Short Abstract

The Arctic region is experiencing rapid changes due to climate change and becoming an increasingly politicized topic. We invite scholars working with the region to consider how this sense of urgency shapes, limits, and negotiates our ways of knowing (with) multiple Arctics?

Long Abstract

While the Arctic region is becoming an increasingly politicised topic of urgency and change, its definition remains fluid and dependent on the angle of consideration. For example through a God-like perspective, drawing the latitude line of 66°33’44”N, or a line defying the change of vegetation, or the temperature average. However, these lines tell a different story of and from the Arctic than moss in the forest, marine life, wind power plants, or the snow. What horizons would arise when we choose to follow and engage with such more-than-human stories rather than giving in to linear urgency and resorting to issues like international regulation, adaptation and geo-political power dynamics around resources (Lindroth et al., 2022)? In the context of conducting research in such a rapidly changing Arctic, can we consider alternate ways of knowing (Kovach, 2010) and retain space for ‘thinking, acting, and knowing differently’ (Åhäll, 2018,p. 38)?

The multiplicity of the Arctic(s) arises from the materials we choose to follow, engage with and where we situate ourselves in the process. What can these different sensibilities say about sustainability or transformations in the Arctic? With this panel we invite STS scholars with interests in the Arctic regions to reflect on how this sense of urgency is understood, defined, and translated into their research practices? What perspectives emerge? For example, does the urge for transition allow for slow-academia? Or space for more-than-human perspectives, for example, considering the temporalities of moss, or mosquitoes, or practising the art of noticing (Tsing, 2015)? Which disciplinary pathways are bypassed through the urgency that accompanies calls for transitions, and what disciplinary affordances does the discourse of a rapidly changing Arctic create? Which tensions or allowances emerge in your respective scientific discipline, and how can they be addressed by reaching beyond?