Yes, we respect data sovereignty and Tribal ownership of the data collected as part of the funded project.
New Research Support grants should have the potential to inform and drive transformative change to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. We aim to support research that centers community needs, experiences, assets, and expertise and deeply and critically interrogates upstream solutions to root causes of racial and Indigenous health inequities. These research projects should employ an intersectional lens to explore and combat the multifaceted ways in which multiple systems of oppression collude, ultimately fostering more holistic and effective strategies for promoting the social, political, and economic conditions that support health and health equity.
Funding will support systematic inquiry into solutions, such as programs, policies, and/or practices, that are designed to improve racial and Indigenous health equity. Such projects might include experimental or quasi-experimental assessment of the health impacts of a solution, implementation science approaches to identify or modify viable policy or programmatic responses to community needs and priorities, pilot projects to test the feasibility of novel initiatives, development and validation of racial or Indigenous equity measures, etc.
Research must be appropriately and equitably designed and implemented, and findings must have the potential to lead to immediate real-world action and impact.
E4A does not have a focus or preference for specific topical areas for research projects, as long as those projects are solutions-oriented, targeted at root causes of racial and Indigenous health inequities, and are especially impactful and timely given the current sociopolitical context. However, RWJF is particularly interested in strategies that promote healthy and equitable communities (both the people and the places in which people live), support economic inclusion for family well-being, and facilitate equitable, accessible, and affordable public health and healthcare systems (learn more about RWJF’s focus areas here).
E4A does not hold a hierarchical view of particular research designs or methods. The methods employed should be appropriate for answering the research question(s).
A variety of research designs, methods, methodologies, and approaches can help improve the evidence base to advance Indigenous and racial health equity. All studies must include a clear research question(s) and use appropriate methods and frameworks to answer the question(s). These can be inclusive of Indigenous knowledges, approaches, methodologies, methods, and conceptualizations such as Traditional Ecological Knowledge or Western research methods and frameworks, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches such as randomized trials, quasi- or natural experiments, grounded theory approaches, case studies, network or systems analyses, and a variety of other study designs and methods. Primary and/or secondary data collection, linkages, and analysis are acceptable.
E4A views research as a tool to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. Regardless of the research design, research processes should be antiracist and anticolonial, reflect multi-cultural validity, and prioritize equitable power-sharing with participant ownership and leadership.
As a research funding program, E4A does not fund activities associated with implementing solutions or general program operations. Examples of research that is not a good fit with the program objectives include, projects that focus on describing the existence and/or scope of a problem or disparity; research that is purely theoretical in nature or driven solely by academic curiosity; literature reviews; community needs assessments; development and validation of screening tools; basic biomedical inquiry; drug therapy or device research; animal or plant science (absent a clear framework demonstrating the connection to human health); and research concerning solutions that are focused on changing individual behaviors without acknowledging or addressing greater environmental or structural changes (i.e. individual training, including implicit bias training and curriculum development are not a good fit for this funding opportunity).
E4A does not hold a hierarchical view of particular research designs or methods. The methods employed should be appropriate for answering the research question(s).
A variety of research designs, methods, methodologies, and approaches can help improve the evidence base to advance Indigenous and racial health equity. All studies must include a clear research question(s) and use appropriate methods and frameworks to answer the question(s). These can be inclusive of Indigenous knowledges, approaches, methodologies, methods, and conceptualizations such as Traditional Ecological Knowledge or Western research methods and frameworks, including quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches such as randomized trials, quasi- or natural experiments, grounded theory approaches, case studies, network or systems analyses, and a variety of other study designs and methods. Primary and/or secondary data collection, linkages, and analysis are acceptable.
E4A views research as a tool to advance racial and Indigenous health equity. Regardless of the research design, research processes should be antiracist and anticolonial, reflect multi-cultural validity, and prioritize equitable power-sharing with participant ownership and leadership.
Racial and Indigenous health equity refers to the conditions in which race, indigeneity, or ethnicity no longer predict a person’s ability to live a healthy life. It requires that society be free of systems and structures that unfairly disadvantage Indigenous Peoples and people of color (Black, Latino/a/x, Asian, Pacific Islander, and people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds), compared to white people.
Root causes are the structural factors, such as laws, policies, norms, practices, and power dynamics that drive racial and Indigenous health inequities. Root causes are often thought of as the cause of the cause of the health outcomes. For example, people who live in neighborhoods with high levels of pollution experience higher rates of asthma and other poor health outcomes. The direct causes of these health outcomes are the toxins from pollutants and the location and condition of the housing. But the cause of these causes (or the reason there are high levels of pollution in certain neighborhoods) stems from racist housing, zoning, environmental, and economic policies, like redlining and racial covenants, that restricted access to housing on the basis of racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Upstream solutions address these causes, intervening to create new or adjust existing systems, policies, and practices to ensure equitable distribution of and access to health-promoting resources. Upstream solutions do not solely mitigate individual-level risks or modify individual knowledge or behaviors, but rather change the systems in which individuals operate or exist.
Power sharing involves ensuring there is shared leadership among project partners at every stage of the research process. This includes defining the research questions, determining the type of evidence needed for culturally and contextually relevant results, and making decisions about data collection and dissemination. Power sharing is evidenced through balanced governance structures and decision-making processes and equitable allocation of resources.
At E4A, our definition of solution is quite broad. A solution is anything that is intended to have a positive impact on outcomes for those who are exposed to or experience it. Solutions could include, but are not limited to, systems, structures, laws, policies, norms, large-scale programs and practices that determine the distribution of resources and opportunities, which in turn influence individuals’ options and behaviors. We are interested in solutions that target "upstream" causes of health inequities, NOT individual behavior-change interventions (e.g., programs that encourage individuals to modify their personal behavior in the absence of greater environmental or structural changes).
When we refer to "community" or "communities," we are not referring solely to a place-based concept. While community may refer to geography (as in a town or neighborhood), we use the term(s) broadly to refer to any group of people who share a common history or common social, economic, and political interests, regardless of physical proximity to one another.
Applicants should be specific and intentional about who they envision interpreting, using, and applying the research findings. This might include elected officials, public agencies, program administrators, community leaders or groups, etc. Ideally, the project team will have relationships with relevant end-users before starting the research project, to ensure that their research questions, approach, outcomes of interest, and other project components align with the type of information that end-users will find useful. Letters of support from people who will use the research to inform their decision-making are strongly encouraged at the full proposal stage.
We encourage community leadership, ownership, and participation in all aspects of the research process, from conception to dissemination of the findings, and therefore endorse research approaches that center community power, including CBPR. While we do not typically fund the early stages of the CBPR process (e.g., when community members are still determining priorities), we would fund community participatory/action-oriented approaches once a specific research question has been agreed on.
E4A currently only funds school-based research if the participating school(s) is already engaged in the project. Applicants working with schools MUST submit letters of support from participating school(s) at the full proposal stage.