7

Human Capacity and Collaboration

Day 2 emphasized people and partnerships, signaling a shift from what to study toward how the work is done and sustained. The day started with Session 4, Human Capacity and Collaboration, which underscored that advancements in understanding of the polar regions are underpinned by expansive teams that extend well beyond the principal investigators (PIs) or core team for any given project. This can include community members, tourists, and the public who contribute to data collection in their communities or aboard cruise ships; coordinators who manage complex logistics for deploying personnel and equipment; pilots, captains, and drivers who transport researchers to remote sites; and engineers and technicians who build and maintain specialized equipment and models, among others. The session also looked at some specific examples of how research is conducted and the practicalities and logistics required.

Lil Alessa, planning committee member from the University of Idaho, moderated the first panel of the session, Strengthening Human Capacity. The panelists were prompted with the following discussion questions:

• What do you see as the primary strengths and challenges of supporting polar research today?
• Do you envision supporting International Polar Year (IPY) 5? If yes, what might that look like? Do you expect strengths and challenges to change moving forward to IPY5?

SUSTAINING HUMAN CAPACITY: WORKFORCE, LOGISTICS, AND TRAINING PATHWAYS

Ed Brook, Oregon State University, opened the first panel by describing the Center for Oldest Ice Exploration, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Science and Technology Center he directs, which aims to recover very old Antarctic ice and grow a broad community around education, knowledge transfer, and participation. He emphasized that access to the ice sheet interior depends on complex logistics (e.g., aircraft, traverses, cold-chain curation of cores) and that it has become more difficult; relying on aging systems, he suggested, may constrain both science and safety. For human capacity, he emphasized that such distributed programs can serve as “microcosms” for IPY5 partnerships—linking research, training, and logistics across many institutions—and stage the next set of international efforts as the IPY5 window approaches.

Turning to people, Brook underscored the cumulative, specialized expertise required for field success—scientists, engineers, pilots, drillers, cargo handlers, field guides, camp managers, and technicians. He observed that many on field teams hold time-limited positions, raising questions about long-term retention and career security. He suggested explicitly describing human capacities needed; creating pathways that keep people in polar work (internships, post-baccalaureate roles); cross-training with international partners; embedding training and workforce development in logistics contracts; and fostering partnerships among science teams, logistics providers, and nongovernmental organizations.

PROTECTING PEOPLE AND PARTNERSHIPS

Twila Moon, National Snow and Ice Data Center, framed near-term risks to agencies, budgets, and personnel as a human-capacity issue, cautioning that rebuilding strained institutions can be challenging. She suggested concretely engaging with policy processes and philanthropy (e.g., using established “stand up for science” toolkits) and “connect[ing] the dots” for decision makers by linking polar change to local impacts and services. Relationship-building, especially with communities and organizations on the ground, was presented as a core practice that can maintain communications through periods of geopolitical or institutional stress.

Moon highlighted practices that can make science more usable by aligning with the principles of (1) findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reuse of digital assets; (2) collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics) for data; and (3) transparency, responsibility, user focus, sustainability, and technology for data repositories. She also highlighted creating products that practitioners can act

on, such as policy briefs like Arctic Answers¹—two-page briefs that answer questions about Arctic environmental change—and other planning tools; and bringing in communicators and artists to help connect evidence to decisions. She suggested moving from consultation to codevelopment (e.g., practitioner boards that guide tool development to ensure products and results are usable) and noted the value of low-cost, community-operated observing tools where appropriate. A recurring theme was prioritizing people: funding whole teams (not only PIs), cultivating a culture where researchers can share constraints and ask for help across groups and institutions, and reducing reliance on unpaid labor, in part, through more usable administrative systems.

CENTERING INDIGENOUS CAPACITY: RELATIONAL SCIENCE, DATA SOVEREIGNTY, AND LOCAL MONITORING

Hannah-Marie Garcia-Ladd, Indigenous Sentinels Network (ISN), opened by noting that “data is not a foreign concept” in Indigenous contexts: many communities have practiced systematic observation for generations to support safety and stewardship. She proposed reframing “capacity” to include the people who live with and operate in the polar landscape year round and those who run logistics and support systems. From the vantage of the ISN, which began on St. Paul Island and now supports dozens of Alaska communities, she described a model that pairs community-owned data systems (e.g., tiered access, trusted channels, explicit attribution) with programmatic support (e.g., grant writing, science communication/storytelling, training in observing methods, drones, analytics).

