“Indigenous peoples throughout the world have sustained their unique worldviews and associated knowledge systems for millennia, even while undergoing major social upheavals as a result of forces beyond their control. Many of the core values, beliefs, and practices associated with those worldviews are recognized as having an adaptive integrity that is as relevant today as it was for generations past. The deep Indigenous knowledge rooted in the long inhabitation of a particular place offers insights that can benefit everyone, including educators and scientists, as we search for a more satisfying and sustainable way to live on this planet” (Barnhardt, 2011a: p. 66).

“The traditional ecological knowledge of indigenous harvesters is rich in prescriptions for sustainability. They are found in Native science and philosophy, in lifeways and practices, but most of all in stories, the ones that are told to help restore balance, to locate ourselves once again in the circle” (Kimmerer, 2013: p. 179).

Introduction: a call to action

The epigraphs clearly indicate Indigenous Peoples are guided by worldviews and systems of knowledge that have existed and endured for millennia and formed the basis of cultural survival and sustainable living on the Earth. Their survival to this day as recognized Indigenous Peoples, nations, tribal governments, land stewards, and other sociocultural groups is a testament to their inherently adaptable and sustainable worldviews and ways of life. Why, then, has the coupled enterprise of Western environmental science and natural resources management not fully embraced and implemented Indigenous science and Indigenous models of sustainability?

We suspect, if asked, nearly all environmental professionals working in the Arctic would agree to include Indigenous experts at the table for discussions of science related to natural resources management in Indigenous homelands and elsewhere. Many Arctic professionals and social scientists accept that Indigenous participation is essential for conducting research in the Arctic (e.g., Anderson et al., 2018). However, with some exception, the environmental management profession in North America largely remains reluctant, and at best hesitant, to give control to Indigenous scientists and managers (or legally and equitably share control), despite knowing their record of conservation and sustainable living has proven to be as good as or better than the Eurocentric record of conservation and sustainable living (e.g., Garnett et al., 2018; Waller and Reo, 2018; Ogar et al., 2020). A central question guiding this call to action is: would prioritizing Indigenous models of social science and sustainability better achieve social well-being and environmental health in the North American Arctic?

The Western model of sustainable resource development has not achieved convincing successes nor produced widespread economic and social benefits for resource-dependent Indigenous communities, especially when the impacts of climate change are considered (Cajete, 2020). This article is a call to action designed to outline and illustrate an alternative model for environmental social scientists and resource managers to implement that goes beyond Indigenous participation in social science to Indigenous governance and leadership in social science. The framework is geared toward sustainability at multiple levels of ecological and social organization (Fig. 1). We propose that Indigenous scholars be empowered to more frequently and regularly lead social science in Arctic communities and regions, using Indigenous approaches complemented by Western paradigms and methodologies when appropriate.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Concentric circles provide a preliminary organizing framework for a model of Indigenous-led and self-determined Arctic social science.

Full size image

We describe the framework and provide an implementation strategy by recommending substantial changes to how we think about, talk about, fund, and practice social science research in the homelands of Indigenous Peoples in the North American Arctic. The insights and applications of the proposed model may have relevance to the broader Circumpolar North. The approach would continue to include direct and indirect partnering with non-indigenous research funders, scholars, and policy makers. Our recommendations include non-indigenous social scientists and other partners playing supportive roles as funders, mentors, advisors, and capacity-builders with Indigenous Elders and Indigenous social science scholars largely in leadership roles. We label this “Indigenous-led and self-determined social science,” and we argue that it will inherently benefit Indigenous communities in the North American Arctic by recreating and reviving community well-being and healthy relationships, ultimately improving sustainable environmental and social outcomes at regional levels.

Positionality statement

The co-authors represent Indigenous and non-indigenous natural resource specialists born and living in North America and serving as career civil servants in national government. The co-authors have over 50 years of professional experience combined and currently work for a natural resource management agency in the United States. They represent settler colonialists and Indigenous North Americans. Ms. Renick is a citizen of the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians in Northern California, and Dr. Brooks is descended from Finnish, German, and Irish immigrants who settled into agrarian livelihoods in Michigan.

The co-authors have been educated in both Indigenous knowledge systems and Western academic institutions at the highest levels of their professions, earning multiple advanced degrees in the social and natural sciences, including Doctor of Philosophy and Doctor of Jurisprudence degrees. The co-authors are deeply concerned with understanding and applying complex sociocultural relationships in the contexts of Indigenous knowledge, environmental sciences, and natural resources management, and their assumptions about reality lean towards a pluralist position in which multiple realities exist and multiple paradigms are valued.

Knowledge systems: scope, definition, and nuance

We equate Indigenous knowledge systems and traditional ecological knowledge with Indigenous science. Indigenous science is a sophisticated and place-based knowledge system used by Indigenous People to interpret how the natural world works in their homelands, and it is transmitted through time and generations from Indigenous Elders and other experts to youth (Cajete, 2020). “Traditional environmental knowledge is no less sophisticated in its empirical foundations than ‘Western’ science, and it is dynamic, open to innovations, borrowed from neighbors, or co-opted from colonial practice. However, this knowledge is owned by local peoples, expressed in their Native languages, and applied in the practices of their daily lives, which makes such traditional knowledge Indigenous” (Hunn and Meilleur, 2010: p. 351).

