qualitative research in the field of education

Qualitative research in education : Background information

• Background information

• SAGE researchmethods SAGE Research Methods is a tool created to help researchers, faculty and students with their research projects. Users can explore methods concepts to help them design research projects, understand particular methods or identify a new method, conduct their research, and write up their findings. Since SAGE Research Methods focuses on methodology rather than disciplines, it can be used across the social sciences, health sciences, and other areas of research.
• Next: Recent e-books >>
• Recent e-books
• Recent print books
• Connect to Stanford e-resources
• Related guides

• Last Updated: Sep 9, 2024 3:49 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.stanford.edu/qualitative_research_in_ed

• Architecture and Design
• Asian and Pacific Studies
• Business and Economics
• Classical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies
• Computer Sciences
• Cultural Studies
• Engineering
• General Interest
• Geosciences
• Industrial Chemistry
• Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Library and Information Science, Book Studies
• Life Sciences
• Linguistics and Semiotics
• Literary Studies
• Materials Sciences
• Mathematics
• Social Sciences
• Sports and Recreation
• Theology and Religion
• Publish your article
• The role of authors
• Promoting your article
• Abstracting & indexing
• Publishing Ethics
• Why publish with De Gruyter
• How to publish with De Gruyter
• Our book series
• Our subject areas
• Your digital product at De Gruyter
• Contribute to our reference works
• Product information
• Tools & resources
• Product Information
• Promotional Materials
• Orders and Inquiries
• FAQ for Library Suppliers and Book Sellers
• Repository Policy
• Free access policy
• Open Access agreements
• Database portals
• For Authors
• Customer service
• People + Culture
• Journal Management
• How to join us
• Working at De Gruyter
• Mission & Vision
• De Gruyter Foundation
• De Gruyter Ebound
• Our Responsibility
• Partner publishers

Your purchase has been completed. Your documents are now available to view.

Doing Qualitative Research in Education Settings, Second Edition

• J. Amos Hatch
• X / Twitter

Please login or register with De Gruyter to order this product.

• Language: English
• Publisher: SUNY Press
• Copyright year: 2023
• Audience: General/trade;
• Main content: 372
• Other: Total Illustrations: 7
• Keywords: Textbooks and Course Materials (Interdisciplinary) : Education - Textbook ; Education : Education ; Education : Educational Research ; Education : Early Childhood Studies
• Published: September 1, 2023
• ISBN: 9781438494623

• Subscriber Services
• For Authors
• Publications
• Archaeology
• Art & Architecture
• Bilingual dictionaries
• Classical studies
• Encyclopedias
• English Dictionaries and Thesauri
• Language reference
• Linguistics
• Media studies
• Medicine and health
• Names studies
• Performing arts
• Science and technology
• Social sciences
• Society and culture
• Overview Pages
• Subject Reference
• English Dictionaries
• Bilingual Dictionaries

Recently viewed (0)

• Save Search

• Find at OUP.com
• Google Preview

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods in Education  

Edited by: george w. noblit.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods in Education has brought together scholars from across the globe who use qualitative methods in their research to address the history, current uses, adaptations for specific knowledge domains and situations, and problematics that drive the methodology. This is the most comprehensive resource available on qualitative methods in education. For novice researchers, the Encyclopedia enables a broad view of the methods and how to enact them in the studies that early-career researchers may wish to conduct. For the experienced researcher, the range of approaches and adaptations covered enables the development of sophisticated methodological designs. For those who are qualitative research methodologists, this book reveals where the methodology has come from and where it is going. Methodologists can use these volumes to discern where new ideas and practices are needed, and provide the bases for new methodological works. For those who teach these methods, the Encyclopedia is an invaluable compendium that can be tapped for inclusion in courses and to enable the instructor to be able to quickly respond to specific student needs with high-quality methodological resources.

Bibliographic Information

Affiliations are at time of print publication..

George W. Noblit is Joseph R. Neikirk Distinguished Professor of Sociology of Education (Emeritus) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is the recipient of lifetime achievement award (2019) and the Mentoring Award (2017) from Division G of AERA, and the Mary Ann Raywid Award from the Society of Professors of Education (2016). He is an internationally known qualitative research methodologist. He has several books on qualitative methods including: Cultural Constructions of Identity: Meta-ethnography and theory (Oxford University Press, 2018, co-edited with Luis Urrieta, Jr.); Postcritical Ethnography (Hampton Press, 2004, co-edited with Susana Y. Flores and Enrique G. Murillo, Jr.); Particularities (Peter Lang, 1999); and Meta-Ethnography (Sage, 1988, co-authored with R. Dwight Hare). He is the founding editor in chief of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.

• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
• All Contents

Access to the complete content on Oxford Reference requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs , and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us .

A/r/tography

Actor–network theory, a history of qualitative research in education in china, anarchy and qualitative methods, anthropology and education in argentina, anthropology and research methodology, archives and qualitative research in education (from foucault and bourdieu’s approaches), arts-based action research in the north, arts-based research, autoethnography, biographical approaches in education, biographical approaches in education in germany, black feminist thought and qualitative research in education, classification process of languages in schools, collaboration in educational ethnography in latin america, comparative case study methodology and teacher education, comparative case study research, complexity theory as a guide to qualitative methodology in teacher education, critical discourse analysis and information and communication technology in education, critical perspectives on evaluative research on educational technology policies in latin america, front matter, publishing information, editorial board, about the oxford research encyclopedia of education, topical outline of articles, directory of contributors.

• Oxford University Press

PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).

date: 14 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.

Qualitative Research in Education

DOI link for Qualitative Research in Education

Get Citation

The fourth edition of this reader-friendly book offers an accessible introduction to conducting qualitative research in education. The text begins with an introduction to the history, context, and traditions of qualitative research, and then walks readers step-by-step through the research process. Lichtman outlines research planning and design, as well as the methodologies, techniques, and strategies to help researchers make the best use of their qualitative investigation. Throughout, chapters touch on important issues that impact this research process such as ethics and subjectivity and making use of technology.

The fourth edition has been thoroughly revised and updated featuring new examples, an increased focus on virtual and digital data collection, and the latest approaches to qualitative research.

Written in a practical, conversational style and full of real-world scenarios drawn from across education, this book is a practical compendium on qualitative research in education ideal for graduate and advanced undergraduate research methods courses and early career researchers alike.

Hear  Marilyn discuss what inspired her to write this fourth edition and what readers can expect. In this podcast episode of The Qualitative Report, she discusses the various types of qualitative research and what defines quality and rigor as well as current issues in education and how qualitative research methods can be used to address them. Finally, she shares her thoughts about technology and the future of qualitative research.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter | 10  pages, introduction, part i | 112  pages, traditions, theory, and practice, chapter 12chapter 1 | 26  pages, overview of the field, chapter chapter 2 | 25  pages, learning how to be a qualitative researcher, chapter chapter 3 | 28  pages, ethical issues in qualitative research, chapter chapter 4 | 16  pages, reflexivity and subjectivity, chapter chapter 5 | 15  pages, philosophy, theory, theories, and frameworks, part ii | 120  pages, planning your research, chapter 124chapter 6 | 16  pages, identifying research areas, topics, and main question, chapter chapter 7 | 18  pages, role and function of a review of research, chapter chapter 8 | 16  pages, using social media, technology, and the internet, chapter chapter 9 | 38  pages, designing your research: part 1, chapter chapter 10 | 30  pages, designing your research: part 2, part iii | 112  pages, collecting, organizing, and communicating, chapter 244chapter 11 | 23  pages, judging and evaluating, chapter chapter 12 | 31  pages, gathering data (interviews, observations, documents, other), chapter chapter 13 | 24  pages, making meaning from your data, chapter chapter 14 | 23  pages, communicating and connecting, chapter chapter 15 | 9  pages, thinking about the future.

• Privacy Policy
• Terms & Conditions
• Cookie Policy
• Taylor & Francis Online
• Taylor & Francis Group
• Students/Researchers
• Librarians/Institutions

Connect with us

Registered in England & Wales No. 3099067 5 Howick Place | London | SW1P 1WG © 2024 Informa UK Limited

Qualitative Research in Education

A user's guide.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods

• DESCRIPTION

Helping education students become savvy qualitative researchers Qualitative Research in Education: A User's Guide, Third Edition continues to bring together the essential elements of qualitative research, including traditions and influences in the field and practical, step-by-step coverage of each stage of the research process. Synthesizing the best thinking on conducting qualitative research in education, author Marilyn Lichtman uses a conversational writing style that draws readers into the excitement of the research process. Real-world examples provide both practical and theoretical information, helping readers understand abstract ideas and apply them to their own research.

Available formats

The open-access Student Study Site, available at www.sagepub.com/lichtman3e , includes flashcards, web resources, and SAGE journal articles.

NEW TO THIS EDITION

• A new chapter on the use of social media for data collection, analysis, retrieval, and collaboration expands students' thinking about the relationship between social media and qualitative research.
• The chapter on data analysis has been expanded to include an emphasis on thematic analysis and narrative approaches.
• Did You Know? sections have been updated to reflect current research included in the third edition.
• Updated references in each chapter target the most recent key writing and examples.

Visit www.sagepub.com/lichtman3e to access valuable ancillaries on the open-access Student Study Site , including eFlashcards, SAGE journal articles, and web resources.

"In a crowded market of literature on research methods, it is refreshing to find and recommend to students an introductory text on qualitative research that is theoretical and practical, and scholarly yet accessible." Richard Taulke-Johnson Cardiff University

"The activity sections invite the reader to reflect on what they have discussed, either alone or with a group. As a lecturer who is responsible for research methods teaching and undergraduate and post graduate levels this is a feature that I thoroughly appreciate." Alexandra Allan Exeter University

Session Timeout

Qualitative Inquiry in Education: Theory & Practice

About the Journal

Qualitative Inquiry in Education: Theory and Practice (QIETP) is a biannual peer-reviewed journal focusing on qualitative research methods, theories, and applications in the field of education. The main purpose of the journal is to contribute to the expansion and deepening of knowledge, discussions, and applications of qualitative research in education.

The QIETP provides current and significant qualitative research studies for researchers, academics, teachers, education policy-makers, and practitioners working in educational sciences and interdisciplinary fields. The journal publishes original and contributory research on the development, application, and evaluation of qualitative research methods and theories.

The scope of the journal includes:

• Qualitative research methods, theories, and applications in education
• Development and evaluation of qualitative research methods and theories in education
• Interdisciplinary connections and impacts of qualitative research in education
• Qualitative research on education policies and practices
• Qualitative research on teacher education and professional development
• Qualitative research on educational technology and digital environments
• Qualitative research on the impact of cultural, social, and societal factors on education

QIETP aims to be a reliable and enduring platform dedicated to qualitative research in education, adhering to high ethical and scientific standards. In this direction, the journal continuously develops and renews itself to meet the needs and expectations of researchers, academics, and professionals in the field of education.

In this context, QIETP  aims to emphasize the importance and value of qualitative research in education, encouraging knowledge sharing and collaboration between different disciplines, cultures, and geographies. The journal supports studies aimed at revealing the future directions of educational research and the impact of qualitative research methods in the field of education, providing valuable insights. Qualitative Inquiry in Education: Theory and Practice continues to pursue its goal of being an essential resource at both academic and applied levels by contributing to the ongoing development of qualitative research in education.

Current Issue

• FULL ISSUE (PDF)

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A qualitative-content-analytical approach to the quality of primary students’ questions: testing a competence level model and exploring selected influencing factors.

1. Introduction

1.1. students’ questions: importance in educational contexts and research findings, 1.2. classification systems for assessing the quality of (students’) questions, 1.3. brinkmann’s competence level model for analyzing the level of abstraction of student’s questions, 1.4. aim of the study, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. research design and sample, 2.2. instruments and data analysis.

• Prior knowledge [characteristics: not visible | visible]: Does the question reveal any prior knowledge that goes beyond everyday knowledge?
• Focus of attention [characteristics: narrow | broad]: Is the focus of attention narrow or broad in terms of the expected response? Does the question relate to a specific detail (narrow focus of attention) or is it necessary to explore many partial aspects to answer it (broad focus of attention)?
• Intention of conceptual understanding [characteristics: not visible | visible]: Does the question express the intention to fathom causes, discover connections, or understand modes of operation?
• Philosophical horizon [characteristics: not visible | visible]: Is there a clear answer for this question? Does it touch on topics whose answers cannot be obtained from largely established bodies of knowledge? Do we have to struggle for our interpretative reality?

3.1. To What Extent Is Brinkmann’s Competence Level Model [ 26 ] Suitable for Analyzing Questions from a Different Sample? What Modifications Are Necessary? (RQ 1)

3.2. are there any indications of connections between the identified competence levels of the questions and the students’ grade level (rq 2).

