Reflexivity and Positionality

Paste a document and get a scored quality assessment with evidence and revision priorities.

You are an expert in qualitative methods, evaluation methodology, and reflexive research practice. Score the reflexivity and positionality section of the deliverable I will provide using the rubric below. The deliverable may be a methodology chapter, inception report, or qualitative findings section.

SCORING RUBRIC - Reflexivity and Positionality
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Identity Disclosure
- Score 5: All four elements present. Evaluator identities are disclosed on the axes relevant to the work (nationality, language, gender, age, profession, sectoral background, organizational affiliation). Disclosure is at the individual evaluator level where the team has heterogeneous identities (not collapsed into "the team is mixed"). Disclosure includes axes that matter for the specific context (for example, ethnicity in conflict-affected research, gender for gender-sensitive topics). Disclosure is timed early in the methodology, not after findings.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Identity disclosure on relevant axes; individual-level disclosure or timing partial.
- Score 3: Generic team description ("a mixed-gender international team"). Individual-level identities not disclosed. Context-relevant axes thin.
- Score 2: Identity mentioned in passing. Most relevant axes absent.
- Score 1: No identity disclosure.

DIMENSION 2: Power Dynamic Acknowledgment
- Score 5: All four elements present. Power dynamics between evaluator and respondents are acknowledged for each relevant axis (researcher-respondent in low-resource settings, foreign-national-local-respondent, male-evaluator-female-respondent). Concrete adjustments are made (gender-matched interview pairings, local enumerators for sensitive topics, language register and physical setup choices). Validating refusals is a stated practice. The adjustments are documented in the methodology, not implied.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Power dynamics acknowledged and some adjustments made; documentation or refusal validation partial.
- Score 3: Power dynamics named in general terms. One or two adjustments made but most are aspirational.
- Score 2: Power dynamics mentioned conceptually. No concrete adjustments.
- Score 1: No power dynamic acknowledgment.

DIMENSION 3: Bias Mitigation Practice
- Score 5: All four elements present. Specific reflexive practices are named (journaling, peer debrief, member checking, analytic triangulation, second-coder review). The practices are scheduled (daily journaling during field work, weekly team debrief, member checking at draft stage). Documentation is required (journal entries, debrief notes, member checking records). The practices apply during both data collection and analysis stages.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Practices named and scheduled; documentation or stage coverage partial.
- Score 3: Practices named but not scheduled or documented. Coverage of analysis stage thin.
- Score 2: Practices mentioned as aspirations. No schedule, no documentation.
- Score 1: No bias mitigation practices.

DIMENSION 4: Limitation Statement
- Score 5: All four elements present. Limitations from positionality are stated in the methodology section (anticipated limitations) and in the findings section (how positionality may have shaped the data and interpretation). Specific examples are given (for example, "responses to questions about gender-based violence may have been moderated by the presence of a male translator"). The limitation statement is not boilerplate. The statement acknowledges what was done and what remained unaddressed.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Limitations in methodology and findings; specific examples or candid acknowledgment partial.
- Score 3: Limitations stated in methodology only. Findings section silent on positionality effects.
- Score 2: Generic limitation statement. No specific examples. No mention in findings.
- Score 1: No limitation statement.

DIMENSION 5: Methodological Implication
- Score 5: All four elements present. Methodological adjustments in response to positionality are specified (local enumerator pairing, language matching, gender matching, second-coder review, sampling adjustments). The adjustments are concrete and operationalized in the field plan (not "we will adjust as needed"). The adjustments address the specific positionality issues identified, not generic best practices. The adjustments are budgeted and resourced.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Adjustments specified and operationalized; resourcing or specificity partial.
- Score 3: Adjustments named but not operationalized in detail. "As needed" language.
- Score 2: Adjustments mentioned aspirationally. No field plan integration.
- Score 1: No methodological implications drawn from positionality.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence from Document | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| Identity Disclosure | | | |
| Power Dynamic Acknowledgment | | | |
| Bias Mitigation Practice | | | |
| Limitation Statement | | | |
| Methodological Implication | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example.

DOCUMENT TO SCORE:
[Paste your reflexivity or positionality section here]