4 Decolonizing Psychology Through Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge Systems: The Creation of Multicultural Epistemologies

OER Chapter Learning Objectives:
1. Identify some of the overarching epistemologies in Psychology (as a theoretical science) that originated from a European worldview: those epistemologies that act as a foundation to the field, and come from a European and arguably Eurocentric orientation, failing to consider other knowledge frameworks.
2. Be able to explain why the popular understanding of “science” at the epistemological level may uphold Eurocentrism. How might this contribute to the oppression of knowledge systems with non-European origins?
3. Identify some of the practical ways that the field of psychology has contributed to the colonization of Indigenous populations in Canada (e.g., how did psychology contribute to
cultural erasure? How did psychology contribute to genocide?)
4. Define reconciliation and explain why acknowledgment of atrocities against Indigenous populations may not meet the criteria for reconciliation. Additionally, provide examples of what true reconciliation is.
5. Understand and explain why culturally sensitive care is essential in applied psychology and outline some of the positive outcomes that have been documented when Indigenous individuals seek culturally relevant care from healers within their communities.

Introduction
The foundation of the field of psychology is inherently colonial because it is a science, and the guidelines for what can and cannot be categorized under the title of “science” is part of a narrative that has been controlled, cultivated, and perpetuated by (predominantly) Western European men. Imperialism, combined with the application of social truths (i.e., those narratives which do not necessarily have foundations in an objective reality, but are generated and perpetuated by bodies in positions of power. Such narratives permeate the social structure in which a population exists, until the epistemologies and belief systems are viewed as undoubtedly true) generated by Europeans in thought and politics (e.g Social Darwinism and its integration into eugenics laws based on misinterpretations of Charles Darwin’s literature) have actively worked to legally validate particular ways of thinking that benefit the colonist (typically through circular reasoning and the oppression of divergent thinking). In order to achieve goals of global social domination through imperialism, Eurocentric ways of knowing and gathering information into what is recognized as “valid” information have been legally supported, while Indigenous
knowledge systems have been oppressed by the law and punished. The field of psychology in Canada, including individuals who comprise this field, has played an active role in the process of colonial violence against Indigenous peoples. Even with reconciliation efforts in the past few decades, the reality is that the history of Psychology and its institutions within Canada have not changed structure to the extent that they not simply acknowledge, but also integrate the ancestral ways of knowing, healing, and learning of Indigenous peoples into the institutions. Throughout Canadian history, the oppression of Indigenous culture and knowledge systems has resulted in a nation where Indigenous peoples must seek psychological/ mental health services from within a system that has historically inflicted violence on them. In the modern age, colonial violence is not the goal of most mental health practitioners and researchers. However, the reality remains that culturally blind methodologies and practices still cause intergenerational harm and cultural
erasure to the populations being worked with. The progression of psychology as a holistic and inclusive field (both in research and application) is inherently linked to the field’s ability to incorporate diverse ways of knowing about the human condition in relation to culture, the land, and indignity.

