“I Have to Watch Them Closely”: Native American Parenting Practice and Philosophies

Abstract

One of many ways that Native American (NA) families demonstrate resilience is by parenting children in some of the most adverse contexts in U.S. society. We use the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence (FHORT) in a critical ethnography to qualitatively explore the parenting philosophies and practices that NAs use to protect children from the risks of an oppressive context. Data were drawn from 436 members of two Southeastern NA tribes. A team-based critical ethnographic data analysis approach was used to analyze these findings, revealing the following themes: (a) “Your Kids Come First”: Prioritizing Children’s Needs; (b) “They Should Enjoy their Childhood”: Sheltering Children from Family Stressors; (c) “I Have to Watch Them Closely”: Closely Monitoring Children; and, (d) “There’s No Drinking at My House”: Preventing Children’s Exposure to Substance Abuse. Results indicate that NA parents adopt child-centric mindsets and use a number of positive practices to protect their children from the potentially harmful environments created through historical oppression.

Introduction

One of many ways that Native American (NA) families demonstrate resilience is by parenting children in some of the most adverse contexts in U.S. society (Warne & Lajimodiere, 2015). Due to both historical and contemporary forms of oppression, NA communities experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, substance use, and trauma exposure (Beals et al., 2013; Rosay, 2016; U.S. Census Bureau, 2018; Whitesell et al., 2012); as such, NA parents experience the added burden protecting their children from known risks to healthy child and youth development. NA families raise children in environments rife with social and health disparities. Almost 20% of NA families live below the poverty line, compared with ~7% of White families (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). Over 80% of NA men and women experience sexual or physical violence, psychological aggression, and/or stalking in their lifetime (Rosay, 2016). Moreover, rates of heavy, episodic drinking, and premature death related to alcohol are higher for NAs than other groups (Whitesell et al., 2012).

Rates of trauma exposure and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are consistently higher in NA communities relative to other groups (Bassett, Buchwald, & Manson, 2014; Beals et al., 2013; Ka’apu & Burnette, 2019). In some regions, rates of PTSD are two to three times higher than non-NA populations (Ka’apu & Burnette, 2019). Heightened exposure to trauma drives PTSD disparities, and these differences diminish when controlling for trauma exposure (Basset et al., 2014; Ka’apu & Burnette, 2019). NA children are also disproportionately represented within the child welfare system, an inequity that is often attributed to NA parents’ shortcomings and failures rather than the structural factors negatively influencing the parenting environment (Crofoot & Harris, 2012).

Due to these challenges within their ecological context, NA parents have had to find ways to adapt to, resist, or circumvent the structural forces working against them, demonstrating great resilience in their role as parents. The fact that positive youth outcomes are possible within such marginalized, impoverished, and oppressed communities is a testament to NA parents’ ability to mediate these deleterious circumstances through their resilient approaches to parenting. Yet, research in this area largely fails to consider parenting in NA families from a strengths-based, resilience-focused approach which stymies the development of culturally appropriate, relevant interventions that might promote positive parenting practices and attitudes and enhance child and youth outcomes. To address this gap in the research on NA family psychology, we used critical ethnography to qualitatively investigate NA parenting practices and philosophies within two tribes. Using the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence (FHORT) as a strengths-based lens, this research sought to understand how NAs describe parenting philosophies and practices (Burnette & Figley, 2017).

The Framework of Historical Oppression, Resilience, and Transcendence (FHORT)

FHORT (Burnette & Figley, 2017) conceptualizes the context in which NAs parent their children. This unique framework, developed with the tribes that participated in this research, identifies and helps explain relationships between risk factors (those that worsen outcomes), protective factors those that buffer against adversity, and promotive factors (those that support regardless of the context) across ecological levels (individual, family, community, and society) that influence NAs’ wellness. The FHORT emphasizes the resilience of NA peoples in surviving and transcending oppressive experiences (Burnette & Figley, 2017), focusing on “the interaction, accumulation, interconnections, and balance of risk and protective factors across multiple levels” Transcendence goes beyond survivance and resilience, to experience a greater level of meaning, growth, and sense of personal strength after experiencing incredible challenges. Akin to, posttraumatic growth, or the positive change that can coincide with highly challenging life circumstances (Jayawickreme & Blackie, 2014), transcendence may lead to an increased appreciation for life, more meaningful relationships, more focused priorities, and deeper sense of meaning and spiritual life (Tedeschi & Calhoun, 2004). Transformation cab result in viewing oneself as a victim to survivor, to “transcendor of trauma”.

The FHORT introduces the concept of “historical oppression” defined as the “chronic, pervasive and intergenerational experiences of subjugation that, over time, have been imposed, normalized and internalized into the daily lives of many Indigenous American people” (Burnette, 2015, p. 536). Historical oppression expands upon the concept of historical trauma and is inclusive of both historical and contemporary forms of oppression - important to understanding NA community contexts since historical forms of oppression are often linked to contemporary forms of oppression. This allows us to understand and appreciate, for example, the link between boarding school experiences that forcibly separated NA children from their parents in the past and the overrepresentation of NA children in the child welfare system that separates NA parents and children today.

Indeed, using the FHORT perspectives, contemporary forms of oppression extend historic forms of historical oppression, such as boarding school experiences where NA children were systemically removed, assimilated, and raised, often in environments replete with abuse, away from their families and communities (Wark, Neckoway, & Brownlee, 2019). NA parents and children have been dehumanized and ostracized intergenerationally, through negative media portrayals (Barker et al., 2019). This negative bias contributes to the systemic bias where NA children are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system (Wark et al., 2019). One study among First Nations children who had been found to use drugs in Canada found that a history of boarding school attendance by grandparents and parents contributed to a higher likelihood of these children being found in the child welfare systems (Barker et al., 2019). Thus, oversight of NA children from boardings school places children at greater risk for oversight of NA children in state run child welfare systems. In both cases, parental oversight has been undermined and supplanted by the state oversight and assimilation of NA children in a context of historical oppression. Thus, the FHORT is useful for interpreting the experiences of NA parents within the context of historical oppression and its manifestations through systemic risk factors.

In addition to drawing attention to the influence of historical oppression on NA families, the FHORT helps to recognize and center the ways they have positively adapted in spite of adversity through a focus on resilience and transcendence. FHORT allows us to assess resilience across ecological levels, to better appreciate the myriad ways that NA families have transcended historical oppression. From this perspective, we can understand NAs’ parenting practices and philosophies as adaptations to an oppressive environment and demonstrations of resilience.

NA Cultural Perspectives on Parenting

To understand NA parenting practices and philosophies today, it is important to understand prominent perspectives on parenting in NA culture. Although a vast diversity exists within and across heterogenous NA tribes, some NA cultural traditions posit that children are honored, recognized, and celebrated as “a gift from the Creator” (Ramirez, 2004, p. 312). Among other NA communities, children may be considered the responsibility of an entire extended family (BigFoot & Funderburk, 2011) and may celebrated in the context of their extended family and larger community (Glover, 2001; Weaver, 1997). To parent a child can be considered a sacred role within the community, with emphasis on parents becoming worthy guardians of their children through trust, compassion, and love (Ramirez, 2004). To foster independence, autonomy, and learning from natural consequences – unless such a mistake could result in serious harm (Ayers et al., 2017; BigFoot & Funderburk, 2011) – some NA parents allow children to make mistakes and experience the outcomes without intervening (BigFoot & Funderburk, 2011; Glover, 2001; Wark, Neckoway, Browlee, 2019).

Traditionally, many NA parents were expected to guide and teach children, often through storytelling, to uncover identity and purpose (Ramirez, 2004; Wark et al., 2019). NA cultural traditions viewed caregivers as “keepers” of the children within the tribe who were seen as unique, autonomous individuals, each of whom had her/his own purpose to fulfill with the support of the community (Ramirez, 2004). NA families have demonstrated resilience by preserving many of their traditional parenting practices and beliefs despite intentional efforts to undermine NA parent-child relationships and family socialization processes (Warne & Lajimodiere, 2015; Weaver, 1997). Historical oppression through boarding schools, religious conversion, land loss, and displacement often resulted in a disconnection from traditional NA parenting practices (Warne & Lajimodiere, 2015), as families and communities were separated, and cultural traditions were suppressed.

Parenting in High-Risk Environments

Neighborhoods and communities influence parenting (Jack, 2000; Garbarino et al., 2006), and NA families often live in environments characterized by poverty, violence, substance abuse, and poor-quality health and educational systems (Warne & Lajimodiere, 2015). These environments may pose risks to children and their parents and are important to understanding parenting approaches, as parents in high-risk environments often must adapt their parenting techniques and practices to mediate risks for their children (Garbarino et al., 2006, p. 297). One way that parents have adapted to high-risk circumstances is through increased supervision and monitoring of children (Garbarino et al., 2006). Studies with African American parents living in high-risk environments have consistently identified high rates of parental monitoring as a common strategy used to protect children from harm (Spano et al., 2010; Voisin et al., 2016). Research suggests strategies may be effective in decreasing risks for substance use, risky sexual behavior, violence exposure, and social deviance (Spano et al., 2010, Garbarino et al., 2006).

For NA families, parental supervision and monitoring are heavily impacted by historical oppression. Due to high rates of poverty, violence, and substance abuse in NA communities (Beals et al., 2013; Rosay, 2016; Whitesell et al., 2012), some parents may feel the need to supervise youth more closely. Studies show that low rates of parental supervision and monitoring are associated with higher rates of alcohol abuse (Urbaeva et al., 2017; Walls et al., 2007), substance use (Boyd-Ball et al., 2014), and violence exposure (Pu et al., 2013) for NA youth, suggesting the protective role of parental monitoring. Parents who are survivors of childhood abuse and trauma are more likely to monitor children’s activities closely (Herbell & Bloom, 2020). Parents justify this close supervision by wanting to protect children from the traumatic experiences they survived (Herbell & Bloom, 2020). Since trauma is disproportionately high in NA communities (Beals et al., 2013), this protection from realistic harm is an important strategy to offset high-risk environments. Indeed, most childhood sexual abuse prevention programs now advocate for close parental monitoring as a prevention technique (Rudolph et al., 2018).

Despite acting as a protective factor for youth, closely monitoring children may be at odds with NA cultural traditions related to parenting that emphasize guiding and fostering independence in children. Some NA parents may be uncomfortable with directive supervisory approaches suggested by the program, instead preferring to guide behavior (Kulis et al., 2016). Few studies have examined the possible tension between parental monitoring and cultural values, and results are mixed. Families with high levels of cultural identification reported lower parental monitoring (Urbaeva et al., 2017), yet youth who reported higher interest in culture also reported higher parental monitoring (Pu et al., 2013). These studies indicate important gaps in knowledge about how NAs perspectives on parenting in high-risk environments.

The purpose of this critical ethnography was to use the FHORT to understand how the context of historical oppression may influence NA parenting. The overarching research question this study sought to answer was: “How do participants describe NA parenting practices and philosophies?” Exploring and understanding how NA parents have positively adapted to challenging circumstances is important to family psychology as it will allow for improved assessment of parenting skills, and the development of culturally congruent, relevant interventions that can be used to enhance parenting approaches and promote strong NA families.

