Reading up on the purpose, pros and cons of positionality statements

Reading up on more positionality statement discussions for ongoing work with Kirsty, which started from us drawing up our own positionality statements and discussing the differences [see hers and mine — and I would do mine substantially different now after a lot of thinking has gone into the topic!], and then us reading an article by Secules et al. (2021) and discussing more and more and more. Brief summaries of some literature below!

Zamzow (2023) is a nice and short introduction to many facets of the increasing prevalence of both voluntary and required positionality statements in published literature, that I took as a starting point today. But then it snowballed from there…

What is the purpose of positionality statements?

In a nutshell, positionality statements are supposed to acknowledge that, and how, researchers’ identity facets influence their research.

Massoud (2022) decribes “the price of positionality: assessing the benefits and burdens of self‐identification in research methods”. I’m mentioning the burdens below, but here are the benefits they identify:

• “Communicating privileges, connection and credibility
• Creating space for many voices to challenge structures of oppression
• Opening up new possibilities for social science
• Empowering communities
• Communicating privileges”

Do positionality statements currently achieve what they set out to achieve? Nobody really knows.

“I find it amazing that [publishing positionality statements] is becoming so widespread without any evidence that it actually achieves what it sets out to achieve,” said Patricia Nayna Schwerdtle, according to Zamzow (2023), implying that they do not. There does not actually seem to be a lot of research on that, but one project, pointed to by Zamlow (2023), is working on the “implementation and evaluation of reflexivity statements as a novel tool for cultural change”

How are they currently being used? (I am looking at my own context only)

Hampton, Reeping, & Ozkan (2021) investigate “Positionality statements in engineering education research: A look at the hand that guides the methodological tools”. They look at three journals: The Journal of Engineering Education (where the Secules et al. (2020) study was published), the International Journal of Engineering Education, and the European Journal of Engineering Education. They do not find a lot of positionality statements (not even hidden in the main body of text), but the ones they did find follow three main approaches: disclosing identities, disclosing experience and opportunities, and disclosing journeys. While stressing the importance of conversations about positionality, they warn that “we have to balance disclosures with what is relevant to the research and avoid placing members of the community in compromising positions” and conclude that “reflection, accountability, and admission of lessons learned are not readily discussed across engineering education research”.

Secules et al. (2021), in their article “positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community”, find three positionality categories utilized in engineering education research: Acknowledging practice, establishing transparency of self attributes, and contextualizing methodology. They develop a framework for reflection, see below.

What are problems with positionality statements?

Massoud (2022) decribes “the price of positionality: assessing the benefits and burdens of self‐identification in research methods”. I have summarized the benefits further up, but here is a list of burdens placed on, mostly, minorities:

• “Creating anxiety and reducing stamina”, for example by prompting distressing memories of microaggressions, assault, injustices, and trauma
• “Making identity more important than theory”, at least for those minority authors where questions of positionality are more obvious to the white male majority than asking the white male majority the same thing, hence placing an unjust burden
• “Challenging peer review and consent”. It is well established that unconscious biases have a large influence on hiring, promotion, publishing decisions, so disclosing identity facets can also mean facing that risk. Positionality statements might make anonymous peer-review impossible, but taking out any discussion of positionality for peer review then begs the question why it should be included in the published article later.

Oswald (2024) writes “Positionality statements should not force us to ‘out’ ourselves”. She makes the point that while positionality statements are intended to share how an authors position influences their research, they are demanded by actors who do not acknowledge their own power, e.g. journals and reviewers. Asking people to out themselves (or worse, others) from a position of power without acknowledging that power is dangerous, and “those in positions of power must work to acknowledge that power and wield it as a tool to protect those at risk of harm from these practices”.