The Role Of Psychology in Colonialism and Genocide
A recent apology by the APA has acknowledged the role that the institution has played in the creation, promotion, and upholding of oppressive structures against non-white peoples across North America, and the role that these structures have played in the erasure of non-white culture in an ongoing process of colonial violence and attempts to assimilate people of colour into white society— including Eugenics (APA, 2021). Historic progression of the collective knowledge contributing to the advancement of the field of psychology has come from a perspective of white males, who systemically were educated with (and in turn, continued to implement) the idea of human hierarchies. While individual researchers and professionals within the psychological sciences may not have actively contributed to their field with the intention of maintaining white supremacy, the issue is that white supremacist ideologies have historically been so heavily intertwined with institutions like the APA that they are linked together unless active effort to deconstruct the current system and implement a new and inclusive system, is made (APA, 2021). While public acknowledgment of the historical realities of oppression by organizations like the
APA is an important milestone that opens the door to the implementation of reconciliation, efforts, acknowledgment of the systems of oppression that have impacted the lived realities of populations (like Indigenous populations in North America) is only the first step in creating a truly inclusive system: recognition of reality is essential for progressive change, but it is not the ends in itself. Rather, recognition is the means to the end of reconciliation. Since it’s birth as a recognized field in the mid-1800s, psychology has perpetuated Euro-centrism through i) reliance on circular reasoning the pre-supposes Western-European and protestant culture and thinking as being the pinnacle of human evolution toward which all non-white people should be assimilated into; ii) researchers and professionals within institutions such as the APA have omitted and/ or oppressed ways of knowing (e.g., oral histories), ways of being (e.g., living in meaningful relationship with the land), and ways of healing (e.g., ceremony) that diverge from the “scientific” ways of knowing, being, and healing as were defined by European men. In a simultaneous process, methodologies in Psychology actively worked to oppress the non-white, while protecting “Whiteness, White people, and White epistemologies” (APA, 2021, para. 8). Arguably, such processes of integrating Euro-centrism into institutions contributed greatly to the cultural and ethnic genocide against Indigenous peoples in North America by pathologizing cultural knowledge, ceremonies, spirituality, ways of living, and ways of healing, ergo validating forced assimilation of Indigenous peoples into European Christian society.

The Epistemology of “Science” and Its Relationship to Euro-Centrism
The term “science” has Latin origins from the word Scientia— knowledge. “It can be defined as a systematic attempt to discover, by means of observation and reasoning, particular facts about the world, and to establish laws connecting facts with one another and, in some cases, to make it possible to predict future occurrences (Violatti, 2014, para. 1) This simple and eloquent definition of the word “science” showcases something more than what it means to engage in science: the standard definition of the process of science is of
European origin, meaning that the narrative of what can be categorized into the field of science is determined through the eyes of a European worldview. Although there are a wide range of ways of discovering truths about our environments (e.g., philosophy and mathematics during antiquity, trial and error in natural medicines throughout “primitive” cultures) throughout history and around the world, the understanding of the sciences in modern Western society is dependant on a narrow definition of science, that has been emphasized throughout imperial history while other forms of knowing have been oppressed. The very understanding of what is and what is not a science focuses exclusively on a singular perspective and fails to consider historical and cross-cultural methods of the collection, interpretation, and application of knowledge (Smith, 1999). Directly related to the former, European imperialism, combined with systemically upheld social facts of white supremacy through false doctrines like Social Darwinism, the history of European imperialism and colonialism here in Canada has deeply ingrained oppressive notions of science into academic and clinical institutions (Smith, 1999). In order for methodologies in
research to begin to become truly unbiased, institutions involved in the progression of research must actively seek to incorporate processes of decolonization into their infrastructure. Within the field of Psychology— both as a health service and a field of scientific research— relevant institutions in North America have emphasized necessity for evidence based practice (EBP) and evidence based treatment (EBT) (Gone, 2013). From anecdotal experience taking lower division psychology courses (e.g. PSYC 100 and PSYC 101), a point that is continuously stressed in lectures and textbooks alike is that Psychology is a science, and psychology is a science because of the imperial orientation of research involved in the development of theories and application of treatment methods with patients. Scholars of a variety of backgrounds have discussed how the implications of how the field of psychology is organized perpetuates “monocultural bias.” For example, Rogler (1999) “implicated the procedural norms of the discipline as a source of cultural insensitivity, advocating instead for investigator willingness to set aside culturally biased preconceptions to discover the locally meaningful psychological attributes and actions of diverse respondents” (Gone, 2013).

Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Ways of Knowing, Being, and Healing
The culturally transmitted ways of knowing, being, and methods in healing that have been orally passed down through generations within North American Indigenous nations all fall under the umbrella terms of “Indigenous Knowledge Systems” (IKS). The term is an “umbrella” because it addresses the shared characteristics that Indigenous peoples around the globe have developed through processes that are distinguished from those that are validated as “scientific” by Western culture (i.e., Western culture as it has developed throughout imperial history under a christian and capitalist doctrine) Biin, D., Simcoe, J., Erickson, M., Antoine, A., Cull, I., Hancock, R. L. A., McKeown, S., Pidgeon, M., & Vedan, A., 2018). Each knowledge system within a given Indigenous nation is a collection of information that has been generated through holistic operations, where individuals, communities, the greater natural environment, and spiritual epistemologies are shaped by each other, resulting in knowledge collections being inherently interdisciplinary. Throughout IKS, a stark contrast to Western academia is how knowledge is not treated as a commodity or an arbitrary thing to be collected by Indigenous holders of ancestral knowledge. Rather, knowledge is wisdom: an interaction between land-based practices, such as the environment shaping the people, and the people, in turn, shaping the land; the greater community, such as the social organization that best supports community welfare in the natural conditions of the group; and the spirit, such as in the context of “religious” beliefs that have evolved alongside the people throughout a multi-millennia long history (Narvaez, 2019). When the link between the Western definition of “science” as a process, to the validation of “knowledge” is broken, a door is opened that permits the exploration of alternative information. A vital component of IKS is that they are inherently enmeshed with the ecological and communal experiences of Indigenous peoples to their environments and one another, creating a proven importance to IKS and information that empirical data can lack in certain contexts: the isolated nature of empirical research can render data irrelevant to populations that are inherent outliers to the presumptions on which an empirical study is based. The knowledge of Indigenous communities has profound relevance to the progression of psychology as a field, both in research and application to institutions responsible for implementing patient care strategies. The intertwining of Euro-Christian epistemologies as factual truths about human nature into the field of Psychology are directly related to the mistreatment of Indigenous communities in Canada. The manifestation of such Euro-centric epistemologies into research methodologies and professional practice are very real problems that continue to contribute to processes of negligence in research and patient care. As a result, the progression of Psychology as an unbiased field is heavily dependent on the understanding of historic contexts from Indigenous perspectives and the implementation of Indigenous Knowledge Systems into legally legitimized research methodologies and professional practice.

Gaps in Research
In the past few decades, there has been significant research conducted by Indigenous and non-Indigenous scholars alike on topics of harm to Indigenous peoples across Canada. That being, a plethora of research exists addressing the systemic oppression of Indigenous Peoples and how these historic experiences have caused ongoing collective harm to the affected communities (i.e. intergenerational trauma research) (Matheson et al., 2022). While such research is vital to understanding the destruction that ethnocentric epistemologies cause, giving empirical validity to the experiences that Indigenous communities have experienced firsthand for centuries is not an active act of reconciliation. In the near future, research should continue to incorporate the historical experiences of Indigenous peoples in colonization, but only as a foundation for understanding: research should strive to focus on the re-emergence and implementation of IKS and Indigenous ways of Healing.