Environmental scholars and policy makers working in the Arctic need to recognize the age, scope, and contextual depth of Indigenous science: “The development of knowledge through Indigenous science is guided by spirituality, ethical relationship, mutualism, reciprocity, respect, restraint, a focus on harmony, and acknowledgment of interdependence… integrated with reference to a particular people and place toward the goal of sustainability and perpetuation of culturally distinct ways of life through generations. Indigenous science perceives from a holistic, high context, and relational worldview that includes all relational connections in interdependent dynamic balance in its essential considerations and activity…. Western science perceives from a low-context view, reducing context to a minimum with a focus on material objectivity, either-or logic, and reproducibility” (Cajete, 2020: p. 9569).

Indigenous science is older than Western science by order of magnitude (i.e., thousands of years versus hundreds of years, respectively) and more contextually comprehensive and inclusive of religion, art, and the humanities than Western science (Kimmerer, 2013; Karetak et al., 2017; Cajete, 2020; Ogar et al., 2020). Moreover, Western science has never disproved Indigenous science or made it disappear (Broadhead and Howard, 2021). Indigenous science has been the baseline knowledge system in the Arctic for thousands of years, where Indigenous Peoples were the original scientists and resource managers (Degai et al., 2022). Relatively recently when contacted by outsiders from European nations, Indigenous Peoples began adapting aspects of Western science and technology into Indigenous science when and where appropriate. Indigenous scientists, especially Indigenous social scientists, have already successfully integrated aspects of Western science into their research methods. We are not advocating for the integration of Indigenous knowledge into Western science because, in many cases, aspects of Western science may already be a supplemental part, or subset, of Indigenous science and methodologies (e.g., Ramos, 2021).

An Indigenous-led and self-determined social science is social science research governed, designed, directed, and conducted by Indigenous scholars of the social sciences and humanities. It can be described as autonomous Indigenous research that draws on and adapts aspects of other knowledge systems and technologies when appropriate, from Western science, for example. Indigenous-led and self-determined social science builds upon the baseline of Indigenous science already established in the Arctic to revitalize Indigenous communities, promote cultural survival, and steward, sustain, and nurture relationships with Arctic environments (Cajete, 2020).

We recognize that a knowledge system may expand and adapt by adopting alternative ideas and tenets from another relatively distinct knowledge system over time. For example, some Western social scientists have embraced and applied relational theories and interpretive and narrative methods for studying lived experience, sense of place, and place-based planning and resources management (Patterson and Williams, 2002; Brooks and Williams, 2012). Adapting and adopting within and between knowledge systems happens naturally over time and as needed to understand changing environmental and social problems and issues. At times, there may exist a back-and-forth dynamic between Indigenous and Western social sciences, but there is no need to deliberately strive for integration or consilience in the social sciences or integration of Indigenous science into Western science. Pluralism in paradigms and approaches should be valued because it provides the diversity of understanding necessary to address complex social and environmental problems facing the Arctic today, problems where people are very much embedded in places and landscapes and not separated from the land (Patterson and Williams, 2005; Brooks et al., 2006; Williams, 2014).

Indigenous and Western sciences may often be complementary depending on the place and the problem being studied. Although largely based on differing philosophies of science, Indigenous and Western knowledge systems provide insights and tools for understanding and resolving problems and addressing community needs. Having two or more tools, regardless of their differences (or similarities), is often better than having one when faced with complex, value-driven environmental problems; it is wise to apply more than one source of knowledge when available to learn and teach a more complete understanding of Indigenous relationships, environmental management, and sustainability (Tsuji and Ho, 2002; Kendall et al., 2017; Brooks et al., 2019; Henri et al., 2022). Whether applied independently or in tandem with Western science, elevating, centering, and prioritizing Indigenous-led and self-determined social science as a legitimate and valuable knowledge system will resolve problems of environmental management and resource sustainability, especially for Indigenous communities in northern regions (Cajete, 2020; Degai et al., 2022; Turner et al., 2022; Buschman and Sudlovenick, 2023; Esquible et al., 2024).

Rationale, method, and evidence for the call to action

The article draws on and supports many voices, and the discussion bolsters the continuous Indigenous movement toward sovereignty, decolonization, and self-determination in Arctic research (Bull et al., 2020; Cajete, 2020; Coates and Broderstad, 2020; Hudson and Vodden, 2020; Wilson et al., 2020; Wong et al., 2020; Degai et al., 2022; Beaulieu et al., 2023; Buschman and Sudlovenick, 2023; Tagalik et al., 2023). Indigenous-led and self-determined social science, in name and practice, is founded on tenets of Indigenous science as described by Cajete (2020). However, it has and may continue to adopt methods from Western social science. In addition to (post)positivism, some Western social scientists have developed, tested, and accepted, constructivist and narrative ontologies and research paradigms (e.g., Patterson and Williams, 2002; Bartley and Brooks, 2023) that are congruent with the holistic and relational nature of Indigenous science, although not necessarily mainstream in most social science disciplines. Whereas Western natural and physical sciences primarily adhere to (post)positive paradigms that are largely incongruent with constructivist, narrative, and Indigenous worldviews and epistemologies (Patterson and Williams, 1998, 2002; Broadhead and Howard, 2021; Morgan Te Kīpa Kēpa et al., 2021).

