CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,390Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsFeminist Epistemology and Gender StudiesHistorical Geography and Geographical Thought

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Situating knowledges: positionality, reflexivities and other tactics

Rose, Gillian·1997·Progress in Human Geography
DOI 10.1191/030913297673302122
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article addresses the discussion, particularly prominent among feminist geographers, of reflexivity as a strategy for marking geographical knowledges as situated. It argues that, if the aim of feminist and other critical geographies is to acknowledge their partiality, then the particular form of reflexivity advocated needs careful consideration. Feminist geographers most often recommend a kind of reflexivity that aims, even if only ideally, at a full understanding of the researcher, the researched and the research context. The article begins with the author's failure at that kind of reflexivity, and that particular reflexivity is then discussed and described as ‘transparent’ in its ambitious claims to comprehensive knowledge. The article then goes on to explore critiques of transparent reflexivity, many of which have been made by feminist geographers themselves. The article concludes by suggesting that some recent discussions of the uncertainties of research practice offer another model of feminist reflexivity that may succeed more effectively in questioning the researcher's practice of knowledge production.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1191/030913297673302122

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 38 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Butler, J., 1990, Gender trouble
  2. Madge, C., 1993, Area, 25, 294
  3. McDowell, L., 1994, Area, 26, 241
  4. Parr, H., conference on feminist methodologies
  5. Radcliffe, S.A., 1994, Area, 26, 25
  6. Rose, G., 1997, Place and the politics of resistance
  7. Smith, F., 1996, Area, 28, 160
  8. Smith, N., 1993, Place and the politics of identity, 67

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,000

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rose, G.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Rose, Gillian
ORCID
Rose, Gillian
Venue
Progress in Human Geography
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1997-06
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
305-320
ISSN
  • 0309-1325 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0288
DOI
10.1191/030913297673302122
OpenAlex
W2161021117
Cited by
2,390
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 130 · 2025: 127 · 2024: 119 · 2023: 131 · 2022: 134 · 2021: 157 · 2020: 176 · 2019: 145 · 2018: 107 · 2017: 102 · 2016: 110 · 2015: 120 · 2014: 129 · 2013: 114 · 2012: 94
FWCI
59.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Progress in Human Geography (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 › Geography, Planning and Development › Historical Geography and Geographical Thought
Keywords
reflexivity, positionality, situated knowledge, feminist geography, critical geography, researcher subjectivity, knowledge production, researcher-participant relationship

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