Polar policy making: Two ethnographic accounts of Polar field scientists interacting with Polar governance and policy

Studying Arctic Fields and The Technocratic Antarctic are two recent publications in the expanding field of Polar social sciences. Through ethnographic research, these books confront the key issues of the science–policy interface, the construction of scientific territory, and environmental preservation in two of the most pristine landscapes on Earth.

The books are strikingly similar in theme and method. Both are ethnographic accounts of scientists working in the Polar Regions and both examine how policy in the Arctic/Antarctic is informed by this social context. Studying Arctic Fields, which shall be discussed first, relates scientists’ social dynamics at a research station in Nunavut and their interactions with indigenous people to the politics, history and culture of Arctic Canada. It describes how this informs wider discourses on nationalism, identity and scientific sovereignty in the High Arctic. The second book, The Technocratic Antarctic, looks at how expertise is used as the primary model of governance in the Antarctic, which provides a compelling social setting in the absence of indigenous people.

Studying Arctic Fields explores the complex social dynamics at the Polar Continental Shelf Project (PCSP) field base at Resolute Bay in Arctic Canada. The Resolute area has had Canadian military or scientific presence since 1947, initially as a base for weather stations, before establishing a harbour and air strip. The PCSP was founded by the Government of Canada in 1958 in response to the International Geophysical Year, 1957–1958, with the purpose of rendering, cartographically and geophysically, the continental shelf to the north and west of the Canadian High Arctic Islands. It became a major High Arctic interdisciplinary scientific research body and, through maintaining a scientific presence, has served to demonstrate Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

Over the years, the politics of the region have changed significantly, particularly with the creation of the Territory of Nunavut in April 1999, following the settlement of the Inuit land claim with the Government of Canada. Powell discusses how this has affected the practice of environmental science in the region by studying the cultures of field science, most notably through the establishment of a long-term, integrated research programme that employed experimental methods in the field, in place of the previous expeditionary ‘hit-and-run’ approach.

Powell’s analysis is grounded in practice rather than theory, on the argument that social scientists have misconstrued the discourse and politics of representation on which their studies are based. Drawing upon the idea of communities in practice, Powell argues that it is only through participating in communities that the ethnographer can truly understand the practices they are investigating. Multi-sited imaginary is deployed, rather than a prescriptive set of methods. This focuses on the construction of the ethnographic object being studied, situating it within a wider geographical and ethnographic context by tracing the connections between sites.

His immersion in the culture, over two summer seasons at Resolute in 2001 and 2002, provides rich narratives and key insights. Powell does not present himself as an omniscient researcher, but as an active participant in the community. His own presence and interactions are described as part of a process of immersing himself in the culture and establishing a rapport. The resulting inside analysis of the daily lives of those involved in science at PCSP Resolute and accompanying portrayal of the emotional dimensions of work and play at the base provide a deeper understanding of the social frameworks and cultural constructs surrounding field science in Canada’s High Arctic.

Powell argues a compelling case over the politicisation of scientific practice in the Canadian High Arctic that provides the backdrop for his participant observation. Through his investigation into the founding of the PCSP in relation to debates about Canadian nordicity and national identity, the project is contextualised as part of a wider vision to bring the High Arctic into the Canadian national imagination, inspire national unity and establish Canadian sovereignty in the far north through the organisation of field science in the Arctic. Furthermore, it is suggested that the constant tension between meeting scientific goals and establishing Canadian sovereignty is reflected in anxiety within the PCSP.

The cultural setting of PCSP scientific research is laid out through the examination of the reorganisation and reconceptualisation of scientific research in the Arctic when field scientists constructed the PCSP. Discussing the relationship between the Arctic as an expeditionary space and the Arctic as an experimental space, Powell describes how the move from the authority of experiment to a conduct of Arctic field practice in the PCSP reintroduced adventurous observation in a way that combines science and emotion in the physical environment, though at the expense of scientific rigour.

It is with this understanding that Powell’s participant observation of contemporary PCSP practices at Resolute is analysed, beginning with an examination of space and its influence on the conduct of the PCSP’s scientific activities. In particular, the rules and practices defined by location exert influence on the culture of the base. These can be formal, designed to govern scientific practice, or, more often, informal and intangible influences that transcend social and professional dimensions. The construction of a scientific identity among field teams at Resolute reveals how the image of a holistic Arctic investigator is presented that is both an accomplished scientist and a good field person who endures the elements without discomfort and faces the dangers without fear. The perpetuation of this image in camp discourse reinforces it as a goal for incoming scientists as an identity grounded in field station culture.

