Challenges in combining Indigenous and scientific knowledge in the Arctic

ABSTRACT

A ‘co-production of knowledge' transdisciplinary approach connects different systems of knowledge that are in collaboration with each other. The transdisciplinarity presupposes bringing natural, social sciences, and Indigenous knowledge together. A growing body of literature on knowledge co-production and better control over research by Indigenous stakeholders contributes to a better collaboration of different knowledge holders. However, as power imbalance and issues of trust continue to persist, further analysis of case studies, where different knowledge holders collaborate, allow for a better understanding of how better long-term collaborations could be built. This reflection paper examines several observations and parts of interviews carried out during a recent ethnographic study on urban Indigenous identity preservation in Anchorage, Alaska in collaboration with the urban Yup’ik population. It may serve as an illustration of some challenges that might hinder the co-production of Indigenous knowledge and Western science. The observations examined in this paper may contribute to a further understanding of different approaches to learning of Arctic Indigenous and Western knowledge systems that are in need of further clarification to enable their better interaction for meeting current sustainability challenges.

KEYWORDS:

• Co-production of knowledge
• sustainability
• epistemological pluralism
• Indigenous
• Western knowledge

Introduction

Collaboration between Western scientists and traditional knowledge-bearers across Indigenous and sustainability sciences has the potential to create techniques and methods for sustaining resilience in a rapidly changing social-ecological Arctic environment. In particular, Indigenous knowledge values, beliefs, and practices, and their sustainable and responsible human-environment relationships have the possibility to significantly contribute to meeting contemporary sustainability challenges both on the local and the global scales (Austin et al., 2019). Even though many Arctic researchers and policymakers consider Indigenous knowledge systems to be essential for sustainable development and environmental management (Athayde et al., 2017), connections between Indigenous peoples, Western scientists, and politicians still require further improvement (Raymond et al., 2010; Ellam Yua et al., 2022).

In this reflection paper, I illustrate what aspects my Indigenous research partners considered as important to pay attention to for building a more successful collaboration with non-Indigenous researchers. This work emerges from an ethnographic study in Anchorage, Alaska between 2018 and 2022 with the urban Yup’ik partners, most of whom migrated to the city from villages. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews and participant observations. The fact that the Yup’ik population is scattered across the city of Anchorage made me search for methods that would allow for building trust under the condition of not living within the community.

I do not claim that the example of my four-year immersion into the urban Indigenous community may be generalizable for all instances of knowledge collaboration and co-production projects. However, it serves as an illustration of still ongoing processes that require further investigation and discussion among different knowledge system stakeholders in an effort to develop more efficient knowledge co-production.

Despite a growing body of published literature on the methods of bridging Indigenous and scientific knowledge for meeting contemporary sustainability issues both locally and globally, challenges still exist in successfully integrating Indigenous knowledge and Western science to contribute to resilience (Abu et al., 2020; Austin et al., 2019; Chapman & Schott, 2020; Hill et al., 2012). Furthermore, even though the involvement of Indigenous people in sustainability science has been increasing, it continues to vary systematically among disciplines and countries, sometimes creating an illusion of including Indigenous participation and integration due to still existing power imbalance (Brunet et al., 2014; Corntassel, 2008; Moreno-Cely et al., 2021; Zurba et al., 2022). These statements may seem to be common knowledge; however, past power imbalance created in research due to colonialism continues to resonate within both Arctic Indigenous communities and Western research, while the latter continue to often focus on Western institutional goals and interests (Ellam Yua 2022).

Some Indigenous communities see collaboration with Western scientists as a necessary, complementary partnership to balance two different approaches, with the condition that both of them must be considered equal (Martinez and Kawagley in Merculieff & Roderick, 2013). However, others still distrust distinct and historically dominant academic research traditions and methodologies (Christie, 2006). As for non-Indigenous scientists, some may still experience difficulties in considering traditional knowledge-bearers as equal partners having concerns about the validity and reliability of traditional knowledge (Austin et al., 2019; Du Toit et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2016), while others may need more training on Indigenous scientists’ approaches, values and beliefs (ARCUS, 2022).