Examples included partnerships that connect local mariners to operational services (e.g., freezing-spray observations with the Alaska Ocean Observing System to inform weather forecasts) and efforts such as Skipper Science that link fishermen to real-time environmental monitoring. She suggested that embedding Indigenous data sovereignty and technology transfer into IPY5 planning and implementation can strengthen both science and stewardship. In closing, Garcia-Ladd summarized three points: (1) local monitors are relational scientists, not just participants; (2) Indigenous data sovereignty and tech transfer can be built into programs from the outset; and (3) durable capacity building can include workforce training, youth engagement, and support for community technicians and guardians.

___________________

¹More information about Arctic Answers is available at https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/uaar20/collections/Arctic-Answers

DISCUSSION

Engaging the Next Generation

In response to a question about reaching today’s 15-year-olds—who could be first-year graduate students during IPY5—Brook pointed to teacher engagement and “polar literacy” resources as near-term avenues; Moon noted that mindful attention to early-career on-ramps is warranted, including outreach in local high schools; and Garcia-Ladd added that tribal governments are building labs and research centers to introduce local youth to hands-on science.

Barriers to Networks

A participant raised the challenge of breaking into professional networks without established mentors or institutional pedigree. Moon observed that “open” mechanisms (e.g., a public call to join a committee) are not automatically “welcoming” and encouraged explicit invitations, clear involvement pathways, and follow-through. Brook described how Science and Technology Centers can bring early-career researchers (ECRs) into proposal development and field planning, while acknowledging that this is added work for both them and senior researchers and may require explicit time and budget. Garcia-Ladd emphasized that community partners face heavy request loads; patience and relationship-building can align asks with local priorities.

Actionable Science and Agencies

Alessa asked how “actionable science” that serves agencies and communities can help stabilize capacity. Moon suggested collaborations designed from the start with end users (e.g., practitioner boards in coastal sea-level work), localizing information (from national projections to place-based services), and planning for operationalization beyond the discovery phase. Some participants also mentioned early-career self-organization (e.g., Association of Polar Early Career Scientists [APECS] and Polar Early Career World Summit networks) as a way to identify priorities that persist beyond individual postdoctoral terms.

STRENGTHENING RESEARCH CAPACITY—BUILDING ON LESSONS LEARNED

Framed within “the emphasis that Day 2 placed on people, partnerships, and sustained collaboration, the next panel explored what it takes to mount ambitious polar efforts, campaign design, leadership development, data systems, and

community-based observing, and how lessons since IPY4 can inform IPY5 planning. The session emphasized enabling leadership (including ECR roles), durable logistics and data infrastructure, and equitable engagement with local and Indigenous partners. Mike Hartinger, planning committee member from the Space Science Institute, moderated the discussion. Panelists were provided with the following discussion questions:

• What are the primary strengths and challenges to the current approach to conducting research and supporting ECR development? What lessons can be learned from prior campaigns?
• These activities require many skilled individuals beyond the researchers themselves. Are there key areas where capacity development will be required to support IPY5-level activity? How might we do this?
• What opportunities does the ramp-up period to IPY5 provide to strengthen this capacity?
• Are there mechanisms to help sustain the needed capacity over time?

LEADERSHIP, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND CROSS-DISCIPLINARY PRACTICE FROM MULTIDISCIPLINARY DRIFTING OBSERVATORY FOR THE STUDY OF ARCTIC CLIMATE (MOSAiC)

Matthew Shupe, University of Colorado—Boulder, kicked off the panel by describing the year-long MOSAiC expedition—an icebreaker frozen into Arctic sea ice that required ~20 nations, hundreds of personnel, multiple ships, and hundreds of millions of dollars—as a testbed for building and sustaining capacity at scale. He said that successful “big science” hinges on cultivating and enabling leadership (people empowered and resourced to convene communities, manage details, and sustain momentum), designing inclusive roles for ECRs in the science, fieldwork, synthesis, and even leadership, and resourcing the coordination work that often goes unfunded. He emphasized large-scale, shared infrastructure—from ships to observing nodes—as a nucleus that draws in diverse science and lowers marginal costs for participation.