We did not test hypotheses or answer a theoretical a priori research question via a deductive systematic methodology. We conducted an interpretive, inductive, and thematic analysis of peer-reviewed papers found in a targeted literature search. To support background discussions and credit key ideas of earlier scholars, we reviewed approximately 40 source documents that we possess in our professional research archives and personal libraries. To support the specific arguments and foundational elements of the model, we conducted a focused Internet review of one database, Google Scholar, using the search terms: “Indigenous scholarship,” “Indigenous sustainability,” “Indigenous ontology,” “Indigenous-led social science;” and “mentoring Indigenous youth.” Each of these search strings included the term “in the Arctic.” These searches produced thousands of results. To substantially pare results, we carefully selected peer-reviewed papers published between 2016 and 2024, with attention given to articles having Indigenous co-authors.

Most of the articles we selected were focused on the North American Arctic. Many of the papers reported primary research from interviews or workshop proceedings with Indigenous experts and Elders, and some reported observations and insights from literature reviews or conceptual essays. We determined which papers to read based on the abstracts and keywords; approximately 45 articles were selected to read. All cited literature appears in the reference section with an asterisk marking the papers we found in Google Scholar. We synthesized, organized, and presented key insights from this literature in sections of the text to support the framework. We sorted and categorized the selected articles by emergent and often interconnected themes, including Indigenous ontology, sovereignty, scholarship, methodologies, research governance and ethics, models of sustainability, and education and mentorship.

We produced preliminary and final organizing systems (Tesch, 1990; Bartley and Brooks, 2023) to communicate the results and visually illustrate the model of Indigenous-led and self-determined Arctic social science. We developed the diagrams (Figs. 1 and 2) based on the Google Scholar search in conjunction with tenets of relational accountability from Indigenous thought, complemented by mindset theory from Western thought; these concepts served as an overarching conceptual framework to guide the analysis and formulate supporting arguments. We developed and described a future-looking model of Indigenous-led and self-determined social science in an Arctic context. The model is grounded in knowledge, experiences, relationships, and ways of life practiced by Arctic Indigenous Peoples in North America past, present, and future (e.g., Bielawski, 1992; Hobson, 1992; Johnson, 1992; Kawagley and Barnhardt, 2005; Kawagley (Angayuqaq), 2006; Barnhardt, 2011a, 2011b; Kimmerer, 2013; Karetak et al., 2017).

Fig. 2: Framework for an Indigenous-led and self-determined Arctic social science founded on Indigenous sovereignty, ontology, models of sustainability, and scholarship.
figure 2

Relational accountability produces local benefits that radiate from the common center, enabling well-being in communities and regions and, ultimately, sustainability in the Arctic.

Full size image

Conceptual framework: a benefits mindset to create a future Arctic social science

Why are we doing Arctic social science in the first place? We should not be doing it for ourselves but for the health of the Arctic and the people who depend on the Arctic, which is everyone. We adapted and applied high-level cognitive, relational, and process-oriented concepts from the social sciences, both Western and Indigenous, to guide the analysis and frame this model. Mindset theory and mindset psychology have a tradition in the study of positive psychology (Buchanan and Kern, 2017; Buchanan, 2023). Mindsets shape our lives, behaviors, and collective futures, including community leadership and self-determination (Buchanan and Kern, 2017). In this article, we are advocating for a social science that will get us closer to a sustainable Arctic in which the goals of research are community benefits, health, and well-being. We are advocating for a shift from a growth mindset to a benefits mindset.

Intrinsic motivation is about doing something for the sake of living out the process of attaining life goals or aspirations; it is future-oriented, visionary, and a vital component of a benefits mindset. The act of doing something can intrinsically be of higher value than getting to an end point through one’s extrinsically motivated efforts. For example, studying hard to learn how to be a better teacher is of higher value to society than studying hard to earn top grades and lucrative employment. Intrinsic motivation promotes self-determination and well-being; our premise is that implementing the model described here will create and support the conditions that allow and sustain intrinsic motivation, community benefits, and well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2000). In the realm of Arctic social science, these conditions include Indigenous autonomy and self-determination.

The Western psychological concepts of intrinsic motivation and benefits mindset complement well-established Indigenous ways of knowing and doing. For example, many Indigenous scholars ground and guide their research methodologies on the principle of relational accountability, which means giving back to their community and being accountable to the research and all of their relationships in the community (Wilson, 2001; Muller et al., 2019; Wilson et al., 2020; Ramos, 2021; Tagalik et al., 2023; Wildcat and Voth, 2023). In Indigenous epistemology, “relationships are more important than reality” (Wilson, 2001: p. 177), and in Inuit thought, “everything exists in a collective within the holistic worldview” (Tagalik et al., 2023: p. 1705). It is a relational approach, which makes the process of building, extending, and maintaining relationships just as important, or more so, than the outcomes of research and management (Cajete, 2020).

