Colonisation in Australia has had a devastating and lasting impact on the wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia (herein referred to as Indigenous Australians). This paper discusses the role of psychology in Australia and the negative impact that certain disciplinary theories and practices have had on Indigenous Australians. The impact has been further exacerbated by the failure of mainstream policy makers and mental health practitioners to recognise the key, distinctive cultural and social determinants that contribute to Aboriginal health and wellbeing. There is a growing response by Aboriginal psychologists, critical social theorists, and their allies to decolonise psychological theory and practice to redress this situation. This paper outlines key decolonising strategies that have been effective in interrupting those aspects of psychology that are inimical to Aboriginal wellbeing.

Contemporary definitions and understandings of resilience refer to an individual's positive adaptation to the experience of adversity. One of the challenges of this extant body of work is that the central concept of resilience is rarely questioned. Current understandings of these concepts, largely framed in Western understandings, are unquestioningly accepted, reframed for, yet not by, Indigenous peoples, and then are unchallenged when imposed on Indigenous peoples. A scoping review was conducted and reported in line with the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The review involved the participation of local Aboriginal Research Cultural Advisory Groups who participated and approved the analysis of the findings and collaborated on the design and writing of the paper. Eight publications drew on Aboriginal constructs of resilience in examining the effectiveness of programs, processes, and practices to promote individual and/or collective resilience and well-being. Most studies emphasized the need for strategies to strengthen individual or community connection to culture to foster resilience. Six studies used culturally validated strength-based tools to measure resilience, while two relied on Western constructs. This review reveals both the distinctive colonial characteristics of adversity experienced by Aboriginal people and the range of coping strategies and protective resources that support the development of resilience within different Aboriginal communities in diverse research sites across Australia. Importantly, many studies confirm adversity is linked to the enduring legacies of colonization, continuous and cumulative transgenerational grief and loss, structural inequities, racism, and discrimination. These external factors of adversity are unique to Aboriginal populations, as are the protective factors that entail strengthening connection to culture (including language reclamation), community, ancestry and land (including management and economic development) which contribute to individual and collective resilience. These findings suggest that Aboriginal community resilience is strengthened through the collective experience of adversity, such as transgenerational grief and loss, and the resulting support structures and shared resources that are developed and maintained through cultural practices to strengthen the bonds and mutual reciprocity to participate in transformative strategies to address adversity. This review highlights that strategies such as building on community strengths, capacities, and resources is critical when strengthening resilience within Indigenous communities across Australia.

The National Empowerment Project (NEP) is an innovative Aboriginal-led community-based project. Since 2012, it has been working with communities in 11 sites across Australia to develop a culturally appropriate health promotion and primary prevention intervention strategy to reduce the high rates of psychological distress and suicide among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The NEP is built around the use of localized participatory action research (PAR) processes to support communities to identify key factors negatively impacting on their lives as well as strategies for promoting well-being and building resilience. This article details the application of the PAR approach by the NEP Aboriginal community-based researchers. It provides some unique insights into how PAR facilitated communities to have a voice and the ways in which it supported important change processes at both an individual and a community level.

Strategies to date have been ineffective in reducing high rates of rheumatic heart disease (RHD) in Australian Aboriginal people; a disease caused by streptococcal infections. A remote Aboriginal community initiated a collaboration to work towards elimination of RHD. Based in 'both-way learning' (reciprocal knowledge co-creation), the aim of this study was to co-design, implement and evaluate community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) to achieve this vision. Activities related to understanding and addressing RHD social determinants were delivered through an accredited course adapted to meet learner and project needs. Theory-driven evaluation linking CBPAR to empowerment was applied. Data collection comprised focus groups, interviews, observation, and co-development and use of measurement tools such as surveys. Data analysis utilised process indicators from national guidelines for Aboriginal health research, and outcome indicators derived from the Wallerstein framework. Findings include the importance of valuing traditional knowledges and ways of learning such as locally-meaningful metaphors to explore unfamiliar concepts; empowerment through critical thinking and community ownership of knowledge about RHD and research; providing practical guidance in implementing empowering and decolonising principles / theories. Lessons learned are applicable to next stages of the RHD elimination strategy which must include scale-up of community leadership in research agenda-setting and implementation.

The utilization of violence risk instruments in forensic populations is increasing and a plethora of empirical investigations support their ability to predict recidivistic outcomes. However, the generalizability of these findings to culturally diverse populations is problematic given dissimilarities in cultural traditions, norms, and experiences. The present study explored this subject in relation to Aboriginal Australians. First, a concert of violence risk markers that are more prevalent among Aboriginal Australian offenders compared with non-Aboriginal offenders were examined in light of their social and historical context. Next, studies employing violence risk instruments on cohorts of Aboriginal Australian offenders were reviewed. Findings demonstrated moderate predictive accuracy for violence and commensurate utility with non-Aboriginal offenders although results should be treated with caution due to the paucity of available studies for consideration. Implications for clinical practice and culturally appropriate assessment models are discussed.Arts, Education and LawNo Full Tex