Indigenous activism and epidemiological knowledge: An international comparison

自20世纪90年代以来，越来越多的土著控制的流行病学中心在多个民族国家建立。通过收集、解释和传播有关土著健康的统计信息，这些中心旨在将“科学”的政治和文化权威与土著要求在健康方面更大的社会正义以及更好地控制卫生研究和服务联系起来。这项研究对这些努力进行了国际比较，考察了土著控制的保健研究在两个背景下的不同资源、战略和政治经济背景：奥蒂亚罗亚/新西兰和美国。这两个民族国家在文化和政治上有很大的相似之处，但不同的历史遗产塑造了每个国家土著控制的研究的制度化。因此，土著研究人员面临着独特的挑战，因为他们在每种情况下不断地向不同的受众阐明和断言他们的目标和发现。这项研究将使用参与者观察和访谈的民族志方法，辅之以话语分析方法，比较新西兰和美国选定的土著控制的卫生研究中心是如何进行流行病学研究的，以及由此产生的知识主张如何在每种情况下在公共生活中流通(例如，通过出版和展示、媒体报道和/或公共政策辩论和决定)。这种国际比较能够对文化和政治背景如何塑造土著流行病学研究进行微妙的分析，并参与正在进行的努力，以更好地了解世界各地阐明土著遗传的动态。研究结果将增进对科学与政治之间复杂界限的理解，并促进对当代土著人民复杂性和多样性的认识，鼓励在医学人类学、科学与技术研究、土著研究和公共卫生等领域进一步交流与合作。

Since the 1990s a rising number of indigenous-controlled epidemiology centers have been founded in multiple nation-states. By collecting, interpreting, and disseminating statistical information about indigenous health, these centers aim to link the political & cultural authority of "science" with indigenous claims for greater social justice in health, and for greater indigenous control of health research and services. This study offers an international comparison of these efforts, examining the different resources, strategies and political-economic contexts for indigenous-controlled health research in two settings: Aotearoa/New Zealand and the United States. These two nation-states share significant cultural and political similarities, but different historical legacies have shaped the institutionalization of indigenous-controlled research in each. As such, indigenous researchers face distinctive challenges as they continually articulate and assert their goals and findings to multiple audiences in each setting. Using ethnographic methods of participant observation and interviewing, complemented by methods of discourse analysis, this study will compare how epidemiological research is conducted at selected indigenous-controlled health research centers in both New Zealand and the U.S.; and how the resulting knowledge claims circulate in public life (e.g., through publication and presentation, media coverage, and/or public policy debates and decisions) in each setting. This international comparison enables a nuanced analysis of how cultural and political contexts are shaping indigenous epidemiological research, and engages ongoing efforts to better understand the dynamics of articulating indigeneity worldwide. Study findings will enhance understanding of the complex boundaries between science and politics, and promote appreciation of the complexity and diversity of contemporary indigenous peoples, in ways that encourage further communication and collaboration across the fields of medical anthropology, science & technology studies, indigenous studies, and public health.