more purposeful communication of knowledge in climate change research. Participants mentioned different means by which they work together with communities to obtain feedback and guidance on how to conduct knowledge mobilization in a more dedicated way, including community visits, consultations with community leaders, workshops, presentations, youth outreach projects, teleconferences, and surveys (P2; P3; P4; P5). When asked about the challenges they see for ECRs, participants voiced many from a logistical standpoint, as well as from a community engagement perspective (Fig. 2). To overcome some of those challenges, participants offered some recommendations on how to conduct research in a way that allows for a more meaningful knowledge exchange (Fig. 3).
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Challenges
During the interviews, participants identified many challenges that ECRs are faced with on their path to conducting and communicating their research in a meaningful way, which can be largely classified into logistical and cultural obstacles. All participants acknowledged the discrepancy between the high cost of research in the Arctic and the funding made available. Hosting in-person workshops or events to seek feedback from the community before the research project, as well as communicating research results back to the community, is therefore not always feasible. Many Arctic communities are very remote, and infrastructure is sparse, which makes community visits even more difficult (P1; P4). However, upfront in-person visits are fundamental in establishing close relationships with local partners and learning more about local research priorities, which is essential to shaping research designs and methodologies before the start of each project (P3; P5; P6). Participants highlighted the fact that community work takes a lot of time and local presence to build connections and trust, a process that often extends way beyond the timeline that a Master’s or Ph.D. project would allow for (P3; P4; P5). While diligent research takes time, life in the community continues, priorities shift, and results and outputs can fall behind (P5). Besides creating obstacles to knowledge mobilization, a lack of funding and limited time can also create other problems, such as a heightened willingness to take risks during bad weather conditions that can put both researchers and local research assistants at risk (P4);
“Occasionally we hear about researchers being a bit pushy, (…) they have their narrow time windows where they scheduled to be in the north, and they get there and maybe the weather is too dangerous to be going out to the site because that happens” (P4).
While licensing processes, ethics reviews, and community engagement are broadly known to be important, they also take time (P1). Between the high workload of staff and the fast turnover of employees in the Arctic, messages can get lost and non-responses can be high. This adds a layer of complexity where it is hard to keep track of the professionals to contact with questions concerning communication of knowledge (P2; P5; P6). Therefore, having well-connected networks is very important, but often ECRs do not have the time to establish these relationships upfront, which limits the availability of local support (P2; P3). Participants note that most academic researchers come from a Western context and would benefit from more guidance on how to conduct their research in a more culturally sensitive manner (P2). Cultural sensitivity is particularly important when it comes to communicating controversial research results to communities and the public, and it requires a lot of informed reading and immersion in the culture and history of the communities to avoid causing harm (P4; P6);
“I've seen that a lot with researchers where they're like, “Oh my God, I got this data on this new parasite that's coming to affecting the health of beluga whales. It can totally affect human health. I better tell somebody about that”. And they do it in very irresponsible manner, without any other contextualizing of the information - and so huge fear comes in, people stop eating. We have people in the Kivalliq region who do not eat beluga whale to this day because of a message that was given 40-50 years ago about mercury levels in beluga whale” (P6).
With the large volume of research projects, due to the increased interest in climate change impacts, participants said it is also crucial to make sure that the new research is relevant to the communities, to avoid generating research fatigue (P4; P5). If communities are overwhelmed with the sheer amount of research being conducted, research fatigue can constitute a barrier to community engagement in research and knowledge communication, as one participant highlighted (P5).
“I've heard this, that Inuit are one of the most studied people on Earth, and there is quite a lot of research fatigue that occurs. So, it's not really that we want more researchers, is that we want more quality researchers” (P4).
The history of research fatigue means that much more diligence is required to review baseline research on the topic before engagement with communities, such that feelings of repetition do not occur for subsequent projects on the same topic (P5). At the same time, ECRs should remain humble, recognize and accept when proposed projects are decided to not be moved forward (P4). Communication and engagement are also impeded by differences in language. Seldom are ECRs well-versed in the local dialects, or have the funds to hire a local translator, which further limits the scope of their outreach (P1; P5; P6).
Meaningful involvement of Indigenous Knowledge and skillsets within the principal research itself, let alone communication of results, is often challenging according to participants. Several participants noted that even with the creation of best practices to decolonize the research process, there remains a challenge to establish how effectively these policies are implemented on a small scale (P2; P5). For example, P5 noted that it is common place for research teams to contact a local outfitter for assistance in bear monitoring, but questions the applicability of this in terms of meaningful engagement:
“There's a lot of ways that researchers can claim that they are incorporating local knowledge or involving community members that are really perfunctory or not meaningful, but it's again so hard to really do a qualitative audit on all of these hundreds of projects to determine “OK, which are legitimately meaningfully incorporating new knowledge and building capacity and using that knowledge to inform our research approach?”. It's difficult” (P5).
Recommendations
Participants were asked how they would advise ECRs to communicate the knowledge produced by the work that they do. The recommendations that were given by the participants of this study can be summarized broadly as approaching research in a well-informed, resourceful, and flexible manner (Fig. 3).
Participants broadly suggested that researchers seek advice from communities at an early stage, ideally before the research project has started (P1; P2; P3; P5; P6). The highlighted benefit is to establish a grounded support network from an early point, which can be helpful both in shaping the research project to make it community-relevant and making a feasible project-tailored dissemination plan of how the research will be communicated to the community (P3; P5; P6). The best way of doing this well is through direct partnerships (P3; P4; P5; P6). Here, it can be helpful to have a supervisor who is well-connected with the communities of interest, to help establish these partnerships and make those connections on behalf of the student, to save time and resources (P3). Local partnerships are mutually beneficial in that they can provide important contacts, help you to identify your target audience, or help find effective modes of communication, such as connecting you with local schools or local media sources; but they can also make sure that your research is in line with local research priorities (P1; P2). Participants mentioned popular means of knowledge mobilizing in their communities, or communities they work with, are the use of local radio, hanging posters in the regional post office, organizing open houses, posting events and connecting on Facebook (P1; P2; P3; P5; P6). Proceeding, as well as alongside seeking advice, the ECRs should be doing a lot of background research, both on what has already been done on that specific research topic, as well as on the history and culture of the target community, as this will be a necessary step towards more culturally sensitive conduct, both concerning the research process itself and knowledge mobilization (P4; P5; P6);
“There are a number of stories, and I guess historical context, that researchers should be aware of coming working with Inuit, and I would advise that you become familiar with Inuit history, Inuit political history, and that sort of thing before coming up. That would help you recognize the sensitivities around certain subjects and that would go a long way toward not souring any relationships that you're trying to develop” (P4).
As P1 summarized, ultimately, the best approach is to “come up North and find out”. While spending time in Arctic communities is costly, setting a few extra days aside to attend community events has been noted to have an enormous value in building trust, as well as getting a sense of the community (P4). Participants pointed out that when thinking about knowledge communication, researchers must ask themselves what they are trying to achieve with the information that they are communicating, for example, whether the communication is directed at awareness or action (P5; P6). Likewise, research that focuses on passing information from Elders to youth is especially appreciated;
“We often like to involve youth in activities because that develops their skill set and it (…) makes for us to have a strong future workforce - not really the way I want to describe it - a strong future generation of adults. If they're able to have these opportunities for children, so any sort of research that incorporates that type of skill development in youth usually is a lot more favourable within a community” (P4).
With limited funding availabilities, ECRs often must be creative (P4; P6). For example, having a strong connection with local partners can be helpful to communicate research locally and avoid costly travel (P4). Being based in a “community hub city” (P4), where travel to the Arctic is more accessible due to the established infrastructure, can also further reduce some of the costs associated with communicating knowledge. However, most participants agreed that it is important for knowledge mobilization to be treated as a continuous process and occur throughout the project, and not be left until the end (P1; P3; P6).
Knowledge gaps
Discussions about the need for meaningful and effective knowledge mobilization are ongoing across all the Arctic organizations that were contacted for this study. The acknowledgment of vague protocols and guidelines was made during the conversations with participants. Participants noted that sometimes initiating communication with the community can be “as easy as” putting up a poster at the regional post office or making an announcement through the local radio or Facebook (P1; P2; P6). However, it is also important to establish and nourish strong relationships, based on mutual goals and interests for meaningful conversations to work well:
“You need both the buy-in from the researcher, and you need the buy-in from the regional organization, and you need the buy-in from the community to do [research] successfully - without that, without any of those things going, it’s not going to work” (P6).
As such, there remains a need to further the discussions on how to conduct and communicate research in a way that meets community needs, which may be different across communities. Here it is important to emphasize that to be able to develop more effective protocols and guidelines, research must be co-led and co-produced with equal power dynamics between researchers and Indigenous institutions:
“You already know what the project is, what the goals of the project are, and at that point in time if you’re asking community members, your thoughts – it’s not true collaboration, it is more extractive than anything else” (P3).
There will likely never be a “one-fits-all” answer for how to conduct effective communication and engagement, and it is highly dependent on the nature of the research, the community involved, and the partnerships and trust built between the researcher and the community (Wolfe et al. 2007; Pearce et al. 2009; Flynn and Ford 2020; P3). However, researchers, communities, and organizations will need to continue this conversation together, to expand mutual understanding, when it comes to communicating research;
“There’s no silver bullet to communication and it’s all about understanding the needs of that community at that time, at that place and those people, and also regionally, and nationally, and internationally as well. So, to be open and to be kind of adaptable to the changes of communication are just as important as being adaptable and open to your research that you’re doing as well” (P6).
Discussion
Early and continuous communication among researchers and communities is key to establishing mutual ground by which both parties can benefit from the research being proposed and conducted. To bridge some of these barriers, ECRs are encouraged to follow more community-based approaches (Hill et al. 2023). However, ECRs are often faced with logistical and cultural challenges with respect to working and communicating with Indigenous Peoples given the funding and deadlines associated with their projects. As such, it is apparent that more guidelines specifically directed at ECRs are needed (Tondu et al. 2014). The six participants who were interviewed allowed the identification of some of the most prevalent and apparent logistical and community engagement barriers and provided informed strategies on how to mitigate those obstacles specifically, provided here as guidelines developed specifically for ECRs in the hope of making their research process less challenging. Here, it is important to take a step back and note that while interview questions and participants’ recommendations were intentionally phrased for ECRs, both are more broadly applicable to all researchers, at any stage in their careers.
Addressing logistical challenges resourcefully
Research in Arctic regions will inherently involve many logistical challenges, including financial, administrative, and supervisory barriers. Mallory et al. (2018) suggest that research in the Arctic is on average eight times as costly as comparable projects conducted elsewhere in southern parts of four of the Arctic Nations (Canada, the United States of America, Greenland, and Norway). This is a significant discrepancy that needs to be addressed by policymakers and funding agencies (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). Thanks to the global IPY initiative, there was an increase in funding allocated towards Arctic research, which supported some short-term projects; however, more substantial long-lasting funding is needed to carry on this legacy (Mallory et al. 2018; Wolfe et al. 2011). A large part of the funding for Arctic research projects is allocated to logistical expenses, such as travel and shipments of equipment (Mallory et al. 2018), and knowledge mobilization can fall short in budgetary considerations. Transportation in the Canadian Arctic is limited, and many communities are serviced primarily by costly air transportation (Koch 2021). This complicates travel for researchers, limiting their time spent in the communities. To overcome some of these issues related to funding limitations, participants suggested ECRs could join or co-develop projects with community partners close to their research base or choose to work with an institution located in community hubs, which are regularly visited by community partners from the Arctic (P4). Alternatively, participants suggested that having local partners who can take on in situ responsibilities of the research team can also further limit the necessity of ECRs to travel up North (P4). Researchers are also often pressured by time constraints when conducting their fieldwork, the expectation of results after 1–2 years limits the amount of community engagement opportunities, both before the commencement of fieldwork activities, but especially after their projects have concluded (Pearce et al. 2009; Flynn and Ford 2020). To address these time constraints, participants encourage ECRs to build on pre-existing relations and partnerships their supervisors have established over the years of their careers (P3; P6).