Both traditional knowledge and Western science approaches can benefit from collaboration with each other, in particular when it comes to sustainability. While Indigenous knowledge offers the depth of a local and culture-specific experience, Western science allows for a broader context beyond the local level (Bohensky & Maru, 2011). Thus, the potential of Indigenous and scientific knowledge integration for sustainability science encourages us to search for better methodologies that enable their collaboration. According to the authors cited below, decolonizing Indigenous knowledge and Western science requires further efforts on both sides. For Indigenous communities, decolonization efforts require, on the one hand, reclaiming the best practices and values of traditional cultures and assuring their transmission to younger generations to encourage the process of Indigenous sustainable self-determination, thus creating more opportunities for Indigenous-led projects (Alfred, 1999; Austin et al., 2019; Corntassel, 2008; Griffiths & Kinnane, 2010; Reed et al., 2020). On the other hand, Indigenous communities need to create new and powerful forms out of a still-ongoing colonial process, while accepting the cultural change (Dennison, 2012). Researchers grounded in non-Indigenous research methods need to accept the diversity of knowledge systems shifting away from the human-centered dominance of nature and universality of knowledge, while constantly questioning ‘one-size-fits-all solutions' (Brunet, 2014; Country et al., 2016). In particular, Western scientists should become aware and respectful of the significance of Indigenous protocols or attitudes that represent the holistic worldview in which humans, non-humans, entities, and collectives are interconnected in a relationship of mutual respect and responsibility (Whyte et al., 2015).

Methods

I conducted a four-year ethnographic study on how the urban Yupiit negotiate their traditional lifeways in the city of Anchorage. Prolonged engagement was one of the methods that I used to validate my findings during four years in the field. Another ethnographic method I used was triangulation, as I collected and compared data from different sources: interviews, participant observation, and archives. One of the interviewees whose point of view on collaborations between different knowledge systems I illustrate in this paper kindly agreed to review a draft of this paper.

Research problem statement

Bridging Indigenous and scientific knowledge brings with it specific challenges. Even though Western sciences may share many common values and approaches across the disciplines, difficulties remain within Western interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research approaches themselves, despite efforts to overcome barriers to communication between different knowledge systems and some progress associated with these efforts. The concept of epistemological pluralism is an interesting approach to collaboration and innovative research aiming at achieving transdisciplinarity by avoiding disciplinary-dominated research (Miller et al., 2008). Transdisciplinary research presupposes the transcendence of disciplines that relate to each other, while constituting one whole system without rigid borders (Athayde et al., 2017). In contrast to interdisciplinary research, transdisciplinary research goes beyond academic disciplines, allowing different stakeholders to both work on and benefit from common projects in different ways, while respecting each other’s different approaches and values (Christie, 2006). According to Miller et al. (2008), transdisciplinarity is possible to implement by recognizing that a particular way of knowing is not sufficient to understand the world’s complexity. Respect and negotiation of one’s research values and aims need to be conducted regularly in order to prevent researchers’ tendency to privilege one epistemology over another. Very important in this regard, as far as the integration process is concerned, is flexibility allowing for changes in perceptions during a project to be discussed between bearers of different knowledge systems. Shuttenberg and Guth argue (2015) that, for knowledge co-production to be a success, the appropriate necessary level of integration needs to be defined and achieved. However, some literature indicates there are potential risks to a transdisciplinary approach and knowledge integration (Johnson et al., 2016), claiming that certain Indigenous knowledge practices will not engage with non-Indigenous practices and vice versa (Christie, 2006). Thus, contradictions need to be discussed and accepted. Taking this into consideration, sustainability requires an approach that concentrates on selecting the best knowledge system practices that allow for their complementarity (Altman & Whitehead, 2003; Tengö et al., 2014), while each individual knowledge system remains distinctive and not absorbed by the integration (Bohensky & Maru, 2011). I argue that such an approach is beneficial for both Western science and Indigenous knowledge, as it allows for needed interaction between the two knowledge systems while paying attention to preserving knowledge integrity.

My work supports the contention by Tengö et al. (2017) that creating and encouraging opportunities for building relationships, trust, and respect are vital for knowledge integration. Knowledge interaction is impossible without initiating a productive dialogue between different knowledge system practitioners that is enabled by the creation of ‘an ethical space of engagement' setting new parameters for agreements (Ermine, 2007, p. 193). In this paper, I elaborate on the process of building relationships during my ethnographic study experience in Anchorage, Alaska between 2018 and 2022, and describe the ways some of its challenges were overcome. I claim that the challenges in relationship-building encountered during this study may be relevant to those faced by other non-Indigenous researchers in interaction with Indigenous communities. I contend that more discussions on how to effectively build relationships between Indigenous and Western sustainability scientists are needed in order to improve the complex but promising process of knowledge interaction. If discussions with each other may become difficult because of trust issues, how can we build sustainability together? In the first part of this article, I focus on some observations carried out during my recent ethnographic study on the negotiation of cultural and religious identity among the urban Yup’ik population that directed me to reflect on the obstacles and ethical dilemmas non-Indigenous researchers may face and may need to overcome while conducting research in collaboration with Indigenous communities. In the second part, I am going to elaborate on Indigenous approaches to learning and its role in education as a part of a transdisciplinary approach and the co-production of knowledge. This second part is a discussion on methods that Western and Indigenous researchers may use to pave the path to integrate the different knowledge systems to develop sustainability. Although it may seem that the topics of ethnographic fieldwork and of knowledge co-production are not easily linked, they share common issues of mistrust and of power inequity that continue to arise, as a result of colonialism, and that need to be resolved in order to improve future knowledge integration.

Part I. Discussion

Challenges in and approaches to bridging Indigenous knowledge and Western science

In this section, I reflect on the challenges encountered during my ethnographic study experience and on how analyzing and discussing them with the Indigenous community of Anchorage helped me in building long-term relationships. For instance, especially, at the beginning of the study, it was easy for me to receive permission to carry out observational research at various activities and to participate in different events of the community where I built relationships. In these ways, the urban Yup’ik community welcomed me as a learner. However, when it came to semi-structured interview requests, some of the collaborators were reluctant to participate in official interviews and to sign a consent form. When I explored why and asked for feedback from collaborators, several common topics emerged.

Question of trust

To start with, the specificity of my ethnographic study consisted in the fact that I did not live within the community I was studying, but that I was rather in close proximity to the community members on a regular basis. Thus, especially at the beginning, I experienced and overcome challenges of community acceptance that may be similar to those faced by researchers who come to Arctic communities for short-term projects and who have difficulties in building trust without any prior connections to rely on. I had the extra challenge of building relationships with the Indigenous community members who gathered in urban Indigenous spaces less frequently than they would in rural villages (Castleden et al., 2012). After spending some time with Indigenous collaborators, I started to ask them for formal interviews. I realized that while some of them were open for discussions, others avoided being formally interviewed. I formed a preliminary conclusion that one reason for the reluctance was distrust. In order to validate or refute my assumption, I searched for helpers among the urban Indigenous community for clarification, while comparing their feedback with the existing literature. Indeed, some Indigenous communities still distrust Western researchers due to previous and still existing research methods and practices that continue to colonize Indigenous knowledge (Anonymous, personal communication, 6 December 2019; Christie, 2006). According to Smith (1999), stories about research and researchers have been associated in Indigenous communities with stories about colonization and injustice. Gone (in press) describes how the abusive behavior of researchers has resulted in mistrust on the part of Indian American and Alaska Indigenous populations since the beginning of the twentieth century. The scholars’ awareness of the issues of trust, and efforts of Indigenous communities to establish control over research contributed to the implementation of some collaborations based on mutual trust; nevertheless, Indigenous communities may still sometimes be reluctant to collaborate with non-Indigenous researchers based on mistrust stemming from past interaction experience (Johnson et al., 2016). Researchers from various disciplines approach and conduct surveys with Indigenous people in Alaska on a regular basis. Besides, local and foreign journalists, writers, photographers, and tourists attempt to reach Indigenous people for the purpose of writing articles, reports, fiction, and for conducting photo exhibitions and filming (Anonymous, personal communication, 8 August 2019). Thus, sometimes Indigenous people do not immediately recognize the difference between a researcher asking for permission to carry out a long-term project and a journalist or a writer aiming at exclusively conducting a series of interviews in order to write a newspaper article or a fiction piece (Johnson et al., 2016). Hence, as the Alaskan Indigenous educator Angayuqaq Oscar Kawagley (1997) put it, they become overwhelmed with various outsiders willing to gather data in the communities, considering themselves to ‘have been researched to death' (p. 3). Still, I decide to explore other reasons for why some Indigenous communities remain so skeptical about Western science, as well as ways to reduce the skepticism and to encourage interest in collaboration with different knowledge holders. This is discussed below.