Savolainen et al. (2023) write about “positionality and its problems: questioning the value of reflexivity statements in research” and list three:

1. It is impossible! If we are unconsciously biased, we are unclusciously biased and therefore cannot declare any bias. Just declaring identity facets does not help (see also “the danger of one story” somewhere in this blogpost), and how do we choose which identity facets to disclose and discuss, and which not? The author contrast positionality statements to financial conflicts of interests, which are explicitly required to disclose by most journals, because financial motivations are recognized as too strong as to rely on disclosure based on self-reflection.
2. It is unnecessary! “(a) All the participants in knowledge production are subjective agents biased by their personal interests and blind spots, and (b) the production of knowledge must be guided by a shared code of conduct derived from the scientific value system”
3. They threaten integrity! Of the review process by undermining anonymity, by introducing biases (both unconscious, and deliberate conscious in order to lift minority voices), or by becoming an incentive for authors to highlight or invent identity facets that make their work more likely to be published

How could positionality statements be made to work?

According to Zamzow (2023), proponents emphasize that “these statements have to stem from ongoing self-reflection rather than a rote checklist of attributes”.

There are some suggestions in the literature for how to do this:

Secules et al. (2021) present “Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community”. They find that positionality impacts six fundamental aspects of research and offer useful reflection prompts:

1. research topic; i.e. why am I interested in a topic, getting acces to it, have emotions about it?
2. epistemology; i.e. how do I know what I know, what lens (critical vs objective) am I using?
3. ontology; i.e. what do I (not) observe as an insider/outsider, expecting dual consciousness or single reality?
4. methodology; i.e. what traditions do I come from, which methods do I choose?
5. relation to participants / researcher-as-instrument; i.e. how do I relate to participants through power and privilege, or access to communities?
6. communication; i.e. how do I represent myself, with my name, disclosures of identity facets, language choices?

They present a framework in which one examines one’s identity dimensions, reflects on the 6 positionality dimensions listed above, and considers their influence on research quality and impact. They end their conclusions by writing “if understanding our research requires understanding one another, we must become a community that continually and bravely tells one another who we are” — which is the only statement in this article we disagreed with, thus launching us into this whole project…

Cooper et al. (2024) develop “a positionality tool to support ethical research and inclusion in the participatory sciences”, which they recommend people use independent of whether they are planning on disclosing the results. They distinguish between thinking “reflectively (for awareness of their identities and characteristics) and reflexively (from an external position for critical observation of themselves)”. This article is really interesting for our own work, taking inspiration from the same place our own work started out from, but developing a tool that looks quite different from our own. But I really like the 4 cautions they share, which are very similar to our own:

1. Avoid “equity tourism”, i.e. dipping into the topic only briefly enough to write a positionality statement, but as a performative act without attempts at deeper understanding.
2. Avoid laundry list, i.e. listing identity facets or struggles without unpacking their complexities
3. Positionality is contextual and dynamic, so always consider context
4. Consider that positionality statements may create vulnerability and safety risks (and not just mild discomfort for the privileged).

Reyes (2020) presents their “Ethnographic toolkit: Strategic positionality and researchers’ visible and invisible tools in field research”. I really like the perspective here, where researcher characteristics are tools at the researchers’ disposal, that can be, and are, strategically used in different contexts for different purposes. This metaphor also stresses how the availability of tools also influences how we approach problems (if all you have is a hammer every problem looks like a nail?). And it provides a way to discuss how “field dynamics” change depending on whether or not participants connect with certain identity facets of the researcher. While this is not the kind of toolkit I had hoped for, it is a really nice explanation of how we can think about how different identity facets influence our research.

Positionality or reflexivity?

Cuevas-Parra (2023) writes about “Positionality and reflexivity: Recognising and dismantling our privileges in childhood research through the use of windows and mirrors”. My main reason for reading this article was that I didn’t really understand the “window and mirror” thing last time I came across it, but now it makes a lot more sense. Mirrors reflect our own story and helps us find ourselves represented, windows let us see other peoples’ realities. They mention a related concept, “the danger of a single story”. Even though my work is with adults and not with children, this article is really interesting because in the relationship between adults and children there is a large, often unreflected, power differential. While positionality would mean acknowledging this, reflexivity is understanding and thinking about how to deal with this power. Trying to understand if we are mostly looking through windows or mirrors, and then trying to get a fuller view of the picture, is an important step to “challenge our viewpoints and mindsets with regards to how we position ourselves as individual human beings and as researchers, and help us to uncover issues of power, privilege and values”. At the same time, by what information we provide about us, we also influence through which windows or mirrors others see us, and try make sense of us. If they don’t find mirrors in us, or we not in others, the “danger of a single story” is to fall into stereotypical interpretations of others that are not necessarily any closer to the reality than just assuming everybody is like ourselves. So the point here is a call for reflexion on how power, privilege, and exclusionary practices intersect.

