Abstract
This article is an in-depth reflection on the author’s 10 year experience of editing a qualitative social work research journal. The process issues of managing authors and reviewers are discussed as are the methodological and theoretical challenges involved in the submission and review process. The article concludes with an assessment of the present status and future direction of the journal.
In the beginning: Opening the debate and initial editing issues
Qualitative Social Work (QSW) began with the March 2002 issue that included its statement of Aims and Purposes as well as further explaining those aims and purposes in an introductory essay ‘A room with a view’. The intent then and now is to provide ‘… a forum for those interested in qualitative research and evaluation and in qualitative approaches to practice’ (Shaw and Ruckdeschel, 2002: 5–6). The forum is to encourage a rigorous dialogue that promotes qualitative social work’s moral and political purpose as well as exploring interdisciplinary methodological and conceptual issues. We argue for the importance of a rigorous methodology while at the same time avoiding narrow partisanship. This includes engaging in controversial issues such as the role of qualitative research in evidence-based practice.
When first we published there was not a single journal in social work specifically devoted to the promotion and publication of qualitatively-based articles. The lack of such a journal meant that the possibility of publishing qualitative research was limited to those journals publishing occasional articles based on qualitative methods. It could be well argued that the opportunities for doing so had expanded by 2002 but that the general dialogue was still decidedly quantitative in tone. In the US for example, there were attempts to link the evaluation of practice to quasi-experimental models such as the N = 1 or single subject design (See for example Fischer, 1973; Hudson, 1978; Wood, 1978). The need for teaching single subject design research was actually written into US accreditation requirements (CSWE Accreditation Guidelines). While the dominant discourse remained quantitative, there was vigorous resistance (Gordon, 1983; Heineman, 1981; Imre, 1984; Ruckdeschel and Farris, 1981). The debate itself may have been published but the avenues for publication of qualitative research or qualitative conceptual pieces were limited (for early examples see Gilgun 1994; Gilgun and Handel, 1992; Ruckdeschel, 1985; Ruckdeschel and Farris, 1981).
Frustration with the overdetermined quantitative nature of the dialogue was reflected in various ways. While N = 1 design may have been popular with academics, there was little evidence of their acceptance amongst practitioners. Practitioners tended to express the concern that they were left out of the debate (see Marsh et al., 2004). There was a parallel problem at the educational level (Drisko, 2008). The acceptance of the legitimacy of qualitative methods was further along in social sciences, particularly sociology and anthropology (See Campbell’s assessment, 1978).
The landscape was more complicated in Europe and the UK. Perhaps this was so because of the wider acceptance of critical sociological theories. It was also the case that American discourse over methods was relatively uninfluenced by work done outside of the US. There was a need for more awareness and in effect greater openness to international research developments. I (Roy) as one of the editors of QSW certainly felt this lack once the journal process was underway. Three initial factors led to a greater emphasis on international qualitative methods in QSW. One was the fact that QSW was published out of the London office of Sage rather than the US Thousand Oaks office. Sage London seemingly was more open to international discourse as was evident by the journals and books put out by that office (Sage Publications, London, UK). Second, one of the two founding editors of QSW Ian Shaw is an acknowledged scholar in the UK. It was Ian in fact who had the initial idea for the founding of QSW. Ian has often expressed frustration at the limited and sometimes ethnocentric view of US scholars whether of qualitative or quantitative persuasion. Third, the decision was made early on that the policymaking Boards of QSW should be international in composition and that each article reviewed should be evaluated by at least one scholar from the US and one international mostly from the UK. This meant that articles narrowly written from one’s taken for granted background (for example a study reporting on a welfare-to-work program in a particular US city) would be criticized for just that reason. In fact, this remains to this day one of the primary initial criticisms of submitted articles including those from the UK. Further, we acknowledge scholarship from the Pacific Rim area by appointing an associate editor from Australia and/or New Zealand. The Editorial office was initially at Ian Shaw’s then university at Cardiff (and more recently York) with the very efficient work of QSW’s Administrative Assistant Samantha McDermott. The US office operated out of St Louis University.