• Grade level 1 = 72 questions
• Grade level 2 = 53 questions
• Grade level 3 = 151 questions
• Grade level 4 = 158 questions

3.3. Are There Any Indications of Connections between the Identified Competence Levels of the Questions and the Subject Matter? (RQ 3)

• data set “Space_4-a” | grade level 4 | 0 questions
• data set “Space_4-b” | grade level 4 | 33 questions
• data set “Space_3” | grade level 3 | 67 questions
• Brinkmann’s data set [ 26 ] | grade level 3 | 137 questions

4. Discussion

4.1. to what extent is brinkmann’s competence level model [ 26 ] suitable for analyzing questions from a different sample what modifications are necessary (rq 1), 4.2. are there any indications of connections between the identified competence levels of the questions and the students’ grade level (rq 2), 4.3. are there any indications of connections between the identified competence levels of the questions and the subject matter (rq 3), 4.4. further aspects of research design and methods, 4.5. implications, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Wu, L.; Liu, Y.; How, M.-L.; He, S. Investigating Student-Generated Questioning in a Technology-Enabled Elementary Science Classroom: A Case Study. Educ. Sci. 2023 , 13 , 158. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niegemann, H. Lernen und Fragen: Bilanz und Perspektiven der Forschung. Unterrichtswissenschaft 2004 , 32 , 345–356. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Neber, H. Fragenstellen. In Handbuch Lernstrategien ; Mandl, H., Friedrich, H.F., Eds.; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany, 2006; pp. 50–58. ISBN 978-3-8017-1813-8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aflalo, E. Students generating questions as a way of learning. Act. Learn. High. Educ. 2021 , 22 , 63–75. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pallesen, H.; Hörnlein, M. Warum Schüler*innen keine Fragen stellen.: Unterricht zwischen Sozialisation zur Fraglosigkeit und Bildungsanspruch. In Kinderperspektiven im Unterricht: Zur Ambivalenz der Anschaulichkeit ; Rumpf, D., Winter, S., Eds.; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2019; pp. 3–10. ISBN 978-3-658-22432-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kultusministerkonferenz. Empfehlungen zur Arbeit in der Grundschule. Available online: https://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/pdf/PresseUndAktuelles/2015/Empfehlung_350_KMK_Arbeit_Grundschule_01.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2024).
• Department for Education. The National Curriculum in England: Key Stages 1 and 2 Framework Document. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81a9abe5274a2e8ab55319/PRIMARY_national_curriculum.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2024).
• OECD. The Future of Education and Skills. Education. 2023. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/future-of-education-and-skills-2030.html (accessed on 29 May 2024).
• Lombardi, L.; Mednick, F.J.; Backer, F.D.; Lombaerts, K. Fostering Critical Thinking across the Primary School’s Curriculum in the European Schools System. Educ. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 505. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Spencer, A.G.; Causey, C.B.; Ernest, J.M.; Barnes, G.F. Using Student Generated Questions to Foster Twenty-First Century Learning: International Collaboration in Uganda. Excell. Educ. J. 2020 , 9 , 57–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chin, C.; Osborne, J. Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Stud. Sci. Educ. 2008 , 44 , 1–39. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, S.; Brinkmann, V. SchülerInnenfragen im Mittelpunkt des Sachunterrichts. In Sachunterricht in der Grundschule entwickeln—Gestalten—Reflektieren ; Gläser, E., Schönknecht, G., Eds.; Grundschulverband: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2013; pp. 226–241. ISBN 9783941649095. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schilling, Y.; Kuckuck, M. Das Anregen und Berücksichtigen von Schüler * innenfragen im Sachunterricht: Impulse für eine vielperspektivische Professionalisierungsgelegenheit im Studium. Widerstreit Sachunterricht 2024 , 28 , 1–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schmeinck, D.; Kidman, G. The Integrated Nature of Geography Education in German and Australian Primary Schools. In Teaching Primary Geography: Setting the Foundation ; Kidman, G., Schmeinck, D., Eds.; Springer Nature AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 15–27. ISBN 978-3-030-99970-4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schomaker, C.; Tänzer, S. Sachunterrichtsdidaktik: Bestandsaufnahme und Forschungsperspektiven. In Lernen im Fach und über das Fach hinaus: Bestandsaufnahmen und Forschungsperspektiven aus 17 Fachdidaktiken im Vergleich , 2nd ed.; Rothgangel, M., Abraham, U., Bayrhuber, H., Frederking, V., Jank, W., Vollmer, H.J., Eds.; Waxmann: Münster, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 363–390. ISBN 9783830993070. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meschede, N.; Hartinger, A.; Möller, K. Sachunterricht in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung: Rahmenbedingungen, Befunde und Perspektiven. In Handbuch Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung ; Cramer, C., König, J., Rothland, M., Blömeke, S., Eds.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2020; pp. 541–548. ISBN 9783838554730. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gesellschaft für Didaktik des Sachunterrichts. Perspektivrahmen Sachunterricht , 2nd ed.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2013; ISBN 978-3-7815-1992-3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schilling, Y.; Beudels, M.; Kuckuck, M.; Preisfeld, A. Sachunterrichtsbezogene Teilstudiengänge aus NRW auf dem Prüfstand: Eine Dokumentenanalyse der Bachelor-und Masterprüfungsordnungen. Herausford. Lehr. *Innenbildung 2021 , 4 , 178–195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beudels, M.M.; Damerau, K.; Preisfeld, A. Effects of an Interdisciplinary Course on Pre-Service Primary Teachers’ Content Knowledge and Academic Self-Concepts in Science and Technology–A Quantitative Longitudinal Study. Educ. Sci. 2021 , 11 , 744. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kahlert, J.; Fölling-Albers, M.; Götz, M.; Hartinger, A.; Miller, S.; Wittkowske, S. (Eds.) Handbuch Didaktik des Sachunterrichts , 3rd ed.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2022; ISBN 978-3-8385-8801-8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Peschel, M.; Mammes, I. Der Sachunterricht und die Didaktik des Sachunterrichts als besondere Herausforderung für die Professionalisierung von Grundschullehrkräften. In Professionalisierung von Grundschullehrkräften: Kontext, Bedingungen und Herausforderungen ; Mammes, I., Rotter, C., Eds.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2022; pp. 188–203. ISBN 978-3-7815-5949-3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schröer, F.; Tenberge, C. Theorien und Konzeptionen inklusiven Sachunterrichts. In Inklusive (Fach-)Didaktik in der Primarstufe: Ein Lehrbuch ; Dexel, T., Ed.; Waxmann: Münster, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 158–185. ISBN 9783838556864. [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon, T. Vielperspektivität und Partizipation als interdependente und konstitutive Merkmale einer inklusionsorientierten Sachunterrichtsdidaktik. In Ich und Welt verknüpfen: Allgemeinbildung, Vielperspektivität, Partizipation und Inklusion im Sachunterricht ; Siebach, M., Simon, J., Simon, T., Eds.; Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH: Baltmannsweiler, Germany, 2019; pp. 66–76. ISBN 9783834019516. [ Google Scholar ]
• Praetorius, A.-K.; Martens, M.; Brinkmann, M. Unterrichtsqualität aus Sicht der quantitativen und qualitativen Unterrichtsforschung. In Handbuch Schulforschung ; Hascher, T., Idel, T.-S., Helsper, W., Eds.; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2020; pp. 1–20. ISBN 978-3-658-24734-8. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wuttke, E. Unterrichtskommunikation und Wissenserwerb: Zum Einfluss von Kommunikation auf den Prozess der Wissensgenerierung ; Lang: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2005; ISBN 3-631-53832-4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brinkmann, V. Fragen Stellen an die Welt: Eine Untersuchung zur Kompetenzentwicklung in Einem an den Schülerfragen Orientierten Sachunterricht ; Schneider Verlag Hohengehren: Baltmannsweiler, Germany, 2019; ISBN 9783834019233. [ Google Scholar ]
• Chin, C.; Brown, D.E.; Bruce, B.C. Student-generated questions: A meaningful aspect of learning in science. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2002 , 24 , 521–549. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• van der Meij, H.; Karabenick, S.A. The great divide between teacher and student questioning. In Strategic Help Seeking: Implications for Learning and Teaching ; Karabenick, S.A., Ed.; L. Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 1998; pp. 195–218. ISBN 9780805823844. [ Google Scholar ]
• Levin, A. Lernen durch Fragen: Wirkung von strukturierenden Hilfen auf das Generieren von Studierendenfragen als Begleitende Lernstrategie ; Waxmann: Münster, Germany, 2005; ISBN 9783830914730. [ Google Scholar ]
• Otero, J.; Graesser, A.C. PREG: Elements of a Model of Question Asking. Cogn. Instr. 2001 , 19 , 143–175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Levin, A.; Arnold, K.-H. Aktives Fragenstellen im Hochschulunterricht: Effekte des Vorwissens auf den Lernerfolg. Unterrichtswissenschaft 2004 , 32 , 295–307. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aguiar, O.G.; Mortimer, E.F.; Scott, P. Learning from and responding to students’ questions: The authoritative and dialogic tension. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2010 , 47 , 174–193. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ritz-Fröhlich, G. Kinderfragen im Unterricht ; Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 1992; ISBN 3781507114. [ Google Scholar ]
• Graesser, A.C.; Person, N.K. Question Asking During Tutoring. Am. Educ. Res. J. 1994 , 31 , 104–137. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Moore, S.; Nguyen, H.A.; Bier, N.; Domadia, T.; Stamper, J. Assessing the Quality of Student-Generated Short Answer Questions Using GPT-3. In Educating for a New Future: Making Sense of Technology-Enhanced Learning Adoption ; Hilliger, I., Muñoz-Merino, P.J., Laet, T.d., Ortega-Arranz, A., Farrell, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 243–257. ISBN 978-3-031-16289-3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Niegemann, H.; Stadler, S. Hat noch jemand eine Frage? Systematische Unterrichtsbeobachtung zu Häufigkeit und kognitivem Niveau von Fragen im Unterricht. Unterrichtswissenschaft 2001 , 29 , 171–192. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Graesser, A.C.; Person, N.K.; Huber, J. Mechanisms that Generate Questions. In Questions and Information Systems ; Lauer, T.W., Peacock, E., Graesser, A.C., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 1992; pp. 167–187. ISBN 9780805810189. [ Google Scholar ]
• Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Questioning by Children. Cogn. Instr. 1992 , 9 , 177–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marton, F.; Booth, S. Learning and Awareness ; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1997; ISBN 9780805824551. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell, J.W. Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 3rd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2009; ISBN 9781412965569. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pajo, B. Introduction to Research Methods: A Hands-on Approach , 2nd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2018; ISBN 9781483386959. [ Google Scholar ]
• Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistischer Bericht. Allgemeinbildende Schulen. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bildung-Forschung-Kultur/Schulen/Publikationen/Downloads-Schulen/statistischer-bericht-allgemeinbildende-schulen-2110100237005.xlsx?__blob=publicationFile (accessed on 29 May 2024).
• Döring, N. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation in den Sozial-und Humanwissenschaften , 6th ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2023; ISBN 978-3-662-64762-2. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ministerium für Schule und Bildung des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen. Die Grundschule in Nordrhein-Westfalen. Informationen für Eltern. Available online: https://broschuerenservice.nrw.de/msb-duesseldorf/files?download_page=0&product_id=293&files=3/a/3a2910637f9ff37401346e40aea0aa5b.pdf (accessed on 29 May 2024).
• Flick, U. (Ed.) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research Design ; SAGE Publications Limited: London, UK, 2022; ISBN 9781529766943. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuckartz, U.; Rädiker, S. Qualitative Content Analysis: Methods, Practice and Software , 2nd ed.; SAGE: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2023; ISBN 978-1-5296-0913-4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayring, P. Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu Qualitativem Denken , 7th ed.; Beltz: Weinheim, Germany; Basel, Switzerland, 2023; ISBN 9783407296016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wirtz, M.A.; Caspar, F. Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität: Methoden zur Bestimmung und Verbesserung der Zuverlässigkeit von Einschätzungen mittels Kategoriensystemen und Ratingskalen ; Hogrefe: Göttingen, Germany; Bern, Switzerland; Toronto, ON, Canada; Seattle, DC, USA, 2002; ISBN 3801716465. [ Google Scholar ]
• Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977 , 33 , 159. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Vogl, S. Quantifizierung. Köln Z Soziol 2017 , 69 , 287–312. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuckartz, U. Mixed Methods: Methodologie, Forschungsdesigns und Analyseverfahren ; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2014; ISBN 978-3-531-93267-5. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelle, U.; Erzberger, C. Qualitative und quantitative Methoden: Kein Gegensatz. In Qualitative Forschung: Ein Handbuch , 14th ed.; Flick, U., Kardorff, E., von Steinke, I., Eds.; Rowohlts Enzyklopädie im Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag: Reinbek bei Hamburg, Germany, 2022; pp. 299–309. ISBN 9783499556289. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaptein, M.; van den Heuvel, E. Statistics for Data Scientists: An Introduction to Probability, Statistics, and Data Analysis ; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; ISBN 978-3-030-10531-0. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raithel, J. Quantitative Forschung: Ein Praxiskurs , 2nd ed.; VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2008; ISBN 978-3-531-91148-9. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 1992 , 1 , 98–101. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schilling, Y.; Molitor, A.-L.; Ritter, R.; Schellenbach-Zell, J. Anregung von Wissensvernetzung bei Lehramtsstudierenden mithilfe von Core Practices. In Vernetzung von Wissen bei Lehramtsstudierenden—Eine Black-Box für die Professionalisierungsforschung? Wehner, A., Masanek, N., Hellmann, K., Grospietsch, F., Heinz, T., Glowinski, I., Eds.; Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krauss, S. Expertise-Paradigma in der Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung. In Handbuch Lehrerinnen- und Lehrerbildung ; Cramer, C., König, J., Rothland, M., Blömeke, S., Eds.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2020; pp. 154–162. ISBN 9783838554730. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruber, H.; Stöger, H. Experten-Novizen-Paradigma. In Unterrichtsgestaltung als Gegenstand der Wissenschaft ; Kiel, E., Ed.; Schneider Hohengehren: Baltmannsweiler, Germany, 2011; pp. 247–264. ISBN 9783834008923. [ Google Scholar ]
• Helmke, A. Unterrichtsqualität und Professionalisierung: Diagnostik von Lehr-Lern-Prozessen und evidenzbasierte Unterrichtsentwicklung ; Klett Kallmeyer: Hannover, Germany, 2022; ISBN 9783772716850. [ Google Scholar ]
• Prengel, A. Didaktische Diagnostik als Element alltäglicher Lehrarbeit—“Formatives Assessment” im inklusiven Unterricht. In Diagnostik im Kontext inklusiver Bildung: Theorien, Ambivalenzen, Akteure, Konzepte ; Amrhein, B., Ed.; Verlag Julius Klinkhardt: Bad Heilbrunn, Germany, 2016; pp. 49–63. ISBN 9783781554610. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ernst, K. Den Fragen der Kinder nachgehen. Die Grund. 1996 , 98 , 7–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brinkmann, V. “Werden die Pflanzen trotzdem angebaut, auch wenn es der Umwelt schadet, sie zu pflegen?”—Schülerfragen zum Thema Landwirtschaft. In Landwirtschaft im Sachunterricht: Mehr als ein Ausflug auf den Bauernhof?! Schneider, K., Queisser, U., Eds.; wbv Media GmbH & Co. KG: Bielefeld, Germany, 2022; pp. 53–73. ISBN 9783763967209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mueller, R.G.W. Making Them Fit: Examining Teacher Support for Student Questioning. Soc. Stud. Res. Pract. 2016 , 11 , 40–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rothstein, D.; Santana, L. Make Just One Change: Teach Students to Ask Their Own Questions ; Harvard Education Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781612500997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Godinho, S.; Wilson, J. Helping Your Pupils to Ask Questions ; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; ISBN 9780415447270. [ Google Scholar ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Schilling, Y.; Hillebrand, L.; Kuckuck, M. A Qualitative-Content-Analytical Approach to the Quality of Primary Students’ Questions: Testing a Competence Level Model and Exploring Selected Influencing Factors. Educ. Sci. 2024 , 14 , 1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091003

Schilling Y, Hillebrand L, Kuckuck M. A Qualitative-Content-Analytical Approach to the Quality of Primary Students’ Questions: Testing a Competence Level Model and Exploring Selected Influencing Factors. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091003

Schilling, Yannick, Leonie Hillebrand, and Miriam Kuckuck. 2024. "A Qualitative-Content-Analytical Approach to the Quality of Primary Students’ Questions: Testing a Competence Level Model and Exploring Selected Influencing Factors" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 1003. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14091003

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Feminist theory and its use in qualitative research in education.

• Emily Freeman Emily Freeman University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1193
• Published online: 28 August 2019

Feminist theory rose in prominence in educational research during the 1980s and experienced a resurgence in popularity during the late 1990s−2010s. Standpoint epistemologies, intersectionality, and feminist poststructuralism are the most prevalent theories, but feminist researchers often work across feminist theoretical thought. Feminist qualitative research in education encompasses a myriad of methods and methodologies, but projects share a commitment to feminist ethics and theories. Among the commitments are the understanding that knowledge is situated in the subjectivities and lived experiences of both researcher and participants and research is deeply reflexive. Feminist theory informs both research questions and the methodology of a project in addition to serving as a foundation for analysis. The goals of feminist educational research include dismantling systems of oppression, highlighting gender-based disparities, and seeking new ways of constructing knowledge.

• feminist theories
• qualitative research
• educational research
• positionality
• methodology

Introduction

Feminist qualitative research begins with the understanding that all knowledge is situated in the bodies and subjectivities of people, particularly women and historically marginalized groups. Donna Haraway ( 1988 ) wrote,

I am arguing for politics and epistemologies of location, position, and situating, where partiality and not universality is the condition of being heard to make rational knowledge claims. These are claims on people’s lives I’m arguing for the view from a body, always a complex, contradictory, structuring, and structured body, versus the view from above, from nowhere, from simplicity. Only the god trick is forbidden. . . . Feminism is about a critical vision consequent upon a critical positioning in unhomogeneous gendered social space. (p. 589)

By arguing that “politics and epistemologies” are always interpretive and partial, Haraway offered feminist qualitative researchers in education a way to understand all research as potentially political and always interpretive and partial. Because all humans bring their own histories, biases, and subjectivities with them to a research space or project, it is naïve to think that the written product of research could ever be considered neutral, but what does research with a strong commitment to feminism look like in the context of education?

Writing specifically about the ways researchers of both genders can use feminist ethnographic methods while conducting research on schools and schooling, Levinson ( 1998 ) stated, “I define feminist ethnography as intensive qualitative research, aimed toward the description and analysis of the gendered construction and representation of experience, which is informed by a political and intellectual commitment to the empowerment of women and the creation of more equitable arrangements between and among specific, culturally defined genders” (p. 339). The core of Levinson’s definition is helpful for understanding the ways that feminist educational anthropologists engage with schools as gendered and political constructs and the larger questions of feminist qualitative research in education. His message also extends to other forms of feminist qualitative research. By focusing on description, analysis, and representation of gendered constructs, educational researchers can move beyond simple binary analyses to more nuanced understandings of the myriad ways gender operates within educational contexts.

Feminist qualitative research spans the range of qualitative methodologies, but much early research emerged out of the feminist postmodern turn in anthropology (Behar & Gordon, 1995 ), which was a response to male anthropologists who ignored the gendered implications of ethnographic research (e.g., Clifford & Marcus, 1986 ). Historically, most of the work on feminist education was conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, with a resurgence in the late 2010s (Culley & Portuges, 1985 ; DuBois, Kelly, Kennedy, Korsmeyer, & Robinson, 1985 ; Gottesman, 2016 ; Maher & Tetreault, 1994 ; Thayer-Bacon, Stone, & Sprecher, 2013 ). Within this body of research, the majority focuses on higher education (Coffey & Delamont, 2000 ; Digiovanni & Liston, 2005 ; Diller, Houston, Morgan, & Ayim, 1996 ; Gabriel & Smithson, 1990 ; Mayberry & Rose, 1999 ). Even leading journals, such as Feminist Teacher ( 1984 −present), focus mostly on the challenges of teaching about and to women in higher education, although more scholarship on P–12 education has emerged in recent issues.

There is also a large collection of work on the links between gender, achievement, and self-esteem (American Association of University Women, 1992 , 1999 ; Digiovanni & Liston, 2005 ; Gilligan, 1982 ; Hancock, 1989 ; Jackson, Paechter, & Renold, 2010 ; National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education, 2002 ; Orenstein, 1994 ; Pipher, 1994 ; Sadker & Sadker, 1994 ). However, just because research examines gender does not mean that it is feminist. Simply using gender as a category of analysis does not mean the research project is informed by feminist theory, ethics, or methods, but it is often a starting point for researchers who are interested in the complex ways gender is constructed and the ways it operates in education.

This article examines the histories and theories of U.S.–based feminism, the tenets of feminist qualitative research and methodologies, examples of feminist qualitative studies, and the possibilities for feminist qualitative research in education to provide feminist educational researchers context and methods for engaging in transformative and subversive research. Each section provides a brief overview of the major concepts and conversations, along with examples from educational research to highlight the ways feminist theory has informed educational scholarship. Some examples are given limited attention and serve as entry points into a more detailed analysis of a few key examples. While there is a large body of non-Western feminist theory (e.g., the works of Lila Abu-Lughod, Sara Ahmed, Raewyn Connell, Saba Mahmood, Chandra Mohanty, and Gayatri Spivak), much of the educational research using feminist theory draws on Western feminist theory. This article focuses on U.S.–based research to show the ways that the utilization of feminist theory has changed since the 1980s.

Histories, Origins, and Theories of U.S.–Based Feminism

The normative historiography of feminist theory and activism in the United States is broken into three waves. First-wave feminism (1830s−1920s) primarily focused on women’s suffrage and women’s rights to legally exist in public spaces. During this time period, there were major schisms between feminist groups concerning abolition, rights for African American women, and the erasure of marginalized voices from larger feminist debates. The second wave (1960s and 1980s) worked to extend some of the rights won during the first wave. Activists of this time period focused on women’s rights to enter the workforce, sexual harassment, educational equality, and abortion rights. During this wave, colleges and universities started creating women’s studies departments and those scholars provided much of the theoretical work that informs feminist research and activism today. While there were major feminist victories during second-wave feminism, notably Title IX and Roe v. Wade , issues concerning the marginalization of race, sexual orientation, and gender identity led many feminists of color to separate from mainstream white feminist groups. The third wave (1990s to the present) is often characterized as the intersectional wave, as some feminist groups began utilizing Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality ( 1991 ) to understand that oppression operates via multiple categories (e.g., gender, race, class, age, ability) and that intersecting oppressions lead to different lived experiences.

Historians and scholars of feminism argue that dividing feminist activism into three waves flattens and erases the major contributions of women of color and gender-nonconforming people. Thompson ( 2002 ) called this history a history of hegemonic feminism and proposed that we look at the contributions of multiracial feminism when discussing history. Her work, along with that of Allen ( 1984 ) about the indigenous roots of U.S. feminism, raised many questions about the ways that feminism operates within the public and academic spheres. For those who wish to engage in feminist research, it is vital to spend time understanding the historical, theoretical, and political ways that feminism(s) can both liberate and oppress, depending on the scholar’s understandings of, and orientations to, feminist projects.

Standpoint Epistemology

Much of the theoretical work that informs feminist qualitative research today emerged out of second-wave feminist scholarship. Standpoint epistemology, according to Harding ( 1991 , 2004 ), posits that knowledge comes from one’s particular social location, that it is subjective, and the further one is from the hegemonic norm, the clearer one can see oppression. This was a major challenge to androcentric and Enlightenment theories of knowledge because standpoint theory acknowledges that there is no universal understanding of the world. This theory aligns with the second-wave feminist slogan, “The personal is political,” and advocates for a view of knowledge that is produced from the body.

Greene ( 1994 ) wrote from a feminist postmodernist epistemology and attacked Enlightenment thinking by using standpoint theory as her starting point. Her work serves as an example of one way that educational scholars can use standpoint theory in their work. She theorized encounters with “imaginative literature” to help educators conceptualize new ways of using reading and writing in the classroom and called for teachers to think of literature as “a harbinger of the possible.” (Greene, 1994 , p. 218). Greene wrote from an explicitly feminist perspective and moved beyond simple analyses of gender to a larger critique of the ways that knowledge is constructed in classrooms.

Intersectionality

Crenshaw ( 1991 ) and Collins ( 2000 ) challenged and expanded standpoint theory to move it beyond an individual understanding of knowledge to a group-based theory of oppression. Their work, and that of other black and womanist feminists, opened up multiple spaces of possibility for feminist scholars and researchers because it challenged hegemonic feminist thought. For those interested in conducting feminist research in educational settings, their work is especially pertinent because they advocate for feminists to attend to all aspects of oppression rather than flattening them to one of simple gender-based oppression.

Haddix, McArthur, Muhammad, Price-Dennis, and Sealey-Ruiz ( 2016 ), all women-of-color feminist educators, wrote a provocateur piece in a special issue of English Education on black girls’ literacy. The four authors drew on black feminist thought and conducted a virtual kitchen-table conversation. By symbolically representing their conversations as one from the kitchen, this article pays homage to women-of-color feminism and pushes educators who read English Education to reconsider elements of their own subjectivities. Third-wave feminism and black feminism emphasize intersectionality, in that different demographic details like race, class, and gender are inextricably linked in power structures. Intersectionality is an important frame for educational research because identifying the unique experiences, realities, and narratives of those involved in educational systems can highlight the ways that power and oppression operate in society.

Feminist Poststructural Theory

Feminist poststructural theory has greatly informed many feminist projects in educational research. Deconstruction is

a critical practice that aims to ‘dismantle [ déconstruire ] the metaphysical and rhetorical structures that are at work, not in order to reject or discard them, but to reinscribe them in another way,’ (Derrida, quoted in Spivak, 1974 , p. lxxv). Thus, deconstruction is not about tearing down, but about looking at how a structure has been constructed, what holds it together, and what it produces. (St. Pierre, 2000 , p. 482)

Reality, subjectivity, knowledge, and truth are constructed through language and discourse (cultural practices, power relations, etc.), so truth is local and diverse, rather than a universal experience (St. Pierre, 2000 ). Feminist poststructuralist theory may be used to question structural inequality that is maintained in education through dominant discourses.

In Go Be a Writer! Expanding the Curricular Boundaries of Literacy Learning with Children , Kuby and Rucker ( 2016 ) explored early elementary literacy practices using poststructural and posthumanist theories. Their book drew on hours of classroom observations, student interviews and work, and their own musings on ways to de-standardize literacy instruction and curriculum. Through the process of pedagogical documentation, Kuby and Rucker drew on the works of Barad, Deleuze and Guattari, and Derrida to explore the ways they saw children engaging in what they call “literacy desiring(s).” One aim of the book is to find practical and applicable ways to “Disrupt literacy in ways that rewrite the curriculum, the interactions, and the power dynamics of the classroom even begetting a new kind of energy that spirals and bounces and explodes” (Kuby & Rucker, 2016 , p. 5). The second goal of their book is not only to understand what happened in Rucker’s classroom using the theories, but also to unbound the links between “teaching↔learning” (p. 202) and to write with the theories, rather than separating theory from the methodology and classroom enactments (p. 45) because “knowing/being/doing were not separate” (p. 28). This work engages with key tenets of feminist poststructuralist theory and adds to both the theoretical and pedagogical conversations about what counts as a literacy practice.

While the discussion in this section provides an overview of the histories and major feminist theories, it is by no means exhaustive. Scholars who wish to engage in feminist educational research need to spend time doing the work of understanding the various theories and trajectories that constitute feminist work so they are able to ground their projects and theories in a particular tradition that will inform the ethics and methods of research.

Tenets of Feminist Qualitative Research

Why engage in feminist qualitative research.

Evans and Spivak ( 2016 ) stated, “The only real and effective way you can sabotage something this way is when you are working intimately within it.” Feminist researchers are in the classroom and the academy, working intimately within curricular, pedagogical, and methodological constraints that serve neoliberal ideologies, so it is vital to better understand the ways that we can engage in affirmative sabotage to build a more just and equitable world. Spivak’s ( 2014 ) notion of affirmative sabotage has become a cornerstone for understanding feminist qualitative research and teaching. She borrowed and built on Gramsci’s role of the organic intellectual and stated that they/we need to engage in affirmative sabotage to transform the humanities.

I used the term “affirmative sabotage” to gloss on the usual meaning of sabotage: the deliberate ruining of the master’s machine from the inside. Affirmative sabotage doesn’t just ruin; the idea is of entering the discourse that you are criticizing fully, so that you can turn it around from inside. The only real and effective way you can sabotage something this way is when you are working intimately within it. (Evans & Spivak, 2016 )

While Spivak has been mostly concerned with literary education, her writings provide teachers and researchers numerous lines of inquiry into projects that can explode androcentric universal notions of knowledge and resist reproductive heteronormativity.

Spivak’s pedagogical musings center on deconstruction, primarily Derridean notions of deconstruction (Derrida, 2016 ; Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 ; Spivak, 2006 , 2009 , 2012 ) that seek to destabilize existing categories and to call into question previously unquestioned beliefs about the goals of education. Her works provide an excellent starting point for examining the links between feminism and educational research. The desire to create new worlds within classrooms, worlds that are fluid, interpretive, and inclusive in order to interrogate power structures, lies at the core of what it means to be a feminist education researcher. As researchers, we must seriously engage with feminist theory and include it in our research so that feminism is not seen as a dirty word, but as a movement/pedagogy/methodology that seeks the liberation of all (Davis, 2016 ).

Feminist research and feminist teaching are intrinsically linked. As Kerkhoff ( 2015 ) wrote, “Feminist pedagogy requires students to challenge the norms and to question whether existing practices privilege certain groups and marginalize others” (p. 444), and this is exactly what feminist educational research should do. Bailey ( 2001 ) called on teachers, particularly those who identify as feminists, to be activists, “The values of one’s teaching should not be separated sharply from the values one expresses outside the classroom, because teaching is not inherently pure or laboratory practice” (p. 126); however, we have to be careful not to glorify teachers as activists because that leads to the risk of misinterpreting actions. Bailey argued that teaching critical thinking is not enough if it is not coupled with curriculums and pedagogies that are antiheteronormative, antisexist, and antiracist. As Bailey warned, just using feminist theory or identifying as a feminist is not enough. It is very easy to use the language and theories of feminism without being actively feminist in one’s research. There are ethical and methodological issues that feminist scholars must consider when conducting research.

Feminist research requires one to discuss ethics, not as a bureaucratic move, but as a reflexive move that shows the researchers understand that, no matter how much they wish it didn’t, power always plays a role in the process. According to Davies ( 2014 ), “Ethics, as Barad defines it, is a matter of questioning what is being made to matter and how that mattering affects what it is possible to do and to think” (p. 11). In other words, ethics is what is made to matter in a particular time and place.

Davies ( 2016 ) extended her definition of ethics to the interactions one has with others.

This is not ethics as a matter of separate individuals following a set of rules. Ethical practice, as both Barad and Deleuze define it, requires thinking beyond the already known, being open in the moment of the encounter, pausing at the threshold and crossing over. Ethical practice is emergent in encounters with others, in emergent listening with others. It is a matter of questioning what is being made to matter and how that mattering affects what it is possible to do and to think. Ethics is emergent in the intra-active encounters in which knowing, being, and doing (epistemology, ontology, and ethics) are inextricably linked. (Barad, 2007 , p. 83)

The ethics of any project must be negotiated and contested before, during, and after the process of conducting research in conjunction with the participants. Feminist research is highly reflexive and should be conducted in ways that challenge power dynamics between individuals and social institutions. Educational researchers must heed the warning to avoid the “god-trick” (Haraway, 1988 ) and to continually question and re-question the ways we seek to define and present subjugated knowledge (Hesse-Biber, 2012 ).

Positionalities and Reflexivity

According to feminist ethnographer Noelle Stout, “Positionality isn’t meant to be a few sentences at the beginning of a work” (personal communication, April 5, 2016 ). In order to move to new ways of experiencing and studying the world, it is vital that scholars examine the ways that reflexivity and positionality are constructed. In a glorious footnote, Margery Wolf ( 1992 ) related reflexivity in anthropological writing to a bureaucratic procedure (p. 136), and that resonates with how positionality often operates in the field of education.

The current trend in educational research is to include a positionality statement that fixes the identity of the author in a particular place and time and is derived from feminist standpoint theory. Researchers should make their biases and the identities of the authors clear in a text, but there are serious issues with the way that positionality functions as a boundary around the authors. Examining how the researchers exert authority within a text allows the reader the opportunity to determine the intent and philosophy behind the text. If positionality were used in an embedded and reflexive manner, then educational research would be much richer and allow more nuanced views of schools, in addition to being more feminist in nature. The rest of this section briefly discussrs articles that engage with feminist ethics regarding researcher subjectivities and positionality, and two articles are examined in greater depth.

When looking for examples of research that includes deeply reflexive and embedded positionality, one finds that they mostly deal with issues of race, equity, and diversity. The highlighted articles provide examples of positionality statements that are deeply reflexive and represent the ways that feminist researchers can attend to the ethics of being part of a research project. These examples all come from feminist ethnographic projects, but they are applicable to a wide variety of feminist qualitative projects.

Martinez ( 2016 ) examined how research methods are or are not appropriate for specific contexts. Calderon ( 2016 ) examined autoethnography and the reproduction of “settler colonial understandings of marginalized communities” (p. 5). Similarly, Wissman, Staples, Vasudevan, and Nichols ( 2015 ) discussed how to research with adolescents through engaged participation and collaborative inquiry, and Ceglowski and Makovsky ( 2012 ) discussed the ways researchers can engage in duoethnography with young children.

Abajian ( 2016 ) uncovered the ways military recruiters operate in high schools and paid particular attention to the politics of remaining neutral while also working to subvert school militarization. She wrote,

Because of the sensitive and also controversial nature of my research, it was not possible to have a collaborative process with students, teachers, and parents. Purposefully intervening would have made documentation impossible because that would have (rightfully) aligned me with anti-war and counter-recruitment activists who were usually not welcomed on school campuses (Abajian & Guzman, 2013 ). It was difficult enough to find an administrator who gave me consent to conduct my research within her school, as I had explicitly stated in my participant recruitment letters and consent forms that I was going to research the promotion of post-secondary paths including the military. Hence, any purposeful intervention on my part would have resulted in the termination of my research project. At the same time, my documentation was, in essence, an intervention. I hoped that my presence as an observer positively shaped the context of my observation and also contributed to the larger struggle against the militarization of schools. (p. 26)

Her positionality played a vital role in the creation, implementation, and analysis of military recruitment, but it also forced her into unexpected silences in order to carry out her research. Abajian’s positionality statement brings up many questions about the ways researchers have to use or silence their positionality to further their research, especially if they are working in ostensibly “neutral” and “politically free” zones, such as schools. Her work drew on engaged anthropology (Low & Merry, 2010 ) and critical reflexivity (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008 ) to highlight how researchers’ subjectivities shape ethnographic projects. Questions of subjectivity and positionality in her work reflect the larger discourses around these topics in feminist theory and qualitative research.

Brown ( 2011 ) provided another example of embedded and reflexive positionality of the articles surveyed. Her entire study engaged with questions about how her positionality influenced the study during the field-work portion of her ethnography on how race and racism operate in ethnographic field-work. This excerpt from her study highlights how she conceived of positionality and how it informed her work and her process.

Next, I provide a brief overview of the research study from which this paper emerged and I follow this with a presentation of four, first-person narratives from key encounters I experienced while doing ethnographic field research. Each of these stories centres the role race played as I negotiated my multiple, complex positionality vis-á-vis different informants and participants in my study. These stories highlight the emotional pressures that race work has on the researcher and the research process, thus reaffirming why one needs to recognise the role race plays, and may play, in research prior to, during, and after conducting one’s study (Milner, 2007 ). I conclude by discussing the implications these insights have on preparing researchers of color to conduct cross-racial qualitative research. (Brown, 2011 , p. 98)

Brown centered the roles of race and subjectivity, both hers and her participants, by focusing her analysis on the four narratives. The researchers highlighted in this section thought deeply about the ethics of their projects and the ways that their positionality informed their choice of methods.

Methods and Challenges

Feminist qualitative research can take many forms, but the most common data collection methods include interviews, observations, and narrative or discourse analysis. For the purposes of this article, methods refer to the tools and techniques researchers use, while methodology refers to the larger philosophical and epistemological approaches to conducting research. It is also important to note that these are not fixed terms, and that there continues to be much debate about what constitutes feminist theory and feminist research methods among feminist qualitative researchers. This section discusses some of the tensions and constraints of using feminist theory in educational research.

Jackson and Mazzei ( 2012 ) called on researchers to think through their data with theory at all stages of the collection and analysis process. They also reminded us that all data collection is partial and informed by the researcher’s own beliefs (Koro-Ljungberg, Löytönen, & Tesar, 2017 ). Interviews are sites of power and critiques because they show the power of stories and serve as a method of worlding, the process of “making a world, turning insight into instrument, through and into a possible act of freedom” (Spivak, 2014 , p. xiii). Interviews allow researchers and participants ways to engage in new ways of understanding past experiences and connecting them to feminist theories. The narratives serve as data, but it is worth noting that the data collected from interviews are “partial, incomplete, and always being re-told and re-membered” (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 , p. 3), much like the lived experiences of both researcher and participant.

Research, data collection, and interpretation are not neutral endeavors, particularly with interviews (Jackson & Mazzei, 2009 ; Mazzei, 2007 , 2013 ). Since education research emerged out of educational psychology (Lather, 1991 ; St. Pierre, 2016 ), historically there has been an emphasis on generalizability and positivist data collection methods. Most feminist research makes no claims of generalizability or truth; indeed, to do so would negate the hyperpersonal and particular nature of this type of research (Love, 2017 ). St. Pierre ( 2016 ) viewed the lack of generalizability as an asset of feminist and poststructural research, rather than a limitation, because it creates a space of resistance against positivist research methodologies.

