Conflicting results: CBA often involves knowledge being created at the interface of Western and local/indigenous knowledge within a specific cultural context.103 There is significant potential for both knowledge systems to be complementary when understanding the nature of the risks posed by climate change or identifying adaptation strategies (e.g., see Refs 104, 105, 106). In some areas, however, there remains divergent and polarized opinions on current and projected impacts of climate change.107, 108, 109 In these cases, the need to adapt is contested, and preferred short‐term policy responses may compromise long‐term sustainability. The role of research in such situations is complex.32, 103 Building upon and integrating indigenous and Western knowledge underpin CBA, but researchers, communities, and decision makers may have different perspectives on risks, particularly once climate projections are integrated, reflecting different value systems about the future. In such circumstances, communities may not want to hear results that could imply the need for significant changes in livelihood activities, or may request the results be kept confidential; equally, researchers may dispute findings if they are not corroborated by other research. Such circumstances are not unique to the North; Few et al.110, 111 document similar challenges in the context of coastal management in the UK where communities often want to ‘wait and see’ as opposed to getting involved in anticipatory adaptation action. These challenges require careful and skilled negotiation, especially given the policy implications of research, and in an Arctic context, the uncertainty about future wildlife trends. Indeed, communities often highlight the inaccuracy of past scientific stock assessments, which underpin the mistrust many Inuit feel for conventional scientific research.112, 113, 114