4

Key Takeaways

Before inviting discussants and speakers to share their key takeaways from the workshop, Hedwig (Hedy) Lee (workshop planning committee chair and professor of sociology at Duke University) reviewed the workshop’s guiding question—How can insights be applied regarding the conceptualization, measurement, and modeling of structural racism to inform decisions about:

1. What new measures of structural racism or data linkages could be used in ongoing or future studies helpful to advance aging research;
2. What mechanisms or data linkages could be used in ongoing or future studies that link structural racism to disparities in health and well-being over time and place; and
3. What study designs could be used to consider how structural factors operate to shape health over the life course?

David Takeuchi (workshop planning committee member and professor and associate dean for faculty excellence in the University of Washington School of Social Work) described the notion of “unpacking the other”¹ as essential for structural racism research. He mentioned, as an example of unpacking the other, a National Institute on Aging–funded study² of

___________________

¹ This concept was presented on the first day of the workshop by Desi Small-Rodriguez, assistant professor of sociology and American Indian studies at the University of California, Los Angeles.

² See https://reporter.nih.gov/search/1VQG3usGnEqVUEImkbCoSw/project-details/10125509

Vietnamese Americans, the trauma of war, and the implications for cognitive functioning, and advocated for similar studies on how past trauma affects people’s lives. He also highlighted the role of gatekeepers (e.g., journal editors, funders, and reviewers) and proposed that academic institutions reduce barriers to innovative research by developing a grant program that would allow people to earn credits for research not normally recognized in the tenure process.

René D. Flores (workshop planning committee member and Neubauer Family assistant professor of sociology at the University of Chicago) summarized that structural inequality is a complex research topic because of different manifestations in subpopulations, as well as different mechanisms across time periods and geographic locations. He also highlighted issues in data availability and data integration—barriers that are often created by disciplinary norms and gatekeepers. He championed the role of theoretical and empirical frameworks that integrate the complexity of structural racism and incentivize theory-making and multimethod interdisciplinary approaches. Furthermore, he reiterated that to understand the production of racial inequalities, researchers should explore race as a fluid, contingent, and socially constructed condition rather than treating it as a fixed independent variable in models.

Margaret Hicken (workshop planning committee member and research associate professor in the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan) echoed Flores’s statement that structural racism research should be grounded in interdisciplinary research frameworks, which means prioritizing the voices of marginalized scholars, especially those from the humanities, arts, and humanistic social sciences. She emphasized that diverse teams of scholars who are substantially involved in the research process are essential for the future of structural racism research.

Jennifer Manly (workshop planning committee member and professor of neuropsychology at Columbia University) agreed with Hicken that many disciplines should be represented in this complex work and that researchers should be thoughtful about every step of the research process—for example, measurement and modeling follow theory, and community engagement before a grant is funded or a study is designed. She also asserted that incentives would help direct resources to conduct this research effectively and that reviewers (of journals, of funding proposals, and for promotion and tenure) should have the appropriate expertise to recognize the complex nature of structural racism research.

Trevon Logan (workshop planning committee member and Hazel C. Youngberg distinguished professor of economics at The Ohio State University) offered three key takeaways from the workshop: (1) Structural racism is not only a historical process but also a dynamic process with evolving form and function, which is an important consideration for modeling; (2) Since

structural racism is relational, modeling could be both unidirectional and bidirectional (i.e., race is both “acted out and acted upon”). He added that race and racism are also experiential (i.e., a 30-year-old Black man has a different experience of racism from a 60-year-old Black man); therefore, a life-course perspective helps to contextualize data; and (3) Instead of allowing the measurement of structural racism to move ahead of the theory, he encouraged researchers to consider what structural racism is before determining how to operationalize it in qualitative and quantitative research. He reiterated that the humanities, a space where oppressed people have been encouraged to share their stories, offer key insights on the building blocks of theory for new structural racism research.

