4.4 Article

Conceptualizing, Contextualizing, and Operationalizing Race in Quantitative Health Sciences Research

Journal

ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE
Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 157-163

Publisher

ANNALS FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.1370/afm.2792

Keywords

racism; race; inequity; disparity; intersectionality; epidemiology; community/public health

Funding

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Research Scholars Program

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Differences in health outcomes across racial groups are commonly found in health disparities research. However, these studies often fail to connect these disparities with systemic racism, unintentionally supporting harmful narratives of biological essentialism or cultural inferiority. This paper highlights the pitfalls in quantitative population health research and provides recommendations for understanding racial health inequities appropriately.
Differences in health outcomes across racial groups are among the most commonly reported findings in health disparities research. Often, these studies do not explicitly connect observed disparities to mechanisms of systemic racism that drive adverse health outcomes among racialized and other marginalized groups in the United States. Without this connection, investigators inadvertently support harmful narratives of biologic essentialism or cultural inferiority that pathologize racial identities and inhibit health equity. This paper outlines pitfalls in the conceptualization, contextualization, and operationalization of race in quantitative population health research and provides recommendations on how to appropriately engage in scientific inquiry aimed at understanding racial health inequities. Race should not be used as a measure of biologic difference, but rather as a proxy for exposure to systemic racism. Future studies should go beyond this proxy use and directly measure racism and its health impacts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available