Abstract
To arrive at holistic policy solutions, decision-makers require comprehensive and comprehensible decision support tools based on coherent science-based assessments (Tesar C, Science 353(6306):1368–1370, 2016). The actors involved in decision-making in the Bering Strait (BeSR) and Barents Sea (BaSR) Regions include representatives from all levels of government, NGOs and other civil society organizations, the private sector, and Indigenous and local residents. As consistently acknowledged in the previous chapters, holistic decision-making in both regions is often hindered by a lack of dialogue and understanding among these actors. In this chapter, we address the importance of inclusive and informed decision-making and identify key skills and experiences necessary for early-career scientists situated in the classic science space to communicate decision-support tools to decision-makers (Table 14.1). In the context of this paper, “classic science” represents traditional academic research and training programs, which are bounded by disciplinary silos. We ground our recommendations to early-career scientists and the institutions shaping their development in response to the broad emerging issues currently facing decision-makers in the BeSR and BaSR.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Tondu et al. (2014), sharing their own perspectives as early-career researchers invested in community-level decision-support, identified broad categories for development of “Northern community-collaborative relationships”: dedicating time, being present, communicating, listening, respect and understanding, and building trust for collaborative efforts and knowledge exchange. These same categories could productively apply to effective engagement with many other types of decision-makers.
- 2.
For example, negotiation is commonly cited as a key tool for scientists seeking to support formal policy-making processes within and between national governments.
- 3.
Variably referred to as “participatory action research” and “action research” by different scientists and practice organizations.
References
Andresen S et al (2000) Science and politics in international environmental regimes: between integrity and involvement. Manchester University Press, Manchester
Austin AE (2010) Reform efforts in STEM doctoral education: strengthening preparation for scholarly careers. In: Tierney WG (ed) Higher education: handbook of theory and research, vol 25. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 91–128
Baeseman J, Pope A (2011) APECS: nurturing a new generation of polar researchers. Oceanography 24(3):219. https://doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2011.73
Baldwin JA, Johnson JL, Benally CC (2009) Building partnerships between indigenous communities and universities: lessons learned in HIV/AIDS and substance abuse prevention research. Am J Public Health 99(Suppl 1):S77–S82. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.134585
Behe C (2017) Empowerment of Inuit and balance. 22 January 2017. 11th Arctic Frontiers conference. Inuit circumpolar council Alaska. http://iccalaska.org/wp-icc/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Empowerment-of-Inuit-and-Balance-.pdf
Berkman PA, Kullerud L, Pope A, Vylegzhanin AN, Young OR (2017) The Arctic science agreement propels science diplomacy. Science 358(6363):596–598. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaq0890
Bromwich D, Kuo Y-H, Serreze M, Walsh J, Bai L-S, Barlage M, Hines K, Slater A (2010) Arctic system reanalysis: call for community involvement. Eos Trans AGU 91(2):13–14. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010EO020001
Bultitude K (2011) The why and how of science communication. In: Rosulek P (ed) Science communication. European Commission, Pilsen. Available online at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/sts/staff/bultitude/KB_TB/Karen_Bultitude_-_Science_Communication_Why_and_How.pdf
Clement JP, Bengtson JL, Kelly BP (2013) Managing for the future in a rapidly changing Arctic. A report to the President. Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy Development and Permitting in Alaska (D. J. Hayes, Chair), Washington, DC, 59 p
Integrating Arctic Research: A Roadmap for the Future 3rd International Conference on Arctic Research Planning. Available online at: https://icarp.iasc.info/images/articles/downloads/ICARPIII_Final_Report.pdf
Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2018) National inuit strategy on research. https://www.itk.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/National-Inuit-Strategy-on-Research.pdf
Joint Statement of Ministers on the Occasion of the Second Arctic Science Ministerial (2018) Available online at: https://www.arcticscienceministerial.org/files/ASM2_Joint_Statement.pdf
Mayan MJ, Daum C (2016) Beyond dissemination: generating and applying qualitative evidence through community-based participatory research. In: Olson K et al (ed) Handbook of qualitative health research for evidence-based practice, handbooks in health, work, and disability 4, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2920-7_26
Meadows DH (1999) Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Publisher: The Sustainability Institute
Native American Center for Excellence [NACE] (2014) Steps for conducting research and evaluation in native communities. Executive summary. Available online at: https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/nace-steps-conducting-research-evaluation-native-communities.pdf
Pain E (2011) How to network effectively. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a1500251
Petrov AN, BurnSilver S, Stuart Chapin F III, Fondahl G, Graybill J, Keil K, Nilsson AE, Riedlsperger R, Schweitzer P (2016) Arctic sustainability research: toward a new agenda. Polar Geogr 39(3):165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088937X.2016.1217095
Pielke RA Jr (2007) The honest broker. Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, New York
Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) (2008) The SAGE handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. SAGE Publications Ltd, London
Sarkki S, Tinch R, Niemelä J, Heink U, Waylen K, Timaeus J et al (2015) Adding “iterativity” to the credibility, relevance, legitimacy: a novel scheme to highlight dynamic aspects of science–policy interfaces. Environ Sci Pol 54(1–10). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.02.016
Schiffer E (2007) The power mapping tool: a method for the empirical research of power relations. IFPRI discussion papers 703, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Straits KJE, Bird DM, Tsinajinnie E, Espinoza J, Goodkind J, Spencer O, Tafoya N, Willging C (2012) Guiding principles for engaging in research with native American communities. UNM Center for Rural and Community Behavioral Health & Albuquerque Area Southwest Tribal Epidemiology Center. Available online at: http://hsc.unm.edu/vision2020/common/docs/Guiding_Principles_Research_Native_Communities2012.pdf
Tesar C, Dubois MA, Shestakov A (2016) Toward strategic, coherent, policy-relevant arctic science. Science 353(6306):1368–1370. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8198
Timm K, Pope A, Smieszek M, Fugmann G, Zaika Y (2017) Arctic science: from knowledge to action? Polar J 7(2):428–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/2154896X.2017.1394122
Tondu JME, Balasubramaniam AM, Chavarie L, Gantner N, Knopp JA, Provencher JF, Wong PBY, Simmons D (2014) Working with northern communities to build collaborative research partnerships: perspectives from early career researchers. Arctic 67(3):419–425. https://doi.org/10.14430/arctic4416
UArctic. Members. https://members.uarctic.org/membership/current-member-profiles/
UArctic. Thematic Networks and Institutes. https://research.uarctic.org/thematic-networks/
van Kerkhoff, L., Lebel, L. (2006). Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour. 31, 445–477.
Watson RT (2005) Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science policy interface. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 360(1454):471–477. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1601
Werner K, Fritz M, Morata N, Keil K, Pavlov A, Peeken I et al (2016) Arctic in rapid transition: priorities for the future of marine and coastal research in the Arctic. Pol Sci 10(3):364–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polar.2016.04.005
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Douglas, M.B.A., Kontar, Y., Smieszek, M., Pope, A., Zhuravleva, I.P. (2020). Building Capacity: Education Beyond Boundaries. In: Young, O., Berkman, P., Vylegzhanin, A. (eds) Governing Arctic Seas: Regional Lessons from the Bering Strait and Barents Sea. Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25674-6_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-25673-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-25674-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)