Dr. Williams Answers Researchers' Question about the CRF

For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com

April 13, 2025

Dr. Christopher Williams answers researchers' questions about the Critical Race Framework Study.

1. How does the CR Framework account for epistemic tensions between critical theory and traditional epidemiologic methods? The Critical Race Framework study has two major concerns with traditional epidemiologic methods. First, norms and practices in the use of race in research, as discussed in the study, are common but do not confer scientific quality. Second, the CR Framework study assumes that statistical reasoning has been too essentialized or reduced to the detriment of top-quality health research. The major gaps that the CR Framework sought to fill really should have been addressed a long time ago. The premise of the CR Framework required expert judgment and a critical eye, not fancy statistics.

2. Given your findings on reliability and validity limitations, how do you see this tool fitting into existing critical appraisal hierarchies (e.g., GRADE)? Current critical appraisal tools do not generally focus on race specifically. The CR Framework can be used exclusively as a stand-alone or in conjunction with current tools, especially where studies use racial differences to draw major conclusions. I should note that it is still undergoing testing.

3. Can you clarify whether you view racial taxonomy as fundamentally irredeemable, or as salvageable under more rigorous standards? It is not redeemable. As I repeatedly discussed and supported in the study, the globalized notion of race is anachronistic. It's a 17th century concept. Further, it can be seen as highly offensive. All people with linkages to the Asian continent are a "race"? Someone who comes from Nigeria in 2025 is grouped with African American (descendant of US enslaved people) and an African American not grouped with a fellow citizen with whom they and their families have shared physical and social space for 200 years? C’mon, we can't be serious about this. It's absurd and laughable if it wasn't so entrenched in research norms. No racial group has a shared anything - genetics, culture, history, language, religion...nothing.

5. Could this framework be adapted for intersectional variables (e.g., gender and class), or is its architecture race-specific? No, it is not intended for anything other than the use of race in research.

6. What are the implications of your findings for journals publishing high-impact disparities research that scored poorly in Phase III? It’s not for me to say. They have many options available to them, including to do nothing.

7. How might the CR Framework shift funding priorities for NIH and CDC research portfolios? I don’t know. I am only concerned about the best science. If studies involving race essentialism are funded less, I am ok with that. The key is essentialism. Global races do not exist.

8. Did you observe ideological resistance from expert participants, and if so, how did that shape iterative revisions? The development of the CR Framework is all discussed in the study. I guess an expert who participated in the study could have had ideological resistance, but there is no evidence that those who opposed the study premise had any special influence on testing. While I did ask if experts agreed with the study premise – most did – there weren’t any patterns that those who opposed the study premise sabotaged the study, if that’s what you’re asking.

9. What steps would be required to validate this tool cross-disciplinarily (e.g., medicine, sociology, education)? Well, science is science. The key concepts in public health to critically appraise research don’t change based on specialty. Now, some specialties may be more qualitative than others, but scientific reasoning doesn’t change. The CR Framework was designed specifically for public health, so it will need to undergo some revisions in language, but the underlining concepts should remain the same.

10. Do you see this framework as a bridge or a break from PHCRP and QuantCrit traditions? I can’t say really. PHCRP is underdeveloped in terms of tool development. QuantCrit is too open to interpretation for my taste, meaning apt to change depending on what is being asked, who is asking, and who is answering the question. I do think that QuantCrit lacks rigor as a methodological approach. I am not aware of a QuantCrit study along the lines of the CR Framework testing.

*Questions generated from Grok(xAI) in April 2025; Dr. Christopher Williams answered the questions.