Q: Qualitative and mixed methods research have fundamentally different assumptions than for quantitative research. How do these differences change the types of comments that academic peer reviewers may make?

A: In qualitative research, most often people are looking for how the author justifies the process of the research and if that justification is aligned with established literature. However, in qualitative research, there is room for the author to also do something different from the established literature where the author offers additional justification for doing so. Because qualitative research is interpretive in nature, the goal for reviewers is to look for logical consistency, academic justifications, and contribution to the field. The response of the reviewers often vary as reviewers look through their own individual interpretive paradigm.

Reviewers of quantitative research can also view the work through their own subjective paradigm, and the comments also vary amongst reviewers, they too look for logical consistency, academic justification, established literature, details of the process. However the details are usually shorter in nature than qualitative research and the analysis is often done with pre-established methods that are less interpretive than qualitative research. In other words, once a researcher analyzes quantitative data, depending on the outcome, there are certain pre-determined ways in which the researcher is able to make conclusions about the data and discuss the findings.

Mixed methods research it is important to look at the integrity of both methods and how they were mixed. Of critical importance is to see if the author have given reasons for “mixing” the methods, and if the study would have complete without the supplementary method. If the study would have been complete without the supplementary method, then the supplementary method is not contributing to the “mixing” of the method. Rather, it is a multiple methods study than a mixed methods study.

Q: Is there a similar thing to "interrater reliability" in academic peer review of qualitative research work (like the Cohen's Kappa measure in team coding)?

A: Some qualitative researchers use interrater reliability to get published in their fields or to obtain grant funding. However, such use of quantitative measures in qualitative research, makes the work vulnerable to criticism. Qualitative research is contextual, constructivist, and interpretive in nature. The basic assumption in qualitative research honors multiplicities of truth and realities as experienced by the participants. Academic rigor and trustworthiness are established through co-construction of the narratives with the participant and using verification processes such as member checks, peer debriefing, triangulation, etc. The researcher also engages multiple methods, stays in the field for long duration, maintains a researcher journal, and engages in reflexivity. These activities are not similar across the board for multiple researchers, and thus any reliability measures taken would not reveal the depth and complexity of qualitative research. At best it would be a superficial verification that most researchers agreed on the interpretation of the findings.

Q: How can academic peer reviewers address their own subjectivities when engaging with a peer colleague's work?

A: When viewing a colleague’s work, it is important to note how the colleague is situating her work, her theoretical and methodological framework, her understanding of the literature, and the subsequent findings, discussion, conclusion, and implications. Additionally a reviewer should attempt to understand the colleague’s work from the framework within which the colleague situates herself and not evaluate the colleague’s work from the framework of the reviewer. In other words, if someone works with hierarchical linear modeling, it would be unfair to criticize that person’s work for lack of in-depth thematic narrative. Similarly if someone is working with phenomenology, and the reviewer’s own work is grounded in critical theory, the reviewer needs to still make comments on the work as informed by phenomenology and not critical theory.

Q: You mentor and guide a broad range of doctoral students in your work at K-State. What are some of your tips to your students about the academic publishing landscape?

A: The following are the tips that I have offered my students:

• Attend conferences, write publishable papers for conference presentation, obtain feedback, then send it for publication
  
• Volunteer to be a reviewer for academic journals
  
• Collaborate with a faculty member to learn the process of publication
  
• Read the journal’s scope carefully where you’d like to publish
  
• Make sure that the journal’s scope and your paper’s purpose match
  
• Read some articles within the journal to see if your paper will be a fit
  
• Cite some articles from the journal if possible
  
• Follow-up with the editor if you have not heard from them after their pre-designated time assigned for reviewing has passed
  
• Complete revisions quickly
  
• Do not take negative comments discourage you
  
• Keep a running log on what revisions you’re making, page number, and how you are addressing the revisions as you go along in order to document them later in your letter to the editor
  
• Make sure you keep your tone polite even when you disagree with a reviewer since the editor is not obligated to publish your article
  
• Thank the editor when the article is finally accepted
• Write a note of thank you to the reviewers in your article for helping you sharpen your article

Q: You have mentioned that some aspects of academic publishing involve social relationships. You have suggested that it is important to cultivate professional ties in order to increase chances of publishing. Would you elaborate on this?

A: It is important to attend conferences, volunteer to be reviewers, and maintain a positive social relationship with the editor of a journal even if your article is not accepted or under review or revision. It is important to not burn the bridge with editors even if you are in disagreement with the editor’s decision or remarks made by the reviewers. Even if you decide to take the article elsewhere, do so with grace and courtesy so that you can return to the journal at a later time if needed. Academia is much smaller than one thinks, so making friends, or being professionally civil even when being rejected or asked to do things with which you disagree could be critical to one’s success.

