A nursing reflexivity statement explains how your professional position, relationships and assumptions influenced a qualitative study. It helps the reader understand how you approached participants, generated material and interpreted meaning. A useful statement connects the researcher to specific decisions; it does more than announce that personal bias exists.
For example, a nurse interviewing colleagues about escalation may already have strong views about safe practice. That experience can help the researcher recognise subtle accounts of clinical work. However, it can also encourage assumptions about what participants meant or discourage them from describing disagreement. The statement should explain how those possibilities were examined during the actual project.
This guide focuses on writing that statement. For coding and theme development, use the separate thematic analysis in nursing research guide. If your design is still undecided, start with choosing a nursing dissertation methodology.
What a nursing reflexivity statement should explain
The central question is how your position shaped the research process. Finlay (2002a; 2002b) examines reflexivity as an engagement with the researcher’s presence and relationships in knowledge production. The practical writing task is to make relevant influences visible without turning the methodology chapter into an autobiography.
Begin with influences that could alter access, questioning, interpretation or representation. Your clinical role, prior experience of the topic, professional commitments, language and relationship to participants may matter. Other personal details may add little. Include a detail because its consequence can be explained, rather than because disclosure seems automatically rigorous.
Separate your starting position from what happened during the project. Before interviews, you may have expected workload to dominate accounts of missed care. During analysis, participants may have highlighted hierarchy or uncertainty instead. Showing how you responded to that difference makes the statement more useful than a general promise to remain open-minded.
A statement cannot demonstrate that every possible influence has been identified. Its credibility comes from a considered account of relevant decisions and limits. Avoid claiming complete neutrality, removal of subjectivity or perfect access to participants’ experiences. Those claims are difficult to defend and can conflict with the methodology you have chosen.
Reflexivity, positionality and reflection: useful distinctions
| Term | Practical question | Writing consequence |
|---|---|---|
| Positionality | Where do I stand in relation to this research? | Identify relevant roles, commitments and relationships. |
| Reflexivity | How did that position influence the research? | Trace effects on decisions and interpretations. |
| Reflection | What did I notice or learn? | Explain learning, then connect it to the research process. |
These terms overlap, and research traditions use them differently. Define your usage briefly where the distinction matters. A list of identities describes position but does not yet show reflexive engagement. Similarly, saying that an interview felt uncomfortable identifies an experience but leaves the methodological consequence unexplained.
Move from observation to consequence. Perhaps discomfort led you to shorten a pause or reassure a participant before they finished speaking. The research issue is whether that response narrowed the account. Your next step might have been to review the recording, change later prompting and record the concern in an analytic memo.
Keep this distinction clear when writing about supervision. Discussing an interview with a supervisor is an activity. Explaining how that discussion challenged your interpretation shows its contribution. Neither attendance at supervision nor the existence of a journal proves that alternative explanations received serious attention.
How to write a nursing reflexivity statement
1. Establish your relevant starting position
State your role in relation to the question. A student nurse studying placement experiences occupies a different position from a ward manager interviewing staff they supervise. Explain whether you are an insider, outsider or occupy a changing position, and identify the consequences rather than treating the label as self-explanatory.
For instance, shared professional language may help an interview flow while hiding disagreement about terms such as safe staffing. Familiarity can make clarification feel unnecessary. Explain whether you asked participants to define important phrases and how you avoided treating your own interpretation as theirs.
2. Identify assumptions that could shape the account
Choose assumptions linked to your research question. You might expect senior nurses to feel more confident, assume that a communication tool is helpful or believe that a policy is difficult to implement. Record these as starting expectations, not findings established before analysis.
Explain why each assumption mattered. An expectation about seniority might influence recruitment or attention to particular extracts. A favourable view of a tool might encourage leading follow-up questions. Naming the possible mechanism gives the reader something specific to assess.
3. Link influences to decisions across the study
Follow the study through recruitment, interviews and analysis. Describe how relationships affected who could participate freely, how questions were asked and how interpretations were developed. Use selective examples instead of reproducing the entire research diary.
A simple drafting method is to write three columns: influence, decision and consequence. If one row contains only an abstract claim, add an actual episode. If a row reveals unnecessary identifying information, generalise the context while preserving the methodological point.
4. Explain changes and remaining limits
Say what you adjusted and why. Perhaps you replaced a closed prompt with an invitation to describe a specific incident. Perhaps a memo helped distinguish your clinical judgement from a participant’s explanation. Report the change accurately and acknowledge what it could not resolve.
Do not retrospectively invent journalling, independent checking or participant feedback. If your documentation was limited, acknowledge that limitation and explain what records are available. A modest account supported by real material is stronger than an elaborate process that cannot be evidenced.
Writing about insider relationships and power
In nursing research, shared employment does not guarantee equal power. A researcher may be a colleague, assessor, student or manager. Participants may reasonably consider how their account could affect professional relationships. Your statement should address relevant dependencies without assuming that consent alone removed them.
Explain the approved arrangements used to distinguish research participation from employment or assessment. This may involve recruitment by someone outside a reporting line or explicit information about voluntary participation. Describe only the arrangements that were part of the actual study and ethics approval.
Consider informal power too. A highly experienced clinician may influence the interview even without managerial authority. Participants may use professional shorthand, avoid discussing uncertainty or assume that the researcher knows the background. These possibilities should inform questions and interpretation, rather than becoming unsupported claims about participants’ motives.
Confidentiality remains essential. Naming a rare specialist role, team incident and exact service location can identify someone even without a name. Describe enough context for the reader to understand the relationship, then remove detail that does not contribute to methodological understanding. Follow institutional requirements when deciding what can appear in appendices.
Worked example: from a weak claim to a useful statement
Weak version: “As a nurse, I had personal bias, but I remained objective throughout the research.” This gives no account of the relevant position, the influence on decisions or the basis for the claim of objectivity.
Illustrative improved version: “My previous experience of ward-based escalation initially led me to expect staffing pressure to dominate participants’ accounts. I recorded this expectation before interviewing. When participants described uncertainty about professional authority, I revisited my early notes and used later prompts to explore how escalation decisions were negotiated. Analytic memos distinguished participants’ explanations from my own clinical evaluations. My familiarity with ward routines nevertheless may have reduced the clarification I sought about practices participants considered ordinary.”
This example is fictional and demonstrates a writing approach. It must not be copied as a description of research activities you did not undertake. Its value lies in the connections between starting position, evidence, adjustment and remaining uncertainty.
Notice that the improved account does not say the researcher eliminated bias. It explains an influence and makes the response open to scrutiny. The final sentence also identifies a plausible limitation without dismissing the entire study. That balance helps readers judge the interpretation on its actual merits.
Where to place reflexivity in the dissertation
The methodology chapter is often the main location, particularly where the university asks for researcher positioning. However, the relevant account may also appear in interview methods, analysis and limitations. Follow your module structure and avoid repeating the same paragraph across chapters.
Use the main statement to establish position and approach. In the methods section, explain decisions directly relevant to recruitment or interviewing. Next, use the analysis section to show how interpretive choices developed. Finally, acknowledge in the discussion any influences that materially affect how the findings should be understood.
COREQ includes reporting considerations about the research team and reflexivity for interview and focus-group research (Tong, Sainsbury and Craig, 2007). It can prompt useful questions about what the reader needs to know. It is not a requirement to include every item mechanically in a short reflexivity paragraph.
If you include diary extracts in an appendix, choose them for a clear purpose. Explain their relationship to decisions in the chapter. Raw personal writing can contain sensitive information and may need careful redaction. The appendix should support the argument, rather than replace the explanation the reader needs in the main text.
Build an evidence trail without overclaiming
Use records that help you reconstruct decisions: dated memos, interview notes, question revisions and versions of interpretive summaries. A small set of relevant records can be more informative than a large folder whose relationship to the final analysis is unclear.
| Record | What it may show | What it cannot prove alone |
|---|---|---|
| Pre-interview note | An expectation identified before data generation. | That the expectation had no effect. |
| Revised interview prompt | A documented response to an interviewing concern. | That every later question was neutral. |
| Analytic memo | Consideration of an alternative interpretation. | That the final interpretation is uniquely correct. |
| Supervision record | A challenge and the researcher’s response. | Independent validation of all findings. |
When drafting, match the strength of each statement to the available record. “I noted this concern after the third interview” is more precise than “I continually challenged every assumption”. The first statement can be checked; the second promises a degree of completeness that a diary rarely establishes.
Also distinguish your account from a clinical incident investigation. A reflexivity statement explains research decisions. It should not introduce identifying allegations about a team or evaluate individual staff members beyond the study’s ethical scope.
