2 Reflexivity and Positionality
Stephanie D'Costa
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to
- Identify inclusive language to use in their positionality statements.
- Articulate positionalities when writing & presenting their research findings.
- List actionable steps in their research presentations to address social issues.
Thinking through your motivations for research is an act of reflection. Reflection on one’s motivations and positionality is an essential part of every stage of research.
Reflexivity
The ability to be reflexive is vital to the process of picking a research question, conducting research, and analyzing data. To be reflexive is to be able to examine and react to your own emotions, motives, and situation[1]. In psychology research, this requires the ability to critically recognize your influencers and your influence on others. Holland (1999)[2] expounds that reflexivity is the ability to take account of one’s self and the effects of personality or presence of the researcher on the investigation (p. 464). Reflexivity means being sensitive to “how relations of power operate in the research process” (Kirby et al., 2017 p. 50) and affect your relationship with, and perspective of, the subject.
As the subject of psychological research is complex, dynamic, and sometimes conducted upon populations for which you are removed or have privilege over, taking stock of your own position (with its institutional supports, privileges and limitations) is essential for both ethical (the application of moral principles and professional code of conduct to research) and epistemic (the philosophy concerning the nature of knowledge) reasons. Recognition of ethics ensures that there is not exploitation taking place in your research, and epistemology ensures that your own biases are accounted for.
Positionality
A related concept to reflexivity is positionality. Positionality describes one’s worldview and the position one adopts about research and its social and political content (Holmes, 2020, p.1). This involves taking stock of
‘where the researcher is coming from’, [and] concerns ontological assumptions (an individual’s beliefs about the nature of social reality and what is knowable about the world), epistemological assumptions (an individual’s beliefs about the nature of knowledge) and assumptions about human nature and agency (individual’s assumptions about the way we interact with our environment and relate to it) (Holmes, 2020, p.1-2)
Because psychological research is by nature, rarely value-free, researchers must account for their motivations. Beliefs, values, and interests are shaped by our personal identities (e.g. experiences, gender, race, ethnicity, sexuality, (dis)ability statuses, political allegiances, social class, geographic location, history, etc.) and the systems that privilege or marginalize these identities. These positionalities influence our research interests and topics, the perspectives we adopt in carrying out research, our motivations, how we conduct the research, and the outcomes. Positionality also determines the subject we investigate, the participants we choose and the methods we use to conduct research [3]. Hence, if you are uncertain about a research topic or you know the topic but are uncertain about how to narrow it down, it might be worthwhile to think about your positionality. Think about your identity, what you believe about social processes (such as inequality), what you have learned, what your experiences are, and see if that could help you to narrow down your research topic.
Positionality Statements
Intentionally reflecting on your positionality is an important part of the research process. Hence, researchers frequently invest time in developing positionality statements and including them in their papers. Reflecting on your positionality is not only important in helping you to decide on a topic, it can also help shape your methodology and interpret your findings. Positionality statements are also important because our identities and lived realities create biases in how we interpret and view the world. An awareness of our own biases, as researchers, enhances our understanding of how our lived experiences, shaped by systems of power and privilege, inform the way that we conduct research. Below are two examples of positionality statements.
Examples of Positionality Statements
- I position myself as a bricoleur, layering feminist standpoint theory and postcolonial theory, and propose the collaborative data collection and analysis techniques, with particular attention to ethical and cultural sensitivity, using a social constructivist approach to grounded theory…In light of postcolonial critiques of Western researchers and international development, I have often wondered: Am I doing more harm than good? The privilege that accompanies my social location as a White, upper class, Canadian, academic woman means that, despite good intentions, my efforts to support education in postcolonial contexts risk being patronizing, insulting, threatening, imperialist, and recolonizing[4] (p. 1-2)
- Canada is not my birthplace and English is not my first language. I was born in Nigeria in the 90s and came to Canada as a very young child who spoke no English at all, but rather who conversed fluently in my native Igbo. As far as citizenship, I hold a Nigerian and Canadian passport. If identity is to be so simply ascribed, one would say that I am a Black, Igbo, Nigerian-Canadian woman…The simplicity of identities is also what hides the complexity of bellowing and the illusion of agency in determining the totality of who it is that we are [5] (p.43)
In both examples, the researchers are forthright about what influenced their research and their interpretations of social reality that are influenced by their positionality. There are several advantages to this openness. Being candid about our positionality increases the credibility of our research and provides contexts for users of our research. Reflexivity and positionality also improve the authority and validity of our knowledge[6]. We encourage you to develop your own positionality statement.
There are also some critiques to the inclusion of positionality statements that should be considered. As people read your positionality they may develop assumptions about you. For example, being candid about your connection to a topic may indicate your limited experience (e.g. being an outsider to the research area and having limited previous experience working with the population). Additionally, some researchers may not believe that positionality statements matter or belong in the research process given the context of their research paradigm (See the section on Positivism in Chapter 4).
Writing Positionality Statements
A good positionality statement describes one’s epistemological position (i.e. how one views the world in terms of their philosophy, personal beliefs, theoretical influence and perspectives which guide the research) as well other potential influences on research such as personal characteristics and identities in terms of gender, age, social class, ethnicity and political beliefs (see Holmes, 2020, p. 4). It should also address any predetermined position that the researcher takes (e.g., participant, as an insider or outsider to the population being studied, theoretical influences, etc.), the research context, and a reflexive opinion about how these might affect the research process. Hence, taking stock of positionality requires understanding how “one’s position in the social hierarchy vis-a-vis other groups potentially ‘limits or broadens’ one’s understanding of others” [7] (p. 48). This means interrogating what biases you may have of the groups being studied and how your own social location may influence that bias. Consider the following questions: does your disdain for slow customer service perhaps come from your never having to work in the service industry? Or the opposite? Does your idealization of agricultural work perhaps come from your only having done non-physical city labour? By answering questions about why and how you have come to study your topic, you will be clearer about your presuppositions and forthright with your reader about your relationship to the subject matter.
How to Write a Positionality Statement
Writing a positionality statement helps you to intentionally reflect on your identity, life history, experiences, values, and the things/issues that are important to you. This reflection can help you determine what aspect of your identity is of broader sociological interest, which can be useful in narrowing your research interests. Even if you already know what topic you want to research, a positionality statement can help you to focus your research on issues that are important to who you are or to your political/world views. Here are some things to include in your positionality statement:
- Identity characteristics (e.g., age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, social class, disability status, citizenship, immigration status, religion, marital status etc.), and how these identities are shaped by societal structures and systems to privilege and marginalize various communities.
- Life experiences (previous or current job, volunteering activities, membership in advocacy groups etc.)
- Political, philosophical and theoretical beliefs (lens through which you view and interpret the world)
- Relationship to phenomena of interest (insider and/or outsider status)
- Clearly reflecting on how these characteristics, experiences, and history relate to the phenomena being researched.
For instance, take the first example statement in the Positionality Statements
- The author clearly states their identity characteristics as a “White, upper-class, Canadian, academic woman”
- She demonstrates professional life experiences in this area of study.
- The author orients her position in theory as “layering feminist standpoint theory and postcolonial theory,…with particular attention to ethical and cultural sensitivity, using a social constructivist approach to grounded theory.”
- Throughout the statement, she recognizes herself as holding an outsider position, which is demonstrated in statements such as “The privilege that accompanies my social location…means that, despite good intentions, my efforts to support education in postcolonial contexts risk…”.
- Finally, there is clear reflexivity taking place throughout the statement, with the author stating how her own identities and position of privilege may be perceived by the very communities she seeks to serve: “…risk being patronizing, insulting, threatening, imperialist, and recolonizing.”
Additional tips:
- There is no limit on the length of your positionality statement, and often the length will be based on the intended use of the positionality statement. For instance, a book’s positionality statement that is integrating multiple concepts may be a fair bit longer than an empirical research article. However, a good guideline to follow is to try to keep it within a paragraph.
- Get a friend or close acquaintance–ideally with knowledge relevant to the topic being researched–to read your draft positionality statement and inform you of any personal details that you might have overlooked that you may have that need more reflexive engagement.