As in the past, scholars from around the world continue to travel to rural and urban northern Indigenous communities for many reasons, such as to complete fieldwork for a Ph.D. degree or a shorter-term scientific project. Some of them come to the field for a short and limited amount of time, often with little funding available, as was, for example, in my case. Numerous resources and ethical guidelines exist for conducting research with Northern communities (National Science Foundation website, n.d.). Indigenous communities establish their own ethics guidelines and review boards in addition to the United States and foreign institutional review boards (Ellam Yua et al., 2022). These measures aim to provide ethical training to scholars and contribute to protecting Indigenous communities from unethical methods and practices. However, ethical boards and training for social scientists do not exist in all institutions around the world (Oellers & Wegner, 2010). In addition, limited funding opportunities, for instance, for graduate students may lead to engagement in short-term projects with little time for building trusting relationships, and with little funding to share with Indigenous communities. This means this research in itself is not sustainable, even if its subject might be sustainability. As Cooke et al. (2020) put it ‘the deadline-driven culture of science (e.g. in academic or government environments) and funders may not align well with the time constraints, capacity, or interests of co-producers, especially in Indigenous communities' (p. 92). All these factors may undermine the collaborative nature of research, leading Indigenous communities to remain skeptical about Western researchers who take without giving back (Cochran et al., 2008; Doering et al., 2022; Ellam Yua et al., 2022). Thus, prioritizing funding that supports graduate student training (ARCUS, 2022) as well as building partnerships between different knowledge system bearers, that all the stakeholders equally benefit from, is likely to contribute to building better relationships through investing time into learning about each other’s motivations and approaches.

Second, ethics training and requirements, while being a means of protection against unethical practices in Indigenous communities, do not seem to resolve all the potential ethical dilemmas, partially due to insufficient cultural sensitivity. For example, as Christie (2006) argued, it can lead to situations where researchers need to justify their ethics to Elders of a researched community as well as to academic review boards whose ethical guidelines may differ. Thus, the consent form that review boards require researchers to present to potential Indigenous interviewees for signature may be perceived by an Indigenous community as a confirmation of ‘trust as a static decision' refusing any possibility of its re-questioning or renegotiation (Smith, 1999, p. 136). In some instances during my four-year ethnographic study, I was welcome to learn from the Indigenous community members in an informal setting, as a friend, but it was more difficult or sometimes impossible to obtain signed consent. Active involvement of ‘Indigenous facilitators’ in collaborations between Indigenous community members and Western researchers is needed to stimulate and improve mutual understanding (ARCUS, 2022). In some cases, I managed to obtain consent later through Indigenous intermediaries and translators who negotiate constantly in interacting within and between Indigenous and Western worlds. I also relied on them to check that I was in line with the Indigenous collaboration rules.

Insufficient communication between Indigenous communities and Western institutions and researchers leads to the ‘lack of familiarity with the Other' as a result of the colonial process that continues to undermine Indigenous people (Austin et al., 2019, p. 582). Thus, non-Indigenous, Indigenous knowledge-bearers and institutional boards need to find a format of collaboration that is more culturally sensitive and decolonized. Dialogue and debate are valuable in building mutual trust (Bohensky & Maru, 2011). To encourage discussions, Western researchers need to be truly interested in investing in learning about Indigenous cultures as well as in developing informal, friendly relationships with Indigenous communities prior to working with them (Anonymous, personal communication, 30 August 2020).

