Vox Meditantis

The debate over identity politics and intersectionality has spilled beyond academic journals into the heart of research practice itself. As scholars examine how race, gender, class, and sexuality shape both their subjects and themselves, a pressing question emerges: can research ever be truly emancipatory when the researcher’s identity is both a lens and a lightning rod? This article contends that while identity-conscious research holds transformative potential, its current application often replicates the very power structures it seeks to dismantle—unless paired with rigorous structural analysis.

The Illusion of Neutral Observation

The notion of the detached, objective researcher has been thoroughly dismantled across social sciences, yet its ghost lingers in methodological training programmes. Reflexivity—the practice of critically examining how a researcher’s identity influences their work—isn’t mere academic navel-gazing. It’s a radical act of transparency in a world where 83% of UK university professors identify as white, and male researchers receive 2.3 times more funding than their female counterparts.

Positionality statements, now commonplace in qualitative research, force academics to declare their social coordinates: “I am a white, middle-class woman studying austerity in Black communities.” But as feminist scholars note, these declarations often become performative rituals rather than tools for accountability. The real work begins when researchers confront how their privileged access to institutions like universities—historically complicit in colonial knowledge extraction—shapes what questions get asked, who gets quoted, and which findings are deemed credible.

This isn’t abstract theorising. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Black British researchers found NHS trusts more willing to share mortality data with them than with white colleagues, perceiving them as “insiders” to marginalised communities. Yet the same researchers faced scepticism from ethics committees questioning their “objectivity”—a double standard rarely applied to dominant-group scholars studying their own demographics.

Gatekeeping Knowledge: Who Holds the Microphone?

The question of who gets to research whom has become a battleground. Conservative commentators mock “me-search”—marginalised scholars studying their own communities—as narcissistic, while praising majority-group researchers for their “bravery” in entering “foreign” terrains. This hypocrisy ignores how 76% of UK anthropology PhDs about Global South communities are conducted by white students, often parachuting into field sites with minimal accountability to local stakeholders.

The Combahee River Collective’s maxim that “the most radical politics come from our own identity” faces distortion in this context. While lived experience provides invaluable insights, the neoliberal academy often reduces minority researchers to “native informants,” expected to endlessly narrate their trauma for career advancement. Meanwhile, their structural analyses of racism or ableism get rebranded as “personal anecdotes” rather than legitimate data.

This dynamic plays out starkly in conflict zones. Palestinian scholars documenting occupation violence face journal rejections accusing them of bias, while Israeli military affiliates publish “neutral” analyses of the same phenomena in top journals. The unspoken rule persists: marginalised identities lend authenticity only when their narratives don’t threaten existing power structures.

Empowerment or Epistemic Containment?

Proponents argue identity-based research centres marginalised voices. The #NothingAboutUsWithoutUs movement in disability studies, for instance, has shifted policy-making by insisting activists lead studies about their communities. Similarly, Black feminist scholars have exposed how mainstream gender analyses erase the specific labour exploitation faced by Caribbean care workers in the NHS.

Yet critics warn of two traps: essentialism and NGO-isation. The former occurs when researchers reduce participants to static identity categories (“the Black experience”), ignoring intra-community diversity and reinforcing stereotypes. The latter describes how funding bodies increasingly demand “community engagement” that’s really about pacifying dissent—such as commissioning LGBTQ+ charities to document austerity’s impacts while denying them resources to challenge it.

A 2023 study of 50 UK-based identity research projects revealed a disturbing trend: 68% focused on individual behaviour change (e.g., resilience training for marginalised youth) rather than structural reforms. This aligns with neoliberal agendas that individualise inequality, using identity frameworks to justify cutting public services—“If Bangladeshi women can bootstrap their way out of poverty, why fund community centres?”

The Structural Blind Spot

Herein lies the crux: identity politics risks becoming what Nancy Fraser terms “the handmaiden of neoliberalism” when divorced from material analysis. The UK’s race equality industry, worth £1.2 billion annually, thrives on diversity training and unconscious bias workshops while doing nothing to reverse Black families being 2.5 times more likely to live in overcrowded homes.

Marxist feminists highlight this depoliticisation. Workplace initiatives celebrating “BAME women leaders” proliferate as zero-hour contracts—disproportionately held by those same women—go unaddressed. Even well-meaning projects fall prey: a much-lauded study on LGBTQ+ homelessness in Manchester concluded with calls for more shelters rather than challenging the housing crisis enabling landlords to discriminate.

This isn’t an argument against identity-focused research but a plea to reconnect it with what Afrofuturist scholar Kodwo Eshun calls “the long durée of structural violence”. The Windrush Scandal wasn’t just about racial identity—it exposed how austerity-era border policies commodify human lives under capitalism. Researchers documenting such crises must tether personal narratives to systems analysis or risk becoming archivists of oppression.

Towards Relational Reflexivity

The path forward requires what Black feminist geographers term relational reflexivity—an approach that maps how researcher and researched identities co-constitute each other within broader power grids. This means:

1. Situating positionality historically: A white researcher studying migration shouldn’t just “acknowledge privilege” but examine how their university benefited from colonial endowments funding the study.
2. Rejecting trauma voyeurism: Prioritise studies that equip communities with tools for systemic change, like co-producing legal strategies with undocumented workers instead of just chronicling their exploitation.
3. Cross-identity solidarity: Queer disabled scholars collaborating with trade unions on automation’s gendered impacts, ensuring tech critiques don’t default to able-bodied norms.

The Runnymede Trust’s recent partnership with housing activists exemplifies this. By training tenants to collect data on mould-related illnesses while lobbying for insulation laws, they turned personal stories into structural levers.

Conclusion: Research as Radical Praxis

Identity-conscious research stands at a crossroads. Used uncritically, it becomes another extractive industry, mining marginalised experiences for academic capital. Deployed relationally, it’s a battering ram against the epistemic injustices upholding material inequality. The choice isn’t between identity and structure but between complicity and transformation.

As Kimberlé Crenshaw reminds us, intersectionality wasn’t conceived to fragment struggles but to illuminate their connective tissue. Thirty-five years on, researchers must honour that vision by ensuring every interview, survey, and focus group answers two questions: “Who does this knowledge serve?” and “What worlds does it make possible?” The answers will determine whether academia remains a citadel of exclusion or becomes an arsenal for liberation.

Bob Lynn | © 2025 Vox Meditantis. All rights reserved.

Photo by Chet Chen on Unsplash