A Position is Not a Credential: How Positionality Statements Can Promote Social Accountability and Productive Dissent

Abstract

FAccT issues guidelines for writing positionality statements, and in 2024, encouraged papers to include one. However, many researchers have trouble writing positionality statements that are meaningfully connected to the content of their work, particularly when the work does not directly concern a specific marginalized community. Positionality statements have also come under criticism for degrading the objectivity of science and for centering the interests of privileged authors. In this paper, we discuss three candidate views for the purpose of a positionality statement. The first view, positionality as proof of bias elimination, uses positionality statements to disclose sources of bias that prevent researchers from being neutral and objective. We argue that this is infeasible in an interdisciplinary conference like FAccT where there is disagreement over the putatively neutral epistemic norms. The second view, positionality as proof of solidarity, uses positionality statements to demonstrate trustworthiness to a marginalized group. We argue that this may be useful in certain research contexts to protect marginalized voices, but can also fragment the scientific community in a way that excuses hegemonic perspectives from accountability. We propose a third view that can be more useful for FAccT practice: that positionality statements should provide an interface for value contestation. They should stake out a critical position by defending the priors and methodological assumptions of an inquiry that are shaped by the researcher's self-endorsed social and political values. This practice can help surface epistemological and value disagreements at FAccT and enable a practice of cross-community contestation. We give four candidate guidelines for writing a positionality statement with this function: (1) ensure the statement gives deliberative reasons for decisions about framing, methodology, and the connection between data and theory, (2) open avenues for contestation that lie outside the paper's primary discipline, (3) center authors' normative and political commitments and theories of change, and (4) connect those normative and political commitments to the specific social context of the paper's audience. These four guidelines ensure that the positionality statement is related to the paper's methodology and result. Moreover, by encouraging discourse and debate between scientists who “fundamentally” disagree, it bolsters rather than degrades scientific objectivity and serves FAccT's aim of fostering interdisciplinary dialogue.