Thank You, Reviewer 2: Revising as an Underappreciated Process of Data Analysis
Keywords:qualitative data analysis, coding, scientific writing
Qualitative data-analysis is considered finished after the researcher writes up the analysis for publication. However, if we compare the text as initially submitted to a journal with what has been published, we often find great discrepancies because of the way reviewers push authors to revise their article during the review process. We show how reviewers may initiate a new round of data analysis by focusing their comments on three areas: the fit between observations and theoretical claims, the plausibility of the theoretical framing or explanation compared to other possible explanations, and the issue or relevance or the contribution to scholarships. The result is that reviewers as representatives of a community of inquiry help shape data analysis.
Atkinson, P. (1990). The Ethnographic Imagination: Textual Constructions of Reality. New York, NY: Routledge.
Burawoy, M. (2009). The Extended Case Method: Four Countries, Four Decades, Four Great Transformations, and One Theoretical Tradition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520943384
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Clarke, A. (2005). Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory After the Postmodern Turn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985833
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Demortain, D. (2011). Scientists and the Regulation of Risk: Standardising Control. Cheltenham: Elgar. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781849809443
Fleck, L. (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Basel: Schwabe.
Foster, J. G., Rzhetsky, A., & Evans, J.A. (2015). Tradition and Innovation in Scientists’ Research Strategies. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 875–908. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415601618
Glaser, B. (1992). Basic of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York, NY: Aldine.
Healy, K. (2017). Fuck Nuance. Sociological Theory, 35(2), 118-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275117709046
Hirschauer, S. (2010). Editorial Judgments: A Praxeology of “Voting” in Peer Review. Social Studies of Science, 40(1), 71–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312709335405
Holloway, K., Miller, F. A., & Simms, N. (2021). Industry, Experts and the Role of the Invisible College in the Dissemination of Non-invasive Prenatal Testing in the US. Social Science & Medicine, 270, 113635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113635
Katz, J. (2001). From How to Why: On Luminous Description and Causal Inference in Ethnography (Part 1). Ethnography, 2(4), 443–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/146613801002004001
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674039681
Lamont, M. (2009). How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674054158
McDonnell, T.E., Bail, C.A., & Tavory, I. (2017). A Theory of Resonance. Sociological Theory, 35(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275117692837
Perrotta, M., & Geampana, A. (2020). The Trouble with IVF and Randomised Control Trials: Professional Legitimation Narratives on Time-Lapse Imaging and Evidence-Informed Care. Social Science & Medicine, 258, 113115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113115
Singh, S. (2022). Can Habitus Explain Individual Particularities? Critically Appreciating the Operationalization of Relational Logic in Field Theory. Sociological Theory, 40(1), 28–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/07352751221075645
Small, M.L. (2009). “How Many Cases Do I Need?” On Science and the Logic of Case Selection in Field-Based Research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138108099586
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2013). A Pragmatist Approach to Causality in Ethnography. American Journal of Sociology, 119(3), 682–714. https://doi.org/10.1086/675891
Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive Analysis: Theorizing Qualitative Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226180458.001.0001
Teplitskiy, M. (2015). Frame Search and Re-Search: How Quantitative Sociological Articles Change During Peer Review. American Sociologist, 47(2), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2634766
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2022). Data Analysis in Qualitative Research: Theorizing with Abductive Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226817729.001.0001
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Stefan Timmermans, Iddo Tavory
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.