Shupe emphasized that capacity grows when teams plan across disciplines, such as agreeing up front on shared questions, products, and synthesis plans, while maintaining a strong safety culture and committing to open data. He said that securing the “big pieces” early (e.g., ship time, aircraft hours, access to key stations) provides a stable foundation for partners to align and build ambitious work. He urged stronger interoperability so that observing networks and modeling groups use common formats, application programming interfaces (APIs), and workflows, letting observations flow directly into models and comparative analyses. He also

called for near-real-time, open data sharing during field campaigns—posting provisional, well-documented data and quick-look products—so that analysts not in the field can troubleshoot, cross-validate, and contribute insights that accelerate discovery. Finally, he pointed to power and autonomy as immediate levers—hybrid/renewable power, smarter power management, and more autonomous platforms—to lengthen deployments and reduce logistics loads.

SUB-ICE DRILLING AS CAPACITY-BUILDING SCIENCE

Ryan Venturelli, Colorado School of Mines, outlined scientific targets that call for scalable, modular, clean-access drilling and long-term observing beneath ice shelves and grounded ice, linking tidal-to-millennial variability at grounding zones to projections of retreat and sea-level rise. She described the Subglacial Antarctic Lakes Scientific Access project at Mercer Subglacial Lake as a model: a transdisciplinary team, including expertise from microbiology, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, glaciology, and drilling engineers, that paired high-quality science with deliberate mentorship and leadership growth for students and postdocs, plus public communication (e.g., film). In her view, sub-ice access campaigns can double as leadership pipelines, technology incubators, and community builders.

Venturelli suggested that IPY5 could emphasize modular, forward-compatible systems, such as drills, observatories, and sensors that can be adapted, redeployed, and extended, with clear international leadership and accountability frameworks. She also noted that whenever holes are drilled, leaving the instruments behind (e.g., distributed acoustic sensing, moorings) can generate sustained time series that outlast a campaign and support models that track small-scale processes up to large-scale sea-level outcomes.

SCIENCE-READY, FINDABLE, AND REUSABLE DATA

Katherine Cariglia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Haystack Observatory, presented on Madrigal, an open-source, distributed data system widely used in geospace and upper-atmosphere research, as a template for science-ready data. It uses standardized formats and units, self-describing metadata (e.g., parameters, uncertainties, quality flags), citable records, and multiple access modes (e.g., web user interface, Python/MATrix LABoratory/Interactive Data Language, APIs). Madrigal hosts 83 TB of data from 200+ instruments and ~300 TB of backups, supports real-time and archival data streams, and allows producers to upload directly or host their own node within the community catalog, keeping data local but discoverable and retrievable through a single portal, which reduces effort for both contributors and users.

From a capacity perspective, Cariglia emphasized usability and sustainability: making it easy to contribute well-documented data; investing in tools that help users find, filter, and combine datasets; and supporting the people who operate archives and assist contributors. She pointed to summary plots, dataset verification by originators, and consistent metadata as practical steps that increase reuse across disciplines (e.g., pairing ionospheric disturbances with atmospheric measurements or radio propagation with weather and space-weather conditions).

COMMUNITY-BASED OBSERVING NETWORKS (CBONS) AND TRUST

Andrew Kliskey, University of Idaho, described CBONs as a scalable, durable way to strengthen IPY5 capacity—linking local observers, technology, and data science. He traced examples from the Bering Sea Sub-Network and its successor, Community-Based Observing Network for Adaptation and Security, which documented climate and biological change through observations by Indigenous hunters, fishers, and other place-based experts. He situated CBONs within a spectrum—observer forums (e.g., Local Environmental Observer Network), citizen science, community-based monitoring, and CBON systems—each with different strengths on data accessibility versus interoperability.

Kliskey underscored the role of trust, continuity, and bidirectional data flow: tools that return synthesized information quickly to observers; data pipelines designed for austere environments; and governance that respects Indigenous data sovereignty. He also noted that methods and relationships established in the Arctic are now informing community-based observing in other regions (e.g., wildfire and drought contexts), suggesting that CBONs can link local insight to regional and national networks if supported over decadal timescales.