Equity Activity: Developing a Positionality Statement
License & Attribution
“Reflexivity & Positionality” by Stephanie D’Costa is adapted from “A Note on Reflexivity and Positionality” by Oral Robinson and Alexander Wilson is licensed CC BY-NC 4.0.
“Reflexivity & Positionality” is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0.
- Cambridge Dictionary (2021). Reflexivity. Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/reflexivity ↵
- Holland, R. (1999). Reflexivity. Human relations, 52(4), 463-484. ↵
- Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher Positionality--A Consideration of Its Influence and Place in Qualitative Research--A New Researcher Guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1-10. ↵
- Vanner, C. (2015). Positionality at the center: Constructing an epistemological and methodological approach for a western feminist doctoral candidate conducting research in the postcolonial. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1-12. ↵
- Odozor, E, T. (2020). Making peace with movement: dislocation and the Black Diaspora. In G. S. Dei, E. Odozor and A. V. Jimenez (eds.,), Cartographies of Blackness & Black Indigeneities (pp.41-50). Myers Education Press. ↵
- Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonising Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. University of Otago Press. ↵
- Kirby, S. L., Greaves, L., & Reid, C. (2017). Experience research social change: Methods beyond the mainstream. University of Toronto Press. ↵
Key Takeaways
- A wide variety of ethical issues arise in psychological research. Thinking them through requires considering how each of four moral principles (weighing risks against benefits, acting responsibly and with integrity, seeking justice, and respecting people’s rights and dignity) applies to each of three groups of people (research participants, science, and society).
- Ethical conflict in psychological research is unavoidable. Researchers must think through the ethical issues raised by their research, minimize the risks, weigh the risks against the benefits, be able to explain their ethical decisions, seek feedback about these decisions from others, and ultimately take responsibility for them.
- There are several written ethics codes for research with human participants that provide specific guidance on the ethical issues that arise most frequently. These codes include the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects.
- The APA Ethics Code is the most important ethics code for researchers in psychology. It includes many standards that are relevant mainly to clinical practice, but Standard 8 concerns informed consent, deception, debriefing, the use of nonhuman animal subjects, and scholarly integrity in research.
- Research conducted at universities, hospitals, and other institutions that receive support from the federal government must be reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB)—a committee at the institution that reviews research protocols to make sure they conform to ethical standards.
- Informed consent is the process of obtaining and documenting people’s agreement to participate in a study, having informed them of everything that might reasonably be expected to affect their decision. Although it often involves having them read and sign a consent form, it is not equivalent to reading and signing a consent form.
- Although some researchers argue that deception of research participants is never ethically justified, the APA Ethics Code allows for its use when the benefits of using it outweigh the risks, participants cannot reasonably be expected to be harmed, there is no way to conduct the study without deception, and participants are informed of the deception as soon as possible.
- It is your responsibility as a researcher to know and accept your ethical responsibilities.
- You can take several concrete steps to minimize risks and deception in your research. These include making changes to your research design, prescreening to identify and eliminate high-risk participants, and providing participants with as much information as possible during informed consent and debriefing.
- Your ethical responsibilities continue beyond IRB approval. You need to monitor participants’ reactions, be alert for potential violations of confidentiality, and maintain scholarly integrity through the publication process.
Exercises
- Practice: Imagine a study testing the effectiveness of a new drug for treating obsessive-compulsive disorder. Give a hypothetical example of an ethical issue from each cell of Table 3.1 "A Framework for Thinking About Ethical Issues in Scientific Research" that could arise in this research.
- Discussion: It has been argued that researchers are not ethically responsible for the misinterpretation or misuse of their research by others. Do you agree? Why or why not?
- Practice: Read the Nuremberg Code, the Belmont Report, and Standard 8 of the APA Ethics Code. List five specific similarities and five specific differences among them.
- Discussion: In a study on the effects of disgust on moral judgment, participants were asked to judge the morality of disgusting acts, including people eating a dead pet and passionate kissing between a brother and sister (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993).[1] If you were on the IRB that reviewed this protocol, what concerns would you have with it? Refer to the appropriate sections of the APA Ethics Code.
- Discussion: How could you conduct a study on the extent to which people obey authority in a way that minimizes risks and deception as much as possible? (Note: Such a study would not have to look at all like Milgram’s.)
- Practice: Find a study in a professional journal and create a consent form for that study. Be sure to include all the information in Standard 8.02.
The way that one’s position in the social hierarchy potentially shapes his/her/their identity and mediates access to power, opportunities and understandings of others.
Learning Objectives
By the end of this chapter, you will be able to
- Specify the four broad steps in the measurement process.
- Explain how you would decide whether to use an existing measure or create your own.
- Describe multiple strategies to identify and locate existing measures of psychological constructs.
- Describe several general principles for creating new measures and for implementing existing and new measures.
- Create a simple plan for assessing the reliability and validity of an existing or new measure.
So far in this chapter, we have considered several basic ideas about the nature of psychological constructs and their measurement. But now imagine that you are in the position of actually having to measure a psychological construct for a research project. How should you proceed? Broadly speaking, there are four steps in the measurement process: (a) conceptually defining the construct, (b) operationally defining the construct, (c) implementing the measure, and (d) evaluating the measure. In this section, we will look at each of these steps in turn.
Conceptually Defining the Construct
Having a clear and complete conceptual definition of a construct is a prerequisite for good measurement. For one thing, it allows you to make sound decisions about exactly how to measure the construct. If you had only a vague idea that you wanted to measure people’s “memory,” for example, you would have no way to choose whether you should have them remember a list of vocabulary words, a set of photographs, a newly learned skill, an experience from long ago, or have them remember to perform a task at a later time. Because psychologists now conceptualize memory as a set of semi-independent systems, you would have to be more precise about what you mean by “memory.” If you are interested in long-term episodic memory (memory for previous experiences), then having participants remember a list of words that they learned last week would make sense, but having them try to remember to execute a task in the future would not. In general, there is no substitute for reading the research literature on a construct and paying close attention to how others have defined it.
Operationally Defining the Construct
Once you have a conceptual definition of the construct you are interested in studying, it is time to operationally define the construct. Recall an operational definition is a definition of the variable in terms of precisely how it is to be measured. Since most variables are relatively abstract concepts that cannot be directly observed (e.g., stress), and observation is at the heart of the scientific method, conceptual definitions must be transformed into something that can be directly observed and measured. Most variables can be operationally defined in many different ways. For example, stress can be operationally defined as people’s scores on a stress scale such as the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983) [2], cortisol concentrations in their saliva, or the number of stressful life events they have recently experienced. As described below, operationally defining your variable(s) of interest may involve using an existing measure or creating your own measure.
Using an Existing Measure
It is usually a good idea to use an existing measure that has been used successfully in previous research. Among the advantages are that (a) you save the time and trouble of creating your own, (b) there is already some evidence that the measure is valid (if it has been used successfully), and (c) your results can more easily be compared with and combined with previous results. In fact, if there already exists a reliable and valid measure of a construct, other researchers might expect you to use it unless you have a good and clearly stated reason for not doing so.
If you choose to use an existing measure, you may still have to choose among several alternatives. You might choose the most common one, the one with the best evidence of reliability and validity, the one that best measures a particular aspect of a construct that you are interested in (e.g., a physiological measure of stress if you are most interested in its underlying physiology), or even the one that would be easiest to use. For example, the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) is a self-report questionnaire that measures all the Big Five personality dimensions with just 10 items (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003)[3]. It is not as reliable or valid as longer and more comprehensive measures, but a researcher might choose to use it when testing time is severely limited.
When an existing measure was created primarily for use in scientific research, it is usually described in detail in a published research article and is free to use in your own research—with a proper citation. You might find that later researchers who use the same measure describe it only briefly but provide a reference to the original article, in which case, you would have to get the details from the original article. The American Psychological Association also publishes the Directory of Unpublished Experimental Measures and PsycTESTS, which are extensive catalogs/collections of measures that have been used in previous research. Many existing measures—especially those that have applications in clinical psychology—are proprietary. This means that a publisher owns the rights to them and that you would have to purchase them. These include many standard intelligence tests, the Beck Depression Inventory, and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Details about many of these measures and how to obtain them can be found in other reference books, including Tests in Print and the Mental Measurements Yearbook. There is a good chance you can find these reference books in your university library.
Creating Your Own Measure
Instead of using an existing measure, you might want to create your own. Perhaps there is no existing measure of the construct you are interested in, or existing ones are too difficult or time-consuming to use. Or perhaps you want to use a new measure specifically to see whether it works in the same way as existing measures—that is, to evaluate convergent validity. In this section, we consider some general issues in creating new measures that apply equally to self-report, behavioral, and physiological measures.
First, be aware that most new measures in psychology are really variations of existing measures, so you should still look to the research literature for ideas. Perhaps you can modify an existing questionnaire, create a paper-and-pencil version of a measure that is normally computerized (or vice versa), or adapt a measure that has traditionally been used for another purpose. For example, the famous Stroop task (Stroop, 1935)[4]—in which people quickly name the colors that various color words are printed in—has been adapted for the study of social anxiety. People high in social anxiety are slower at color naming when the words have negative social connotations such as “stupid” (Amir, Freshman, & Foa, 2002)[5].
When you create a new measure, you should strive for simplicity. Remember that your participants are not as interested in your research as you are and that they will vary widely in their ability to understand and carry out whatever task you give them. You should create a set of clear instructions using simple language that you can present in writing or read aloud (or both). It is also a good idea to include one or more practice items so that participants can become familiar with the task and to build in an opportunity for them to ask questions before continuing. It is also best to keep the measure brief to avoid boring or frustrating your participants to the point that their responses start to become less reliable and valid.
The need for brevity, however, needs to be weighed against the fact that it is nearly always better for a measure to include multiple items rather than a single item. There are two reasons for this. One is a matter of content validity. Multiple items are often required to cover a construct adequately. The other is a matter of reliability. People’s responses to single items can be influenced by all sorts of irrelevant factors—misunderstanding the particular item, a momentary distraction, or a simple error such as checking the wrong response option. But when several responses are summed or averaged, the effects of these irrelevant factors tend to cancel each other out to produce more reliable scores. Remember, however, that multiple items must be structured in a way that allows them to be combined into a single overall score by summing or averaging. To measure “financial responsibility,” a student might ask people about their annual income, obtain their credit score, and have them rate how “thrifty” they are—but there is no obvious way to combine these responses into an overall score. To create a true multiple-item measure, the student might instead ask people to rate the degree to which 10 statements about financial responsibility describe them on the same five-point scale.
Finally, the very best way to assure yourself that your measure has clear instructions, includes sufficient practice, and is an appropriate length is to test several people. Observe them as they complete the task, time them, and ask them afterward to comment on how easy or difficult it was, whether the instructions were clear, and anything else you might be wondering about. Obviously, it is better to discover problems with a measure before beginning any large-scale data collection.
Implementing the Measure
You will want to implement any measure in a way that maximizes its reliability and validity. In most cases, it is best to test everyone under similar conditions that, ideally, are quiet and free of distractions. Participants are often tested in groups because it is efficient, but be aware that it can create distractions that reduce the reliability and validity of the measure. As always, it is good to use previous research as a guide. If others have successfully tested people in groups using a particular measure, then you should consider doing it too.
Be aware also that people can react in a variety of ways to being measured, which reduces the reliability and validity of the scores. Although some disagreeable participants might intentionally respond in ways meant to disrupt a study, participant reactivity is more likely to take the opposite form. Agreeable participants might respond in ways they believe they are expected to. Some participants might engage in socially desirable responding, doing or saying things because they think it is the socially appropriate thing. For example, people with low self-esteem agree that they feel they are a person of worth, not because they really feel this way, but because they believe this is the socially appropriate response and do not want to look bad in the eyes of the researcher. Additionally, research studies can have built-in demand characteristics: subtle cues that reveal how the researcher expects participants to behave. For example, a participant whose attitude toward exercise is measured immediately after she is asked to read a passage about the dangers of heart disease might reasonably conclude that the passage was meant to improve her attitude. As a result, she might respond more favorably because she believes she is expected to by the researcher. Finally, your own expectations can bias participants’ behaviors in unintended ways.
There are several precautions you can take to minimize these kinds of reactivity. One is to make the procedure as clear and brief as possible so that participants are not tempted to vent their frustrations on your results. Another is to guarantee participants’ anonymity and make clear to them that you are doing so. If you are testing them in groups, be sure that they are seated far enough apart that they cannot see each other’s responses. Give them all the same type of writing implement so that they cannot be identified by, for example, the pink glitter pen that they used. You can even allow them to seal completed questionnaires into individual envelopes or put them into a drop box where they immediately become mixed with others’ questionnaires. Although informed consent requires telling participants what they will be doing, it does not require revealing your hypothesis or other information that might suggest to participants how you expect them to respond. A questionnaire designed to measure financial responsibility need not be titled “Are You Financially Responsible?” It could be titled “Money Questionnaire” or have no title at all. Finally, the effects of your expectations can be minimized by arranging to have the measure administered by a helper who is “blind” or unaware of its intent or of any hypothesis being tested. Regardless of whether this is possible, you should standardize all interactions between researchers and participants—for example, by always reading the same set of instructions word for word.
Evaluating the Measure
Once you have used your measure on a sample of people and have a set of scores, you are in a position to evaluate it more thoroughly in terms of reliability and validity. Even if the measure has been used extensively by other researchers and has already shown evidence of reliability and validity, you should not assume that it worked as expected for your particular sample and under your particular testing conditions. Regardless, you now have additional evidence bearing on the reliability and validity of the measure, and it would make sense to add that evidence to the research literature.
In most research designs, it is not possible to assess test-retest reliability because participants are tested at only one time. For a new measure, you might design a study specifically to assess its test-retest reliability by testing the same set of participants at two separate times. In other cases, a study designed to answer a different question still allows for the assessment of test-retest reliability. For example, a psychology instructor might measure his students’ attitude toward critical thinking using the same measure at the beginning and end of the semester to see if there is any change. Even if there is no change, he could still look at the correlation between students’ scores at the two times to assess the measure’s test-retest reliability. It is also customary to assess internal consistency for any multiple-item measure—usually by looking at a split-half correlation or Cronbach’s α.
Criterion validity can be assessed in various ways. For example, if your study included more than one measure of the same construct or measures of conceptually distinct constructs, then you should look at the correlations among these measures to be sure that they fit your expectations. Note also that a successful experimental manipulation also provides evidence of criterion validity. Recall that MacDonald and Martineau manipulated participants’ moods by having them think either positive or negative thoughts, and after the manipulation, their mood measure showed a distinct difference between the two groups. This simultaneously provided evidence that their mood manipulation worked and that their mood measure was valid.
But what if your newly collected data casts doubt on the reliability or validity of your measure? The short answer is that you have to ask why. It could be that there is something wrong with your measure or how you administered it. It could be that there is something wrong with your conceptual definition. It could be that your experimental manipulation failed. For example, if a mood measure showed no difference between people who you instructed to think positive versus negative thoughts, maybe it is because the participants did not actually think the thoughts they were supposed to, or that the thoughts did not actually affect their moods. In short, it is “back to the drawing board” to revise the measure, revise the conceptual definition, or try a new manipulation.
Equity Activity: Supporting queer youth's mental health outcomes
You are working with your research team to create a project that determines the efficacy of an Attachment Based Family Therapy (ABFT) for LGBTQ youth to reduce anxiety and depression in your local community mental health clinic. To start the project, you need to clarify the variables you are going to use and how you will measure them.
-
License & Attribution
“Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement” by Stephanie D’Costa is adapted from “Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement” by Rajiv S. Jhangiani; I-Chant A. Chiang; Carrie Cuttler; and Dana C. Leighton is licensed CC BY 4.0.
“Practical Strategies for Psychological Measurement” is licensed under CC-BY 4.0.