Lee expressed her optimism with recent scholarship on improving population health and reducing disparities. She agreed that more interdisciplinary teams would be beneficial for the field but encouraged scholars first to define what interdisciplinary means in the context of specific research. She encouraged researchers to think carefully about who and what are included in the evidence base for studies to avoid furthering racial inequalities. She also echoed the assertion that some of the best work is done “at the fringes”³ and will not be found in the top population health journals. Lee supported the vision of W.E.B. Du Bois, in particular, who recognized that understanding racism and inequality requires not only data collection and visualization but also an understanding of place and space. To continue to move the population health field forward, she proposed the development of measurement and modeling approaches that avoid replicating efforts and creating new siloes, and she invited workshop speakers to share their visions for the future.

Paris “AJ” Adkins-Jackson (assistant professor in the departments of Epidemiology and Sociomedical Sciences in the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University) observed that it can be difficult to think about next steps for the future when issues persist in the present. She cautioned that if researchers continue to begin with a problematic foundation, they cannot move forward. She encouraged researchers instead to create a stable foundation and then collaborate.

Frank Edwards (assistant professor of criminal justice at Rutgers University) explained that when new data products are built on uneven foundations, error is induced with each aggregation to another level. Furthermore, correlations in errors across measures are induced when problematic data sources (e.g., the U.S. Census) continue to be used. He encouraged researchers to consider sources of error from data and to think critically about both uncertainty and data-generating processes, especially when

___________________

³ This idea was shared by Courtney Boen, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania, on the second day of the workshop.

making comparisons across time and space. He highlighted opportunities for innovation in methodology, for example by coordinating different types of theoretical and historical assumptions about uncertainty and context.

Seth Sanders (Ronald Ehrenberg professor of economics at Cornell University) remarked that coordination of efforts is essential for substantive change to occur, but that scholars should also have the freedom to pursue questions in the ways that suit them best. Researchers want to capture the benefits that come with approaching problems in different ways while still having a coordinated way forward. Sanders also noted that it might make sense to have interdisciplinary teams at some times but not others; it will depend on the specific question being asked.

A participant posed a question about how White investigators could become more involved in structural racism research without being accused of cultural appropriation. Amy Kate Bailey (associate professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Illinois Chicago) reflected on her work as a White scholar, which focuses primarily on quantitative historical research of racial violence. She asserted that it is incumbent upon White scholars who do have access to the rooms where decisions are made to use their privilege to ensure that research and research teams are diverse, inclusive, and equitable. Logan added that structural racism research is not just about studying explicitly racialized people because the data-generation process is itself structurally racist. Since everything is a product of a racially structured process, he continued, all people are necessary implicated in the study of structural racism (encompassing, for example, traditional labor economics wage regressions on White working-age males).

Courtney Boen (assistant professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania) pointed out that quantitative data are naturally historical and backward-facing. Reflecting on the scholarship of Bruce Western, who noted that quantitative data “hobble our chances at promoting transforma-tive change,” Boen said that the path forward has to be visionary. Because limitations in data and methods have political implications that can prevent the realization of true equity and justice, she asserted that rich, descriptive evidence could be leveraged to move the field forward in new ways. Reflecting on programs such as Interdisciplinary Research Leaders⁴ and Evidence for Action,⁵ Manly encouraged researchers to consider how their work could inform policy and how they could communicate more directly to policy makers. Rachel Hardeman (associate professor and Blue Cross endowed professor of health and racial equity in the Division of Health Policy and Management, University of Minnesota School of Public Health) added that the community voice should be centered in any message crafted

___________________

⁴ See https://interdisciplinaryresearch-leaders.org

⁵ See https://www.evidenceforaction.org

for policy makers and cautioned that a policy lever in one direction could impact one in another direction.

Adkins-Jackson urged participants to read the work of legal scholars who have studied race (e.g., John A. Powell and Kimberlé W. Crenshaw) to better conceptualize models for structural racism research in public health, and emphasized that research could be motivated by specific problematic policies or policy interventions. Lee added a suggestion for workshop participants to read Emily Wang’s scholarship on transitions clinics for those returning to society after incarceration, as well as the works of James Jackson, Arline Geronimus, and Nancy Krieger; she stressed that the precedents set by their research will help move the public health field forward.

This page intentionally left blank.