DISCUSSION

Early-Career Leadership and Roles Beyond Academia

Panelists and many participants emphasized placing ECRs in visible, consequential roles, including coordinating field teams, leading synthesis papers, and shaping data products. The discussion also highlighted the broader workforce (e.g., engineers, software developers, technicians, logistics specialists) as core to polar capacity; teams can plan budgets and review narratives that recognize these roles, rather than assuming one-PI/one-student models.

Data Accessibility and Open Sharing

Participants pointed to the value of early, open sharing of data and research outcomes during campaigns, such as what was used in MOSAiC, to invite wider analysis, while acknowledging concerns about misuse or credit. Several participants exhibited strong interest in science-ready metadata, consistent formats, and interoperable repositories paired with user support and tools that make data understandable to broader communities as well as scientists.

Codes of Conduct, Safety, and Culture

Multiple participants mentioned field safety and conduct, not only written policies but also clear expectations, reporting paths, consequences, and attention to cross-cultural contexts on multinational teams. Existing community codes (e.g., professional society guidance, shipboard conduct frameworks) were cited as starting points; some participants suggested that an IPY5 framework could harmonize standards and clarify enforcement across funders and institutions.

International Coordination and Shared Assets

The discussion returned to shared infrastructure (e.g., ships, camps), smarter power systems for long-endurance stations, and interoperable data systems. Some participants described how committing major assets early can catalyze community planning and attract complementary projects and open standards for platforms and data can help multiple disciplines couse networks.

Community Partnerships

Kliskey’s examples of CBONs resonated with several comments about coproduction, rapid return of usable information to communities, and long-term funding mechanisms that do not lapse between grants. Several participants noted that bidirectional design—asking what research questions local partners want answered and making outputs legible to those users—can make observing more durable.

INTERACTIVE ACTIVITIES: HUMAN CAPACITY AND COLLABORATION

Session 4 concluded with an interactive activity in the style of the World Café method for those in person and breakout discussions for those who participated in the workshop virtually. This section integrates brief report-outs from both activities. Attributions indicate the reporter for each group; individual points reflect what they said on behalf of their groups.

Question 1: Strengthening Science Through Broader Engagement

Allison Miller, Schmidt Ocean Institute, described a broad initial response—“everything.” The discussions then narrowed to a set of themes where cocreated work with communities could directly improve science and its utility: coastal and terrestrial systems where people live (e.g., water quality, sea-level rise, extreme events), sea ice and species distributions (including invasive species), pollution and toxin monitoring, and upper atmosphere/ionospheric phenomena. Some participants also mentioned topics that can engage contributors beyond the Arctic (e.g., image classification, genetic sorting, transcribing ship logs). Sea-level rise was discussed as a key issue where polar research connects clearly to global impacts. Miller noted repeated emphasis across discussions on approaches that invite communities to help frame questions and on producing data products that are accessible and useful locally.

Matthew Druckenmiller, National Snow and Ice Data Center, relayed that his group returned often to early and sustained engagement with Indigenous communities—beginning during IPY5 planning—and transparent, open communications about the IPY5 process itself. They discussed engaging youth (roughly ages 5–19) and using multiple languages and suggested a “local-to-global” framing that connects polar science to widely shared concerns. The group also pointed to including the “third pole”—high mountain regions, such as the Himalayas—in IPY5 linkages, drawing on the long history of international organizations engaged in IPY-type efforts, and aligning open-science practices with data sovereignty. Public–private partnerships, storytelling, and collaboration with artists were cited as practical avenues for wider participation and visibility (e.g., social media content that travels).

Question 2: Community-Led Science Beyond Engagement and Empowering Local Voices

Robin Bell, Columbia University, reported that her discussions took stock of current practice. They referenced structured models from Canada, such as territorial research licensing and community-engagement requirements (e.g., Nunavut Research Institute, Aurora Research Institute in the Northwest Territories, Yukon Scientists and Explorers Act), and other examples, such as the study “My Deep Sea, My Backyard” (Amon et al. 2022), a capacity-building initiative that piloted low-cost, locally operated deep-ocean observing (e.g., drop-cams, telepresence, training, codesign) in small island developing states (e.g., Trinidad and Tobago, Kiribati). They noted practical challenges: communities and designated gatekeepers

are often overwhelmed; funding pathways can be confusing; and even terminology (e.g., “residents of the north” versus explicit reference to Indigenous peoples) warrants care. Bell said that the group emphasized bringing Indigenous and local partners directly into IPY5 planning and paying them, clarifying proposal processes, asking communities what information would be useful, ensuring results return in usable formats/units, and building local capacity to observe, build, and use tools as a pathway to careers.

