Some Notes Re: Paper Submission for
the Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research
Michael W. Firmin, Ph.D.
Executive Editor
Following are some notes that may be useful for presenters wishing to have their papers considered for publication in the printed, peer-reviewed Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research (JEQR). Note that ALL papers receive equal attention, and the published article will not indicate whether an EQRC paper was presented via oral or poster venues. This is stated since some conference presenters are on tenure-track and these types of details obviously are important at this stage in your careers. EQRC is a (peer-reviewed) juried conference, and the publication also is peer-reviewed by experts in qualitative research methodology.
All EQRC presenters are expected to distribute copies of their papers at the conference. The number of copies that you need to bring obviously will depend on how popular your topic is relative to conference participants. Likely, around 15 or so papers should suffice—although there may be more than that amount of people in some sessions. In 2007, there were 125 presentations, with many session papers having multiple authors/presenters. So, you can approximate the math from this base. Often when giving conference presentations, personally I prefer to landscape/reduce (to half-size) the distributed papers in order to save on printing costs.
Presenting a paper at EQRC does not obligate you to submit it for potential publication in JEQR. Only about one-third of the EQRC papers submitted for publication in 2008 were accepted for publication— although there is no magic number of acceptances/rejections. We are delighted to publish all papers that successfully pass the peer-review process for scholarly quality. If your paper is not accepted for publication in JEQR, then you will be notified and are free subsequently to submit the paper to another journal.
There is no "science" regarding the protocol for how papers are accepted. However, we do begin with proper APA form. That is, having your paper in flawless APA style does not guarantee its publication, but having incorrect form in places makes its selection unlikely. Be sure to have others read and critique your work, checking it for form and style, prior to submitting it for professional review. The editors will wish to engage content issues, not make APA corrections. Papers should never begin with a heading such as "Introduction," or "Literature Review," or anything. APA explicity indicates that following the abstract, the paper begins the text, assuming it is a review of literature. Submitted papers that are not in proper APA style will be rejected, unread.
The 2006 EQRC keynote speaker, Annette Hemmings, addressed some of the necessary rigors of good qualitative research. These served as apt reminders to ensure your write-up reflects excellence in qualitative research methodology. Internal validity issues need explicit attention. Including components such as items from your field notes, describing participant observations, validation of conclusions from triangulated sources, member checking, and other validity rigors will strengthen the conclusions you are making in the paper.
For example, if you have, say, six in your sample—what is your justification for this? How will information regarding these six people make a difference in the educational world? Small sample sizes obviously are not inherently poor, but you will need to convince the reader as to the study's merits in the grander context of the construct being studied. Saying, for example, that such a small sample allowed for generating "thick descriptions" only states the obvious. Why would educational researchers want to know such detailed accounts of these people's experiences?
A number of papers sometimes were not accepted due to failure in providing an apt rationale for data analysis. For example, suppose you state something like the following: "We analyzed the transcripts using a constructivist model as our guide...." The reader is left with many questions as to why you selected that paradigm and why other theories were not chosen. For example, did you consider other models, such as, say, feminist theory or a completely inductive (atheoretical) interpretive approach? You will find the journal editors to be very open to a variety of perspectives—but authors must be clear and convincing in their rationale for why they adopted particular methods and analysis paradigms.
Avoid jargon. Journal readers may not be familiar with particular phrases or the nuances of meanings you use via idioms. Although I am relatively knowledgeable vis-á-vis qualitative research, I simply am unsure how one writer meant (in context) the following: "alternative-deconstructionist perspective." Rather than using ambiguous "lingo," write straightforwardly so that the widest array of readers can benefit form your work.
The phrase "grounded theory" often is misused or abused. In fact, Raffanti aptly addressed this problematic issue in one of the 2006 EQRC sessions. The point is that if you are going to use this phrase, then be sure to do so accurately and in the appropriate context relative to classical and current qualitative research language.
State your conclusions in a forthright manner. The reader needs to be able to set down your paper, close his/her eyes, and clearly enumerate your results. It increases the likelihood of publication if you do explicitly enumerate your points. The reader should be able to explain to another colleague just what it is you concluded from the research study. Avoid vague or fuzzy writing in this section of the paper, in particular. The results section should not contain discussion and the discussion section should not be reporting new findings.
Be sure you include a rationale for your sample. A paper generally does not start with a good review when the writer states something such as the following: "We selected 13 individuals from a local elementary class...." Provide a rationale for the sample. A study truly does rise or fall on its sample selection. For the rest of your paper, the reader will be matching your conclusions with the sample selection. Begin strong by convincing the reader that you had apt reasons for selecting these particular individuals— they were not selected simply because they were convenient—and the participant selection strengthened your qualitative methodology rigor.
Space limitation must be strictly followed. The total pages (including title page, abstract, references, tables, and the like) may not exceed 25 full pages. Use only Times New Roman, 12 point font with one-inch margins. The entire manuscript must be written in narrative form, free from bullets or abbreviated forms of communication typically used in handouts. Tables and charts must be placed at the end of the paper, following the APA manual's instructions of "insert figure 1 about here." Do not use footnotes for any reason.
In some cases you may need to focus only on particular aspects of your research project. Often two or three papers can be drawn from a particular data set. Consequently, do not necessarily try and report every finding from the sample used in the EQRC presentation. Rather, focus on findings that reasonably can be communicated plenary in a 20- or so page document. The literature review, obviously, will need to be modest in order to stay within the necessary space parameters. Papers are not published without a limitations and future research section.
Every attempt is made at keeping the EQRC conference affordable and of utmost quality. In fact, you will find the conference fees some of most modest for a national conference that includes meals and other amenities provided at EQRC. There is no cost for submitting manuscripts for peer-review and publication consideration. Only paid EQRC registrants will be included as authors of presented papers in the conference program and/or as authors in the journal publication. The substantial production costs involved with editing, type-setting, printing, binding, and mailing the journal are absorbed in the EQRC conference fee. Therefore, it is imperative that the primary author communicate clearly with all co-authors that their names will not appear on the published article unless they are paid registrants of the EQRC conference.
I am looking forward to reading the papers in June. This will be an excellent time for professional development, learning, and interaction together. Making your personal acquaintance, particularly, will be a pleasure. JEQR manuscripts will be subject to selection by the journal's managing editor and a blind peer-review process.
View a copy of the evaluative rubric.