Placing diverse knowledge systems at the core of transformative climate research

To focus on solutions, as the term 'solutions-oriented research' suggests, is to risk prioritizing ends over means; we argue that the research process is as important as the output. For reasons that are both epistemic and ethical, we hold that research on climate change must facilitate genuine partnership across knowledge systems. We argue as well that such partnerships can be built only as part of larger, more encompassing political shifts. Indigenous Peoples have long pressed for recognition and respect of their knowledge systems as part of their struggles for selfdetermination; local communities around the world have engaged in parallel efforts, as well. International environmental organizations are increasingly attempting to engage with non-Western knowledge systems, but too often they do so in ways that detach information gathered from this engagement from the worldviews, values, embodied practices, and relationships that are both definitive of and vital to those knowledge systems. Only by fully recognizing this holistic quality of knowledge systems can climate research begin to point beyond short-term fixes, toward a transformation of attitudes, of ways of life, and, ultimately, of power structures. Only by confronting the deep histories of the unjust-and often exploitative and violent-relations between the societies and peoples that hold these knowledge systems can climate research undo the forces that block this transformation.

Our recommendations for transformative change presume that institutions of knowledge-making and institutions of governance do not change independently of each other. In other words, epistemic justice-full, fair inclusion and participation of different knowledge systems-is inseparable from social and political justice. As Sheila Jasanoff has theorized, science and society 'co-produce' each other, meaning that the practice of science inevitably reflects the power relations of the existing social order, and when people set the rules of knowledge-making, they are also defining social norms. This usage contrasts with the way that 'co-production' is commonly used in climate science today to designate collaboration between scientists and other groups of experts and knowledge holders, often limited to short-term projects. Transformative change to solve the climate crisis will depend on careful attention to these interactions between knowledge and power.

Our argument takes three steps. First, we review definitions of knowledge systems and recent empirical research on knowledge systems, calling for a fuller view of knowledge systems and noting persistent social and political inequalities that marginalize certain knowledge systems. Second, we review the positions on knowledge systems that are taken by the social and political institutions that frame climate research and action, proposing that scientific research remains inflected by the history of European colonialism and emphasizing the need to rethink current divides between knowledge and values. Finally, we call for concrete, accountable steps to achieve genuine partnerships and culminate in a list of instruments to ensure just partnership across knowledge systems for transformative change. We acknowledge that no set of instruments can on their own guarantee transformative change, but their absence makes such change unlikely if not impossible.

The paper reviews and synthesizes definitions, debates, and empirical studies on 'knowledge systems' and 'ways of knowing' as used by IPCC, IPBES, UNESCO, and Indigenous scholars. Knowledge systems are defined as social configurations of agents, practices, and institutions that organize production, transfer, and use of knowledge, emphasizing links between knowledge and action. Many Indigenous scholars prefer 'ways of knowing' to signal coherent, dynamic, value-rich practices, worldviews, and relationships with more-than-human beings, often rooted in Indigenous languages (e.g., 'grammar of animacy').

The literature shows recurrent mischaracterization of Indigenous and local knowledge as mere data repositories, decontextualized from governance, values, and ontologies. Reviews (e.g., Klenk et al. 2017) find dominant patterns where science extracts observations to fill model gaps, subordinating Indigenous and local knowledge. A contrasted pair of studies on crop diversification illustrates this: Shukla et al. (2016) treat diversification as a transferable, isolated practice validated against distant meteorological data; Rarai et al. (2022), led by an Indigenous researcher, embed diversification within communitarian, relational worldviews, emphasizing language, cultural practice, and local economies as enabling conditions.

Philosophy of science and STS contributions underscore that science is not value-free; cognitive and social values shape agendas and evidence judgments (Longino 1990, 1996; Douglas 2000). Calls for explicit articulation of values in partnerships are echoed. The review integrates feminist and decolonial critiques, highlighting colonial epistemic extractivism’s influence on Western science (Haraway 2016; Graeber & Wengrow 2021) and the inseparability of epistemic justice from political and land rights (Latulippe & Klenk 2020).

Evidence of challenges and partial progress in inclusive processes is reported. For the U.S. NCA Northwest chapter, mandated pluralism broadened framings but faced barriers such as process design, locations privileging urban access, time constraints, and reliance on peer-reviewed literature over other knowledges (Roesch-McNally et al. 2020). Yet emerging collaborations demonstrate promise: co-forecasting in Tanzania with the Meteorological Authority; integrative assessments in Tajikistan (Kassam et al. 2021); Indigenous fire stewardship in Australia and California; Fiji’s customary governance in planned relocations; and Canada’s Indigenous climate policy roundtables feeding into the NDC.

Overall, the review identifies persistent biases and structural inequities that marginalize Indigenous and local knowledge systems, while documenting concrete cases where respectful, rights-based, co-equal collaborations enrich understanding and improve climate decision-making.