Powell then delves deeper into an interpretive phase as he analyses the emotions connected with individuals involved with the PCSP. One of the most interesting chapters of the book recounts Canada Day with respect to socio-cultural relations between those associated with PCSP Resolute as actors of the state and the First Nations Inuit community indigenous to the Arctic. The Inuit community was relocated to Resolute by the Canadian state in the 1950s, shortly prior to the establishment of the PCSP. They were relocated at the recommendation of the Federal Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, supposedly due to a major decline in game, particularly caribou, where they were living near Hudson Bay in Northern Quebec but arguably as part of an attempt to demonstrate Canadian sovereignty over the High Arctic. The small community endured considerable hardship economically, as well physically due to the much harsher weather conditions and more than five months of diurnal darkness every winter, and also culturally from separation from their homeland, a lack of hunting and marked social segregation from resident military and scientific personnel.

There is typically little contact between the people of Resolute Base and the First Nations people, however Canada Day is an exception. Ethnographic investigation of the performance of Canada Day 2002 in Resolute using the notion of encounter depicts not only the relief of tension between those for whom the Arctic is a homeland and the state scientific presence there, but also how the Inuit are eager to celebrate Canadianness, through celebration and displays of nationalism. Drawing on theories of ritual, carnival and social dramas, Powell recounts the vehicle parade and community races as events characterised by ambivalence, where hostility to and inclusion in state activities and identity are played out through quasi-comical actions, friendly rivalry and displays of cross-cultural allegiance:

Whilst food for the community was prepared on a large barbecue, races were organized from one bank of the river to the other. These races involved young children, older children and adolescents, and adult men and women. Many of the younger scientists participated fully in these activities. In doing so, they realized that, like local power-holders such as the mayor and RCMP officers, they should be seen to take part but not to be victorious. For example, a number of scientists theatrically fell into the river while leading their races. This further enabled socially acceptable mockery of the federal state embodiments, thereby facilitating the carnivalesque dissolution of usual hostilities. (p. 143)

Though this chapter sheds less light on the practice of Arctic field science than the others, it is highly significant to the book’s central theme of Canadian sovereignty in the High Arctic. It is also appealing as a standalone chapter to anyone with an interest in inter-cultural relations and serves as an entertaining account of recreational time for off-duty scientific personnel in one of the most remote places on Earth.

As the Canada Day celebrations mark a brief moment of departure from the scientific enclave of Resolute basecamp, so too it is a brief encounter with the Inuit community for the author, as his narrative directly returns to scientific identity through the cultures of labour of the logistical staff and the base managers. He argues how the daily activities of the logistical staff enforce their identities as the real scientists. Working long hours, they undertake the bulk of practical duties associated with fieldwork operations, yet their work is uncredited and informed opinions neglected. It is, however, the discussion of base managers that is more revealing to those interested in governance of Arctic science. The base managers implement the rules that constitute Resolute’s culture of temperance, on which scientific identities are formed and which perpetuates the historical vision of scientific sovereignty in the Canadian High Arctic. As the main state operation in Resolute, and potentially even in the entire Canadian High Arctic, their influence is amplified and duties extended.

Although focusing on a specific research station and project, this book will hold appeal with those more generally interested in Arctic field studies, and can easily resonate with a broad range of audiences. Powell’s participatory approach provides an intimate setting to connect the reader to the daily lives of the Arctic science community. It does not overwhelm with theory, but provides thick descriptions that ground ethnography in social practice and are occasionally peppered with entertaining tales of Arctic experiences. Presented in an easily read format and language, the accounts produced from multi-sited imaginary are appropriate to a range of disciplines and interests. Concepts the reader may be unfamiliar with are explained concisely prior to the relevant ethnographic observations. Thus, no reader is left behind regardless of their own field of expertise.

Shifting focus to the opposite Pole, The Technocratic Antarctic, derived from Jessica O’Reilly’s PhD thesis, is structured around key case studies of incidences where Antarctic science meets policy. These include the seemingly small but symbolic camping rule dictating that rocks moved by people must be returned to their original locations. As New Zealand scientists are rolling rocks back in accordance with the long-standing regulation, Americans nearby are constructing permanent structures. This is used to highlight inequality in policy and practice. Other case studies include biosecurity regulations for Antarctic species and non-native species to Antarctica, international relations over a special managed area, and the contributions of Antarctic scientists, policy and data to climate change mitigation.

As with the Arctic field station at Resolute, the competing nationalism, disciplines, field experiences and personal relationships among Antarcticans shape its governance and management. Antarctica, however, has a glaring difference from the Arctic – there are no people living there. Those who refer to themselves as ‘Antarcticans’ are solely the scientific researchers, policy makers and support staff who visit there for work. It is their expertise and scientific practice that forms the primary model of governance for Antarctica, in what O’Reilly refers to as an epistemic technocracy.

O’Reilly posits the start of the ‘peopling of the Antarctic’ (p. 3) as during the International Geophysical year of 1957–1958, coinciding with the founding of the PCSP in the Arctic, with the period of human endeavours in the region prior to this is referred to as the exploration era. Studying Arctic Fields and The Technocratic Antarctic therefore cover the opposite poles on identical time scales.

