The concept of historical trauma (HT) is compelling: Colonialism has set forth cumulative cycles of adversity that promote morbidity and mortality at personal and collective levels, with especially strong mental health impacts. Yet as ongoing community-based as well as scholarly discussions attest, lingering questions continue to surround HT as a framework for understanding the relationships between colonialism and indigenous mental health. Through an overview of 30 recent peer-reviewed publications that aim to clarify, define, measure, and interpret how HT impacts American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) mental health, this paper examines how the conceptual framework of HT has circulated in ways shaped by interactions among three prominent research approaches: evidence-based, culturally relevant, and decolonizing. All define current approaches to AIAN mental health research, but each sets forth different conceptualizations of the connections between colonialism and psychological distress. The unfolding trajectory of research about HT reflects persistent tensions in how these frameworks interact, but also possibilities for better integrating them. These considerations aim to advance conversations about the politics of producing knowledge about AIAN mental health, and support ongoing calls for greater political pluralism in mental health research.

No abstract

Global social justice movements, including transnational activism for indigenous rights, are working to promote health equity by transforming public health research and policy. Yet little social scientific research has examined how professional epidemiologists are figuring within such efforts. Discussions are unfolding, however, in critical sectors of epidemiology about how to improve the profession’s input into advocacy. Findings from a multi-sited ethnographic study of epidemiological research for and by indigenous peoples in three settings (Aotearoa/New Zealand, the continental U.S., and Hawai’i) demonstrate how researchers/practitioners connect epidemiology and advocacy by: (1) linking the better-known legitimacy of quantitative methods to a lesser-known causal framework that positions colonialism as a sociopolitical determinant of health, (2) producing technical critiques that aim to improve the accuracy and accessibility of indigenous population health statistics, and (3) adopting a pragmatic flexibility in response to the shifting political conditions that shape when, whether and how epidemiological findings support advocacy for indigenous health equity. Attending closely to the credibility tactics at hand in this work, and to the skills and sensibilities of its practitioners, charts new directions for future research about epidemiology’s contributions to advocacy for health equity.

The growing international trend toward greater community control of mental health programs in indigenous communities illuminates ongoing discursive and material pressures that shape the development of locally responsive and culturally relevant health services. In this article, I apply insights derived from practice theory and critical psychological anthropology to the ethnographic example of a substance abuse program on a Northern Plains reservation. This analysis suggests that by attending to how addiction and its psychotherapeutic transformation are represented in various community and institutional discourses impacting local services, ethnographers can accomplish two vital tasks: (1) documenting social, cultural, and psychological diversity within contemporary Native American communities, and (2) illuminating forces that undermine recognition of this diversity by federally funded mental health services. These forces include the often subtle but persistent power inequalities in relationships between local communities and federal health agencies. [mental health, substance abuse, Native North America]

In 2012-13 the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) in New Zealand rapidly implemented a major restructuring of national scientific research funding. The "National Science Challenges" (NSC) initiative aims to promote greater commercial applications of scientific knowledge, reflecting ongoing neoliberal reforms in New Zealand. Using the example of health research, we examine the NSC as a key moment in ongoing indigenous Māori advocacy against neoliberalization. NSC rhetoric and practice through 2013 moved to marginalize participation by Māori researchers, in part through constructing "Māori" and "science" as essentially separate arenas-yet at the same time appeared to recognize and value culturally distinctive forms of Māori knowledge. To contest this "neoliberal multiculturalism," Māori health researchers reasserted the validity of culturally distinctive knowledge, strategically appropriated NSC rhetoric, and marshalled political resources to protect Māori research infrastructure. By foregrounding scientific knowledge production as an arena of contestation over neoliberal values and priorities, and attending closely to how neoliberalizing tactics can include moves to acknowledge cultural diversity, this analysis poses new questions for social scientific study of global trends toward reconfiguring the production of knowledge about health. Study findings are drawn from textual analysis of MBIE documents about the NSC from 2012 to 2014, materials circulated by Māori researchers in the blogosphere in 2014, and ethnographic interviews conducted in 2013 with 17 Māori health researchers working at 7 sites that included university-based research centers, government agencies, and independent consultancies.