Heidi M. Levitt

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.

Although it is common to encounter dissociative clients in the therapy room, little is known about how clinicians adapt therapy for these clients. The present study is a qualitative meta-analysis investigating how therapists are responsive to dissociation-that is, how they tailor therapy to meet dissociative clients' needs in and across sessions. We conducted a systematic search for qualitative studies on therapists' experiences working with clients who dissociate, yielding 16 eligible studies with at least 239 therapists represented across the studies. We used a critical-constructivist grounded theory method to build a hierarchy that represented patterns across studies, then generated clinical principles for practice through a hermeneutic analysis. Results indicated that therapists paradoxically honored dissociation as a coping mechanism while also promoting clients' agency over working through it. They gradually did so by (a) initially prioritizing alliance-building actions tailored to dissociation, (b) promoting clients' self-reliance in managing symptoms and safety, (c) repairing systemic harm by bearing witness to stigmatized forms of trauma and dissociation, and (d) strategically enhancing clients' capacity for accessing and experiencing emotion. By engaging in this developmental process, therapists sought to empower clients to heal from traumatic pain. This four-phase model may inform clinical decision making, training, and future research to improve treatment processes and outcomes for dissociative clients. Caution should be taken when applying these findings to child, non-Western, non-English language, and nonindividual psychotherapy settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).

Objective: As the amount of qualitative psychotherapy research has increased, methodological and reporting practices have evolved and changed to reflect trends in the field. We investigated trends by surveying the methodological characteristics of the qualitative research on therapists' experiences conducting psychotherapy prior to the publication of the SQIP methodological integrity framework and APA reporting standards for qualitative research. Methods: We identified articles using PsycINFO and coded features including publication year, reported epistemological perspective, number of participants, research design, and procedural checks. We analyzed trends in 140 studies (published 1985 to2015) across these characteristics using descriptive and exploratory inferential statistics. Results: The number of publications grew substantially. Researchers reported their epistemological stance in approximately a quarter of studies, which was not predictive of article age, number of participants, reports of reflexivity, or credibility checks. Additionally, a larger number of participants were associated with grounded theory designs, whereas fewer were associated with phenomenological studies. Higher numbers of reflexivity and credibility checks were associated with consensual qualitative research. Procedures promoting reflexivity, such as formal reflection and self-description by researchers, increased over time, whereas procedures promoting credibility, such as consensus, decreased. Conclusions: Qualitative psychotherapy research is fast-growing and becoming more reflexive, although researchers should more routinely report features related to methodological integrity.