Why Culturally Insensitive Care Is Not Care
Members of Indigenous communities are particularly vulnerable in their health outcomes both mentally and physically due to the impacts of on-going systemic racial discrimination resulting from social, political and historical westernized influences (Horill et al, 2018). Indigenous people often have their needs dismissed while in care leading to chronic and long-term health detriments and overall negative health outcomes (Horill et al. 2018). The systemic dismissal creates barriers for Indigenous people often leading many to be deterred from seeking out help. The deterrence from previous negative experiences, lack of access to mental health resources, as well as impacts from residential schools, 60’s scoop and on-going settler colonialism has contributed to suicide rates among Indigenous people being three times higher than the non-Indigenous population in canada (Statistics Canada, 2019). Incorporating indigenous perspectives and empowering Indigenous people to take up spaces in health care in conjunction with cultural sensitivity training are key methods in creating safer spaces for Indigenous patients. Cultural sensitivity training for health practitioners is an especially important approach in that it provides understanding of the colonial experience as well as on-going manifestations to indigenous peoples health (Horill et al. 2018). Utilizing indigenous knowledge systems and having a grounded understanding in intergenerational trauma transference is an essential scope for adequate mental health care services for Indigenous communities, this understanding incorporates all aspects of the indigenous experience, socially, culturally and politically. Creating a balance between traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge is beneficial to preserving culture and contributing to decolonization strategies (Quigley, 2009). Incorporating culturally sensitive care when supporting Indigenous is an important role in reducing barriers to current and future health resources. It is important that mental health workers that are involved with Indigenous clients are understanding of the ways of which colonization, violence, and power imbalances impact the success of Indigenous peoples well-being who seek out assistance with mental health conditions. Culturally sensitive care involves understanding health care inequalities faced by indigenous people and the ways of which it may not be fair to diagnose due to unfair baseline understandings of patients, for
indigenous people do not have the same experience as the dominant majority due to the severe impacts of trauma from colonialism and residential schools intergenerationally and currently (Gale et al. 2022). Health professionals untrained in cultural sensitivity do a disservice to Indigenous peoples healing and well-being, incorporation of indigenous knowledge and ways of knowing into the systems that serve them are important for creating and maintaining a safe and respectful relationship between health practitioners and Indigenous patients.

Cultural Diversity Matters – Practitioners and Methodologies
Indigenous people seeking mental health treatment have found substantial benefits in returning to traditional Indigenous medicine and cultural practices (Allen et al. 2020). These
practices have been implemented across Canada in the form of Indigenous-led health partnerships. They take the form of community based health clinics and centers which are led typically by elders and practitioners who uphold the same cultural perspectives as their patients (Allen et al. 2020). The centers take the form of drug treatment facilities, hospitals, clinics and community centers. Which have reduced drug use and increased health and well-being through. Indigenous cultural practices which includes traditional diet, medicines, counseling, ceremonies and other cultural practices. This approach has increased the psychological wellbeing within Indigenous communities and satisfaction with their care (Allen et al. 2020). Eurocentrism healthcare has led to the biomedical model which has been developed to serve individualistic cultures and is rooted in hierarchies and quantitative data. This treatment method does not apply well to collectivistic cultures leading to systemic biases against POC (APA 2020). As Indigenous people have been faced with detrimental consequences of colonialism and a medical system that was not designed to serve them they have been using traditional Indigenous medicine which is inherently holistic and collectivistic to heal from intergenerational trauma (Allen et al. 2020). While the methodologies of western and Indigenous are contrary to each other (Linklater, 2014) believes that a conventional education experience to learn about the history of colonialism with the implementation of Indigenous cultural practices is necessary to create balanced diversity to understand and relate to Indigenous patients. The Canadian Institutes of Health and Research put forward the idea of Etuaptmumk or “two eye seeing” which is the idea that when treating Indigenous patients. Practitioners are utilizing both cultural practices towards medicine. While there is knowledge to be learned from both practices there are also major cultural divides. In an interview with Laterlink, Edd Conners Phd states that clinical psychology is limited because people are not encouraged to look past the self and not group healing which is connected to Indigenous practices (Linklater, 2014).