Editing checks for clarity and methodological fit
Read each sentence and ask whether it describes position, influence, action or limitation. A paragraph made entirely of positions needs consequences. One made entirely of actions needs reasons. A paragraph made entirely of limitations needs an explanation of what the reader can still learn from the study.
Check consistency with your qualitative approach. If interpretation is central to the design, avoid presenting subjectivity as something that was completely removed. If you used a particular quality procedure, explain what it contributed in that approach instead of importing a generic claim of reliability.
Replace vague reassurance with concrete detail. “I was aware of power” becomes useful when followed by a relevant relationship and an actual decision. “I kept a reflective journal” needs an example of how a note informed questioning or interpretation. Keep the language proportionate and avoid repetitive declarations of rigour.
Finally, compare the statement with the methods and appendices. Dates, activities and descriptions of participant contact should agree. For wider chapter organisation, consult the nursing methodology chapter checklist. For feedback on your own statement, dissertation editing guidance can help you identify whether the main problem is clarity, evidence or methodological alignment.
Frequently asked questions
Can I use first person?
Often, first person makes the researcher’s role clearer. Follow your university’s style requirements. If first person is restricted, retain a transparent account of who made decisions rather than hiding agency behind vague passive wording.
How long should the statement be?
There is no universal length. Use the brief and overall methodology allowance. Include the influences needed to understand the study, and place detailed procedural explanations in their relevant sections.
Is a reflexivity statement the same as a reflective essay?
No. A reflective essay may focus on professional learning from practice. The statement explains how the researcher’s position influenced a particular research process. Personal learning belongs where it helps explain that process.
Do literature reviews need reflexivity?
Interpretive reviews can involve important researcher choices. Whether a separate statement is required depends on the review approach and university guidance. Do not describe participant interviewing when your project only analysed published material.
Should I disclose personal experiences?
Include relevant experiences when their methodological consequences can be explained and disclosure is appropriate. You do not need to reveal sensitive personal information simply to make the statement appear more reflective.
What if I did not keep a journal?
Do not claim that you did. Review the records you actually have, explain relevant decisions honestly and acknowledge limits in documenting how your interpretation developed.
Responding to supervisor feedback on reflexivity
If feedback says the section is too descriptive, identify sentences that only list your background. Add a research consequence to each relevant detail. For example, experience in acute care matters when it influenced the incidents you asked about or the explanations you initially preferred. It does not need a long account of your employment history.
If feedback says the section lacks evidence, choose a genuine decision and reconstruct its development. Identify the initial assumption, the material that challenged it and the change you made. Refer to a dated memo or an appropriately anonymised appendix entry where your programme permits this. Keep the example short enough to support the argument rather than displacing it.
If feedback questions methodological consistency, revisit the assumptions of your chosen approach with your supervisor. The solution may require different language about interpretation, rather than another quality checklist. After revision, read the statement beside one findings paragraph. The researcher described in the methods should be recognisable in the way claims are developed and qualified in the results. This connection is particularly useful when the dissertation moves between clinical knowledge and participants’ own accounts. It helps prevent clinical familiarity from silently substituting for an explanation grounded in the research material.
Final writing check
A useful nursing reflexivity statement lets the reader follow the connection between your position and the study’s decisions. Keep that connection specific, protect confidentiality and describe only genuine activities. The result should clarify how the research was produced and where the interpretation remains open to question.
Get feedback on your nursing reflexivity statement
If your statement lists personal characteristics but leaves their research consequences unclear, request feedback on those connections. Send the assessment brief, methods section and relevant anonymised notes so the reviewer can assess what your account actually supports. Keep ownership of the interpretation and do not add research activities that were never completed.
You can request ethical feedback on your reflexivity statement after reviewing how the feedback process works. Read our academic-support approach and published client feedback when deciding whether the service fits your needs. The nursing dissertation support homepage also explains the available areas of guidance.
References
- Finlay, L. (2002a) ‘Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice’, Qualitative Research, 2(2), pp. 209–230. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/146879410200200205 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
- Finlay, L. (2002b) ‘“Outing” the researcher: the provenance, process, and practice of reflexivity’, Qualitative Health Research, 12(4), pp. 531–545. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/104973202129120052 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
- Tong, A., Sainsbury, P. and Craig, J. (2007) ‘Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups’, International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), pp. 349–357. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 (Accessed: 16 October 2026).
