In their article, “A discussion on the notion of race in cognitive neuroscience research,” Anelis Kaiser Trujillo et al. (2022) discuss whether neuroscience research must ban the word “race.” The topic also explores theoretical aspects around the social development of race and its impact on science research. According to the reading, although the notion of racism has no scientific backing and commonly produces misleading assertions, it remains significant because of its political importance of race. It, however, warns against merely substituting race with other sociocultural categories or biosocial concepts because the history and contemporary nature of racial oppression cannot be ignored.
The arguments are generally presented clearly, with the supporting evidence well laid out. There are instances, however, that the language of race and social construction are complex and may need clarification. This is supported by numerous references in previous studies and scholarly works as evidence. Its arguments are based on theory, critique of practice and insights into sociologies.
This argument is primarily constructed using theory and the sociological perspective in which racial groups are considered. Kaiser Trujillo et al.’s (2022) theoretical assumptions focus on the idea of race as a social phenomenon with considerable political significance. Critical race theory and sociological interpretations of race provide credence to these assumptions.
The reading conforms to the broader discussion on the social construction of race and its effect on science. It is similar to other works that highlight how racial analysis in research must be critically reviewed, its outcome, repercussions, and consequences. On the other hand, it reveals the risks of substituting “race” with different categories that could distinguish it from others’ viewpoints.
The author’s assertions align with scholars promoting the evaluation of race as a socially constructed entity in scientific research. It fits right into the people arguing that scientific racism should be addressed. Nevertheless, the author could dispute proponents of the total renunciation on the part of the notion of race in sociological analysis aimed at revealing societal structures.
This reading is relevant because of its possible significance as a practice for scientific studies, particularly regarding neuroscience. It compels us to think of race’s effects on study designs, measurements, and results. The paper should also provide a better understanding of the social construction of race, its meaning and consequences.
The reading is theoretical and gives an account of the power-knowledge relation involved with racial constructs in science. It explains how using race in a study reinforces ethnic disparities among people.
The reading provides a series of helpful insights that underscore the pitfalls of substituting race with some other categories and highlights the significance of acknowledging the socially constructed nature of race in research practices.
Although it does not bring in new strategies, it makes a methodological proposal through critical reflection on racialization in research.
These results are highly relevant for a diverse range of studies concerning ethnicity, meaning they can be extended beyond these specific areas of study. However, some of these observations might be true only under particular research settings and or across different societies.
In conclusion, Kaiser Trujillo et al.’s article on how race functions in cognitive neuroscience is worth reading. This essay critically evaluates the book‘s core ideas, methodological assumptions, and broader significance in compliance with the proper language-and-legal studies approach to obtain more profound insight into cognitive science and race interactions.
Reference
Kaiser Trujillo, A., Kessé, E.N., Rollins, O., Della Sala, S. and Cubelli, R., 2022. A discussion on the notion of race in cognitive neuroscience research. Cortex, 150(C).
write