Cited by 148Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesAcademic and Historical Perspectives in Psychology

Positionality and Its Problems: Questioning the Value of Reflexivity Statements in Research

Savolainen, Jukka, Casey, Patrick J., McBrayer, Justin P., Schwerdtle, Patricia Nayna·2023·Perspectives on Psychological Science

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

Crossref · 10.1177/17456916221144988

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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