Likewise, a benefits mindset is oriented towards collectively creating the future (Buchanan and Kern, 2017). The objective of a benefits mindset is to produce local leaders, make contributions at the community level, and benefit society. In a similar fashion, Indigenous relational knowing intrinsically, or systemically, bonds people to the land; fish, wildlife, and plants; and other people in families and communities through kinship networks and sacred relationships (Wilson, 2001; Booth, 2003; Hickey, 2020; Tagalik et al., 2023). In both ways of thinking, learning is not about the accumulation of knowledge or about the individual who becomes an expert and turns their learned expertise into economic gain. Instead, the development of capable human beings is based on learning that is applicable, relevant, and meaningful for all one’s relationships, past, present, and future (Wilson, 2001; Tagalik et al., 2023). Indigenous leaders share and apply this practical learning style to guide community-based governance that promotes the well-being and survival of Arctic communities.

The Peoples of the Arctic and Arctic health and sustainability are highly interconnected and essentially one and the same. An appropriate path to a sustainable Arctic involves a shift away from solely being and becoming learners and achievers who do things better towards community leaders and contributors to society, who are doing better things (Buchanan and Kern, 2017). Even a small shift in mindset from self-interest (e.g., taking) to group interest (e.g., giving) could have large and positive consequences for both Indigenous self-determination and sustainability (Mazzocchi, 2020). Moving forward, we ask Arctic social scientists and policy makers to be mindful of the important distinctions between individual learning and community leadership and between self-achievements and contributions to society. Arctic social scientists and policy makers require a learning style that is applied and intrinsically motivated to improve lives, build sustainable communities, and achieve a healthy Arctic (Anderson et al., 2018; Cajete, 2020; Tagalik et al., 2023; Wildcat and Voth, 2023).

Relationships bond the pillars of the framework

Whether you are an ecologist, social scientist, Indigenous marine mammal hunter, country food processor, or all of these like many Indigenous Elders in the Arctic, you most likely recognize and appreciate nested scales or levels of organization, socially, ecologically, and geographically. Concentric circles share a common center, demonstrating connections, interdependencies, and wholeness among and between differing scales (Fig. 1). We used concentric circles to represent a comprehensive and non-linear view of Indigenous environmental relationships in the Arctic, a view in which relational ways of knowing are inherent and central to the system.

In Indigenous thought, the different scales, and everything that exists within and between, are connected by a common center and by ancient and sacred relationships, interactions, and obligations among and between the land, people, non-human beings, and broader kinship networks (Booth, 2003; Langdon, 2019; Muller et al., 2019; Hickey, 2020; Virtanen et al., 2020). These networks of relationships are maintained through care, respect, balance, reciprocity, and contributions to the common good (Muller et al., 2019; Cajete, 2020; Hickey, 2020; Ramos, 2021; Langdon et al., 2023; Tagalik et al., 2023; Brooks et al., 2024). Moreover, Indigenous social relationships and the responsibilities inherent to them include both human beings and non-human beings (Nadasdy, 2007; Mazzocchi, 2020; Virtanen et al., 2020; Langdon et al., 2023).

Reciprocity is fundamental in an Arctic society where weather may be extreme, food sources scarce, and danger of outside stressors inherent. Indigenous reciprocity is not the same as direct exchange between two people at the same time in the sense of Western economics. In Indigenous culture, sharing and reciprocity are akin to moral obligations driven by spiritual relations (Langdon, 2019; Muller et al., 2019). Giving, sharing, and receiving are highly valued as good behaviors driven by reciprocal responsibilities that people have with humans, nonhumans, and the land, and the giver will receive back from the exchange sometime in the future via kinship rights and the exercise of the spiritual obligations and responsibilities of the receiver (Muller et al., 2019). Reciprocity is key to understanding Indigenous relational ontology and sustainability discussed later.

Being well and doing good are mutually supportive in all aspects of life and in all one’s relationships, which requires members of an Indigenous community to follow a set of values, beliefs, and practices oriented toward benefiting the community and relations with one another, the land, and all things in it (Reo, 2011; Brooks and Bartley, 2016; Langdon, 2019; Cajete, 2020; Tagalik et al., 2023). These relationships hold the common center of Arctic social existence together; they provide the glue that bonds the foundational pillars (Fig. 2). An Indigenous-led and self-determined Arctic social science is founded on Indigenous sovereignty, Indigenous ontology, Indigenous models of sustainability, and Indigenous scholarship (Fig. 2).

Indigenous sovereignty

Sovereignty is difficult to define because it is multidimensional and widely debated; Indigenous sovereignty exists at multiple scales, including local, national, and international (Shrinkhal, 2021). A fitting description of sovereignty found in the literature from North America reads: “Sovereignty is the inherent right of Indigenous Peoples to have self-determination over their political, legal, social, spiritual, and intellectual lives, as well as other aspects of a community or one’s self” (Ellam Yua et al., 2022: p. 34). Indigenous sovereignty is a means of empowerment and self-determination for controlling and conducting research in ways that Indigenous Peoples determine are best for creating benefits for their communities and maintaining relationships with Arctic environments.