Knowledge sharing and traditional intellectual property recognition

During my ethnographic study, I heard from some collaborators that sharing back study results with Indigenous communities may still be overlooked (Anonymous, personal communication, 15 February 2019). To become sustainable, academia needs to aim at being more collaborative by sharing results back to Indigenous populations. As the Indigenous educator Kawagley (1997) considered the main Indigenous researchers’ goal to gather data as ambitious and career-oriented two decades ago, feedback from my collaborators showed that their access to non-Indigenous research results may still remain limited. Indeed, some researchers still come to Indigenous communities with ready hypotheses and questions to discuss, thus, collecting data to earn a degree or to accomplish a project for specific career purposes. If they consider traditional knowledge collection exclusively as a personal gain, not only does this kind of approach not contain any benefit to Indigenous communities, it also contradicts community values in which knowledge is accumulated to be transmitted not only for individuals but also for community use by future generations. Sharing and reciprocity are important values of the Yup’ik people (Fienup-Riordan, 2018), as well as of other Indigenous communities in Alaska, thus, for initiating a dialogue with Indigenous communities, non-Indigenous researchers need to receive more culturally-oriented training that reflects Indigenous values (Ellam Yua et al., 2022). More Indigenous-led workshops and presentations need to be organized on an international level that spur discussions about ethical challenges and proper ways of collaboration with Indigenous communities. Furthermore, non-Indigenous researchers need to recognize and respect traditional intellectual property, as it goes against the Indigenous values to use knowledge without proper approval (Augusta Reimer, personal communication, 16 February 2020; Christie, 2006). It is important for non-Indigenous researchers to work on ensuring that the results of their research are accessible to Indigenous communities under consideration.

Fear of misinterpretation

Some of my Indigenous partners agreed to collaborate with a remark that ‘no information gathered should be misinterpreted' (Anonymous, personal communication, 20 December 2019). Fear of data misinterpretation is one of the sources of distrust of researchers by Indigenous communities. It needs to be recognized and addressed by academia on a regular basis (Athayde et al., 2017). Western researchers interpret traditional Indigenous knowledge from a Western perspective. A scientist shapes their research through the prism of their culture. Hence, to avoid data misinterpretation, the option for sharing results back before publishing should be suggested to the Indigenous collaborators at the early stage of a project discussion. Indigenous partners could be given a choice of means by which the results can be shared. For instance, it could be via an oral presentation in front of the whole community or shared in written form, so that they are available for individual or collective reading by interested community members. This paper was proposed to be shared and it was reviewed by one of the Indigenous community members. By making clear the obligation to share the results gathered, the risk of misinterpretation is diminished, while allowing for better exchange outcomes and for reducing distrust. Some of my Indigenous collaborators agreed on interviews to be recorded under the condition of being able to read through the study results before their publication. Such an approach may simultaneously build better trust while enabling a verification with Indigenous partners. However, one of the challenges for sharing the data with Indigenous collaborators consists in the fact that, in some foreign institutions, for instance, in France, doctoral dissertations may be required to be written in the native language of a respective country, and special authorizations and letters of recommendation are needed to publish in another language. Thus, extra funding and time need to be allocated for translating study results to share with the corresponding community.

Confidentiality issues

Challenges of confidentiality are closely connected to the question of research results sharing. It may not be possible to maintain confidentiality if the research results are shared for review to members of the same small community before publication if they often can identify each other, even if the anonymity is respected (Ellis, 1995). I had a collaborator I became friends with in the course of my recent ethnographic study. Some information was given informally but, as it came to an interview request, the collaborator hesitated to be formally interviewed. They finally agreed under the condition that they remained anonymous. However, they were worried about their perspective being shared and disclosed in a paper form, as the community members and other potential readers might recognize them by the manner the perspective would be shared. A researcher needs to filter the data according to the ethical perspectives in reflecting in advance on what kind of material and to what extent research result publications might potentially harm community members. Which research outcomes to publish need to be chosen in a careful and ethical manner, even though not all the community members require outcome review before a publication. In other words, Western researchers need to treat Indigenous collaborators as equal partners (Austin et al., 2019; Bohensky & Maur, 2011). Hence, in order to build and to maintain trust, researchers may want to consider the Indigenous communities they collaborate with as potential readers of their publications, by filtering the data gathered in an ethical manner that prevents collaborators from exposure to any potential harm or risk.

