1 

Study Title Traditional Knowledge Implementation: Accessing Arctic Community

Panels of Subject Matter Experts

Report Title Traditional Knowledge Implementation: Accessing Arctic Community

Panels of Subject Matter Experts

Report Number (OCS 

Study)

BOEM 2024-009

Completion Date of Report January 31, 2024

Number of Pages 20, plus appendices

Award Number(s) M16AC00024

Sponsoring OCS Region or 

Office

Alaska OCS Region

Applicable Planning 

Area(s)

Beaufort Sea OCS Planning Area; Chukchi Sea OCS Planning Area

Fiscal Year(s) of Study 

Funding

FY 17 – FY 23

Costs by Fiscal Year FY 17: $4,105.33; FY 18: $1,481.12; FY 19: $1,263.50; FY 20: $0.00; FY

21: $9,651.76; FY 22: $1,032.75; FY 23: $87,713.23

Cumulative Project Cost $105,247.69

Project Manager(s) John Citta, Kayla Scheimreif

Affiliation of Project 

Manager(s)

North Slope Borough

Department of Wildlife Management

Address of Project 

Manager(s)

1795 Ahkovak Street

P.O. Box 69

Barrow,

AK 99723 

USA

Principal Investigator(s) John Citta, Kayla Scheimreif, Todd Sformo

Keywords

Arctic Alaska, Community-based research, Indigenous subject-matter 

experts, Marine ecology, North Slope Borough, Scientific research, 

Subsistence, Traditional knowledge

ABSTRACT: This study details the efforts to operationalize the use of Traditional knowledge (TK) in 

studies conducted in the North Slope Borough (NSB) of Alaska. Panels of local experts were 

assembled to meet with scientists proposing to conduct studies in the NSB. By having scientists meet 

with TK panels, we hoped to improve communication between local communities and visiting 

scientists, improve the incorporation of TK into research projects, make research more responsive to 

local needs, and improve research timelines. Here we present the findings of seven TK panels, examine 

what practices worked well and those that did not, and make recommendations for future efforts. 

BACKGROUND: The North Slope Borough is a municipal government including 95,000 square 

miles and eight communities across the northernmost part of Alaska. The NSB Department of 

Wildlife Management (DWM) has a longstanding and close relationship with the communities, 

formed through decades of working with and for subsistence users. The NSB DWM also has a long 

history of collaborating with BOEM through a variety of projects, including the Aerial Surveys for 
2

Arctic Marine Mammals, satellite-tagging bowhead whales, and a social indicators surveyfor creating

a baseline data against which to measure the impacts of offshore development. To implement TK 

panels, the Bureau of the Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and the North Slope Borough (NSB)

signed a Cooperative Agreement in 2016. The implementation of this project experienced many

setbacks, mostly due to personnel changes and COVID-19. Due to a lack of progress and personnel 

changes, the project was rescoped to a pilot study in 2019. We provide the findings from TK panels 

held since 2019.

OBJECTIVES: Specific Objectives of the Cooperative Agreement included:

1) Enhance TK authority and integration of TK with science by promoting its dissemination to 

external scientists through consistent methods and directly involving local subject-matter 

experts. The communities of immediate interest include Utqiaġvik, Kaktovik, and Point 

Hope.

2) Provide a roster of ocean experts from North Slope communities grounded in TK for 

coordination, communication, and coordination with BOEM-funded scientists (or possibly 

other researchers funded by another Federal agency) to access and integrate TK on a more 

systematic basis for projects undertaken on the North Slope. We will form panel of local 

ocean experts to interact with scientists. The TK experts will receive an honorarium for their 

engagement. The panels, with support from the NSB DWM, will engage with scientists on 

specific topics.

3) Enhance dialogue through exchange of information between research scientists and local 

communities. Enhance our understanding of environmental change and other questions in the 

Alaskan Arctic.

4) Achieve more efficient scientific research timelines, as currently studies may be delayed more 

than a year seeking sanctioned TK counsel and approval from a community.

One objective of this project that is not listed above is the development of protocols and bestpractices for holding TK panels.

METHODS: We utilized the expert sampling method to find TK panelists, with NSB DWM 

employees as informants. Expert sampling is a form of purposive sampling, where subjects are 

selected based on their expert knowledge. In situations where participants are difficult to find, 

snowball sampling if often useful. Snowball sampling uses a small pool of participants to find 

(recommend) other participants. We would have liked to better employ the snowball method; 

however, we did not have the time to sit down with each panel member to get recommendations, 

mainly due to the busy schedules of participants.

We attempted to involve community members without discriminating on basis of language (as many 

elder and some middle-aged community members learned English as a second language) or 

communication type, but ultimately chose panelists who we believed could communicate effectively 

with the researchers. We were also careful to choose participants who we believed would be vocal in 

a group setting and not hesitate to share their ideas, which may have excluded other individuals.

Upon agreeing to participate in a TK panel, visiting scientists were given a guidance document and 

were asked for presentations at least two weeks in advance. This allowed the moderators to preview 

the presentations in an attempt to help focus them appropriately. Scientists were also presented with 

an agenda. Upon completion of TK panels, we interviewed both the scientists and panel members to 

gauge their opinion of the TK panel process and to determine if they thought the panel was successful

or could be improved.
3

RESULTS: Seven distinct panels were held, covering topics from fish ecology in Kaktovik to beluga 

health in Point Hope.

We could not definitively conclude that the TK panels will result in meaningful incorporation of TK 

in any of our case-studies (Objective 1, above). With that said, the process of participating in TK 

panels inherently elevates the authority of TK. This was obvious in that the visiting scientists

genuinely wanted their projects to be looked upon favorably by the panel. Furthermore, scientists 

will likely advertise the fact that they participated in a TK panel when seeking funding and this

elevates the authority of TK in the grant funding process.

We developed a draft roster of experts (Objective 2; Appendix N); however, we hope that better

selection of TK panel members will expand the list in the future. We emphasize that having someone 

listed in the roster does not mean they will be available or willing to participate in future panels.

The TK panels certainly enhanced dialog and information exchange (Objective 3); in fact, this is 

probably the greatest benefit of the TK panel process. Everyone involved, the panel members, the 

visiting scientists, and the moderators, appreciated the opportunity to increase dialog and exchange 

information. From that standpoint, the TK panels were successful.

If TK panels achieved more efficient research timelines (Objective 4) is unclear. This is mainly due 

to the fact that the Iñupiaq tradition of consensus-based decision-making does not allow the panel 

members to speak for their entire community. For example, if a project dealing with bowhead whales

in Utqiaġvik goes before a TK panel in Utqiaġvik, the panel is restricted from approving that project 

by traditions of decision-making. Rather, the project will have to go before the Barrow Whaling 

Captains Association (BWCA) where all the whaling captains will make the decision together by 

consensus. Traditional knowledge panels allow for extended discussions that are not possible in a

BWCA meeting due to full agendas. Furthermore, a number of captains within BWCA are likely 

also TK panelists and will have a higher level of knowledge of the project than they otherwise 

would.

Regardless of the objectives, virtually all TK panel members and visiting scientists found the panels 

useful. The opportunity for community members (i.e., panel members) and visiting scientists to get

to know each other and discuss research projects was highly valued.

Expecting an individual TK panel to result in meaningful application of TK is not realistic, nor should 

it be a measure of success. By the time scientists engage in the TK panel process, their research idea 

includes the basic structure of their study, including the question, research team, and how they will 

fund it. Hence, the best time to incorporate TK is before the research idea is formed, which is much 

earlier than scientists can reasonably engage in the TK panel process because of traditional and 

competitive research funding processes.

Furthermore, it is unrealistic to assume that having a scientist participate in a single TK panel will 

result in meaningful use of TK in their work. Successful application and integration of TK into 

research programs is more likely to happen as scientists repeatedly engage with TK panels and local 

communities. As such, having repeated encounters between TK panelists and scientists will be 

useful. TK panels are best thought of as a single conversation in what must be the beginning of a 

long-term relationship in which trust is established and maintained.
4

RECOMMENDATIONS: The following recommendations are provided to improve future TK 

panels in Alaska.

1) We recommend asking for advice on panel members via snowball sampling, such that when a 

panel member is recommended, we specifically ask that panel member who they recommend 

as additional panel members. More work needs to be done on the selection of panel members, 

especially to include elders and those who speak English as a second language.

2) Visiting scientists need to have presentation guidelines in advance. 

3) Moderators need to have the presentations of scientists in advance, so moderators can ensure 

presentations are suitable for TK panels. Moderators need to be strict with this requirement; if 

scientists are unwilling to provide presentations in advance, moderators should consider 

canceling panel sessions. Moderators might also consider restricting the number of slides to a 

reasonable number, typically five or less, and have a whiteboard handy instead of a computer. 

Alternatively, the first panel meeting could be based on developing relationships and having 

conversations, rather than on focusing on a project presentation. 

4) When selecting moderators, explore teaming a scientist with a subsistence resource specialist 

as co-moderators. This may further help bridge any communication gaps between visiting 

scientists and the TK panel and may also help build trust in some communities. 

5) Having more than two moderators is unnecessary and potentially counter-productive. We 

found that having one moderator was useful for guiding and clarifying discussion and that 

another was useful for taking notes. However, having too many non-native moderators (or 

observing scientists) can easily shift the tone of the meeting away from TK. Our impression 

was that having too many non-native moderators and observers that were scientists made TK 

panelists less likely to participate in open discussion. 

