Abstract
This paper offers a systematic review of researcher positionality in 94 studies addressing the experiences of novice teachers of color in K-12 settings. We explore how explicitly these studies articulated researcher positionality, the types of information included, and how researchers linked their positionality to the topics, methods, data, and analyses of their studies. We discuss the importance of critical reflection on researcher positionality in future research on novice teachers of color designed to support the quality, sustainability, and diversity of the teacher workforce. A table summarizes the review findings by synthesizing the positionality criteria examined across the reviewed studies. In addition to summarizing the literature, this table can serve as a practical guide for researchers moving beyond from simply reporting demographic characteristics to develop more comprehensive positionality statements by encouraging reflection on how researcher identities inform research questions, methodological decisions, data collection, analysis, and interpretation.
Keywords
Introduction
Although students of color have made up a growing portion of K–12 students in the United States over the last decade (Irwin et al., 2024), the proportion of teachers of color to White teachers has not grown concomitantly. In the 2020–21 school year, 80% of U.S. K–12 teachers were White (Irwin et al., 2024). When teachers of color do enter the classroom, manifestations of systemic racism within schools increase their risk of attrition from the profession (Bristol, 2020; Dixon et al., 2019; Gist & Bristol, 2022; Kohli, 2018; Scott, 2020). Recognizing the importance of a diverse teacher workforce (Carver-Thomas, 2018; Goldhaber et al., 2019) and the challenges of recruiting and retaining teachers of color (Carver-Thomas, 2017), many scholars have explored the lived experiences of novice teachers of color (Bettini et al., 2022). Such research provides important insight into how teachers experience and respond to their professional environments early in their careers.
In a recent systematic literature review, Bettini et al. (2022) explored the question, What are the experiences of novice teachers of color in the United States? The authors identified 72 studies about these teachers’ experiences. They found that as novice teachers of color enter the field, they often experience a “double bind” (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011; Gist, 2018)—the tension between their own beliefs about what is right for students and the demands and expectations their schools impose on them. Novice teachers of color are often expected to take on roles and responsibilities that their White peers do not, such as mentoring students of color, disciplining students, or providing informal or formal racialized learning opportunities to their White peers. Bettini and colleagues’ systematic review offers important insights for researchers, policymakers, and school leaders regarding the demands placed on novice teachers of color and the resources that might help support them and ultimately change the structural racism they experience.
The studies identified by Bettini et al. (2022) identified that novice teachers of color are in the spotlight, attracting scholarship and general concern. But like any spotlight, it may not illuminate every aspect of its subject. The review presents an impressive variety of research questions, designs, and perspectives among the 72 papers. The range of underlying orientations to the data evident in the papers is also striking. How the researchers oriented themselves to the data, how they described their work as researchers, and how these orientations may have shaped what they saw (or missed) in their data all piqued our interest. It is not clear to us, based on Bettini and colleagues’ review, that the spotlight on novice teachers of color is inherently beneficial. A spotlight can bring resources and support, or it can bring further stigmatization and harm. Troublingly, the authors found some interpretations, claims, and methods in the reviewed papers that seem to reproduce, rather than disrupt, negative biases and assumptions about the teachers on whom they focus, as well as their experiences. These observations suggest the importance of an author’s positionality and how it may affect what is illuminated in research on novice teachers of color and how this body of work is used. Therefore, the significance of the current review is that it provides information on author positionality in research studies examining novice teachers of color.
Driven by these questions, we returned to the same corpus of 72 studies reviewed by Bettini et al. (2022), for a different purpose. In the present review, we investigate author positionality in research studies examining novice teachers of color. For this investigation, we wanted to understand the role of author positionality in research on the experiences of novice teachers of color. To do so, we updated Bettini and colleagues’ search by adding new studies that met the original inclusion criteria but had been published since the initial search by Bettini et al. (2022). Drawing on this updated corpus of studies, the present analysis explores the extent to which scholars who research the experiences of novice teachers of color describe their positionality and separately its role within their research. Throughout, we assert that research is not an objective process, as it is informed by the identity of the researcher at all stages of the process. In conducting this review, we sought to understand the risks and benefits of highlighting or erasing one’s positionality within this body of work. Although our review focuses on literature regarding the experiences of novice teachers of color, we hope this paper serves as a useful case study providing insight transferable to other research areas, including broader questions about the teacher workforce. We invite other scholars to use this work as a source of reflection regarding what is at stake when scholars choose to be explicit about their positionalities.
What Do We Mean by “Positionality”
We define positionality as a researcher’s identity that may affect their approach to human-focused research. As a concept, positionality acknowledges the influence of the researcher’s identity at all stages of the research process. A researcher’s positionality may include both “meta-categories” of identity, such as race and gender, as well as personality characteristics, such as extraversion or introversion (Moser, 2008). Positionality acknowledges both how the researcher understands their own identity and how the researcher is perceived by their colleagues, research subjects, and readers (Case, 2017; Fernández, 2018; Fisher, 2015). As such, positionality is not just a matter of naming identity markers but also of examining how various aspects of identity that position the researcher in relation to others participating in the research (Boveda & Annamma, 2023; Kerstetter, 2012). Thus, even within a single research project, and indeed throughout a career, a researcher’s positionality is relative, fluid, and evolving (Ahmed et al., 2011; Wilkinson & Kitzinger, 2013). As Boveda and Annamma (2023) argued, positionality statements are static; researcher positioning is an “active verb where researchers reflect and address where their locations lie in relationship to interlocking systems of oppression; fields of study; and most importantly, research participants over time” (p. 2).
Why Might Researcher Positionality Matter?
Positioning is an ongoing process of critical self-reflection that can occur throughout the research process to “resist whiteness and ability [as well as other types of privilege] as gatekeepers to knowledge production” (Boveda & Annamma, 2023, p. 7). Our positionality as researchers has the potential to influence all stages of the research process, including research questions and designs, data collection, data analysis, and dissemination. From the outset, our positionality as researchers may shape the questions we ask and the way we design our research because it shapes how we conceptualize present discourse and scholarly conversations regarding particular topics. For example, Foote and Gau Bartell (2011) explained that those who identify as “math education researchers” are often socialized into believing that math is “culture free” (p. 65). This constrains their willingness to ask questions regarding the role of culture in math education. Thus, positionality as a math education researcher may lead to not asking cultural questions about math education.
