Next Article in Journal
Real World—Big Data Analytics in Healthcare
Next Article in Special Issue
Indigenous Social Enterprises and Health and Wellbeing: A Scoping Review and Conceptual Framework
Previous Article in Journal
Parental Psychological Control and Children’s Prosocial Behavior: The Mediating Role of Social Anxiety and the Moderating Role of Socioeconomic Status
Previous Article in Special Issue
Discharge Interventions for First Nations People with Injury or Chronic Conditions: A Protocol for a Systematic Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Theories of Wellbeing and Their Suitability for Wellbeing Policy

by
Tamara Mackean
1,2,
Madison Shakespeare
1 and
Matthew Fisher
3,*
1
College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University of South Australia, Bedford Park, SA 5042, Australia
2
The George Institute for Global Health, Newtown, NSW 2042, Australia
3
Stretton Institute, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(18), 11693; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811693
Submission received: 25 July 2022 / Revised: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 14 September 2022 / Published: 16 September 2022

Abstract

A growing interest among governments in policies to promote wellbeing has the potential to revive a social view of health promotion. However, success may depend on the way governments define wellbeing and conceptualize ways to promote it. We analyze theories of wellbeing to discern twelve types of wellbeing theory and assess the suitability of each type of theory as a basis for effective wellbeing policies. We used Durie’s methodology of working at the interface between knowledge systems and Indigenous dialogic methods of yarning and deep listening. We analyzed selected literature on non-Indigenous theories and Indigenous theories from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States to develop a typology of wellbeing theories. We applied political science perspectives on theories of change in public policy to assess the suitability of each type of theory to inform wellbeing policies. We found that some theory types define wellbeing purely as a property of individuals, whilst others define it in terms of social or environmental conditions. Each approach has weaknesses regarding the theory of change in wellbeing policy. Indigenous relational theories transcend an ‘individual or environment’ dichotomy, providing for pluralistic approaches to health promotion. A broad theoretic approach to wellbeing policy, encompassing individual, social, equity-based and environmental perspectives, is recommended.
Keywords: wellbeing theory; typology; public policy; indigenous wellbeing; theory of change; social determinants of mental health wellbeing theory; typology; public policy; indigenous wellbeing; theory of change; social determinants of mental health

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mackean, T.; Shakespeare, M.; Fisher, M. Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Theories of Wellbeing and Their Suitability for Wellbeing Policy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11693. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811693

AMA Style

Mackean T, Shakespeare M, Fisher M. Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Theories of Wellbeing and Their Suitability for Wellbeing Policy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(18):11693. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811693

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mackean, Tamara, Madison Shakespeare, and Matthew Fisher. 2022. "Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Theories of Wellbeing and Their Suitability for Wellbeing Policy" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 18: 11693. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811693

APA Style

Mackean, T., Shakespeare, M., & Fisher, M. (2022). Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Theories of Wellbeing and Their Suitability for Wellbeing Policy. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11693. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811693

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop