Yuriko Miura, Ph.D., R.N.
“I wonder if we could view learning in the nursing profession in a more positive light.” This was a peer review comment I received when I submitted my first qualitative study to an academic journal. Responding to a peer review comment requires a lot of energy, but this time I was at a loss at how to respond because I did not know what was being asked of me. Was the reviewer questioning the appropriateness of the research question, the significance, or noting that the results did not reflect the data? Was it simply a statement of the reviewer’s impressions rather than a comment or question on the paper that needed to be addressed?
I am sure the professor who reviewed the study had an intention when making this comment, but as a novice, I could not interpret this properly because of a lack of practical knowledge. Ineffective communication often occurs between those who are more experienced and those who are less experienced. The QUARIN-J website includes the Japanese version of the SRQR and the Criteria for Evaluation of Dissertations Using Qualitative Research Methods. The contents of these guidelines appear to indicate that there is a common language that facilitates communication between contributors and reviewers. I believe that dialogue between the two parties regarding these standards will help prevent unnecessary misunderstandings and offer valuable opportunities.
We have had opportunity to investigate the qualitative research methodologies that have been used in published nursing research in Japan over the past 5 years. We confirmed that a variety of methodologies are used in qualitative research that differ in their theoretical foundations (e.g., grounded theory approaches, phenomenological approaches, and content analysis) to the extent that it is difficult to categorize them together. Furthermore, there are multiple schools of thought for each of these methodologies (although this may not be appropriate), and there is a considerable amount of learning and effort required to accomplish qualitative research.
Researchers who engage in qualitative research will be familiar with the philosophical underpinnings of the methodology they employ, the surrounding theory, and the actual research procedures. However, the results of their exploration of the research question are widely publicized. Researchers and practitioners who are less familiar with the methodology will be briefed on the credibility of the research and the content of the results. The aforementioned guidelines include many perspectives on how to explain the reliability and credibility of research methods, what in-depth analysis involves, and how to describe the results in a way that conveys their appeal. As such, we believe they can be used as a tool to refine one’s own thesis to effectively communicate research to those outside of the methodology profession.
Although excessive application of frameworks and standards may create “unthinking,” I have renewed my determination to be a researcher who can effectively use these frameworks as a tool to connect contributors and reviewers and contributors and readers.