The journal was structured to encourage and/or maintain a balance between US and international scholars on the Editorial and Executive Boards. Likewise the boards were structured to include practitioners and non-social work scholars as well as balanced by gender. Early on, we recognized that board membership is an ongoing political as well as scholarly issue.
In addition to the above, the journal had sections beyond those of the main articles. Some of these were typical of most journals, some not. We have a Response and Commentary section. The hope was that this would extend beyond the kinds of comments typically sent to journals but rather to be more pointed in discourse and more challenging of the direction of the journal. The Practice and Teaching of Qualitative Social Work section reflects the view that the teaching of social work, in particular qualitative methods is itself a form of practice about which there should be active exchange. The Technical Applications section was intended to encourage the application of new technologies to qualitative research. These include qualitative software analysis packages such as Ethnography and Atlas-ti and internet developments like Facebook and blogs. Perhaps the most innovative section of QSW is ‘New Voices’. This was described by Stan Witkin with an article introducing the concept and the section in QSW (2002). It was also the focus of a special issue (2007). This was intended to be a place where newly minted doctoral or masters students, where social work practitioners, and where marginalized or disempowered populations would have a voice. This is also a place where there could be a discussion of new forms of writing (2007). We will more specifically reflect on how well these sections accomplished their goals later in this article.
Special issues were soon added as a recurring feature of QSW. Special issues allowed us to engage ‘hot’ topics in more depth and to encourage developments on specific topics or forms of inquiry. They also tended to emerge after discussions of possible topics in the QSW Special Interest Group at the annual program meeting of the Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) and the International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (ICQI). These are guest edited and present their own challenges for submission and review. We generally do one of these annually. We have had special issues on Critical Social Work (June 2003), Narrative (December 2005), New Voices (December 2007), Asia-Pacific Qualitative Social Work (December 2009) Identity (September 2011) and most recently Intervention (July 2012).
Reflections on: Process issues: Submission and revision
The heart of any journal is the submission/review process. This is where the typical editor spends most of her/his time. The average turnaround time between the submission of an article and its actual publication date is an important factor in the ranking of journals and a frequently asked question by would-be authors. The longer the turnaround time the more likely the result will be dated when published. Another typical question asked by authors is the rejection rate. At QSW we instead use the more meaningful and more straightforward statistic, the acceptance rate which runs around 35 percent. This kind of information can be found in the first part of this manuscript. These types of concerns plus the backlog of accepted but unpublished articles inevitably feed into perceptions about the journal (but see below on the advent of OnlineFirst).
Managing reviewers
It is no doubt true that you can never have enough reviewers. Reviewers in turn fall into specialty areas identified by their connection to keywords. Authors select or may be forced to select keywords (we are implementing this latter policy at QSW) when describing their submission. In the world of qualitative research there are seemingly an endless number of possible keywords. This is a source of difficulty for the journal although keywords were less of a problem when the process was in essence done manually and when there were fewer submissions. Over time, a growing number of submissions, a fairly large pool of potential reviewers and a computer automated process meant that keywords became an important sorting tactic. Consequently we moved to requiring keyword selection from a list.
Reviewers are sought out at conferences and professional meetings, particularly in the US, as well as through informal and online contacts. Reviewers will likely not get much credit for the task since institutions typically only regard reviewing as a service to the profession rather than a scholarly activity. It is an unseen activity that can be quite time consuming. An editor may too often turn to the ‘good’ reviewer, one who provides detailed, timely reviews. We do try to ease the burden by rejecting some manuscripts by decision of the editors. The need for reviewers from both sides of the pond exacerbates the problem. Reviewers, like authors prefer feedback on their work particularly when new at the task. Providing feedback by way of passing along all reviewer comments has become an important part of the process. So also is providing a human touch when significant parts of the review process like reminders and requests are computer generated.
The single biggest issue for the editors is the ‘turn down’ phenomenon. This is when the reviewer turns down the opportunity to review an article for what an editor seldom thinks is a good reason (it does not fall into their area of expertise, they are engaged in other projects, they do not respond, etc.). The length of time between the request to review and the turn down elongates the process. So also does the normal recommendation of revision which usually involves two to three revisions before a manuscript is accepted. We do keep track of our reviewers. Those who do regular and timely reviews are rewarded with Sage perks and acknowledged by name in the ending issue of the year. This is not nearly enough but it is what we do. Those who do not, may be asked if they wish to continue as reviewers and to remain on our database.
