Is Indigenous Knowledge meaningfully represented in the IPCC AR6? A bibliometric meta-analysis
5 affiliations
- 1Lincoln University
- 2The University of British Columbia
- 3University of Guelph
- 4United Nations Foundation
- 5City of London Corporation
Abstract
In recent global climatic and environmental reports, Indigenous Knowledges (IK) are recognised as essential to comprehending social-ecological systems and multi-scalar climate-society relationships. However, IK and Indigenous Peoples (IP) continue to be mostly excluded from important and powerful processes such as the UNFCCC and the IPCC reports. In the current (AR7) cycle of the IPCC, it is important to understand whether the last cycle (AR6) meaningfully engaged with IK and IP. Here, we present a multi-tiered bibliometric analysis of the literature cited in the AR6 report (n=46,145 citations), through which we identified citations with abstracts mentioning IK (n=482). Additionally, through exploring this cluster of IK citations, we address enduring questions around disciplinary bias, geographical bias, and academic journal bias. Finally, we categorise IK citations using two indexes of equitable knowledge production. This highlights the different types of relationships (from extractive to co-productive) that guided the cited papers’ research process. Our findings highlight that despite advocacy, promises, and assurances, IK is mostly excluded from the IPCC AR6 report (1.04% of scholarly literature cited). We also call attention to the fact that biophysical sciences, elite journals, and authors from the Global North are dominant in the IK that is included. Finally, we identify some key points of intervention for AR7, which include strategic choices for chapter authors, a focus on Working Group I (climate science), and the inclusion of chapter-scale knowledge justice audits.
Related
- Mobilization of indigenous and local knowledge in science for policy requires epistemic literacy: The case of sustainable municipal development in the Norwegian Arctic
- Mapping and quantifying engagement levels of governments in IPCC approval meetings by topic from text
- Drought and flood risk assessment under the IPCC risk framework in an agriculturally dominated tropical river basin, India
- How well is surface ocean carbon represented in observations and ocean models?
- Large estimated size of the Australian Indigenous population before its extensive decline following colonial invasion
BibTeX
@article{chakraborty2026indigenous,
title = {{Is Indigenous Knowledge meaningfully represented in the IPCC AR6? A bibliometric meta-analysis}},
author = {Ritodhi Chakraborty and Pasang Yangjee Sherpa and Eric Nost and Kristyn Gillis and Aline Carrara and Charlotte Taylor and Madison Smith and Declan Taylor},
journal = {Environmental Research Letters},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.1088/1748-9326/aebe4c},
url = {https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aebe4c},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Is Indigenous Knowledge meaningfully represented in the IPCC AR6? A bibliometric meta-analysis
AU - Ritodhi Chakraborty
AU - Pasang Yangjee Sherpa
AU - Eric Nost
AU - Kristyn Gillis
AU - Aline Carrara
AU - Charlotte Taylor
AU - Madison Smith
AU - Declan Taylor
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/05
JO - Environmental Research Letters
DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/aebe4c
UR - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aebe4c
AB - In recent global climatic and environmental reports, Indigenous Knowledges (IK) are recognised as essential to comprehending social-ecological systems and multi-scalar climate-society relationships. However, IK and Indigenous Peoples (IP) continue to be mostly excluded from important and powerful processes such as the UNFCCC and the IPCC reports. In the current (AR7) cycle of the IPCC, it is important to understand whether the last cycle (AR6) meaningfully engaged with IK and IP. Here, we present a multi-tiered bibliometric analysis of the literature cited in the AR6 report (n=46,145 citations), through which we identified citations with abstracts mentioning IK (n=482). Additionally, through exploring this cluster of IK citations, we address enduring questions around disciplinary bias, geographical bias, and academic journal bias. Finally, we categorise IK citations using two indexes of equitable knowledge production. This highlights the different types of relationships (from extractive to co-productive) that guided the cited papers’ research process. Our findings highlight that despite advocacy, promises, and assurances, IK is mostly excluded from the IPCC AR6 report (1.04% of scholarly literature cited). We also call attention to the fact that biophysical sciences, elite journals, and authors from the Global North are dominant in the IK that is included. Finally, we identify some key points of intervention for AR7, which include strategic choices for chapter authors, a focus on Working Group I (climate science), and the inclusion of chapter-scale knowledge justice audits.
SN - 1748-9326
ER -