Arts-based methodologies are a family of methodological practices that engage and intersect multiple disciplines, all the while centering the arts as and in inquiry. Within qualitative research, arts-based methodological practices cultivate spaces for non-traditional modes of inquiry, data, and (re)presentation, expanding possibilities for methodologies and methods, broadening how scholars/artists communicate, relate, and understand. Arts-based methodologies, then, are often considered disruptive to academic norms, creating new and ever-expanding possibilities for inquiry, expanding beyond written language.

Guyotte & Coogler (2026) p. 171

Back in the days of leading the research centre in Ireland I enjoyed many happy hours discussing and debating arts-based approaches in research and writing (Ledger & Edwards, 2011; McCaffrey & Edwards, 2015).

When Alison and I did our review of what was happening in music therapy with regards to arts based approaches (Ledger & Edwards, 2011) we noted that there were many studies that used music as a basis for processing and reflection about the research conducted but rarely was it presented as arts based research. The long history of music therapy being perceived as peripheral and lacking evidence slowed the inclusion and naming of such approaches. Now there is far more interest and prominence of arts based work in music therapy.

One challenge is the proliferation of arts based work that appears to have no theoretical basis or cogent epistemology. I see work where the researchers dumfounded by the challenges of their participants, and the complexity of engaging with them will hand them paper and pencils and ask them to draw a picture. With no understanding or capacity for evaluation or analysis of the picture they are lost when they pile them up on the table or sort through the photographs of said works.

Other research I see describes photovoice as an ABR method. Some of these are equally poor. Photovoice seems to be a response to discovering that the participants sought for interviewing are “hard to reach”. The researcher then gives them a camera and asks them to document their lives (when presumably these days most of these people have phones with cameras). Again, the lack of evaluation or analysis mars many of these reports (Seitz & Orsini, 2022).

I will follow this up with a reflection on practice-led research.

References

Edwards, J. M. (2017). Creative Insight Method Through Arts-Based Research. In Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences (p. 1). Springer.

Guyotte, K. W., & Coogler, C. H. (2026). Arts-Based Methodologies: Exploring Approaches in Relation to Theories. In Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 171-184). Routledge.

Ledger, A., & Edwards, J. (2011). Arts-based research practices in music therapy research: Existing and potential developments. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 38(5), 312-317.

McCaffrey, T., & Edwards, J. (2015). Meeting art with art: Arts-based methods enhance researcher reflexivity in research with mental health service users. Journal of Music Therapy, 52(4), 515-532.

Seitz, C. M., & Orsini, M. M. (2022). Thirty years of implementing the photovoice method: Insights from a review of reviews. Health Promotion Practice, 23(2), 281-288.

As an editor I frequently encounter manuscripts submitted with claims to be the first to do this or that. First study of X. First use of X method to study this issue. First qualitative study of work in X field.

To make this claim you would need to read a lot of papers, books and chapters. Thousands probably, and not just in English.

It is claimed for me by others in my cohort that I am possibly the first doctoral candidate in the Faculty of Medicine at UQ to use qualitative methods. That is, using a named qualitative method rather than descriptive research which is also known as qualitative in healthcare research. But I don’t know. I haven’t read all the theses ever produced in that faculty, or know of all the different types of research conducted before my work. Possibly there were some anthropological or ethnographic research studies.

I suggest we stop trying to claim we are the first, or even probably the first. Just present the work. Let other people tell you that you are probably the first, or the first they know of. Being the first is great but stupid to claim it if you cannot verify with actual proof.

Share

Being good enough

Don’t make up data. I could not believe it the first time I clocked this happening. I sent it back to check and the author agreed they had not conducted a study they just used some statements people would be likely to say if they were interviewed. They advised they made these comments up to “illustrate” the situation. Not good enough. That is fraudulent.

Use a method. There are many methods. If you are new choose a popular one. Grounded Theory, Narrative Inquiry, Autoethnography. Follow the method - every step.

Cite recent relevant publications. Show you understand the contemporary state-of-the-art not what was happening in 1980.

Ethical clearance is probably required. Yes, you need ethical clearance from a review committee if your study includes people. If these people gave consent to another study and you want to use the data provided for something else - sometimes terms secondary analysis – check with your ethical review board what consent you need.

Using materials in the public domain. Cite the source. Check whether you are permitted to re-use in the way you plan.

If you are experienced in qualitative methods, I recommend you stretch yourself by doing a meta synthesis. Again, many methods exist so choose one and follow it. I have seen manuscripts where people call their method “meta synthesis” or they name a method but do their own idiosyncratic thing. Meta synthesis requires attention to analysis and must result in a meta finding accounting for all the studies included.

1. Submit a paper not your chapter

   Some manuscripts arrive with the word chapter throughout. Make sure you have reworked your thesis chapter in line with a published paper.

2. Recent citations

   My bugbear. I do not know who these people are who published this stuff you like so much from the 1970s but qualitative research is a busy active contemporary field. Do not marginalise it by indicating the only good stuff appeared decades ago. Of course does not apply to founders of methods but cite the most recent work.

3. Journal choice

   Some papers I see at QR belong in a disciplinary journal not a QR journal. Education, nursing, and public health are some of the disciplines in which authors can locate themselves too far into their area including exploring ongoing debates, and issues that are probably not that interesting to the wider readership. Don’t choose QR because your disciplinary journals rejected your qualitative method approach. See also

4. Your paper’s title

   Covered this here

   Thanks for reading qualitative research ! This post is public so feel free to share it.

   Share

I invite you to participate in a short survey about your interest in attending training in qualitative research methods.

To take the survey click here

I can only see your answers, not your name or email (unless you put it in the free field response).