Indigenous sovereignty can decolonize research, policy, and environmental management (Muller et al., 2019), thereby actualizing decolonization in communities, making it real (Hudson and Vodden, 2020). Ellam Yua et al. (2022: p. 34) defined decolonization as “the intentional and active process of recognizing and counteracting processes, structures, and institutions imposed on Indigenous Peoples. Decolonization requires actively making room for mechanisms that support Indigenous cultures and ways of knowing, and which provide Indigenous Peoples and organizations the opportunity to lead and direct research activities.” Indigenous intellectual sovereignty is highly relevant to the framework presented here. Indigenous intellectual sovereignty existed before the formation of the current Arctic states and their Western scientific-based regimes of land and resource management. Therefore, it is ancient, sovereign, and inherent to the Arctic; through it, Indigenous Peoples are empowered to produce Indigenous scholarship and environmental knowledge through their own paradigms and practices, not necessarily through Western science’s paradigms and practices (Shrinkhal, 2021). Indigenous intellectual sovereignty is a necessary element of the model of Indigenous-led and self-determined social science.

Indigenous ontology

Wilson (2001: p. 175) explained ontology as “a belief in the nature of reality. Your way of being, what you believe is real in the world: that’s your ontology.” Indigenous scientific ontology is largely distinct from the scientific ontology that guides most forms of Western science (Wilson, 2001; Hart, 2010; Brooks and Bartley, 2016; Morgan Te Kīpa Kēpa et al., 2021). The fundamental difference is in how Indigenous scientists and non-indigenous scientists believe humans and their cultures are positioned relative to Arctic environments. Indigenous scientists believe people are in and of the environment, and how they are related to that reality is of great importance (Wilson, 2001; Muller et al., 2019). Non-indigenous scientists and environmental managers, who hold to mainstream scientific paradigms such as (post)positivism, believe peoples and cultures are outside of and separate from Arctic environments and, therefore, primarily unrelated to and independent of those environments and resource management processes (Muller et al., 2019).

Herein lies the chief disconnect between the two ontologies that is most relevant for understanding and communicating the need for an Indigenous-led and self-determined social science in the Arctic. Social scientists cannot study and come to know people in ways that benefit the Arctic and realize community health and environmental sustainability if they continue to conceive of people as separate from those environments. The people and the environment are one and the same. To benefit both Arctic peoples and Arctic environments, social scientists must conceive of people as part of those environments and use models and methodologies that are suitable for learning about and understanding the intimate connections and relations between Arctic peoples and Arctic environments (e.g., Esquible et al., 2024). This is a primary reason why we propose a shift away from privileging (post)positive Western social science to prioritizing, centering, and implementing Indigenous-led and self-determined social science in Indigenous communities and regions.

Indigenous models of sustainability

Arctic social scientists and policy experts have increasingly focused their work on issues of sustainability and sustainable development (Petrov et al., 2016; Anderson et al., 2018; Perrin et al., 2021). Scholars have explored the nexus between Indigenous knowledge, climate change adaptation, community resilience, education, and sustainability science (Johnson et al., 2016; Tom et al., 2019; Cajete, 2020; Hudson and Vodden, 2020; Virtanen et al., 2020; Turner et al., 2022). Environmental sustainability is a primary concern for Arctic regions and an expected outcome of northern research; in discussions of social, economic, and land sustainability, authors have prioritized language revitalization, cultural heritage, and healthy lifestyles (Ferguson and Weaselboy, 2020; Chiblow and Meighan, 2022; Perrin et al., 2021). Sustainability and associated community and regional benefits can be more fully and broadly realized by decolonizing research in the north, through research designed and led by Indigenous scholars.

In all models of sustainability, the proponents and practitioners strive to maintain or sustain things or actions of value that will perpetuate a way of living and continue existence. Indigenous relational sustainability (Langdon, 2019) is rooted in Indigenous ontologies and therefore grounded in Indigenous beliefs about Indigenous Peoples’ positions and roles within the environment, including relational accountability, Indigenous reciprocity, community well-being, caring for the land, and taking care of other people and non-human beings (e.g., Kimmerer, 2013; Brooks and Bartley, 2016; Kealikanakaoleohaililani and Giardina 2016; Mazzocchi, 2020; Virtanen et al., 2020; Tagalik et al., 2023). Since it is part of Indigenous ontology, Indigenous sustainability is inherently part of Indigenous-led and self-determined social science and a core pillar of the framework. Indigenous rightsholders want to sustain the many active relationships and networks described earlier because these relations, associated beliefs, and obligatory behaviors are of the greatest value to their ways of life. A paramount concern of Indigenous Peoples is perpetuating their relational knowledge and ways of living.

Sustainability in Western society, otherwise known as sustainable development, is a matter of debate and interpretation. Sustainable development has a complex history in Western thought, and it is multidimensional and difficult to define (Kates et al., 2005). The goal of sustainable development in Western thought is to manage tradeoffs, now and into the future, among three realms: environment, economy, and society. A more specific objective is to sustain production, yield, and access to natural resources and other things of value to develop and benefit people’s socioeconomic positions and prosperity during life and, in theory, for posterity. Western sustainability strives to maintain enough environmental health to continually renew resource abundance and support viability for current and future production, extraction, and other economic pursuits, the benefits of which may or may not be equitably distributed now and in the future. “The underlying assumptions aims, and effect of the Western model must be questioned in terms of their ultimate sustainability” and utility for revitalizing Indigenous communities (Cajete, 2020: p. 9569).