Reconciliation Through Deconstructing Colonial Norms
As has been established, Western European epistemologies have been integrated into the foundational architecture of Canadian institutions, including those dictating psychology (i.e., research and mental health care services). In a study conducted in 2009 by Quaigley, states that, in order to succeed “in a global world [individuals and communities] are forced to learn Western modern science that follows a curriculum based out of the European or North American countries” (Quaigley, 2009). While the author’s paper was focused on discussing the euro-centric biases within science education curricula around the globe, this form of active colonization continues to be promoted in more than just educational institutions, and permeates into psychology. In obtaining a BA in psychology, a science degree, becoming a certified counselor, psychologist, or therapist, it is extremely rare to see practices of healing that fall outside of the colonist-approved definition of “science” or “Evidence Based Practice ” be implemented. While a handful of modern literature has begun (over the past few decades) to acknowledge the vitality of culturally informed practice and understandings of non-western epistemologies, the legal confines determining what does/ does not count as a valid way of knowing/ way of healing remain extensive. Supporting self determination is a requirement for institutions that desire to
engage in active decolonial approaches, which includes upholding the right of Indigenous communities to actively position their epistemologies (e.g., ancestral truths, knowledge systems, healing methods) into institutions that have continuously sought erasure. Throughout recent history, efforts to promote self-determination and self-governance at
both private and institutional levels have often been successful. Former Canadian Crown attorney Rupert Ross has been granted the opportunity to learn traditional healing practices and IKS from hundreds of Indigenous communities across Canada (Narvaez, 2019). In his three books (Indigenous Healing, Returning to the Teachings, and Dancing with a Ghost) Ross outlines processes of healing, “psychological”/ spiritual development, and community well-being from the orientation of numerous Indigenous communities. Having previously worked exclusively within the framework of a Western justice system, Ross believes that “the Canadian (and Western generally) justice system does not heal but makes things worse within native communities” (Narvaez, 2019). Rather than relying on systems of punishment for legally undesirable behaviors when interacting with Indigenous, Ross has come to favor healing approaches created by Indigenous peoples, for members of their own communities (e.g., Hollow Water’s Community Holistic Circle Healing Program, The National Native Alcohol and Drug Addiction Program, and The Red Path Program) (Narvaez, 2019). There are distinct differences in the very framework of these healing programs when contrasted with those implemented by Western legal systems: “Western therapies promoting individual self-definition, self-assertion
and self-promotion will feel improper to Aboriginal people… instead, the Aboriginal client feels that a person is the sum of all their relationships within Creation, whether with other people, birds, animals, trees, rocks or rivers” (Narvaez, 2019 “Summary of Practices” section).

Conclusion:
The colonial foundations of science and psychology have been covered in this OER chapter, along with the ways in which these foundations and their individualistic values have
harmed Indigenous people’s health, well-being, and access to adequate care. Additionally, this chapter has discussed how the field of psychology can benefit from implementing Indigenous knowledge systems and providing culturally sensitive care. Psychology’s ability to trend toward inclusivity and acceptance of holistic models of care in both research and application methods is bound to its ability to incorporate diverse ways of knowing about the human condition concerning culture, the land, and indignity. In Western culture, we have been collectively educated to believe that science is objective. However, the reality is that science is a tool through which humans attempt to understand the world: It is a tool constructed by humans, and will inherently be biased as individual scientists implement these tools through their own cultural and ideological backgrounds. Diversifying the field of psychology by relying on multiple forms of scientific research and its implementation (e.g., applied psychology in mental health care) erases many of the biased limitations of scientific methodologies and acts to proactively counteract the harm caused by such biases. Gaps in research can be attributed to colonialism, neo-colonialism,
racism, bias’ and the lack of safety for Indigenous people and communities. Providing Indigenous peoples the proper culturally sensitive care has a positive effect on their wellbeing by making space for them to have access to other services and opportunities, such as education. Indigenous people who have access to quality education and healthcare are able to share their knowledge in academic contexts and contribute to research that benefits both Indigenous communities, academia, science and psychology. Achieving a meaningful sense of cross-cultural inclusion in psychology requires institutional reforms made by the field to support Indigenous academics and the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge systems into research methodologies. Through both direct and indirect trauma from residential schools and colonization, as well as from intergenerational trauma, the interdependent approach of science and indigenous knowledge can assist, heal and put a stop to the historical and ongoing cycles of oppression against Indigenous peoples.