Thank you!
Jane

I am almost one year into this journey (unbelievable) and have published 36 articles counting this one. The title I used above is because the most clicked titles are negative. One has the word rejection in it, one has the word difficult. I don’t know what that says about you or the world but I plan to continue to write about what I think is interesting without chasing clicks. However, if I wanted or needed the clicks then I would likely have to write a negative title every time which does not appeal.

During the time I wrote these substack articles I held an honorary position at The University of Queensland for which I am truly grateful. Over most of this year-long writing commitment I have not had any paid work. That changed quite recently when I took on a casual hourly paid role with a company that offers pre-review for researchers submitting grants.

Although I have not had a paid role for most of the year I am currently an editor with Qualitative Research (Sage) since the start of 2025, and I recently took up the Editor-in-Chief role with The Clinical Supervisor (Taylor & Francis). This is a busy-making enterprise that I thoroughly enjoy. I love reading papers and corresponding with authors and reviewers. I enjoy the intellectual stimulation and using my skills to build capacity in others and in these fields.

Qualitative Research is a huge undertaking. There are 4 editors including an Editor-in-Chief, Professor Tom Hall. Already this year we have received about 500 papers. We publish 6 issues per year. Our acceptance rate is almost 13%. The Clinical Supervisor publishes two issues per year. I am the sole handling editor. Our acceptance rate is around 25%. I am permitted to hold roles in these similar publishing enterprises because there is no (or minimal) likelihood of a conflict of interest.

So back to negativity. How about we all click something positive in the next 24 hours and avoid any negative titles? Let’s break the cycle of negativity drawing our interest.

Leave a comment

“I’m scared of finding out I was right from the start – that my materials are boring”

(Karazi-Presler & Lomsky-Feder, 2025, p. 449)

What does one do about boredom? One’s own as a researcher, and the unforgiveable betrayal of boring others.

The anatomy of boredom

How does boredom occur, how do we recognise it, and what to do about it? This tripartite query suggests I can answer each of these interrelated questions. I probably can’t but I will start with the advice that boredom is normal.

Boredom is not writer’s block or apathy, or loss of momentum. These are well documented phases in qualitative research, particularly during data analysis and then the final write up. Boredom is a loss of interest, an inability to find anything of value in the materials you have collected and the emerging analysis in spite of returning to them over and over. It’s like the Tortenguss (nappage) over top of an Obstorte (fruit flan). You can make out each of the fruits but their individual colour is softened and merged into the others by the glaze. The data can seem like this sometimes. Nothing stands out.

1. Flip it when it becomes “we already know this”

   If you become aware that the thematic material emerging is similar to that which many other writers and researchers before you have identified the value proposition or meaning that is OK. Consider an exploration of parenting where many of your parents in their interviews say more or less the same thing - this is exhausting, I am not sure I am very good at this, I worry my frequent annoyance with my child will have lifelong consequences for them. Can you flip the interview - what surprises you about this? How were your expectations of parenting not met? What would you say to a parent who said these same things to you about their experience? If you had magic wand what is one thing you would immediately change in your life? Moving into the realm of imagination and speculation is way to get closer to creative insight1 and useful data points for your later analysis. Is it a solution or instant fix. No. But try not to repeat things you are doing that generate the state of boredom.

2. Sit with it

   A key tenet of qualitative research methods is the need for reflection. Get out that journal page and put it all down. Write bored 100 times. Then get up and do 25 star jumps.2 Something will happen I promise you.

3. You are not alone but boredom is lonely

   You can’t really tell anyone you are bored especially all the people who envy your life of being able to read and contemplate. Boredom seems like a luxury.

4. Don’t give up

   This is normal, it is a phase. Talk to your supervisor. Write an anonymous post on Reddit. You never know, you may become fascinated with boredom!!

References

Edwards, J. (2019). Creative Insight Method through arts-based research. In P. Liumpattong (Ed). Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 1131-11 . London: SpringerNature.

Karazi-Presler, T., & Lomsky-Feder, E. (2025). Beyond the “wow” factor: the analytic importance of boredom in qualitative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 28(4), 449-461.

Whether rejection on a competitive grant, a tender, a business case, or a journal paper the agony (oh the anguish) is the same. As an academic I experienced rejection regularly. A long time ago now I had a run of 16 grant submissions rejected in a row. Usually, I was successful in about one in four or one in five proposals submitted but occasionally a few years could pass and I was beavering away submitting competitive grants one after the other with nothing to show for it. It’s easy to develop a failure narrative in that case especially since most academic researchers never mention rejections.1

Recently one paper I sole authored was rejected from journals seven times over a period of around five years. Yes, it is now published and although I cannot remember all the other journals I will love that destination journal and the Editor-in-Chief until the day I die. I felt seen. In the rejections of that manuscript maybe three were after peer review. What a brutal life!

Why keep submitting?

Rejection is par for the course in the world of creating knowledge. So let’s unpack it.

1. There are a lot of gatekeepers.

Sometimes we are those gatekeepers. Gatekeepers whether consciously or unconsciously aim to keep the status quo. To challenge the status quo you need credibility. You need to be able to position your ideas as not smashing what came before but - to the extent you can - how your ideas amplifies and builds on prior knowledge.

2. The idea might need tighter or more explicit framing or an alternative title.

Hanging around senior European researchers I was advised never use the term “music therapy” (my specific field) instead use “auditory neuroscience”. Mind blown.

