A typology of Inuit youth engagement in environmental research

Participatory approaches to research with Indigenous communities are viewed as promising and have been used with increasing prevalence as they can have an amplifying effect for underrepresented voices, such as those of Indigenous peoples and youth more specifically (Danielsen et al. 2008; Ritchie et al. 2013; Kouril et al. 2016). Underlying features of citizen participation and engagement in research can be found in a variety of typologies or systems of classifying things or actions (for example, forms of engagement) organized by or according to “type” (see Arnstein 1969; Talwar et al. 2011). Some typologies specifically address local-level engagement in environmental monitoring (see Danielsen et al. 2008), as well as environmental monitoring with Indigenous partners and participants (see Dale and Armitage 2011; Hill et al. 2012). Other typologies of participation specific to youth have been applied in multiple research settings, including participatory action research (see Hart 1992; Wong et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2012).

With many participatory approaches available, community engagement in Arctic environmental research often manifests through community-based monitoring (CBM) (Johnson et al. 2013). In CBM, engagement frequently involves the participation of local experts in environmental monitoring activities, the application of their expertise, and opportunities to learn about relevant science and technology (Johnson et al. 2013; Gérin-Lajoie et al. 2018). Engagement may also be extended to include involvement in the design of environmental monitoring projects, result interpretation, and result dissemination (Johnson et al. 2013). However, the roles of Inuit youth in CBM programs and other environmental research projects remain largely undefined.

As such, our goal was to characterise the varying types of Inuit youth engagement in environmental research. We sought to contribute to a better understanding of the varying roles that Inuit youth play in western environmental research, as well as to inform potential frameworks for enhancing Inuit youth engagement in these processes. We define the term western environmental research as the study of socio-ecological systems and processes using both social and natural science (including life sciences) approaches, including field experiments and observations.

The far left of the typology (shown in Fig. 1) consists of Inuit youth engagement activities that focus on supporting environmental research. As the term “support” does not overtly reflect the level or value of participation of the individuals carrying out these roles, we use the term “participate”. Based on contributors’ responses, participatory roles may include being a boat operator, snow mobile operator, bear guard, outdoor guide, or camp manager, for example. Significant outdoor experience, land-based skills and knowledge are required for each of these roles. However, experience in environmental research itself was not considered to be essential to participate in research through these roles. Similarly, Inuit knowledge holders, experienced harvesters, and Elders (all of whom may commonly be referred to as “informants” in a research context) possess a wealth of ecological knowledge gained through observation and experience, but do not necessarily need to possess “western scientific” knowledge or training to partner in or make valuable contributions to environmental research. Inuit youth were not typically placed into this category, though it was acknowledged that many may indeed possess valuable skills and knowledge (Gérin-Lajoie et al. 2018; Pedersen et al. 2020; Sadowsky et al. 2022a). Importantly, land-based skills and knowledge were not found to be any less valuable or less relevant than western environmental scientific literacy. Possessing these important land-based skills, and knowledge for “participatory” research roles were considered essential for Arctic environmental research and not perceived as a deficit or lack of ability to contribute, participate, and partner in the research process.

The middle of the typology represents roles related to conducting environmental research. These include what contributors characterized as imitative data collection, research methods comprehension, data analysis and interpretation, presenting or reporting results within communities or at conferences, applying for funding, and project co-creation including methodological design. A certain level of training in western science and research competence are usually required for the development of each of these skills.

A data collection role employing imitative skills spans both participating in research and conducting research in this typology. The overlap accounts for a divergence in contributor experiences. Some contributors reported that they had learned science through data collection tasks. Meanwhile, others disclosed feeling that they had learned very little of the science underlying the broader research when working in this role. We heard a community member wonder aloud, “Why do I need a college diploma to count lemmings?”, while looking at a research job ad, indicating that they believed a low level of western scientific literacy was required for this role in the research process. Contributors offered nuanced and varied perspectives on the roles of youth engagement in data collection specifically, and clearly, individual experiences in data collection led to different outcomes within our study.

Fundamentally, data collection activities in which Inuit youth only imitate skills without learning the science behind research methods present limited opportunities to make decisions about selecting appropriate research methods, whereas additional learning is more likely to advance western environmental scientific literacy.

To the right, research control, as stated by contributors, includes co-creation with southern-based researchers and eventually leading and implementing a research agenda. It was recognized that both require substantial experience and western scientific literacy in the context of environmental research, up to and including formal schooling. Project co-creation and methodological design roles span the conducting research and controlling research types as it was recognized that projects may be developed by local research team members without “feeling in control” of the study. Controlling research in the context of this typology means that Inuit youth researchers co-create projects with southern-based researchers while not being dependent on them for support. The term dependence would require further exploration as our coding did not provide further details. At this level, research could still require institutional support beyond Nunavut (for example, from southern or northern institutions, expertise of external researchers, or for funding purposes).

The Principal Investigator role for Inuit youth researchers appears as an extreme in our typology, because it is thus far very rare and difficult to achieve according to our research. Importantly, contributors indicated that youth also have diverse research interests, often not represented in Canadian southern-led research agendas. For instance, many valued and sought the application of Inuit research methodologies or IQ in their own research, which could only be achieved, in their view, by also controlling the research process and being independent from external supports and influences. Few examples could be found of this type of research at the time of this study, although very recent efforts to support Inuit-led research have emerged (see ArcticNet’s Inuit Nunangat Research Program, https://arcticnet.ulaval.ca/north-north). This was beyond the scope of the current project but would warrant further study.

