Presenting a Qualitative Study: A Reviewer’s Perspective
By J. Peterson. The gifted child quarterly, 2019
117 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Intended to guide scholars who are new to qualitative research, this methods brief focuses mostly on what reviewers look for in manuscripts submitted for publication. The author acknowledges that reviewers’ preferences likely reflect their theoretical perspectives, research-oriented coursework, mentors, and research and writing experiences. The emphasis, therefore, is on terminology and basic elements that apply across a broad range of qualitative approaches. Discussion also addresses researcher inclinations toward qualitative inquiry; the importance of fit among approach, purpose, and research questions; the need for manuscript authors to identify potential researcher bias and explain how it was monitored; and the necessity of including and describing other elements that contribute to trustworthiness. Examples from journals in the field represent a wide range of research types, foci, and data sources.
Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Education, Management Science and Operations Research
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/052a6660cac95367d9d085d0dad355ecbde7f098
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Clinical Psychology
In Education
Citations in the corpus
- Beyond a coefficient: an interactive process for achieving inter-rater consistency in qualitative coding (2020, background): “Our detailed explanation of our processes incidentally answers the calls in the literature for (a) qualitative researchers to offer concrete evidence of their methodologies (Aguinis et al., 2019; Glazer and Egan, 2018; Kirk and Miller, 1986; Peterson, 2019; Stearns et al., 2019); and (b) qualitative”