“Where are the findings? You only provide quotes.” New article considers qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback Open Access: dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0... Few quotes follow 🧵 - ThreadSky

markrubin.bsky.social • 71 days ago

“Where are the findings? You only provide quotes.”

New article considers qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback

Open Access: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322

Few quotes follow 🧵

Comments

burnrbbr.bsky.social•70 days ago

rensec.bsky.social•70 days ago

To me this almost sounds like some qual researchers reserve the right to set their own scientific standards, which seems at odds with the idea of peer review. But maybe that's just my quant mindset. Then again, the experienced pressure to compromise is certainly not unique to quant research

cnsyoung.com•70 days ago

I don't think what these authors are suggesting is at odds with peer review at all. Scientific standards are always a negotiation and constantly shifting. There's no one "standard" but many, because researchers come from different fields, methodologies, epistemologies, etc.

rensec.bsky.social•70 days ago

I don't disagree with that, and I was also not reacting to the author's suggestions but rather to that fact that some or their respondents seem to prefer to not be confronted with other people's standards, or to indeed negotiate standards.

floavery.bsky.social•70 days ago

It’s not someone else’s standards, it’s methodologically incorrect. The equivalent within quant would be like a reviewer asking for a regression equation for an experimental study. Including a regression equation is a good ‘standard’, but it’s a nonsense comment if a different method has been used

yvandutil.bsky.social•70 days ago

This is a way of seeing the problem. But, there is also a very strong to apply some standards in many fields.

yvandutil.bsky.social•69 days ago

"strong opposition"

rebeccafieldingmiller.com•71 days ago

Amazing title, cannot wait to read this.

heart-pages.bsky.social•70 days ago

Looking forward to reading more, esp the part where researchers have to acquiesce given the culture requiring publication at all costs 📌

cheezuscrust.bsky.social•70 days ago

This sucks, but this is at least a good start to fixing the system. Too often does "I have a PhD, so [insert bullshit comment]" take the place of informed, useful feedback that could actually benefit the work/state of knowledge.

ktai.bsky.social•67 days ago

📌

markrubin.bsky.social•71 days ago

"This article developed from an exchange on Twitter (X), when one of us vented frustration about reviewers 'not getting' qualitative research, and requesting revisions incongruent with the methodological approach of our submitted research."

markrubin.bsky.social•71 days ago

"We use (methodological) incongruence to denote peer reviewer and editor comments that do not align with the authors’ research values and methodology, which includes the broader knowledge frameworks within which their work is situated."

markrubin.bsky.social•71 days ago

"A key risk to congruent peer review comes from universalizing quantitative or qualitative but postpositivist values, concepts, and practices (e.g., data saturation, member checking, and researcher triangulation) even if they do not fit the underpinning assumptions of many qualitative approaches."

markrubin.bsky.social•71 days ago

"The most commonly reported modes of universalization related to 'sample size,' the need for 'reliability practices' (for coding) and (lack of) quantification."

markrubin.bsky.social•71 days ago

"Some noted reviewers and editors commenting that theory should only be used to make empirical predictions. C28 quoted a reviewer:"

markrubin.bsky.social•71 days ago

"Despite decades of qualitative scholarship, these reviewers appear to still universalize quantitative/ postpositivist norms to construct qualitative scholarship as inherently methodologically insufficient."

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply