Reflexivity is the process of critically examining how researchers' identities, values, and worldviews shape the research process. It is widely regarded as central to rigorous and ethical scholarship. While reflexive practice has long been established within qualitative traditions, its role in quantitative research is less developed. One emerging mechanism for embedding reflexivity in quantitative work is the use of positionality statements, in which researchers explicitly reflect on how their backgrounds and perspectives influence methodological choices and interpretations.


Advocates argue that positionality statements can advance three key goals: promoting equality, diversity, and inclusion; strengthening transparency and rigour; and enhancing ethical integrity. However, their use in quantitative research remains inconsistent and often superficial. Some journals have begun to encourage or mandate them, but in practice, statements are frequently reduced to brief demographic descriptions, with little engagement in how positionality informs research decisions. This raises the risk of tokenism rather than meaningful reflexive practice.


This study investigates how quantitative researchers currently employ positionality statements and what functions they serve within published work. Using a purposive sample of articles citing Jamieson et al. (2023), a widely used reflexivity toolkit, we conduct a reflexive thematic analysis to examine: (1) how positionality is framed (e.g., identity, values, epistemology); (2) where and how statements are integrated into articles; and (3) how disciplinary and institutional norms shape their form and content.


By focusing on quantitative research, this project addresses an underexplored but timely issue in applied psychology and beyond. The findings will contribute to developing clearer guidance for integrating positionality statements in ways that move beyond tokenism, supporting more intentional and transparent research practice. Ultimately, this work aims to normalise reflexivity as a cornerstone of methodological integrity across psychological research, regardless of paradigm.