74
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Communicating Climate Change
granted Greenland semi-autonomy; a 2008 Greenlandic referendum led to a greater degree of self-
government. Greenlanders were recognized as a separate people under international law. These
earlier events in the 1970s had paved the way for more equitable terms on which the exchange of
Inuit knowledge and Western knowledge would benefit
both
parties. However, knowledge in itself is
potentially political and scientific inquiry was no exception. Indeed, Mark Nuttall (2012: 4) notes that
―it is almost impossible to separate science from politics.‖
In a wider context, Foucault associates the intersection of politics and Western scientific knowledge
systems with the political economy of truth: ―‗truth‘ is centered on the form of scientific discourse
and the institutions that produce it; it is subject to constant economic and political incitement (the
demand for truth, as much for economic production as for political power)‖ (Foucault, 2000: 131).
It is unlikely that Inuit, like most of civil society, would have perceived Western thought in the same
manner as Foucault, however it is highly evident that Inuit leaders understood the relationship
between power and knowledge. Inuit would engage but on terms far different than the colonial
years. Decisions that led to political organization were perhaps the largest of the many hurdles to
come that would influence future relations with Western society.
A second hurdle had to do with the process of integrating indigenous and scientific perspectives. In
1992, Ellen Bielawski (1992: 12), a research associate of the Arctic Institute of North America
(AINA), articulated the view that indigenous knowledge and science ―both contribute to
understanding the Arctic.‖ However, ―no one quite knows how‖ to integrate the two.
By the early twenty-first century collaboration between research scientists and Arctic indigenous
peoples was increasingly seen as mutually beneficial. Several organizations had developed formal
codes of ethics ―to ensure that the research is being undertaken in a locally acceptable fashion‖;
research needed to benefit not only Western science but also the indigenous communities that were
providing local knowledge (Pearce et al., 2009: 13). Foremost, forging strong trusted relationships
were essential for scientific researchers and community members alike (ibid; Gearheard et al, 2006).
The collaborative approach to environmental research is well illustrated in a 2006 article by Shari
Gearheard, a scientist with the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center. A
comparative study of environmental and sea ice change conducted in Barrow, Alaska and Clyde
River, Nunavut was the result of a collaborative effort which comprised the knowledge of Western
scientists, Inuit and Inupiat researchers. The team included non-indigenous researchers Shari
Gearheard, Henry P. Huntington, James Maslanik and Roger G. Barry; Inupiaq researchers Warren
Matumeak, Joe Leavitt, Darlene Matumeak Kagak; and Inuit researchers Ilkoo Angutikjuaq, Geela
Tigullaraq. Joelie Sanguya, an Inuk from Clyde River, influenced the paper‘s title.
Significantly, the degree of success relied on the trusted relationships that developed over time; each
of the non-indigenous researchers had ten to fifteen years of local experience prior to the
collaborative study. Gearheard has worked with Inuit in Nunavut since 1995 and established
residency in Clyde River in 2004 (Gearheard, 2006: 206). Gearheard, who authored the paper
associated with the study said: ―collaborative research and firsthand experience are critical to
generating such new knowledge‖ (ibid: 204).