In contrast to Powell’s research at Resolute, very little of O’Reilly’s book is actually based in the field in Antarctica, but her ethnographic research with Antarctic and climate scientists through participation in a plethora of policy activities spans a decade, which clearly shows in the density of information that is presented. The global setting of The Technocratic Antarctic also reflects the nature of Antarctic governance. As much Antarctic policy is formed off the ice, so too is much of her account of it.

Governance of Antarctica began in 1959 with the Antarctica Treaty, the content of which is decided and amended by diplomats from member states, defined as those with a scientific presence in the region, and is dependent on unanimity. In practice, much of the real Antarctic governance work is directed through informal channels, and Antarctic scientists work together to form their own environmental regulations for research stations. It is in this context that O’Reilly delves into the daily lives and work of scientists and policy makers in the field to understand the complex process of policy making in the Antarctic.

Like Powell, O’Reilly employs a methodology of ethnographic participant observation and interviews. Her fieldwork in Antarctica was through participation on an environmental monitoring expedition to Windless Bight with the New Zealand Antarctic Programme. A considerable amount of pre- and post-expedition work was also conducted at meetings, conferences and policy workshops, as well as with desk research and ethnographic interviews with Antarctic scientists and policy makers from her base at Christchurch in New Zealand. As a result of this triangulation of methods, The Technocratic Antarctic provides a nuanced understanding of Antarctic policy.

The analysis begins with an exploration of the ways in which the Antarctic is imagined. The concept of Antarctica as exceptional, pristine and, as a result of tales of hardship from the era of exploration, ‘a place of struggle, extreme conditions, hazard, sacrifice, adventure and death’ (p. 25) conjures an image of Antarctica as extreme and unique – a place to be preserved. With the legislation of the Madrid Protocol coming into place in 1998, strict environmental procedures became a legal, not just ethical, requirement. Interviewees emphasised the role of Greenpeace and the wave of environmentalism surrounding them. This, coupled with the threat of proposed mining activities, is suggested by one scientist turned policy maker as the driving force behind the Madrid Protocol. This illustrates how pressures outside of science also bear on policy, and highlights the importance of avoiding too narrow a focus on a scientific epistemic technocracy, even in an unpopulated scientific landscape.

Having set the scene to explore the interplay of influence and the exploration of tensions as science and policy are enacted in the field, O’Reilly transports the reader directly into camp life on the Ross Ice Shelf. It is fitting that the first focus of the ethnographer’s attention is the influence of everyday Antarctic fieldwork experiences on scientists as people, and how, in an unquantifiable way, they contribute to the expertise that scientists inject into policy. This is a key ethnographic aspect to investigate, and echoes Powell’s attention to the emotive element of scientific practice in the Arctic. It is, however, in the following chapters examining the dynamic interplay between science and policy making that the core findings of O’Reilly’s research into Antarctic policy formation are unveiled.

The strength of the relationship between policy and scientific practice in the Antarctic is emphasised. The case study of biosecurity policy making not only documents contemporary Antarctic policy making in response to a serious emergent threat, it also demonstrates epistemic technocracy in action as field science is fed into international policy. As policy makers are dependent on scientific expertise in forming their policy on this matter, it could be reasonably assumed that the process is smooth and mutually rewarding, but as the author delves deep into the processes and experiences of policy in action at biosecurity borders, the complexities of the relationship in which security is dependent on science and science is also dependent on security are laid out.

Another complex relationship is that between the nations involved in Antarctica. The debate over the planned Indian Antarctic Programme base in the Larsemann Hills, which is a proposed Antarctic Specially Managed Area (ASMA), provides an insight into what is suggested is the kind of institutionalised prejudice in the governance of Antarctic territory that should have no place in a knowledge-driven technocracy. O’Reilly analyses the discourse surrounding the debate that reveals social segregation of those from the Indian programme by the representatives of nations with a longer history of exploration in the Antarctic. The Indian team used alternative rhetoric and novel arguments that did not fit in with the established discourse. They were marginalised by the elitism of the more established groups who criticised them not so much for their management policy for the ASMA, but over complaints that they were not following due process or using the correct language. Eventually, their activities were given clearance, but were translated into policy language in order to fit, and the impression is given that this has done little to modify the established hierarchy among this international group where rightfully no one has a greater claim than any of the others.

The book ends with the analysis of a situation inverse to that with which it opened. On this occasion it is not the rest of the world that is reaching in to affect science in the Antarctic, but Antarctic science that is reaching out in an attempt to affect the rest of the world. The final chapter of The Technocratic Antarctic has merit as a standalone work that is highly relevant to science and policy out with the Polar context. It analyses how Antarctic scientists connect to a global audience of policy makers and policy influencers on the subject of climate change. In this setting, the scientists who have worked in this land with no indigenous occupants act as representatives of place, and spokespeople on climate change.

The discussion on translating science for non-scientific audiences is valuable in any scientific sphere as the full impact of scientific findings will not result in action without effective communication. As O’Reilly puts it, ‘data never speak for themselves’ (p. 142). The act of selecting a marketable snapshot of science and injecting charisma to give it effect is always a conscious construction. It may be that there exists material that allows for the deployment of shock tactics, such as images like the Larsen B Ice Shelf collapse, or it could be as simple as attaching a moral story to the data that relates to people’s hopes and fears, and delivering it effectively. The exemplary case of charismatic data, however, is the use of the Keeling Curve as a promotional icon based on its appearance. It is the pin-up of climate data. Described as ‘beautiful data’, ‘elegant data’ and ‘looking like good data should’ (p. 150), the Keeling Curve, which shows the rise in atmospheric CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa Observatory over time, symbolises climate change as a well-defined global problem. Scientists and policy makers are enthusiastically employing the curve as shorthand for clear and rapidly advancing anthropogenic climate change, framing it as a problem to be urgently addressed. The art and science of presenting data in an engaging way is a compelling topic on which to conclude, and one where is clear scope to develop further.

The Technocratic Antarctic is an astoundingly comprehensive dossier on Antarctic governance and the power dynamics and cultivated relationships involved in it. O’Reilly carefully contextualises her research with respect to social perceptions and environmental policy regarding the region as she follows on the journey of science through the policy system, engaging with themes of territory, security, processes, practice, problems, science communication and interactions with the world at large. Her work depicts a slow process of diplomatic consensus-based decision making, where policy making is driven by scientific data which provide the multinational governance of a land that belongs to no one with credibility and legitimacy. The accounts detailing the complexities of epistemic technocracy in practice portray the Antarctic as an imperfect technocracy, driven by scientific knowledge but influenced by human nature.

The episodic structure of the series of examples in which science meets policy frames the issues. Within each chapter the narrative is loose as it drifts between observation in the Antarctic and other methods, from interviews to desk research to overheard conversations. While the observations are excellent, the analysis is often fragmented, and the chapters would have benefited in particular from more comprehensive explanation in the conclusions. Nevertheless, this does not detract from the value of the work as an account of the processes by which scientific practice translates into policy, how policy is translated into scientific practice, and the human interactions that facilitate the processes. It may even provide insights that could identify ways in which cooperation between science and policy can be enhanced.

Studying Arctic Fields and The Technocratic Antarctic are noteworthy and timely works that conceptualise the Arctic and Antarctic as social spaces. The Technocratic Antarctic is particularly significant as it treads new ground in its examination of Antarctic social science. Antarctic ethnography is a relatively novel field, having been overlooked due to the continent’s absence of an indigenous population. It is also only recently that social science research turned its attention to science in a socio-spatial context. Science is a dominant factor in life and policy in both Polar Regions and it is only fitting that social studies in these places should follow this direction. Both Resolute and Antarctica have temporary scientific residents with well-formed place attachment, and through these ethnographic accounts the reader better understands the practice–policy relationship between science and governance in the Polar Regions. This is a dynamic relationship, experiencing times of cooperation, co-dependency and conflict.

While there are similarities in subject and method between the two books, there are clear differences in scope and style. Powell’s work is a concentrated account of a single Arctic research base, while O’Reilly’s is more international, reflecting the international governance of the Antarctic. In covering a much broader geographic area, the focus is inevitably not as specific as Powell’s, yet her attention to detail and, in particular, the analysis of discourse at meetings and conferences give the reader the impression that this is a comprehensive analysis. That The Technocratic Antarctic was derived from a PhD thesis clearly shows in its academic style. It is crammed with so much information that at times it may confuse the reader and distort the text. Meticulous and evidence-based, The Technocratic Antarctic is not always easy reading, but it is always insightful. Studying Arctic Fields has more fluid writing and a more engaging narrative. It is also more human-focused, while The Technocratic Antarctic can be described as more policy-focused. Colourful stories from Resolute Base bring the experiences to life and resonate with readers in their innate humanity.

Overall, both publications provide fascinating insights. Resolute and Antarctica are two of the few places on Earth where scientists comprised the founding population. Studying Arctic Fields is a detailed story of a research station told in a readable and entertaining style, while The Technocratic Antarctic is the presentation of the findings of an in-depth, methodical research project of significant interest to many within and beyond the field of Antarctic governance. Most crucially, both texts ought to be essential reading for Polar scientists to equip them with a detailed understanding of the policy processes involved in sanctioning their work and translating their findings into the necessary policy to best protect and manage these extraordinary and fragile environments.