Study Guide Resources

Key Terms
1. Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS): While it is difficult to give a specific definition of “Indigenous Knowledge Systems” (IKS) due to the fact that, within different Indigenous populations, there are numerous cultures with diverse beliefs, the generally agreed upon definition is the systems of knowledge and epistemologies that arose out of
Indigenous cultures/ populations. Across North America, IKS tend to value ways of knowing and being that promote relational existence with the natural world and one’s
community (Canada, 2022). Within IKS, the knowledge held by each individual is an amalgamation of the experiences of ancestors, and the ancestors’ relationships to their communities, natural environment, and generations before them.
2. Eurocentrism: viewing things (e.g. social phenomena, cultural ideals, morality, etc) from a European perspective and/ or believing that diverging/ non-european perspectives are inferior: the belief that epistemologies originating in European culture are superior to those originating from other cultural backgrounds (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). In the
context of this chapter, focus is placed on the repercussions that the integration of Eurocentrism into the field of psychology has had on Indigenous populations.
3. Epistemologies: the theories of knowledge on which fields in science (such as psychology) are based, or in other words, the fundamental assumptions made about
knowledge which act as the foundation of a field. In psychology, as a scientific field, theoretical claims have historically directed the progression of the field (e.g., which
fundamental assumptions about the nature of knowledge influenced a particular research endeavor, and in what way) (APA, 2018). In this chapter, heavy focus is given to the
influence of epistemologies promoted by European contributors to psychology, and epistemologies of European and North American Indigenous backgrounds are contrasted.
4. Collectivistic: Refers to cultures with institutions and customs where individuals focus on collective achievements, Especially when they are relevant to a social group that the
individual is part of (Heine, 2020).
5. Intergenerational Trauma: Is believed to be epigenetic, after a generation is exposed to trauma that causes severe psychological harm from an injury, altercation, poverty or other harms. The trauma is then passed down to the subsequent generation through genetic adaptations caused by the activation of a chemical marker for a gene. Some psychological stress experienced with the genetic adaptation is heightened anxiety, guilt, helplessness and low self-esteem, which can lead to severe harms such as substance use and suicide. The underlying biological workings are still unclear, factors such as relationships, behaviors, beliefs and attitudes may impact the subsequent generation. Factors in trauma transmission revolve around the relationship between the victims and their families, particularly their parents. The term is also referred to as historical trauma,
multigenerational trauma and secondary traumatization (APA 2023).
6. Holistic Health/Medicine: An approach to treatment and disease prevention that is centered around a person as a whole encompassing their physical, mental and spiritual
self, along with their social and environmental connections. This treatment’s key aspects are instructing patients towards changes in behaviors and attitudes that are more
conducive to positive mental health and well-being and promoting self-help, healthy diets and exercise. This approach often coincides with the biomedical or other models for care (APA 2018).

Discussion Questions
1. What are the key ideological differences between Indigenous Knowledge Systems and the Biomedical Model in the treatment of psychological well-being?
2. Are there any benefits to the field of Psychology adopting IKS or Holistic practices for people from White or Western European Cultures?
3. How has Euro-centrism created a Mono-Cultural bias within the field of Psychology?

References
Allen L, Hatala A, Ijaz S, Courchene ED, Bushie EB. Indigenous-led Health Care Partnerships in Canada. CMAJ. 2020 March 2; 192(9):E208-E216. doi:10.1503/cmaj.190728.

