CONFESS YOUR SINS, AND THROW YOURSELF ON THE MERCY OF THE REFEREES.

It used to be that scholarly journals practiced double-blind refereeing, in order to protect the novices from being held to higher standards than the established stars.  (And yes, that might cut both ways, higher education being the menagerie of professional jealousies that it can be.)  But if you want to work the referees, dear reader, consider adding a positionality statement to your acknowledgements.  "Positionality statements makes transparent how the identities of the authors relate to the research topic and to the identity of the participants. Scholars are not mandated to disclose any aspect of their identities, only encouraged. They may choose to disclose one or more of their identities, in as much or as little detail as possible."

That Michigan Med's advice to authors invokes a Sage article ought be warning enough.  "A positionality statement makes clear how the identities of the authors relate to the research topic and to the identities of the participants, and how these identities are represented."

Because simply conducting competent research and presenting it lucidly isn't good enough these days.

Scholars are encouraged to draft a positionality statement that helps clarify how the scholars are positioned regarding the research and the researched. Scholars may choose to include only whatever is most relevant to the specifics of the research topic.

If, for instance, scholars are drawing conclusions about Asian Americans, yet the author list consists exclusively of White Americans, that could be made clear. Or, if gender is being examined, and research participants are members of the LGBTQIA+ community yet the research team consists only of individuals who identify as heterosexual and cisgender, a positionality statement can discuss that.

Scholars may choose to disclose information related to their positionality statements collectively. For example: “one author self-identified as U.S. Black-White American, and four authors self-identified as U.S. White American” (see Roberts et al., 2020). None of these recommendations are limited to the study of one subject.

Alternatively, if scholars would prefer not to disclose specifics of their position/conditions, a more general statement such as “I have lived experience in …” would be more than appropriate.

These statements should be included together with any other relevant disclosure.

It used to be that a scholar could offer analysis that eschewed generalizing from his own experience, and that criticizing the researcher's background was an ad hominem smear.  These days, though, well, it might be worth disclosing that on the Internet, you are not a dog, perhaps as a way of validating the generalizations you draw from your own experience.

While including positionality statements has these strong benefits, authors should also consider several important factors. For example, while stating one’s positionality is an attempt to be transparent about potential biases when interpreting results, not all researchers participate in this practice. As stated previously, it is the researchers who typically come from marginalized populations who bear the burden of communicating their positionalities. And when women, queer and people of color, for example, express their positionalities or share their experiences in their work, they not only open their research to scrutiny, according to Massoud, a professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz, but they open their personal lives to scrutiny, as well.

On the other hand, a woke referee might be more receptive to publishing the work, despite whatever quibbles he raises.  And if you don't want to be too specific about your anatomy or your fetishes, you don't have to mention them.

Additionally, when publishing their positionalities, authors can share deeply personal and traumatic stories that threaten to retraumatize them. As Massoud states, “These harms do not merely accrue when marginalized scholars speak about their own positionality; they also accrue when scholars from majority populations do not speak about theirs, because that omission renders positionality peripheral to mainstream socio-legal scholarship.”

Perhaps because the strength of the argument is what should get your paper published?  These days, though, it's not enough to eschew generalizations from your own experience, it's desirable to call attention by saying an Act of Contrition.

As the Senior Research Associate at The Equality Institute (EQI), I was recently tasked with a, frankly, intimidating project; researching and authoring a ‘learning lessons’ paper on how we at EQI are striving to ‘decolonise’ our research practice. If I’m honest, I was overwhelmed with whether this was something I should do. As an Australian-born, White-coloniser/settler, descendent of Irish and Welsh immigrants, I certainly don’t believe I’m best placed to be speaking on decolonial practices.

It apparently never occurred to this Sheila that maybe a little "Here's what we did, and it wasn't best because ...." might have gone a long way.  But no, Sheila has to pin that royal blue C on her vestments.

My positionality conveys ‘where I’m coming from’ and is made up of our various, intersecting social identities (gender, race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, dis/ability, geographical location, etc.). These identities combined (and their intersections) go on to shape how we understand and engage with the world around us, including what we know, our attitudes and perspectives and our work practices (Takacs 2003 ; Darwin Holmes 2020 ; Alcoff 1988). For me, as a researcher, it influences how I conduct research, as well as its outcomes, and results (Rowe 2014 ; Darwin Holmes 2020 ; Foote and Gau Bartell 2011).

It may feel uncomfortable at first to confront your positionality, especially when you aren’t used to it, and it can illustrate unearned privilege or disadvantage. It did for me.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the real thing from the parody.

This is where “Positionality Statements” can play an important role.

Because there is no such thing as objective reality, all facts are social constructs, and reason and rationality are tools of toxic masculinity, it is essential to know the race, religion, national origin, gender identity, and sexual preference of every author submitting papers for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Science Magazine is preparing the ground for this next leg of the long march in its recent article “Should scientists include their race, gender, or other personal details in papers?” Of course, the correct answer is yes. But you can’t say so out loud yet. Please be patient as comrade Thorp pushes the Overton Window ever further to the left.

The book Knowledge Justice published by MIT press explains the role positionality plays in deconstructing hegemonic power structures. While it is a foregone conclusion that Positionality Statements will go from being recommended to required in the social sciences, justice will not be served until the real sciences are forced to conform.

You will know the final solution has been achieved when Jewish scientists are required to affix the Star of David to all of their publications.

It's not quite that bad yet, but somehow "All authors are cis-gender menstruating individuals who identify as intersectional feminists" doesn't inspire confidence.  Do the senior scholars note they are menopausal?  If so, and their latest Minimal Publishable Unit gets rejected, can they accuse the referees and editors of age discrimination?

Twitchy's "Ranty Amy" Curtis sees right through the working of the referees: these positionality statements insulate the authors "against criticism and rigorous peer review," which might have been the idea all along.