Editorial: Decolonial perspectives on Arctic resilience

1 Introduction

In the last decade, the persistence of colonial asymmetries in Arctic research has been prompted by the development of ethics protocols and guidelines by Indigenous scholars and communities (see Holm et al., 2012; Karetak et al., 2017; Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2018; Inuit Circumpolar Council, 2021). However, the generation of academic knowledge remains predominantly concentrated within institutions of the Global North. In 2025, in a special issue on “Decolonization” (Graugaard and Schröder, 2025; Chahine et al., 2025) argued that:

“European academia—with its blind spots regarding colonial histories and presents—needs spaces of engagement that bring together people without disregarding or trying to streamline different ways of knowing and being.” (p. 219).

In this Research Topic, we bring together studies that question the coloniality of knowledge (Mignolo, 2010) and reflexively engage with diverse ways of knowing. Such articles engage in dialogue through the common hyphens of resilience, a concept questioned in light of epistemic diversity, and a particular emphasis on Arctic communities currently facing a wide range of upheavals. Although we acknowledge the limited direct Indigenous academic contributions, as scholars associated with European institutions hosting this Research Topic, we seek to foreground inclusive and equitable perspectives on resilience in the rapidly changing Arctic. This aligns with the need to foster local narratives concerning ways of living in the Arctic (Herrmann et al., 2023). It stems from the conviction that only grounded approaches, developed with and within local communities, can meaningfully examine resilience as a space that enables Indigenous and local agency in the face of diverse disturbances.

Taken together, the six contributions call for a critical re-examination of the existing resilience frameworks along two interconnected axes. First, they emphasize cross-cultural dialogue and an ethics of care, encompassing an analysis of public policy in Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), an argument for sustained cross-cultural engagement, and a multidimensional rethinking of care within narrative research. Second, they highlight the significance of intangibility and locally grounded values, including a decolonial perspective on socio-ecological transformations in Nunatsiavut (Canada), the examination of share and support networks in the Republic of Sakha (Russia), and an analysis of progressive forms of damage in eastern Kalaallit Nunaat.

2 Cross-cultural dialogue and Care as decolonial gestures

By promoting cross-cultural dialogue, Roos and van der Sluijs offer an alternative to the current practice of mistakenly assuming that different ways of acquiring knowledge can—and must—be integrated, synthesized, or merged. Since this can amplify epistemic asymmetries, the authors outline how Bakhtin's concept of “outsideness” can be employed as a tool to acknowledge difference and diversity respectfully. As a result of fair and constructive dialogue between different knowledge holders, it allows for “co-creating solutions that make sense under all relevant ways of knowing considered in a dialogue” (p. 5).

Such a call for cross-cultural dialogue is further echoed in the narrative analysis developed by Jungsberg et al.. Drawing on national development strategies, public policies, and governmental reports from Kalaallit Nunaat, the authors identify four dominant narratives centered on the notion of independence, within which resilience is framed as a natural outcome of economic growth. They argue for the need for national development policies to engage more substantively with local realities by addressing structural inequalities, promoting inclusive governance, and incorporating local knowledge and narratives into decision-making processes.

Extending these reflections on narrative, Blanchard calls on the academic community to engage in ongoing critical reflection on its role in shaping the stories it gathers, particularly in light of the complexities and ethical responsibilities inherent in narrative research. Drawing on empirical and reflexive materials collected among researchers, she identifies three interrelated dimensions of care that can help navigate the tensions emerging in narrative research settings in Arctic communities: Respect for the “imperfections” of shared narratives, the adoption of a decolonial and post-abyssal perspective, and a willingness to relinquish control while remaining anchored in the present.

3 Reframing resilience by foregrounding intangible dimensions and locally embedded values

Doloisio and Vanderlinden analyse narratives regarding share and support networks in the Republic of Sakha. Their analysis underscores the importance of fostering dialogue between theoretical approaches to resilience and narratives of local practice in order to unveil the limitations and blind spots of dominant resilience discourses. In this context, nostalgia emerges not merely as a retrospective sentiment but as a potential source of communal strength that reinforces collective identity. The authors further demonstrate how both the material foundations and the intangible principles sustaining these networks are increasingly threatened by permafrost thaw and climate change. In line with the findings of Jungsberg et al. in Kalaallit Nunaat, they advocate for the integration of local narratives into federal planning and decision-making processes.