3. The idea might be too far out there.

You might need to reign it in a little and/or offer some scaffolding to get from current state-of-the-art to your new idea. You might need help to do this. Choose the least egotistical person of highest rank in your department/school/faculty. Ask around who has found someone really good at this. Most people do not promote that they do this for their colleagues. Avoid people who give advice like “don’t ask for help, you must develop your own ideas” or demonstrate any bias against people who are not like them.

4. The idea might be boring or have been done already.

This is a bugbear I have in reviewing whether for journals or for grant bodies. If you have not cited the recent literature of course your idea seems completely novel to you. Do not submit until you have a read as much as possible published in the past 3-5 years and place your work within that body of work.

5. Do not avoid authors.

Don’t get into the bad habit of having a list of authors you won’t read or cite because you met them once and they were not interested in you or you heard they are difficult to work with. Judge their work on what they publish and if it is relevant to your work cite it. No-one wants to be that person who rejects proposals they review in their field because it doesn’t cite them but, well, human beings. Cite everyone relevant.

How can this be survived?

1. Normalise it.

These grants/journals are highly competitive and many people will miss out. Qualitative Research (Sage) where I am associate editor the acceptance rate recently went up to 12.7%. Ouch.

2. Prepare yourself.

I hope I get this grant but it is so competitive I might not. Plan what you will do if you do not get it. Do not plan to suffer eternally. Choose to approach this in a more life affirming way.

3. Reward yourself for submitting.

What is something you really like to do that after you click submit you will get a dopamine hit. And no, I don’t recommend anything involving getting drunk or high. Maybe date night with your partner, or a day at the park with the kids. Or bubble bath and trashy novel followed by streaming a film that makes you laugh out loud. Consciously decide this is your reward.

4. It might not be the right time.

Sometimes the idea needs a context to hold and support it. Let’s think about a world where everyone thinks Mums on methadone should not be allowed to keep their babies and you are a passionate champion that with the right care they can make great Mums. You will need a village of supporters, evidence, and a slew of unrelenting champions. You will burn down your house (psyche) doing this on your own.

5. Look at who was successful before you.

What did they do that you might try? One grant call a colleague and I looked at all the successful recipients over the past five years and all of them had done one thing that is easy enough to try and we encouraged our colleagues not to apply unless they had done it.

Tips and tricks

1. Do you know anyone who got this grant before you?

Will they let you look a their submission? Probably not, but worth a try if you work in the same place as them.

2. Do send your draft manuscript to the person with the best track record closest to your field in your institution.

Check they are trustworthy and will not copy. I wish I did not feel compelled to write that but yes, experience tells me to write it. Get their feedback before submitting.

3. Do simplify.

I am often surprised how simple a good proposal seems. It takes you from beginning to end seamlessly. It is clear which seems “simple” but is usually not, it is just really well written.

4. Do try to include everything you are going to do in the grant proposal.

I am astonished how many researchers want a large amount of money to co-design a research project with participants and as such have no idea what the research will be about and which direction it will go. Even if the research process is highly reliant on participant input have a look at what other successful co-designed projects wrote in their proposal. I promise they do not suggest everything will happen after you give them the money and right now they are a blank page.

Things that waste time and energy

1. Writing back to the editor to tell them they have made the biggest mistake of their life desk rejecting your paper and sending 20 pages of justification for your position. Move on.

2. Starting revisions right away – whether grant or manuscript. Give it time, let the feedback percolate. Do something completely different.

3. Resigning.

4. Stopping submitting.

5. Telling everyone around you to resign and stop submitting.

6. Whine for years and years about how unfair the system is.

7. Refusing to review on principle. Want to check in on the state-of-the-art, get an early sneak peak? Apart from conference reviewing is the best way to do it.

Coda

We could ask do qualitative papers and studies get rejected more frequently? Who knows. In health - one of my general fields - journal papers with qualitative methods are a small percentage of overall volume but it is difficult to know is this due to gatekeeping or a smaller number of submissions or problems with quality. Interesting recent work on this by Kaye et al (2026) possibly relevant for those of you in health fields.

Never give up. So no-one likes your ideas and you don’t know how to make them more interesting. I can share multiple ideas I developed that were picked up 10-20 years later. Does that mean I am an innovator? Not at all, I just did not give up at the first hurdle. I published pilot project data and outcomes even if the funding did not continue.

Reference

Kaye, E. C., Bogetz, J., Barton, K. S., Bell, C. J., Johnston, E. E., Pozzar, R. A., ... & Pozzar, R. (2026). Expert recommendations for the conduct and appraisal of qualitative research in oncology. The Lancet Oncology, 27(2), e84-e100.

The title of your proposed grant or manuscript needs to excite and interest. Here are some problems and suggestions remembering I do a lot of reviewing in the health and wellbeing space. Suggest spending at least 30 minutes working on your title when ready to submit.

Definite no:

1. Funny punny - don’t go there. “Them stairs got no stairs” - whaat?

2. Beautiful esoteric poetic - “Filmic, majestic and gloriously envisioned.” Save it for the body of the report.

3. Just boring. “Women over 50 report they don’t like these things”

4. I probably use “exploring” and “perspective” in titles too often. Avoid unless really actually exploring.

Suggest:

1. Look at the highest cited papers in your field from the past 5 years and reflect on how the title was structured.1

2. Read your reference list again. There may be some prompts in titles there remembering that your reference list should reflect the content of the paper.

3. Goldilocks it. Write a long title, medium title, and a short title. Workshop with friends and family and maybe someone who doesn’t know what kind of research you do.

4. Look at the most read papers in the journal you are submitting to and see if they favour some kind of stylistic convention. Some journals seem not to accept may papers with a colon in the title, others most titles have a colon.2

Not a silver bullet, rather an additional quality check before submission.

