It has been a long, hard year and my motivation to post here or contribute in a meaningful way to any scholarly discussions has been low, and is just now returning. Since spring of 2020, I have been alternately frustrated and encouraged by my involvement in academic publishing, although I think times of the former far outweigh the latter. I am about to begin a new role as Editor-in-Chief of the Ohio Journal of Public Health, so I continue to consider how I might be part of the solution rather than contributing to (what I perceive as) ongoing problems. I have read a couple of discouraging reports in popular media recently about authors' struggles to publish their academic works in scholarly journals. It is easy to assume the works themselves are the problem. And it is also unpleasant to express a defensive attitude about one's own work - which is often what is actually communicated when authors rant to their colleagues about crappy editors and cruel reviewers. But in the instance of the things I read about, it seems that political, personal preference, and even ego-based motives might have been involved. I increasingly fear there is a great deal of interest in preserving the current state of knowledge and in squashing attempts at methodological innovation. I blame aging, set-in-their-ways academics but certainly that is an easy target and an oversimplified explanation. I know myself that it is easy enough to get caught up in your own sense of self-importance and self-image as an expert and it is difficult to confront and accept your own areas of weakness, ignorance, or at times irrational preference. I gave someone poor guidance recently, and was mildly offended by being questioned in the first place. I took some pleasure in acknowledging I was wrong and hope to be a little more willing to really listen in the future before I assume I know more due to my extensive experience (and expensive education - and I'm talking about a public university, by the way), etc., etc. I made this little graphic in Microsoft SmartArt as I was thinking about how peer review (which is not labeled, but represented by the filter shape) can extract the creative, engaging, and even innovative segments of research reports, resulting in a diluted product that is of little interest and offers little that is new. This seems like it should be more prevalent in positivist*/postpositivist* leaning fields like health and health sciences although ironically I have heard from colleagues in interpretive/qualitative-friendly fields that there are likewise narrow minded approaches to how critical** inquiry should be done. I am reminded of Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962/2012, U of Chicago) and his assertion that science does not move forward incrementally but instead the status quo is displaced and replaced (OK, very over simplified). Consider this excerpt from Kuhn, however, in light of the general direction of this post: "The scientific enterprise as a whole does from time to time prove useful, open up new territory, display order, and test long-accepted belief. Nevertheless, the individual engaged on a normal research problem is almost never doing any one of these things (p. 38, emphasis in original).
*I am actually referring more to concrete thinkers, rule-loving scholars and those who always color within the lines. These people are found conducting qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods inquiry. They can often be identified by frequent use of peer review comments that begin with "Always," "Never," "You must," "You cannot," etc. **I use this term in a research context almost always to mean people who question current structures, conventions, rules, and beliefs. Some use the term "trouble" in a similar way.
0 Comments
|
AuthorI am Sheryl L. Chatfield, Ph.D, C.T.R.S. I am a member of the faculty in the College of Public Health at Kent State University. I also Co-coordinate the Graduate Certificate in Qualitative Research and I am a member of the Design Innovation Team at Kent State. Archives
February 2024
Categories
|