*5.3. Benefits to PPH*

The primary contribution of CDA to PPH research is its alignment with PPH's fundamental goals and alternate ways of seeking information. It has been argued that PPH research is frequently influenced by the research paradigms of the biomedical sciences. As a result, the wrong questions are often asked, the wrong methods are often used, and the wrong conclusions are often drawn to affect meaningful change in population health [3]. PPH research ought to fulfill key aims of PPH: to address the social determinants of health and reduce health inequities. This purpose is consistent with the principles of critical studies and social justice. This objective often requires researchers to focus on how individuals socially stratify, use their power, and construct health. CDA research accomplishes this through its critical impetus and constructivist orientation.

Additionally, while not all PPH research and initiatives focus specifically on marginalized populations, this is an important area of emphasis, because marginalization is a significant social determinant of health. The analysis of how language serves to produce and maintain uneven societal power relations [18] is fundamental to CDA; thus, it is a useful tool for examining how dominant discourses construct marginalized populations and health in a way that further impedes health for already marginalized communities.

#### **6. Conclusions**

This paper has explored the value of critical discourse analysis to population public health research. There are three principles that are crucial to the effectiveness and success of CDA: (1) CDA research should contribute to social justice; (2) CDA is strongly based in theory; and (3) CDA draws from constructivist epistemology. As with any other methodology, CDA has both strengths and weaknesses. Its strengths include that its critical impetus aligns with the social justice orientation of PPH, its attention to ideology enables effective inquiry into public beliefs about health, and its constructivist roots make it ideal for analyzing how health policy is formed and implemented. Weaknesses or challenges posed to CDA include that it is often excessively politicized, and its findings are often not generalizable. This analysis demonstrates the need for researchers in population public health to consider critical discourse analysis as an approach to understanding the social determinants of health and eliminating health inequities in order to achieve the health and wellness of all.

Through this exploration of the value of critical discourse analysis in public health research, the authors have learned and demonstrated the following. CDA is a method of examining how meaning about a particular phenomenon is constructed through language within a socio-political context. Intrinsic to CDA is the analysis of how language serves to produce and maintain societal power relations [8,9]; thus, it serves as a useful tool in examining how dominant discourses construct health issues. The aims of PPH, particularly the elimination of health inequity, is inherently socio-political. A PPH approach posits that health is socially, economically, and environmentally determined and that health inequities are the result of unfair inequalities in the distribution of social, economic, and environmental resources and benefits. The de-politicization of population health studies serves to reinforce the systems that produce health inequities [9]. The intrinsically political and critical stance of CDA allows us to challenge the socio-political structures and processes that create health inequities as a first step to eliminating them, fulfilling a core objective of population public health. The exploration in this study can serve as a step toward transforming how PPH research is approached in the future.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, J.N., E.O.P. and T.C.T.; methodology, J.N., E.O.P. and T.C.T.; resources, E.O.P. and T.C.T.; data curation, J.N.; writing—original draft preparation, J.N.; writing—review and editing, E.O.P. and T.C.T.; supervision, E.O.P. and T.C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