Perhaps even more apparent is the role of positionality in data collection, as identity shapes how researchers interact with participants. For example, during qualitative data collection such as interviews or focus groups, a researcher’s gender presentation, clothing style, indication of political affiliation, and emotional expressions may affect the trust and rapport they are able to establish with participants (Ahmed et al., 2011; Jansson, 2010). This may be particularly obvious when the participant and researchers have distinct identities. Still, it is also important when differences are more subtle, as there is often a power dynamic within research interactions. Moser (2008) explained, “While positionality and biographies of researchers may be similar, we do not appear the same to the researched. We therefore need to be more conscious of and sensitive to the parts of our personality that have an effect—positive or negative—on those around us” (p. 389) when conducting research activities.
Finally, positionality shapes the way we analyze our research data, whether we collect it ourselves or analyze data collected by someone else. Positionality includes the way we perceive the world around us, or as Holmes (2020) explained, our “ontological assumptions, epistemological assumptions, and assumptions about human nature and agency” (p. 1). Since our assumptions about the world shape the way we interpret our research data, bringing awareness to these assumptions can open us to new possibilities within our analyses and reduce our risk of misrepresentation of data (Milner IV, 2007). This is particularly important for research addressing the experiences of marginalized groups, such as novice teachers of color. As Milner IV explained, “when researchers are not mindful of the enormous role of their own and others’ racialized positionality and cultural ways of knowing, the results can be dangerous to communities and individuals of color” (p. 388).
Why Do Positionality Statements Matter?
For the purposes of this analysis, we define a positionality statement as any information pertaining to the authors’ identities, and/or the impact of these identities on their research efforts that is disclosed within the body of the research manuscript. The practice of sharing positionality statements is not universal in research papers. When a positionality statement includes both information about the identity and the impact of it on the research, it has many potential benefits, including increased transparency about the nature of the research and of the power dynamics of the research process (Milner IV, 2007; Tanksley & Estrada, 2022).
Positionality statements may give the reader some needed information to evaluate the research. Whether they include self-reflection may help readers understand a possible limitation of the findings that is not necessarily evident to the author. However, positionality statements can also reproduce harmful power dynamics and assumptions about who has the authority or credibility to create knowledge about marginalized communities. This is especially true in cases where the researcher has some current or former authority over a participant (e.g., a participant’s professor, former professor, or mentor).
In this current analysis, we assessed whether scholars who published research on the experiences of novice teachers of color included positionality statements in their research at all, and, if so, what types of content those statements contained. We wanted to understand the types of positionality information they provided and how they reflected on the relation of that information to their research processes.
Method
Research Questions
Three questions guided this analysis: (a) To what extent has researcher positionality been made explicit in scholarly research on the experiences of novice teachers of color in U.S. K–12 settings? (b) In studies that describe researcher positionality, what information did the researcher disclose? (c) How do researchers describe the relation between their own positionality and their topic, method, data, and analysis?
Literature Search
The present study builds on a previous synthesis of 72 peer-reviewed studies exploring the experiences of novice teachers of color in K–12 settings by Bettini et al. (2022). Since the database search for the synthesis they conducted was in December 2019, we re-ran the search in January 2023 for articles published in 2020, 2021, and 2022 to ensure that we included any new papers on the experiences of novice teachers of color in K–12 settings that had been published since. To do so, we used the same methodology as described in Bettini et al. (2022); however, due to differences in institutional access, our updated search drew from five databases instead of the original six (i.e., Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences). As with Bettini et al.’s (2022) prior review, our keywords included: a) terms describing novice teachers (e.g., novice teacher, beginning teacher, early career teacher, first year teacher, preservice teacher, teacher candidate, and induction) b) terms describing ethnoracial identities (e.g., teacher* of color, Black teacher*, African American teacher*, Indian teacher*, Asian American teacher*, Hispanic teacher*, Latin* teacher*, Mexican teacher*, Chinese teacher*, Puerto Rican teacher*, Cuban teacher*, Japanese teacher*, First Nations teacher*, Arab American teacher*, immigrant teacher*, first generation, minority teacher*, diverse teacher*, underrepresented teacher*). (p. 499)
This updated database search yielded 509 new articles published since December 2019. After removing duplicate articles, we conducted a title and abstract screening of the 433 remaining unique articles, using the same inclusion/exclusion criteria as in the earlier review. As with the prior search, we included studies in which participants were preservice teachers of color in K–12 field experiences, or participants were teachers of color in their first 3 years teaching. Both authors reviewed every abstract to determine which articles should be included. Studies exploring the experiences of White teachers and/or experienced teachers exclusively were excluded. Studies in which there were mixed participant samples (whether in terms of race or experience) were only included if data regarding the experiences of novice teachers of color were clearly disaggregated from data of other participants. Two graduate students reviewed discrepancies until full consensus was reached.
Of the 433 new articles identified in our updated search, we retained 110 for full-text review. Both authors read all of these articles to determine if they met the inclusion criteria. Where there was any disagreement, we discussed the article as a team to reach consensus. Among the 110 new articles, 23 met the inclusion criteria of the prior synthesis by Bettini et al. (2022); however, Cormier (2020) had appeared in the initial search as it was in press at the time. Since it was included in the earlier review, our total body of studies for the present analysis included 72 studies from the 2022 synthesis (including Cormier, 2020), plus an additional 22 new studies. Thus, in the present analysis, we explored researcher positionality in a total of 94 studies, each of which addressed the experiences of novice teachers of color.
Coding for Positionality Information
Once we had completed the updated search, we read each of the 94 studies to determine whether the authors had included any positionality information within their study. Each of the 94 studies was reviewed by the two authors. We reached consensus through team discussion of any studies for which the presence or absence of positionality information was not clear. In total, we determined that 57 of the 94 studies included positionality information.
Coding of Positionality Information
We conducted several rounds of coding of the positionality content of the 57 studies in which there was any type of positionality information. We began by verbatim extracting all positionality information from each article. This involved creating a Microsoft Word document for each article into which we pasted all positionality information as direct quotations, with page numbers. We then used deductive coding to document the presence or absence of the following five categories of positionality information within each article: (a) the authors’ racial/ethnic background, (b) their gender and/or sexuality, (c) their connection with the participants, (d) their own K–12 teaching experience, and (e) their present professional role. We also used deductive coding to document whether authors linked their positionality to various stages of the research process, including (a) the rationale and/or motivation for conducting the study, (b) the data collection process, and/or (c) the data analysis process.
