TY - JOUR
T1 - Beyond deficit
T2 - ‘strengths-based approaches’ in Indigenous health research
AU - Bryant, Joanne
AU - Bolt, Reuben
AU - Botfield, Jessica R.
AU - Martin, Kacey
AU - Doyle, Michael
AU - Murphy, Dean
AU - Graham, Simon
AU - Newman, Christy E.
AU - Bell, Stephen
AU - Treloar, Carla
AU - Browne, Annette J.
AU - Aggleton, Peter
N1 - Funding Information:
This article has been written as part of the Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP170100190 ‘Fostering the sexual wellbeing of Aboriginal young people by building on social, cultural and personal strengths and resources’. The project is a partnership between UNSW, Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District, South Western Sydney Local Health District and Family Planning NSW, together with investigators from the University of Sydney, University of Melbourne, University of British Columbia and Charles Darwin University. The project investigators include Joanne Bryant, Reuben Bolt, Michael Doyle, Dean Murphy, Carla Treloar, Stephen Bell, Simon Graham, Christy Newman, Annette Browne, Peter Aggleton, Jessica Botfield, Ben Davis, Bronwyn Leece, Linda Stanbury, Karen Beetson, Voula Kougelos and Megan Brooks. We are grateful for the excellent contributions of Kim Beadman, Mitchell Beadman, Jessica Wilms, Tamika Briggs and Kristy Gardner. The Centre for Social Research in Health receives support from UNSW Arts, Design and Architecture, the Australian Department of Health and other external funders. Simon Graham’s and Michael Doyle’s salary is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council fellowships.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Foundation for Sociology of Health & Illness
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/7
Y1 - 2021/7
N2 - Health research concerning Indigenous peoples has been strongly characterised by deficit discourse—a ‘mode of thinking’ that is overly focused on risk behaviours and problems. Strengths-based approaches offer a different perspective by promoting a set of values that recognise the capacities and capabilities of Indigenous peoples. In this article, we seek to understand the conceptual basis of strengths-based approaches as currently presented in health research. We propose that three main approaches exist: ‘resilience’ approaches concerned with the personal skills of individuals; ‘social–ecological’ approaches, which focus on the individual, community and structural aspects of a person's environment; and ‘sociocultural’ approaches, which view ‘strengths’ as social relations, collective identities and practices. We suggest that neither ‘resilience’ nor ‘social–ecological’ approaches sufficiently problematise deficit discourse because they remain largely informed by Western concepts of individualised rationality and, as a result, rest on logics that support notions of absence and deficit. In contrast, sociocultural approaches tend to view ‘strengths’ not as qualities possessed by individuals, but as the structure and character of social relations, collective practices and identities. As such, they are better able to capture Indigenous ways of knowing and being and provide a stronger basis on which to build meaningful interventions.
AB - Health research concerning Indigenous peoples has been strongly characterised by deficit discourse—a ‘mode of thinking’ that is overly focused on risk behaviours and problems. Strengths-based approaches offer a different perspective by promoting a set of values that recognise the capacities and capabilities of Indigenous peoples. In this article, we seek to understand the conceptual basis of strengths-based approaches as currently presented in health research. We propose that three main approaches exist: ‘resilience’ approaches concerned with the personal skills of individuals; ‘social–ecological’ approaches, which focus on the individual, community and structural aspects of a person's environment; and ‘sociocultural’ approaches, which view ‘strengths’ as social relations, collective identities and practices. We suggest that neither ‘resilience’ nor ‘social–ecological’ approaches sufficiently problematise deficit discourse because they remain largely informed by Western concepts of individualised rationality and, as a result, rest on logics that support notions of absence and deficit. In contrast, sociocultural approaches tend to view ‘strengths’ not as qualities possessed by individuals, but as the structure and character of social relations, collective practices and identities. As such, they are better able to capture Indigenous ways of knowing and being and provide a stronger basis on which to build meaningful interventions.
KW - Aboriginal
KW - Indigenous
KW - resilience
KW - social–ecological approaches
KW - strengths-based approaches
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85108237579&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/1467-9566.13311
DO - 10.1111/1467-9566.13311
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 34145599
AN - SCOPUS:85108237579
SN - 0141-9889
VL - 43
SP - 1405
EP - 1421
JO - Sociology of Health and Illness
JF - Sociology of Health and Illness
IS - 6
ER -