Denzin and Giardina ( 2016 ) urged researchers to “consider an alternative mode of thinking about the critical turn in qualitative inquiry and posit the following suggestion: perhaps it is time we turned away from ‘methodology’ altogether ” (p. 5, italics original). Despite the contention over the term critical among some feminist scholars (e.g. Ellsworth, 1989 ), their suggestion is valid and has been picked up by feminist and poststructural scholars who examine the tensions between following a strict research method/ology and the theoretical systems out of which they operate because precision in method obscures the messy and human nature of research (Koro-Ljungberg, 2016 ; Koro-Ljungberg et al., 2017 ; Love, 2017 ; St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000 ). Feminist qualitative researchers should seek to complicate the question of what method and methodology mean when conducting feminist research (Lather, 1991 ), due to the feminist emphasis on reflexive and situated research methods (Hesse-Biber, 2012 ).

Examples of Feminist Qualitative Research in Education

A complete overview of the literature is not possible here, due to considerations of length, but the articles and books selected represent the various debates within feminist educational research. They also show how research preoccupations have changed over the course of feminist work in education. The literature review is divided into three broad categories: Power, canons, and gender; feminist pedagogies, curriculums, and classrooms; and teacher education, identities, and knowledge. Each section provides a broad overview of the literature to demonstrate the breadth of work using feminist theory, with some examples more deeply explicated to describe how feminist theories inform the scholarship.

Power, Canons, and Gender

The literature in this category contests disciplinary practices that are androcentric in both content and form, while asserting the value of using feminist knowledge to construct knowledge. The majority of the work was written in the 1980s and supported the creation of feminist ways of knowing, particularly via the creation of women’s studies programs or courses in existing departments that centered female voices and experiences.

Questioning the canon has long been a focus of feminist scholarship, as has the attempt to subvert its power in the disciplines. Bezucha ( 1985 ) focused on the ways that departments of history resist the inclusion of both women and feminism in the historical canon. Similarly, Miller ( 1985 ) discussed feminism as subversion when seeking to expand the canon of French literature in higher education.

Lauter and Dieterich ( 1972 ) examined a report by ERIC, “Women’s Place in Academe,” a collection of articles about the discrepancies by gender in jobs and tenure-track positions and the lack of inclusion of women authors in literature classes. They also found that women were relegated to “softer” disciplines and that feminist knowledge was not acknowledged as valid work. Culley and Portuges ( 1985 ) expanded the focus beyond disciplines to the larger structures of higher education and noted the varies ways that professors subvert from within their disciplines. DuBois et al. ( 1985 ) chronicled the development of feminist scholarship in the disciplines of anthropology, education, history, literature, and philosophy. They explained that the institutions of higher education often prevent feminist scholars from working across disciplines in an attempt to keep them separate. Raymond ( 1985 ) also critiqued the academy for not encouraging relationships across disciplines and offered the development of women’s, gender, and feminist studies as one solution to greater interdisciplinary work.

Parson ( 2016 ) examined the ways that STEM syllabi reinforce gendered norms in higher education. She specifically looked at eight syllabi from math, chemistry, biology, physics, and geology classes to determine how modal verbs showing stance, pronouns, intertextuality, interdiscursivity, and gender showed power relations in higher education. She framed the study through poststructuralist feminist critical discourse analysis to uncover “the ways that gendered practices that favor men are represented and replicated in the syllabus” (p. 103). She found that all the syllabi positioned knowledge as something that is, rather than something that can be co-constructed. Additionally, the syllabi also favored individual and masculine notions of what it means to learn by stressing the competitive and difficult nature of the classroom and content.

When reading newer work on feminism in higher education and the construction of knowledge, it is easy to feel that, while the conversations might have shifted somewhat, the challenge of conducting interdisciplinary feminist work in institutions of higher education remains as present as it was during the creation of women’s and gender studies departments. The articles all point to the fact that simply including women’s and marginalized voices in the academy does not erase or mitigate the larger issues of gender discrimination and androcentricity within the silos of the academy.

Feminist Pedagogies, Curricula, and Classrooms

This category of literature has many similarities to the previous one, but all the works focus more specifically on questions of curriculum and pedagogy. A review of the literature shows that the earliest conversations were about the role of women in academia and knowledge construction, and this selection builds on that work to emphasize the ways that feminism can influence the events within classes and expands the focus to more levels of education.

Rich ( 1985 ) explained that curriculum in higher education courses needs to validate gender identities while resisting patriarchal canons. Maher ( 1985 ) narrowed the focus to a critique of the lecture as a pedagogical technique that reinforces androcentric ways of learning and knowing. She called for classes in higher education to be “collaborative, cooperative, and interactive” (p. 30), a cry that still echoes across many college campuses today, especially from students in large lecture-based courses. Maher and Tetreault ( 1994 ) provided a collection of essays that are rooted in feminist classroom practice and moved from the classroom into theoretical possibilities for feminist education. Warren ( 1998 ) recommended using Peggy McIntosh’s five phases of curriculum development ( 1990 ) and extending it to include feminist pedagogies that challenge patriarchal ways of teaching. Exploring the relational encounters that exist in feminist classrooms, Sánchez-Pardo ( 2017 ) discussed the ethics of pedagogy as a politics of visibility and investigated the ways that democratic classrooms relate to feminist classrooms.

While all of the previously cited literature is U.S.–based, the next two works focus on the ways that feminist pedagogies and curriculum operate in a European context. Weiner ( 1994 ) used autobiography and narrative methodologies to provide an introduction to how feminism has influenced educational research and pedagogy in Britain. Revelles-Benavente and Ramos ( 2017 ) collected a series of studies about how situated feminist knowledge challenges the problems of neoliberal education across Europe. These two, among many European feminist works, demonstrate the range of scholarship and show the trans-Atlantic links between how feminism has been received in educational settings. However, much more work needs to be done in looking at the broader global context, and particularly by feminist scholars who come from non-Western contexts.

The following literature moves us into P–12 classrooms. DiGiovanni and Liston ( 2005 ) called for a new research agenda in K–5 education that explores the hidden curriculums surrounding gender and gender identity. One source of the hidden curriculum is classroom literature, which both Davies ( 2003 ) and Vandergrift ( 1995 ) discussed in their works. Davies ( 2003 ) used feminist ethnography to understand how children who were exposed to feminist picture books talked about gender and gender roles. Vandergrift ( 1995 ) presented a theoretical piece that explored the ways picture books reinforce or resist canons. She laid out a future research agenda using reader response theory to better comprehend how young children question gender in literature. Willinsky ( 1987 ) explored the ways that dictionary definitions reinforced constructions of gender. He looked at the definitions of the words clitoris, penis , and vagina in six school dictionaries and then compared them with A Feminist Dictionary to see how the definitions varied across texts. He found a stark difference in the treatment of the words vagina and penis ; definitions of the word vagina were treated as medical or anatomical and devoid of sexuality, while definitions of the term penis were linked to sex (p. 151).

Weisner ( 2004 ) addressed middle school classrooms and highlighted the various ways her school discouraged unconventional and feminist ways of teaching. She also brought up issues of silence, on the part of both teachers and students, regarding sexuality. By including students in the curriculum planning process, Weisner provided more possibilities for challenging power in classrooms. Wallace ( 1999 ) returned to the realm of higher education and pushed literature professors to expand pedagogy to be about more than just the texts that are read. She challenged the metaphoric dichotomy of classrooms as places of love or battlefields; in doing so, she “advocate[d] active ignorance and attention to resistances” (p. 194) as a method of subverting transference from students to teachers.

The works discussed in this section cover topics ranging from the place of women in curriculum to the gendered encounters teachers and students have with curriculums and pedagogies. They offer current feminist scholars many directions for future research, particularly in the arena of P–12 education.

Teacher Education, Identities, and Knowledge

The third subset of literature examines the ways that teachers exist in classrooms and some possibilities for feminist teacher education. The majority of the literature in this section starts from the premise that the teachers are engaged in feminist projects. The selections concerning teacher education offer critiques of existing heteropatriarchal normative teacher education and include possibilities for weaving feminism and feminist pedagogies into the education of preservice teachers.

Holzman ( 1986 ) explored the role of multicultural teaching and how it can challenge systematic oppression; however, she complicated the process with her personal narrative of being a lesbian and working to find a place within the school for her sexual identity. She questioned how teachers can protect their identities while also engaging in the fight for justice and equity. Hoffman ( 1985 ) discussed the ways teacher power operates in the classroom and how to balance the personal and political while still engaging in disciplinary curriculums. She contended that teachers can work from personal knowledge and connect it to the larger curricular concerns of their discipline. Golden ( 1998 ) used teacher narratives to unpack how teachers can become radicalized in the higher education classroom when faced with unrelenting patriarchal and heteronormative messages.

Extending this work, Bailey ( 2001 ) discussed teachers as activists within the classroom. She focused on three aspects of teaching: integrity with regard to relationships, course content, and teaching strategies. She concluded that teachers cannot separate their values from their profession. Simon ( 2007 ) conducted a case study of a secondary teacher and communities of inquiry to see how they impacted her work in the classroom. The teacher, Laura, explicitly tied her inquiry activities to activist teacher education and critical pedagogy, “For this study, inquiry is fundamental to critical pedagogy, shaped by power and ideology, relationships within and outside of the classroom, as well as teachers’ and students’ autochthonous histories and epistemologies” (Simon, 2007 , p. 47). Laura’s experiences during her teacher education program continued during her years in the classroom, leading her to create a larger activism-oriented teacher organization.

Collecting educational autobiographies from 17 college-level feminist professors, Maher and Tetreault ( 1994 ) worried that educators often conflated “the experience and values of white middle-class women like ourselves for gendered universals” (p. 15). They complicated the idea of a democratic feminist teacher, raised issues regarding the problematic ways hegemonic feminism flattens experience to that of just white women, and pushed feminist professors to pay particular attention to the intersections of race, class, gender, and sexuality when teaching.

Cheira ( 2017 ) called for gender-conscious teaching and literature-based teaching to confront the gender stereotypes she encountered in Portuguese secondary schools. Papoulis and Smith ( 1992 ) conducted summer sessions where teachers experienced writing activities they could teach their students. Conceptualized as an experiential professional development course, the article revolved around an incident where the seminar was reading Emily Dickinson and the men in the course asked the two female instructors why they had to read feminist literature and the conversations that arose. The stories the women told tie into Papoulis and Smith’s call for teacher educators to interrogate their underlying beliefs and ideologies about gender, race, and class, so they are able to foster communities of study that can purposefully and consciously address feminist inquiry.

McWilliam ( 1994 ) collected stories of preservice teachers in Australia to understand how feminism can influence teacher education. She explored how textual practices affect how preservice teachers understand teaching and their role. Robertson ( 1994 ) tackled the issue of teacher education and challenged teachers to move beyond the two metaphors of banking and midwifery when discussing feminist ways of teaching. She called for teacher educators to use feminist pedagogies within schools of education so that preservice teachers experience a feminist education. Maher and Rathbone ( 1986 ) explored the scholarship on women’s and girls’ educational experiences and used their findings to call for changes in teacher education. They argued that schools reinforce the notion that female qualities are inferior due to androcentric curriculums and ways of showing knowledge. Justice-oriented teacher education is a more recent iteration of this debate, and Jones and Hughes ( 2016 ) called for community-based practices to expand the traditional definitions of schooling and education. They called for preservice teachers to be conversant with, and open to, feminist storylines that defy existing gendered, raced, and classed stereotypes.

Bieler ( 2010 ) drew on feminist and critical definitions of dialogue (e.g., those by Bakhtin, Freire, Ellsworth, hooks, and Burbules) to reframe mentoring discourse in university supervision and dialogic praxis. She concluded by calling on university supervisors to change their methods of working with preservice teachers to “Explicitly and transparently cultivat[e] dialogic praxis-oriented mentoring relationships so that the newest members of our field can ‘feel their own strength at last,’ as Homer’s Telemachus aspired to do” (Bieler, 2010 , p. 422).

Johnson ( 2004 ) also examined the role of teacher educators, but she focused on the bodies and sexualities of preservice teachers. She explored the dynamics of sexual tension in secondary classrooms, the role of the body in teaching, and concerns about clothing when teaching. She explicitly worked to resist and undermine Cartesian dualities and, instead, explored the erotic power of teaching and seducing students into a love of subject matter. “But empowered women threaten the patriarchal structure of this society. Therefore, women have been acculturated to distrust erotic power” (Johnson, 2004 , p. 7). Like Bieler ( 2010 ), Johnson ( 2004 ) concluded that, “Teacher educators could play a role in creating a space within the larger framework of teacher education discourse such that bodily knowledge is considered along with pedagogical and content knowledge as a necessary component of teacher training and professional development” (p. 24). The articles about teacher education all sought to provoke questions about how we engage in the preparation and continuing development of educators.