Once we had indexed all articles according to the types of positionality information they included and thus had completed our deductive analysis, we wrote thematic summaries of the positionality information provided within each of the five types of positionality information and the three aspects of the research process to which authors sometimes linked their positionality information. In doing so, we attended to how authors described positionality as both a barrier and a facilitator of trustworthiness and credibility within their research.
Our Own Positionalities
As coauthors on this project, we find it valuable to disclose elements of our positionality here. The first author is a Black male who was a first-generation college student. He is a former special education teacher who worked exclusively in Title 1 schools in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. He left teaching to pursue a career in academia to conduct research to impact school policy because of the many unethical considerations he witnessed as a special education teacher. He is currently an associate professor of special education. The second author is a White woman and assistant professor at a research–Level 1, predominantly White institution. She was previously a K–12 special educator and adult educator in Chicago and Boston. As teacher educators, we share a common interest in understanding the lived experiences of novice teachers. We also share a common understanding that increasing the diversity of the teacher workforce will have many benefits for students, school staff, and families. In our mutual work, we aim to produce research that builds institutional capacity and motivation to recruit and retain teachers of color. We have had the pleasure of working on a variety of papers together, and we have built the trust we needed to freely discuss the issues that arose in the development of this manuscript. These issues included our personal and professional identities, how they have evolved, and how they have shaped our work together. For example, we discussed how our identities impacted our own experiences as novice teachers, our experiences of positionality disclosure on prior projects, and our own ongoing choice of research questions and projects.
Findings
In our first research question, we explored the extent to which positionality is explicit in scholarly research on the experiences of novice teachers of color in the K–12 setting. Of the 94 studies identified in our review, we found that approximately 60% of the studies (n = 57 studies) included some form of positionality information—for example, inclusion of at least one aspect of author positionality. No positionality information was provided in the remaining 40% of the studies (n = 38).
In the following sections, we address our second and third research questions: In studies that describe researcher positionality, what information did the researcher disclose? How do authors describe the relation between their own positionality and their research endeavors? We provide a summary of how each of the five categories of positionality information showed up across this body of studies: race and/or ethnicity, gender, connection with the participants, K–12 teaching experience, and present professional role. We describe the number of studies that included information within each category, summarize the types of information provided, and explore the ways in which authors linked this aspect of their positionality to their research process.
Race and Ethnicity
Among the various types of positionality information disclosed by the authors, race and ethnicity emerged as the most prevalent category of information, featured in all but one of the 57 articles in which some positionality information was present (Rushton, 2003). Many authors noted that their racial or ethnic identity paralleled that of their participants (e.g., Amos, 2020; Au & Blake, 2003; Chow, 2017; Frank, 2018; Guerra & Rodriguez, 2023). For example, by drawing on her racial background, Chow provided a compelling illustration of how her experiences resembled those of her participants. She acknowledged her natural affinity with the participants and the delicate balance between its potential positive and negative impact on the study. In doing so, Chow highlighted the profound influence that shared experiences can have in establishing stronger connections between researchers and participants. Her insights shed light on the notion that genuine rapport built on common ground can foster a deeper understanding of the subject matter under investigation: I am a former secondary English literature teacher, and my interest in studying Asian American teachers is borne out of my own classroom experiences. These identities that I had in common with my participants—both professionally and racially [a reference to the fact that she is Asian American]—served as a point of connection. Both teachers were interested in participating because no one had ever asked them what it was like to be an Asian American teacher, and the chance to reflect on these experiences was intriguing. There were several times they would begin to tell a story, and then stop and say “you know,” to indicate that they felt I had insider status. (pp. 5–6)
Authors often highlighted that sharing the race and ethnicity of the study participants can be powerful in establishing meaningful connections and impacting the research process. This deliberate declaration showcased the potential for personal experiences to shape research outcomes and emphasized identity’s crucial role in fostering genuine connections between researchers and their subjects. Through this approach, authors demonstrated how embracing and acknowledging their racial backgrounds can enrich the depth and impact of their research endeavors. Guerra and Rodriguez (2023) presented another compelling example in which the authors drew from both Latina/o critical theory (LatCrit) and their own racial and ethnic identities to make sense of the participants’ experiences: The lines between authors and participants are somehow blurred, as we are also Latinx teachers. During these meetings, while we mostly listened, we also allowed ourselves to be vulnerable and add our own experiences to the conversation. We understood that the use of pláticas [small talk] meant that gaining the trust of the participants also meant to trust them with our own stories and learn from the sense-making that happened through our conversations. (p. 2)
Through this intentional engagement with their racial and ethnic backgrounds, Guerra and Rodriguez demonstrated an understanding of the importance of representation and cultural familiarity. These researchers were mindful of how their identities related to their efforts to establish a safe space where individuals could freely express themselves. This approach promoted inclusivity and facilitated a stronger connection between the researchers and their participants. It enhanced the authenticity and depth of the stories shared and deepened the understanding of the subject being studied. This act of disclosure was a powerful tool in establishing a sense of shared experience and trust—creating an environment where participants perceived the researchers as relatable and empathetic—and, ultimately, more culturally sensitive, meaningful, and influential research outcomes.
Others acknowledged that despite some similarities, there are always limitations and boundaries to these shared identities. Many authors recognized racial identity as a pivotal point of connection while also acknowledging the limitations in their overlapping identities and the variances between authors and participants in their life experiences, such as variation in immigration history, class status, and ethnic and language backgrounds, alongside their professional experiences, such as the grades and subjects they taught. For example, continuing the previous example, Chow (2017) explained, Thus, while our common identities certainly served as a point of entry for me in gaining trust from my participants, I recognize that experiences are not the same as theirs. . . . It has been important to make a conscious effort not to superimpose my own experiences, beliefs, and opinions on those of my participants. This is one reason I invited these two participants to join me in my analysis of the original project’s data—to ensure that I was representing their voices with authenticity. (p. 6)
In a few of the cases where authors did not share a similar background with the participants, this disparity was also duly addressed. These researchers acknowledged the potential disparity between their experiences and those of their study participants. For example, Kornfeld (1999) wrote, “As a White instructor, I could never truly see the world from Donna’s and Jessica’s perspective; but what mattered was the fact that I was asking them to explain it to me and trying as best I could to understand” (p. 37). Similarly, Iskander (2021) addressed how their present role impacted their research but discussed how not being an insider allowed participants to be more open with them. Iskander was the only researcher who asserted that their present role negatively impacted their research. In addition to their White appearance, they explained that their association with the university might have dissuaded potential participants. As a result, they stated, they might have had access to fewer perspectives than if they had not been researchers with the university. In some studies, authors stated their ethnicity without specifically connecting it to the research process (e.g., Coffey & Farinde-Wu, 2016; Guyton et al., 1996). For example, Guyton et al. mentioned their ethnicity and gender without further elaborating or drawing connections to their research content.
