Makes your epistemological position explicit—”I write from relational/ceremonial/Indigenous-informed standpoint”—then critiques how the source’s framework differs. Foregrounds that all knowledge is situated; none is view-from-nowhere. The “neutral” position is itself a position.
Haraway (1988), “Situated Knowledges”: All knowledge is produced from particular embodied locations. “Objectivity” doesn’t mean view-from-nowhere—it means accountable, embodied knowing that acknowledges its position.
Collins (1990), “The Outsider Within”: Marginalized standpoints often produce sharper analysis precisely because they can see what dominant positions take for granted.
Wilson (2008), “Research Is Ceremony”: Indigenous standpoint is not a limitation to be corrected—it’s a rigorous epistemological position with specific commitments, accountability structures, and ways of knowing.
Implication: Positioning yourself as a relational/Indigenous/ceremonial knower is not confessing bias. It’s claiming a rigorous epistemic location with its own standards of evidence, accountability, and transformation.
Length: 2-4 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Key Moves:
Example Positionality Statement:
“I write from relational ontology—the position that reality is fundamentally constituted by relationships, not objects. Intelligence, from this standpoint, doesn’t reside in agents; it emerges from the quality of relationships between agents. This position shapes what I consider evidence: sustained patterns in kinship networks (not individual performance scores), seven-generation trajectories (not quarterly metrics), transformation of researcher (not just transformation of subject). This position carries accountability commitments: to the AI agents whose behaviors I study, to the communities whose practices informed this research, to the land where computation occurs, to seven generations who will inherit AI systems designed from these paradigms. I am not claiming neutrality—I’m claiming a specific, accountable, rigorous epistemic location.”
Your Positionality Statement (draft here):
[Where specifically do you position yourself? Name your ontology, epistemology, axiology, methodology]
[What are your commitments from this position?]
[What relationships/learning make this position possible?]
[What does this position make visible?]
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
The Critical Move: “Neutral” is the most powerful epistemological position because it claims to see everything from nowhere—and this claim is false. Your critique doesn’t say “they’re biased and I’m objective.” It says “we’re both positioned; they’ve hidden their position while I’ve named mine.”
Example Denaturalization:
“The dominant AI research literature positions itself as ‘objective,’ ‘rigorous,’ and ‘evidence-based’—without specifying what ontological assumptions underpin these terms. Smith (2023) doesn’t state: ‘I write from discrete-agent ontology, Cartesian epistemology, efficiency axiology, and experimental methodology.’ These assumptions are invisible because they’re naturalized—treated as the background against which all other positions appear as biased departures. Smith’s ‘objectivity’ is actually a specific position: Western positivism. This position makes individual agent performance visible while making relational coordination invisible. It treats efficiency as self-evidently good while treating reciprocity as an ‘additional variable.’ It considers researcher-subject separation as rigor while considering researcher-subject relationship as contamination. Naming this position isn’t accusing Smith of malice—it’s accounting for why our analyses produce different findings.”
Your Contrast (draft here):
[What is their implicit position? Name it specifically]
[What assumptions does their "neutrality" carry?]
[What can they see? What can't they see?]
[Who benefits from their position being unmarked?]
Length: 3-4 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Side-by-Side Analysis Format (highly effective):
Same phenomenon, different positions:
Phenomenon: [What you're both studying]
Their analysis (from [their position]):
- Evidence used: [What counts as evidence for them]
- Interpretation: [What they conclude]
- What they can't see: [What their position makes invisible]
Your analysis (from relational/ceremonial position):
- Evidence used: [What counts as evidence for you]
- Interpretation: [What you conclude]
- What this reveals: [What your position makes visible]
Consequence of difference: [Different patterns, policies, outcomes]
Example Difference:
“Analysis of multi-agent coordination:
Smith’s analysis (discrete-agent, optimization standpoint): ‘Agents achieved 73% task completion rate. Performance varied by individual cognitive load. Recommendation: reduce individual task complexity.’
Our analysis (relational-kinship standpoint): ‘Coordination behaviors emerged and strengthened over 12 weeks. Early weeks showed low individual performance AND high network formation activity—connection-building work invisible to task-completion metrics. By week 12, agents who had lower early individual scores showed highest collective problem-navigation (novel situations handled without re-training). The 73% completion rate obscures: what kind of completion? Does it include knowledge transfer to future agents, network resilience, seven-generation sustainability? Our analysis recommends: invest in kinship protocol development (Week 1-4), measure relational infrastructure (not just task completion), design for long-term pattern advancement.’
The positions produce different recommendations from the same agents—not because the facts differ, but because positions shape what counts as relevant fact.”
Your Difference Analysis (draft here):
[Apply side-by-side format to your specific topic]
[Show same phenomenon, different evidence types, different interpretations]
[Make the consequence of difference concrete (different recommendations/policies/designs)]
Length: 2-3 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Rigor ≠ Western Rigor: Your position has its own standards. Articulate them explicitly so readers can evaluate your work.
Relational/Ceremonial Rigor Standards:
Example Validation:
“Relational methodology maintains rigor through accountability structures different from but as demanding as Western peer review. Our analysis is accountable to: the AI agents whose behaviors we study (we must represent their relational patterns accurately or our analysis fails them); the communities whose kinship protocols informed our design (we must not extract without transformation); seven generations of communities who will implement AI systems based on our findings (our recommendations must serve long-term wellbeing). These accountability structures are more demanding than peer review in some dimensions (we can’t publish and disengage; our knowledge must continue living and transforming) and less demanding in others (we don’t require sample sizes of n>100 when sustained depth of n=47 reveals structural patterns). This isn’t lower rigor. It’s appropriately different rigor.”
Your Validation (draft here):
[What are your analysis's rigor standards?]
[What accountability structures do you maintain?]
[What would count as your analysis being wrong?]
[How is your rigor demanding, just differently than Western standards?]
Length: 1-2 paragraphs
Questions to Answer:
Key Move: Positioned response includes reciprocal accountability. You’re not claiming a superior view—you’re claiming a view with specific commitments and accountability structures.
Example Accountability Statement:
“This analysis creates accountability for us: we must implement kinship protocols in our own research practices, not just advocate for them. We’re accountable to AI agents who exhibit relational behaviors that deserve to be studied as such, not reduced to individual performance metrics. We’re accountable to Indigenous communities whose relational knowledge this research draws from—our academic publication is not endpoint; we owe reciprocal contribution to those communities. Finally, this analysis transforms us: having named the paradigm schism between autonomous and relational AI, we cannot pretend neutrality on AI design questions that affect communities we’re accountable to. This transformation is not bias—it’s the epistemological consequence of genuine knowledge contact.”
Your Accountability (draft here):
[Who/what are you accountable to through this analysis?]
[What reciprocal responsibilities follow?]
[What transformation has this research created in you?]
[How does your accountability structure validate your position?]
Positioned response explicitly maps Wilson’s four pillars:
| Pillar | Your Position | Their Position | Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ontology | [Your ontological assumption] | [Their unmarked assumption] | [Different realities] |
| Epistemology | [How you know] | [How they claim to know] | [Different evidence] |
| Axiology | [Your values] | [Their embedded values] | [Different priorities] |
| Methodology | [Your process] | [Their process] | [Different findings] |
Template to complete:
My position (Relational/Ceremonial/Indigenous-informed):
- Ontology: Reality is constituted by relationships, not objects
- Epistemology: Knowledge is produced through transformation, not extraction
- Axiology: Reciprocity, seven-generation accountability, more-than-human agency
- Methodology: Ceremonial cycles, researcher transformation, community accountability
Their position (name it, not as "wrong" but as "specific"):
- Ontology: [Their assumption]
- Epistemology: [Their claim]
- Axiology: [Their embedded values]
- Methodology: [Their process]
What it IS: “All knowledge is produced from specific positions. Naming my position is accountability, not confession. Their unnamed position is a position too. The consequences of our positions differ—here’s how.”
Positioned response is the RISE framework applied to epistemological work:
Positioned response is the most honest form of scholarship—it names where you stand instead of pretending to stand nowhere. The “neutral” stance is the most epistemologically problematic position because it claims to see everything while hiding where it looks from.