Next Practices for Collaborative Research
For the NNA
Utqiaġvik
Sensor Array project, Co-PI Caitlin Wylie and postdoc Hannah Bradley have focused their social science research on observing and analyzing the developing collaboration between our academic colleagues and our community partners, asking “How can scientists and communities best work toward common goals?”
Our goal is to have our continued work in Alaska be effective and ethical. That means understanding how we can work together more effectively in future research projects in ways that benefit both science and communities. This focus contributes to ongoing discussions across the Arctic on how the “coproduction” of research can contribute to regional resilience. Co-production is an approach that aims to bring together diverse groups to collaborate as equals, sharing power, knowledge, and resources, to create outcomes (in this case, science) for collective benefit. After observing meetings, fieldwork, and presentations over three years, we have identified several key themes related to effective and ethical collaboration:
- Co-production is hard to analyze from just “inside” the project and the project timeline: it includes actions and relationship building that extend beyond the work of one project, which take place during other work and in downtime.
- Don’t be afraid to be uncomfortable! Making scientists uncomfortable means we’re working through something important.
- Remain flexible about outcomes. It helps to be adaptive, but we need clear goals in order to work together and communicate clearly with potential partners.
- When we don’t agree on standards of evidence, or what data are necessary and when they are needed, we are not pulling together toward integrated goals, just working in our own lanes.
Our recommendations for future research teams are in three categories: Be Vulnerable
- Be invited.
- Ask—assume nothing!
- Share early.
- Embrace flexibility.
- Be open to redefining co-production.
- Officially share decision-making power and funds with community partners—ideally in the funding proposal.
- Network with similar projects and be honest about fieldwork challenges and solutions. Sharing this experiential knowledge early saves time and effort. It spares the community research fatigue and potential environmental harms from research, and it builds knowledge.
- Make a Communication Plan and follow through.
- Agree on a co-working digital infrastructure.
- Agree on a space for chatter.
- Define “outreach” and set a policy.
- Provide continuous access to data and meetings.
- Synthesize results into “Key Takeaways.” People appreciate them.
- Do ongoing cultural pre/re-education.
- Learn about the land (Nuna).
- Time visits and meetings to promote participation and limit disruption.
- Provide regular updates to community groups.
- Spend money locally.
- Center relationships beyond the bounds of the project. Visit outside of structured meetings, and attend local social and community events.
- Consider relationships to be valuable outcomes of a project, in addition to papers, proposals, datasets, and students trained and mentored.