Gender
Gender identity emerged as the second most common aspect of author positionality, disclosed in 33 of the studies (i.e., 58% of those with positionality statements). Some authors disclosed their gender through the use of nouns (e.g., man, woman), while others used pronouns (e.g., she, her, his). For example, Fallas Escobar and Treviño (2021) opted to provide gender identity solely through pronouns: Author 1 is a Costa Rican, Spanish-dominant, multilingual, language teacher educator who has taught English in Costa Rica and ESL/bilingual methods courses to bilingual teacher candidates in the United States. As a researcher, he does not regard himself as a detached, objective observer but as a collaborator in the process of unveiling how participants make meaning of their lived worlds. Author 2 is a Spanish-dominant bilingual and Mexican transnational, who experienced ESL education as an ESL student herself when she arrived in the United States at the age of 19 years old. Likewise, she has been a nontraditional ESL/bilingual education instructor and bilingual teacher educator in the state of Texas. (p. 130)
As this exemplifies, many authors disclose some aspects of their identity (such as race and ethnicity) directly and reference other identities (such as gender) more indirectly. In some cases, authors conveyed their gender through words expressing potential intersections of gender and other identities, such as Latino, Latina, Chicano, Chicana, Filipino, or Filipina (Borrero et al., 2016; Gomez & Rodriguez, 2011; Kohli & Pizarro, 2016; Rodriguez-Mojica et al., 2020; Sosa, 2025). The authors of two papers, Guerra and Rodriguez (2023) and Strom and Martin (2022) used nongendered language such as Latinx to describe themselves. The one author who disclosed a nonbinary gender identity was very direct about it.
Of the authors who referenced their gender identity, only a few linked their gender identity to a specific aspect of the research process. Those who did so combined gender identity with racial/ethnic identity in such a linkage. For example, Kohli (2012) explained the impact of her positionality as a woman on her data collection: As a South Asian American woman and former teacher, I had a unique positionality in facilitating dialogues with women of color preservice teachers. Within the focus group interviews, many of the women articulated that very little of their teacher preparation was taught by faculty of color and [that they] felt “relieved” to have a “safe space” to discuss their lived experiences with race and racism. I also hold a Ph.D. in Race and Ethnic Studies in Education and I am well versed in the shared realities with racism that communities of color have and continue to endure; thus, I was able to facilitate connections among the experiences of women from varying racial and ethnic groups. (pp. 184–185)
Scott and Alexander (2019) also provided an example of how their identities as Black men informed their data collection and analysis of other Black men: Throughout the process of this study, the researchers made every attempt to consider their biases and consider how we might affect the study. As Black men with former teaching backgrounds in K–12 special education schools, and currently working as professional faculty in higher education preparation programs, understanding the challenges of recruiting and retaining Black men in special education training programs and careers is vital to our own careers. We understand the process by which we became interested in special education careers, so it is conceivable that our experiences with our own recruiting process could constitute a bias in data analysis. At the same time, our experiences provide us with an informed point of view to understand participants’ experiences more personally, and to capture the authentic essence of these experiences based on our own experiences. (p. 5)
In the majority of articles with positionality information, unlike Scott and Alexander, authors included gendered positionality information without referencing how gender might affect their research process.
Professional Relationship With Participants
Of the 57 articles with positionality information, 31 acknowledged that the authors had professional relationships with the participants. This pattern indicates a notable tendency among authors to occupy positions of influence and guidance within the educational context being studied. However, only some of the studies referenced the impact of power dynamics on the research process. For example, Mensah (2019) detailed her personal engagement as a science teacher educator and her relationship with the participant, Michele. In her account, Mensah characterized her relationship as that of “researcher-mentor,” but she made a conscious effort to put her role as a mentor first when needed. She stated that she was more committed to Michele as a person and being a reassuring ally in her life [than in a research objective]. In critical race methodology and life history narrative, getting to know Michele personally and developing trust were more important than the project itself. Being sensitive to her narratives, I too spoke personally, telling my story. I shared advice, insights, and my practices as a science teacher of color and a female faculty member of color navigating the institution where I teach. (pp. 1423–1424)
The purpose of Mensah’s study was to demonstrate the critical need for educational and emotional support for teachers of color, with a specific emphasis on Black females. Mensah noted that she shared several of Michele’s identities as a woman of color with experience in science teaching, and acknowledged differences in their experiences. However, she did not address how the power dynamics inherent in a mentor-mentee relationship might affect her findings. For example, she clearly had a sincere desire to provide Michele with emotional support and exerted significant effort to do so. While she may well have succeeded in providing that support, she did not acknowledge that Michele would have been unlikely to communicate any of her failures in this regard, given the power dynamics between them.
Several authors did acknowledge the power dynamics in their participant relationships, especially if an author was either an instructor or supervisor of a participant (Coffey & Farinde-Wu, 2016; Lees et al., 2023; Motha, 2006; Rushton, 2003). Describing power dynamics when they exist between the author and participant in research articles is essential for maintaining transparency and ethical conduct. By going beyond acknowledging these power dynamics to actually addressing them, researchers can provide valuable insights into the potential influence they may have exerted during the research process.
In studies where authors acknowledged power dynamics, some scholars undertook proactive measures to mitigate the potential effects of imbalances. For instance, Rushton (2003) deliberately declined the supervisor role for the participants in their study during their final internship, recognizing that the dynamics of power and authority could influence the participants’ willingness to engage in open and candid discussions regarding their experiences. Others, such as Motha (2006), expressed concerns regarding the possibility of exploitation of participants and emphasized the participants’ autonomy to withdraw from the study at any stage. Where studies included observing in a classroom, this included frequently reminding teachers that they should never feel obligated to have them in their classrooms. By acknowledging power dynamics to the participants, authors strive to uphold principles of transparency and ethical conduct. This practice enables participants to critically evaluate the potential influence of power imbalances.
