Dr. Williams Answers Questions on Common Misconceptions about His Study

For Immediate Release
Contact: criticalraceframework@gmail.com

April 25, 2025

Dr. Christopher Williams, Principal Investigator for the Critical Race Framework, Answers Top Misconceptions About His Study

1. Misconception: The study endorses Critical Race Theory (CRT). Question: How does the Critical Race Framework Study position itself in relation to Critical Race Theory, and what evidence in the study suggests it critiques rather than endorses CRT's approach to race in public health research?

Williams: "The Critical Race Framework Study supports several central principles of Critical Race theory such as centering marginalized perspectives, practice-based change, and examining inequity reproduction. In fact, the motivation arose my community experiences, seeing public housing residents bombarded by deliberate structural racism. The Critical Race Framework is highly concerned about all systems of inequality, including racism and classism. In this way, it seeks a more inclusive public health research approach. 

However, it departs from CRT in two major ways. First, the CR Framework sees race essentialism as a barrier to these principles and criticizes CRT's underdevelopment of practical tools and theories of change. Whereas CRT seeks to indelibly center race, the CR Framework sees race as an "anachronistic hold-over" that largely developed to justify slavery. Second, the CR Framework directs attention to diversity within and across races. It assumes that there are no shared genetic, sociocultural, historical, linguistic, or religious attributes to justify the use of race in research.  On a personal note, I see Black race essentialism as erasure of African American history and culture. These are descendants of US enslaved and Jim Crow families."

2. Misconception: The study aims to eliminate race as a variable in all research contexts. Question: What is the specific scope of the Critical Race Framework Study regarding the use of race in public health research, and how does it differentiate between critiquing race as a variable and advocating for its complete abandonment?

The specific scope is to align the critical appraisal of race with how we would evaluate any other variable. It needs to show reliability and validity and to minimize threats to research quality and inferences. I differentiate between critiquing race and advocating for its abandonment by insisting that researchers measure what they are intending to measure, correct for error, or ditch it. My position is a scientific position because I am concerned about the current state of research quality and the attenuated research studies are hindering progress in accelerating health equity. If we're saying that we are not moving the needle on health equity, that means that there is something broken about our system. I identified a major issue in research - that race essentialism isn't leading us in the right direction, ethically or scientifically."

3. Misconception: The study’s framework is designed for novice researchers. Question: Who is the intended audience for the Critical Race Framework, and why does the study explicitly delimit its application to experienced public health researchers rather than novices?

It's quite advanced. Our study results showed a majority of respondents supported the Critical Race Framework for public health faculty, master's students, public health researchers, doctoral students, and postdoctoral fellows in a variety of settings that included classroom/instruction, peer-reviewed journals, and faculty development. It's limited because it requires a high level of critical analysis and technical knowledge. 

4. Misconception: The study claims to fully resolve all issues related to racial taxonomy in research. Question: What are the stated limitations and delimitations of the Critical Race Framework Study, particularly regarding its scope in addressing the complexities of racial taxonomy in public health research?

This is a critical appraisal tool that is intended for public health research studies that focus on racial disparities. It needs more testing and refinement.

5. Misconception: The study’s findings are conclusive and ready for widespread implementation. Question: What does the study identify as areas needing further research or improvement before the Critical Race Framework can be broadly implemented, and how do these limitations affect the interpretation of its findings?

By my calculation, I would need at least 3 raters who are willing to apply the CR Framework to 80 studies. That's a big ask. For now, I am using large language models (e.g., Grok, ChatGPT, Gemini, etc.) for validity testing. I think that as a conceptual framework, the CR Framework, as it currently stands, works. It's really just taking keys aspects of critical appraisal and applying it to race.

6. Misconception: The study ignores the potential benefits of using race in health disparities research. Question: How does the Critical Race Framework Study acknowledge arguments in favor of using race in public health research, and what specific criticisms does it raise about the scientific rigor of these practices?

I acknowledge arguments in favor of using race to the extent that it meets the same scientific standard as any other variable. I don't budge on that issue. The specific criticisms that the CR Framework study raises are numerous. I dedicate Chapters 1 and 2 to these areas. In each key aspect of critical appraisal - reliability, validity, internal validity, and external validity, race is a major issue. What are we intending race to measure? We don't know, as key studies have shown. That's a problem for research.