Abstract
Publishing a qualitative journal article often takes a certain tenacity for a variety of reasons, which are addressed in this chapter. First, extant research shows that top-tiered journals are less likely to accept articles that employ qualitative methods, though interview data are accepted at a higher rate compared to other approaches. Second, as qualitative researchers, we may become a bit “sloppy” or complacent in the presentation of our methods and fail to provide sufficient details about the data analysis. Third, case studies, ethnographies, interviews, archival, sensory, social media, the Internet, and photography, for example, are part and parcel of our current lexicon of research. Under these circumstances, progress demands a certain amount of recognition that may mean using and understanding a different lens of exploration and review. Additionally, we argue that the time has arrived to reject the dichotomy between qualitative and quantitative research. New and standard approaches to research mean accepting and integrating unique and mixed methods that provide richer data. Finally, hoping to support qualitative researchers in the publication process, this chapter examines many of the “dos and don’ts” that should be considered when submitting a qualitative article for peer review.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The misconceptions that play out in the dichotomy of quantitative versus qualitative have outlived their usefulness. Like many debates in criminology, extremist viewpoints are tempered by the rejection of a dichotomy between the approaches (Buckler, 2008; Kraska, 2008, Tewksbury et al., 2005). The advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research have received a great deal of attention in the literature in many academic fields (see e.g., Berg, 2007; Buckler, 2008; Hussein et al., 2014; Jacques, 2014; Starman, 2013; Tweskbury, 2013).
- 2.
See Sun and Benson Chap. 3 in Part I.
References
Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal. McGraw-Hill.
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1999). The joys of research. Sociological Origins, 1(2), 3–8.
Armstrong, E. K. (2020). Political ideology and research: How neoliberalism can explain the paucity of qualitativecriminological research. Alternative, 45(1), 20–32.
Banal, P., & Corley, K. (2011). From the editors: The coming of age for qualitative research: Embracing the diversity of qualitative methods. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 233–237.
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
Berg, B. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Pearson.
Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. The qualitative report, 19(33), 1–9.
Buckler, K. (2008). The quantitative/qualitative divide revisited: A study of published research, doctoral program curricula, and journal editor perceptions. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19(3), 383–403.
Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The saints and the roughnecks. Society, 11(1), 24–31.
Chenail, R. (2009). Communicating your qualitative research better. Family Business Review, 22, 105–108.
Clark, A. M., & Thompson, D. R. (2016). Five tips for writing qualitative research in high-impact journals: Moving from #BMJnoQual. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916641250
Collins, H. (2003). Discrimination, equality and social inclusion. The modern law review, 66(1), 16–43.
Copes, H. (2016). A narrative approach to studying symbolic boundaries among drug users: A qualitative meta-synthesis. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659016641720
Copes, H., Beaton, B., Ayeni, D., Dabney, D., & Tewksbury, R. (2020). A content analysis of qualitative research published in top criminology and criminal justice journals from 2010 to 2019. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 1060–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09540-6
Cullen, F. T. (2002). It’s a wonderful life: Reflections on a career in progress. In G. Geis & M. Dodge (Eds.), Lessons of criminology (pp. 1–22). Anderson Publishing.
Dodge, M., Starr-Gimeno, D., & Williams, T. (2005). Putting on the sting: Women police officers’ perspectives on reverse prostitution assignments. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 7(2), 71–85.
Ferrell, J., & Hamm, M. S. (1998). Ethnographies at the edge: Crime, deviance, and field research. Northeastern University Press.
Geis, G. (1977). Heavy electrical equipment antitrust cases of 1961. In M. B. Clinard & R. Quinney (Eds.), Criminal behavior systems: A typology (pp. 139–151). Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Hussein, M. E., Hirst, S., Salyers, V., & Osuji, J. (2014). Using grounded theory as a method of inquire: Advantages and disadvantages. The Qualitative Report, 19, 1–15.
Kipling, R. (1892). Barrack-room ballads and verses. Methuen.
Kraska, P. B. (2008). The third way: Teaching mixed methods research. ACJS Today, 23(1), 1–8.
Levi, M. (2015). Qualitative research on elite frauds, ordinary frauds, and “organized crime”. In J. J. Brent & P. B. Kraska (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of qualitative criminology (pp. 215–235). Routledge.
McSwante, J. D. (2022). Pandemic Inc.: Chasing the capitalists and thieves who got rich while we got sick. Atria/One Signal Publishers.
Meuser, M., & Löscher, G. (2002). Introduction: Qualitative research in criminology. Forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum. Qualitative Social Research, 3(1).
Miller, J., & Palacios, W. R. (2015). Qualitative research in criminology. Transaction Publishers.
Petintseva, O., Faria, R., & Eski, Y. (2020). Interviewing elites, experts and the powerful in criminology. Palgrave Macmillan.
Pontell, H. N., Tillman, R., & Ghazi-Tehrani, A. K. (2021). In-your-face Watergate: Neutralizing government lawbreaking and the war against white-collar crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 75(3), 201–219.
Reay, T. (2014). Publishing qualitative research. Family Business Review, 27, 95–102.
Shaw, C. R. (1930, 1966, 2013). The jack-roller: A delinquent boy’s own story (2nd impression ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Starman, A. B. (2013). The case study as a type of qualitative research. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 1, 28–43.
Tewksbury, R. (2013). Qualitative versus quantitative methods: Understanding why qualitative methods are superior for criminology and criminal justice. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Criminology, 1(1), 38–58.
Tewksbury, R., DeMichele, M. T., & Miller, J. M. (2005). Methodological orientation of articles appearing in Criminal Justice’s top journals: Who publishes what and where? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 16(2), 265–279.
Tewksbury, R., Dabney, D. A., & Copes, H. (2014). The prominence of qualitative research in criminology and criminal justice scholarship. In Advancing qualitative methods in criminology and criminal justice (pp. 12–32). Routledge.
Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.
Zietz, D. (1981). Women who embezzle or defraud: A study of convicted felons. Praeger Publishers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dodge, M., Parker, M.J. (2023). What Now and How? Publishing the Qualitative Journal Article. In: Faria, R., Dodge, M. (eds) Qualitative Research in Criminology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18401-7_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18401-7_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-18400-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-18401-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)