A Methodological Justification of Positionality and Reflexivity Reflections: Why, How, and When They Increase Methodological Integrity

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Positionality statements and reflexivity reflections have become increasingly common in psychological science. Yet, questions have been expressed regarding their theoretical foundations, methodological functions, and appropriate use. In this invited commentary, we engage such concerns and argue that positionality and reflexivity reflections can increase scientific rigor. Drawing on a feminist epistemological perspective and critical and constructivist approaches to inquiry, we locate these practices within efforts to strengthen science through transparency regarding researchers’ perspectives. We understand them as centrally methodological practices that support knowledge production (not as evidence or research findings). We describe how positionality and reflexivity reflections function by enhancing researchers’ awareness of the limits of their understanding. This awareness facilitates researchers’ engagement in procedures that deepen their understanding and lead to more attuned hypothesis development, research questions, and eductive inferences, strengthening both qualitative and quantitative methods. The functions of these reflectively driven procedures are detailed for both inductive and deductive processes, clarifying why they do not constitute an imposition of bias into the analysis. We examine practical considerations regarding why requiring researchers to have or to disclose specific identities under study is methodologically and ethically problematic, how researchers can engage reflexive and positionality practices to expand their horizons of understanding, and how researchers can best select information to disclose. We also consider the influence of positionality and reflexivity reporting on readers and research cultures. Positionality and reflexivity reflections are most valuable when they strengthen study design, methodological integrity, and analytic engagement, thereby supporting a more rigorous and inclusive psychological science.