Our typology of Inuit youth engagement in environmental research provides examples of the different roles and responsibilities that Inuit youth may carry out within the research process. While this paper does not specifically prescribe “how to” guidance on engaging Inuit youth in the research process, our study found that research engagement can be a highly personalised and meaningful process for both researchers and Inuit youth (Sadowsky et al. 2022b). Researchers who commit to engaging or partnering with Inuit youth in the research process may consider establishing Inuit youth partners’ research or science literacy goals early on as part of an engagement framework within projects. This would likely mean opening up opportunities for Inuit youth to become involved in any or all levels of the research process to facilitate meeting science literacy goals. For some Inuit youth, partaking in environmental research activities that allow them to spend time on the land may be sufficient, taking on roles such as guides and data collectors. For others, learning about research and western sciences through more in-depth engagement may be preferred, particularly among Inuit youth who would like to pursue further studies, careers, or other leadership positions related to environmental research and management. Setting milestones may assist in evaluating progress. Based on the collective experiences of the authors, re-evaluating goals and progress regularly (and being flexible toward goals and learning pathways) may help ensure that the goals of both researchers and Inuit youth partners are achieved. In a practical sense, referencing the typology can help researchers to understand where their Inuit youth partner’s interests and capabilities lie, providing a direction for more individualized and advanced training, and eventually leading to more robust forms of collaboration and partnership. Not surprisingly, the further research efforts move to the right in our typology, the greater potential exists to improve Inuit youth’s western scientific literacy, leadership, and capacity in western-style environmental research. Yet, recent evidence suggests that Indigenous partners are more likely to be engaged in data collection than in any other phase of the research process (Thompson et al. 2020). This means that most research is not, in principle, helping advance Inuit youth western environmental scientific literacy.

While some research has shown that learning certainly can occur through imitation and simple tasks (Barron 2006), this outcome is not universal across all instances of experiential learning (Bell et al. 2003; Burgin et al. 2015). We found that learning research methods is relevant for youth who will at some point design their own research. Having this knowledge of multiple methods may allow youth researchers to select an approach that aligns with frameworks of relational accountability (Wilson 2008). Similarly, data analysis and interpretation are fundamental aspects of the research process. Being able to interpret research can ensure that local perspectives are represented (Wong et al. 2020). We found that presenting and reporting findings can allow youth to receive constructive and critical feedback from their peer groups (home community and research community). Additionally, it may build their confidence in their own research capabilities and standing in the scientific community. The process of applying for funding may help Inuit youth discover what types of funding resources are available to them. Furthermore, their prior experience in research can ensure that appropriate budgeting for community-level engagement is built into their research funding structures.

Finally, our study results do hint that engagement in co-creation and methodological design strongly promotes western scientific literacy, although this would require further exploration. Project co-creation is representative of power sharing, which promotes accountability and enhances local control and ownership over research (Thompson et al. 2020). Greater collaboration with Inuit youth in the research process may also contribute to the decolonization of western research within Inuit Nunangat (Wilson et al. 2020). For example, interest in eventually becoming the Principal Investigator in research indicates that Inuit youth are prepared to create original research, which may be designed through the application of either western or Indigenous research paradigms, or both (Pedersen et al. 2020).

Inuit youth engagement in research can serve many purposes. Importantly, it aligns with the NISR goals for Inuit self-determination in research, particularly in the area of building human resources in research capacity in Inuit Nunangat (Wilson et al. 2020). Excluding Inuit youth from research would inevitably undermine the goals of the NISR. In the long term, if Inuit youth are able to negotiate stronger research partnerships, they may learn to conduct original research projects, build capacity to more effectively align research with community interests, and maximize the benefits and outputs of publicly funded research.

Our study suggests that research can help foster positive and long-lasting youth contributions to their communities. Multiple studies have shown that, when provided with the appropriate training and opportunities, youth readily tackle a variety of roles and responsibilities as members of research teams (see e.g., Wolfe et al. 2007; Gérin-Lajoie et al. 2018; Wilson et al. 2020). Ideally, research and researchers can open opportunities for Inuit youth to achieve their goals in western environmental science as much as Inuit youth engagement advances environmental research programs (Sadowsky et al. 2022a, 2022b). However, this may only be achieved when researchers commit to facilitating participation in all aspects of the research process to Inuit youth, which may also necessitate built-in funding for activities that would not otherwise be accessible to Inuit youth (for example, payment for research work, equipment purchases, or covering conference fees and accommodation costs) (Sadowsky et al . 2022a).

Although beyond the scope of this paper, we believe that as an increasing number of Inuit youth take part in western environmental research, Inuit knowledge, values, and worldviews may also become fundamental elements of broader Inuit Nunangat research. The coupling of IQ and western scientific literacy could further ensure that Inuit values and research priorities are upheld in the long term (Pedersen et al. 2020). While the review conducted by Brunet et al. (2014b) suggests that the uptake of participatory practices in research has been slow with only mild increases seen in participatory engagement in recent decades, academic, research, and funding institutions continue to promote the inclusion of Inuit and IQ in Inuit Nunangat research (Pedersen et al. 2020; Wilson et al. 2020). In our view, participatory engagement can serve the process of reconciliation as youth learn about the forces that impact their communities and work toward greater self-determination. Despite finding that there is no single solution or best practices within this space, our hope is that this typology may inform potential frameworks for working towards enhanced Inuit youth engagement and leadership in research that may ultimately be guided by Inuit partners and facilitated by the larger research community.