Publishing a (grounded theory) paper… how hard can it be?
by Catherine Hitch, PhD Researcher at Ulster University (see the bottom of this page for Catherine’s bio)
I never really preferred qualitative or quantitative research; I would probably say I was a mixed methods advocate. However, when I came to develop my MSc research project I could see I was heading down the grounded theory path. I took the project design very seriously, despite still being a novice. I wanted to answer a ‘how’ question and look at process, so grounded theory seemed to be the way to go. I wanted to argue that questionnaires have many limitations, and launched into my argument that “…you need to take a qualitative approach to understanding how specific populations cope with specific health conditions, in the absence of a suitable or reliable scale”. So, I designed my study, got ethical approval, started collecting my data and began to analyse the findings.
To my glee the findings began to show that this particular niche population did cope in a specific way. Also, some of the findings supported previous research whereas other findings challenged previous research. Some quite firmly supported ideas in research were contradictory to what I had found. This was quite exciting. Whilst my study was small, and it was only for a MSc qualification, it could still add something to the existing body of evidence.
I felt it needed publishing, discussing and disseminating. I discussed the research at a national psychology conference, and was advised to discuss it again the following year at a medical conference. I wrote a journalistic article for a medical magazine, which set out my recommendations in terms of its implications. That was also very well received. I presented it at a conference in a poster format, where there would be a large number of attendees from the population I was writing about. The population liked it, and complimented me on how well I had captured their coping style. However, when it came to publishing it in a peer reviewed journal, that was a whole other story. It was like my paper kept being blocked.
The first attempt saw the paper get approved by the editor, but was rejected by the reviewers. The main reason was that it should have been a quantitative paper (I spend most of the introduction explaining why a qualitative approach was more appropriate). The second reason was that it didn’t have enough demographic detail in it (it could be argued that this may matter less in qualitative papers, because if I am considering a ‘how’ question then the fact that a female did or did not have a degree may not matter. It may, but it may not). Nevertheless, I took this on board for attempt at publication number two. I made the introduction more robust as to why a qualitative method was appropriate for approaching ‘how’ questions, and added in as much demographic information as I could find. The second attempt was rejected outright, and I must say it was a very polite rejection, which made me feel slightly better. The editor rejected it because the sample size was too small. I had commented in the limitations that the sample was seven, but pointed out that I had seen grounded theory papers with a sample of two. Sadly, the editor didn’t agree that seven was better than two.
So now we come to the third attempt. This time the paper came back with a ‘revise and resubmit’, so this time I was delighted. Despite the fact that reviewer one alone had made 85 commented, I was still delighted; it wasn’t a rejection. So, I shut the email and read it again a few days later. Bearing in mind reviewer one admitted they were not ‘qually’, they then ripped the guts out of my paper. Reviewer two clearly does have experience of qualitative papers, but both their comments would turn my paper into something completely different. I feared this difference would lead to the meaning of the paper, and the theory I had produced being lost. Beginning with the introduction, both reviewers wanted more, more, more. I had to explain that that is not the grounded theory way. They also wanted much more in the methods section, so the readers can “…judge critically whether it has been researched correctly…”. Reviewer one wanted me to alter a quote that I had used because “..that is not in line with existing research findings..”. This comment astounded me, because I reasoned that surely researchers would appreciate that everyone is different and have their own way of doing things or thinking about things? Reviewer one also wanted me to add to the discussion a comment which suggested that the author (and publishers) don’t advocate what the participants suggested, if it goes against existing research. I was also advised I needed link my theory to existing theories, which I don’t feel is necessary with grounded theory. I mean, creating a theory is about finding something new, which may compliment or challenge other theories. Isn’t the point of research partly to find new things?
So, I am partly expecting the paper to get rejected again, and I will at that point send it off to another (maybe more sociological) journal. I feel that this process highlights that people are judging your paper on its worthiness to be read, by people who don’t understand the process and certainly don’t appreciate its value. Yet, we don’t know who will review the paper; that is down the editor. It’s a tough situation. As I travel through my PhD I am now discovering it is far easier to get a quantitative paper published, and many of my colleagues agree with this. Many still don’t even see the point of qualitative work, despite knowing that you can’t compare apples and oranges in many situations. It continues to be a frustrating situation, that I seriously hope will improve. At least the rejections and resubmissions give me free feedback. I am discovering yes, it’s hard, very hard to get grounded theory work published. Part of the problem is its unfamiliarity. Incidentally, when I presented my findings orally recently, not one expert in the room knew was grounded theory was! So, when we attempt to write these papers we need to bear that in mind.
Author Bio:
Catherine comes from a military family (with at least three generations serving in the Army), and has a love of all things veteran/forces. Catherine began to work with a national veteran charity (SSAFA) in 2014. Catherine worked on the ‘WIS’ mentoring programme, where wounded, injured and sick veterans have assistance with transition from the military. Often the veterans have been medically discharged and have no plan B to fall back on. They often find translon very difficult. They also often deal with debilitating and life changing injuries.
Catherine completed here degree in Psychology as a mature student in 2016. Catherine then completed a Health Psychology Masters in 2018, where much of her work could be tailored towards the veteran community. That particular university (Ulster) was also engaged in veteran in the community research.
Catherine began her PhD in January 2019, which focuses on Northern Ireland veterans. It is a great opportunity, as no other in-depth research has been conducted, which considers the impact of the Northern Ireland Troubles on the home-serve veterans. Northern Ireland veterans, especially home serve veterans, seem to be a population with higher reports of physical health issues, and also live in a community where suicide and mental health issues are on the rise. As the British government and British charities are keen to help veterans, it is a relief that some real research is being conducted around this population. Political tensions has a been a barrier, but now that barrier is lifting.
Catherine hopes to continue to work in the area of veteran physical and mental health. Catherine is moving to Queens in Belfast in July, where her research will continue.