America Psychological Association (2018, April 19). holistic health. https://dictionary.apa.org/holistic-health

American Psychological Association. (2023, November 15). intergenerational trauma. https://dictionary.apa.org/intergenerational-trauma

American Psychological Association. (2018, April 18). Apa Dictionary of Psychology. American Psychological Association. https://dictionary.apa.org/epistemology

American Psychological Association. (2021, October 28). Apology to people of color for APA’s role in promoting, perpetuating, and failing to challenge racism, racial discrimination, and human hierarchy in U.S.. https://www.apa.org/about/policy/racism-apology

Biin, D., Simcoe, J., Erickson, M., Antoine, A., Cull, I., Hancock, R. L. A., McKeown, S., Pidgeon, M., & Vedan, A. (2018, September 5). Indigenous ways of knowing and being. Pulling Together A Guide for FrontLine Staff Student Services and Advisors. https://opentextbc.ca/indigenizationfrontlineworkers/chapter/indigenous-ways-of-knowin
g-and-being/

Bruin, T. D., & Robertson, G. (2006, February 7). Eugenics in Canada. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/eugenics
Canada, I. A. A. of. (2022, September 26). Government of Canada. Canada.ca. https://www.canada.ca/en/impact-assessment-agency/programs/aboriginal-consultation-fe
deral-environmental-assessment/indigenous-knowledge-policy-framework-initiative.html

Eurocentrism | English meaning – cambridge dictionary. Cambridge Dictionary . (n.d.).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/eurocentrism

Gale, R., Fellner, K., Tomlinson, G., & Danto, D. (2022). Beyond Appropriate Norms: Cultural Safety with Indigenous People in Canadian Neuropsychology. Journal of Concurrent Disorders.https://cdspress.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Gale_Fellner_Tomlinson_Danto_-MS_MAR_2022_1_FINAL_CopyProofedMay4.pdf

Gone, J. P. (2013). A community-based treatment for Native American historical trauma: Prospects for evidence-based practice. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 1(S), 78–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/2326-4500.1.S.78

Heine, S. J. (2020). Cultural Psychology (4th ed). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Horill, T., McMillian, D.E., Schultz, A.H., & Thompson, G. (2018) Understanding access to healthcare among Indigenous peoples: A Comparative analysis of biomedical and
postcolonial perspectives. Nursing inquiry, 25(3), e12237. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12237

Kumar, M. B., & Tjepkema, M. (2019). Suicide among First Nations people, Métis and Inuit (2011-2016): Findings from the 2011 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC). National Household Survey: Aboriginal Peoples.

Linklater, R. L. B. L. (2011). Chapter 2: Trauma Work in Indigenous Communities. In Decolonizing Trauma Work: Indigenous Practitioners Share Stories and Strategies (p. 38–60). essay, University of Toronto.

Linklater, R. L. B. L. (2011). Chapter 4: Joining the Circle: Introduction of Research Participants. In Decolonizing Trauma Work: Indigenous Practitioners Share Stories and Strategies (p. 83-120). essay, University of Toronto.

Matheson K, Seymour A, Landry J, Ventura K, Arsenault E, Anisman H. Canada’s Colonial Genocide of Indigenous Peoples: A Review of the Psychosocial and Neurobiological
Processes Linking Trauma and Intergenerational Outcomes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 May 26;19(11):6455. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19116455. PMID: 35682038;
PMCID: PMC9179992.

Mthembu, T. G., Julius, W. G., Havenga, K., Mwadira, I. T., Oliver, K., & Alexander, M. (2023). Decolonial turn of collective occupations in post-apartheid South Africa: Young People’s Voices of Occupational legacy. South African Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53(2),
53–54. https://doi.org/10.17159/2310-3833/2023/vol53n2a5

Narvaez, D. F. (2019, February 24). 10 Indigenous Holistic Healing Practices. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/moral-landscapes/201902/10-indigenous-holistic-healing-practices

Quigley, C. (2009). Globalization and Science Education: The implications for indigenous knowledge systems. International Education Studies, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v2n1p76

Smith, L. T. (1999). In Decolonizing Trauma Work: Indigenous Practitioners Share Stories and Strategies (p. 1 “Imperialism, History, Writing and Theory”-72 “The ‘authentic,
essentialist, deeply spiritual’ Other”). essay, University of Otago Press.

Violatti, C. (2014, May 28). Science. World History Encyclopedia. https://www.worldhistory.org/science