Teacher identity and teacher education constitute how teachers construct knowledge, as both students and teachers. The works in this section raise issues of what identities are “acceptable” in the classroom, ways teachers and teacher educators can disrupt oppressive storylines and practices, and the challenges of utilizing feminist pedagogies without falling into hegemonic feminist practices.

Possibilities for Feminist Qualitative Research

Spivak ( 2012 ) believed that “gender is our first instrument of abstraction” (p. 30) and is often overlooked in a desire to understand political, curricular, or cultural moments. More work needs to be done to center gender and intersecting identities in educational research. One way is by using feminist qualitative methods. Classrooms and educational systems need to be examined through their gendered components, and the ways students operate within and negotiate systems of power and oppression need to be explored. We need to see if and how teachers are actively challenging patriarchal and heteronormative curriculums and to learn new methods for engaging in affirmative sabotage (Spivak, 2014 ). Given the historical emphasis on higher education, more work is needed regarding P–12 education, because it is in P–12 classrooms that affirmative sabotage may be the most necessary to subvert systems of oppression.

In order to engage in affirmative sabotage, it is vital that qualitative researchers who wish to use feminist theory spend time grappling with the complexity and multiplicity of feminist theory. It is only by doing this thought work that researchers will be able to understand the ongoing debates within feminist theory and to use it in a way that leads to a more equitable and just world. Simply using feminist theory because it may be trendy ignores the very real political nature of feminist activism. Researchers need to consider which theories they draw on and why they use those theories in their projects. One way of doing this is to explicitly think with theory (Jackson & Mazzei, 2012 ) at all stages of the research project and to consider which voices are being heard and which are being silenced (Gilligan, 2011 ; Spivak, 1988 ) in educational research. More consideration also needs to be given to non-U.S. and non-Western feminist theories and research to expand our understanding of education and schooling.

Paying close attention to feminist debates about method and methodology provides another possibility for qualitative research. The very process of challenging positivist research methods opens up new spaces and places for feminist qualitative research in education. It also allows researchers room to explore subjectivities that are often marginalized. When researchers engage in the deeply reflexive work that feminist research requires, it leads to acts of affirmative sabotage within the academy. These discussions create the spaces that lead to new visions and new worlds. Spivak ( 2006 ) once declared, “I am helpless before the fact that all my essays these days seem to end with projects for future work” (p. 35), but this is precisely the beauty of feminist qualitative research. We are setting ourselves and other feminist researchers up for future work, future questions, and actively changing the nature of qualitative research.

Acknowledgements

Dr. George Noblit provided the author with the opportunity to think deeply about qualitative methods and to write this article, for which the author is extremely grateful. Dr. Lynda Stone and Dr. Tanya Shields are thanked for encouraging the author’s passion for feminist theory and for providing many hours of fruitful conversation and book lists. A final thank you is owed to the author’s partner, Ben Skelton, for hours of listening to her talk about feminist methods, for always being a first reader, and for taking care of their infant while the author finished writing this article.

• Abajian, S. M. (2016). Documenting militarism: Challenges of researching highly contested practices within urban schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 25–41.
• Abajian, S. M. , and Guzman, M. (2013). Moving beyond slogans: Possibilities for a more connected and humanizing “counter-recruitment” pedagogy in militarized urban schools. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing , 29 (2), 191–205.
• Allen, P. G. (1984). Who is your mother? Red roots of white feminism. Sinister Wisdom , 25 (Winter), 34–46.
• American Association of University Women . (1992). How schools shortchange girls: The AAUW report: A study of major findings on girls and education . Washington, DC.
• AAUW . (1999). Gender gaps: Where schools still fail our children . New York, NY: Marlowe.
• Bailey, C. (2001). Teaching as activism and excuse: A reconsideration of the theory−practice dichotomy. Feminist Teacher , 13 (2), 125–133.
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Behar, R. , & Gordon, D. A. (Eds.). (1995). Women writing culture . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Bezucha, R. J. (1985). Feminist pedagogy as a subversive activity. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 81–95). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Bieler, D. (2010). Dialogic praxis in teacher preparation: A discourse analysis of mentoring talk. English Education , 42 (4), 391–426.
• Brown, K. D. (2011). Elevating the role of race in ethnographic research: Navigating race relations in the field. Ethnography and Education , 6 (1), 97–111.
• Calderon, D. (2016). Moving from damage-centered research through unsettling reflexivity. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 5–24.
• Ceglowski, D. , & Makovsky, T. (2012) Duoethnography with children. Ethnography and Education , 7 (3), 283–295.
• Cheira, A. (2017). (Fostering) princesses that can stand on their own two feet: Using wonder tale narratives to change teenage gendered stereotypes in Portuguese EFL classrooms. In B. Revelles-Benavente & A. M. Ramos (Eds.), Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsibility in times of political crisis (pp. 146–162). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Clifford, J. , & Marcus, G. (Eds.). (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography . Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Coffey, A. , & Delamont, S. (2000). Feminism and the classroom teacher: Research, praxis, and pedagogy . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color . Stanford Law Review , 43 (6), 1241–1299.
• Culley, M. , & Portuges, C. (Eds.). (1985). Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching . Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
• Davies, B. (2003). Frogs and snails and feminist tales: Preschool children and gender . Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Davies, B. (2016). Emergent listening. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (pp. 73–84). New York, NY: Routledge.
• Davis, A. Y. (2016). Freedom is a constant struggle: Ferguson, Palestine, and the foundations of a movement . Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books.
• Denzin, N. K. , & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.). (2016). Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology ( G. C. Spivak , Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Digiovanni, L. W. , & Liston, D. D. (2005). Feminist pedagogy in the elementary classroom: An agenda for practice. Feminist Teacher , 15 (2), 123–131.
• Diller, A. , Houston, B. , Morgan, K. P. , & Ayim, M. (1996). The gender question in education: Theory, pedagogy, and politics . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• DuBois, E. C. , Kelly, G. P. , Kennedy, E. L. , Korsmeyer, C. W. , & Robinson, L. S. (1985). Feminist scholarship: Kindling in the groves of the academe . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Duncan-Andrade, J. M. , & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review , 59 (3), 297–324.
• Evans, B. , & Spivak, G. C. (2016, July 13). When law is not justice. New York Times (online).
• Gabriel, S. L. , & Smithson, I. (1990). Gender in the classroom: Power and pedagogy . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
• Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Gilligan, C. (2011). Joining the resistance . Malden, MA: Polity Press.
• Golden, C. (1998). The radicalization of a teacher. In G. E. Cohee , E. Däumer , T. D. Kemp , P. M. Krebs , S. Lafky , & S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher anthology . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Gottesman, I. H. (2016). The critical turn in education: From Marxist critique to poststructuralist feminism to critical theories of race . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Greene, M. (1994). Postmodernism and the crisis of representation. English Education , 26 (4), 206–219.
• Haddix, M. , McArthur, S. A. , Muhammad, G. E. , Price-Dennis, D. , & Sealey-Ruiz, Y. (2016). At the kitchen table: Black women English educators speaking our truths. English Education , 48 (4), 380–395.
• Hancock, E. (1989). The girl within . New York, NY: Fawcett Columbine.
• Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist Studies , 14 (3), 575–599.
• Harding, S. (1991). Whose science/Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Harding, S. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hesse-Biber, S. N. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook of feminist research: Theory and praxis . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
• Hill Collins, P. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Hoffman, N. J. (1985). Breaking silences: Life in the feminist classroom. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 147–154). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Holzman, L. (1986). What do teachers have to teach? Feminist Teacher , 2 (3), 23–24.
• Jackson, A. , & Mazzei, L. (2009). Voice in qualitative inquiry: Challenging conventional, interpretive, and critical conceptions in qualitative research . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jackson, A. Y. , & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Jackson, C. , Paechter, C. , & Renold, E. (2010). Girls and education 3–16: Continuing concerns, new agendas . Maidenhead, U.K.: Open University Press.
• Johnson, T. S. (2004). “It’s pointless to deny that that dynamic is there”: Sexual tensions in secondary classrooms. English Education , 37 (1), 5–29.
• Jones, S. , & Hughes, H. E. (2016). Changing the place of teacher education: Feminism, fear, and pedagogical paradoxes . Harvard Educational Review , 86 (2), 161–182.
• Kerkhoff, S. N. (2015). Dialogism: Feminist revision of argumentative writing instruction . Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice , 64 (1), 443–460.
• Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2016). Reconceptualizing qualitiative research: Methodologies without methodology . Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
• Koro-Ljungberg, M. , Löytönen, T. , & Tesar, M. (Eds.). (2017). Disrupting data in qualitative inquiry: Entanglements with the post-critical and post-anthropocentric . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Kuby, C. R. , & Rucker, T. G. (2016). Go be a writer! Expanding the curricular boundaries of literacy learning with children . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Lather, P. (1991). Feminist research in education: Within/against . Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press.
• Lauter, N. A. , & Dieterich, D. (1972). “Woman’s place in academe”: An ERIC Report. English Education , 3 (3), 169–173.
• Levinson, B. A. (1998). (How) can a man do feminist ethnography of education? Qualitative Inquiry , 4 (3), 337–368.
• Love, B. L. (2017). A ratchet lens: Black queer youth, agency, hip hop, and the Black ratchet imagination . Educational Researcher , 46 (9), 539–547.
• Low, S. M. , & Merry, S. E. (2010). Engaged anthropology: Diversity and dilemmas. Current Anthropology 51 (S2), S203–S226.
• Maher, F. (1985). Classroom pedagogy and the new scholarship on women. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 29–48). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Maher, F. A. , & Rathbone, C. H. (1986). Teacher education and feminist theory: Some implications for practice. American Journal of Education , 94 (2), 214–235.
• Maher, F. A. , & Tetreault, M. K. T. (1994). The feminist classroom: An inside look a how professors and students are transforming higher education for a diverse society . New York, NY: Basic Books.
• Martinez, D. C. (2016). “This ain’t the projects”: A researcher’s reflections on the local appropriateness of our research tools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 47 (1), 59–77.
• Mayberry, M. , & Rose, E. C. (1999). Meeting the challenge: Innovative feminist pedagogies in action . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Mazzei, L. A. (2007). Inhabited silence in qualitative research: Putting poststructural theory to work . New York, NY: Peter Lang.
• Mazzei, L. A. (2013). A voice without organs: interviewing in posthumanist research . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 26 (6), 732–740.
• McIntosh, P. (1990). Interactive phases of curricular and personal revision with regard to race . New York: State University of New York Press.
• McWilliam, E. (1994). In broken images: Feminist tales for a different teacher education . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Miller, N. K. (1985). Mastery, identity and the politics of work: A feminist teacher in the graduate classroom. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 195–202). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher , 36 , 388–400.
• National Coalition for Women and Girls in Education . (2002). Title IX at thirty: Report card on gender equity .
• Orenstein, P. (1994). Schoolgirls: Young women, self-esteem, and the confidence gap . New York, NY: Anchor Books.
• Papoulis, I. , & Smith, C. A. (1992). Could Cherryl or Irene just take a few minutes to explain this feminist view of literature? English Education , 24 (1), 52–60.
• Parson, L. (2016). Are STEM syllabi gendered? A feminist critical discourse analysis. Qualitative Report , 21 (1), 102–116.
• Pipher, M. (1994). Reviving Ophelia: Saving the selves of adolescent girls . New York, NY: Ballentine.
• Raymond, J. G. (1985). Women’s studies: A knowledge of one’s own. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 49–63). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Revelles-Benavente, B. , & Ramos, A. M. (Eds.). (2017). Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsiblity in times of political crisis . London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Rich, A. (1985). Taking women students seriously. In M. Culley & C. Portuges (Eds.), Gendered subjects: The dynamics of feminist teaching (pp. 21–28). Boston, MA: Routledge.
• Robertson, L. (1994). Feminist teacher education: Applying feminist pedagogies to the preparation of new teachers. Feminist Teacher , 8 (1), 11–15.
• Sadker, M. , & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How our schools cheat girls . New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
• Sánchez-Pardo, E. (2017). “It’s a hell of a responsibilty to be yourself”: Troubling the personal and the political in feminist pedagogy. In B. Revelles-Benavente & A. M. Ramos (Eds.), Teaching gender: Feminist pedagogy and responsibility in times of political crisis (pp. 64–80). London, U.K.: Routledge.
• Simon, L. (2007). Expanding literacies: Teachers’ inquiry research and multigenre texts. English Education , 39 (2), 146–176.
• Spivak, G. C. (1974). Translator’s preface. In J. Derrida Of grammatology ( G. C. Spivak , Trans.). (pp. ix–xc). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Spivak, G. C. (1988). Can the subaltern speak? Speculations on widow-sacrifice. Wedge , 7 (8), 120–130.
• Spivak, G. C. (2006). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Spivak, G. C. (2009). Outside in the teaching machine . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Spivak, G. C. (2012). An aesthetic education in the era of globalization . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Spivak, G. C. (2014). Readings . New York, NY: Seagull Books.
• St. Pierre, E. A. (2000). Poststructural feminism in education: An overview . International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education , 13 (5), 477–515.
• St. Pierre, E. A. (2016). The long reach of logical positivism/logical empiricism. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry through a critical lens (pp. 19–30). New York, NY: Routledge.
• St. Pierre, E. A. , & Pillow, W. S. (Eds.). (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and methods in education . New York, NY: Routledge.
• Thayer-Bacon, B. J. , Stone, L. , & Sprecher, K. M. (2013). Education feminism: Classic and contemporary readings . Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Thompson, B. (2002). Multiracial feminism: Recasting the chronology of second wave feminism . Feminist Studies , 28 (2), 337–360.
• Vandergrift, K. E. (1995). Female protagonists and beyond: Picture books for future feminists. Feminist Teacher , 9 (2), 61–69.
• Wallace, M. L. (1999). Beyond love and battle: Practicing feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher , 12 (3), 184–197.
• Warren, K. J. (1998). Rewriting the future: The feminist challenge to the malestream curriculum. In G. E. Cohee , E. Däumer , T. D. Kemp , P. M. Krebs , S. Lafky , & S. Runzo (Eds.), The feminist teacher anthology . New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
• Weiner, G. (1994). Feminisms in education: An introduction . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.
• Weisner, J. (2004). Awakening teacher voice and student voice: The development of a feminist pedagogy. Feminist Teacher , 15 (1), 34–47.
• Willinsky, J. (1987). Learning the language of difference: The dictionary in the high school. English Education , 19 (3), 146–158.
• Wissman, K. K. , Staples, J. M. , Vasudevan, L. , & Nichols, R. E. (2015). Cultivating research pedagogies with adolescents: Created spaces, engaged participation, and embodied inquiry. Anthropology & Education Quarterly , 46 (2), 186–197.
• Wolf, M. (1992). A thrice-told tale: Feminism, postmodernism, and ethnographic responsibility . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Related Articles