Methods

Research Design

Our research design took a critical ethnographic approach, which is recommended as a highly rigorous and ethical approach for work with tribal communities, due to the context of colonial historical oppression (Burnette et al., 2014; McKinley et al., 2019). These data were part of a broader critical ethnographic study examining culturally relevant risk and protective factors related to family resilience, mental health, substance abuse, and violence within two NA communities (McKinley et al., 2019). This study focused on understanding parenting practices and philosophies among these two Southeastern NA tribes. A critical ethnographic methodology was appropriate for this research as it embodies a decolonizing methodology that applies critical theory to interrogate power in the research relationship (Carspecken, 1996). Critical ethnographies also strengthen rigor by triangulating several forms of data (Carspecken, 1996). Study activities followed recommendations for community-based, culturally relevant, ethical research practices with Indigenous people derived through previous work and detailed elsewhere (Burnette et al., 2014; McKinley et al., 2019).

Study Participants

Researcher description

The first author (principal investigator – PI) has worked for a decade with the focal tribes using community engaged, ethical, and culturally congruent critical ethnographic and community-based participatory research approaches recommended for work with tribal communities (Burnette et al., 2014; McKinley et al., 2019; McKinley & Theall, 2021). Her work with these tribes reflects the in-depth, prolonged engagement needed to build trust and foster collaboration. The PI led a team-based analysis process recommended for cultural sensitivity (Burnette et al., 2014; McKinley et al., 2019) and ethnographic data (Guest & MacQueen, 2008) that involved both tribal and nontribal research assistants. Over the course of data collection and analysis, five PhD students, who also study Indigenous issues, were trained as a part of this research team and conducted analysis. The PI worked closely with tribal members who assisted with data collection and analysis for cultural congruency. The PI works with an 11-person community advisory board to lead research and decision-making.

Data sources

We obtained university Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval along with tribal approval from the two tribal councils involved in this study. To honor cultural sensitivity (Burnette et al., 2014), we obtained verbal consent from all participants, along with parental permission and assent from minors. We engaged in qualitative data collection with 436 unique participants across two Southeastern tribes. Within each tribe, qualitative data collection included focus groups and life-history interviews with families and individuals. To represent a range of perspectives, we included participants across the life span (i.e., elders aged 56 and older, adults aged 24–55, and youth aged 11–23). We also interviewed social service providers working with NA families within each tribe to offer distinct professional observations. A slightly modified interview guide was used with this subsample, with questions asking them to reflect on their knowledge of NA families and parenting practices based on professional rather than personal experience. Many of the professionals interviewed were also members of the tribe and were able to choose whether or not to participate in a life history interview in addition to the professional interview. Those who chose to participate in life history interviews offered their perspectives as tribal members and parents using a separate interview guide.

In line with ethnographic recommendations, we aimed and met targeted qualitative sample sizes of 30–50 of each the elder, professional, adult, and youth subsamples, along with a goal of conducting 30 family interviews and 10 focus groups within each tribe. We collected data until saturation was met (Sandelowski, 1995). For qualitative data collection, a total of 254 individual interviews, 27 focus groups (217 participants), and 64 family interviews (163 participants) were conducted. Table 1 provides participant demographics across all samples according to convenience sampling. In accordance with tribal agreements, we have kept names of the two tribes confidential and removed identifying information to protect community identities (Burnette et al., 2014; McKinley et al., 2019). We refer to the two Southeastern tribes using the synonyms “Inland Tribe”—a federally recognized tribe located inland from the Gulf of Mexico—and “Coastal Tribe”—a state-recognized tribe located in proximity to the Gulf Coast. As a federally recognized tribe, the Inland Tribe operates its own schools, healthcare facilities, social services, and criminal justice system. The Coastal Tribe has not been granted federal sovereignty to do so, but provides educational, employment, and cultural programs for members.

Table 1.

Participant Demographics

Participant Demographics (overall)	(N = 436) n, %	Inland Tribe	Coastal Tribe
Men	149, 33.9%
Women	287, 65.8%
Age (range = 21–80 years)	M = 39.7
Married	126, 28.9%
Number of children (range = 0–14)	M = 2.55
Education	n = 307
High School equivalent or less	147, 48%
Some college/Associates	116, 38%
Bachelor’s degree or higher	44, 14%
Data source by Tribe	(N = 436)	228, 52%	208, 48%
Field Notes	58	15, 26%	43, 74%
Individual Interviews	254	145, 57%	109, 43%
Focus Group (FG) Interviews	217 (27 FGs)	14 (M = 8)	13 (M = 9)
Family Interviews (FI)	163 (64 families)	34 FIs (n = 80)	30 FIs (n = 83)
Subsample
Elder (56 + )	105, 24%	44, 19%	61, 29%
Adult (24–55)	147, 34%	76, 33%	71, 34%
Youth (11–23)	114, 26%	61, 27%	53, 26%
Professionals (18 + )	70, 16%	47, 21%	23, 11%

^*Table Adapted with permission from McKinley & Miller Scarnato (2020). M = Mean, n = Sample participant size. Numbers list sample sizes and percentages

Participant recruitment and selection

We obtained tribal and IRB approval prior to commencing data collection. We used flyers (distributed in person and posted online) and word-of-mouth to recruit tribal participants, who were purposively selected for their tribal and family background with assistance of agency heads and cultural insiders (Burnette et al., 2014; McKinley et al., 2019). Inclusion criteria included (a) tribal enrollment in one of the focal tribes and/or (b) being a professional working with tribal members in health or social services. Participants were recruited to understand family resilience, and risk factors such as violence and substance abuse. Although participants had an option of using a tribal interviewer to increase cultural sensitivity (Burnette et al., 2014; McKinley et al., 2019), the first author collected data with both tribal communities between June of 2014 and October of 2016, because participants in these tight-knit communities felt more comfortable speaking with a non-community member. For their participation, individuals received a $20 gift card to a local department store and families received a $60 gift card.