This is a Perspective that develops an argument in three steps and conducts a narrative synthesis of literature and key international policy texts. Methods include: (1) a conceptual review of definitions and debates on 'knowledge systems' and 'ways of knowing' across IPCC/IPBES glossaries and Indigenous scholarship; (2) a narrative synthesis and critical analysis of how diverse knowledge systems are framed within major reports, decisions, and platforms of the UNFCCC, IPCC, UNESCO, IPBES, and CBD over the past two decades; and (3) illustrative comparative case analyses (e.g., crop diversification studies; examples from Tanzania, Tajikistan, Australia/California, Fiji, Canada, Peru/Pakistan/China/U.S.) to show conditions under which collaborations succeed or fail. The authors derive recommendations and a suite of governance and implementation instruments (e.g., FPIC, data sovereignty) from this synthesis, acknowledging that instruments require monitoring, accountability, and adaptation.

• Climate change is not merely a technical problem; it is entangled with colonial histories and ongoing power relations that shape whose knowledge counts and how decisions are made.
• Transformative change requires decolonizing research processes, recognizing the indivisible wholeness of Indigenous and local knowledge systems (knowledge, practices, values, worldviews), and linking epistemic justice to social, political, and land/resource rights.
• International regimes increasingly reference Indigenous and local knowledge (e.g., Rio 1992 Principle 22; UNFCCC LCIPP; IPCC AR5/AR6; CBD, IPBES), but implementation is inconsistent and often symbolic. AR6 WGII (2022) is the first to explicitly highlight colonization as a driver of vulnerability, yet IPCC methods still lack requirements to respect Indigenous data governance protocols.
• The dominant research pattern remains extractive: Indigenous/local knowledge is treated as data to fit scientific models, decontextualized from governance and values. Contrasting cases show that embedding practices within local ontologies and institutions yields more durable, equitable outcomes.
• Documented barriers include: procedural designs privileging scientific evidence and urban venues; limited timeframes; uneven participation; and weak accountability in applying principles like FPIC, which can be manipulated (e.g., cases in the Philippines; mixed outcomes across Latin America).
• Positive exemplars demonstrate the benefits of partnership: co-produced weather services in Tanzania; integrative climate assessments in Tajikistan; Indigenous fire stewardship incorporated into wildfire management; Fiji’s customary governance guiding relocations; Canada’s Indigenous-led contributions to the NDC; support for Indigenous-led adaptation when community resource rights are acknowledged.
• A concrete, multi-level governance and implementation toolbox is proposed to ensure just partnerships: full consultation; free, prior and informed consent; recognition of customary law/institutions and territorial rights; intellectual property rights; Indigenous data sovereignty (CARE and FAIR principles); and preservation and promotion of Indigenous languages.
• Instruments are necessary but not sufficient; they require continuous monitoring, evaluation, and capacity-building to prevent misuse and to evolve with context.

The findings address the central problem—how to place diverse knowledge systems at the core of transformative climate research—by showing that respect for Indigenous and local knowledge cannot be achieved through data extraction or one-off co-production projects. Instead, a decolonial, rights-based approach is needed that treats knowledge systems as inseparable from land, language, governance, and values. Recognizing the co-production of science and society reframes climate research as a site where power is negotiated; thus, epistemic justice depends on social and political justice. The proposed instruments operationalize this linkage: FPIC and customary law recognition shift decision power; IP rights and data sovereignty protect knowledge holders; language preservation sustains the epistemic foundations of Indigenous ways of knowing. By articulating roles for international (UNFCCC/IPCC), national, and local governance, the paper outlines practical pathways for embedding plural knowledge in policy cycles and project implementation. The significance lies in moving beyond rhetorical inclusion toward accountable, monitorable mechanisms that can catalyze transformative shifts in human–nature relations and intersocietal relations.

Broad principles of inclusion and pluralism are insufficient without concrete, accountable mechanisms. The paper contributes a decolonial framing for solutions-oriented climate research and a suite of policy instruments to enact just partnerships across knowledge systems. While no instrument is a panacea and powerful actors may subvert procedures, evidence shows that their careful implementation can enable more equitable and effective climate action. Future efforts should prioritize full implementation and monitoring of these instruments across scales; expand participation of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in scientific assessments and decision bodies; respect data sovereignty and IP; and support the vitality of Indigenous languages and customary governance. Without such implementation, calls for transformation risk remaining rhetorical; with it, transformative change becomes a practical possibility.

The article is a perspective and narrative synthesis rather than an empirical study; it does not present new quantitative data or systematic meta-analysis. It acknowledges that instruments like FPIC can be co-opted or inadequately applied and that institutional inertia (e.g., privileging peer-reviewed evidence in assessments) limits inclusion. Time and resource constraints, venue selection, and governance structures can impede effective participation. The authors note that instruments require continuous monitoring, adaptation, and capacity-building; absent these, implementation gaps and power asymmetries will persist.