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

TLDR

Positionality (reflexivity) statements have become widely promoted in scientific literature as a means to address epistemic limits. The authors contend that positionality statements should be abandoned in favor of strengthening intersubjective competition and methodological transparency to reduce bias. They find that credible positionality statements cannot be constructed, are unnecessary for reducing bias, and actually undermine research impartiality.

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.