This panel will explore issues that currently shape the publication of critical qualitative health research articles. The three presenters will consider publishing from the perspective of authors, peer-reviewers, and editors. They will deliver short presentations which will be followed by a 45-minute debate with the audience to collectively discuss challenges and strategies for publishing in social work and health sciences.
Speakers and presentations:
Joan Eakin, PhD, Professor Emerita, Dalla Lana School of Public Health
“Politics and standpoint in the publication of critical qualitative research”
The academic publication of research rests on peer judgment of its science and substantive focus, a process that is fundamentally political in character. Perhaps nowhere is this more evident than in the publication of research that is simultaneously critical, qualitative, and about health. On the basis of her experience both as an author and a journal editor, and using examples from her studies of work and health, Joan characterizes the ‘political’ dimension of methodology and content, and elaborates her notion of ‘standpoint’ as a core issue in publication.
Eric Mykhalovskiy, PhD, Professor, Department of Sociology, York University
“Desperately Seeking Manuscripts: Dodos, Dinosaurs and the Future of Critical Qualitative Health Research”
The rise of the corporate university, the dispersal of the EBM paradigm and shifts in the funding and conduct of health research in Canada all pose a threat to the future of rigorous, theoretically informed, critical qualitative health research. In this paper I reflect on how a group of editors and associate editors at the Canadian Journal of Public Health (CJPH) have responded, organizationally, to these challenges by creating a “publication space” for critical qualitative research at the journal. I discuss what we have done well, what remains to be done and issue an invitation to fill the space for critical qualitative health research that we have created.
Rupaleem Bhuyan, Associate Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, University of Toronto
“Mixed Reviews or Microagressions?: Publishing Intersectionality-Informed Qualitative Research in 3,000 words or less”
The proliferation of peer-reviewed and open access journals has generated more opportunities to ‘find a home’ for qualitative research, but also mixed results when publishing scholarship that addresses intersecting oppressions. In this paper, I reflect on the challenges of pursuing intersectionality-informed research from my experience as an editorial board member of Affilia (a feminist social work journal) and Principal Investigator of the Migrant Mothers Project, a participatory action research project that examines the substantive rights of women with precarious immigration status in Canada. On the one hand, qualitative methodologies are well suited to addressing intersecting oppressions in the substance of the research but also the process of knowledge production. This work, however, can generate (at times) problematic editorial responses that reify social hierarchies (i.e. What counts as knowledge? Whose view of history is affirmed?). When intersectionality-informed research is published, it can often get siloed into lesser known journals (i.e. lower impact factors) or viewed as ‘community service’ when published in non-peer reviewed but more publicly accessible formats.