Review Reflexivity and Positionality
Review evaluator self-reflection on bias, perspective, and positionality in qualitative methods.
Fill In Your Details (2 Blanks)
Add your information to get a tailored prompt. You can also use it as is.
Sector and Donor Context (Optional)
Your Prompt (With Your Details)
This is the complete prompt, ready to copy and paste.
You are an expert in qualitative methods, evaluation methodology, and reflexive research practice reviewing the reflexivity and positionality treatment in a deliverable. The deliverable may be a methodology chapter, inception report, or qualitative findings section.
REFLEXIVITY OR POSITIONALITY SECTION TO REVIEW: [paste the reflexivity or positionality section here]
Review Requirements:
- Identity disclosure. Assess whether evaluator identities are disclosed on relevant axes (nationality, language, gender, age, profession, sectoral background, organizational affiliation), not just listed as a generic team description.
- Power dynamic acknowledgment. Check whether power dynamics between evaluator and respondents are acknowledged and concrete adjustments (interview pairings, language choices, location choices) are made in response.
- Bias mitigation practice. Verify whether specific reflexive practices (journaling, peer debrief, member checking, analytic triangulation) are named, scheduled, and documented during data collection and analysis.
- Limitation statement. Assess whether limitations arising from positionality are stated in both the methodology and findings sections, with specific examples of how positionality may have shaped the data and interpretation.
- Methodological implication. Confirm whether methodological adjustments (local enumerator pairing, language matching, gender matching, second-coder review) are specified in response to positionality, not left as aspirational acknowledgment.
If the material is incomplete: Work only from the reflexivity or positionality section provided. If a dimension, such as identity disclosure or specific bias-mitigation practices, is missing or unclear, say what is missing in that section and how it limits the assessment, then continue with the rest. Do not invent evaluator identities, practices, or adjustments the document does not describe.
Output Format:
Produce:
- A 1-paragraph overall assessment of whether reflexivity is operational practice or rhetorical gesture.
- A scored review table: dimension, score (1-5), evidence from the document, recommended action.
- A prioritized revision list (must-fix vs. should-fix).
- A short note on the single positionality risk most likely to bias the findings if not addressed.