Reference

Matziorinis, A. M., & Koelsch, S. (2022). The promise of music therapy for Alzheimer's disease: a review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1516(1), 11-17.

Share

The guidance for quality when I started was a bit hit and miss. There was not that much to read in healthcare facing qualitative research even though Glaser and Strauss (1965) started with hospital patient experiences of end of life. Yet gradually I started to hear people talk about the patient experience. After McCaffrey and Beebe’s pain manual (1989) patient experience was better centred but it didn’t happen right away. Nonetheless in healthcare research I perceive this is one of the turning points for qualitative research because qualitative methods are so adept at finding out about human experience.

Providing context to what was happening with Glaser and Strauss developed Grounded Theory in the 1960s Charmaz & Thornberg (2021) wrote:

Sociology and anthropology have had long histories of first-hand qualitative research from the beginning of their disciplines at the turn of the 20th century. But by the 1960s, quantitative researchers had attacked and marginalized qualitative inquiry in sociology by gaining control over leading departments, journals, research institutes, and funding agencies. They believed only a few talented stars could produce qualitative studies worthy of academic attention. Glaser and Strauss rejected this view and democratized qualitative inquiry. They promised that grounded theory would give ordinary researchers the tools to construct solid theories in their respective areas.

p. 310

It’s interesting that there are no verified sources referenced. I could do a deep dive but right now I want to keep writing about the quality issues in qualitative research.

Here are my top 5 quality issues

1. Starting a study before choosing a method. There is no such thing as qualitative research method. There are methods. Choose one.

2. Using a method poorly. Braun and Clarke (2006) anyone?

3. Believing that interview skills come naturally. I cannot tell you how many times students refused to engage in interview role play. I was frequently advised they could not do it because it was “fake” but that when they were in the interview and it was real they would know what to do. My answer was usually about learning to drive. You can’t just automatically drive, you have to learn.

4. Not knowing the first thing about the process of analysis of the method chosen. For example, choosing the themes that will be found in the data before the data is collected. Deductive is not completely forbidden but it’s qualitative, start inductively please.

5. One word themes. Made up example. We explored the experiences of first year university students studying creative arts. We found five themes: struggle, cold, money, issues and light. Just no. Each theme should answer the research question.

References

Charmaz, K., & Thornberg, R. (2021). The pursuit of quality in grounded theory. Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 305-327 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14780887.2020.1780357#d1e273

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1965). Awareness of dying. AldineTransaction

McCaffery, M., & Beebe, A. (1989). Pain: Clinical manual for nursing practice. Mosby: St Louis.

[1] I have to thank Associate Professor Clare O’Callaghan for the introduction to Grounded Theory many years ago when I was first starting down the research trail. Since then I have taught (probably) hundreds of students qualitative research methods and many times have focused specifically on helping them to grasp the basics of GT.

I was introduced to autoethnography by Professor Carolyn Kenny, the Indigenous scholar and music therapy professor. Without her gravitas and elan I otherwise might have been skeptical in terms such as isn’t it quite entitled to write about self-experience? However, well before my interest in AE I had written several times about, and given talks on, my experience starting the music therapy program at RCH Brisbane which are somewhat autoethnographical (e.g. Edwards, 2005).

I asked ChatGPT who were the founders of autoethnography – this was the answer:

• Carolyn Ellis – one of the most influential voices; helped define modern autoethnography as personal, emotional, and narrative-based

• Arthur Bochner – collaborated with Ellis and pushed for storytelling as legitimate research

• David Hayano – wrote early work on “insider ethnography,” which overlaps with autoethnography

Pretty good.

From an initially heavily criticised approach to growth into a current journal JOAE and of course a handbook which should be in your university library, AE has built a strong reputation as a way to get close to personal experience and represent minority viewpoints and new perspectives.

Bochner and Ellis (2016) considered the history and reflected the early days as follows -

“In 1975, Karl Heider asked 50 Grand Valley Dani school children, ‘‘What do (your) people do?’’ and referred to their responses (collectively) as auto-ethnography, by which he meant ‘‘the Dani’s own understanding of their world’’ (p. 3). Four years later, David Hayano (1979) became the first anthropologist to cite Heider’s work. Following Heider’s lead, Hayano equated auto-ethnography with insider studies in which the researcher was a native, or became a full insider, within the community or culture being studied, a genre of ethnography now routinely classified as indigenous or aboriginal. …and he made a clear distinction between autoethnography and self-ethnography.”

Suggestions:

1. If you are writing a doctoral thesis using qualitative methods consider creating a chapter using AE. This attends to positionality and to some extent reflexivity.

2. Include reference to criticisms about it as well as the whoops and cheers as to why it is so marvelous.

3. Remember it is not only a narrative, it should be theoretical. What are the underlying structures causing this situation?

4. If you do not have much experience of the phenomenon then don’t try it or try it but be prepared to abandon it. Some of the best accounts are strong, lived, emotive and engaging by people who have had time to reflect.

5. Read a lot of AE accounts before committing to writing and choose four or five strong ones as a model/guide.

6. Consider the ethics of your approach. How can you assure people they will be anonymised. If that is not possible how do you seek their approval for inclusion. What about the IRB? Make sure you have covered all the bases or you may struggle to get published.

References

Bochner, A. P., & Ellis, C. (2016). The ICQI [International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry] and the rise of autoethnography: Solidarity through community. International Review of Qualitative Research, 9(2), 208-217.

Edwards, J. (2022). Discrimination and Exclusion in Higher Education Is Reflected in Multiple Autoethnographies. Qualitative Report, 27(10).

Edwards, J. (2021). Ethical autoethnography: is it possible?. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1609406921995306.

