Integrated Methods for Applying Critical Race Theory to Qualitative COVID-19 Equity Research

Background: Racism persists, underscoring the need to rapidly document the perspec­tives and experiences of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) groups as well as marginalized populations (eg, formerly incarcerated people) during pandemics.Objective: This methods paper offers a model for using Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) and related critical meth­odologies (ie, feminist and decolonizing methods) to inform the conceptualization, methods, and dissemination of qualitative research undertaken in response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.Sample: Using purposive snowball sam­pling, we identified organizations involved with health equity and social justice advo­cacy among BIPOC and socially marginal­ized populations. Focus group participants (N=63) included community members, organizers, activists, and health workers.Design: We conducted topic-specific (eg, reproductive justice) and population-specific (eg, Asian and Pacific Islander) focus groups (N=16 focus groups) in rapid succes­sion using Zoom software.Methods: A self-reflexive, iterative praxis guided theorization, data collection and analysis. We obtained community input on study design, the semi-structured discussion guide, ethical considerations and dissemi­nation. Applying PHCRP, we assessed our assumptions iteratively. We transcribed each interview verbatim, de-identified the data, then used two distinct qualitative tech­niques to code and analyze them: thematic analysis to identify unifying concepts that recur across focus groups and narrative analysis to keep each participant’s story intact.Results: The praxis facilitated relationship-building with partners and supported the iterative assessment of assumptions. Logisti­cal constraints included difficulty ensuring the confidentiality of virtual discussions.Conclusions: These novel approaches provide an effective model for community-engaged qualitative research during a pandemic. Ethn Dis. 2022;32(3):243-256; doi:10.18865/ed.32.3.243