Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research
Abstract
There has been a remarkable push for the use of positionality statements-also known as reflexivity statements-in scientific-journal articles and other research literatures. Grounded in reputable philosophical traditions, positionality statements are meant to address genuine concerns about the limits of knowledge production. However, there are at least three reasons why they should be avoided in scholarship. First, it is impossible to construct credible positionality statements because they are constrained by the very positionality they seek to address. Second, positionality statements are unnecessary because reducing bias-positional or otherwise-in scientific literatures does not hinge on the biographical details of individual scholars but on the integrity of the collective process of truth-seeking. Third, by asking scholars to disclose information about themselves, positionality statements undermine the very norms and practices that safeguard the impartiality of research. Instead of asking individual scholars to issue subjective declarations about their positionalities, scholarly communities should focus on improving the rules of intersubjective competition at the heart of scientific progress. In our view, the most productive path to increasing representation and reducing positional bias in research is to protect the freedom of scholarly inputs while insisting on methodological transparency and rigor.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A positionality statement is also known as a reflectivity statement which should be used to recognise that all research contributions are made by subjective individuals with a particular perspective on the world based on their background.
“Savolainen et al. (2023) point out that a positionality statement is also known as a reflectivity statement which should be used to recognise that all research contributions are made by subjective individuals with a particular perspective on the world based on their background.”
From Researcher Positionality: Ways to Include it in a Qualitative Research Design (2025) · cites this paper as Savolainen et al. (2023)
Cites
Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/0010-0285(73)90033-9 · Cited by 9,984 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Availability bias, as another example, describes the human tendency to rely most heavily on information that is readily available rather than a more representative sample of the evidence (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973).”
BackgroundQualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines
Malterud, K. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(01)05627-6 · Cited by 5,014 · see citing works
Racial Inequality in Psychological Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for the Future
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., & Mortenson, E. (2020) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691620927709 · Cited by 1,049 · see citing works
Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., Schiavone, S. R., Bottesini, J., Thorn, F. S., Vazire, S., Esterling, K. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2021) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-021-01142-4 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Effects of sugar ingestion expectancies on mother-child interactions
Hoover, D. W., & Milich, R. (1994) · Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology · doi:10.1007/bf02168088 · Cited by 56 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Confirmation bias, for example, speaks to people’s tendency to seek out information that supports their preferred view of the world (e.g., Hoover & Milich, 1994).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Researcher Positionality: Ways to Include it in a Qualitative Research Design
Goundar, P. R. (2025) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069251321251 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
“Savolainen et al. (2023) point out that a positionality statement is also known as a re fl ectivity statement which should be used to recognise that all research contributions are made by subjective individuals with a particular perspective on the world based on their background.”
- Authors
- Savolainen, J., Casey, P. J., McBrayer, J. P., & Schwerdtle, P. N.
- Affiliations
- Wayne State University (US)
- Holy Family University (US)
- Fort Lewis College (US)
- Heidelberg University (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Savolainen, Jukka
- Venue
- Perspectives on Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-02-13
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1331-1338
- ISSN
- 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6924
- OpenAlex
- W4320482441
- Cited by
- 148
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 49 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 63.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › General Psychology › Academic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology
- Keywords
- positionality statements, reflexivity, position bias, researcher positionality, research integrity, methodological transparency, research rigor, representation in research, author disclosure
- MeSH terms
- Research, Knowledge
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