Workshop on Ethics and Methods in Arctic Transformative Research 2020 (WEMA I)

About 50 researchers from all disciplines, Indigenous rights holders, policymakers, activists, and others with an interest in Arctic research and research ethics came together during a virtual, 2-day workshop/conference to improve research relationships and address the ‘how to’ of co-creative research. 

• How can we learn to move away from exploitive research practices? 
• How do co-production of knowledge, cooperation, and participatory research work in practice? 
• What can be gained through taking the local perspective? 
• How can better communication be fostered across academic disciplines, activism, local communities, etc.? 

These were some of the questions that were discussed during this 2-day event. The workshop/conference also included presentations, a panel-discussion, discussion-based sessions between participants, and joint reflections.

Objectives:

• To critically reflect on the harm that scientific practices aimed at sustainability can cause and to discuss possibilities for improvement.
• To contribute to the growing but limited debate on research ethics and ethics in Arctic research taking place in Germany at the moment.
• To establish connections and find partners to collaboratively plan a future workshop on these issues.

Background: 

As the Arctic continues to undergo profound social, cultural, political, economic, and climatic changes, research activities in the region are intensifying (IPCC, 2014; Larsen et al., 2014; Petrov et al., 2016). Faced with global warming, academics and activists are seeking a better understanding of the complex dynamics that influence global climatic processes. Many of the researchers engaged in this field aim to generate new scientific insights while also advancing the goal of a sustainable future by supporting transformation processes. Within the wider field of sustainability science, academics, and research institutions (among them the IASS) have conceptualized this approach as ‘transformative science’ (Schneidewind et al., 2016). Their work offers a reflexive critique of scientific practices, focuses on institutional change, and is dedicated to knowledge creation “with and for a changing society” (Schneidewind et al., 2016, p. 15). 

This aligns with the recent emphasis in Arctic sustainability studies on inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, adaptive co-management, action research, and knowledge co-production (Petrov et al., 2016). However, despite methodological improvements, Indigenous and local communities in the Arctic and elsewhere continue to experience exclusions, regularly struggle to have their voices heard, and often have no control over research processes (e.g., Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2018). Indigenous researchers, such as Métis anthropologist Zoe Todd, highlight on-going appropriation of Indigenous knowledge in Euro-Western research, the use of Indigenous ontologies without acknowledgment of Indigenous thinkers, the absence of Indigenous scholars from European academic settings (Todd, 2015), and the lack of recognition of Indigenous knowledge as scientific knowledge (e.g. Pfeifer, 2018). In Germany, the debate on research ethics is growing, yet few (social) science projects undergo an ethics review at present (van Unger, Dilger, and Schönhuth, 2016). Difficult questions need to be raised to ensure appropriate consideration of the harm that scientific practices aimed at sustainability can cause (this includes critical reflection on the concept of sustainability, see Andersen, Heide-Jørgensen, and Flora, 2018; Petrov et al., 2016).