The limited capacity of Arctic organizations can also limit the amount of assistance available to researchers. While there are numerous potential partners across the circumpolar Arctic, the capacity of facility and staff is limited. Participants in this study noted a high turnover rate of their staff can constitute a major hindrance to assisting researchers. The lack of capacity of Arctic organizations is also evident when it comes to meaningful and long-lasting communication of research results (Pearce et al. 2009; Flynn and Ford 2020). Consequently, many researchers continue to struggle with communicating their research back to communities, especially in the context of climate change, which is very complex and affects the environment and community across many different levels (Pearce et al. 2009; Walsh et al. 2011). Even though researchers are now obligated to communicate and consult with local communities as part of their funding and research licensing process, there remains a lack of clarity as to how this should be done, and local research organizations cannot constantly monitor all ongoing research activities or the dissemination of their results. With limited support available, researchers struggle with meaningful engagement, especially those in the natural sciences given that they tend to be less trained in theoretical and practical applications of community-based research compared to social scientists (Gearheard and Shirley 2007). To overcome some of the challenges associated with the high turnover rate, participants highly encourage ECRs to rely on local research partners, who have strong community connections, and an understanding of current community needs and could connect ECRS with relevant contacts from their social network (P2; P6).
Increasing community engagement early on
The current research paradigm in the Arctic is increasingly leaning towards knowledge co-production, which entails extensive community engagement, before, during, and after each research project (Armitage et al. 2011). This requires community involvement in developing the research design as well as administering it in practice (Pearce et al. 2009; Flynn and Ford 2020). Participants suggested that ECRs can efficiently mitigate linguistic and cultural barriers while also mobilizing research skills, by directly inviting locals to part-take in the research process (P1; P4). Involving communities in the dissemination process can also help determine how knowledge will be translated into action, for example, through local policymaking (Pearce et al. 2009). Flynn and Ford (2020) established that knowledge mobilization depends on trust, mutual understanding, and researcher responsibility, using academic literature and key informant interviews. This means that researchers must form close relationships and partnerships with communities, combine different knowledge systems, and communicate beyond their academic sphere (Flynn and Ford 2020). This may sound abstract at first, however, by building and maintaining collaborative partnerships throughout the research process, ECRs can be guided by their community partners as to how this can be done best in practice based on the project and the communities involved (P5; P6).
The need for a presence in a community, outside of the research activities, is a crucial step for proper engagement, networking, and ultimately a meaningful and respectful two-way transfer of knowledge in a culturally sensitive manner (Gearheard and Shirley 2007; Pearce et al. 2009). However, research fatigue has been noted by participants to be common in small communities, where population numbers are low, but can also arise if projects have insufficient community involvement (Chambers et al. 2021). Technical jargon further complicates the ability to align research objectives to community priorities (McBean and Hengeveld 2000; Prno et al. 2011). While climate change in the Arctic is often perceived as a threat to their cultural existence, many Indigenous Peoples stress the fact that they have other more pressing issues to attend to first (Prno et al. 2011; Sloan 2019). Economic and health-related issues can supersede environmental concerns (Lede et al. 2021). Housing is sparse, and costs, unemployment rates, and substance abuse are high (Kruse et al. 2008; Mead et al. 2010; Perreault et al. 2020). Climate change impacts compound with some of these pressing challenges, and therefore these impacts cannot be studied or communicated in isolation from one another (Lede et al. 2021). These complexities may present as quite overwhelming to ECRs, who may be new to their field of research or the communities they are working with, which is why participants emphasize the importance of relying on extensive background research and close partnerships, to help ECRs navigate these challenges and ensure that their research focus is relevant to the communities involved (P4; P5).
Ultimately, applications of community engagement in research will vary across the disciplines of Arctic research. Every community is a little bit different, including differences in language and dialect, and therefore engagement and communication need to also vary accordingly (Wolfe et al. 2007). Since audits of what constitutes meaningful community engagement on the project-level are logistically infeasible (Gearheard and Shirley 2007), the responsibility lies within the realm of the researcher to have open and honest lines of communication that incorporate feedback in a research approach. This responsibility should not be taken lightly, as participants emphasized, and ECRs are therefore encouraged to seek community feedback throughout their research process (P3; P5).
