A Comparative Analysis of Critical Race Theory in Social Studies Education and Public Health Liberation: Frameworks for Equity and Transformation

A Comparative Analysis of Critical Race Theory in Social Studies Education and Public Health Liberation: Frameworks for Equity and Transformation

Introduction

By Grok under the supervision of Dr. Williams

Prompt: "Do not use previous chats to answer. Prompt: After reading each manuscript thoroughly (all pages), compare these two manuscripts and indicate a preference. Write an academic and lengthy essay with an intro, discussion, and conclusion."

In the contemporary academic and practical pursuit of equity and justice, two manuscripts offer distinct yet complementary perspectives on addressing systemic inequities within their respective domains. Critical What What? A Theoretical Systematic Review of 15 Years of Critical Race Theory Research in Social Studies Education, 2004-2019 by Christopher L. Busey, Kristen E. Duncan, and Tianna Dowie-Chin (2022) provides a comprehensive review of how Critical Race Theory (CRT) has been applied in social studies education research over a 15-year period, focusing on its use as an analytic and theoretical framework to explore the nexus of race, racism, and citizenship. In contrast, Public Health Liberation - An Emerging Transdiscipline to Elucidate and Transform the Public Health Economy by Christopher Williams et al. (2022) proposes a novel transdisciplinary framework, Public Health Liberation (PHL), aimed at accelerating health equity by reconceptualizing public health through the lens of the "public health economy." Both works critique systemic failures—CRT in the educational portrayal and understanding of race and citizenship, and PHL in the public health system's inability to address health inequities effectively. This essay compares these manuscripts across their objectives, methodologies, theoretical foundations, and practical implications, ultimately expressing a preference for the PHL framework due to its innovative, action-oriented approach and its potential for broader transformative impact.

Discussion

Objectives and Scope

The CRT manuscript by Busey et al. seeks to assess the application of CRT within social studies education research from 2004 to 2019, guided by two primary research questions: how scholars have defined and used CRT as a framework, and how they have positioned it to foreground the relationship between citizenship and race. Its scope is retrospective and evaluative, aiming to map the theoretical terrain, identify inconsistencies, and suggest directions for future research to maintain CRT’s criticality. The authors emphasize social studies education’s unique relevance to CRT due to its focus on citizenship, a concept historically intertwined with racial dynamics, and they anchor their analysis in Ladson-Billings’s (2003) foundational edited volume on CRT in social studies.

Conversely, the PHL manuscript by Williams et al. is prospective and propositional, introducing a new transdiscipline to address persistent health inequities. Its objective is to establish PHL as a comprehensive framework integrating philosophy, theory, practice, research, and training, with the "public health economy" as a unifying analytic lens to elucidate and transform the economic, political, and social drivers of health disparities. The authors, predominantly Black women with community leadership experience, draw on real-world advocacy to argue for a radical shift in public health practice, using case studies like the lead-contaminated water crises in Flint, Michigan, and Washington, DC, to underscore the urgency of their approach.

While both manuscripts address equity—racial justice in education for CRT and health equity for PHL—their scopes differ significantly. The CRT review is confined to an academic critique within a specific subfield, whereas PHL’s transdisciplinary ambition spans multiple domains, aiming for systemic change beyond academia.

Methodological Approaches

Methodologically, the CRT manuscript employs a systematic review, a rigorous approach suited to its evaluative purpose. The authors searched databases (e.g., Education Source, ERIC, Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed articles from 2004 to 2019, applying inclusion criteria such as centrality of CRT and relevance to social studies education and racialized citizenship. They analyzed 59 articles using a thematic analysis framework, assessing tenets used, methodologies, participant voices, and educational levels, supported by an analytic review template. This method ensures a comprehensive synthesis of existing scholarship but limits its scope to descriptive and critical analysis rather than proposing new practices.

The PHL manuscript, however, adopts a theoretical and praxis-oriented methodology, blending narrative synthesis with community-based insights. It does not rely on a systematic literature review but instead constructs its framework from the authors’ lived experiences, interdisciplinary literature (e.g., political theory, sociology, African American emancipatory writings), and original theory-building (e.g., Theory of Health Inequity Reproduction, public health realism). The manuscript integrates case studies and praxis examples—such as influencing Washington, DC’s Comprehensive Plan and organizing vaccination efforts—demonstrating applied PHL. This approach prioritizes innovation and action over retrospective analysis, though it lacks the empirical rigor of a systematic review, relying instead on conceptual coherence and practical demonstration.

Theoretical Foundations

Theoretically, both manuscripts draw from critical traditions, yet their foundations diverge in breadth and application. The CRT manuscript is rooted in CRT’s legal origins, tracing its evolution from critical legal studies to education via Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995). It emphasizes core tenets like the permanence of racism, interest convergence, and counterstorytelling, critiquing their inconsistent application in social studies research. The authors highlight CRT’s interdisciplinary influences (e.g., W.E.B. Du Bois, Stuart Hall) and its focus on race as a central analytic, advocating a return to its legal and epistemological roots to preserve its radical edge.

