Open Research Europe

Part of EU Open Research Repository
Published June 21, 2024 | Version 2
Journal article Open

Positionality statements in science

Authors/Creators

  • 1. University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

Description

The goal of this essay is to clarify positionality as an epistemological scientific concept and address related misunderstandings to help researchers assess whether statements thereof contribute to their work. Positionality statements can be useful for various research designs across scientific fields, when they are used knowingly.

Files

openreseurope-4-19542.pdf

Files (396.1 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:678f47516edb25ac3874fd2f93d6cfce
396.1 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Cites
10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.805 (DOI)
10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6 (DOI)
10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6 (DOI)
10.1126/science.adm6801 (DOI)
10.1177/17456916221144988 (DOI)
10.1002/ajhb.23712 (DOI)
10.1177/0956797611417632 (DOI)
10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2 (DOI)
10.12688/openreseurope.15532.2 (DOI)
10.1177/14687941221098922 (DOI)
10.1016/j.neuron.2023.08.027 (DOI)
10.1038/d41586-020-02275-8 (DOI)
Is new version of
10.12688/openreseurope.17058.1 (DOI)

References

  • Kuhn T (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions.
  • Salzman PC (2002). On reflexivity. Am Anthropol. doi:10.1525/aa.2002.104.3.805
  • Malterud K (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6
  • Knott E, Rao AH, Summers K (2022). Interviews in the social sciences. Nat Rev Methods Primers. doi:10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6
  • Zamzow R (2023). Scientists clash over 'positionality statements'. Science. doi:10.1126/science.adm6801
  • Savolainen J, Casey PJ, McBrayer JP (2023). Positionality and its problems: questioning the value of reflexivity statements in research. Perspect Psychol Sci. doi:10.1177/17456916221144988
  • McKerracher L, Núñez-de la Mora A (2022). More voices are always better: tackling power differentials in knowledge production and access in human biology. Am J Hum Biol. doi:10.1002/ajhb.23712
  • Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
  • Hardwicke TE, Wagenmakers EJ (2023). Reducing bias, increasing transparency and calibrating confidence with preregistration. Nat Hum Behav. doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01497-2
  • Karhulahti VM, Branney P, Siutila M (2023). A primer for choosing, designing and evaluating registered reports for qualitative methods [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]. Open Res Eur. doi:10.12688/openreseurope.15532.2
  • Folkes L (2023). Moving beyond 'shopping list' positionality: using kitchen table reflexivity and in/visible tools to develop reflexive qualitative research. Qual Res. doi:10.1177/14687941221098922
  • Popper K (1963). Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge.
  • Corcoran AW, Hohwy J, Friston KJ (2023). Accelerating scientific progress through Bayesian adversarial collaboration. Neuron. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2023.08.027
  • Mason J (2002). Qualitative researching.
  • Bishop D (2020). How scientists can stop fooling themselves over statistics. Nature. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-02275-8