From positionality statements to reflexive statements of principle-informed process
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
The three-model screen
all 1,000 screened works →1 of 3 models called this metaresearch. This work is contested: it sits on the field's empirical boundary, and whether it counts depends on which model you asked. It is one of the 51 works in the disagreement dossier.
Argues for moving from positionality statements to reflexive statements of principle-informed process in global health research outputs; the object is a research reporting and equity practice, but the payload is a single summary-box sentence and it reads as commentary/analysis rather than a study, so the T1/T3 line is genuinely uncertain.
The work examines how positionality and reflexive processes are reported in research outputs.
Normative commentary on positionality statements in research outputs, not an empirical study of research systems.
Abstract
Summary box Positionality statements that accompany journal articles or other presentations of research outputs are important contributions to equity and justice in global health research.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
The record
- Venue
- BMJ Global Health
- Topic
- Social Science and Policy Research
- Field
- Social Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- McGill University
- Funders
- —
- Keywords
- ReflexivityEquity (law)Process (computing)Economic JusticeQualitative researchSocial justice
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes