Purpose and Vision of RPT 5: Rooted in Indigenous Futures RPT 5 builds on the foundational work of earlier reports by focusing on the co-production of knowledge and Indigenous-led methodologies. This report responds to the commitments established during the International Conference on Arctic Research Planning (ICARP) III and the strategic priorities of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC) aiming to strengthen Indigenous participation across all dimensions of Arctic research. It outlines specific strategies for researchers, funding agencies, and policymakers to prioritize Indigenous leadership, working collaboratively with knowledge holders to ensure that research practices remain accountable to Arctic communities. The vision guiding this work is of mutual respect and shared responsibility. It recognizes that scientific excellence in the Arctic must emerge from relationships, where Indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems shape research questions, methods and outcomes. Co-production is not a checklist or afterthought. It is a practice of being in relation, grounded in trust, reciprocity and long-term commitments to the well-being of Peoples and places. It honours and upholds mutual respect and responsibility in Actionable outcomes through all aspects of research. We begin with a vision. As Indigenous scholars, educators, knowledge keepers, and allied community members and academics, we are not simply responding to research frameworks and paradigms, we are reshaping and creating them. Guided by our respective self-determining practices, laws, languages, and ways of knowing, we assert that: • As part of their self-determination, Indigenous Peoples have the right to their own knowledge creation and participate in sharing and creating knowledge as they deem appropriate. • Indigenous Peoples are Rightsholders. • Indigenous governance in knowledge production is non-negotiable. • Data sovereignty and ethical research practices are essential. • Research must lead to tangible, community-directed outcomes. • Indigenous Knowledge systems must shape, not just inform, Arctic research. Indigenous Peoples have sovereign authority and inherent expertise to generate knowledge, fundamentally shaping epistemologies and research paradigms. Their knowledge systems are dynamic, authoritative, and central to understanding and addressing complex Arctic realities and building Arctic futures. Indigenous Knowledge is a powerful, legitimate and indispensable source of insight and innovation. Indigenous-led research is rooted in generations of wisdom that stems from a deep understanding of the Land. ICARP IV is a forum for scientific priorities, including a place where science and Indigenous Peoples meet, reclaim space and redefine knowledge. This report asserts that true co-production of knowledge at most research tables requires Indigenous leadership at every level—defining priorities, leading methodologies, owning data, and determining the outcomes. ICARP IV is a call to action: to reimagine Indigenous research inclusion as an act of humanity, Indigenous sovereignty and to ensure that knowledge co-production reflects the futures Indigenous people are building. Indigenous Peoples are continually pushed into systems that often do not align with our knowledge, responsibilities, or ways of being. We assert inherent authority within our systems of knowledge as knowledge holders and protectors while carrying responsibilities to safeguard, regenerate, and rearticulate our ways of knowing. We establish this through continuity and relational accountability to both our knowledge systems and Western knowledge. Successful implementation of ICARP IV’s recommendations will transform the Arctic research space in the following ways: 1. Strengthen and broaden dedicated funding for Indigenous-driven research. Strengthened and expanded funding streams are set aside specifically for Indigenous-driven research, with Indigenous organizations, governments, and communities in the lead as applicants and decision-makers. These funds support projects where Arctic Indigenous Peoples define the questions, methods, partnerships, and timelines. For example, a regional Indigenous government could receive multi-year funding to run its own research office, hire community researchers, and commission studies on language revitalization, land use, climate adaptation, or youth well-being that respond directly to local priorities. Funding rules, reporting requirements, and evaluation criteria are redesigned so that community benefits, cultural safety, and knowledge sovereignty matter as much as academic publications. 2. Community-defined priorities at the center of Arctic research. Arctic research prioritizes projects that clearly and directly address needs, concerns, and aspirations identified by Arctic communities, including moral, cultural, and ethical dimensions. This means that research proposals must show how they were developed with communities, how they respond to community-identified issues, and how the work will uphold local values and protocols. For example, a health study might be funded only if it emerges from a community-led process that identifies specific mental health concerns related to colonial trauma, and if the project’s methods are guided by Elders, local healers, and community ethics guidelines. Similarly, wildlife research might proceed only when it respects harvesting practices, sacred areas, and community decision-making, and includes clear plans for sharing results in local languages and formats that are meaningful and useful to the people most affected. 3. Bridging, Weaving, Creating Knowledge that is Deeply Co-Productive. Bridging, braiding, weaving, and creating deeply co-productive knowledge are everyday, expected practices in Arctic research. They are not just exceptions. For example, a sea-ice study might combine satellite data with Inupiat or Inuit ice terminology and travel stories, with Elders and hunters named as co-authors and co-leads, rather than “participants.” Researchers routinely plan projects so that Indigenous and Western knowledge systems are in genuine partnership from the start. For instance, monitoring programs may be designed in community workshops, where Indigenous Knowledge holders decide which indicators matter (like animal behavior or shorefast ice changes) alongside scientists’ measurements. 4. Critical research as healing (decolonizing) work. Critical research activities inside the research system are used deliberately to challenge, change, and heal from colonial practices. For example, universities and research institutes may run regular internal reviews that examine who gets funding, who is cited, whose knowledge is valued, and then change their policies when they find bias. These activities might include ethics board reforms, mandatory anti-colonial training for reviewers, and audits of data ownership that lead to shifting control of data back to Indigenous organizations. In this way, “research about research” becomes a tool for accountability and repair, not just an academic exercise. 5. Decolonized research spaces. Decolonizing research spaces allows Arctic Indigenous scholars and others to fully participate in research while staying rooted in their home communities and responsibilities. For example, an Indigenous PhD student might be able to join seminars online from their community, have fieldwork count as core research time, and schedule academic deadlines around hunting seasons or cultural obligations.Institutions adapt policies, funding, and infrastructure so that Indigenous scholars do not have to leave their language, land, or community relationships behind to succeed. This can look like community-based research hubs, flexible residency requirements, and hiring practices that recognize community leadership and land-based expertise as scholarly excellence.
Skillington et al. (Thu,) studied this question.