Jamieson, Govaart & Pownall (2023) write about “Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide.” I really like their definition: “if positionality refers to what we know and believe, then reflexivity is about what we do with this knowledge”, and, they stress, before, during, and after the process, not just after as reflection tends to be. Concretely, they suggest to use

1. Reflexivity in research questions and design. This means asking ourselves, and others, questions like “Why this question and not that one? What makes it “more interesting”? Are we in a better position to investigate it than someone else?” and sharing reflexive statements with each other and with subjects during data collection. However, they stress that “there is no ‘one size fits all’ for positionality or reflexivity statements, and authors should feel able to share as much (or as little) of themselves as they feel safe and comfortable with”.
2. Reflexivity in data collection. For example through preregistration of studies, so that sampling strategies or framing of studies to participants that might lead to confirmation biases etc can be explicitly addressed.
3. Reflexivity in data analysis and interpretation. This could be done for example by keeping “field notes”, logs of decisions during the process (e.g. excluding all non-complete responses to a questionnaire from analysis) and reasons for why they were made to improve transparency through documentation of the process.
4. Reflexivity in conclusions and framing. For example are we only citing studies that support our conclusions and dismissing those that contradict them? On what grounds do we recommend or ask to exclude certain reviewers?

(See also their Table 1 for a list of their reflection prompts)

One last really important point in this article: They call for integration of reflexivity into all research processes (not just as add-ons), but this has to happen through top-down support (e.g through editorial guidelines, trainings, funding decisions, …) rather than placing the burden on individuals. And maybe that’s a good thought to end this summary on for today.

Featured image: The view from my seat on the 9 hour ferry trip during which I read most of the literature summarized here, occasionally interrupted by some wave watching (thanks for reminding me to go outside, too, Kirsty!)…

Cooper, C., Hunter, D. L., Archer, J. M., Caballero-Gomez, H., Hawn, C., Johnson, V., … & Rasmussen, L. (2024). A Positionality Tool to Support Ethical Research and Inclusion in the Participatory Sciences. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 9(1).

Cuevas-Parra, P. (2023). Positionality and reflexivity: Recognising and dismantling our privileges in childhood research through the use of windows and mirrors. Global studies of childhood, 13(4), 295-309.

Hampton, C., Reeping, D., & Ozkan, D. S. (2021). Positionality statements in engineering education research: A look at the hand that guides the methodological tools. Studies in Engineering Education, 1(2), 126-141.

Jamieson, M. K., Govaart, G. H., & Pownall, M. (2023). Reflexivity in quantitative research: A rationale and beginner’s guide. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(4), e12735.

Massoud, M. F. (2022). The price of positionality: assessing the benefits and burdens of self‐identification in research methods. Journal of Law and Society, 49, S64-S86.

Oswald, F. (2024). Positionality statements should not force us to ‘out’ourselves. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(2), 185-185.

Reyes, V. (2020). Ethnographic toolkit: Strategic positionality and researchers’ visible and invisible tools in field research. Ethnography, 21(2), 220-240.

Savolainen, J., Casey, P. J., McBrayer, J. P., & Schwerdtle, P. N. (2023). Positionality and its problems: questioning the value of reflexivity statements in research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(6), 1331-1338.

Secules, S., McCall, C., Mejia, J. A., Beebe, C., Masters, A. S., L. Sánchez‐Peña, M., & Svyantek, M. (2021). Positionality practices and dimensions of impact on equity research: A collaborative inquiry and call to the community. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 19-43.

Zamzow, R. (2023). Scientists clash over positionality statements. Science, 382(6670), 501. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adm6801