“Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback

Clarke, Victoria, Braun, Virginia and Semlyen, Joanna ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5372-1344 (2024) “Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback. Qualitative Psychology. ISSN 2326-3598 (In Press)

	Microsoft Word (OpenXML) (Coverpage Confidently wrong submitted) - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 December 2099. Request a copy
	Microsoft Word (OpenXML) (Being really confidentally wrong accepted formatted) - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 December 2099. Request a copy
	Microsoft Word (OpenXML) (Supplementaries confidently wrong accepted FORMATTED) - Accepted Version Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 December 2099. Request a copy

Abstract

Although peer review is one of the central pillars of academic publishing, qualitative researchers’ experiences of this process have been largely overlooked. Existing research and commentary have focused on peer reviewers’ comments on qualitative articles, which are often described as indicative of a quantitative mindset or hostility to nonpositivist qualitative research. We extend this literature by focusing on qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent reviewer and editor comments—comments that are incommensurate with the conceptual foundations of the reviewed research. Qualitative researchers (N = 163) from a range of health and social science disciplines, including psychology, responded to a brief qualitative survey. Most contributors reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the assumptions and expectations of postpositivist research and reporting. Some also reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the norms and values particular to specific qualitative approaches. Contributors were concerned that peer reviewers often accept review invitations when they lack relevant methodological expertise and editors often select peer reviewers without such expertise. In response to methodologically incongruent comments, many contributors described a process of initially “pushing back” and explaining why these comments were incongruent with their research. When this educative approach was unsuccessful, some knowingly compromised the methodological integrity of their research and acquiesced to reviewer and editor requests. Earlier career researchers especially highlighted the powerlessness they felt in the peer review process in the context of a “publish or perish” academic climate. We end by outlining contributors’ recommendations for improving the methodological integrity of the peer review of qualitative research.

Item Type:	Article
Faculty \ School:	Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Norwich Medical School
UEA Research Groups:	Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Centres > Lifespan Health Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences > Research Groups > Epidemiology and Public Health
Depositing User:	LivePure Connector
Date Deposited:	07 Dec 2024 01:40
Last Modified:	07 Dec 2024 01:40
URI:	https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/97935
DOI:	10.1037/qup0000322

Actions (login required)

View Item