April 11, 2023 - 7:15am
As an undergraduate at the University of Helsinki, I published an essay in a student paper I admired. A few months later I became friends with the editor, who confessed that he had considered it only because I shared a name with an established writer. In other words, it was a case of mistaken identity.
About 10 years later, I wrote a critical commentary in response to a Harvard professor and the former President of the American Sociological Association. Because my manuscript went through a double-blind peer review, I have every reason to believe that it was the strength of my arguments — and nothing else — that persuaded a top journal in my field to publish a contribution by a foreign graduate student from a mid-tier university.
Blind peer review is an academic practice that requires scholarship to be evaluated on its merits, with no attention to the identity of its author. This standard approach reflects a foundational principle of the scientific value system: the norm of universalism, which states that “all truth-claims should be subjected to the same impersonal criteria regardless of personal or social attributes of their protagonist”. Unfortunately, however, the integrity of this scientific peer review process is now under threat by the proliferation of so-called “positionality statements” in academic literatures.
A positionality statement is an author’s description of their identity as it relates to the research topic. For example, an article published in a highly regarded social science journal features a positionality statement in which the two authors write:
Similar to this example, most positionality statements disclose information about the sex, gender identity, race, and other socio-demographic characteristics of the scholars responsible for the study. The practice of producing positionality or “reflexivity” statements, as they are sometimes called, is old hat in humanities and many fields of social sciences, but lately they have begun to appear also in medicine, biology, and other hard sciences. Recently, a colleague shared an email from a journal editor in paediatrics which listed the authors’ failure to include a reflexivity statement as one grounds for rejecting the study.
As a social scientist, I understand the value of self-reflection and agree that scholars should be sensitive to the strengths and limitations stemming from their biographies. But, as my co-authors and I explained in a recent peer-reviewed journal article, sharing such reflections in the form of positionality statements is counterproductive at best.
First, if we take seriously the idea that our “positionality” clouds our research then surely those same clouds continue to hang over our positionality statements. We can attempt to be transparent about our blind spots but, by definition, we can never see them. For this reason, writing a credible positionality statement becomes an exercise in futility.
Second, by focusing on individual scholars, positionality statements are misguided about the collective nature of the process that creates scientific knowledge. There is simply nothing wrong with participating in research with all kinds of personal bias — as long as you play by the rules. A defining purpose of the scientific method is to ensure impartial treatment of knowledge claims. To the extent we are able to make progress, it happens as a result of open and honest competition of ideas, evaluated against empirical evidence. It matters not what you think and why you may think that way; the only thing that matters is whether the best available data agrees with your assumptions.
Third, positionality statements are a sneaky way to introduce identity politics within actual scholarship. In the course of our research, we read a number of statements published in various fields of academic literature. An honest appraisal of this material suggests that the real purpose of these frequently cringeworthy statements is to signal the authors’ adherence to “social justice” ideology and loyalties to selected identity groups.
Positionality statements are counterproductive to research integrity because they increase subjectivity and political bias in the literature. As such, they violate key values of the scientific ethos: impartiality and objectivity. I am urging my fellow scholars to resist this latest effort to smuggle identity politics into academic research.
Jukka Savolainen is a Professor of Sociology at Wayne State University and a Heterodox Academy Writing Fellow.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWell said Jukka, it’s all quite nauseating. As you suggest, so-called ‘reflexive’ statements are meaningless. Anyone who knows anything about psychology will tell you that psychopaths often have the best lines.
Indeed, “reflexive” statements are certainly meaningless, if we take them at face value. But they are not seriously intended as remedies for bias; they are ritualised forms of self-abasement, indicating craven obedience to the Marxist powers that be. As such, rather than representing an attempt to root bias out, they seek to entrench it – in hard left form.
Indeed, “reflexive” statements are certainly meaningless, if we take them at face value. But they are not seriously intended as remedies for bias; they are ritualised forms of self-abasement, indicating craven obedience to the Marxist powers that be. As such, rather than representing an attempt to root bias out, they seek to entrench it – in hard left form.
Well said Jukka, it’s all quite nauseating. As you suggest, so-called ‘reflexive’ statements are meaningless. Anyone who knows anything about psychology will tell you that psychopaths often have the best lines.
Ugh. I just puked in my mouth a little. The research is either well done or not. This is just another example of education and research compromising truth for in favour of progressive values.
Ugh. I just puked in my mouth a little. The research is either well done or not. This is just another example of education and research compromising truth for in favour of progressive values.
I see a Sokal-like opportunity here. Submit the same paper with 2 positionality statements: one from an old straight white male and the other from a black trans-woman lesbian.
In fact, we should all sign our posts with obviously exaggerated positionality statements from now on.
The poster is a middle class, African American currently identifying as Asian, transgendered female, committed to conservative principles of affirmative action, pierced, tattooed, non-binary, alcohol-free, peanut allergic, nervous, fish loving, urban dwelling, charitable, Presbyterian identifying as Muslim, short-statured, left-handed, and wrote this response fully aware of the politics, dangers and limitations of people with TDS writing about the uselessness of positionality statements.
Fully abled. Rejected.
Fully abled. Rejected.
I think you may be missing the point about the seriousness of this. It isn’t a game. It’s about publically compromising people so they are no longer truly free to express their own opinions.
Sorry, peter, I don’t mean to make light of it at all. But sometimes, when the choices are to laugh or cry, the former is the better option. I spend enough time lamenting the decline of Western civilization.
Sorry, peter, I don’t mean to make light of it at all. But sometimes, when the choices are to laugh or cry, the former is the better option. I spend enough time lamenting the decline of Western civilization.
In fact, we should all sign our posts with obviously exaggerated positionality statements from now on.
The poster is a middle class, African American currently identifying as Asian, transgendered female, committed to conservative principles of affirmative action, pierced, tattooed, non-binary, alcohol-free, peanut allergic, nervous, fish loving, urban dwelling, charitable, Presbyterian identifying as Muslim, short-statured, left-handed, and wrote this response fully aware of the politics, dangers and limitations of people with TDS writing about the uselessness of positionality statements.
I think you may be missing the point about the seriousness of this. It isn’t a game. It’s about publically compromising people so they are no longer truly free to express their own opinions.
I see a Sokal-like opportunity here. Submit the same paper with 2 positionality statements: one from an old straight white male and the other from a black trans-woman lesbian.
Perhaps peer-reviewers should write “positionality” statements so that scientists submitting their work to a particular journal can produce statements that agree with them, thereby subverting the process.
Subversion may be morally justified here, where the purpose of these statements is to test the orthodoxy of the submitters, or to help journals decide whose work to publish on the basis of the race, sex or political and social opinions of the submitters.
Another subversive technique which I recommend is to have ChatGPT write the statement for you. It requires no effort on your part, it will express only acceptable received opinions, and you avoid the humiliation of submitting yourself to the process of concocting such a statement yourself. In fact, you might enjoy practicing the subversion.
This type of subversion is as old as humanity.
The most typical example might be a male seeking to gain the attention of a female by pretending to be interested in something the female is interested in (or vice versa). Or, students applying for a place at university listing interests which they may have a small but sufficient amount of knowledge about to make them look better candidates.
By the time someone is in a position to submit a paper for review, they should already be well-versed in this type of kidology.
Aretha Franklin sang about it: Who’s Zooming Who?
The real question is: how much does it matter? If one concocts a profile in order to pass through a barrier, if the end result is of benefit (i.e. the dissemination of ideas) does the process matter? I’m not making a judgement here, simply posing the question, because as pointed out, it’s something we all do instinctively as part of the process of getting on in life. Is there a qualitative difference between what i’ve described and what the author of this article describes? I don’t think there is. All that would remain is: how well an individual is able to do it.
It skews the science in favor of political correct ideology. This is how umbrella terms such as ‘patriarchy’ and ‘systemic racism’ have been injected into the mainstream. Positionality statements are used to judge the worthiness of a paper based on the author’s adherence to so-called progressive values. On the one hand it’s way to lie your way through one, but being forced to lie is a shaky foundation for scientific inquiry.
Yes, i know.
