Date of Award

12-17-2023

Document Type

Dissertation

Abstract

Analyzing and comprehending co-production of knowledge (CPK) in the context of working with Arctic Indigenous communities on climate change research is the main goal for this interdisciplinary doctoral dissertation. CPK is shared decision-making on every step of the research process with research partners from communities, agencies, or organizations. CPK with Arctic Indigenous communities requires dedicated consideration of equity, ethics, cultural worldviews, and colonization. Key concepts from Indigenous critical methodologies are used to analyze both the CPK theory and implementation. CPK has the potential to be an ethical space to question the status quo of research processes and support Indigenous self-determination. Critiquing NSF's Navigating the New Arctic as a case study, there were many missteps in not following CPK in the development of the program and projects, along with not following United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (Ch. 2). There are significant lessons to be learned from the literature on collaborative methodology, including Indigenous methodologies. Through synthesis work, a model was developed compiling factors of success to achieving CPK along with a discussion of perspectives on those factors and success metrics. The objective of the synthesis work is the development of tools to support transparent communication and co-design of research projects (Ch. 3). CPK happens in-between the boundaries of disciplines, cultures, and science-policy-community. Thirteen experts in boundary spanning co-produced lessons-learned and recommendations based on their expertise and experiences. The project co-produced strategies to overcome funding barriers and the cultural divide to Alaska Native communities utilizing a boundary analysis framework (Ch. 4). Applying the CPK and boundary spanning concepts, themes of success in improving Arctic observing were developed from homogenous focus groups. With thirty-four participants representing scientists, science coordination experts, policy experts, and Indigenous community leaders and scholars, co-analysis was impractical. Following the Rapid Assessment Process utilizing focus groups, themes of success and corresponding science and Indigenous perspectives were developed (Ch. 5).

Handle

http://hdl.handle.net/11122/14967

Download

Share

COinS