Commentary: emphasizing the role of positionality, theory, and ethnographic writing conventions in reflexive texts

This commentary provides a critique of Crabtree’s (2025) strong article on best practices for qualitative reviews. Crabtree’s challenging premise covers all aspects of qualitative research, from lab-based qualitative studies to ethnography, which, of course, has many kinds, including ethnomethodological and anthropological ethnography. In this response, I take the liberty of extending the arguments to focus on more anthropological ethnography, especially of the confessional and impressionistic variety. In doing so, I will focus on three areas: 1) Reflexivity, Positionality and Rapport, 2) Structure, Sensitizing Concepts, Including Theory, and 3) Embracing Differing Ethnographic Writing Conventions.