6) Have realistic expectations for individual TK panels. Not every project will be able to 

incorporate TK and the successful incorporation of TK may take time. Successful TK panels 

help build familiarity, relationships, and trust between visiting scientists and local 

communities. Recognize that these relationships are critical and perhaps more important than 

the project being initially proposed. 

7) Schedule follow-up TK panels with the same scientists over time, as an initial requirement. TK 

panel members expressed a general complaint that they often did not know results of past 

studies; they wanted information to come back to their communities. Researchers need to keep 

in-contact with panel members as their studies advance and conclude. Likewise, we think that 

successfully incorporating TK into research takes multiple panels conducted over many years. 

8) Involve scientists in the TK panel process early in their careers and in their research. The 

sooner that scientists become familiarized with consulting TK, the more that it will be 

incorporated into their methods. Team an early-career researcher with one who has 

successfully worked on the North Slope so that new researchers learn from experienced 

researchers. Additionally, if TK experts can have input into research before proposals are 

written, TK will be incorporated more fluidly. Indigenous experts must be involved at the 

earliest proposal development phases.

9) To have realistic expectations from TK panels, the role of community-driven research and how 

it relates to TK panels should be clarified prior to funding more panels. Community-driven 

research, where the research questions are locally generated to address local concerns, is 

fundamentally different than research driven by outside interests, which are more responsive to 
5

national policy and funding sources. Visiting scientists, moderators, and panelists struggled at 

times with how to align local questions and concerns with the questions that visiting scientists 

wanted to answer and could get funding to answer. Ideally, research projects can accommodate 

both local and national concerns. However, in-practice, this may not always be possible during 

individual projects. As such, this leaves us with the question of how best to accommodate local 

concerns and questions that are raised during TK panels. How to make research more 

responsive to community concerns will continue to be an issue and deserves more 

consideration. At this time, it is unclear if community-driven research fits within the TK panel 

framework or will need a separate framework to be successful. 

10) Consider a multi-pronged approach of using TK panels in conjunction with co-management 

meetings or Alaska Native Organization (ANO) meetings. This is especially true for when 

researchers are in the initial stages of project design, as the determination of which 

communities to select for involvement may not be clear. ANO meetings will have delegates 

from multiple communities present, and a researcher may have the opportunity to interact and 

discuss project ideas important across entire regions. Furthermore, interaction with individual 

communities is more likely to be successful if those communities know that the researcher 

reached-out to the relevant ANO first.

11) Ensure long-term funding. Given the importance of building long-term relationships between 

scientists and local communities, and the realization that multiple TK panels are necessary to 

incorporate TK and bring information back into local communities, the TK panel process must 

be funded over long periods of time to be viable. While individual TK panels were useful, 

these long-term benefits (i.e., more trust, more incorporation of TK, ability to report back to 

local communities) require that TK panels be spread out over multiple years. Hence, if TK 

panels are going to be funded again, we recommend that they be funded for a time span no 

shorter than the typical duration of a research project (perhaps five to eight years).

12) Consider reassessing the objectives of this cooperative agreement. The original objectives are 

biased towards supporting scientists, and we think they could be reworked to better support 

Arctic Indigenous communities by centering TK. For example, Objective 4 above should be 

replaced with “Achieve more efficient scientific research timelines to reduce time spent 

finding the right TK experts and expedite the process of returning information to the 

community.” Ideally, the development of new or modified objectives would be done in 

consultation with Arctic communities and TK experts. 
6

STUDY PRODUCT(S):

Citta J. J., Scheimreif K. A., Sformo T. L. (North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife

Management, Barrow, AK). 2024. Traditional Knowledge Implementation: Accessing Arctic 

Community Panels of Subject Matter Experts. Anchorage, AK: U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 20 p., plus appendices Report No.: OCS 

Study BOEM 2024-009. Cooperative Agreement No.: M16AC00024.

Scheimreif, K. A., Citta, J. J., Brooks, J. J., and Sformo, T. L. 2024. Working with panels of Iñupiaq 

experts to advise and inform Arctic scientists. 2024 Alaska Marine Science Symposium, 

Anchorage, Alaska (poster presentation).

BLE-LTER 2022. Kaktovik Community Information 4th Annual Newsletter. Winter/Spring 2022. 

Beaufort Lagoon Ecosystem (BLE) Long-Term Ecological Research (LTRE). Available

from NSB DWM upon request.

MAP OF STUDY AREA: Study footprint includes the Beaufort and Chukchi seas OCS planning areas, the 

North Slope Borough, and the communities of Kaktovik, Utqiaġvik, and Point Hope, Alaska.