Acknowledgment of Researchers’ Own Teaching Experience
Many of the authors chose to disclose their history as K–12 educators. Of the 57 articles with positionality statements, 31 included incorporated references to the authors’ personal teaching experience, some of which were detailed research accounts. Among these, some explicitly connected their own instructional background as a contextual backdrop to their research and as an essential rationale behind their writing. Such reflections suggest a tendency among authors to examine their professional backgrounds, alongside other important identities, as part of their relationship of shared experience with their participants.
Shared interests and commitments often shaped the development of research collaboration; for example, Kohli and Pizarro (2016) described having experienced isolation as educators of color in K–12 spaces, much like their study’s participants. Some researchers shared how their own teaching experience shaped their research. For example, Chow (2017) drew a clear line from her own teaching experiences, as part of her positionality, to the work of her paper. Chow described her classroom experiences as “a former secondary English literature teacher” as a key reason for her interest in her subject: “My interest in studying Asian American teachers is borne out of my classroom experiences” (p. 5). Haddix (2010) described her work on Black and Latina preservice teachers as arising from her experience as a teacher, specifically as a Black and Latina teacher: As I reflected on my own experiences. . . . I wondered about other Black and Latina students in my predominantly female, White, English-monolingual literacy methods classes as they prepared to become teachers. In particular, I began to critically consider the impact of one’s racial and linguistic background on one’s construction of a teacher identity and visions of what constitutes a teacher. (p. 98)
Such statements highlight the strong influence of authors’ teaching experience on their scholarly work, suggesting a profound source of inspiration for their work, and help the authors establish credibility for their research.
Some researchers used their teaching experience to further develop their relationship with their participants. For example, Cormier (2020) described how being a Black man and a former K–12 special education teacher helped him develop trust with participants who were Black men and preservice special education teachers. In some cases, authors acknowledged the ways this shared teaching experience could introduce bias in their research. Like Cormier (2020), Scott (2020) described the importance of sharing with his participants the similarity of his positionality and teaching experience as “a Black male full-time special education assistant professor with experience as a special education teacher” (p. 7). However, Scott also acknowledged his differences from his study participants, all of whom had been special education teachers and then stopped working in special education. In contrast, he had become a special education department leader after being a special education teacher, a role that included “provid[ing] support to other [special education] teachers” (p. 7).
Authors such as Ramirez et al. (2016) and Coffey and Farinde-Wu (2016) mentioned their teaching experience, primarily within the research. However, unlike the authors previously mentioned, they did not articulate how their personal pedagogical background influenced the initiation of their research. Similarly, Strom identified each author’s connection to teaching but did not expand on this concept or attribute it to the inspiration for their scholarship.
Their Present Role
Of the 57 articles with positionality information, 31 addressed the authors’ present role during their studies. Seven articles in which the authors acknowledged their present role only related to how it facilitated sample recruitment. At the same time, 11 mentioned it in relation to the decision to research a given topic. For example, in the first category, Rushton (2003) explained that they were in their final internship when they were introduced to their participant. In the second category, Motha (2006) indicated they were a doctoral candidate at the time of the research and that it was undertaken for their dissertation study.
Few authors who referenced their present role addressed its possible influence on their research or analysis. In one exception, Gist (2018) provided one of the most thorough and insightful analyses of how her present role as a researcher advised her research. She stated that her position as a researcher “strengthens transparency” because (a) it centers what may be obscured or denied by investigating the racialized experiences of participants and the systems and practices that create this social context; (b) [it] reflects a choice of nontraditional research instruments that enhances access and understanding of nondominant perspectives; and (c) [it] employs an analytic framework that acknowledges, opposed to looking past, the challenges of colorblind and post-racial research analyses. (p. 524)
While most researchers would likely verbally recognize how their life led them toward a particular research position or subject, Gist (2018) discussed how her researcher lens positively impacted the direction of her research. However, she did not address how her lens as a researcher may have led her to ignore certain conclusions in a particular direction.
Of the 30 articles in which authors referenced their professional relationship with their participants, 12 were authored by more than one author (see Table 1). Yet only two of these included information regarding how authors’ respective roles impacted their collective research. For example, Achinstein and Ogawa (2012) simply acknowledged their “own sociocultural and professional positionings impact the research” (p. 8) but did not explore the specific remedies or address the dynamics of their diverse research team. Borrero et al.’s (2016) research team comprised a faculty member, a first-year teacher, and a full-time student teacher. They implicitly acknowledged that power dynamics might have a chilling effect when they stated that the faculty member was not present for the focus group sessions because they believed this would “create as open a dialogue as possible among participants” (p. 31). Deference that may not even be intentional is likely to arise in the presence of a more senior researcher, and by not attending these meetings, the faculty member allowed the less experienced members of the research team to share potentially novel insights.
Positionality Study Analysis.
The Impact of Positionality on Research Methods and Outcomes
In the previous sections, we provided a summary of how authors addressed five different types of positionality information in their articles. Within each section, we describe the types of information they disclosed and offer examples of how they linked this information to their research process, among those authors who described such linkages. In the following sections, we summarize how authors who linked their positionality to their research process describe the impact of their positionality on their research.
Enhanced Understanding of Participants’ Narratives
In two studies, the authors (Kern et al., 2012; Mensah, 2019) discussed how shared aspects of their positionalities with the participants enhanced their understanding of the participants’ narratives. Mensah (2019) emphasized that “there is a shared history with racism and discrimination in the educational experiences of people of color that allows for familiar and different meanings on the narratives shared” (p. 1418). Shared experiences between researcher and participant allow for deeper insights into the complexities of the participants’ narratives. Similarly, Kern et al. (2012) noted that their shared positionality with their participants' positionality gave them “particular access to understanding our [their] participant” (p.472). In addition to shared experiences enhancing the researchers’ understanding of the participant’s narrative, Mensah (2019) shared that her shared positionality with the participant put her into a position to authentically “tell and offer insights into the narratives” (p. 1218) of the participant. The complexities and intricacies related to racialized experiences are most authentically understood from a first-person perspective, allowing researchers who share aspects of their positionalities with participants to extract meaning and identify undertones from participants’ narratives through their own experiences.