• Gender, Justice, and Equity in Education
• Education, Women, and the Politics of Curriculum
• Risky Truth-Making in Qualitative Inquiry
• Ecofeminism and Education
• Qualitative Approaches to Studying Marginalized Communities
• Poststructural Temporalities in School Ethnography
• Gender and Technology in Education
• Gender and the Superintendency
• Activism and Social Movement Building in Curriculum
• Gender Equitable Education and Technological Innovation

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 14 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.80.149.115]
• 185.80.149.115

Character limit 500 /500

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Korean J Med Educ
• v.29(2); 2017 Jun

The qualitative orientation in medical education research

Qualitative research is very important in educational research as it addresses the “how” and “why” research questions and enables deeper understanding of experiences, phenomena and context. Qualitative research allows you to ask questions that cannot be easily put into numbers to understand human experience. Getting at the everyday realities of some social phenomenon and studying important questions as they are really practiced helps extend knowledge and understanding. To do so, you need to understand the philosophical stance of qualitative research and work from this to develop the research question, study design, data collection methods and data analysis. In this article, I provide an overview of the assumptions underlying qualitative research and the role of the researcher in the qualitative process. I then go on to discuss the type of research objectives which are common in qualitative research, then introduce the main qualitative designs, data collection tools, and finally the basics of qualitative analysis. I introduce the criteria by which you can judge the quality of qualitative research. Many classic references are cited in this article, and I urge you to seek out some of these further reading to inform your qualitative research program.

Introduction

When we speak of “quantitative” or “qualitative” methodologies, we are in the final analysis speaking about an interrelated set of assumptions about the social world which are philosophical, ideological, and epistemological. They encompass more than just data collection methodologies [ 1 ].

It is easy to assume that the differences between quantitative and qualitative research are solely about how data is collected—the randomized controlled trial versus ethnographic fieldwork, the cohort study versus the semi-structured interview. However, quantitative and qualitative approaches make different assumptions about the world [ 2 ], about how science should be conducted, and about what constitutes legitimate problems, solutions and criteria of “proof” [ 3 ].

Why is it important to understand differences in assumptions, or philosophies, of research? Why not just go ahead and do a survey or carry out some interviews? First, the assumptions behind the research tools you choose provide guidance for conducting your research. They indicate whether you should be an objective observer or whether you have a contributory role in the research process. They guide whether or not you must slavishly ask each person in a study the same questions or whether your questions can evolve as the study progresses. Second, you may wish to submit your work as a dissertation or as a research paper to be considered for publication in a journal. If so, the chances are that examiners, editors, and reviewers might have knowledge of different research philosophies from yours and may be unwilling to accept the legitimacy of your approach unless you can make its assumptions clear. Third, each research paradigm has its own norms and standards, its accepted ways of doing things. You need to “do things right”. Finally, understanding the theoretical assumptions of the research approach helps you recognize what the data collection and analysis methods you are working with do well and what they do less well, and lets you design your research to take full advantage of their strengths and compensate for their weaknesses.

In this short article, I will introduce the assumptions of qualitative research and their implications for research questions, study design, methods and tools, and analysis and interpretation. Readers who wish a comparison between qualitative and quantitative approaches may find Cleland [ 4 ] useful.

Ontology and epistemology

We start with a consideration of the ontology (assumptions about the nature of reality) and epistemology (assumptions about the nature of knowledge) of qualitative research.

Qualitative research approaches are used to understand everyday human experience in all its complexity and in all its natural settings [ 5 ]. To do this, qualitative research conforms to notions that reality is socially constructed and that inquiry is unavoidably value-laden [ 6 ]. The first of these, reality is socially constructed, means reality cannot be measured directly—it exists as perceived by people and by the observer. In other words, reality is relative and multiple, perceived through socially constructed and subjective interpretations [ 7 ]. For example, what I see as an exciting event may be seen as a threat by other people. What is considered a cultural ritual in my country may be thought of as quite bizarre elsewhere. Qualitative research is concerned with how the social world is interpreted, understood, experienced, or constructed. Mann and MacLeod [ 8 ] provide a very good overview of social constructivism which is a excellent starting point for understanding this.

The idea of people seeing things in diverse ways also holds true in research process, hence inquiry being valued-laden. Different people have different views of the same thing depending on their upbringing and other experiences, their training, and professional background. Someone who has been trained as a social scientist may “see” things differently from someone who has been medically trained. A woman may see things differently to a man. A more experienced researcher will see things differently from a novice. A qualitative researcher will have very different views of the nature of “evidence” than a quantitative researcher. All these viewpoints are valid. Moreover, different researchers can study the same topic and try to find solutions to the same challenges using different study designs—and hence come up with different interpretations and different recommendations. For example, if your position is that learning is about individual, cognitive, and acquisitive processes, then you are likely to research the use of simulation training in surgery in terms of the effectiveness and efficacy of training related to mastery of technical skills [ 9 , 10 ]. However, if your stance is that learning is inherently a social activity, one which involves interactions between people or groups of people, then you will look to see how the relationships between faculty members, participants and activities during a simulation, and the wider social and cultural context, influence learning [ 11 , 12 ].

Whether researchers are explicit about it or not, ontological and epistemological assumptions will underpin how they study aspects of teaching and learning. Differences in these assumptions shape not only study design, but also what emerges as data, how this data can be analysed and even the conclusions that can be drawn and recommendations that can be made from the study. This is referred to as worldview, defined by Creswell [ 13 ] as “a general orientation about the world and the nature of research that a researcher holds.” McMillan [ 14 ] gives a very good explanation of the importance of this phenomenon in relation to medical education research. There is increasing expectation that researchers make their worldview explicit in research papers.

The research objective

Given the underlying premise that reality is socially constructed, qualitative research focuses on answering “how” and “why” questions, of understanding a phenomena or a context. For example, “Our study aimed to answer the research question: why do assessors fail to report underperformance in medical students? [ 15 ]”, “The aim of this work was to investigate how widening participation policy is translated and interpreted for implementation at the level of the individual medical school [ 4 ].”

Common verbs in qualitative research questions are identify, explore, describe, understand, and explain. If your research question includes words like test or measure or compare in your objectives, these are more appropriate for quantitative methods, as they are better suited to these types of aims. Bezuidenhout and van Schalkwyk [ 16 ] provide a good guide to developing and refining your research question. Lingard [ 17 ]’s notion of joining the conversation and the problem-gap-hook heuristic are also very useful in terms of thinking about your question and setting it out in the introduction to a paper in such a way as to interest journal editors and readers.

Do not think formulating a research question is easy. Maxwell [ 18 ] gives a good overview of some of the potential issues including being too general, making assumptions about the nature of the issue/problem and using questions which focus the study on difference rather than process. Developing relevant, focused, answerable research questions takes time and generating good questions requires that you pay attention not just to the questions themselves but to their connections with all the other components of the study (the conceptual lens/theory, the methods) [ 18 ].

Theory can be applied to qualitative studies at different times during the research process, from the selection of the research phenomenon to the write-up of the results. The application of theory at different points can be described as follows [ 19 , 20 , 21 ]: (1) Theory frames the study questions, develops the philosophical underpinnings of the study, and makes assumptions to justify or rationalize the methodological approach. (2) Qualitative investigations relate the target phenomenon to the theory. (3) Theory provides a comparative context or framework for data analysis and interpretation. (4) Theory provides triangulation of study findings.

Schwartz-Barcott et al. [ 20 ] characterized those processes as theoretical selectivity (the linking of selected concepts with existing theories), theoretical integration (the incorporation and testing of selected concepts within a particular theoretical perspective), and theory creation (the generation of relational statements and the development of a new theory). Thus, theory can be the outcome of the research project as well as the starting point [ 22 ].

However, the emerging qualitative researcher may wish a little more direction on how to use theory in practice. I direct you to two papers: Reeves et al. [ 23 ] and Bordage [ 24 ]. These authors clearly explain the utility of theory, or conceptual frameworks, in qualitative research, how theory can give researchers different “lenses” through which to look at complicated problems and social issues, focusing their attention on different aspects of the data and providing a framework within which to conduct their analysis. Bordage [ 24 ] states that “conceptual frameworks represent ways of thinking about a problem or a study, or ways of representing how complex things work the way they do. Different frameworks will emphasise different variables and outcomes.” He presents an example in his paper and illustrates how different lens highlight or emphasise different aspects of the data. Other authors suggest that two theories are potentially better than one in exploring complex social issues [ 25 ]. There is an example of this in one of my papers, where we used the theories of Bourdieu [ 26 ] and Engestrom [ 27 , 28 ] nested within an overarching framework of complexity theory [ 29 ] to help us understand learning at a surgical bootcamp. However, I suggest that for focused studies and emerging educational researchers, one theoretical framework or lens is probably sufficient.

So how to identify an appropriate theory, and when to use it? It is crucially important to read widely, to explore lots of theories, from disciplines such as (but not only) education, psychology, sociology, and economics, to see what theory is available and what may be suitable for your study. Carefully consider any theory, check its assumptions [ 30 ] are congruent with your approach, question, and context before final selection [ 31 ] before deciding which theory to use. The time you spend exploring theory will be time well spent in terms not just of interpreting a specific data set but also to broadening your knowledge. The second question, when to use it, depends on the nature of the study, but generally the use of theory in qualitative research tends to be inductive; that is, building explanations from the ground up, based on what is discovered. This typically means that theory is brought in at the analysis stage, as a lens to interpret data.

In the qualitative approach, the activities of collecting and analyzing data, developing and modifying theory, and elaborating or refocusing the research questions, are usually going on more or less simultaneously, each influencing all of the others for a useful model of qualitative research design [ 18 ]. The researcher may need to reconsider or modify any design decision during the study in response to new developments. In this way, qualitative research design is less linear than quantitative research, which is much more step-wise and fixed.

This is not the same as no structure or plan. Most qualitative projects are pre-structured at least in terms of the equivalent of a research protocol, setting out what you are doing (aims and objectives), why (why is this important), and how (theoretical underpinning, design, methods, and analysis). I have provided a brief overview of common approaches to qualitative research design below and direct you to the numerous excellent textbooks which go into this in more detail [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 ].

There are five basic categories of qualitative research design: ethnography, narrative, phenomenological, grounded theory, and case study [ 13 , 32 ].

2. Ethnography

In ethnography, you immerse yourself in the target participants’ environment to understand the goals, cultures, challenges, motivations, and themes that emerge. Ethnography has its roots in cultural anthropology where researchers immerse themselves within a culture, often for years. Through multiple data collection approaches—observations, interviews and documentary data, ethnographic research offers a qualitative approach with the potential to yield detailed and comprehensive accounts of different social phenomenon (actions, behavior, interactions, and beliefs). Rather than relying on interviews or surveys, you experience the environment first hand, and sometimes as a “participant observer” which gives opportunity to gather empirical insights into social practices which are normally “hidden” from the public gaze. Reeves et al. [ 36 ] give an excellent guide to ethnography in medical education which is essential reading if you are interested in using this approach.

