A Review of
Advancing the Scientific Study of Structural Racism, Concepts, Measures, and Methods
Demystifying and Defining Structural Racism
This article recommends ten ways to more rigorously study and measure the impacts and ways in which structural racism operates.
Introduction
What exactly does the term “structural racism” mean, and how can we measure it? The authors of this article argue that although the term is sometimes misused as a rhetorical device to reference policies and institutions upholding racism abstractly, structural racism can, in fact, be rigorously and accurately measured.
Generally, the authors define structural racism as a process of “racialized logics and rules of social interaction” that create “measurable patterns of racial inequality.” These logics and rules refer to policies, laws, and social customs reinforcing racial hierarchies and yielding group-based advantages. In this article, the authors identify the key features of structural racism and present ten actionable recommendations to improve the conceptualization and measurement of structural racism, given the lack of robust empirical research regarding the topic.
Tyson Brown is a Professor of Sociology and Medicine at Duke University. Patricia Homan is an Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of Research and Strategic Initiatives at Florida State University. Victor Ray is an Associate Professor in the Departments of Sociology and Criminology and African American Studies at the University of Iowa.
Methods and Findings
The author’s analysis builds upon existing research across sociology, economics, history, and other related academic disciplines. The authors synthesize the key features of structural racism across these fields of study and present strengths and weaknesses regarding how it is typically measured. Following this assessment, the research team proposes recommendations and best practices for researchers to adopt.
Although the authors wrote this article with researchers as their intended audience, the research guidance is also relevant to practitioners. Three key recommendations that can best help practitioners define and measure the effects of structural racism are summarized below. These recommendations were selected based on their foundational importance and relevance to practitioners across fields. Please see the full linked article for a complete list of the ten recommendations, including how to operationalize structural racism’s multifaceted features, its function as a system, and its institutionalized nature.
Foundational features of structural racism and how to measure them:
| Foundational features of structural racism | Best practices for measurement |
| Relational power dynamics: The authors highlight how structural racism distributes resources and risks based on race. They emphasize how biologized differences between people do not inherently produce racial inequities, but as “products of socially constructed racial hierarchies that subordinate and stigmatize these groups while privileging and elevating whites.” | Given this subordination and system of hierarchy, the authors argue that efforts to define and measure structural racism should explicitly analyze power imbalances in educational, economic, and political disparities. They pose two key questions for analysis: “How do decision-makers leverage policies or norms to maintain racialized advantages? How do perceptions of power sustain racial hierarchies?” |
| White normativity: The authors argue that the normalization of white supremacy or ‘white normativity’ upholds racial inequalities of structural racism. For example, race-neutral policies promote white normativity by minimizing the effects of racism and facilitating practices that deny the existence of racism itself, like claiming a lack of awareness of racial disparities. | Empirical measurement of white normativity is lacking, given the complexity of how cultural norms and practices interact to define it. To address this gap, the authors push researchers to synthesize learnings across different data sources, such as archival, interview, and social media/search engine data. Specific dimensions of structural racism can be difficult to detect in practice; therefore, using less traditional data sources can help practitioners better understand how white normativity manifests in their institutions. |
| Racial actors: The term ‘structural racism’ has been used as an abstract phrase that relinquishes blame from individuals. Although structural racism operates through the complex interplay of institutions and systemic practices rather than individual actions alone, the authors highlight that identifying actors advancing structural racism is essential for developing effective interventions to address racial inequities. | The authors argue that specific public and private actors have a higher propensity for shaping and perpetuating structural racism. For example, practitioners should consider the role that actors play in the criminal-legal system (e.g., police departments), politicians, government agencies, HR departments, and others in their specific industries. |
Conclusions
Overall, the authors highlight key features that define structural racism and recommend paths forward to better empirically measure its impacts. They argue that understanding how structural racism manifests requires analyzing racialized power dynamics, identifying the role of white normativity in maintaining racial inequality, and naming the specific racial actors that uphold racial inequalities in various sectors. Understanding these nuances of structural racism is a critical prerequisite to begin addressing them.
Thank you for visiting RRAPP
Please help us improve the site by answering three short questions.