Building of Trust
Several authors (e.g., Cormier, 2020; Pham, 2018; Woodson & Pabon, 2016) emphasized that the shared aspects of their positionalities with those of their participants fostered a trusting relationship between the researchers and participants, influencing the experiences that participants openly shared. Cormier (2020) shared, “My identity was most important for this study as it is quite possible that these participants would not have been as open to their experiences with another scholar” (p. 25). The narratives shared by the participants in these studies are deeply personal and require participants to feel comfortable being vulnerable with the researcher, which may be difficult when sharing narratives with a researcher who has had vastly different life experiences from the participant. Similarly, Woodson and Pabon (2016) noted that “both authors found they connected deeply with the participants and gave them ample time to share their life histories,” emphasizing that participants “expressed gratitude for having the opportunity to tell their stories on their own terms” (p. 63). Pham (2018) similarly asserted that their relationship with the participants influenced the information the participants were willing to share, saying, “Shared aspects of my positionality as a former classroom Teacher and Scholar of Color and my relational approach to field support resulted in a trusting relationship that likely influenced the richness and candidness of Delilah’s and Robin’s participation in this study” (p. 59). Through shared experiences, researchers cannot only better understand their participants but also cultivate trusting environments in which participants feel comfortable sharing vulnerable experiences.
Concern Over Superimposing Experiences
In three studies, the authors (Bristol & Goings, 2019; Chow, 2017; Farinde et al., 2016) expressed concern over superimposing their own experiences onto the experiences of the participants due to the shared aspects of the participants’ and researchers’ positionalities. Farinde et al. acknowledged that their findings were likely influenced by their shared positionality with the participants, saying, Although throughout the data analysis process, we acknowledged and rejected existing biases, possessing the same racial classification, and for two of the three researchers, the same gender as participants in our study, may reveal shared experiences, influencing the study’s outcome. (p. 124)
Removing one’s own experiences from the interpretation of another’s challenges suggests that shared experiences between researchers and participants can be a source of limitation to a study’s findings when researchers superimpose their own experiences onto those of their participants. Bristol and Goings (2019) expressed similar concerns, sharing that they employed bracketing in their research process to mitigate these influences, specifically by “setting aside our assumptions of their experiences to focus on the experiences of Black male teacher participants” (p.57). Although they shared that they employed this strategy, the authors did not extrapolate further on how this strategy effectively avoids researchers superimposing their own experiences onto those of their participants.
Authenticity of Narrative
Several authors (e.g., Chow, 2017; Pham, 2018; Rodriguez-Mojica et al., 2020; Strom et al., 2018; Téllez, 1999) shared that they chose to engage their participants in the analysis of the data to promote the authenticity of the participants’ narratives. As explained by Téllez (1999), to promote authenticity, the “interviewee was given an opportunity to review their interview text and the interpretations derived from their words” (p. 561). Both researchers who shared their positionality with their participants and researchers whose positionalities diverged from those of their participants engaged participants in member checks to promote the validity of their findings. Chow (2017) shared that although she and her participants shared racial identities, their positionalities diverged on many other aspects. Accordingly, Chow shared that she chose to engage the participants in the data analysis process “to ensure that [she] was representing their voices with authenticity” (p. 6). Rodriguez-Mojica et al. (2020) explained that they shared aspects of their positionalities with their participants, thus drawing from their common experiences and collaborating with their participants to analyze the data. These experiences highlight researchers’ understanding that even in the case where researchers and participants share aspects of their identities, every person’s identity is a unique intersection of multiple identities, and engaging participants in data analysis is a valuable tool to promote authenticity in a study’s findings.
Several authors (e.g., Chow, 2017; Kornfeld, 1999; Shaw, 1996) discussed the implications of narrative being told through the lens of the researcher, meaning that the author’s positionality is in some ways embedded in the findings. Kornfeld explained “the narrative tells their stories filtered through my questions, perceptions, and interpretations as researcher” (p. 23), acknowledging that participants’ narratives cannot be completely and authentically understood through the lens of an outside perspective. Shaw (1996) noted that, given the possibility of a “discrepancy in cultural perspectives” between her and the participants, she “used the participants’ own words as much as possible” (p. 330). Out of concern for misinterpreting participants’ narratives, Shaw (1996) maintained the exact words of her participants to allow readers to interpret the narrative from the participant’s perspective rather than through the lens of the researcher.
Acknowledging or Addressing Biases
Many authors (e.g., Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008; Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011, 2012; Farinde et al., 2016; Magaldi et al., 2018; Plachowski, 2019; Strom et al., 2018) acknowledged that their positionalities, as well as those of any researchers, have implicit biases and thus limitations associated with them. Some of the authors (e.g., Achinstein & Aguirre, 2008; Achinstein & Ogawa, 2011, 2012) shared strategies they used to address these limitations, explaining that their findings were reviewed by scholars of color. Explicit explorations of these biases were lacking in all of the articles explored. When publishing articles, authors aim to maximize the validity and authenticity of their findings, and the absence of discussions of authors’ biases suggests that the authors may be concerned that naming and exploring their biases could limit their findings.
Articles With No Positionality Statement
Of the 94 studies included in this review, we found that 33 articles included no statement of author positionality. However, many of these articles did include other methods for addressing the possible impact of the authors’ positionalities, even if they did not explicitly state them. In the following sections, we provide examples of alternative ways in which authors implicitly acknowledged the potential of their own positionality to impact their research process.
Peer Feedback
Of the 33 reviewed articles that did not include a statement of positionality, four of the authors (i.e., Durden et al., 2016; Mercado & Trumbull, 2018; Sato et al., 2013; Sutterby et al., 2007) shared that they incorporated peer feedback to enhance the credibility of their findings. Peer feedback can involve checks or debriefs where knowledgeable peers review the research process or findings, and researchers make adjustments accordingly. Sato and colleagues, for example, engaged university supervisors with expertise in qualitative research as peer debriefers, who evaluated the interpretations of the data as accurate and representative of the participants’ statements. The researchers sought to strengthen the validity of their findings by relying on the point of view of outside, trustworthy sources. Conversely, other authors chose to focus on conversations within the research team. Sutterby et al. (2007) held weekly meetings in which they discussed the program’s progress, observations, and likely changes. They explained, this peer checking involved weekly meetings to discuss and reflect on the progress of the program, observations, and possible changes. Multiple data sources and peer checks were used to triangulate the emerging findings and to contribute to the credibility of the study. (p. 85)
These approaches highlight the researchers’ efforts to enhance the credibility and validity of their findings through both collaborative reflection and external input.