The North American Arctic is a good example of the tragedy of the commons where outsiders who do not live there but whose governments have access rights to land and resources, are racing to develop, extract, and accumulate wealth from Arctic lands. The premise is that development can be accomplished in a sustainable manner. It may be sustainable for those who do not live there and unsustainable for those who do. The Western model strives to sustain resource development through an ethos of wise use, management, and control of both human behavior and the environment for perpetual economic production. The Indigenous model of sustainability is geared toward sustaining healthy relationships through an ethos of caretaking, nurturing, and Indigenous reciprocity grounded in Indigenous cultural beliefs and knowledge systems, all of which guide Indigenous behaviors in communities and on the land. In the Western model, humans are in control, whereas in the Indigenous model, relationships are in control of humans.

It is clear that environmental sustainability is a priority in the Arctic, and it is appropriate for Arctic scholars to continue exploring the linkages between Indigenous self-determination and Arctic sustainability. Respecting and decolonizing Indigenous science and traditional stewardship practices will continue to promote and enhance biodiversity conservation, sustainable development, and environmental management (United Nations, 2007; Kimmerer, 2013; Garnett et al., 2018; Waller and Reo, 2018: Ogar et al., 2020; Turner et al., 2022). Which model of sustainability should Arctic social scientists and policy experts implement? Indigenous models of sustainability are foundational and necessary for developing and implementing Indigenous-led and self-determined social science in the Arctic (Fig. 2).

Indigenous scholarship

Indigenous scholarship is multidimensional and not easily defined. However, we can identify, recognize, and choose to listen to, include, and partner with Indigenous scholars as part of our work in the Arctic. Indigenous scholars may be community or regional Elders who are recognized as subject matter experts. They may be Indigenous individuals or groups of professionals trained at universities by professors, educated in Indigenous communities by their families and Elders through the perpetuation of Indigenous knowledge, or both. Indigenous Peoples have perpetuated Indigenous science by transmitting it across generations, thereby sustaining their knowledge systems (Tom et al., 2019). Likewise, Indigenous scholarship has been sustained across generations and has much to teach non-indigenous scholars (Reeploeg, 2023).

Many Indigenous scholars are well grounded in Indigenous thinking and Western thinking and have been trained in both. Indigenous scholars practice research, teaching, and learning at all educational levels, from community gatherings to post-graduate studies and professorships at all types of universities and colleges. In the context of education, Arctic social scientists, especially non-indigenous scientists and research practitioners, should strive to listen to and learn from the scholarship of Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic. They can honor Indigenous intellectual sovereignty by respecting and centering Indigenous scholarship on its own terms, not merely including it as a novel part of Western scholarship (Reeploeg, 2023).

Indigenous scholarship is intended to be a powerful decolonizing mechanism and is implemented through Indigenous ontologies, research methodologies, education, youth mentorship, and relational accountability (Tom et al., 2019; Cajete, 2020; Wilson et al., 2020; Ramos, 2021; Henri et al., 2022). Indigenous scholarship is an ideal and effective way to design, conduct, apply, and share Indigenous science in ways that benefit Arctic communities and maintain balanced relations with all parts of the Arctic environment. Indigenous scholars are best suited to design, practice, and apply social science based in Indigenous ontologies and methodologies because these are inherent components of their beliefs about reality and ways of knowing. In doing so, they implement and actualize intellectual sovereignty and self-determination in Arctic social science research.

Recommendations: implementing the framework via change

To implement an Indigenous-led and self-determined social science (Fig. 2), we need to make changes to terminology and changes to how we talk and think. First, Indigenous residents, Elders, and scholars of the Arctic (and elsewhere) are rightsholders, decision-makers, respected colleagues, political leaders, and stewards of place relationships who care greatly for the Arctic. They have roles that go beyond key informants, stakeholders, and vessels of knowledge. Indigenous Peoples have substantially contributed to the research, land and natural resources management, biodiversity conservation, and environmental governance across their traditional homelands (United Nations, 2007, 2017, 2020; Garnett et al., 2018; Muller et al., 2019; Bull et al., 2020; Brondízio et al., 2021; Coates and Broderstad, 2020; Corpuz and Kimaren ole Riamit, 2022; Degai et al., 2022; Doering et al., 2022; Buschman and Sudlovenick, 2023). They have sovereignty over research and scientific data about their peoples, lands, and resources (Carroll et al., 2019).

Second, we should stop talking about and advocating for the integration of Indigenous science into Western science; “integration of the two should not be a goal” (Tsuji and Ho, 2002: p. 346; Kendall et al., 2017; Wilson et al., 2020; Inuit Circumpolar Council, 2022). Wilson et al. (2020: p. 133) described how “Inuit research is grounded in relational accountability according to Inuit cultural norms and values; Inuit research is a process towards decolonization and self-determination; and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (i.e., what Inuit have always known to be true; Karetak et al., 2017) is a distinct system fundamentally and philosophically unique, it cannot be integrated into Western [(post)positivist] science and must be recognized on its own merit.” The two knowledge systems are largely distinct in terms of ontology, epistemology, and axiology (Patterson and Williams, 1998; Wilson, 2001; Hart, 2010; Brooks and Bartley, 2016; Degai et al., 2022). Indigenous concepts and methodologies stand alone and may be complemented by or supplemented with Western science where, when, and if deemed appropriate by Indigenous Elders and scholars. Reconciling the relationship between non-indigenous and Indigenous scientists requires genuine respect for and improved understanding of each other’s scientific ontologies and ways of knowing (Bartley and Brooks, 2023; Hickey, 2020) and the histories and cultures behind each knowledge system (Reeploeg, 2023). All social scientists working in the Arctic must be accountable to the people who live there by supporting them and their ways of knowing to realize community and regional benefits on their own terms.