PHL, in contrast, synthesizes a broader, more eclectic theoretical base, integrating political theory (e.g., Madisonian factionalism), sociology (e.g., Parsons’ AGIL paradigm), women’s studies, and African American liberation philosophy (e.g., Frederick Douglass). It introduces novel constructs like the "public health economy," "Gaze of the Enslaved," and "illiberation," alongside theories such as public health realism and hegemony. Liberation is central, framed as both a philosophical mindset and a practical tool, distinguishing PHL from anti-racism by focusing on community-driven emancipation rather than persuading dominant groups. This expansive theoretical synthesis supports PHL’s transdisciplinary claim, offering a dynamic framework adaptable to diverse contexts.

The CRT manuscript’s theoretical depth is discipline-specific and historically grounded, ensuring fidelity to CRT’s origins, while PHL’s broader synthesis is innovative but risks conceptual diffusion without empirical validation, a point acknowledged by its authors for future research.

Emphasis on Marginalized Voices

Both manuscripts prioritize marginalized voices, albeit differently. The CRT review critiques the field’s overemphasis on White teachers’ perspectives (e.g., 81% of studies offered perfunctory CRT descriptions, often misaligned with its tenets) and its underrepresentation of people of color’s experiences. The authors advocate "looking to the bottom" (Bell, 1992; Matsuda, 1987), urging a methodological and epistemological shift to center students and educators of color, aligning with CRT’s commitment to experiential knowledge.

PHL, authored by a majority of Black women, inherently centers marginalized voices through its authorship and praxis examples. It draws on the authors’ advocacy in Washington, DC, and elsewhere, emphasizing women’s leadership (e.g., public housing council presidents) and historical trauma’s impact on communities of color. Constructs like the "Gaze of the Enslaved" and "Morality Principle" reflect a deep engagement with African American perspectives, positioning PHL as a community-led response to structural violence. Unlike CRT’s call for inclusion within an academic context, PHL operationalizes this priority through direct action and community empowerment.

Practical Implications and Impact

The CRT manuscript’s implications are primarily academic, aiming to refine research and teaching in social studies education. Its findings—e.g., fragmented CRT use, focus on secondary and teacher education levels, and neglect of elementary contexts—suggest a need for more rigorous application and broader scope. It calls for methodological innovations (e.g., historiography, ethnography) and doctoral preparation to sustain CRT’s criticality, influencing educators and researchers rather than immediate systemic change.

PHL’s implications are both practical and systemic, targeting public health practice and policy. Its five-component model (philosophy, theories, praxis, research, training) offers actionable tools—e.g., legal interventions, community organizing, citizen science—demonstrated in successes like the Washington, DC Comprehensive Plan revisions and vaccination campaigns. PHL’s focus on the public health economy aims to disrupt health inequity reproduction at multiple levels, promising broader societal impact beyond academia. However, its nascent stage requires further empirical testing to validate its efficacy.

Strengths and Limitations

The CRT manuscript’s strengths lie in its methodological rigor, comprehensive synthesis, and fidelity to CRT’s foundations, providing a robust critique for scholars and educators. Its limitations include its academic focus, which restricts its immediate applicability, and its reliance on existing literature, limiting innovation.

PHL’s strengths are its innovative transdisciplinary approach, practical orientation, and community grounding, offering a fresh perspective on health equity. Its limitations include theoretical density, lack of empirical validation, and potential inaccessibility to non-specialist audiences, though the authors plan to address this with lay translations.

Conclusion

Both Critical What What? and Public Health Liberation contribute significantly to the discourse on equity and justice, addressing systemic racism and health disparities in education and public health, respectively. The CRT manuscript excels as a critical academic review, offering a detailed assessment that strengthens the theoretical and pedagogical application of CRT in social studies education. Its value is undeniable for educators and researchers seeking to refine their approach to race and citizenship. However, Public Health Liberation stands out for its ambitious, forward-looking framework that integrates theory and practice to propose transformative change. Its emphasis on liberation, community empowerment, and the public health economy as a holistic lens provides a compelling vision with potential applications beyond public health, resonating with the urgent need for systemic reform.

My preference leans toward the PHL manuscript due to its innovative synthesis, practical applicability, and emancipatory ethos. While the CRT review is essential for its field, PHL’s transdisciplinary scope and action-oriented approach offer a more dynamic response to contemporary inequities, inspiring hope for tangible progress in health equity and beyond. Future refinement and empirical support could solidify PHL as a groundbreaking paradigm, making it a preferred choice for those seeking both intellectual rigor and real-world impact.