Member Checks
Five of the authors (i.e., Achinstein & Barrett, 2004; Durden et al., 2016; Goings et al., 2018; McDevitt & Kurihara, 2017; Sato et al., 2013) reported engaging in member checks to ensure that the narratives they shared were an accurate depiction of participants’ experiences. By involving the participants in reviewing the research findings or interpretations, these authors added a layer of validity to the study and authenticity of the participants’ narratives.
Use of Computer-Assisted Data Analysis Software
Four of the authors (i.e., Choi, 2018; Holliday, 2021; Kelly & Northrop, 2015; Kohli, 2018) shared that they used software assistance in their data analysis process. Choi, Holliday, and Kohli all shared that they used software to assist in the organization and coding of their findings. Choi and Kohli both specified that they used the ATLAS.ti software. Alternatively, Kelly and Northrop shared that they used the “SVY” (survey) commands in STATA software in their data analysis.
Reflexivity
Three authors (i.e., Arce, 2004; Berta-Avila, 2004; Bristol & Mentor, 2018) integrated reflexivity into their research, acknowledging the evolving role of the researcher in relation to the participant and its possible impact on the study. Bristol and Mentor shared that they analyzed data using both etic and emic coding, emphasizing that their etic coding was interpreted from an “insider” perspective, grounded in the participants’ experiences, while the emic coding was derived from theoretical frameworks, serving as an “outsider” perspective. Arce added to this by considering how the dialogue between researchers and participants allowed them to “[come] together to critically discuss, reflect, and act on the problems being investigated” (p.233), emphasizing the collaborative aspect of research. Finally, Berta-Avila shared that they generated the meaning of the data with the participants, which they argued transforms the role of the researcher, noting, “This new role does not permit the researcher to view his or her relationship with the participants from an outsider perspective. Instead, the relationship transcends to an unconditional commitment to assist and come to know the realities that are relevant to them and become involved in the process” (p. 71). These perspectives illustrate a recognition of the researcher’s role in data analysis and the importance of incorporating participant perspectives into the process.
Discussion
We identified 94 studies examining the experiences of novice teachers of color, including teachers who were currently working in a school as part of a teacher training program or were in their first 3 years of teaching outside a preservice program. Research on the experiences of novice teachers of color has important potential to support data-informed investments in policies and practices to increase the diversity of the teacher workforce. As researchers, it is therefore crucial that we continually reflect and evolve in our efforts to participate in this work. One way to do so is by examining our own positionalities and making conscious decisions about what we reveal about ourselves and how we do so within our papers. Yet in the present literature review, we found that only 60% of the 94 studies included author positionality information. This means that authors’ identities have not been included in much of the existing research about the experiences of novice teachers of color.
The Value of Positionality Disclosure
In the studies where the authors did disclose positionality information, the depth and breadth of information provided varied greatly across articles. In some studies, the authors included information across all the categories we identified; others disclosed information in only one of the categories (i.e., racial/ethnic background, gender and/or sexuality, connection with the participants, K–12 teaching experience, or present professional role).
Our stance is not that positionality disclosure will automatically improve research. In fact, we recognize that positionality disclosure can function as a performative measure when unaccompanied by descriptions of its impact on the research process. In some studies, included in this review, we wondered why authors listed certain aspects of their identity, as the relevance of the disclosure to the research process was not made clear to the reader. We believe the purpose of positionality disclosure is to support the readers’ interpretation of the study. Merely mentioning the authors’ identities leaves this positionality up to the interpretation of the reader; they may make assumptions about what it means to have a particular identity that is different from the authors’ understandings.
To support researchers in moving beyond simply identifying themselves by race, ethnicity, gender, or other demographic characteristics, Table 1 synthesizes the positionality criteria identified across the reviewed studies. While the table summarizes the findings of this review, the criteria are not intended to serve as a checklist requiring every area to be addressed in every study. Rather, they represent aspects of their identity that researchers can consider when developing their positionality statements. By describing how they understand themselves, scholars may allow readers to interpret more clearly their intentions and implementation of the research process. Conducting this study has helped both of us to consider what we disclose about ourselves in our own research and whether and how that disclosure will support readers’ understandings of our findings. We encourage other researchers to also consider how they might support readers’ understanding of their intentions and implementation processes as well. Creating a positionality memo at the beginning of each stage of the research process (ideation, IRB proposal, data collection, data analysis, etc.) and then returning to this memo as the process unfolds may be a useful practice to move researchers away from performative positionality toward efforts that enhance the experience of both the research team and the reader.
Disclosures illuminate how author identity can both facilitate and undermine the trustworthiness and credibility of research. Many authors noted how elements of their own identities facilitated access to their research participants and provided opportunities to obtain rich qualitative data. For example, Cormier (2020) wrote, “Several participants . . . indicated they appreciated being interview[ed] by a Black man who went through a traditional special education teacher program as they did” (p. 25). However, some authors who included positionality information also shared that their own identities sometimes functioned as a barrier within the research process. For example, Au and Blake (2003) explained, “The first author served as the advisor and instructor for the study’s participants . . . a limitation to be noted is that responses of the preservice teachers may well have been influenced by their knowledge of the first author’s views” (pp. 194–195). Achinstein and Ogawa (2012) explained the double-sided nature of positionality as a limitation and facilitator: By listing our sociocultural and professional identifications, we acknowledge complexities and limitations that our positions create in researching the lives of a diverse group of teachers of color. We acknowledge that our own sociocultural and professional positionings impact the research. (p. 8)
The Pitfalls of Positionality Disclosure
Despite scholars highlighting the importance of positionality in research (Boveda & Annamma, 2023; Milner IV, 2007), scholars have rightly noted that positionality statements may have shortcomings. While the stated goal of using these statements is to reduce possible bias, some scholars believe that they fail in this (Massoud, 2022; Savolainen et al., 2023). There are calls for scholars to not merely acknowledge their identities but also to address the biases and assumptions they had about a particular group before going into a study (Gani & Khan, 2024).
