Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Given the intricate relationship between knowledge and subjectivity, reflexivity has become crucial to demonstrating trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry. This reflexive process is then subsequently communicated to readers through various statements of subjectivity. In this paper, we critically analyze the evolution and role of these statements in qualitative research, tracing their evolution from a radical attempt to dismantle post/positivist ideals to their current status as an (at times) stale convention. We problematize statements of subjectivity as a measure of trustworthiness, examining how we use these declarations to legitimize qualitative methods, assert our expertise, and affirm our positionality vis-a-vis our participants. We argue that current practices may inadvertently perpetuate the conditions we seek to disrupt, from wrapping ourselves in the confines of objectivity by disclaiming it to recreating hegemonic power positions in the quest for exoneration. To illustrate our thoughts, we share our statements of subjectivity published in the quest for trustworthiness.

Keywords

reflexivity subjectivity subjectivity statements positionality trustworthiness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvesson

Hardy

Harley

(2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organization and management theory. The Journal of Management Studies, 45(3), 480–501. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00765.x

Boveda

Annamma

S. A.

(2023). Beyond making a statement: An intersectional framing of the power and possibilities of positioning. Educational Researcher, 52(5), 306–314. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X231167149

Bradbury-Jones

(2007). Enhancing rigour in qualitative health research: Exploring subjectivity through Peshkin’s I’s. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 59(3), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04306.x

Came

Tudor

(2016). Bicultural praxis: The relevance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to health promotion internationally. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 54(4), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/14635240.2016.1156009

Cihelkova

(2013). Subjectivity NOT Statement and NOT APA! The Qualitative Report, 18(10). https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2013.1547

Collective. (2017). I am Nel: Becoming (in)coherent scholars in neoliberal times. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 17(3), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708617706120

Ellingson

(2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412991476

Fast

(1971). Body language. Pan Books.

Franken

Smalley

(1992). I’m good enough, I’m smart enough, and doggone it, people like me! Daily affirmations by Stuart Smalley. Dell Publishing.

10.

Gani

J. K.

Khan

R. M.

(2024). Positionality statements as a function of coloniality: Interrogating reflexive methodologies. International Studies Quarterly, 68(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqae038

11.

Guba

E. G.

(1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777

12.

Hall

(2014). Successful academic writing: 1% inspiration 12.51% perseveration 13% omission 30% citation 50% procrastination 90% nonnegotiable deadlines [Tweet]. https://twitter.com/academicssay/status/452245897242771456

13.

Hall

(2015). Deep down, academics want the same thing as everyone else: Acceptance, with minor revisions [Tweet]. https://twitter.com/academicssay/status/664955622698434560

14.

Harris

J. L.

(2021). Black on Black: The vilification of “me-search,” tenure, and the economic position of black sociologists. Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy, 4, 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41996-020-00066-x

15.

Harrison

MacGibbon

Morton

(2001). Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative research: The rigors of reciprocity. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(3), 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040100700305

16.

Jordan

L. S.

(2018). “My mind kept creeping back. . . this relationship can’t last”: Developing self-awareness of monogamous bias. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 30(2), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2018.1430459

17.

Jordan

L. S.

Seponski

D. M.

(2018). Public participation: Moving beyond the four walls of therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12240

18.

Jordan

L. S.

Seponski

D. M.

Armes

(2019). ‘Oh, it is a special gift you give to me . . . ’: A phenomenological analysis of counsellors in Cambodia. Asia Pacific Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 10(2), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/21507686.2019.1629470

19.

Jordan

L. S.

Seponski

D. M.

Hall

J. N.

Bermúdez

J. M.

(2024). “Hopefully you’ve landed the waka on the shore”: Negotiated spaces in New Zealand’s bicultural mental health system. Transcultural Psychiatry, 61, 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634615211014347

20.

Jordan

L. S.

Walsdorf

A. A.

Roche

K. M.

Falusi

O. O.

(2021). “I am affected in all the ways . . .”: A phenomenographic analysis of Latinx adolescents’ perceptions of family separations at the border. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 27(4), 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000416

21.

King

K. A.

(2024). Promises and perils of positionality statements. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 44, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190524000035

22.

Kvale

(1994). Ten standard objections to qualitative research interviews. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 25(2), 147–173. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916294X00016

23.

Liboiron

(2021, January 18). Firsting in research. Discard Studies. https://discardstudies.com/2021/01/18/firsting-in-research

24.

Lipien

Ismajli

Wolgemuth

(2023). Impact of COVID-19 on the educational experiences of youth in foster care: Caseworker perspectives. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 17(3), 475–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/15548732.2022.2061101

25.

Lundberg

Fraschini

Aliani

(2023). What is subjectivity? Scholarly perspectives on the elephant in the room. Quality & Quantity, 57(5), 4509–4529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01565-9

26.

Merriam

S. B.

Grenier

R. S.

(2019). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and analysis (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

27.

Morrow

S. L.

(2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(2), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.250

28.

Morse

J. M.

(2015). Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Health Research, 25(9), 1212–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315588501

29.

O’Brien

J. M.

(2010). Firsting and lasting: Writing Indians out of existence in New England. University of Minnesota Press.

30.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

31.

Pillow

W. S.

(2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635

32.

Pillow

W. S.

(2023). Reflexivity 10.6 1: The matter of reflexivity or what matter matters in postqualitative inquiry. In Young

M. D.

Diem

(Eds.), Handbook of critical education research: Qualitative, quantitative, and emerging approaches (pp. 183–199). Routledge.

33.

Pope

E. M.

Shelton

S. A.

(2023). Revisiting Peshkin: Teaching reflexive practice through categorization. Qualitative Research Journal, 23(4), 397–408. https://doi.org//10.1108/QRJ-11-2022-0148

34.

Preissle

(2008). Subjectivity statement. In Given

L. M.

(Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (Vol. 2, pp. 844–845). Sage.

35.

Ratner

(2002). Subjectivity and objectivity in qualitative methodology. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-3.3.829

36.

Richardson

(2000). Evaluating ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, 6(2), 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040000600207

37.

Rose

(1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305–320. https://doi.org/10.1191/030913297673302122

38.

Rose

Dustin

(2009). The neoliberal assault on the public university: The case of recreation, park, and leisure research. Leisure Sciences, 31(4), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400902988333

39.

Rose

Johnson

C. W.

(2020). Contextualizing reliability and validity in qualitative research: Toward more rigorous and trustworthy qualitative social science in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 51(4), 432–451. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2020.1722042

40.

Roulston

Shelton

S. A.

(2015). Reconceptualizing bias in teaching qualitative research methods. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(4), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414563803

41.

Schwandt

T. A.

(1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2(1), 58–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049600200109

42.

Schwandt

T. A.

(2007). Judging interpretations. New Directions for Evaluation, 2007(114), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.223

43.

Schwartz

(2018, January 8). Improving ourselves to death. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/15/improving-ourselves-to-death

44.

Shelton

S. A.

(2025). Queer (ing) the bias monster and subjectivities: Shifting from confessions to reflexivity. International Review of Qualitative Research, 17(4), 546–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/19408447241245980

45.

Shenton

A. K.

(2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201

46.

St. Pierre

E. A

. (2014). A brief and personal history of post qualitative research: Toward “post inquiry.” Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2).

47.

Sullivan

Tuana

(Eds.). (2007). Race and epistemologies of ignorance. SUNY Press.

48.

Tracy

S. J.

(2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121

49.

Vandebroek

Reyes-García

de Albuquerque

U. P.

Bussmann

Pieroni

(2011). Local knowledge: Who cares? Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 7, Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-7-35

50.

van Wingerden

. (2022). Unmastering research: Positionality and intercorporeal vulnerability in international studies. International Political Sociology, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olac008

51.

Williams

E. N.

Morrow

S. L.

(2009). Achieving trustworthiness in qualitative research: A pan-paradigmatic perspective. Psychotherapy Research, 19(4–5), 576–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802702113

52.

Wolgemuth

J. R.

(2016). Driving the paradigm: (Failing to teach) methodological ambiguity, fluidity, and resistance in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(6), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800415615621

53.

Wolgemuth

J. R.

Jordan

L. S.

(2023). “Will you be our qualitative methodologist?” Reflections on grant work responsibilities. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231152452

54.

Wood

Kahts-Kramer

(2023). “But how will you ensure the objectivity of the researcher?” Guidelines to address possible misconceptions about the ethical imperatives of community-based research. Research Ethics, 19(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221135882

“You Can Trust Me . . . Honest”: Claiming Trustworthiness in Statements of Subjectivity

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References