Edwards, J. (2017). Narrating experiences of sexism in higher education: A critical feminist autoethnography to make meaning of the past, challenge the status quo and consider the future. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(7), 621-634.

Edwards, J. (2005). A reflection on the music therapist’s role in developing a program in a children’s hospital. Music Therapy Perspectives, 23(1), 36-44.

One phenomenon I was not expecting in this role is the citation inadequacy that authors can be caught out on while being otherwise good writers with clever ideas to share. Merriam Webster defines cite as “to quote by way of example, authority, or proof”. The citations show knowledge of the field and must reflect the state-of-the-art as in be recent and relevant.

Some issues to pay attention when preparing your paper as they may trip you up - all that effort to submit an excellent report that you worked so hard on to find it won’t progress to review -

1. No recent citations.

Why? The manuscript will take about a year from submission to be accepted and published. If your most recent citation is from 2017 your paper will look like nothing happened in the last 10 years. Qualitative research is a dynamic burgeoning field. It would be irresponsible of the journal to publish a paper that did not cite anything more recent than a decade prior.

Why are you citing papers from the 1970s and 80s and including quotes from these papers with the researcher referred to as “he”? Please no.

2. Old citations of methodologists still publishing.

I have mentioned this before. Braun and Clarke are a good example. Why are you using their paper from 2007 and nothing more recent?

3. Including every method with the same title

Hello Grounded Theory. Charmaz, Glaser, and Strauss and Corbin should not be cited in a string. These are different iterations of GT method. Which one are you using?

4. Including citations to research with completely different populations as if they bolster your findings

This is a made-up example. You are writing about the use of photovoice with research with teenagers in deprived areas. You cite papers about photovoice with women with breast cancer and children with vision impairment. Why? In the general introduction this may be appropriate to introduce photovoice but in the findings and discussion this is likely irrelevant literature unless there is some aspect of the protocol that was similarly difficult across the studies. There are hundreds of studies reporting use of photovoice with teenagers, find them and actually read them and cite them, not just anything available with photovoice in the title.

5. Paragraph after paragraph with no citations.

Epic fail in writing 101. Conjecture.

6. Too few references

Is there an exact number? Of course not. Read papers in the journal to which you are submitting. Look at their reference lists. Don’t decide there is a number to reach but consider whether you may have thin referencing and undertake wider reading on the topic. One problem if references are sparse is the author can believe their contribution is completely unique. Before submission do a last sweep on google scholar just in case there is a new paper.

7. Cite correctly

Read the whole thing, not just the abstract. Make sure the paper actually states the proposition you are using it to support. Don’t cite to “colour in” your paper.

8. Ignoring the work of people you don’t like or citing people to be ingratiating

You met so and so at a conference and they were bit distant and uninterested so you decided to cease citing them, or you heard so and so is difficult so you stopped reading their work. Bring your ethical open-minded self to the literature and do not ignore based on personalities or interactions you have had.

Similarly you are told that if you want to get into the journal you need to cite the editors. That is unlikely to be true and in my experience is completely untrue.

Share

I read qualitative studies regularly, sometimes even daily. I can see so clearly these days how people trip themselves up with assumptions about qualitative research. One constant issue I notice is decisions around where to be tight and organised and where to stay in flow, just letting things unravel and follow their progress. I probably should make a diagram but well…lazy. People often mistake where they need to be prepared and engaged and where they can take their foot off the accelerator (gas) pedal.

The main areas to be tight, that is, organised, well prepared, intensively planned is the who what and where. The why comes well before this. You should know who your cohort is that belongs in your study. In qualitative studies usually this is people who have lived experience of the phenomenon under investigation. You need inclusion and exclusion criteria, and a clear picture of where these people are and how you will find them. Do they self-select and/or do you have a brief quiz to find out if they have the experiences you are looking to better understand?

The areas where I would not do too much planning and prep is for the discussion that occurs in the interview. You will have an interview schedule that you provided to the ethics committee. However, in the interview don’t rigidly work through your questions. Seek to find out about the person. Be curious, go deep. Listen intently. Be compassionate. Let the person wander about in the topic and then you can say something like “It is so interesting to hear your experiences of X. I am wondering whether we might return to something you said earlier about Y. I think you may have more to say about that.” You are the guide, not the compass.

The other area where planning helps is understanding the method and the analysis in advance. You are not doing qualitative research you are doing a qualitative research study using a method which has a name and a history and key leaders or guides. This method supports the process of analysis which you know well and have potentially practiced before you start recruiting. That is, make up some data and practice using the analysis techniques advocated by the method, e.g. coding.

Useful preparation - read 10 papers that employ the method. Anything you want to know? Write to the authors. They may not write back but they might. Any similarities between the papers? Any massive differences. Keep journalling about this. Keep noticing, keep on being curious. You’ve got this.

Share qualitative research

When I was a doctoral candidate in a medical faculty conducting research in a hospital occasionally people said things to me such as “it is like talking to someone from another planet”. I probably was the first qualitative researcher they ever met, and they were confused as to why I was talking to participants, and what I was trying to do. The discovery of epistemology gave me a useful starting point in such conversations.

This sense of doing things differently from others or having a unique or sometimes unfortunately considered lesser methodological approach may be isolating. Here are some techniques useful for feeling connected and motivated during doctoral studies. They are presented in no particular order.

1. The literature is your friend

Reading qualitative studies is one of the best ways to feel connected and to immerse yourself in the vast array of research approaches. One suggestion is to go to the web page of a journal with qualitative in the title. For example, Qualitative Research: Sage Journals Click through the most recent, most cited, and trending articles. Read the abstracts and choose a couple to take a deep dive. Note the reflexivity statements, the positionality, and the description of the method. Maybe even cite and paste these and put them into a document paraphrasing them in your own words and making sure you keep the cited doc details.

