When Qualitative Researchers Meet “Confidently Wrong” Peer Reviewers

Are you aware of the hidden frustrations many qualitative researchers encounter during peer review? A recent article titled “Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback by Clarke and her coauthors sheds light on how entrenched quantitative mindsets can hamper the publication of robust qualitative studies. Through a survey of 163 qualitative researchers, the authors reveal how reviewers and editors often apply quantitative standards – like sample size “power,” coding reliability statistics, or forced separation of results from discussion – to approaches that require entirely different benchmarks of rigor. Such mismatched expectations generate stress, hinder methodological integrity, and leave early career researchers especially vulnerable. The authors also provide practical strategies for dealing with these issues – ranging from politely rebutting reviewer demands to raising editorial awareness. Ultimately, they urge reviewers and journals to respect the diversity of qualitative approaches and to support, rather than stifle, these important contributions.

Clarke, V., Braun, V., Adams, J., Callaghan, J.E.M., LaMarre, A., & Semlyen, J. (2024). “Being Really Confidently Wrong”: Qualitative Researchers’ Experiences of Methodologically Incongruent Peer Review Feedback. Qualitative Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000322