Data Collection

Qualitative data included (a) individual interviews, which employed a life-history approach recommended for Indigenous peoples, (b) focus groups, and (c) family interviews (Burnette et al., 2014; Carspecken, 1996; McKinley et al., 2019). A semi-structured interview guide was used during all individual, family, and focus-group interviews, which was reviewed by cultural insiders and developed at a fifth-grade comprehension. Questions were derived from the study’s research questions and included: “How would you describe your parenting style? What is it like to be a parent in this community? How would you describe your upbringing?” Specific wording of questions and probes in the guide was modified for the professional sub-sample, asking them to speak from professional experience (e.g., How would you describe the parenting styles of the families you work with? In your professional opinion, what are the challenges and strengths of parents in this community?) Interviews were held at the discretion of participants in public conference rooms, meeting places, or participants’ homes. Interviews were audio recorded for transcription. After individual interviews, participants received a copy of their transcript. On average, individual interviews lasted 64 minutes, family interviews lasted 70 minutes, and focus groups lasted 57 minutes. Weekly debriefings and field notes were conducted for reflexivity.

Data Analysis

Following team based reconstructive analysis—the specific method for this critical ethnography noted for its rigor (Carspecken, 1996; Guest & MacQueen, 2008)—all interview data were professionally transcribed and imported into NVivo for analysis. Themes in data were inductively analyzed through a reconstructive analysis process (Carspecken, 1996) involving: (a) reading transcripts and listening to interviews at least twice; (b) performing low-level coding to create a hierarchical scheme of themes and subthemes; and (c) collaboratively developing and analyzing the coding scheme to capture implicit and explicit meanings, using methodologically specific “pragmatic horizon analysis.” Pragmatic horizon analysis involves horizontal analysis and vertical analysis (Carspecken, 1996). The team conducted horizontal analysis, evaluating data by their subjective (a perception or feeling), objective (readily observable by a general audience), and normative-evaluative (based on social norms) styles (Carspecken, 1996).

The team then conducted vertical analysis to indicate to what extent interpretations were implicit (i.e., backgrounded) versus explicit (i.e., foregrounded; Carspecken, 1996). Interpretations were checked across the research team by using Cohen’s kappa coefficients (McHugh, 2012) to calculate inter-rater reliability. Cohen’s Kappa is a statistical measure that assesses how much agreement would be expected due to chance. Scores over 0.80 are strong, and over 0.9 are very high. Our extremely high (0.96) indicated that tribal and non-tribal analysts tended to code the same text as the same code with very strong agreement. Hierarchical codes and subcodes were created and organized with consensus of the research team. This article focuses on qualitative data concerning parenting practices, which were coded 188 times across 108 unique sources in the Inland tribe and coded 261 times across 108 unique sources in the Coastal tribe, attesting to the salience of this topic in both tribes. The results reflect unifying themes identified across both tribes. We report the tribe, gender, and type of data collection (individual interview, family interview, or focus group) for each participant in results.

We followed strategies for rigor specific to this methodology, noted for their methodological integrity (Burnette et al., 2014; Carspecken, 1996; McKinley et al., 2019). Adding to rigor, several forms of member checking were implemented with participants. All participants who could be contacted received their individual transcripts and a summary of results, which they had the opportunity to adapt, amend, or change in any way. No substantive changes were made, but rather, participants tended to extend and elaborate on findings. A summary of results was disseminated to both tribes on more than 10 occasions through tribal council meetings, committees, agencies, training, and community dialogues. Through these channels, participants were invited to change or add to findings. Research team members met weekly during data collection and analysis for debriefing. Using team based qualitative analysis, codes were arrived at by consensus across the research team.

Results

Our qualitative exploration of participants’ perceptions of parenting practices and philosophies revealed a number of approaches parents employed to protect their children from the context of historical oppression and its associated risks. Four major themes were identified across the two tribes: (a) “Your Kids Come First”: Prioritizing Children’s Needs; (b) “They Should Enjoy their Childhood”: Sheltering Children from Family Stressors; (c) “I Have to Watch Them Closely”: Closely Monitoring Children; and (d) “There’s No Drinking at My House”: Preventing Children’s Exposure to Substance Abuse. Parenting practices and philosophies reflect the approaches used within two NA communities embedded in high-risk environments, to which NA families are more likely to be exposed due to the context of historical oppression.

“Your Kids Come First”: Prioritizing Children’s Needs

When discussing their views on parenting, participants in both tribes emphasized the importance of prioritizing children over personal desires. Numerous participants spoke about how they would prioritize children and family. An Inland Tribe teenage boy explained:

The way my dad raised me, his vision of a man was, you take care of your home… like kids. You take care of them regardless. Making sure they have food… in their bellies, clothes on their back, and a roof over their heads. … Your selfish, your personal wants, it doesn’t matter anymore. Your kids come first.

A woman from the Inland Tribe recalled a lesson learned about parenting: “My mom taught me kids come first.” Echoing this perception of parenting, a mother from the Coastal Tribe described the viewpoint she and her husband share: “We understood the kids came first, you know?”

