Some Linguistics Suggestions for Continuing the Work

by mandymorgan February 4, 2025

Public health research plays a crucial role in understanding and addressing disparities in healthcare, access, and outcomes. However, recent federal restrictions targeting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) initiatives have placed new barriers on how researchers can frame their work—especially when seeking funding from agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF). Even NASA, NASA! is under fire.

With grants now being flagged for words like “inequality,” “disparities,” “inclusion,” and even “women,” public health researchers must find ways to continue their vital work while avoiding politically charged language that could put their funding at risk. This guide outlines strategies to reframe research proposals and communications in a way that maintains scientific integrity while ensuring compliance with new funding guidelines.

Below are just our thoughts…don’t consider this grantsmanship guidance. Too much is still in flux.

Focus on Geographic and Economic Factors Instead of Identity Groups

Many flagged terms are associated with race, gender, or DEIA-specific language. Instead of focusing on identity-based disparities, frame public health research around broader socioeconomic and geographic differences:

• Rural and Urban Health Gaps – Instead of “racial health disparities,” use “geographic variation in health outcomes.”
• Healthcare Access and Workforce Development – Instead of “increasing diversity in medical training,” use “expanding healthcare workforce pipelines.”
• Structural Barriers to Care – Instead of “systemic inequities in healthcare,” discuss “challenges in service delivery and healthcare infrastructure.”

These shifts maintain the research focus while avoiding direct references to DEIA frameworks.

Reframe Research Around Health Outcomes and System Performance

Rather than emphasizing social or identity-based disparities, align research with measurable public health and healthcare system outcomes:

• Health Outcomes – Instead of “inequities in chronic disease rates,” discuss “variability in disease prevalence and treatment effectiveness.”
• Preventive Care and Intervention Access – Instead of “barriers to care for marginalized communities,” explore “differences in preventive service utilization.”
• Workforce Retention and Training – Instead of “gender disparities in healthcare leadership,” analyze “factors influencing provider retention and training.”

Public health funders value data-driven research that identifies gaps in service and health outcomes. Reframing studies in this way keeps them fundable while maintaining their core goals.

Use Neutral, Technical Language Instead of DEIA Terms

Since proposals are being flagged for specific terms, researchers can strategically swap out politically sensitive words for neutral or technical alternatives:

🚫 Restricted terms → ✅ Possible? replacements

• “Health disparities” → “Differences in health outcomes”
• “Equity” → “Fair resource allocation”
• “Marginalized populations” → “Historically low-access groups”
• “Structural barriers” → “System-level challenges”
• “Diversity” → “Broadening participation”

These adjustments maintain the research’s focus while reducing the likelihood of funding rejections.

Remove Advocacy Language and Emphasize Evidence-Based Research

Funding agencies will be increasingly scrutinizing proposals that appear advocacy-driven rather than research-focused. Public health researchers should ensure their language remains rooted in empirical study rather than social change rhetoric:

🚫 “This study seeks to promote inclusive healthcare access…”
✅ “This study will analyze patterns in healthcare service utilization…”

🚫 “We aim to dismantle systemic biases in medical training…”
✅ “We will evaluate medical education pathways and workforce retention trends…”

🚫 “Our goal is to address racial health disparities…”
✅ “This research examines variations in healthcare outcomes across places where people live.”

These adjustments shift the focus from advocacy to data-driven analysis, making proposals more likely to pass funding reviews.

Align Research With Public Health and Economic Priorities

Despite these restrictions, research still needs to demonstrate public health impact. Aligning studies with broadly accepted priorities like economic growth, workforce development, and healthcare efficiency can provide additional cover for sensitive topics:

🔹 Workforce Shortages – Research on healthcare disparities can be framed as addressing shortages in medical professionals.
🔹 Disease Prevention and Cost Reduction – Studies on access gaps can be positioned as efforts to improve preventive care and lower long-term healthcare costs.
🔹 Emergency Preparedness – Research on health outcomes in underserved areas can be linked to strengthening national health security and disaster preparedness.

By tying research to these overarching priorities, public health scholars can continue critical work without directly engaging with restricted terminology.

Final Thoughts: Protecting Public Health Research in a Changing Landscape

While new federal restrictions present challenges, public health researchers can still pursue important work by adjusting how they frame their studies. By using neutral technical language, focusing on measurable health outcomes, and aligning research with widely accepted public health goals, scholars can ensure their work remains fundable while staying true to their mission.

Scientific progress often adapts to political shifts—by being strategic in messaging, public health researchers can continue advancing knowledge and improving health outcomes without compromising their work.

Make a Difference Now – Subscribe and Amplify!

Public health needs urgent action, and you can help. Subscribe for free to receive weekly updates filled with expert insights and opportunities to lead change.
🚀 Don’t wait! Share this blog today and help us create a healthier, more informed world.