Managing authors
Like reviewers, would-be authors have to be nurtured. If rejected they have to be given hope. When told of the need for revision they should be provided with detailed comments about how to address the concerns of the unknown and unseen reviewers. They have to stay with the process even if it takes multiple revisions. That is they have to have a thick skin. It is incumbent on the journal to be clear about what constitutes an acceptable manuscript including proper referencing form. The latter has been somewhat of an issue at QSW in that we utilize the SAGE Harvard reference style but will accept submissions in other reference formats.
As noted, authors want to know how long it takes for an article to be reviewed and how long to publication. The more drawn out the process, the bigger the likely backlog especially when the number of submissions increases over time as has been the case with QSW. Some journals such as Social Work (NASW Press) have had backlogs extending up to two years. This has obvious consequences for the timelines of the knowledge base of our profession. This doubly seems the case in our era of instant communication. It also has direct consequences for authors in university environments. The pressure to publish on authors going up for tenure and promotion can be enormous.
One improvement at QSW of considerable value has been the onset of OnlineFirst. This is the Sage advance access site where, in common with many journals, accepted articles can be posted in full and citable form prior to print publication. The other way to handle backlog is to increase the number of issues. This we also have done going from four to six issues in a year. While this decreases backlog, it serves to increase pressure on editors and reviewers. In part because of this, we have added a layer of associate editors to help facilitate the process. Thus the infrastructure of a journal inevitably gets larger and potentially feels more removed and distant for all participants.
Authors seeking potential journals in which to publish often ask about the impact factor of the journal. This is a specific value mainly reflecting the extent to which a journal is cited by others (but does include other factors). There are organizations like ISI (The Institute for Scientific Information founded in 1960 and acquired by Thomson Scientific & Healthcare in 1992) which publish impact factors and in which membership can become a form of privileged club. Authors may be pushed by their institutions to only publish in so-called high impact factor journals. Impact factors thus have political consequences and can be quite troubling for new and struggling journals as well new authors. They can become a kind of screen ensuring that only certain kinds of journals will be viewed as top tier journals. Top tier journals are in turn often highly valued in the tenure review process at US universities. The whole process becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In spite of our recent acceptance into the club, we have grave reservations about the impact of impact factors and have struggled mightily with this issue at QSW. Ian Shaw along with colleagues has written a critical essay on this process (Blyth et al., 2010).
Authors and journals do need to find each other. At the end of the year Sage, like other publishers, issues a report on the kinds of articles a journal publishes, its individual and institutional subscription rates, and how often articles are downloaded from the Sage website. This becomes useful information for both authors and editors although again it potentially slants a journal into publishing what is popular and/or perceived as useful rather than what is substantively important. Ian Shaw notes with some irony that his oft downloaded article on the ethics of qualitative research is essentially a review rather than an original piece of research (Shaw, 2008).
Special issues play into this as well. They highlight an area of interest of the journal and thus signal that an author may have a better chance of getting published in that area. Special issues are generally guest edited and can create their own kind of editing and reviewing problems.
What is mostly missing in the submission and review process is an opportunity for dialogue between the various parties. The back and forth that does take place is usually anonymous and managed by the editors. A number of years ago, SSWR established a task force to investigate how the review process in social work research journals could be made more rigorous and objective (Holden et al., 2008). This concern reflects a scientific view of writing and reviewing as detached, anonymous and objective (Witkin, 2000). In sharp contrast, Karen Staller proposed an interesting solution advocating the concept of a metalogue or a dialogue between authors, reviewers, and editors in which the participants are identified and the results published (Staller, 2007). The logic being that metalogues may engage some of the most important issues in the field but never see the light of published day. We have tried to do this at QSW but have not often succeeded other than in the issue introducing metalogues (2007). Yet the debate raises one of the most vexing issues in journal editing. Do we stray on the side of being ‘scientific’ by maintaining an anonymous and objective review process or do we believe that knowledge can best be advanced by transparent dialogue?
