Many are the calls for a renewal of political science research practices to take into account the subaltern knowledge. But they cannot in fact be put into practice without dealing first with the situated issue of structural denialism, which tends to limit conventional political science to research problems aligned with the dominant subjectivity. Patricia Hill Collins invites us to mobilize the subaltern lived experience as a criterion of meaning but refrains from discussing the applicability of her proposal to research led from a dominant positionality. The present article will tackle this issue by suggesting one should both accept the non-replicability of subaltern situated analysis and consider the implications of dominant positionality in order to build a research practice taking subaltern experience as a criterion of meaning.