Q: It is said that there is a "power law" at work in academic publishing, with a few publishing the most and the rest publishing a few works or not at all. You seem to have landed pretty much every work you've ever written. How do you ensure that your work meets publication quality standards? Does it feel difficult for you to publish your work?

A: I don’t try to rush my publication. I do not publish as frequently as some of my other peers do. I usually make sure that there is a strong fit between my paper and the journal or the book where my chapter would appear. I use a lot of the key terms used in the scope of the journal, book, call for proposals, so that I make it clear to the reader how I am connecting my work to the scope of the journal/book. I also have an editor who reads my work and comments substantively and methodologically to help me think deeply and sharply.

Q: What types of editorial peer review feedback are the most useful to you as an author? Why?

A: Any editorial feedback that pushes my thinking further on the topic is helpful. Sometimes editors suggest readings which might be helpful too if they support my work, or if I am building on previous work, or if a question has been raised of my work that requires clarification or deeper thinking.

Q: When you peer review others' work, what is a deal breaker for you? When is a work not salvageable for publication?

A: Lack of logical consistency. The author has to show that s/he has done what s/he said she will do in the article/book/book chapter/proposal. Also if an author cites one or two people heavily throughout the work then the author comes across superficial to me. I also look for the dates of the citation to determine if the author is presenting current understanding of the topic or just dated understanding. I do not mind seminal work that gets cited, but unless an author can engage with both historical and current discourses in the field, I question my confidence in the author’s work.

Q: In qualitative research, the work is deeply intertwined with the individual. Do you feel that you have a "signature" or "tell" in your research work? If so, how would you describe it?

A: My work is reflexive and often invites readers to make their own conclusion instead of asking them to trust mine. I raise questions in my work. I have a praxis element in my work. I work to bridge theory, methodology, and praxis as pieces of one puzzle. I also interrogate dominant understanding of a concept to make room for counternarratives.

Q: How do you stay productive and creative in your research and writing? Where do you find your inspiration?

A: I try to stay productive by forcing myself to write full-length papers for at least two conferences every year. I also keep an eye on calls from various professional groups, listservs, etc. Then I make a list of things I need to write, what I can produce quickly, what will need time, what will need collaboration and proceed from there. The inspiration comes from within. I feel passionate about the things that I write and I try to journal about why I am passionate, the point I am trying to make, who might benefit from it, to understand my drive and motivation better. I also try to write weekly although ideally I would want to write everyday but that never happens. I write something every week to stay connected to my writing and reward myself when I complete my writing goals.

Q: In some of your public presentations, you've discussed how you push the edges of risk in your work. What is the value of risk-taking? How do you know where the limits are for you?

A: For me when I push the edges I try to bring in a voice that is not often present in academia. That means I offer a perspective for us to engage with to create space for something different. I think for me the limit is the welfare of the participants about whom I write. That has been my ethical benchmark in terms of what I put under the academic gaze and if it is absolutely necessary.

Q: Anything else you may want to add?

A: ​No :)

Kakali Bhattacharya is an Associate Professor at Kansas State University. She holds a Ph.D. from University of Georgia in Educational Psychology. Specifically, her program of study was in Research, Evaluation, Measurement, and Statistics with a specialization in Qualitative Inquiry. Her scholarly interests include, but not limited to, race, class, gender issues in higher education, technology-integrated learning and social spaces, de/colonizing epistemologies and methodologies, transnationalism, and qualitatively driven mixed methods approaches. She is a widely published author with her articles and book chapters appearing in venues with national and international visibility. She has published in journals such as Qualitative Inquiry, International Review of Qualitative Research, Technology, Humanities, Education, and Narrative, Cultural Studies <=> Critical Methodologies, The Qualitative Report, and Electronic Journal of Science Education to name a few.

Her refereed book chapters have appeared in publications such as Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Academic Knowledge Construction and Multimodal Curriculum Development, Qualitative Inquiry as Global Endeavor, and Arts-based research in education: Foundations for practice. Additionally, Kakali Bhattacharya is a certified trainer of NVivo, has extensive program evaluation experience, and is a trained instructional designer from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, IL.

She has been the recipient of numerous awards and honors, including being an invited keynote speaker for Southern Connecticut State University, an Outstanding Islander award and an ELITE’s Outstanding Faculty Award, from Texas A & M University, Corpus Christi, and the Dean’s Award for Outstanding Research and Scholarship, from the College of Education at University of Memphis. She is quite active and visible in various national and international organizations, such as American Educational Research Association and International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry.

Recently, Kakali Bhattacharya has developed an interest in contemplative pedagogy and practices and how such approaches inform inspired teaching, learning, research, and leadership. This interest of hers intersects with several arts-based approaches she has taken to inform her research methodology, data analysis, and data representation. At the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, in 2014, she lead a mini course with her colleague Patricia Leavy on Arts-Based Research: Pedagogy and Practices.