2. More hacks

Using google scholar type in the title of your thesis. Choose the top five papers and read them over and over. Again, consider which statements you want to cut and paste into your “good ideas from the literature” doc.

3. Conferences

Rather than going to the conference in your field consider attending a qualitative methods conference. For example, this is coming up in London 2026 Qualitative Health Research Network Conference | Qualitative Health Research Network - UCL – University College London Note it is health research so if you are not a health focused researcher it may not be as beneficial. At the conference don’t think about having friends or socialising, think about who you want to say hello to. For example, this keynote speaker looks really interesting to me.

Shabira Papain is a social researcher with expertise in inclusive research and codesign with traditionally excluded communities. Shabira has designed and implemented an Inclusive Community Research approach to increase participation of seldom heard communities. Community Researchers run qualitative research in their communities to make exclusion visible and to build trust in research.

Plan to first compliment her on her research sincerely and advise why it interests you. Maybe let her know you read her paper in the journal of XYZ. Then give the short version of your elevator pitch about your doctoral research. Invite her to coffee and don’t be offended if she says no. Then thank her while handing her your card (I know we are told these are not the done thing anymore but not everyone is comfortable giving their mobile phone details. I frequently come away from conferences with loads of cards which I go through and decide whether to contact again or not).

4. People to talk to

While it is useful to have some other qualitative doctoral scholars in your network try to seek out fora like this substack (and please comment so we can engage in dialogue). The Thesis Whisperer is also a good source of input from a range of people. Consider starting your own online discussion group and try to stay on topic with regards methods and research hacks rather than complaining about your supervisor.

5. Keeping your supervisor in the loop.

Academics are busy, often distracted, sometimes overwhelmed. It can feel like the building is on fire most days. Suggest keep track of what you are doing by spending about an hour a week writing a short email to your supervisor with bullet points as to what you did that week. They may not write back but be vigilant with this. If at any point you need to take a break or it is suggested you are behind where you need to be in your candidature these emails will be helpful to show momentum and focus.

Sample: This week I contacted all the fieldwork sites by phone and

· Double checked the email addresses I have and made a note of the person to address in the email.

· Advised there will be an information sheet on its way in a few weeks.

· In a couple of cases this involved calling multiple times.

I also read Sun, Y., Hsieh, J., & Gao, X. (2025). Integrating qualitative comparative analysis with reflexive thematic analysis in theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 24, 16094069251318749.

· Here is a summary of the paper in my own words –

[Then go back through and see if you can make the email shorter. Remember to adhere to the email etiquette of including a greeting and sign off.]

6. Be kind

Be kind to yourself. It can be difficult to be in the middle of a qualitative study. It is normal to feel unfocused and to perceive that momentum and motivation are waning. Go for a walk, do something short but expected like drop in on someone on the other side of the campus and have a quick chat. Watch a facebook reel that makes you laugh (don’t start scrolling!). Ring your sister and ask her something. Don’t complain, don’t co-ruminate – it will make you feel worse (Badawi & Ingram, 2025). If you need to discuss a tension or difficulty with another person think about how you can remain neutral and focus on the facts and only briefly touch on feelings. A therapist/counsellor to talk to (and universities provide these) can be helpful to avoid spiralling.

7. Be proactive

Create sessions that help you feel connected to qualitative research.

Set up a lunchtime reading group and distribute a copy of the (recent only please) paper a week in advance to discuss at the group.

Have a qualitative lunch quiz now and then where you write out questions and have a few people try to beat each other to get the most correct answers. I’ll start –

a. What is the historic relationship between Barney Glaser, Anslem Strauss and Kathy Charmaz.

Answer: Glaser and Strauss set up the PhD program Charmaz completed.

b. What country are long-time collaborators Braun and Clarke from?

Answer: United Kingdom

Keep on!

Reference

Badawi, J. C., & Ingram, R. E. (2025). Co-rumination and depression: a systematic review and future directions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 44(1), 29-59.

Of course, there is marvellous and intriguing thematic analyses out there but many times the ways the research is presented, the lack of information about the approach and the use of terminology such as “emergent themes” without any description of a process of analysis leads the reader through a mystery tour.

Emergent themes

I love this commentary about TA.

Themes do not emerge. An editor’s reflections on the use of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis - Lisa Morriss, 2024

Sometimes reading poorly designed and run research using TA it is especially galling to read that the “themes emerged” though it is so ubiquitous in qualitative research I cannot rule out having used it myself. Using this phrase reminds me of those Magic Eye posters that were so popular before we had the internet. You squinted your eyes and another picture emerged sometimes in three dimensions, a dinosaur, a monster.

Using a theory or guide paper

In 2006 Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke published a paper in Qualitative Research in Psychology titled Using thematic analysis in psychology. It has almost 300,000 citations. Wow.

So what do you notice? Well first of all this paper is 20 years old. If you submit a paper using TA and the only citation to your method is from 2006 I would immediately ask “has anything been published since that time?”. In the case of Braun and Clarke not only have they published more but they developed their approach substantially including refining the named stages of the research. They also raised concerns about the way their 2006 approach is implemented by others so make sure you don’t fall into the poor habits they outline.

