Navigating Reviewer Feedback: Strategies for Qualitative Scholars in Criminology and Criminal Justice

• In Event: Interrogating the Meaning of “Rigorous” Research: How Qualitative Methods Are Essential to Criminological Understandings

Abstract

This paper explores strategies for qualitative scholars navigating methodological feedback within criminological and criminal justice research. First, it addresses how scholars can respond to peer review comments that are methodologically incongruent, suggesting that scholars should engage with critiques thoughtfully while also defending the unique strengths of qualitative approaches—emphasizing their capacity to uncover nuanced, context-specific insights that quantitative methods alone may overlook. Second, the paper discusses tactics for pushing back against methodological gatekeeping, advocating for the value of diverse research methods and highlighting the limitations of rigid methodological boundaries. Scholars can challenge these constraints by fostering dialogue about the importance of methodological pluralism and the need for inclusivity in research practices. Finally, the paper provides advice to emerging scholars facing skepticism about qualitative methods in academic or professional settings. Key strategies include building a strong evidence base for qualitative approaches, forming supportive networks, and demonstrating the robustness of qualitative research through transparent processes and reflexivity. The authors emphasize the importance of advocating for qualitative methodologies to ensure that different perspectives are represented in criminological and criminal justice research.

Authors

• Deena A. Isom, University of South Carolina

• Jessica M. Grosholz, University of South Florida