Third, we need to support changes to research governance and oversight in the North American Arctic. We need to work together to better understand and establish more Indigenous, tribal, and regional institutional review boards, tribal research review boards, and research ethics boards that set protocols to review, evaluate, regulate, and oversee all stages of research, from proposals to data archiving (Kelley et al., 2013; Bull et al., 2020; Kawerak, Chinik Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community et al., 2024; Kuhn et al., 2024). Non-indigenous scientists should strive to better understand how Indigenous governments and community leaders formally review, evaluate, and govern research that affects them and their lands and cultures so they can better support Indigenous-led and self-determined research (Doering et al., 2022). Some Indigenous decision-makers and their Western science counterparts will need to prioritize coproduction when Indigenous-led research is not possible or applicable. In these cases, scholars will be better positioned to co-develop and co-conduct ethical social science research with Indigenous residents of the Arctic if they first learn about Indigenous research evaluation and oversight (Kuhn et al., 2024).

Non-indigenous social scientists and policy experts should continue to support self-determination for Arctic Indigenous Peoples in governing and conducting all aspects of research and policy formulation in Arctic environments by sharing control of the research process with and deferring to their Indigenous colleagues and partners as a matter of protocol. Arctic social scientists should support research policies and protocols in which Indigenous communities have ownership of the entire research process from beginning to end, and Indigenous scholars and rightsholders re-establish decision-making power over Arctic research, knowledge access, data sovereignty, and governance (Anderson et al., 2018; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2018; Carroll et al., 2019; Degai et al., 2022; Inuit Circumpolar Council, 2022; Kawerak, Chinik Eskimo Community, King Island Native Community et al., 2024).

Fourth, we need to simplify and implement changes to research funding procedures (Degai et al., 2022; Doering et al., 2022). We need to budget and invest more time and funds for relationship-building, co-creation of research proposals, and Indigenous-led research by not setting hard deadlines for funding applications (Omma et al., 2020; Brooks et al., 2024). Regardless of the scope of a project, we need to increase funding timelines to five years or more for Indigenous-led and co-produced research (Doering et al., 2022). Increasing timelines for funding research will allow Indigenous rightsholders to identify research needs, determine study objectives, and co-create funding calls with non-indigenous research sponsors and Indigenous and non-indigenous social scientists.

To prioritize community needs for research, scientists may need to work with communities and their leaders for nine months to two or more years before securing funding to begin studies (Omma et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2020). One option is for research funders and sponsors to make separate awards to fund the initial relationship-building and proposal development phase of Arctic social science projects. A separate award or sponsor could be initiated to fund the post-proposal phases of research. We recommend a pre-proposal funding stage in which Indigenous and non-indigenous scholars are fully supported to establish trust and develop proposals to be considered for additional funding and implementation. Funders and principle investigators should plan for a minimum of four years for the period of performance for funded studies that partner with Indigenous communities, whether these are led by Indigenous scholars or co-produced (Doering et al., 2022).

Wheeler et al. (2020) identified concern among experts that Indigenous organizations and communities are often overburdened by many requests to do collaborative research. Increasing timelines and funding can help relieve overburden, but ultimately, we need to increase the capacity of Indigenous organizations and scholars to have time to evaluate, develop, and conduct Indigenous-led and self-determined research. Reducing the number of requests for collaborative research partnerships may reduce this burden and allow Indigenous organizations time and funds to focus on doing their own research (Wheeler et al., 2020).

Funding organizations should be working with Indigenous and non-indigenous social scientists and community leaders to determine when and where to prioritize and fund Indigenous-led and self-determined research compared to when and where research partners may prefer to develop and fund co-produced research. When logistically practicable and properly designed and conducted, coproduction of knowledge research can serve as a decolonizing mechanism in social science research (Isaac, 2015; Omma et al., 2020; Brooks, 2022; Ellam Yua et al., 2022) and community-based monitoring programs (Jones et al., 2019). We recommend, when capacity and preference allow, prioritizing and funding Indigenous-led and self-determined research over co-produced research because we believe the former has more potential to create community benefits and sustainability in the Arctic. We are not recommending, however, that research co-produced by Indigenous and Western scientists be discontinued or marginalized as it has demonstrated value and application in the Arctic (e.g., Jones et al., 2019).

Fifth, research sponsors in the Arctic should fund studies that include and develop programs that mentor and support young Indigenous scientists and students and closely involve them in community-based participatory research projects (Simpson and Mendenhall, 2022; Beaulieu et al., 2023). Arctic research professionals can actualize Indigenous self-determination in science by adequately funding youth mentorship programs. We should fund workshops, school classroom programs, cultural practices on land and waters, and other projects in which Indigenous Elders, Indigenous scholars, and non-Indigenous scientists are supported to mentor Indigenous youth. We recommended that governmental agencies and other sponsors fund scholarships, mentor fees, and stipends for Indigenous Elders, Indigenous youth/students, and Indigenous and non-indigenous scholars to participate in science and management activities in their homelands and to learn from and alongside their Elders (Brooks et al., 2024). Indigenous Elders and other Arctic scholars can best perpetuate their knowledge by transmitting experiences from older to younger generations in various mentorship and teaching settings, preferably on the land and centered on culture and community (Chiblow and Meighan, 2021; Henri et al., 2022; Simpson and Mendenhall, 2022; Beaulieu et al., 2023).