A somewhat parallel issue is associated with Book Reviews and arises for the Reviews Editor. Books have to be selected and reviewers chosen. Unlike article reviews these reviews do get published and tend to be lengthy. However, like other reviewers, book reviewers have to be chased and wooed. This puts considerable pressure on the reviews editor. Books need to be reviewed in a timely fashion and books must be selected which fit into the general themes of QSW. Furthermore, we discovered that one reviews editor was not sufficient to cover developments in the US and abroad. The task of the reviews editor is important and daunting with its significance perhaps not sufficiently acknowledged.
A final note on the ins and outs of the submission and review process. Editorials have been a normal feature of many journals. There is currently a trend for some journals to skip editorials and to simply publish the articles in the order accepted. However, we have rejected this trend and instead argue that editorials are a vital part of the scholarly process. They allow editors to engage in dialogue about issues of importance to the journal and to the field. They can be used to provide authors with the editors’ vision of the well done article. They can provide logic for the framing of an issue and how the manuscripts might fit together. They can, in the hands of someone like Stanley Witkin when he was the editor of Social Work become instruments for changing the dialogue in the field (1998; 2000). We hope this is also the case at QSW.
Content issues: Methodology and theory
Methodological concerns
It would be fair to say that the most crucial aspect of a research-oriented submission is the methods section. We are confident that it is the one most likely to be criticized and thus necessitating revision. This is the point where the researcher in effect lays her/his cards on the table. The section should be concise yet well referenced and the author should demonstrate a familiarity with the current status of the methods employed. The journal has not and will not take a position on what constitutes acceptable or preferable qualitative methods. We said this from the beginning in our ‘Room with a view’ editorial. Rather it is the task of the researcher to describe those methods, to defend the choice of methods, to describe them in sufficient detail, and to demonstrate how they are specifically employed. This applies in equal measure to the analysis of the data. We have occasionally received criticism for positions taken by authors, or suggestions that the journal should support one or other form of qualitative orthodoxy.
The methods sections and the problems presented by them highlight continuing issues in qualitative research that get played out in the pages of QSW. One of these is the lack of methodological consensus. While there are widely accepted and used basic techniques such as thematic or content analysis, there is relatively little agreement on the more complex methods and the degree of rigour in their application. Some of this goes back to basic differences over the fundamental questions of reliability and validity. To what extent should the data be checked out? What size sample is sufficient or does size not matter at all in qualitative research? Are all focus groups created equal? Is the conduct of one focus group sufficient to make the case? In effect do we bootleg (to use an expression coined by Jack Douglas, 1976) in quantitative standards about significance, sample size and ability to generalize? Even in content analysis words like ‘many’, ‘most’, ‘some’ are used without any particular numeric referent (what for example does ‘many’ mean relative to actual numbers?). Reviewers may and do apply taken for granted standards about what constitutes acceptable methodology. This is a tricky issue for the journal since on the one hand we maintain the need for rigour in qualitative research but on the other, encourage inclusion of new and challenging methods.
Illustrative of the point is the discussion of evidence-based practice (EBP) in QSW articles. Again the journal takes the position that there is a role for qualitative methods in the discussion and presentation of evidence as long as the ground rules for evidence are part of the discussion. However, some of our authors have taken a strong position against EBP while others have embraced it. At the least, any author evoking EBP needs to be aware of and present the evidence pro and con about EBP. A similar concern arises over the use of mixed or multiple methods (cf. Creswell, 2007; Greene et al., 2010). While seemingly a resolution to the qualitative/quantitative debate it still raises the question of what is the mix in mixed methods (See Schwandt’s response to Thyer, 2012). Are qualitative methods only being used to supplement quantitative methods? These appear to be the kinds of debates that will continue long into the future of QSW.
Another example of the difficulty of the problems posed by the methods section in research-oriented articles is what I term the ‘great grounded theory’ debate. Grounded theory methods have sometimes been invoked as a kind of catch-all, almost taken for granted method that does not require extensive description and discussion. In fact it is well established that there are at least two major approaches to grounded theory. One is associated with constructivist approaches and the work of Charmaz (2006). The other comes out of a more objectivist (some would say positivist) tradition of Glaser and Strauss (1967), Strauss and Corbin (1998). Another aspect of this debate is whether it is a broadly general methodology like thematic analysis (see for example Gilgun, 1994) or whether it is an approach with both qualitative and quantitative applications but with very specific methods and systematic procedures (Glaser, 2001). The journal does not take a position on what is the appropriate approach to grounded theory but does expect familiarity with the issues and a need to describe whatever methods are being used.
Theoretical concerns
Some of the same issues apply to the role of theory in articles submitted to QSW. If there is little agreement about methods in research there is perhaps even less about the role of theory and the kinds of theories compatible with qualitative research (Kirk and Miller, 1986; Patton, 2002; Ruckdeschel, 1985). Beyond methodological weaknesses, we often find that the results are presented in a vacuum or under-theorized in analysis. An excellent example of the debate over theory is the article by Arnd-Caddigan and Pozzuto (2006). They note the kinds of epistemological and even ontological debates that underlie the discussion of theory in qualitative research. They take the position, which is also the position of QSW, that qualitative social work is strengthened by continuing debates over theory rather than by premature closure or a forced consensus.
Social work education: Training and promotion, evaluation issues
The above methods and theory concerns no doubt have at least some of their roots in social work education. There is a fear and some evidence to support the contention that researchers graduating from PhD programs in the US are poorly prepared to do and defend actual qualitative research (a comment made by more than one reviewer in assessing a submission). The exposure to qualitative methods in many social work programs is decidedly limited. Most MSW (Master of Social Work) programs offer only one or no specific course on qualitative methods (Drisko, 2008). An informal survey of ATLAS-ti workshops and discussions at GADE (Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education in Social Work) by the same author suggests this is also true at the doctoral level (Jim Drisko in separate correspondence). Several quantitative methods and statistics courses are typically offered in the same institutions. In some cases, those students who have an interest in qualitative methods have to go outside of social work to find appropriate courses (See the article by social work PhD students, Benton et al., 2012). There may be some similarities in other countries where the research agenda has been influenced by US colleagues, as, for example, in Hong Kong, Singapore and some other countries on the Asia-Pacific rim. The picture is rather different in other countries. In Nordic countries, for example, qualitative methods are strong, as apparently are more moderate mixed method stances and cautious acceptance of the general case for evidence-informed practice. Evidence on usage of the journal also suggests that universities in Australasia reference QSW relatively more often than universities in North America or the UK. However, the methodological ambience of UK social work research has for some years been primarily qualitative, although this has been criticized as at risk of superficiality (e.g. Shaw, 2003). Also there has been a sustained and understandable drive in the last decade for strengthening of quantitative skills in UK academic social work.
A related faculty issue which indirectly impacts the journal is that of Rank and Tenure. Faculty survival in universities, particularly US universities, is in large part dependent on publishing. The greatest emphasis is usually placed on publishing in peer reviewed journals. The peer review criteria is not a problem for QSW since it is a peer reviewed journal. However, and as previously noted, universities may also rank journals using impact factors to establish top tier journals. It is doubtful such universities would regard any qualitative journal as top tier. There may be a tendency to regard qualitative articles as less legitimate than quantitative-based research pieces, related possibly to a corresponding and apparently widespread assumption that randomized control trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses offer a gold standard of both methodology and knowledge claims in a culture of evidence and outcomes. Funded research may also be a factor with qualitative research which arguably is less likely to be funded and/or funded at lower levels. All this may be changing but it puts pressure on junior faculty to try to establish their research agenda in areas more likely to lead to peer reviewed publications in top journals. This becomes an onerous background concern for QSW in that it is constantly in the position of having to establish its legitimacy. Consequently, we have treated it as important to ensure that the journal has a high level of visibility at national and international conferences whether specifically qualitative such as ICQI or more general such as SSWR and the European Conference for Social Work Research.
Changing technology
When we began 10 years ago almost everything was done manually and by conventional mail. Submissions came by snail mail, were sent to reviewers the same way etc. Some of the business was conducted by email. Over time, email became the primary mode of communication. This was an improvement but it was difficult to in any way routinize what we were doing. So the process became very time consuming for the editors. However, on the plus side there was a distinctly human touch to the operation that seemed to be appreciated by both authors and reviewers.
The process became problematic as the number of submissions increased. This changed substantially when Manuscript Central (MC) and SAGE track became operational in 2008. MC is similar to the way almost all journals operate today. MC allowed for automating important aspects of the submission and review process. As noted, there was a problem with a growing backlog of accepted manuscripts that queued up for print publication. This was and is a concern for authors particularly those going up for tenure and promotion (mostly reflected by US authors). Another response to the backlog was to increase the number of QSW issues from four to six per year. No doubt the best response to the problem of backlogs was the introduction of the previously mentioned OnlineFirst. Both SAGE track and OnlineFirst also add to the visibility of QSW. A more recent structural response to backlog has been the addition of a layer of Associate Editors to facilitate the process.
Thus, changing technology has without doubt speeded up the process. The potential downside is the perception of a mechanistic approach to publication. Receiving an automated message is a bit like contacting an organization and getting an automated voicemail. However, the message sent by MC can be modified to give the appearance of human thought. There is nevertheless a danger in that technology can be a boon but can also further distance the authors, editors and reviewers from each other.
Beyond technology for improving the efficiency of QSW, there is also potential for new ways of communicating. This includes such new technologies and new platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and blogs (Ruckdeschel and Chambon, 2010). Sage as a publishing company already uses all these technologies. We suspect that journals will increasingly move to a form of multi-media operation through linked profiling via Web 2.0 and successor platforms, as well as social media (Sage Publications QSW Report, 2012).
Technological developments also impinge on the form of writing. They allow for new forms of expression and have a potential democratizing effect. They offer the possibility of incorporating video, photo and non-textual data. We already do this to some extent. An example was the article by Kia Bentley (2010) that included a black & white drawing and a link to the QSW Sage website where more drawings, some in colour, were stored. In that same issue QSW announced that supplemental datasets, audio, video could be stored online (2010: 446). This could be extended to other such media. In any event, we do have to find a way to better integrate these technologies into the daily operation of QSW. This is particularly important as the interest in arts-based research grows.
The new media also present a challenge in the sense of how to assess their use. In other words, what criteria can we apply to arts-based methods in social work research? How does one evaluate a photo, a poem or prose or a graphic drawing? Do we need a whole new set of experts? What about the training of social workers in these techniques? The bottom line is that as technology changes so must the journal.
Because of the incredible advances in technology and in the social media, print journals are in danger of extinction or at the least a vastly diminished presence. Large city newspapers have already experienced this phenomenon and have attempted to adapt by increasing the visibility of online versions of the paper. This is less costly but the savings in cost mostly comes at the expense of substantial reductions in staff. It would seem that the same economic factors will confront professional and academic print journals. Even if they survive there is the very real threat of what might be termed the commodification of journals; that is that economic factors will drive out other considerations. This suggests that content may be driven by saleability or potential popularity rather than substantive importance. Even now, there is relatively little financial reward for involvement with the journal. Editing a journal can be a time consuming task that competes with other activities such as being a full-time faculty member. The experience of the first author and the current editors of QSW indicate that it is increasingly difficult to get course release time as a form of compensation from universities. Copy editing is pretty much a thing of the past other than at the final stages of production. Sage, like other publishers has moved some of its production capability to India. The implications of all this are unclear.
Back to the future and continuing the debate
The Aims and Purposes articulated in March 2002 and elaborated in the ‘A room with a view’ editorial have remained essentially the same. We believe that QSW has made a difference in the world of international social work and has successfully advocated for qualitative methods in social work. A critical reflection on QSW over the 10 years of its publication suggests some specific elements of the journal have worked well and others less so.