For example, Moser (2008) noted that positionality statements generally focus on external characteristics (e.g., skin color and gender presentation) and that researchers seem to assume that sharing such characteristics with participants will prevent bias in their findings, but this is not the case. For example, a Black researcher who grew up (and remains) middle class may have negative perceptions of poor Blacks, and this may be important to acknowledge if they are studying low-income Black people. Readers may wrongly assume that if the researcher is also Black, such biases are not possible limitations in their research, and the inclusion of positionality statements, including race but not class, may support such assumptions. Scholars also note that aspects of people’s personalities (e.g., introversion vs extroversion; sense of humor) also play a role in whether they can establish trust (Ganga & Scott, 2006; Moser, 2008), yet are rarely included in formal positionality disclosures.
Another limitation of positionality statements is that people may write them in such a way as to include shared identities but obscure identities that do not align with the participants, such as sharing race with participants but not class or immigration status. As we have also suggested, scholars may obscure power imbalances that exist between them and their research subjects. Gani and Khan (2024) pointed out, “Often, despite [the] purported aim [of positionality statements] to mitigate power imbalances, hierarchical relationships often remain unchanged” (p. 4). Indeed, even disclosing an imbalance in a paper will not disrupt that imbalance, but it at least gives the reader another tool to evaluate the findings of the study. Such complications should encourage further conversation in the scholarly community about how positionality statements can and should be used to maximize the availability of usable, actionable research findings to improve outcomes.
Limitations
One important limitation of this review is that we did not code for all aspects of positionality that the papers included. In some studies, authors disclosed information regarding their sexuality, language, and/or immigration history. We referenced these in the findings when they were relevant to the topic of the paper but did not systematically address these in the same manner as race, teaching experience, gender, and current role. In addition, we recognize that by only including studies written in English, due to our own positionalities regarding language, we may have missed relevant studies on novice teachers of color written in other languages and any positionality information included within.
Implications for Future Research
As we continue to conduct our research, we have reflected on what this process has taught us about our positionality. We see the benefits of positionality statements and the need to engage in the active work of positioning. We recognize, too, that the impact of disclosure is different for different people, including the researchers themselves and their study report readers. It is vital to ask: Once we become conscious of positionality, what do we do with our consciousness to be better researchers?
We invite our colleagues to increasingly acknowledge the fluidity of their own positionality and fluidity within typical identity markers. For example, indicators like Black, male, urban teacher represent many of the researchers’ life experiences and therefore inform their research process in a multitude of ways. Yet as readers, we cannot make assumptions about how being Black, male, or an urban teacher informed the researchers’ data collection or data analysis. That is why it is crucial for researchers not just to state the identity marker but also to acknowledge its influence on a particular project. Currently, we know little about how identity informs people’s scholarship, and the aspects of identity that are listed may not always be the ones most impactful on the research process of the study. As Moser (2008) explained, While there are surely researchers among us who are viewed to varying degrees as outgoing, shy, domineering, neurotic, paranoid, hot-tempered, impatient, and so on, such observations about oneself do not appear in discussions of positionality, even though these traits may have a far more significant impact on the research process and product than being, for example, a feminist, white, a post-structuralist or middle class. In this way, positionality is a highly selective version of oneself that usually serves to keep academic authority intact. (p. 386)
As we consider future research, it is important for researchers to consider ways in which they may approach their identities and positionalities expansively and reflect on the extent to which what they do (or do not) disclose is relevant to the research. In this study, we chose to focus specifically on positionality statements in research regarding the experiences of novice teachers of color. Literature pertaining to teacher identity more broadly is rapidly increasing, and we encourage scholars to conduct systematic literature reviews like this one on research of other topics. A wide range of such reviews could prompt a better understanding of the impact of positionality statements and generate guidance for best practice.
Conclusion
As this study notes, while positionality statements can add value to empirically based social science studies, they have drawbacks. First, there are no universally accepted guidelines for the content of these statements. In this context, scholars often develop them to persuade readers that those who share racial, cultural, ethnic, or gendered identities with their research participants hold more authority on a particular topic than outsiders. In this quest for validity, researchers tend to overlook crucial issues such as those listed in Table 1 when developing these statements. We encourage researchers to consider how positionality statements might clarify how researchers treated power dynamics between themselves and study participants, how the researchers’ positionality led to certain methodological choices, and even the acknowledgment that sharing the same backgrounds does not equate to similar lived experiences, perspectives, or even values.
Researchers studying teachers of color in particular should think meticulously about sharing their own positionality and their purposes in doing so. Our goal in developing this systematic review is not to instruct scholars or even editors that research on this topic—or any other—necessitates a specific form of positionality statement. There are many legitimate reasons authors may or may not disclose various aspects of their own positionality within a manuscript, including but not limited to disagreements among coauthors on the purpose and/or necessity of disclosures, space constraints in the journal, and concerns regarding political targeting of authors based on author identity or research topic. Thus, there are valid reasons to publish manuscripts that do not include positionality disclosures or lack that particular detail, and requiring such statements may block important research insights.
Broadly speaking, positionality statements are a complex phenomenon. Although some journals are all for them, there is no consensus in any field regarding whether they should appear in research papers, what they should contain, and how they should be used to evaluate research. Given this, it would be helpful if journal editors developed instructions within the author guidelines for submission to their journals regarding such statements. Furthermore, research methods courses should address positionality statements, including the benefits, drawbacks, and proper ways to present them. By conducting this systematic literature review, we demonstrated that researchers’ practices regarding the disclosure of their identity vary widely. As educational researchers continue to invest in crucial research on the experiences of novice teachers of color, we hope this review demonstrates the importance of critically reflecting on their own positionality disclosures within their scholarship. There is a need for much more empirical work on positionality statements, and there is not necessarily one correct way to state one’s positionality within research. Rather, we believe there are many meaningful ways for scholars to reveal aspects of their identity to their readers.
Given the trends in positionality statements that we observed in this body of literature, we invite researchers to consider how they actively contribute to or resist research norms, expectations, and traditions through their own disclosures (or lack thereof). While we cannot offer strict guidance regarding what or how researchers should introduce themselves to their own readers, we suggest that they should consider some of the areas that we highlighted in Table 1 (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, professional relationship to participants, current professional role, explaining methodological efforts to address or utilize positionality); other scholars in the social sciences have offered additional guidance (e.g., Boveda & Annamma, 2023; Milner, IV, 2007). We hope this article serves as a helpful resource for facilitating ongoing discussion and reflection regarding researchers’ positionality in our field and that this discussion can foster ongoing reflection regarding the role of positionality statements in research.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Aydin Bal and Elizabeth Bettini, who read and provided feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.