Ethnicity & health · 2026
Is doing better science enough?: An autoethnographic study of a multidisciplinary collaboration to measure structural racism.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Adkins-Jackson Paris B, Haozous Emily A, Kim Boeun, Cooke Alicia, Hladek Melissa D, Leatherwood Darnell, Riser Tiffany, Johnson Odis, Westlund Erik, Samuel Laura J, Crews Deidra C, Gee Gilbert, Thorpe Roland J, Bandeen-Roche Karen, Grey-Coker Sierra, Szanton Sarah L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Addressing structural racism remains a critical challenge in population health and social sciences, as traditional quantitative approaches often fail to disrupt long-standing racialized health hierarchies. This study critically interrogates the process of a multidisciplinary scientific collaboration attempting to operationalize and measure life course structural racism while enacting an anti-racist praxis.
DESIGN: Utilizing a collaborative analytic autoethnography framework grounded in social cognitive theory and anti-racist praxis, our team - comprising biostatisticians, nurse scientists, epidemiologists, gerontologists, social scientists, and a nephrologist across racialized groups, career stages, and institutions - treated our team process as a socio-analytical field site. We examined the tension between individualistic paradigms and systemic measurement, gathering qualitative field data from team deliberations, and a dedicated focus group.
RESULTS: Three primary autoethnographic themes emerged: operationalizing and understanding structural racism, constructing methodological infrastructure, and navigating accountability and the pursuit of a multidimensional measure. While qualitative life-course history interviews, expert panels, public podcasts, and a national survey advanced conceptual and data infrastructure, significant methodological barriers - including historical address recall, geocoding missingness, and geographic mismatch - prevented immediate measure validation. Autoethnographic reflection revealed how institutional incentives, capitalistic academic pressures, and funding mechanisms complicate collective equity work.
CONCLUSION: By interrogating our collaborative process, we demonstrate that doing 'different science' requires prioritizing reflexive, collective team dynamics and infrastructure over rapid measure production. Embedding anti-racist praxis and community accountability into scientific collaborations offers a transformative pathway for advancing structural racism research and dismantling systemic health inequities.
DESIGN: Utilizing a collaborative analytic autoethnography framework grounded in social cognitive theory and anti-racist praxis, our team - comprising biostatisticians, nurse scientists, epidemiologists, gerontologists, social scientists, and a nephrologist across racialized groups, career stages, and institutions - treated our team process as a socio-analytical field site. We examined the tension between individualistic paradigms and systemic measurement, gathering qualitative field data from team deliberations, and a dedicated focus group.
RESULTS: Three primary autoethnographic themes emerged: operationalizing and understanding structural racism, constructing methodological infrastructure, and navigating accountability and the pursuit of a multidimensional measure. While qualitative life-course history interviews, expert panels, public podcasts, and a national survey advanced conceptual and data infrastructure, significant methodological barriers - including historical address recall, geocoding missingness, and geographic mismatch - prevented immediate measure validation. Autoethnographic reflection revealed how institutional incentives, capitalistic academic pressures, and funding mechanisms complicate collective equity work.
CONCLUSION: By interrogating our collaborative process, we demonstrate that doing 'different science' requires prioritizing reflexive, collective team dynamics and infrastructure over rapid measure production. Embedding anti-racist praxis and community accountability into scientific collaborations offers a transformative pathway for advancing structural racism research and dismantling systemic health inequities.