Fostering future discourse and collaboration
There is a pressing need for well-informed guidelines on how to communicate research meaningfully in the Arctic regions (Tondu et al. 2014). To date, there is a large consensus within academic literature that researchers must be well informed, both on their research topic, and their target community’s culture, history, and research priorities (Pearce et al. 2009; Tondu et al. 2014; Flynn and Ford 2020). These studies, as well as the interviews with participants in this research, emphasize the importance of understanding and reflecting on the local history through immersion in, and interaction with communities, to be able to conduct research in a culturally sensitive manner. Some effective approaches to initiate constructive and collaborative discourse as mentioned by participants in this study include, but are not limited to, workshops, open houses, presentations, and direct outreach to youth and elders (P1; P3; P5; P6). It is also largely recognized, and strongly emphasized during all interviews, that working in close partnership with Indigenous Peoples is a great means of being resourceful when conducting research (Pearce et al. 2009; Brunet et al. 2014; Tondu et al. 2014; Flynn and Ford 2020). One of the many benefits of close partnerships is a clearer emphasis on the combination of knowledge systems with the common goal of advancing the understanding of complex phenomena, such as climate change impacts in the Arctic (Brunet et al. 2014). This is a process that requires a great deal of flexibility and adaptability on the side of the researcher, both in working with Indigenous Peoples, adapting current academic modes of communicating research, and overall assimilating with a more interdisciplinary approach towards Arctic research (Pearce et al. 2009; Tondu et al. 2014; Flynn and Ford 2020).
Conclusions
Climate change is a complex phenomenon, which makes knowledge mobilization of climate change-related research even more challenging, especially for ECRs, who have limited resources and experience with research in the Arctic. Informed guidelines and resources on how to conduct effective and meaningful knowledge mobilization are sparse. Therefore, this research explored apparent logistical and cultural barriers; and recommendations from experienced practitioners to mitigate these challenges. As such, it was found that researchers should be well-informed, resourceful, and flexible in their approach. Ultimately, the question of knowledge mobilization is context-dependent, and the best approach may vary depending on the research project and the communities involved. However, learning from the recommendations provided by practitioners and academic literature, from an early stage of the research process, can support researchers to mobilize knowledge in a more culturally sensitive way. More community-based research is needed to further advance and inform the understanding of how knowledge of climate change impacts in the Arctic can be communicated in a meaningful way.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the participants who contributed to this work. We are grateful to the Nunavut Research Institute and the Aurora Research Institute for their assistance and guidance in conducting this project. We would also like to thank Lori Bradford and Melanie Zurba for editorial guidance in putting this paper together, and Shanay Williams for providing feedback on the IQ-based framework used in this paper. This study was supported by research funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (RGPIN-2021-02423). This study was conducted under a co-production agreement between the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, with subsequent approval from the Research Ethics Board (REB) of Dalhousie University (REB # 2023-6747) and the Aurora Research Institute under a Natural Science research license (Northwest Territories Scientific Research License No. 17199) amended to include the Social-Science aspects of this project. We further thank Jesse Llanos, Martina Marquardt, Achim Hahn, and Leon Marquardt for their support with the conceptualization, research process, and editorial support on this paper. This work is dedicated to Willi Marquardt, who passed away during the process of this project and is missed dearly.
References
Ahlin E.M. 2019. Semi-structured interviews with expert practitioners: their validity and significant contribution to translational research. In Sage research methods cases part 2. Sage Publications Ltd.
ARI (Aurora Research Institute). 2013. Working together towards relevant environmental monitoring and research in the NWT. Aurora Research Institute, Inuvik. Available from https://nwtdiscoveryportal.enr.gov.nt.ca/geoportaldocuments/Working_Together_FINAL_LR.pdf [accessed 12 June 2024].
Armitage D., Berkes F., Dale A., Kocho-Schellenberg E., Patton E. 2011. Co-management and the co-production of knowledge: learning to adapt in Canada’s Arctic. Global Environmental Change, 21(3): 995–1004.
Ballantyne A.G. 2016. Climate change communication: what can we learn from communication theory? WIREs Climate Change, 7(3): 329–344.
Barber D.G., Lukovich J.V., Keogak J., Baryluk S., Fortier L., Henry G.H. 2008. The changing climate of the Arctic. Arctic, 7–26.
Bartlett C., Marshall M., Marshall A. 2012. Two-eyed seeing and other lessons learned within a co-learning journey of bringing together Indigenous and mainstream knowledges and ways of knowing. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences 2: 331–340.
Bartlett C., Marshall M., Marshall A., Iwama M. 2008. Integrative science and two-eyed seeing: enriching the discussion framework for healthy communities. In Ecosystems, society and health: pathways through diversity, convergence and integration. Edited by N.G.L.K. Hallstrom, M. Parkes. McGill-Queen's University Press. pp.280–326.
Bohleber P., Casado M., Ashworth K., Baker C.A., Belcher A., Caccavo J.A., et al. 2020. Successful practice in early career networks: insights from the polar sciences. Advances in Geosciences, 53: 1–14.
Bowie R. 2013. Indigenous self-governance and the deployment of knowledge in collaborative environmental management in Canada. Journal of Canadian Studies, 47(1): 91–121.
Brunet N.D., Hockey G., Humpries M.M. 2014. Understanding community-researcher partnerships in the natural sciences: a case study from the Arctic. Journal of Rural Studies, 36: 247–261.
Burns T.W., O'Conner D.J., Stocklmayer S.M. 2003. Science communication: a contemporary definition. Public Understanding of Science, 12(2): 183–202.
Chambers C., King L.A., Cook D., Malinauskaite L., Willson M., Ogilvie A.E., Einarsson N. 2021. “Small science”: community engagement and local research in an era of big science agendas. Nordic perspectives on the responsible development of the arctic: Pathways to action, 203–224.
Durkalec A., Furgal C., Skinner M.W., Sheldon T. 2015. Climate change influences on environment as a determinant of indigenous health: relationships to place, sea ice, and health in an Inuit community. Social Science & Medicine, 136: 17–26.
Flynn M., Ford J.D. 2020. Knowledge mobilization in community-based arctic research. Arctic, 73(2): 240–260. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26974895.
Frandsen T.F., Nicolaisen J. 2024. Defining the early career researcher: a study of publication-based definitions. Learned Publishing, 37(4): e1621.
Gearheard S., Shirley J. 2007. Challenges in community-research relationships: learning from natural science in Nunavut. Arctic, 62–74. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40513159.
Henri D.A., Brunet N.D., Dort H.E., Odame H.H., Shirley J., Gilchrist H.G. 2020. What is effective research communication? Towards cooperative inquiry with Nunavut communities. Arctic, 73(1): 81–98. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/26974876.
Hill L.S., Ghorpade S., Galappaththi M. 2023. Toward decolonizing sustainability research: a systematic process to guide critical reflections. FACETS, 8: 1–11.
Koch K. 2021. Nordicity and its relevance for northern Canadian infrastructure development. Polar Geography, 44(4): 255–281.
Kruse J., Poppel B., Abryutina L., Duhaime G., Martin S., Poppel M., et al. 2008. Survey of living conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA). In Barometers of quality of life around the globe. Social indicators research series. Edited by V. Møller, D. Huschka, A.C. Michalos. Springer, Dordrecht. pp.107–134.
Lede E., Pearce T., Furgal C., Wolki M., Ashford G., Ford J.D. 2021. The role of multiple stressors in adaptation to climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Regional Environmental Change, 21(2): 50.
Mallory M.L., Gilchrist H.G., Janssen M., Major H.L., Merkel F., Provencher J.F., Strøm H. 2018. Financial costs of conducting science in the Arctic: examples from seabird research. Arctic Science, 4(4): 624–633.
McBean G.A., Hengeveld H.G. 2000. Communicating the science of climate change: a mutual challenge for scientists and educators. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education (CJEE), 9–25.
Mead E., Gittelsohn J., Kratzmann M., Roache C., Sharma S. 2010. Impact of the changing food environment on dietary practices of an Inuit population in Arctic Canada. Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 23: 18–26.
Moser S.C. 2016. Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say? WIREs Climate Change, 7(3): 345–369.
