On a windswept ridge in Nunavut, elder and knowledge holder Nukaqtinni Qaunaq once described the land not as a fixed map, but as a living network of movement—caribou trails shifting with the snow, sea ice breathing with the tides, families following rhythms older than borders. This vision is now guiding a transformative shift in Arctic science. A panel of 14 international and Indigenous scholars, convened by the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR), has issued a bold call to rethink how we study one of the planet’s most rapidly changing regions—not as a frontier to be mapped, but as a dynamic, relational world shaped by movement, kinship, and shared responsibility.
The Arctic is no stranger to research. Since the 1990s, scientific output has doubled, with around 11,000 Arctic-focused papers published every year. Global funding likely exceeds $1 billion annually, yet much of this research has been shaped by colonial frameworks that prioritize external interests over local ways of knowing. As geopolitical tensions rise and economic pressures grow—from mining to shipping routes—this new report argues that science must center the voices and values of those who have lived in the Arctic for millennia.
The panel, which includes scholars from Canada, Iceland, Finland, France, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and Indigenous nations across the Arctic and sub-Arctic of Canada and Russia, proposes three groundbreaking research agendas. First is the idea of "mobility as place," which reframes migration—not as a sign of crisis, but as a form of adaptation rooted in Indigenous practices. From seasonal reindeer movements to shifting permafrost, the Arctic has always been in motion. By recognizing this fluidity, researchers can move beyond human-centered models and study the region as a living, interconnected system.
Second is the concept of "kinfrastructure," a term coined by the panel to describe how kinship—between people, animals, land, and future generations—can serve as the foundation of infrastructure. What if a bridge wasn’t just steel and concrete, but a relationship requiring care, reciprocity, and long-term stewardship? If permafrost were seen not as frozen ground but as kinfrastructure, how would that change how we build, extract, or decommission? This approach challenges the legacy of colonial development, which prioritized military and industrial expansion over ecological and cultural continuity.
The third agenda calls for integrative modeling that blends scientific data with Indigenous knowledge, creating forecasts that serve communities, not just institutions. The impact could be profound: research that supports self-governance, honors intergenerational responsibility, and redefines what it means to thrive in the North.
As the Arctic warms at more than twice the global average, this reimagining of science isn’t just timely—it’s essential. The future of Arctic research may no longer be measured in publications or funding alone, but in relationships restored, knowledge honored, and futures co-created.