Victoria Herrmann, Arctic Institute, said that her group distinguished between Indigenous-led and community-led science, noting overlap but also complementary needs. A recurring theme was sustained codevelopment before, during, and after IPY5, rather than short-term consultation. That implies funding streams that enable Indigenous-led science in place (e.g., Arctic) and community-led efforts in gateway and coastal locations (e.g., Antarctic), and a plural knowledge approach that weaves Indigenous knowledge with academic science throughout project life cycles. The group also discussed cultivating the next generation of leaders in place (e.g., middle and high school students who will be researchers during IPY5) and connecting IPY4 to IPY5 in ways that build continuity. They suggested moving from knowledge creation alone to codeveloping systems and practices—for example, exploring plural knowledge approaches in naming or mapping frameworks.

Question 3: Role of International Collaboration in Fostering the Next Generation of U.S. Polar Researchers and Mechanisms to Facilitate Career Development and Training

Bill Muntean, Center for Strategic and International Studies, summarized three themes. First, leverage organizations rather than creating new ones: SCAR, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC), APECS, and professional societies, such as the American Geophysical Union and European Geophysical Union, already offer fellowships, working groups, and convening power; a practical addition could be a “clearinghouse” that matches ECRs to international opportunities and collaborators. Second, place ECRs in leadership roles and facilitate knowledge transfer from senior experts, including by treating IPY4 outputs as a foundation. Third, use existing codes and frameworks (e.g., Inuit/Greenlandic guidance, society codes of conduct), and embed local partners within the global polar research ecosystem.

Trista Vicks-Majors, Michigan Technological University, said that her group underscored the value of international collaboration for scientific breadth and career development, especially amid current U.S. funding uncertainties. Mentors can introduce ECRs to global networks; in some cases, moving internationally is a viable pathway when positions or resources are constrained at home. Echoing Muntean’s “clearinghouse” strategy, her group cited IASC, SCAR, and APECS re-

sources and suggested compiling a shared list of fellowships, exchanges, working groups, and training opportunities in one place to improve access.

Question 4: Recent Campaigns, Additional Capacities, and Skills

Britney Schmidt, planning committee member from Cornell University, drew crosscutting threads: retention—“keeping people in the field,” broadly construed—benefits from soft-skills training (e.g., team management; safe, inclusive field practices), a community clearinghouse for lessons learned, and attention to “tail-end” funding so that data can be processed and shared. She said that some participants spoke to lowering barriers for instrumentation and engineering partnerships, sustaining technical and logistics expertise, and making physical qualification processes more inclusive. One concrete idea was a “program inclusion/endorsement” framework: projects funded in the IPY5 window could opt in to shared expectations (e.g., conduct, minimum data practices, common goals), which may broaden visibility and access for non-PI contributors. Schmidt also relayed ideas to improve logistics: flexible access to polar infrastructure across nations; pooling/sharing seats, berths, and field capacity; routine postfield debriefs that feed back into program reviews; and closer integration of scientists into planning to avoid decisions that create downstream complications.

Kristina Collins, Space Sciences Institute, divided her group’s comments into two parts. On lessons learned, she said that conduct and reporting practices were a central concern in international and multidisciplinary settings. While cultural differences exist, the discussion pointed to harmonizing codes of conduct in advance, recognizing power dynamics, and ensuring mechanisms (e.g., ombuds roles) that enable reporting and accountability. She cautioned that processes can, at times, be misused to avoid accountability; designing systems with that risk in mind was viewed as important. On capacities and skill sets, she noted that “early career” spans diverse situations (e.g., students, multiple models of postdoctoral roles, people entering and exiting academia) and that transparent, ongoing coordination structures can help ECRs find, contribute to, and grow within international collaborations. Maximizing field opportunities for skill development and supporting community-facing coordinators were mentioned as practical steps.