As I already discussed Pulido’s concept
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
As I already discussed Pulido’s concept of two “racial projects” in my response last week, I will
focus here on three criticisms she makes related to the conceptualization of racism under both
projects as well as one of her recommendations. She criticize the popular understanding of
racism as discrete actions; the failure to view racism as ideology; and the denial of multiple
forms of racism. I find the first criticism compelling in that in our society, looking at racial
effects in “isolation” is impossible. By saying that we must examine race in light of our political
economy—including, I would assume, a historic view of the legacy of slavery—structural
disenfranchisement by race is inherently confounded with other variables. In terms of ideology, I
must admit that in my mind, I always differentiated between racism as the deliberate act of
people and institutions, and structural disenfranchisement as some sort of byproduct of historic
or current racist practice, though I see now that that line of ‘deliberateness’ is quite unclear. A
state or a set of institutions can clearly have a racist ideology. Her third critique reminds us that
racism is not a simple mechanism and that racist actors, their motivations, and their targets are
diverse. She notes that this presents a challenge to EJ, as a united movement of the
marginalized, and makes a call to researchers to support diverse grassroots movements.
One of Pulido’s recommendations is a call for more qualitative research to complement existing
quantitative studies. The latter, she claims, may often rely upon “monolithic constructions of
race”, artificial binaries, and examinations of causality that search for distinct acts of racism. As
a person interested in qualitative methods, ethnography, and organizational history, I found this
recommendation intriguing. She critiques current analyses as being uniformly directed towards
arenas of law and policy, and calls for qualitative methodologies because of their applicability to
“movement building” and radical politics. But can qualitative research inform mainstream
policymaking and/or be a part of institutional learning as well? I suppose these methodologies
carry the imprint of their authors’ values more explicitly than regression analyses do, and their
conclusions aren’t as pat as a percentage or p-value, so those might be obstacles to their use
beyond academia. But when I reflect on my own experiences with what drives decision-making
within institutions, noting the power of both anecdotal knowledge and field experience, I wonder
if there is not a role for wider-scale, qualitative documenting of EJ to inform policy and practice.
The piece on public health offered a number of tangible strategies for improving health-related
EJ research. From connecting existing databases, to collecting more community baseline data, to
developing better biomarkers (of exposure, susceptibility, and effect), to examining residential
exposures: these first strategies deal with documenting exposure and measuring health effects of
that exposure. I would hope that there is a rich literature on these issues and that public health
researchers are turning their attention towards it. My own interest lies in community health
impacts and how epidemiological tools can be used for EJ. The paper identifies the challenge of
studying small populations with multiple exposures for which there is a general lack of data. It
also notes the critique by some groups of the continued use of “race” as an independent variable,
despite the biological heterogeneity within that category. Finally, the paper closes with a call for
participatory research to help with data collection, early identification of potential negative
effects, and community empowerment. It also notes the challenges of participatory research
including time costs and the difficulty of partnerships between mainstream and marginal groups.
