Dr. Christopher Williams, CRF principal investigator, issues statement on misuse of "African diaspora" in health research

For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com

April 16, 2025

Dr. Christopher Williams, principal investigator of the Critical Race Framework, issues statement on misuse of "African diaspora" in health research.

The Critical Race Framework study provided a thorough examination of methodological issues with the misuse of race variables in public health research. While the study focused on the development and testing of a critical appraisal tool, Dr. Williams strongly opposes language and research that regards an "African diaspora" as meaningful and relevant to biomedical and public health research. "What is happening is the flattening of cultures to advance an anachronistic idea that there is a construct of continental races, while not really explaining anything meaningful to spur health equity," explained Christopher Williams, PhD.

He views the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Center for Prevention Science website as emblematic of a framing that must be abandoned. Their site regards Black men of the "African diaspora" as constituting different ethnic groups, sexual orientations, diverse spiritual and religious beliefs, different languages, and other demographic differences. Dr. Williams points to this evident diversity to underscore the pitfalls of race essentialism. "Even if African diaspora isn't stated, it is implied in research within and outside of public health through the collection and analysis of crude racial categories. It is time to jettison these beliefs and practices."

In calling for a restructuring of health disparities research, Dr. Williams's work takes a pro-justice orientation, aligning categorizations with lived experiences. "Some may view my study as part of polarizing political and social discourse that has defined the US in 2025, but that is a mischaracterization of my work," said Dr. Williams. "What I saying is that we need a better microscope - from carmine staining to immunostaining - essentially. We need to assume that race does not capture health burden distribution, not even close. When race is used as a proxy for structural inequities as opposed to direct measure, the findings become highly attenuated. We should be precisely and objectively measuring what we're intending to measure. If we don't, we can trust the data. Sure, the statistical output may provide estimates, but expert judgment is an equally important part of scientific process. That is an inviolable principle of scientific methods. Further, we need to enhance our understanding through the lens of the public health economy. Even if we identify a coherent, evidence categorization, that does not mean the environmental or public health economic factors are the same across geographic areas or public health economies."

The Critical Race Framework study is a major study to address gaps in the literature on the scientific viability of race in public health research. It produced the field's first critical appraisal tool for studies that use racial taxonomy. Although the tool requires refinement and further testing, it nonetheless presents a major advancement in critical appraisal theory and practice.