Parents prioritized their children’s needs, even when it meant sacrificing their own. An elder woman from the Coastal Tribe explained her perspective after having her first child at the age of 15: “I knew I had to sacrifice.” A young mother (19) from the Inland Tribe described a similar perspective on parenting, explaining she sees her role as: “Making sure my baby has everything she needs. Make sure she eats stuff that’s really healthy for her. Making sure she’s being taken care of at school and everything.” One woman from the Coastal Tribe made sacrifices for her sister’s children who she raised, recounting:

I got the six boys, right after I got married. I got six boys. The baby was 8 months old, and I became an instant mama. It was a bad situation, so she [sister] dropped the kids off. She said, “I can’t do this, because I don’t want the kids to be involved in the environment I am in right now,”… The baby was 8 months and then the oldest was 13 or 14… The first one [nephew] that called me was one of them at five-something yesterday morning to tell me happy birthday…he said, “All the sacrifices you had to make, I never realized until now that I am older and how much sacrifices you had to make.”

As this woman’s experience shows, children came first in the family, regardless of their biological parentage. Several participants expressed being willing to do anything to provide for children’s needs. One woman from the Inland Tribe explained:

I just started working, working, working, and just started having kids, and…I think it was 2003, when I went to [college]. I’d do anything for my kids.… As long as I’m alive, I always tell them nobody’s going to hurt you.

As this speaker expressed, parents protected and provided for their children at all costs. A young man from the Coastal Tribe recognized how his parents prioritized his needs, explaining:

She [mother] always makes sure that everyone’s needs are met and ensures that she’ll do whatever it takes for us to make it. That’s one thing I really respect about them two [parents] is that no material needs is bigger than them two. I just think that’s awesome.

A teen girl from the Inland tribe described how her stepfather prioritized for emotional needs:

My stepdad, he’ll do anything. He’ll just put everything down. He’ll just listen. That’s what I like. And he got a lot of patience, like my mom said he’s not like rushing or anything. He has patience. And he’s just not mean. He’s nice.

This stepparent felt it was important to be present with his stepdaughter, which she appreciated because it made her feel she was a priority. Together, these quotes demonstrate that participants in both tribes felt parents and caretakers should prioritize and provide for children.

“They Should Enjoy their Childhood”: Protecting Children from Family Stressors

Although members of both tribes live in a context of historical oppression that creates many stressors for their families and communities, participants described parenting practices that buffered children from potential negative effects of an oppressive environment. A woman from the Inland Tribe explained how she had no knowledge of the child welfare system, stating:

I was so sheltered that, you know, I thought everybody had a mom and dad. You know, I was, I had no idea that there was even such a thing as foster homes or people were living with grandma or grandpa, and I had no idea until I reached high school.

A professional woman from the Inland Tribe felt it was important to allow children to have a childhood by protecting them from the stressors of their environment. She explained:

For me, I don’t want kids to be around that [stressful environment], there’s so much negativity and there’s so much crap that goes on a daily basis. When kids grow up, I’m not saying they should be in a bubble, but they should enjoy their childhood.

A man from the Inland Tribe echoed the idea that children should not have to worry about adult concerns, stating: “When I was a child, I got to be a child. I didn’t have to worry about grown up things because that was for the grown-ups. That’s how I am with my kids.” A woman from the Coastal Tribe also described how she aimed to protect her children from chaos: “I didn’t live in the craziness; I’m not going to let my kid go through that.… Because eventually, if I start putting them there, there’s going to be arguments, and they don’t need to see.” Thus, parents often took steps to protect their children from stressful environments.

Participants also described how parents protected children from financial strain in the family. A man from the Inland Tribe felt his parents provided him a great childhood by protecting him from financial stress, as stated: “Growing up I had no kind of stress, just carefree until I hit the age [of]… getting a job, and [paying] bills and every [thing]. But until then, I believe I had a great childhood.” As this speaker implies, being sheltered from financial worries was an aspect of retaining a positive childhood. Similarly, a woman from the Coastal Tribe conveyed she was unaware of her family’s financial status growing up: “If it was a struggle, it was never a struggle that we [children] knew about.” A woman from the Inland Tribe felt her parents made efforts to provide for her while protecting her from their economic constraints:

There were times when the things I would ask for… [things I wouldn’t get], … It was just, “There is no money yet, right now so we’ll get it when we can.”… After a while… they managed to support [the thing requested].

This family postponed purchases to match financial resources, an important life skill. Overall, caregivers tended to protect their children from family stressors so they could enjoy their youth.

“I Have to Watch Them Closely”: Closely Monitoring Children

Despite experiencing stressors and financial strain associated with living in a context of historical oppression (higher trauma, violence, and poverty), participants in both tribes reported closely monitoring their children to protect them from exposure to trauma and harm. For many parents, having strict rules regarding children’s whereabouts was a means of keeping them safe. In a family interview, a divorced mother from the Inland Tribe explained her approach:

I’m not going to lie. I kind of stay on them. You know? Know where they’re at, kind of know what their schedule [is].… Don’t let me catch you in a lie.… If I check up [on] you and you’re not there… don’t let me catch you getting in trouble.… checking in, following up, just making sure… Giving them a time frame to be home. With her being 14 and a girl, I don’t give her that much freedom. Although, I let him [son], being older.… He drives back and forth to school, so I give him… a little freedom.

This parent intentionally limited her children’s freedom and regularly checked in with them to ensure they stayed out of trouble, while also noting potential gender differences in how she parented her children. A mother from the Coastal Tribe had strict parameters around whose homes her children could visit, as explained in a family interview: “I don’t want her to go to people’s house to I don’t know. This day and age, people’s [sic] crazy. Sorry. It’s not happening. It’s not even up for debate.” For this mother, keeping her daughter away from strangers was a way of protecting her. Similarly, a mother from the Inland Tribe emphasized parental oversight:

I just took care of my kids… Because I used to tell them, “As long as you’re under my roof, you gonna do as I say.” They didn’t like that because I’ve always been…strict on them when they were younger. They [sic] not allowed them to have anybody to the house when I’m not home, and I made sure they were fed and clothed before I do anything else. Because I always knew if they had a friend over, you know, to always know it’s a girl. I don’t want no guys coming over when I’m not home.