Relationship-building and temporality

Short-term projects are one of the further factors contributing to the distrust of researchers by Indigenous communities (Augusta Reimer, personal communication, 6 December 2019). Being in close contact with the urban Yup’ik community for four years helped me analyze and develop long-term relationships. As one of my Indigenous partners put it, researchers coming to collaborate from abroad may not be worth the investment in relationships from the Indigenous perspective, as they usually have a short-term objective to complete and then they go back home (Augusta Reimer, personal communication, 6 December 2019). Sustainable relationship-building is a long, time-consuming process (Castleden et al., 2012). As mentioned earlier, some researchers coming to complete their projects in Indigenous communities often do not have enough funding for a long-term stay. Thus, the timelines dictated do not accommodate the orderly process of interaction, according to Indigenous rules (Christie, 2006). This challenge concerns, in particular, early career researchers pursuing doctorate degrees and coming from abroad. However, time is a crucial factor for building relationships between Western and Indigenous scientists (Brook & McLachlan, 2005; Ellam Yua et al., 2022). For urban Yup’ik Indigenous people as well as other Indigenous people in Alaska and in the Arctic, the building of long-term relationships is indispensable for developing trust (Anonymous, personal communication, 8 March 2020). As Haig-Brown (2003) put it, ‘when [Western researchers] allow themselves to recognize limitations and to take the time to really listen to people who are not just like us … they can learn to listen differently to the words of study participants' (p. 1). This approach can be beneficial for both sides, if Western researchers consider themselves as learners, on the one hand, from the very first stage of their research in such a manner, as they introduce themselves to an Indigenous community to conduct a study, and, on the other hand, the Indigenous community’s teaching role is clearly announced. Defining the roles from the very beginning in such a manner, that both sides have in a research project, allows for a teaching and learning relationship development that presupposes having a trustful relationship. Indigenous teachers and learners often have close and long-lasting relationships through common ancestors, land, and waters (Merculieff & Roderick, 2013). Without trust, a long-term and nurturing dialogue between a non-Indigenous researcher and an Indigenous community, bridging Western science and traditional knowledge is difficult to implement. The possible outcome for scientists implementing a short-term project could be incomplete, superficial, or even incorrect data, hindering the quality of the study conducted. Hence, the more researchers invest in spending time in building long-term relationships with Indigenous communities, the better the chances are for academia to open and develop a dialogue with traditional knowledge-bearers. There is a possibility to initiate and develop long-lasting relationships between researchers and Indigenous communities, if funding agencies understand the reasoning and importance behind supporting community participatory research studies over an extended period of time (Chilisa, 2012). Thus, researchers need to develop solid arguments for increasing and justifying the costs of lengthening project in order to build trustful relationships with Indigenous communities.

Concept of expertise

One difference between Indigenous traditional knowledge and Western science approaches that needs to be examined carefully is the concept of expertise. For instance, Inupiaq and Yup’ik Indigenous traditional knowledge bearers – Elders – are considered to be experts by right in their community but, according to one of the Indigenous values – the importance of humility – they will never consider themselves as such (Augusta Reimer, personal communication, 6 December 2019; Beans, 1997). Being an Elder is a status that an Indigenous community grants for knowledge and wisdom acquired over the course of a lifetime (Fienup-Riordan, 2018; Merculieff & Roderick, 2013). In contrast, in Western science, earning a degree and acquiring a higher position in the academic world presupposes a transition to a certain level of expertise. Much longer time is needed to become an Elder than to earn a degree. Thus, a researcher’s goal to complete a short-term or long-term project in order to become an expert may be viewed skeptically by knowledge-bearers of an Indigenous community (Augusta Reimer, personal communication, 6 December 2019). Building long-term, trustful relationships under these circumstances may be a challenging task that involves flexibility and the ability to modify methodological approaches and research questions. At the same time, as Johnson et al. (2016) argued ‘the openness of scientific enquiry is threatened by a powerful and self-referential expertocracy … embedded within academic structures, … as a result, much scientific research … pursues only those questions for which funding can be secured from government and corporate sources' (p. 8). In other words, Western researchers’ flexibility in pursuing research goals might be constrained by academic structures. Nevertheless, understanding the differences in approach to the question of expertise might contribute to better maneuvering between the limitations.