Finally, we need to support changes in research roles. Indigenous Elders, scholars, and other Indigenous rightsholders are principal investigators and decision-makers in research, not mere participants. Non-Indigenous scientists serve as mentors and supporters, bringing in Western science concepts and methods where and when appropriate and helping to train and mentor the next generation of Arctic social scientists and strengthen the capacity of Indigenous youth in Arctic research (Wilson et al., 2020). Arctic professionals and Indigenous scholars should co-develop methods for mentoring the next generation of northern scholars and prioritize the coproduction of Arctic research policy to guide the research process from its earliest stages through communication and distribution of study findings. Mentoring and education programs should be written into community research policies and protocols upfront to prioritize youth mentorship during research design, evaluation, and funding stages.

Implications

The framework developed here may be applied to most scientific research about and management of socio-ecological systems and sustainability in the Arctic. However, it is increasingly acknowledged that the tenants of Indigenous science cannot and should not be assimilated and generalized within the reductionistic scientific paradigms applied in most Western thought and knowledge systems, particularly for dominant theories and practices in the natural and physical sciences (Broadhead and Howard, 2021; Morgan Te Kīpa Kēpa et al., 2021). In addition, we believe that non-positivistic social science is more amenable to the model than (post)positivistic social science. Western social science includes non-positivistic paradigms that may be congruent or resonant with principles and methods of Indigenous science. Whereas the reductionistic paradigms typically applied in Western (post)positivist social sciences are largely incongruent with Indigenous science.

The Arctic social science community should intentionally seek out and allow more opportunities for “Indigenous science and resonant areas of Western science to enter into a relationship” (Broadhead and Howard, 2021: p. 118). Relational models of social science have widespread application to Indigenous healthcare, language, research ethics, education, Elder-youth mentorship, and rural economies (Anderson et al., 2018). Non-indigenous and Indigenous social scientists have adapted and applied qualitative interpretive approaches to not only complement the relational nature of Indigenous knowledge but to center and elevate its position in research (e.g., Lavoie et al., 2019; Andrews, 2021; Ramos, 2021; Brooks et al., 2024; Esquible et al., 2024). Social science approaches that rely on narrative, storytelling, oral history, metaphor (Archibald, 2008; Brooks et al., 2015; Lavoie et al., 2019; Dankertsen, 2022), Two-Eyed Seeing with mutual respect (Learn, 2020; Broadhead and Howard, 2021), reflexivity (Brooks, 2017), experiential learning (Henri et al., 2022), community-based action research (Stringer, 1999), transformative research methods (Mertens, 2021), and co-constitution of meaning (Patterson and Williams, 2002; Carr, 2010; Bartley and Brooks, 2023) are well suited to complement Indigenous-led and self-determined social science and may resonate with Indigenous social scientists because these approaches are practical, relational, rely on oral tradition, and do not separate humans and culture from the environment.

Conclusion

Indigenous science is well-established in the Arctic, and its practitioners have been adapting and applying Western ideas and technologies since Western scientists and their technologies first arrived in the Arctic. The evidence in the literature and the stories of sustainability in the Arctic point towards Indigenous self-determination and self-governance of Arctic research and decision-making for land and community stewardship and health, particularly in the social sciences. Indigenous-led and self-determined social science research creates local benefits and actions that radiate from communities and local places to Arctic regions and ultimately form the foundation of Arctic-wide sustainability (Fig. 2). Benefits of Indigenous social science, based on relational accountability, include strong leadership, youth mentorship, care for the land and all living beings, revitalization of Indigenous languages, ceremonial practices, and nurturing of related kin groups through time and at all levels of organization and scales of geography.

Indigenous rightsholders and scholars who live and work in the Arctic have demonstrated that the motives for doing social science research and making management and policy decisions must align with a process of Indigenous science that supports and produces an array of benefits and contributions to community health and sustainability (e.g., Cajete, 2020). Indigenous participation and involvement in collaborative and co-produced research are necessary, but not sufficient for achieving sustainability outcomes in Arctic Indigenous communities. Indigenous-led and self-determined social science is necessary and sufficient for achieving these outcomes when and where practicable.

An Indigenous-led and self-determined social science has great potential to bring together multiple levels of socio-ecological organization (Fig. 2). To prioritize regional and community needs, Arctic social scientists should seriously consider centering Indigenous-led social science to achieve desired outcomes for community well-being and Arctic sustainability, especially in Indigenous communities in the North American Arctic. Implementing this model would appropriately meet those needs and provide a much-needed relational understanding of Indigenous communities and sustainability in the Arctic. To realize Arctic sustainability, we must vehemently develop, support, and implement research processes and research governance policies founded on and directed by Indigenous Peoples’ relationships with their homelands.