Skill type: DISCIPLINE-ENFORCING. This is the qualitative analog of the measurement gate in
the social-science methods spine. Where the measurement gate asks "is this number a valid,
reliable measure?", the reflexivity gate asks "is this interpretation trustworthy — and is the
researcher's hand in it made visible?" It runs no coding itself; it requires the warrant and
routes execution to alterlab-qualitative-analysis.
The Core Rule
IN INTERPRETIVE WORK THE RESEARCHER IS THE INSTRUMENT. STATE POSITIONALITY AND EARN TRUSTWORTHINESS
BEFORE MAKING A CLAIM — DON'T ASSERT RIGOR, EVIDENCE IT.
Positivist validity does not transfer to interpretivist work. The field's analog is Lincoln & Guba's trustworthiness: credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability. A qualitative claim is only as strong as the warrant behind each — and the researcher's positionality shapes the finding, so it must be declared, not hidden behind a passive voice.
When to Use This Skill
- "Review the trustworthiness / rigor of my qualitative study."
- "I'm writing up my thematic / grounded-theory / ethnographic findings — am I ready?"
- "How do I address reflexivity and positionality in my methods section?"
- "Can I say my interpretivist findings generalize to other settings?" (← transferability warrant)
Does NOT Trigger
| The request is really about… | Route to | Why not this skill |
|---|---|---|
| Quantitative scale reliability / validity (omega, CFA, invariance) | alterlab-ssci-measurement-gate |
This gate is the qualitative validity analog. |
| Actually coding the data / computing intercoder reliability | alterlab-qualitative-analysis |
This gate requires trustworthiness; that skill does the coding. |
| Choosing the qualitative design / method (grounded theory, phenomenology) | alterlab-qualitative-methods |
Method selection, upstream. |
| Auditing the final written claim against design + evidence | alterlab-ssci-inference-gate |
Terminal claim audit. |
| Picking the study design in the first place | alterlab-ssci-design-gate |
Design routing. |
The four trustworthiness criteria (Lincoln & Guba)
| Criterion | Positivist analog | Warrant the gate requires |
|---|---|---|
| Credibility | internal validity | triangulation (data / investigator / method), member-checking, prolonged engagement, negative-case analysis, peer debriefing |
| Transferability | external validity | thick description of context so a reader can judge fit — NOT a claim of statistical generalization |
| Dependability | reliability | an audit trail: documented, traceable decisions from raw data to themes |
| Confirmability | objectivity | findings grounded in data, not researcher bias — reflexive bracketing, an audit of the chain of evidence |
Positionality & reflexivity — evidenced, not asserted
Require a positionality statement: the researcher's role, relationship to participants/setting, and the standpoint (disciplinary, social, personal) that shapes interpretation. "Reflexivity" written as a one-line claim is not evidence — the gate wants how positionality was examined and how it affected coding/interpretation (e.g. a reflexive journal, bracketing notes, team debriefs).
Gate verdict semantics (matches the other ssci gates)
- PASS — positionality stated; all four trustworthiness criteria have a named, evidenced warrant.
- WARN — a criterion is addressed thinly (e.g. member-checking claimed but not described);
advance with the caveat recorded in
gate_log. - BLOCK (fail-closed) — no positionality statement at all, OR an interpretivist generalization / causal claim with no transferability (thick-description) warrant. The claim must be scoped to the studied case, or the warrant supplied, before writing proceeds.
The Design Passport (hand-off)
Append the qualitative-validity stanza the orchestrator threads downstream:
positionality: <researcher role, relationship to setting, standpoint — or "MISSING" (BLOCK)>
trustworthiness:
credibility: <triangulation / member-checking / prolonged engagement — evidence, or "none">
transferability: <thick description present? scope of any transfer claim>
dependability: <audit trail present?>
confirmability: <reflexive bracketing / evidence chain>
reflexivity_evidence: <journal / bracketing / debriefs — how positionality was examined>
claim_scope: <case-bounded (transferable by thick description) | over-generalized (BLOCK)>
alterlab-ssci-inference-gate later audits the written claims against claim_scope.
Self-Check Before Advancing
- Is positionality stated and its effect on interpretation examined (not just asserted)?
- Does each of the four criteria have a named, evidenced warrant, not a bare label?
- Is any generalization scoped by thick description to what the case supports (not statistical)?
- Is the reliability step method-appropriate — a coefficient only for codebook/content-analytic
work, consensus-and-reflexivity for reflexive TA (routed to
alterlab-qualitative-analysis)?
References
references/trustworthiness.md— the four criteria, their techniques, positionality guidance, and a write-up template.scripts/trustworthiness_checklist.py— stdlib linter flagging missing positionality / criteria / over-generalized claims against the Passport facts.
Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.