Positioning Positionality and Reflecting on Reflexivity: Moving From Performance to Practice.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Kaitlin R Sibbald, Shanon K Phelan, Brenda L Beagan, Tara M Pride
{"title":"Positioning Positionality and Reflecting on Reflexivity: Moving From Performance to Practice.","authors":"Kaitlin R Sibbald, Shanon K Phelan, Brenda L Beagan, Tara M Pride","doi":"10.1177/10497323241309230","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Researcher reflexivity and acknowledgement of positionality are emerging as key concepts for evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Collectively, we explore the relationship between reflexivity and positionality statements as reflexive practice, considering who benefits, who has authority, and our expectations of each other as qualitative researchers. Moving between examples of doing reflexivity in practice and what is often requested of authors during the peer review and editorial processes, we challenge the idea that positionality statements in the form of identity disclosures ought to be taken as the token performance of reflexive work, despite their frequent use as such. We begin by outlining the role and purpose of reflexivity in qualitative research and follow by examining the turn toward identity disclosure as fulfilling this purpose. Following, we examine the ways in which a \"shopping list\" positionality statement can create disproportionate risk, reinforce stereotypes, and homogenize researchers identifying with marginalized groups, without necessarily benefiting the research process or how research is communicated. In addition, we present alternative ways of doing and communicating reflexivity in qualitative research that, although not without their own challenges, allow reflexivity to take up the space it deserves during the research process and dissemination.</p>","PeriodicalId":48437,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Health Research","volume":" ","pages":"10497323241309230"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10497323241309230","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Researcher reflexivity and acknowledgement of positionality are emerging as key concepts for evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Collectively, we explore the relationship between reflexivity and positionality statements as reflexive practice, considering who benefits, who has authority, and our expectations of each other as qualitative researchers. Moving between examples of doing reflexivity in practice and what is often requested of authors during the peer review and editorial processes, we challenge the idea that positionality statements in the form of identity disclosures ought to be taken as the token performance of reflexive work, despite their frequent use as such. We begin by outlining the role and purpose of reflexivity in qualitative research and follow by examining the turn toward identity disclosure as fulfilling this purpose. Following, we examine the ways in which a "shopping list" positionality statement can create disproportionate risk, reinforce stereotypes, and homogenize researchers identifying with marginalized groups, without necessarily benefiting the research process or how research is communicated. In addition, we present alternative ways of doing and communicating reflexivity in qualitative research that, although not without their own challenges, allow reflexivity to take up the space it deserves during the research process and dissemination.

定位定位与反思反身性:从表现走向实践。
研究者的反身性和对位置性的承认正在成为评价定性研究质量的关键概念。总的来说,我们作为反身性实践来探索反身性和位置性陈述之间的关系,考虑到谁受益,谁有权威,以及我们作为定性研究者对彼此的期望。在实践中进行反身性的例子与同行评审和编辑过程中作者经常被要求的例子之间移动,我们挑战这样一种观点,即以身份披露形式的立场性陈述应该被视为反身性工作的象征性表现,尽管它们经常被这样使用。我们首先概述了反身性在定性研究中的作用和目的,然后考察了向身份披露的转变,以实现这一目的。接下来,我们研究了“购物清单”定位声明如何产生不成比例的风险,强化刻板印象,并使研究人员认同边缘群体,而不一定有利于研究过程或研究如何沟通。此外,我们提出了在定性研究中进行和传播反身性的替代方法,尽管它们并非没有自己的挑战,但它们允许反身性在研究过程和传播中占据应有的空间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
6.20%
发文量
109
期刊介绍: QUALITATIVE HEALTH RESEARCH is an international, interdisciplinary, refereed journal for the enhancement of health care and to further the development and understanding of qualitative research methods in health care settings. We welcome manuscripts in the following areas: the description and analysis of the illness experience, health and health-seeking behaviors, the experiences of caregivers, the sociocultural organization of health care, health care policy, and related topics. We also seek critical reviews and commentaries addressing conceptual, theoretical, methodological, and ethical issues pertaining to qualitative enquiry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信