In my case, I facilitated inviting Elders and other members of Indigenous communities to a dialogue about Western science and Indigenous knowledge expertise with the purposes of trust-building, learning the values of the respectful target population, and collaborating with the members while respecting and practicing the values in the community. This approach requires decolonizing and contextualizing Western science thinking in new ways (Ellam Yua et al., 2022). There is a risk, however, that it will not be enough if only one side tries to reach for understanding the other. However, taking into consideration the fact that Western scientists are part of institutions historically associated with colonization and still being situated in the position of power, it is researchers’ responsibility to make the first steps toward Indigenous communities by aiming at an attempt to understand the other, even though both sides need collaborations for facing the problems of climate change.

The past and still ongoing authoritative and dominant nature of non-Indigenous research needs to be openly recognized and awareness about the past practices and colonized nature of research needs to be maintained during the whole process of a collaboration to ease ‘power-knowledge tensions’ (Moreno-Cely et al., 2021). Employing the worldviews and values of a target population requires an investment of time. Academic institutions and funding agencies need to support researchers in their effort to invest needed time for developing relationships and learning the appropriate behaviors with the help of community members before determining research methodologies (Doering et al., 2022). Lifetime learning is one of the Yup’ik community values (Fienup-Riordan, 2018). Taking into consideration the importance of the value in the community, I have intentionally used the word ‘learning’ while explaining the details and goals of my project to several members of the community to work with. Such a manner to present the project turned out to facilitate its acceptance by some Indigenous partners who had not agreed to collaborate with me before. Thus, one of the ways to focus on building long-term relationships with an Indigenous community could be communicating a Western researcher’s intention and motivation to learn from different knowledge system bearers on a long-term basis and not exclusively for one project. Returning to the question of the still ongoing power imbalance at different stages of a project and the intention to learn from Indigenous partners are important for establishing relationships of trust. Even though I was ready to readjust my research focus, questions, and hypothesis, as a result of a dialogue I hoped to lead with the Indigenous community, building a relationship of trust with the community was an ongoing process during the whole project that required a constant reassessment, communication, and negotiation, and that did not finish upon the completion of the ethnographic study.

Identifying and recognizing different approaches to the concepts of learning was a part of the decolonization effort indispensable for the facilitation of collaboration with the Indigenous knowledge bearers. Decolonization efforts are required on the part of Western researchers to learn about Indigenous approaches to sharing knowledge to reduce power inequity and to allow for equal opportunities for all the knowledge bearers to guide research equally (Ellam Yua et al.,, 2022). Indigenous communities, however, also need to invest in decolonization to encourage traditional knowledge sharing with the Indigenous youth.

Conclusion

Even though the potential of bridging Indigenous knowledge and Western science for meeting sustainability challenges is significant, more clarity is needed on how to bring both knowledge systems to an effective interaction, while preserving their integrity. Encouraging opportunities that lead to a productive dialogue through building trust and respect is vital for knowledge interaction. Taking into consideration the fact that Western scientific and educational institutions have been associated in Indigenous communities with colonization, it is non-Indigenous researchers’ responsibility to recognize the lack of familiarity with Indigenous knowledge systems, to learn about them, to accept them as equal to Western science. A growing number of case studies and analyzes on transdisciplinary research, better control of Indigenous communities over the research process and outcomes contribute to a better collaboration. Nevertheless, the still existing power inequality, challenges related to the questions of trust, of confidentiality, of the fear of misinterpretation still persist. Hence they deserve further discussion and reflection in different stages of research project development and implementation. Johnson et al. (2016) note that already existing and emerging methods to bring together different knowledge systems are not exhaustive and they may not be applicable to every given situation and discipline. However, I suggest that the challenges I encountered are similar to those of many Western researchers collaborating with Indigenous communities, as the problems of distrust and of power imbalance continue to hinder successful collaborations between different knowledge system bearers across disciplines.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).