Similarly, in Ittoqqortoormiit (Kalaallit Nunaat), Sandré et al. argue that the dominant understanding of traditional resilience is insufficient to grasp the full extent of the upheavals facing Arctic communities. In this region, the lived experiences of such upheavals are inextricably linked to slow-onset changes associated with local adaptive capacity based on agency, place belonging, and processes of marginalization deeply rooted in colonial legacies. Failing to consider these slow transformations would prevent the development of an effective and legitimate notion of resilience. Therefore, resilience frameworks must account for material and immaterial dimensions through an anchorage in local narratives and values.

In the context of a study on the socio-ecological evolution of the benthos in Nunatsiavut, Ortenzi et al. propose a research process aimed at establishing ecological baselines that better reflect the values inherent in Indigenous knowledge systems, particularly through relationality. They demonstrate that this approach provides a richer understanding not only of Inuit use of benthic resources but also of socio-ecosystem risks and resilience. This process guides research and environmental monitoring toward the most relevant community-specific areas, while also helping to reduce research fatigue by enabling Indigenous people to define their own research agendas.

4 Conclusion

This Research Topic explores pathways for challenging the colonial underpinnings of Arctic research, emphasizing the importance of place-based approaches in advancing normative, epistemic, and ontological plurality and justice. Such approaches support Indigenous and local agency in the context of multifaceted socio-environmental transformations, while also offering alternative frameworks for reconfiguring public discourse on climate and environmental justice. In doing so, the Research Topic responds to the urgent need for narrative sovereignty (Graugaard, 2026) as a means of countering academic extractivism in the Arctic.

The articles included in this Research Topic demonstrate that challenging coloniality cannot be reduced to a singular intervention; rather, it is an ongoing process that requires reflexivity in knowledge production, attentiveness to historical context, and accountability to the communities whose lives and narratives are engaged. Within this perspective, resilience is not to be understood as a universal paradigm but as an ethically and politically contested space through which diverse actors negotiate meanings, values, power, and responses to socio-environmental change.

References

• 1

  ChahineA.HermansenN.DöringN.HenriksenJ.-E. (2025). Towards decolonial arctic research relations: co-creating spaces for shared embodied experiences in a european research community. Kvinder, Køn Forskning1, 212–225. doi: 10.7146/kkf.v38i1.153148

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  GraugaardN. D. (2026). “Kalaallit land relations: Inuit Narrative sovereignty and wellbeing,” in Fellows' Colloquium with Naja Dyrendom Graugaard (Emma Goldman Fellowship). Available online at: http://www.iwm.at/event/kalaallit-land-relations-inuit-narrative-sovereignty-and-wellbeing (Accessed April 13, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  GraugaardN. D.SchröderR. (2025). Decolonization. Kvinder, Køn and Forskning. Available online at: https://tidsskrift.dk/KKF/issue/view/11969 (Accessed April 13, 2026).

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  HerrmannT. M.AlfaniF. B.ChahineA.DöringN.DudeckS.ElsterJ.et al. (2023). CO-CREATE Comprehensive Policy-Brief to the EU Commission. Roadmap to Decolonial Arctic Research. Áltá, Kárášjohka, Leipzig, Oulu: University of Oulu, Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, The Indigenous Voices (IVO) research group – Álgoálbmogii jienat, Arctic University of Norway UiT, Saami Council. doi: 10.25365/phaidra.400

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  HolmL. K.GrenobleL. A.VirginiaR. A. (2012). A praxis for ethical research and scientific conduct in Greenland. Études/Inuit/Studies35, 187–200. doi: 10.7202/1012841ar

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  Inuit Circumpolar Council (2021). Ethical and Equitable Engagement Synthesis Report: A Collection of Inuit Rules, Guidelines, Protocols, and Values for the Engagement of Inuit Communities and Indigenous Knowledge From Across Inuit Nunaat. Ottawa, ON: Inuit Circumpolar Council.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (2018). National Inuit Strategy on Research: Implementation Plan. Ottawa, ON: Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

  • Google Scholar

• 8

  KaretakJ.TesterF. A.TagalikS. (Eds.). (2017). Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit: What Inuit Have Always Known to Be True. Halifax & Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  MignoloW. D. (2010). “Introduction: Coloniality of power and de-colonial thinking,” in Globalization and the Decolonial Option, eds. W. D. Mignolo and A. Escobar (New York, NY; London: Routledge), 1–21.

  • Google Scholar