| name | alterlab-ssci-reflexivity-gate |
| description | Gates trustworthiness before qualitative or interpretivist claims are written — the qualitative analog of the measurement gate. Checks that researcher positionality and role are stated, that the four Lincoln & Guba trustworthiness criteria are addressed (credibility via triangulation / member-checking / prolonged engagement, transferability via thick description, dependability via an audit trail, confirmability via reflexive bracketing), and that reflexivity is evidenced rather than asserted. Fail-closed: interpretivist generalizing or causal language is refused without the corresponding warrant. Use when a study is qualitative / ethnographic / interpretivist, when reviewing trustworthiness or reflexivity, or before writing up thematic or grounded-theory findings. For quantitative measurement validity prefer alterlab-ssci-measurement-gate; for running the coding prefer alterlab-qualitative-analysis; for the final claim audit prefer alterlab-ssci-inference-gate. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite. |
| license | MIT |
| allowed-tools | Read Bash(python:*) |
| compatibility | No API key required. A discipline-enforcing gate; coding execution is handed to alterlab-qualitative-analysis. Reads/writes the YAML Design Passport like the other ssci gates; the optional checklist linter runs locally via `uv run python` (standard library only). |
| metadata | {"skill-author":"AlterLab","version":"1.0.0","depends_on":"alterlab-ssci-orchestrator (pipeline), alterlab-qualitative-analysis (coding), alterlab-qualitative-methods (methodology); audited by alterlab-ssci-inference-gate"} |
Reflexivity Gate — Trustworthiness Before the Interpretivist Claim
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)