Sorry, I took you too literally. Hard to tell with written words sometimes 😉
Sorry, I took you too literally. Hard to tell with written words sometimes 😉
And that may be why it is done. Once you’ve compromised yourself and the authorities know it, you’re never really free to express your opinions again. This is how Communism worked in Eastern Europe and Russia. And how Putin’s regime still functions.
Yes, i know.
And that may be why it is done. Once you’ve compromised yourself and the authorities know it, you’re never really free to express your opinions again. This is how Communism worked in Eastern Europe and Russia. And how Putin’s regime still functions.
Understanding and appealing to your audience is basic to rhetorical success– you’re right about that. But in this situation I’m interested in the end rather than the means. I merely suggest a way to end a pernicious practice.
Yes, i know. I was merely being subversive with regard to subversion.
Yes, i know. I was merely being subversive with regard to subversion.
It skews the science in favor of political correct ideology. This is how umbrella terms such as ‘patriarchy’ and ‘systemic racism’ have been injected into the mainstream. Positionality statements are used to judge the worthiness of a paper based on the author’s adherence to so-called progressive values. On the one hand it’s way to lie your way through one, but being forced to lie is a shaky foundation for scientific inquiry.
Understanding and appealing to your audience is basic to rhetorical success– you’re right about that. But in this situation I’m interested in the end rather than the means. I merely suggest a way to end a pernicious practice.
This type of subversion is as old as humanity.
The most typical example might be a male seeking to gain the attention of a female by pretending to be interested in something the female is interested in (or vice versa). Or, students applying for a place at university listing interests which they may have a small but sufficient amount of knowledge about to make them look better candidates.
By the time someone is in a position to submit a paper for review, they should already be well-versed in this type of kidology.
Aretha Franklin sang about it: Who’s Zooming Who?
The real question is: how much does it matter? If one concocts a profile in order to pass through a barrier, if the end result is of benefit (i.e. the dissemination of ideas) does the process matter? I’m not making a judgement here, simply posing the question, because as pointed out, it’s something we all do instinctively as part of the process of getting on in life. Is there a qualitative difference between what i’ve described and what the author of this article describes? I don’t think there is. All that would remain is: how well an individual is able to do it.
Perhaps peer-reviewers should write “positionality” statements so that scientists submitting their work to a particular journal can produce statements that agree with them, thereby subverting the process.
Subversion may be morally justified here, where the purpose of these statements is to test the orthodoxy of the submitters, or to help journals decide whose work to publish on the basis of the race, sex or political and social opinions of the submitters.
Another subversive technique which I recommend is to have ChatGPT write the statement for you. It requires no effort on your part, it will express only acceptable received opinions, and you avoid the humiliation of submitting yourself to the process of concocting such a statement yourself. In fact, you might enjoy practicing the subversion.
Imagine a positional statement by Issac Newton. ‘I am a distinctly odd, irascible, quarrelsome individual with some very peculiar, not to say batty, religious views and my hobby is shoving needles in my eyes to see what happens.’
Imagine a positional statement by Issac Newton. ‘I am a distinctly odd, irascible, quarrelsome individual with some very peculiar, not to say batty, religious views and my hobby is shoving needles in my eyes to see what happens.’
Authors should go out of their way to lie in “positionality statements”. White male authors should claim to be female and black, sorry I mean Black, and vice versa. Posh authors should claim to be from the hood, and working class authors should claim to be dukes and duchesses.
Meghan Markel does a bit of that already.
Exactly. Self-identification is voluntary, at least in the U.S. If everyone lied about their race or ethnicity, the whole edifice would come down. After all, if race is a social construct, then it’s a fiction whether an institution or an individual uses the term. What’s the justification behind the position that only institutions can indulge in fiction?
Meghan Markel does a bit of that already.
Exactly. Self-identification is voluntary, at least in the U.S. If everyone lied about their race or ethnicity, the whole edifice would come down. After all, if race is a social construct, then it’s a fiction whether an institution or an individual uses the term. What’s the justification behind the position that only institutions can indulge in fiction?
Authors should go out of their way to lie in “positionality statements”. White male authors should claim to be female and black, sorry I mean Black, and vice versa. Posh authors should claim to be from the hood, and working class authors should claim to be dukes and duchesses.
Thanks to Prof. Savoilainen for this piece. Academic publishing is yet another institution in civic society that is surrendering to the wokerati. But I suspect that this is not just bowing to external pressures to conform. A vast number of academic posts seem to have been created for “activist” researchers and persuading journals to introduce positionality statements is an example them flexing their muscles.
When I see a paper with results that support the woke case, my initial reaction is to suspect that the author would never have submitted the paper, had the results not turned out that way. Qualitative research and questionnaire-based research is ideally suited to re-jigging until the “correct” answers are obtained.
My personal positionality statement: “Grumpy old git with zero ticks in boxes.”
Thanks to Prof. Savoilainen for this piece. Academic publishing is yet another institution in civic society that is surrendering to the wokerati. But I suspect that this is not just bowing to external pressures to conform. A vast number of academic posts seem to have been created for “activist” researchers and persuading journals to introduce positionality statements is an example them flexing their muscles.
When I see a paper with results that support the woke case, my initial reaction is to suspect that the author would never have submitted the paper, had the results not turned out that way. Qualitative research and questionnaire-based research is ideally suited to re-jigging until the “correct” answers are obtained.
My personal positionality statement: “Grumpy old git with zero ticks in boxes.”
As far as I recall, wasn’t honest, impartial peer review simply abolished on the basis that all science was now “post-modern” and had advanced beyond the need for strict procedures?
As far as I recall, wasn’t honest, impartial peer review simply abolished on the basis that all science was now “post-modern” and had advanced beyond the need for strict procedures?
The statements sound more like forced confessions than “positionality” statements (that’s my position. anyway).
The statements sound more like forced confessions than “positionality” statements (that’s my position. anyway).
Dear God. “Positionality statements” – even the name is illiterate.
Dear God. “Positionality statements” – even the name is illiterate.
I’m a teapot short and stout here’s my handle here’s my spout….
I’m a teapot short and stout here’s my handle here’s my spout….
I’m sympathetic to the author’s case but … but … social science isn’t really a science, is it? The essence of the scientific method is replicability and social science “experiments” are never replicable because a sample of human beings isn’t reproducible or representative in the way a sample of, say, sub-atomic particles is.
Plus, peer review has been broken for a long time.
I agree. Social Science is about finding some stats, drawing a few graphs, and applying statistics. The peer reviews today focus on the statistical methods. Meaningless drivel.
I agree. Social Science is about finding some stats, drawing a few graphs, and applying statistics. The peer reviews today focus on the statistical methods. Meaningless drivel.
I’m sympathetic to the author’s case but … but … social science isn’t really a science, is it? The essence of the scientific method is replicability and social science “experiments” are never replicable because a sample of human beings isn’t reproducible or representative in the way a sample of, say, sub-atomic particles is.
Plus, peer review has been broken for a long time.
There is nothing surprising here. Neo-Marxists now are just replicating tools used by their Stalinist predecessors.
Just remember show trials of the 30s or self-criticism statements in Mao China in the 60s.
We should defund useless subjects (like sociology) for a start.
There is nothing surprising here. Neo-Marxists now are just replicating tools used by their Stalinist predecessors.
Just remember show trials of the 30s or self-criticism statements in Mao China in the 60s.
We should defund useless subjects (like sociology) for a start.
I fear it may be too late: ‘objectivity’ and ‘impartiality’ together with freedom of speech have been dumped as instruments of (white male) oppression.
Yes, this is pretty much the view of Positivism at my college: shared reality is passé. We all live in our own little yellow submarine.
Yes, this is pretty much the view of Positivism at my college: shared reality is passé. We all live in our own little yellow submarine.
I fear it may be too late: ‘objectivity’ and ‘impartiality’ together with freedom of speech have been dumped as instruments of (white male) oppression.
only one race matters in the next week.. The Grand National.
only one race matters in the next week.. The Grand National.
..
..
Thank you!
Thank you!
It’s hard to resist the conclusion that “social science” isn’t science at all when subjectivity is so baked in.
An awful lot of public money is being wasted in these areas. Perhaps some is usefully spent. But if it’s only 5 or 10%, you start to wonder why we finance this stuff.