Jane Callaghan
LightNews LightNews
banner
janeemcallaghan.bsky.social
Jane Callaghan
@janeemcallaghan.bsky.social
3.4K followers 4.9K following 420 posts
Violence, gender, mental health, #domesticabuse #IPV #childhood. Psychologist. Associate Dean for Research #ADR. Dogs. Cats. Hiking. Crafts. Professor. Mother. Adoptive Scot (never leaving). Trustee FV Rape Crisis. Personal social media. Bi. She/they.
Posts Replies Media Videos
janeemcallaghan.bsky.social
It is also physically impossible (the metaphor)...
December 27, 2025 at 9:06 AM
Reposted by Jane Callaghan
markrubin.bsky.social
See also this recent article by
@ginnybraun.bsky.social
@janeemcallaghan.bsky.social @andrealamarre.bsky.social
@joannasemlyen.bsky.social
@jeffnz.bsky.social

#PhilSci #Epistemology #OpenSci #MetaSci
markrubin.bsky.social Mark Rubin @markrubin.bsky.social · Dec 18
“Where are the findings? You only provide quotes.”

New article considers qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent peer review feedback

Open Access: dx.doi.org/10.1037/qup0...

Few quotes follow 🧵
Although peer review is one of the central pillars of academic publishing, qualitative researchers’ experiences of this process have been largely overlooked. Existing research and commentary have focused on peer reviewers’ comments on qualitative articles, which are often described as indicative of a quantitative mindset or hostility to nonpositivist qualitative research. We extend this literature by focusing on qualitative researchers’ experiences of methodologically incongruent reviewer and editor comments—comments that are incommensurate with the conceptual foundations of the reviewed research. Qualitative researchers (N = 163) from a range of health and social science disciplines, including psychology, responded to a brief qualitative survey. Most contributors reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the assumptions and expectations of postpositivist research and reporting. Some also reported that peer reviewers and editors universalized the norms and values particular to specific qualitative approaches. Contributors were concerned that peer reviewers often accept review invitations when they lack relevant methodological expertise and editors often select peer reviewers without such expertise. In response to methodologically incongruent comments, many contributors described a process of initially “pushing back” and explaining why these comments were incongruent with their research. When this educative approach was unsuccessful, some knowingly compromised the methodological integrity of their research and acquiesced to reviewer and editor requests. Earlier career researchers especially highlighted the powerlessness they felt in the peer review process in the context of a “publish or perish” academic climate. We end by outlining contributors’ recommendations for improving the methodological integrity of the peer review of qualitative research.
December 5, 2025 at 7:07 PM
janeemcallaghan.bsky.social
Dogs not fogs lol
November 26, 2025 at 2:25 AM
janeemcallaghan.bsky.social
Nesting :)
November 18, 2025 at 2:45 AM
janeemcallaghan.bsky.social
Yeah living within *whose* means, defined by *whom*.
November 6, 2025 at 11:25 PM
Reposted by Jane Callaghan
gbrockell.bsky.social
ICE has now sent at least 72 people to prisons in African countries where they have no ties.

Via two ICE flights to Rwanda, two to Eswatini, three to Ghana and one to S. Sudan.

Some had US convictions but had finished their sentences. None have convictions in the places where they're now jailed.
October 28, 2025 at 7:28 PM