Neale J. 2016. Iterative categorization (IC): a systematic technique for analysing qualitative data. Addiction, 111(6): 1096–1106.
Pearce T., Ford J., Willox A.C., Smit B. 2015. Inuit traditional ecological knowledge (TEK), subsistence hunting and adaptation to climate change in the Canadian Arctic. Arctic, 68, 233–245.
Pearce T.D., Ford J.D., Laidler G.J., Smit B., Duerden F., Allarut M., et al. 2009. Community collaboration and climate change research in the Canadian Arctic. Polar Research, 28(1): 10–27.
Perreault K., Riva M., Dufresne P., Fletcher C. 2020. Overcrowding and sense of home in the Canadian Arctic. Housing Studies, 35(2): 353–375.
Prno J., Bradshaw B., Wandel J., Pearce T., Smit B., Tozer L. 2011. Community vulnerability to climate change in the context of other exposure-sensitivities in Kugluktuk, Nunavut. Polar Research, 30(1): 7363.
Sloan A. 2019. Gender, subsistence, change, and resilience in Quinhagak’s present and past. Études Inuit Studies, 43(1-2): 243–264.
SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council). 2021. Definitions of terms. Ottawa: Government of Canada. [online]. Available from https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/definitions-eng.aspx#km-mc [accessed 12 June 2024].
Tagalik S. 2012. Inuit Qaujimjatatuqangit: the role of Indigenous knowledge in supporting wellness in Inuit Communities in Nunavut, Prince George, National Collaborating Centre for Aboriginal Health [online]. Available from https://www.ccnsa-nccah.ca/docs/health/FS-InuitQaujimajatuqangitWellnessNunavut-Tagalik-EN.pdf [accessed 18 March 2025].
Tondu J.M., Balasubramaniam A.M., Chavarie L., Gantner N., Knopp J.A., Provencher J.F., et al. 2014. Working with northern communities to build collaborative research partnerships: perspectives from early career researchers. Arctic, 67(3): 419–429. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24363792.
Walsh J.E., Overland J.E., Groisman P.Y., Rudolf B. 2011. Ongoing climate change in the Arctic. Ambio, 40: 6–16.
Watt-Cloutier S. 2015. The right to be cold. Penguin Group, Toronto. p. 368.
Wenzel G.W. 2009. Canadian Inuit subsistence and ecological instability—if the climate changes, must the Inuit?. Polar Research, 28(1): 89–99.
Wolfe B.B., Armitage D., Wesche S., Brock B.E., Sokal M.A., Clogg-Wright K.P., et al. 2011. Environmental change and traditional use of the Old Crow Flats in northern Canada: an IPY opportunity to meet the challenges of the new northern research paradigm. Arctic, 64(1): 127–135. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40513160.
Wolfe B.B., et al. 2007. From isotopes to TK interviews: towards interdisciplinary research in Fort Resolution and the Slave River Delta, Northwest Territories. Arctic, 75–87. Available from https://www.jstor.org/stable/40513160.
Wright A.L. 2019. Using two-eyed seeing in research with indigenous people: an integrative review. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18: 1609406919869695.
Supplementary material
Supplementary Material 1 (DOCX / 25 KB).
- Download
- 24.93 KB
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
FACETS
Volume 10 • 2025
Pages: 1 - 12
Editor: Victoria Metcalf
History
Received: 17 April 2024
Accepted: 31 December 2024
Version of record online: 31 March 2025
Copyright
© 2025 The Author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement
Human participant data has been summarized herein. Original human participant data will be kept for 2 years following publication, and then destroyed in accordance with our ethics review process.
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Authors
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: AUM
Data curation: AUM
Formal analysis: AUM
Funding acquisition: ASM
Investigation: AUM
Methodology: AUM
Project administration: ASM
Resources: ASM
Supervision: ASM
Writing – original draft: AUM
Writing – review & editing: ASM
Competing Interests
The authors declare no conflicts or competing interests.
Funding Information
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada: RGPIN-2021-02423
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Annabe U. Marquardt and Andrew S. Medeiros. 2025. The challenge of meaningful knowledge mobilization of climate change research in the Canadian Arctic for early-career researchers. FACETS.
10: 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2024-0077
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item