Search for: All records

As part of the first stage of a community-based participatory research project with two communities in the Canadian Arctic—Kangiqsujuaq, Nunavik, and Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories—we conducted 57 interviews eliciting residents’ perceptions of pressing issues facing their communities, problems affecting health and wellbeing, and how researchers or other organized groups could help alleviate those problems. A recurrent theme that emerged during these interviews was having “no one to talk to.” Here, we focus on understanding why communication was a central theme using a grounded-theory approach to develop a model of Inuit stress management. Inuit in both Kangiqsujuaq and Ulukhaktok codify stress as isumaaluttuq, or excess worry, which often manifests physically and leads to social withdrawal. Because stress is believed to accumulate in the body, managing it involves decisions about whether to “Get It Out” or “Keep It In.” Keep It In is a potentially dangerous strategy because, if the problem does not resolve itself, accumulated stress may have harmful consequences. Inuit viewed talking to others as the most effective means to Get It Out, but respondents also identified numerous barriers to doing so. One important reason for this is that stress is transferable: Talking to others about a problem potentially increases the burden of stress on them. Consequently, Inuit may choose to Keep It In to avoid the potential negative consequences (for others or for oneself) of sharing bad thoughts. Based on this preliminary model, we consider questions for further inquiry and implications for community-based mental health programming in Inuit communities. 

Objective Human dimensions of climate change research in the Arctic often proposes ways for local communities to adapt to changes to their environment, foregrounding problems posed by climate change while treating social, political, and economic factors as background conditions. We explore the relevance of this research paradigm for Inuit by examining how Inuit from Kangiqsujuaq present and discuss the major issues facing their community. Methods We thematically code and analyze the responses of 107 Inuit to three free-response questions about the problems facing their community and the best things about their community. The data were collected as part of a questionnaire for a project focused on food security and food sharing conducted in Kangiqsujuaq, Nunavik, in 2013 to 2014. Results Few respondents mentioned issues relating to climate change among the most pressing problems faced by their community. Rather, a suite of interconnected social and economic issues, particularly substance abuse and the cost of living, emerged as the main concerns of Kangiqsujuarmiut. However, the environment was a central theme in respondents' favorite thing about their community. Conclusions In light of the concerns identified by Inuit, we argue that much research on climate change makes incorrect a priori assumptions and consequently fails to capture aspects of Arctic socioecological systems that are essential for how Inuit are responding to climate change. An inductive, open-ended approach can help produce research more relevant to communities. 

Abstract ObjectivesWith our diverse training, theoretical and empirical toolkits, and rich data, evolutionary and biological anthropologists (EBAs) have much to contribute to research and policy decisions about climate change and other pressing social issues. However, we remain largely absent from these critical, ongoing efforts. Here, we draw on the literature and our own experiences to make recommendations for how EBAs can engage broader audiences, including the communities with whom we collaborate, a more diverse population of students, researchers in other disciplines and the development sector, policymakers, and the general public. These recommendations include: (1) playing to our strength in longitudinal, place‐based research, (2) collaborating more broadly, (3) engaging in greater public communication of science, (4) aligning our work with open‐science practices to the extent possible, and (5) increasing diversity of our field and teams through intentional action, outreach, training, and mentorship. ConclusionsWe EBAs need to put ourselves out there: research and engagement are complementary, not opposed to each other. With the resources and workable examples we provide here, we hope to spur more EBAs to action. 

Human adaptation depends on the integration of slow life history, complex production skills, and extensive sociality. Refining and testing models of the evolution of human life history and cultural learning benefit from increasingly accurate measurement of knowledge, skills, and rates of production with age. We pursue this goal by inferring hunters’ increases and declines of skill from approximately 23,000 hunting records generated by more than 1800 individuals at 40 locations. The data reveal an average age of peak productivity between 30 and 35 years of age, although high skill is maintained throughout much of adulthood. In addition, there is substantial variation both among individuals and sites. Within study sites, variation among individuals depends more on heterogeneity in rates of decline than in rates of increase. This analysis sharpens questions about the coevolution of human life history and cultural adaptation.