In March 2025, as part of the IASC–PA2F Fellowship, Elena Adasheva participated in the Arctic Science Summit Week (ASSW) 2025 (online):
I contributed to discussions on the future of social sciences and humanities in Arctic research as a presenter in Panel 5.7: Social Science in the Changing Arctic Research Landscape, held within the ICARP IV Summit: “Arctic Research Planning for the Next Decade” (March 25–28, 2025).
Panel organizers included: Noor Johnson (University of Colorado Boulder, USA), Kristin Weis (George Mason University, USA), Heather Sauyaq Jean Gordon (Sauyaq Solutions, USA), Julio Postigo (Indiana University, USA)
Oral presentations in the panel:
- Reimagining Social Science in Arctic Research: Challenges and Opportunities — Elena Adasheva
- A New Theoretical Approach: Unveiling Critical Connections between Tourism, Sense of Place, and Conflict in the Circumpolar North — Kristin Weis
- An ‘Ethical Space of Engagement’? Examining the Position of Social Sciences in Nunavik-Led Research — Catherine Dussault
- Beyond Compliance: Navigating Multiple Ethics in the Changing Arctic Research Landscape — Tracie Curry
- Enhancing the Involvement of Citizens' Knowledge and Perspectives in Faroese Nature Management — Sjúrður Joensen
- Navigating Expectations in Multidisciplinary Team Science: Self-Reflexive Ethnography of Convergence Research — Hannah Bradley
- Anthropological Fieldwork, Transdisciplinarity, and Co-Production of Knowledge — Olga Lauter
Poster presentations:
- Political Ecology Perspective on Arctic Climate Change — Ishfaq Hussain Malik
- Adapting Strategies for a Changing Arctic: A Call for Interdisciplinary Approaches — Sandra Balão
Reimagining Social Science in Arctic Research: Challenges and Opportunities — Elena Adasheva
In my presentation, I addressed the marginalization of Arctic research within the social sciences and humanities (SSH), as well as the marginalization of SSH within the regional field of Arctic research. These forms of exclusion manifest in structural and infrastructural challenges that directly affect SSH scholars working in the Arctic.
In light of these challenges, I proposed two main strategies: first, the development of new theoretical and methodological directions that recognize the Arctic as a site of conceptual innovation; and second, the need to break disciplinary isolation by integrating SSH more fully into interdisciplinary research networks.
To move toward meaningful integration, several concrete actions can be taken. These include strengthening collaboration among scientists, policymakers, and funding agencies; advocating for increased SSH funding and interdisciplinary research models; and facilitating community-driven workshops to develop actionable recommendations for Arctic research stakeholders.
Ultimately, the role of SSH in Arctic research—and the place of the Arctic within SSH—requires serious reconsideration. Addressing the structural barriers that continue to limit SSH contributions is essential for unlocking the Arctic’s potential as a space for theoretical and methodological innovation.
In the discussion, one of the questions that came up was what methods, skillsets, and theories social sciences can offer to Arctic research. Participants mentioned ethnographic methods, the importance of considering different perspectives, and questions about what knowledge is. I added a comment about the particularities of human experience in the Arctic—in relation to the environment, technology, and social life—which ethnographic research pays close attention to and then theorizes within disciplinary frameworks like anthropology.
Many thanks to the IASC-PA2F Fellowship for sponsoring my online participation.