Indigenous Traditional Knowledge and Substance Abuse Treatment Outcomes: The Problem of Efficacy Evaluation

Abstract

Background: In the field of substance abuse treatment, American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities have routinely incorporated ceremonial practices as one important component in the promotion of recovery and healing. The beneficial effects of such practices are frequently described as plainly apparent by community-based advocates, providers, and professionals alike. In the present era of evidence-based substance abuse intervention, however, indigenous integration of such practices raises questions pertaining to the systematic evaluation of treatment efficacy. Objectives: The focus of this article is outcome evaluation. Although intervention outcome researchers recognize the randomized controlled trial as the “gold standard” against which claims of treatment efficacy are measured, AI/AN efficacy assertions grounded in indigenous traditional knowledge (ITK) reflect different concerns that have emerged in non-Western historical contexts. The interface between scientific and indigenous “ways of knowing” is explored here relative to efficacy claims about substance abuse treatment. Methods: Distinguishing features of both scientific knowing and ITK are summarized and compared. Results: ITK has been described as personal and experiential, reflecting the primacy of autonomous individual knowing. In contrast, intervention scientists are skeptical of personal inference as a basis for efficacy evaluation. The evident divergence between these epistemic paradigms can result in potentially contradictory claims. Conclusion: Proper appraisal of the status and relevance of ITK for determining treatment efficacy requires further exploration of these marginalized approaches to knowledge. Scientific Significance: Intervention scientists who work in AI/AN communities should remain open to the legitimacy and role of ITKs in investigations of substance abuse treatment.

• American Indians
• substance abuse treatment
• traditional knowledge
• therapeutic efficacy

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am grateful to the following individuals for commenting on an early version of this article: Michael J. Chandler, Regna Darnell, Kathy Etz, Laurence J. Kirmayer, Scott R. Lyons, Gregory A. Miller, Erica Prussing, Joshua D. Sparrow, Brent D. Slife, Kamilla L. Venner, Dennis C. Wendt, and James B. Waldram.

Declaration of Interest

The author reports no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.