They have a lot of video materials on the web so while you might not cite these materials you should definitely watch and take notes before using the approach – e.g. Thematic analysis - an introduction

A few follow up questions for you –

1. What do Braun and Clarke title their approach now?

2. What are the changes in nomenclature for the different phases of research?

3. How do they view the ontology and epistemology of TA?

Read more

I have multiple examples of reviewer two behaviour. One is that a meta ethnography I authored (Edwards, 2024) was rejected from a journal because a reviewer believed that only ethnographic studies can be included in meta ethnography. Meta ethnography is a synthesis method and can include any qualitative studies (Noblit & Hare, 1988).

My options were to:

· Write to the editor-in-chief and point out Reviewer 2’s comments were incorrect

· Submit elsewhere

· Ditch the paper

I submitted elsewhere. It is unusual for an editor to be swayed by an author concern about a reviewer comment and in such roles it is usual that many protest messages come in every week and while they are usually read, they do not often receive a response due to the volume of work.

Tips to give Reviewer Two information they need

In submitting qualitative research reports I often overdo the following based on my history of review responses as the reviewer may be a qualitative researcher but never heard of the method you used. In healthcare research the problem can be that the paper is sent to someone who is expert in the needs of the cohort included in the study but is not a qualitative researcher.

· Introduce and explain the method, its history and context

· Spend a few sentences elaborating why the method is the most appropriate to the approach taken – sometimes I refer to another method that was under consideration but not ultimately chosen in favour of this method

· Include metrics from google scholar about the prevalence of the method or any changes over the past number of years.

I prepare to delete these sections later if the reviewer or editor suggest they are not necessary and as an editor I have sometimes asked authors to delete their method 101 paragraph.

Here is an example describing Autoethnographic method. Arguably not required for submission to a qualitative methods journal but it got published.

Autoethnography is a highly regarded and widely used research methodology and practice whereby the researcher is deeply immersed in self-experience while observing, writing, journaling and reflecting. “A researcher uses tenets of autobiography and ethnography to do and write autoethnography. Thus, as a method, autoethnography is both process and product” (Ellis et al., 2011, p. 273). The development of autoethnography emerged from ethnography, with the work of Carolyn Ellis and her collaborator Art Bochner catalytic in its burgeoning and impact. There are examples of early ethnographic work in which researchers focused on self-experience rather than primarily on descriptions of their observations of others. This was not a common practice but the small number of examples align with the contemporary practice of autoethnography (Reed-Danahay, 2002).

Autoethnography recognizes self-experience as a social phenomenon valuable and worthy of examination. Autoethnographic research seeks to deepen understanding of multiple complex dimensions of culture and interpersonal dynamics in such locations as, for example, in a community (Schmid, 2019), an organisation (Murphy, 2008), or even within family dynamics (Lahman, 2020). Troubling experience is often the focus of autoethnographic study, such as the personal experience of loss through bereavement (Furman, 2006; McKenzie, 2015), or workplace bullying (Pheko, 2018).

Edwards, 2021, p. 1

Here is an example using metrics

AE is also a method used by many scholars to explore and report their experiences of working, researching, and teaching in HEIs [Higher Education Institutions]. The number of publications on this topic has increased since 2000. For example, five papers appear in a Google Scholar (GS) search result that have both “university” and/or “higher education” and AE in the title for the time period 2000-2010. From 2010-2020, however, the total number of papers is 70.

Edwards, 2021, p. 2115

While this post is about book proposals that receive reviews and has some useful advice that may support actions if you receive a poor review and a request to revise.

What to Do about Reviewer #2: Advice for Handling a Difficult Peer Review | Duke University Press News

References

Edwards, J. (2024). Refugee and asylum-seeker children’s experiences: results of a meta ethnography. Children’s Geographies, 22(2), 281-296.

Edwards, J. (2022). Discrimination and Exclusion in Higher Education Is Reflected in Multiple Autoethnographies. The Qualitative Report, 27, 10, 2113-2134.

Edwards, J. (2021). Ethical autoethnography: is it possible?. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1609406921995306.

Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Sage publications.

If we consider that reflexivity is (something like) the critical self-examination of one’s assumptions, biases, and influence about and onto a situation, where critical or criticality suggests the need to consider multiple perspectives, then what is the role of reflection? To some degree it might be useful to consider reflection occurring when one acknowledges, names and thinks about thoughts and feelings, and/or describes these in relation to an event or experience. This in turn leads to reflexivity but not always. It is perfectly fine to describe thoughts and feelings relating to the research without pushing through to reflexivity. However, furthering reflection to meet the threshold for reflexivity must regularly be attempted.

Where to start

Reflection begins at the outset with self-examination and questions such as why this research topic, and why now? Why these participants? Where am I in this research, and how do I relate to the topic and the participants’ experiences? If you are writing a thesis this might form an early chapter written as an autoethnography. It is far easier to undertake a full chapter if you have experience of the topic than if not.

Useful moments and potential turns towards reflexivity

Here is a list of some useful moments to journal and revisit.

Feeling uncomfortable. What is this? You might ask “What am I uncomfortable about?” There are easy go to topics like my privilege, my status, my financial comfort, or other feelings such as “did they just say that about their child/parent/therapist/sibling?”.

Something is troubling your thoughts that you can’t quite put your finger on. You keep thinking about it, you wake up and think about it in the night. It throws you off track.

Changing your mind. You started out thinking something that was said or you observed was “amazing” and opened up the whole research project in a way you didn’t expect and then you suddenly don’t see it like that (and you are worried for your sanity even though I can reassure you this is quite normal).

This is completely new. Does it remind you of anything else you have experienced? What if you were not a researcher and this was a context or topic you came across how would you think about it differently?

So emotional. You are angry, you cry, you are sad, you are overwhelmed, you feel joy, hope abounds. Name and explore these emotional experiences. Sometimes it’s empathy as in this participant went through hell and you feel so sad that happened.