Parents who were raised in what they described as a “strict” environment recognized its benefits and chose to implement the same with their children. A woman from the Coastal Tribe stated:

At home, we didn’t really get out too much, except to go visit with family. And growing up, even as teenagers… We were not allowed to have friends over to the house or anything. We were raised really strict. I look back on it, and everything happened for a reason. I think it’s good we were raised the way we were, because myself, my sisters, and my brother, we never had a problem with drugs, we never had a problem with alcohol. We never had a problem with the law.

This woman felt being raised in a strict environment prevented substance abuse, early pregnancy, or troubles with the law in her family. She follows this parenting approach today:

I’ve seen mamas just drop off their kids and [they] just don’t care. I am not trying to be over-protective with them, but they are still young. I have to watch them closely… Recently, the people who were living here before had a 4-year-old little boy… drowned with the daddy sleeping inside.

Another mother from the Coastal Tribe explained how she practiced strong oversight:

I’m real sheltered with my children; I don’t let them run the streets, I don’t let them go here and there. If they want friends over, they can come over, it’s more family.… Sometimes I don’t want them at their dad’s because I don’t know what is going on.

She reflected her parents’ close supervision of her was beneficial. When asked if she thought it was good to be strict with children, she replied: “Yeah I think it is. I think it was the best for me, I was rebellious. I think them [parents] being so strict on me, it was good.” Thus, a lot of participants’ descriptions of “strict” was focused on close parental oversight and supervision.

In some cases, participants past experiences with abuse and trauma influenced the ways they monitored their children. A woman from the Coastal Tribe described her past:

I lived with my mom… she was always drunk, +so I couldn’t go to her.… Coping with it was I’m going to protect my sister so that it doesn’t happen to her. So, every night that those friends would come over, or whatever, I would have my same little routine. I would wrap her up in a blanket like a taco, and then I would put another blanket on top of her. Then I would do the same for myself. It worked. I guess the opportunity for him [to abuse us] presented itself, but the taco blanket worked.

When asked if that experience affected her parenting of her own children, she responded:

Definitely. [It affected] everything. My kids were never [exposed to trauma].… They don’t know this side of my mom. They do see her, but it’s what I allow. It [what she went through] affects them, the places they go. They’re not allowed to go many places that are not family, and even with family it’s still minimal. I’m involved in everything that they do. Every sport, anything they want to do, we’ll do it… we’re present at everything.

Closely supervising her children in all their activities was important for this mother based on her childhood experience. As this participant noted, this oversight also gave rise to quality time with her children, an important aspect of family resilience. Another woman from the Coastal Tribe explained how her exposure to trauma growing up influenced her parenting style:

They [children] don’t go too many places. I just try to keep them away from certain people…I’d seen a lot when I was growing up… it affects me the way I teach my kids… I’m very protective of them. I find a lot of them [parents] down here are.

As this woman explained, it was a norm in the community to closely monitor children, which may be due to potential exposure to the high-risk environment in which they’re situated.

“There’s No Drinking at My House:” Preventing Children’s Exposure to Substance Abuse

Like the prior examples of preventing trauma, participants in both tribes noted the importance of preventing their children’s exposure to substance abuse in their families and communities. In an interview with a family from the Coastal Tribe, a daughter said of her mom:

We grew up hugely different than what she [her mom] did… She’s different from the rest of her sisters, too—her brothers and her sisters—because they all kind of redid what their parents did: All their kids grew up in that kind of environment with the drinking, the fighting and all that stuff. She made sure that we didn’t grow up like that.

As this speaker explained, her mother had grown up around alcohol abuse, learned from these experiences, and made sure her children were not exposed to it. The mother in the family added, “I was very cautious about who they were going with. I really didn’t even want them to go with family. I didn’t want them going at my sister’s house, or my brother’s because the type of their lifestyle.” Similarly, a woman from the Inland Tribe recalled her mother learning from the hardships she experienced and preventing her children’s exposure to substance abuse, “My mom, she never drank around us because she didn’t want us to grow up as she did. She never drank around us. It was just my dad.… We were… much closer to my mom.” Thus, substance abuse was a barrier to having a close relationship with his children. An Inland Tribe woman stated:

I wasn’t ever going to give up on my kids. I did what I had to. Finally got my kids back, and I said, “And I’m never going to drink in front of y ‘all again.” Or, if I decided to… I’m going to make sure I have a babysitter and go somewhere else, not here at the house.

This participant’s experience of losing custody of her children caused her to change her previous drinking behaviors to protect her kids. A woman from the Coastal Tribe made a similar choice:

I don’t need all of that [alcohol use]. If I need that to have a stable mind, then I’m just messed up… and see no point of it. Unless you know how much it messed up his [children’s father] life, and my kids don’t need that.

These parents recognized the need to limit or cease their use of alcohol for the sake of their children. An elder woman from the Inland Tribe emphasized the importance of keeping children safe from the potential negative impacts of alcohol use. Because her children were taken into the custody of child protective services, she wanted other parents to prevent that, as explained:

If I know some people that has kids … [are] drinking, I always say, “You know, why can’t you find a babysitter? Go find a babysitter before you do anything else. You know?” And then they’ll say, “Well, you wanna babysit?” I said, “I’ll babysit.… I’ll keep them until you’re sober. If you’re drunk, coming over, you’re not getting the kid.”

