Positionality statements in science

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.


Introduction
Different branches of science are sometimes compared to games that are played by slightly different rules 1 .In interdisciplinary research and multidisciplinary journals, it can be difficult for editors, reviewers, and readers to assess whether scientists have correctly followed the rules because multiple games are played simultaneously.One of the rules that has recently confused the scientific world concerns positionality statements, which refer to disclosing the scientist's position in relation to the conducted research.While positionality has historically and pragmatically established functions in certain methodological traditions [2][3][4] , in the past few years, an increasing number of scientists across disciplines have started disclosing their positions [5][6][7] .This essay aims to clarify positionality as an epistemological concept and research tool to help scientists in all fields decide whether such statements can contribute to their work.

What positionality does
Some methodologies operate with data and analyses that are mostly visible, whereas others do not reach transparency to the same degree.The epistemological treatise of positionality originates mainly from the latter, such as qualitative research traditions, where both producing and analyzing data depend heavily on the tacit interactions of individual researchers 3,4 .A statement of the researcher's position can serve as metadata that sheds light on both data generation and analysis.
Reflecting on the scientist's position has long been a central part of anthropological and other interpretively oriented research paradigms 2,3 .Although positionality can be related to biases, it is not a matter of bias per se but a much larger question of calibrating the research process.When the scientist itself is part of the toolset that is used to generate primary research data-for instance, ethnographic fieldnotes-the details of that "tool" are relevant to acknowledge, not unlike recognizing and transparently reporting materials in biology, physics, or psychology.Because engaging in fieldwork is a process where only a small part of interactions and observations can be documented, it matters who engaged and selected the fieldnote data.In these cases, reflecting on the relevant aspects of the scientist is part of the research process and also makes the scientific community, including meta-analysts, better equipped to assess the study and its components.
Compared to quantitative analytic traditions, qualitative research methods often depend heavily on the scientist's interpretive effort and are thus even more flexible when it comes to researcher degrees of freedom 8 .Positionality statements can provide contextualizing information that explains some of the differences between two or more interpreters.For example, a non-Korean scientist who manually codes medical interview data from South Korea may be unable to identify signals that are evident to Korean scientists.Meanwhile, the same non-Korean scientist, as an "outsider," may be positioned to see other meanings more clearly.Reflecting on such positions can serve as a helpful analytic tool, especially in proactive use.As in preregistration more generally 9 , stating pre-study assumptions can help making useful analytic calibrations before it is too late.In registered reports, positionality statements may also help inform early peer feedback 10 .

Two common misunderstandings
A common misunderstanding is that scientific positionality statements must pick a set of group identities, as from a 'shopping list' 11 .Nonetheless, there are no reasons to expect all group identities to be relevant for the generation and analysis of all research questions.Each positionality statement should fit the methods and topics of a specific study: What are the scientists' backgrounds, beliefs, and other aspects that are likely to affect the generation or analysis of these particular data?In a psychiatric interview study, the scientist's (lack of) clinical background is likely to be relevant, whereas an ethnographic study of gender interactions may benefit from reflecting on the scientist's gender 4 .Because it can never be perfectly known what aspects of a position meaningfully affect the data and analyses, pre-study reflections on positionality serve essentially as auxiliary hypotheses: explicit assumptions about how a scientist's subjectivity can affect upcoming findings.
The second enduring misunderstanding is that positionality rests on standpoint epistemology or postmodernism, which may sometimes even challenge the possibility of scientific knowledge 2,6 .Reflections of positionality do not demand a specific epistemology, yet epistemological (and ontological) assumptions can belong to a stated position.As the earlier examples illustrate, positionality statements can contribute to values that align with objectivity and traditional philosophies of science, such as those based on falsification 12 .Nonetheless, positionality statements should always be used knowingly with a function that serves the study in question.For example, multiauthor studies that operate with numerous experts may benefit more from closed-ended position surveys than from hundreds of statements.For research designs that deal with thematic political analyses by one or two authors, detailed statements of positionality can be advantageous.Because positionality does not equally benefit (or harm) all studies, journals should not mandate positionality statements but treat them like other research tools: encourage them to be used wisely when fitting with the methodology and philosophy of a study.

To position or not
How should scientists decide when to use a positionality statement?The first step is to reflect on one's own role within the chosen study and its topic: the more weight a research design has on individual scientists and their implicit decisions or interactions, the more likely a position is to impact the results,

Amendments from Version 1
The new version makes it even clearer that positionality statements can be useful across different sciences, and a section that previously referred to imperfect information games has been removed to avoid confusion.Several typos have been fixed and minor clarifications added.
Any further responses from the reviewers can be found at the end of the article especially if the research question has significant subjective relevance.Although the role of individual scientists, for example, in controlled statistical designs may be minor, positionality statements can contribute to such research too.The increasing number of adversarial collaborations and unresolved disputes over meaningful effect sizes demonstrate how positionsmay also link to statistical decisions as well as inference 13 .Positionality is not a bias, but can turn into one if a scientist fails to acknowledge its true effects.
Second, the relevance of positionality does not differ from that of setting other assumptions for a study.Reflexive selfassessments will sometimes produce false negatives and positives, as do other assumptions, but the very act of transparent reflection already contributes to useful critical positioning.Openly reflecting on one's own role in the research process subjects it to the same scrutiny as other research materials 14 .
In the same way as it is impossible to guarantee that reported data exclusions, manipulations, and other research decisions correspond to reality 15 , the degree to which positionality statements echo actual positions can never be fully known.Nonetheless, spelling out positionalities and their (lack of) relevance remains one of the tools that can help scientists across fields not fool themselves, as long as the tool is used knowingly.methodology more broadly.My only critique, is that it could be explicitly stated that reflecting on positionality is not only useful and important within interpretive/qualitative positions, but can also be for scientific research, generally speaking.empirical research.I see the main contribution as three-fold.The first and second contribution is the clarification of two misunderstandings.One is the belief that positionality is tied to set of group identities.The second misunderstanding relates to the idea that positionality statements have to be rooted in interpretivist or radical postmodern epistemologies and philosophies of science.The third contribution, which is related to the other two, is the argument that positionality statements involve assumptions about how the own experiences, knowledge etc. influence the empirical analysis.I find the submission valuable because it argues convincingly that the scope of positionality statements is larger than some or many researchers may think.I like the argument that preregistered research and many-analysts studies, which are primarily quantitative, would also benefit from positionality statements.They may help in explaining why researchers who try to answer the same research question with the same data arrive at different, sometimes contradictory results.

Is
The only point I am not convinced of is the analogy to games with imperfect information.I understand why information about an empirical analysis may be imperfect when a positionality statement is missing.However, I am not sure what the game is that is played.Who are the players?What are their utility functions?What are the players' strategies?As I read it, the reference to games is not central to the paper.I suggest it is dropped, or elaborated on in more detail.that the reference to imperfect information games was confusing and unnecessary.For the second version, I have simply omitted this part and added small clarifications about the qualitative-quantitative relationship in other parts of the essay.

Is
the topic of the essay discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?Yes Is the work clearly and cogently presented?Yes Is the argument persuasive and supported by appropriate evidence?Yes Does the essay contribute to the cultural, historical, social understanding of the field?Yes Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.Reviewer Expertise: Qualitative research methodologies, open and reproducible research I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.
the topic of the essay discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?YesIs the work clearly and cogently presented?YesIs the argument persuasive and supported by appropriate evidence?YesDoes the essay contribute to the cultural, historical, social understanding of the field?YesCompeting Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.Reviewer Expertise: social science research methods; meta science; open science I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.