The Proportionality of Positionality Statements

Over the past few decades, several critical theories (e.g., Colonialism/Anti-Colonialism, CRT, Gender, Intersectionality, etc.), research methodologies (e.g., Reflexivity, Lived Experience, etc.), and intellectual discourses have significantly shaped scholarship, pedagogy, and, public debate.

When applied thoughtfully and in their intended manner, these theories, methods, and discourses can be powerful tools for understanding complex and sensitive topics and become transformative tools for change. These paradigms have offered new lenses for examining power structures, systemic racism, inequality, identity,  and historical narratives.

However, when these paradigms are misused, they can distort discussions, dominate conversations, and drown out plausible alternative explanations. It is not enough to condemn privilege and complain about systemic oppression; we need to go beyond to achieve transformative change.

Defining Positionality

One area where these terms are often misapplied is in the introduction of positionality statements. A positionality statement (also known as a reflexivity or identity statement) is a declaration that scholars, researchers, or practitioners may provide that outlines their personal and professional background, values, beliefs, and experiences that can influence their work. It also acknowledges the cultural, economic, ethnic, gender, political, racial, or social background of the individual that may affect the subject of their study, practice, or analysis.  These expressions are commonplace, especially among researchers engaging in auto-ethnography and reflective practices.

Research presentations and publications that utilize this approach often begin with the student, instructor, or researcher explaining how their unique circumstances have shaped their perspectives and how this, in turn, affects their research. While these declarations provide valuable context, excessive focus on personal narratives can sometimes end the discussion and detract from doing rigorous research. When positionality statements dominate the discussion and stop there, they risk shifting the focus from substantive and reflective findings to me search (i.e., an excessive focus on self-disclosure).

Risks of Overemphasis

Understandably, positionality statements are one way to condemn privilege. However, highlighting personal experiences of discrimination or marginalization differs from using this reflective experience to conduct analytical and rigorous research. In a pedagogical situation, when positionality statements from instructors and students dominate classroom discourse, without thoughtful consideration and analysis of solutions to combat discrimination or marginalization, the opportunity to learn new concepts, relevant scholarship, and strategies may be lost.

Although some audiences may find such disclosures engaging, others may feel they distract from the central purpose of scientific research (e.g., “a way of testing theories and hypotheses by applying certain rules or methods of analysis to observations and interpretations of reality under strictly delineated circumstances”).

Achieving Balance

As with any ingredient in a recipe, balance and proportion are key. Overloading the introduction of a research paper or presentation with personal context—like adding too much salt—can overwhelm and obfuscate the final product. The trick is to briefly acknowledge positionality, reflect on its influence, and then move on to the substance of the study. Unfortunately, many struggle to achieve this balance.

A related challenge arises from a common misunderstanding of auto-ethnography. Some researchers, mainly those new to qualitative methods, believe that storytelling about personal experiences with minimal interpretation suffices. However, true auto-ethnography requires rigorous analysis that situates personal experiences within broader social, cultural, or historical contexts. Merely recounting lived experiences without connecting them to the research questions (including hypotheses and/or theory) does not constitute robust scholarship.

This issue extends to “lived experience,” which refers to the knowledge and insights gained through direct personal encounters. To note, everyone has “lived experiences.” While this concept holds value in fields such as anthropology, criminology, criminal justice, education, etc., where firsthand accounts can illuminate systemic issues, it should neither replace nor overshadow empirical research. Personal narratives must be integrated thoughtfully, constantly enhancing—rather than dominating and overshadowing—the study’s central argument.

Summing Up

In short, positionality statements are sometimes misused or overemphasized to the detriment of substantive research. To address this, students, instructors, and researchers should exercise better caution in using these statements and focus on their direct relevance to the investigative process and, subsequently, findings. For instance, a brief paragraph outlining key aspects of positionality, accompanied by a reflection on how these factors influence the theory and methodology, is often sufficient.

Moving forward, positionality statements should balance personal context and rigorous scholarship, ensuring they support rather than detract from the work’s overall impact.

 

Photo credit:

Photographer: Poussin Jean

Title: Balance scale set, with weights