Not only did this woman feel it was important for parents to draw strict boundaries around alcohol use, but she also helped them do so by watching their children when they were drinking. She went on to describe how she does this with her children and grandchildren:

Like, my kids, they wanna go out and have fun because I know they’re young. They’ll ask me, “Mom, can you babysit?” And I’ll say, “Until when? You’re not gonna just drop them off and come two, three days later.” I say, “You’re gonna come the next day.

This speaker felt it was important for parents to keep children away from alcohol use, and having a babysitter was one effective way of doing so. However, this speaker also had clear boundaries with her children about how long she would take over their parenting responsibilities.

Participants in both tribes also described limiting children’s exposure to substance abuse by limiting their contact with family members who engaged in such behaviors. A mother from the Inland Tribe felt the need to keep her children away from their father who abused alcohol:

I never wanted him to have visitation because I don’t know when he’ll be drinking.… I try to show them that I never used alcohol, you know, in front of them… If I were to go out with other girls or, you know, we’ll put them at a babysitter. But only for one night. Not all night. Not all weekend or not 2 days. We’ll go out. Have more fun. Come back home but the next day, we don’t sleep all day. We will… be there for the kids.

This mother made sure to keep substance abuse away from her children by setting boundaries for herself and limiting contact with their father. A woman from the Coastal Tribe explained, “That’s why I left my first marriage. Didn’t want no partying life no more, I wanted to settle down. I had two kids I had to raise and there’s no drinking at my house. Don’t drink.” This woman left her partner to prevent substance abuse exposure. Another mother from the Coastal Tribe protected her children from their grandmother’s substance abuse, as described:

She [grandma] would have months where she would be all about the grandkids and then she would just be drunk for another year.… I never used to let her watch my kids…I didn’t trust her. Then get in a car and drive around with them drunk—no.

As this mother’s statement shows, substance abuse behavior was a threat to her children’s safety. A Coastal Tribe woman from a family interview described similarly sheltering her children:

My mom had a cousin. They called him [Dennis-Pseudonym]. [Dennis] drank heavily. As kids, they used to tell us that [Dennis] would turn into a [monster] at night. That was so the kids would stay away from him. So, we didn’t go near him. That was their way of kind of trying to protect us from him. Who knows what he would have [done], you know? Once I was older, we found out [he] is the family drunk and who knows what else.

For this family, it was important to protect children from people who abused alcohol and shield them from the knowledge of alcohol abuse. In a family interview, a mother from the Coastal Tribe expressed her efforts to keep her kids away from peers who abused substances, as stated:

I was always worried about who my kids were going to get involved with the drugs and the drinking. Their friends did it at a young age and I didn’t want them to get involved in that. I’d always make sure that they were with the right crowd.

As these participants described, various efforts were made to prevent children’s exposure to substance abuse, which was an important way to ensure children had a stable and safe home.

Discussion

Results indicate that NA parents adopt child-centric mindsets and use a number of positive practices to protect their children from the potentially harmful environments created through historical oppression. To our knowledge, this is the first study to provide in-depth insight into the philosophies and mindsets guiding NAs’ parenting decisions. These findings help us understand NAs’ goals and beliefs about parenting, as well as the practices they use to secure positive outcomes for their children in spite of the many social forces working against them. This in-depth examination of NA parenting offers a needed resource to family psychologists and service providers working with NA communities that might lead to improved family functioning and parenting skills through the development of culturally congruent interventions.

The parenting philosophies, “children come first” and allowing children to enjoy their childhood, were commonly expressed by participants. This may reflect traditional cultural perspectives of children as gifts from the Creator who are prioritized and celebrated within the community (Ramirez, 2004). Considering the context of historical oppression that creates conditions of stress and trauma for many NA families, participants seemed to believe that putting children first helps buffer younger generations from adverse experiences. The extent parenting practices have been changed and undermined in response and in protection from historical oppression cannot be known. Still, many NA parents went to great lengths to ensure their children were not exposed to the harsh realities of life in an oppressive environment, including financial stress, instability, child welfare system involvement, and substance abuse. Parents often desired to protect their children from some of the negative experiences and stress they themselves experienced as children (Herbell & Bloom, 2020). These participants seemed to understand the exposure to undue stress and trauma would have negative effects on the wellness of children. Across both tribes, participants conveyed the belief that a parent’s role is to protect children from potential threats and ensure their holistic wellness.

Consistent with previous research (Herbell & Bloom, 2020), participants felt it was important to prioritize children’s needs over parents’ needs and wants, often suggesting that it was a parent’s duty to do “whatever it takes” to ensure children are well cared for and protected from harm. Although this guiding philosophy may be considered a positive psychological adaptation in direct resistance to broader social forces that systematically devalue NA children, it also comes at a cost to NA parents. Prioritizing children oftentimes meant parents had to make sacrifices for the greater good of their families, in some cases foregoing important personal goals, such as continuing their higher education, to help with family caregiving needs. Furthermore, extant research shows that the expectation to prioritize children’s wellness over one’s own falls more heavily on NA mothers (Liddell et al., 2020; McKinley et al., 2021; Rizzo et al., 2013), reflecting patriarchal gender roles that disadvantage women. The “child-centrism” mindset described by our NA participants is a somewhat controversial topic in family psychology, with some scholars arguing that prioritizing the child’s wellness may undermine the parents’ wellness (Rizzo et al., 2013). However, consistent with the FHORT’s conceptualization of wellness as relational, “a growing body of evidence suggests that when we invest in the wellness of others, we experience greater wellness ourselves” (Ashton-James, et al., 2013 p. 635). Further research with NA parents is needed in this area to understand the complex relationship between parenting and wellness, and parenthood.

