Indigenous activism and epidemiological knowledge: An international comparison

自20世纪90年代以来，在多个民族国家建立了越来越多的土著控制的流行病学中心。通过收集、解释和传播有关土著居民健康的统计信息，这些中心旨在将“科学”的政治和文化权威与土著居民要求在保健方面实现更大的社会公正以及土著居民对保健研究和服务的更大控制的要求联系起来。这项研究对这些努力进行了国际比较，审查了在新西兰和美国这两个国家进行土著控制的卫生研究的不同资源、战略和政治经济背景。这两个民族国家有着显著的文化和政治相似性，但不同的历史遗产塑造了各自本土控制研究的制度化。因此，本土研究人员面临着独特的挑战，因为他们不断地表达和主张他们的目标和发现，在每个设置的多个受众。本研究将采用参与者观察和访谈的民族志方法，辅以话语分析的方法，比较在新西兰和美国选定的土著控制的健康研究中心进行流行病学研究的情况；以及由此产生的知识主张如何在每种环境中在公共生活中传播（例如，通过出版和演讲、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影响土著流行病学研究进行细致入微的分析，并持续努力更好地理解世界范围内表达土著的动态。研究结果将加强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的复杂性和多样性的认识，从而鼓励在医学人类学、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.