The DOI matches its Crossref record; 75 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Positionality Statements as a Function of Coloniality: Interrogating Reflexive Methodologies
Open accessAbstract
Abstracts: Declaration of positionality and the confession of privilege as a way of revealing unequal power dynamics in knowledge production has become an increasingly encouraged reflexive practice in international relations and other disciplines. However, we interrogate the potentially negative implications of this methodology, occurring through a reification of material, assumed, and imagined hierarchies between people, which then is advertised and (re)produced by its utterance. We further query the modernist origins of reflexive methodology, which has inspired the practice of declaring positionality, and argue that its underpinning coloniality has bearings for its use today. We then explore how this coloniality manifests: Thus, first, we consider the extent to which publicly acknowledging privilege paradoxically acts as a means of centering whiteness through the narcissistic gaze and an assertion of legitimacy. Second, we argue positionality statements offer a redemption of guilt for the hegemonic researcher. And lastly, rather than ameliorating unequal power dynamics in the production of knowledge, we contend positionality statements may constitute hidden power moves in which one is able to signal and reinstate one’s authority vis-à-vis people, but especially women, of color. We end with a call for a reparative scholarship that acknowledges these limitations in positionality statements.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color
Crenshaw, K. (1991) · Stanford Law Review · doi:10.2307/1229039 · Cited by 32,792
Austin, J. L. (1975) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001 · Cited by 21,496
The Interpretation of Cultures
Fenn, R., & Geertz, C. (1974) · Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion · doi:10.2307/1384392 · Cited by 19,154
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · Feminist Studies · doi:10.2307/3178066 · Cited by 18,364
Borderlands/La frontera: the new mestiza
Anzaldúa, G. (2017) · Censored · doi:10.1515/9780773551886-027 · Cited by 10,736
Teaching to transgress: education as the practice of freedom
(1995) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.32-4628 · Cited by 8,835
Wynter, S. (2003) · CR: The New Centennial Review · doi:10.1353/ncr.2004.0015 · Cited by 5,753
Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture
Thompson, J., Nelson, C., & Grossberg, L. (1989) · South Atlantic Review · doi:10.2307/3200554 · Cited by 2,718
Clifford, J. (1986) · Writing Culture · doi:10.1525/9780520946286-003 · Cited by 2,144
Recapturing anthropology: working in the present
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-0374 · Cited by 2,123
Metadata
- Authors
- Gani, J. K., & Khan, R. M.
- Venue
- International Studies Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-03-14
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 0020-8833 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-2478
- OpenAlex
- W4394624215
- Cited by
- 303
- References
- 75
- FWCI
- 222.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Positionality Statements as a Function of Coloniality: Interrogating Reflexive Methodologies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/isq/sqae038
- The paper
- Gani, J. K., & Khan, R. M. (2024). Positionality Statements as a Function of Coloniality: Interrogating Reflexive Methodologies. International Studies Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.