I hope you take something helpful from this post. Please feel free to give me any feedback, I truly welcome it.

Reflexivity

Reflexivity is a process of thinking about and analysing the work in relation to the self, and experiences of the self within the work, with openness and persistence. Something like the psychoanalyst Bion advised as a binocular process whereby one is both looking at the patient and looking at oneself looking at the patient.

Read more

I occupy two worlds of qualitative research

I straddle two worlds, one the world of qualitative research in healthcare which is rather different to qualitative research in social sciences. Qualitative research in healthcare is sometimes a little quiet, a little apologetic, and oftentimes written up with reference to positivist research methods. Our training requires us to be circumspect about findings. I sometimes note that authors apologise for not having met a threshold of participation to be able to generalise the findings whereas most qualitative studies report the experiences of the participants and it is accepted that this is not generalisable. In healthcare we need these experiential points of view to promote empathy in practitioners, and to better understand the patient journey. It is not necessary that this represent every patient’s story, and that would likely be impossible. Sometimes the qualitative research is the beginning point to understand and work with a new research question to be tested through an empirical positivist study.

When is the end?

Coming to the end of a qualitative study can feel like reaching the top of a mountain after a long climb or jumping into a cool pond during a heatwave. The feeling of relief and achievement is palpable. The only problem: when is the end? Saturation answers that question somewhat but in general the themes have come together, all the data collected is accounted for in the findings, and there is a lot to report.

How will the new idea emerge?

When reporting themes in the findings or reflection/discussion of the findings authors are usually encouraged to place these themes within the context of other research with similar populations. Here’s an example (Edwards, 2017). I created a series of experiential vignettes from my time working in higher education. By then I had worked in 9 universities. This vignette was titled Toil and trouble after the witches scene that opens Shakepeare’s Macbeth.

The only two times she was referred to as a witch left her shocked and confused. But she said nothing. Both people worked in senior positions to hers within the university. ‘You are like a witch’, he said. ‘You come out of nowhere’. He began to recite the witches’ lines from the opening of Macbeth. Later when she tried to make sense of this, her friends consoled her saying it showed she had power. At another time, lamenting her tiny, cramped, windowless office, she told a senior staff member in front of others that probably they had had to move the broom out before they squeezed her in there. His reply, ‘How do you travel to work now that you don’t have your broom?’

In the discussion of the findings I reflected on this and included reference to similar commentary about life for women in higher education:

This witches vignette reminds me how many times I have seemed to trouble, worry and annoy some invisible status quo with which almost everyone else seemed comfortable, a role similar to that which Franklin has described as the degenerative agent (Franklin, 2015, p. 32). Since writing these stories, and in the process of preparing this paper, I came across further personal accounts of experiences in higher education (Brabazon, 2014; Franklin, 2015) that have resonated with my development of these perspectives via narrative iteration. Similar to my process of journaling which revealed these vignettes, Franklin (2015) related that ‘breath-taking incidents of sexism are still so ubiquitous and so ordinary, I keep a special diary in which I write them down’ (p. 15).

While using this reference to others’ work might feel as if everything found in the study is already understood and known, there will certainly be some aspect of the findings which appear special and not quite as well-known as others. How to find this is not an easy process.

One strategy is to get a blank page and type/write a question at the top such as “what is novel about these findings?”. Then list all the ways the findings might be interpreted or perceived as new. You might list the themes and then consider how they may or may not be novel or whether there is an aspect of them which seems to be unknown to date. You might list insights from your journalling, especially looking out for places where you have used terms such as “I never realised…” or “It had not occurred to me before…” or “The way Maxine described her experience of X had a profound effect on me and I was thinking about her comments for days afterwards”.

Here is a good example of use of such reflections to find the novel and relevant aspect of findings. It comes from Hernandez et al. (2025) exploring affective experience of community psychologists working in armed conflict zones.

Two findings genuinely surprised us and left a lasting impression. On the one hand, although they represented a minority, some participants chose to continue accompanying victims from outside the framework of state intervention, even after expressing strong critiques of those programs. What moved us most was that these psychologists, despite never having been direct victims of the war themselves, decided to volunteer in grassroots victim organizations. In doing so, they often sacrificed their own socioeconomic well-being, professional development, and closeness to family and friends. This revealed a profound personal and political commitment to victims’ reparation and to the broader project of peacebuilding in Colombia. Witnessing such dedication challenged our assumptions about professional detachment and reminded us of the ethical and emotional ties that can be forged through this kind of work. On the other hand, we were also struck by what we identified as the politicization of pain. This theme emerged in several narratives, revealing how suffering was not only individually processed but also collectively expressed and transformed into a form of resistance and community cohesion. These accounts emphasized the role of community networks as essential spaces for containing and making sense of the pain produced in war contexts. This finding highlighted for us the power of affective bonds and shared narratives in sustaining resilience and political agency, beyond clinical or institutional interventions.

What if the findings confirm what is already known?

That is OK but it is essential in offering the work for publication that the author shows the strength of what is known through careful placement within the existing literature and then goes on to suggest new paths or questions for future research.

Good luck. Leave me a comment or DM me with questions if any of this resonates or confuses.

References

Edwards, J. (2017). Narrating experiences of sexism in higher education: A critical feminist autoethnography to make meaning of the past, challenge the status quo and consider the future. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(7), 621-634.

Hernandez Zapata, E. A., Vivares Porras, D. V., & Soto-Fadul, J. D. (2025). Opening Paths: Subjective and Professional Trajectories in Psychosocial Intervention for Victims of the Armed Conflict in Colombia. The Qualitative Report, 30(12), 4804-4833.