The tensions of having adaptation as the entry point for projects raise questions over whether climate change is actually a contrived framing. Indeed, there is an absence of discussion in the literature on how an adaptation framing is developed and maintained in projects—where it is typically assumed that communities are interested and are willing to play a major role in leading adaptation projects. Many workshop participants, based on their own experiences, doubted this was always the case, believing the lack of critical discussion to reflect the common assumption that community‐initiated and ‐led projects are ‘better,’ and without which good participatory research cannot occur. Locally initiated and led projects are certainly an important dimension of CBA, but close and effective participation may also occur where researchers themselves initiate an adaptation project, providing engagement is done in a collaborative and ethically sound manner. Particularly for creeping and slow‐onset hazards like climate change, where there are weak incentives for institutions and individuals to mobilize given the uncertain long‐term nature of the problem, some outside initiation is often essential.5, 32, 101, 102 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