Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41281593›Full record

ArticleMemory studies2025

Clarifying dissenting voices: Exploring the ambivalence around the Canadian national inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls.

Audrey Rousseau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory studies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Audrey RousseauUniversité du Québec en Outaouais (UQO), Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0455-8175

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From the outset, the Canadian National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (NIMMIWG, 2016-2019), whose mandate was to investigate and report on the systemic causes of all forms of violence against Indigenous women and girls, has faced complaints from survivors, families of the missing and murdered, and Indigenous associations across the country. By exploring the crisis of legitimacy experienced during the NIMMIWG's process, this article traces the interplay between the inquiry's legal scope, public grievances and possible testimonial outcomes. The objective is to consider how conflicting views and ambivalence in understanding the inquiry's vision and role have impacted this truth-gathering process focused on survivors and families' testimonies of colonial and gendered violence. The first section recalls general doubts and suspicions expressed in Canadian media (2015-2018) towards the inquiry's goals and actions, notably with respect to questions of liability. The second section analyses a few public testimonies about 'stolen sisters' given during the Montreal public hearing, which reveal an irreducible tension between finding new forms of accountability, notably by police forces and the judicial system, and the cultural and healing remembrance platform of the NIMMIWG. The last section reflects on how this state-sponsored apparatus, based on a language of truth-telling and remembrance, avoided an opportunity to address systemic structures of violence towards Indigenous women, girls, queer, trans, and two-spirit people with regard to inequalities and redistribution faced by families and survivors of loved ones, not only in their everyday lives and their experience of destruction and death, but also, I argue, in sustaining their participation in this state-sponsored process and its aftermath.

Indexed as

accountabilityCanadacritiquesIndigenousinquirymissing and murderedwomen

Identifiers

PMID41281593
PMCPMC12633857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.