What has not worked
From 2002 to the present, the structure of the journal has included the following sections: Response and Commentary, Practice and Teaching of Qualitative Social Work, New Voices and Technical Applications. All were intended to be included on a recurring basis. In point of fact, these sections, with the exception of commentary (but not response) have been underutilized. We rarely get reader feedback in the Response and Commentary section. When we do, it is usually in the form of commentary, often solicited by the editors. We receive far less by way of reader response. One of the few times it was used was to facilitate a debate on the obligation to bring about good in social work research initiated by Bogolub but largely framed as response and commentary, steered by the editors (Bogolub, and responses by Bloor and Peled, 2010). Even when we published a provocative essay by Bruce Thyer (with response by Schwandt) in the March 2012 issue, we did not receive any reader response. The ‘Practice and Teaching of Qualitative Social Work’ section was used to some effect early on in the history of the journal but has seldom been used much since, the last being 2009. The Technical Applications section has been modestly successful. The reason behind this seems apparent in that there are ongoing technical developments which impact qualitative social work. Even here we now maintain that it has to be a truly ‘new’ innovation as opposed to the discussion of a technology already in use in other disciplines but not yet incorporated in social work. If we do get such a submission, we often encourage the author to do research using the technology and submitting the result as a main article. The ‘New Voices’ section was intended to provide a platform for the airing of voices not often heard. In its original inception, this included the voices of newly minted academics and possibly doctoral or MSW students. We did in fact receive a fair number of student submissions. However, we came to the view that this is not a truly marginalized population. Rather it is a group that will eventually get its time in the sun. Consequently, we decided to discourage submissions from this category of would-be authors or when a submission was received to treat it as a main article. We are still very much interested in practitioner written or co-written pieces such as the article by Terrell and Staller (2003) and of articles which engage in new forms of writing (for examples see Krumer-Nevo, 2009; Martin, 2007; Phillips, 2007a; 2007b; Staller, 2007; Wilder, 2007; Witkin and Chambon, 2007). The group we would most like to include under this section would be the voices of those truly marginalized and disempowered. We recognized this would be difficult to achieve (as did Witkin) and it would not likely happen on its own. However, it has not happened at all and seems to have receded into the background.
Perhaps it is time to rethink these sections and either make them more viable or possibly abandon them.
What has worked
There has been a close relationship between QSW and the annual meetings of the ICQI. The recent addition of a special social work day at that conference is further testament to this. Norman Denzin announced the first ICQI meeting that took place in May 2005 in the commentary section of the March 2005 QSW issue. Denzin has continued to be an important suppporter of QSW. In fact, we will be doing a career interview with Norman in a future issue. The idea of the career interview is itself a new and exciting development. We did the first career interview with the distinguished British scholar Ian Sinclair (2012).
Of note is the ability of the journal to address its wider aim to focus on both qualitative research and qualitative practice as reflected in the title of QSW. A recent analysis by a journal co-editor suggested we had made a significant contribution in this area as evidenced by the number of QSW citations in relevant publications (e.g. Shaw, 2011). Another related aim of the journal that was largely achieved was our intent to place the journal within the wider social science community and the continuing dialogue about issues of concern. QSW as an interdisciplinary journal has had contributions from such non-social work scholars as Denzin, Patton, Seale, Hammersley, and Greene. In so doing we can point to our resistance to a kind of narrowness and parochialism that can grip journals.
Other evident positives are the success of the special issues in tackling important topics. So also are the increase in submissions rates and our inclusion as an invited participant in the editor’s panel at the 2011 annual meeting of SSWR. In regard to the latter, this was the first time there was an editor’s panel on publishing in qualitative journals.
Sage Publishers Report issued on an annual basis (some forms of which are available for public distribution) generally have shown the evolving importance of QSW and its reach into international markets. Since the inception of QSW, there has been the considerable growth of international qualitative research outside of the UK. This includes Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Japan and even China (Munford et al., 2009). The growth of Pacific Rim qualitative scholarship was reflected in the special issue of Asia-Pacific social work in the Asia-Pacific region (2009). One measure of particular significance for the journal is the number of electronic full-text downloads from the Sage QSW Website. These have grown consistently over the years (See for example QSW News and Developments, 2011).
Final thoughts
March 2002 marked the first issue of QSW. The next 10 years under the leadership of the two new editors of QSW, Karen Staller and Michal Krumer-Nevo offer the promise of further growth and development of QSW.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to Ann Ramatowski, my excellent Research Assistant at St Louis University for facilitating manuscript editing issues over the past two years.