The health sciences have an obligation to transform how ‘race’ and racial language is taught, researched, and applied. Despite longstanding critiques, racial terminology remains prevalent in health research, often without adequate justification, thereby potentially perpetuating biological determinism and racial essentialism. We explore the perspectives of diverse academic leaders at a South African higher education institution on the meaning, utilisation, and appropriateness of racial terminology in health sciences research, including how its use may be improved.

Eleven purposively sampled participants took part in semi-structured interviews and transcripts thematically analysed. Participants were predominantly female (63%), PhD-qualified (46%), employed as both lecturers and researchers (73%), and self-identified members of previously disadvantaged South African ‘racial’ groupings (63.3%).

Participants held differing conceptualisations of racial terminology, shaped by personal and academic exposure, although always touching on sociocultural forces. Perspectives on these concepts’ relationship to health outcomes were varied, with some referring to ‘race’ as an “intellectually lazy” “proxy for disadvantage”. Some saw continued use of ‘race’ in research as necessary to address health inequities and ensure generalisability of findings; numerous suggestions for improving its inclusion were made. Public discussions and standardised guidance on the inclusion of identity concepts in research was also called for. Accounts made clear that the challenge of ‘race’ in research is inseparable from challenges in the institution and society at large; this connection must be treated with respect, protecting research against encroachment of societal stigma and ensuring research prevents perpetuation of such stigma.