In CRT, however, it is important to generate knowledge from outside a discipline’s core knowledge base. In science, a field’s knowledge base centralizes the production of knowledge each new study contributes at most a tiny increment to an established corpus of knowledge. Its tools help researchers illuminate racial biases embedded in a field or in a study’s aims, methods, conclusions, etc., and develop strategies to address them.ĬRT and public health differ in how they perceive a field’s core knowledge base. The introduction of CRT for empirical research helps address these concerns directly. 8 Racism was rarely considered an important determinant of health.
6, 7 Historically, the health sciences reflected whatever racial notions pervaded society at the time, and rarely included the intellectual contributions of people of color. CRT’s call to balance theory and research echoes the public health call issued by Lawrence Green 4 to combine evidence-based practice (as commonly advanced in public health) with practice-based evidence (as contained in the original framing of CRT).ĬRT and public health differ regarding at least two fundamental assumptions about science: that science is objective and that a field’s core evidence base provides its best approximation of the truth.Īs we have discussed elsewhere, 5 the systematic nature of the scientific method enhances the reliability of empirical findings, but this does not necessarily eliminate the influence of racial bias. In CRT, theory also encompasses the intellectual and socio-political actions scholars take based on CRT’s tenets, concepts and strategies. In public health, ‘theory’ is a tool for organizing abstract concepts and relationships to predict the performance of exposures, outcomes and other variables under narrowly specified circumstances (eg, interventions). The two fields differ regarding what constitutes theory vs research vs methods. We conclude with recommendations for integrating CRT into the racial health equity movement.ĬRT and Public Health: Major Epistemological DifferencesĪlthough public health interest in CRT has grown over the last decade, epistemological differences exist between CRT (as it is in law) and public health therefore, to apply CRT empirically requires translational tools that account for these differences. We re-introduce the semi-structured research method we developed to facilitate the use of CRT in health equity research (ie, the Public Health Critical Race Praxis ), and clarify how PHCRP is related to but distinct from both CRT in the field of law and non-CRT health disparities research. Public health interventions and policies rely heavily on evidence hence, this special issue’s focus on empirical applications of CRT. 2 Public health touts its progressive roots and focus on equity, but do those efforts draw on CRT? To answer this question, we define CRT, describe its origin in the field of law, and review the ways its use has grown in the field of public health.
Nearly a decade ago, we issued a similar call to the multidisciplinary field of public health. In her seminal paper, “Just What is Critical Race Theory and What’s it Doing in a Nice Field like Education?” 1 Gloria Ladson-Billings cautiously promotes the use of Critical Race Theory (CRT) to address racism’s contribution to educational disparities.
0 kommentar(er)