Close monitoring was a common practice that NA parents used to keep children safe within a high-risk environment. This finding is consistent with extant literature examining parenting in high-risk environments within other racial groups (Spano et al., 2010; Voisin et al., 2016), suggesting that despite racial and ethnic differences, parents in community or neighborhood settings with similar risks employ similar approaches to mitigating them. NA parents aimed to buffer children from adverse experiences and outcomes by keeping a close eye on their whereabouts, and, in some cases, restricting their activities to maintain their safety. These practices differ from those traditionally used in NA communities that aimed to foster independence in children; however, closely monitoring children seems to be a positive adaptation to the contemporary forms of oppression that NA communities experience.

Our findings also suggest that gender may play a role in parental monitoring practices, wherein girls seem to be more strictly monitored and restricted in their movement than boys. This is a topic that should be further explored to determine the extent to which parenting practices are gendered in NA communities and how this impacts youth outcomes. Future research should also examine parental monitoring practices over time, as research suggests that continuing to monitor children into adolescence is protective (DiClemente et al., 2001; Shillington et al., 2005).

The final major theme identified in this study centered around limiting children’s exposure to Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) abuse specifically. It is not surprising that NA parents would emphasize this point given AOD abuse tends to be disproportionately high within NA communities (Whitesell et al., 2012) due to historical oppression. Consistent with previous research (Burnette, 2016), many participants noted that their own past experiences with substance abuse (and its connections to violence and trauma) influenced their parenting practices. Participants understood the prevalence of AOD risk in their communities, and implemented parenting practices aimed at buffering against, protecting, and off-setting AOD abuse. Many parents described their efforts to limit children’s contact with family members who abused substances, while others described the use of “negative role models” – family or community members who abused substances and served as examples of what behaviors and choices to avoid – as a preventive measure. Negative role models have been found to be particularly effective as a motivating factor for abstaining from a harmful activity (Lockwood et al., 2004). Although no known research investigates the effectiveness of negative role models within NA families, evidence suggests that people from collectivist cultures, like NA culture, are most motivated by negative role models (Lockwood et al., 2005).

Our findings attest to the resilience of NA parents in positively adapting to stressful circumstances to protect their children from the risks associated with an oppressive community context. Results also emphasize the influence of ecological factors on parenting philosophies and practices, suggesting that community-level and society-level interventions are also needed. At the community level, research shows that higher social cohesion and social control have been associated with increased social support for mothers and linked to more effective parenting practices (Byrnes & Miller, 2012). Thus, community-wide interventions that target social support and cohesion, especially informal sources of support rooted in NA cultural values of mutual trust and reciprocity (Jack, 2000), may be an important way to facilitate community wellness and promote social support for parents in high-risk environments. Research clearly shows that poverty and inequality are detriments to children’s healthy development and negatively impact family functioning (Jack, 2000), emphasizing the need for policies that address the systemic causes of risk factors to alleviate the burden of stress on NA parents and promote NA family resilience and wellness.

Limitations

Results of any qualitative study are not meant to be generalizable to other tribes nor other racial/ethnic groups. As with all research with NA populations, great care must be taken to situate results in their specific context, as tribal groups vary greatly in their experiences of historic and contemporary oppression, and findings may not be applicable to other groups. Additionally, this study took place in the Deep South, and it is possible cultural norms around parenting may appear differently in other regions of the United States. Furthermore, findings are based on participants’ own descriptions of parenting practices and beliefs, which may reflect social desirability bias. Although participants across the life-course were interviewed, and many participants were interviewed more than once, these results are cross-sectional. Future longitudinal studies may better be able to explore how parenting philosophies and practices may change over time and with life changes in the family.

Conclusion

This study offers important insight into the under-researched area of parenting and resilience among NA families and documents the strategies NA parents use to protect their children from the harmful environment imposed through historical oppression. This study fills an important gap in the literature on NA parenting philosophies and practices, helping clinicians and researchers’ understand the social ecologies and psychological adaptations of NA parents, and the strategies they use to protect children from environmental risks. Adopting a child-centric mindset that prioritizes children and childhood, implementing close monitoring practices, and using negative role models to prevent adverse experiences are important strategies that NA parents in high-risk environments use to promote positive youth outcomes.

The protective actions taken by the parents in this research are consistent with findings from other groups who live in contexts of poverty, inequality, and risk due to systemic oppression (Garbarino et al., 2006; Spano et al., 2010; Voisin et al., 2016). The high-risk environment in which many NA families are embedded undermines their quality of life; thus, despite their ability to navigate these contexts with precision, the inequity in access to safer contexts is an aspect of historical oppression that must be addressed structurally. Utilizing the FHORT allows for these findings on NA parenting philosophies and practices to be situated in their appropriate context and highlights the ways in which families are resilient in the face of widespread economic, social and health disparities, and continuing oppression.

Highlights.

• One of many ways that Native American (NA) families demonstrate resilience is by parenting children in some of the most adverse contexts in U.S. society.

• Using the framework of historical oppression, resilience, and transcendence (FHORT) as a strengths-based lens, this research sought to understand how NAs describe parenting philosophies and practices.

• Despite experiencing historical oppression, NA families continue to demonstrate resilience and optimum parenting strategies.

• NA parenting strategies included prioritizing children’s needs, protecting children from family stressors, closely monitoring children, and preventing children from substance abuse exposure.

• This study fills an important gap in the literature on NA parenting philosophies and practices, helping clinicians and researchers’ understand the social ecologies and psychological adaptations of NA parents, and the strategies they use to protect children from environmental risks.