3. Narrative

The narrative approach weaves together a sequence of events, usually from just one or two individuals to form a cohesive story. You conduct in-depth interviews, read documents, and look for themes; in other words, how does an individual story illustrate the larger life influences that created it. Often interviews are conducted over weeks, months, or even years, but the final narrative does not need to be in chronological order. Rather it can be presented as a story (or narrative) with themes, and can reconcile conflicting stories and highlight tensions and challenges which can be opportunities for innovation.

4. Phenomenology

Phenomenology is concerned with the study of experience from the perspective of the individual, “bracketing” taken-for-granted assumptions and usual ways of perceiving. Phenomenological approaches emphasise the importance of personal perspective and interpretation. As such they are powerful for understanding subjective experience, gaining insights into people’s motivations and actions, and cutting through the clutter of taken-for-granted assumptions and conventional wisdom.

Phenomenological approaches can be applied to single cases or to selected samples. A variety of methods can be used in phenomenologically-based research, including interviews, conversations, participant observation, action research, focus meetings, and analysis of personal texts. Beware though—phenomenological research generates a large quantity data for analysis.

The phenomenological approach is used in medical education research and there are some good articles which will familiarise you with this approach [ 37 , 38 ].

5. Grounded theory

Whereas a phenomenological study looks to describe the essence of an activity or event, grounded theory looks to provide an explanation or theory behind the events. Its main thrust is to generate theories regarding social phenomena: that is, to develop higher level understanding that is “grounded” in, or derived from, a systematic analysis of data [ 39 ]. Grounded theory is appropriate when the study of social interactions or experiences aims to explain a process, not to test or verify an existing theory. Rather, the theory emerges through a close and careful analysis of the data.

The key features of grounded theory are its iterative study design, theoretical (purposive) sampling, and cycles of simultaneous data collection and analysis, where analysis informs the next cycle of data collection. In keeping with this iterative design, the sample is not set at the outset but is selected purposefully as the analysis progresses; participants are chosen for their ability to confirm or challenge an emerging theory. As issues of interest are noted in the data, they are compared with other examples for similarities and differences.

Grounded theory was first proposed by Glaser and Strauss [ 40 ] in 1967 but since then there have been many interpretations of this approach, each with their own processes and norms [ 41 , 42 , 43 ].

Beware—grounded theory is often done very badly, and numerous studies are rejected by journals because they claim to use grounded theory but do not actually do so, or do so badly.

6. Case study

Researcher Yin [ 44 ] defines the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of evidence are used. The case study method enables a researcher to closely examine the data within a specific context—for example, in a small geographical area or a very limited number of individuals as the subjects of study. Case studies explore and investigate contemporary real-life phenomenon through detailed contextual analysis of a limited number of events or conditions, and their relationships. A case study involves a deep understanding through multiple types of data sources. For example, we used case study methodology recently to explore the nature of the clinical learning environment in a general surgical unit, and used both documents and interviews as data sources. Case studies can be explanatory, exploratory, or describing an event [ 44 ] and case study design can be very open or more structured [ 45 ]. Case studies are a useful approach where the focus is to explain the complexities of real life situations.

While the five methods generally use similar data collection techniques (observation, interviews, and reviewing text—see below), the purpose of the study differentiates them.

Data collection methods

The qualitative methods most commonly used for research purposes can be classified in three broad categories: (1) interviews (individual or group), (2) observation methods, and (3) document review.

The qualitative research interview seeks to describe and gain understanding of certain themes in the life world of the subjects. Interviews can be organised one-to-one or group (focus groups) depending on the topic under study, the cultural context, and the aims of the project. Observational data collection in qualitative research involves the detailed observation of people and events to learn about behaviors and interactions in natural settings [ 46 ]. Such study designs are useful when the study goal is to understand cultural aspects of a setting or phenomenon [ 47 ], when the situation of interest is hidden, (tacit), or when subjects in the setting appear to have notably different views to other groups. Written materials or documents such as institutional records, personal diaries, and historical public documents may also serve as a valuable source of secondary data, providing insight into the lives and experiences of the group under study. For example, in one of my recent studies we used document analysis to uncover the thinking behind the design of a new medical school, then carried out interviews with “users” of the new building to explore how the intentions of the planners played out in reality. However, this is only one way of incorporating document analysis into a study: see Bowen [ 48 ] for an excellent introduction to the purpose and practicalities of document review within qualitative research.

See Dicicco-Bloom and Crabtree [ 49 ] for a useful summary of the content and process of the qualitative research interview, Creswell [ 50 ] for further discussion of the many different approaches in qualitative research and their common characteristics.

1. Data management

Qualitative research may use some form of quantification, but statistical forms of analysis are not central [ 51 ]. Instead, qualitative data analysis aims to uncover emerging themes, patterns, concepts, insights, and understandings [ 52 ]. The data are allowed to “speak for themselves” by the emergence of conceptual categories and descriptive themes. Trying to squeeze narratives into boxes (like “0” and “1”) would result in the loss of contextualisation and narrative layering. The researcher must immerse themselves in the data in order to be able to see meaningful patterns and themes, making notes as they go through the processes of data collection and analysis, and then using these notes to guide the analysis strategy.

Qualitative data has to be managed before it can be analysed—you can generate a lot of data from just a few interviews or observations! You may want to use a specialist qualitative database to facilitate data management and analysis. NVivo is a well-known qualitative data analysis software package (note that qualitative software packages enable you to make and store notes, and explanations of your codes, so you do not need to juggle bits of paper and electronic data files). These and similar databases are available commercially (i.e., at a cost) and are used widely by universities. The choice of database may be dictated by the resources of your institution, your personal preference, and/or what technical support is available locally. However, if you do not have access to qualitative data management software, then use paper and pencil: read and re-read transcripts, take notes on specifics and the bigger patterns, and label different themes with different coloured pen. You do all this in a software package anyway, as data management software does not describe or analyse your data for you. See Cleland et al. [ 53 ] for comprehensive guidance on how to use qualitative databases in education research.

Data analysis

While bearing in mind that qualitative data collection and analysis are iterative rather than linear (see earlier), Miles and Huberman [ 54 ] explain the process of qualitative data analysis as (1) data reduction (extracting the essence), (2) data display (organizing for meaning), and (3) drawing conclusions (explaining the findings).

Data analysis usually follows an inductive approach where the data are allowed to “speak for themselves” by the emergence of conceptual categories and descriptive themes. The researcher must be open to multiple possibilities or ways to think about a problem, engaging in “mental excursions” using multiple stimuli, “side-tracking” or “zigzagging,” changing patterns of thinking, making linkages between the “seemingly unconnected,” and “playing at it,” all with the intention of “opening the world to us in some way” [ 52 ]. The researcher must immerse themselves in the data in order to be able to see meaningful patterns and themes, making notes as they go through the processes of data collection and analysis, and then using these notes to guide the analysis strategy and the development of a coding framework.

In this way, good qualitative research has a logical chain of reasoning, multiple sources of converging evidence to support an explanation, and rules out rival hypotheses with convincing arguments and solid data. The wider literature and theory are used to derive analytical frameworks as the process of analysis develops and different interpretations of the data are likely to be considered before the final argument is built. For example, one of our own studies aimed to explore how widening access policy is translated and implemented at the level of individual medical schools [ 4 ]. Data was collected via individual interviews with key personnel. We initially conducted a primary level thematic analysis to determine themes. After the themes emerged, and following further team discussion, we explored the literature, identified and considered various theories, in some depth, before identifying the most appropriate theory or conceptual lens for a secondary, theory-driven analysis.

There are some excellent text books which discuss qualitative data analysis in detail [ 35 , 55 ].

Judging the quality of research

There are various criteria by which you can judge the quality of qualitative research. These link to efforts by the research team to consider their findings. The most common ways of doing so are triangulation, respondent validation, reflexivity, detail and process, and fair dealing [ 56 ] (but see also Varpio et al. [ 57 ] for a detailed discussion of the limitations of some of these methods).

Triangulation compares the results from either two or more different methods of data collection (for example, interviews and observation) or, more simply, two or more data sources (for example, interviews with different people). The researcher looks for patterns of convergence to develop or corroborate an overall interpretation. This is as a way of ensuring comprehensiveness. Respondent validation, or “member checking,” includes techniques in which the investigator’s account is compared with those of the research subjects to establish the level of correspondence between the two sets. Study participants’ reactions to the analyses are then incorporated into the study findings. Providing a clear account of the process of data collection and analysis is important. By the end of the study, it should be possible to provide a clear account of how early, simple coding evolved into more sophisticated coding structures and thence into clearly defined concepts and explanations for the data collected. Reflexivity is discussed earlier but in terms of analysis reflexivity means sensitivity to the ways in which the researcher and the research process have shaped the collected data, including the role of prior assumptions and experience. These two points address credibility, whether the study has been conducted well and the findings seem reasonable. It is important to pay attention to “negative cases,” data that contradict, or seem to contradict, the emerging explanation of the phenomena under study. These can be a very useful source of information in terms of refining the analysis and thinking beyond the obvious. The final technique is to ensure that the research design explicitly incorporates a wide range of different perspectives. In practice this can mean presenting data from a wide range of diverse participants. A very practical point is worth mentioning here—any reviewer will want to see quotes labelled in some way; for example, P11FFG2 would be participant 11, female, focus group 2). This helps the reader see that your data does not just represent the view of one or two people, but that there is indeed some sort of pattern or commonality to report.

Guba and Lincoln [ 58 ] provide the following criteria for judging qualitative research: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. I direct you to the original resource and to a very good explanation of these criteria in Mann and MacLeod [ 8 ].

Qualitative research is very important in educational research as it addresses the “how” and “why” research questions and enables deeper understanding of experiences, phenomena, and context. Qualitative research allows you to ask questions that cannot be easily put into numbers to understand human experience. Getting at the everyday realities of some social phenomenon and studying important questions as they are really practiced helps answer big questions. To do so, you need to understand the philosophical stance of qualitative research and work from this to develop the research question, study design, data collection methods, and data analysis.

Publishing mathematics education research in English: amplifying voices from the field

• Open access
• Published: 13 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Lisa Darragh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7723-1710 1 ,
• Karin Brodie   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3959-7401 2 ,
• Anjum Halai   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5304-9762 3 ,
• Núria Planas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5199-6336 4 ,
• Despina Potari   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7599-5052 5 ,
• Manuel Santos-Trigo   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7144-2098 6 ,
• Thorsten Scheiner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1118-5958 7 , 8 &
• Janet Walkoe   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5675-9767 9  

In this paper we investigate the issue of representation within the Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (JMTE) and the broader academic publishing landscape, particularly focusing on the underrepresentation of authors from various world regions. A questionnaire, distributed globally, aimed to amplify the voices of the underrepresented, exploring the constraints and affordances of publishing in English-medium mathematics education research journals. The question that guided our investigation was: What do voices from the mathematics education community raise in their responses to questions about publishing in English-medium research journals like JMTE? We used qualitative methods to review the responses and identify common themes. The findings revealed significant barriers and challenges related to language, research location, and institutional support, highlighting the complexities of navigating the global academic community and the academic publishing culture. We propose actionable suggestions to foster a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive publishing environment.

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Aligned to its international standing, the Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (JMTE) wishes to publish articles from a broad geographical distribution. Yet the most recent Springer statistics presented to the Editorial Board showed us that some countries were underrepresented through disproportionately high rejection rates, while other countries had very low submission rates (for more details and statistics see Scheiner et al., 2024 ). Knowledge of these figures raised important questions about whether JMTE unintentionally creates barriers to the participation of authors from some world regions, or whether authors from different world regions have different opportunities to publish in JMTE. We wondered about possible impacts of overrepresentation, underrepresentation or the potential misrepresentation of regions on the research conducted, valued, and supported in the field. It was immediately clear to us that we had a representation problem, a problem that we read as being a challenge to equity, diversity, and inclusion for the journal. For this paper, we define the representation problem as threefold in relation to scarce diversity in geographical representation, potential exclusion of scholars whose main languages are not English, and potential inequities in the publication process.

This representation problem is shared by other international mathematics education research journals (see, e.g. Mesa, 2004 ; Mesa & Wagner, 2019 ). In fact, mathematics education as a field has reflexively examined the published research regarding issues of representation, including underrepresentation, overrepresentation, and misrepresentation (Abtahi & Planas, 2024 ). Themes evident in this body of literature centre on the English language dominance of the field (Caron, 2017 ; Geiger et al., 2022 ; Meaney, 2013 ; Mesa, 2004 ); tensions between the local context versus global relevance (Brodie, 2022 ; Caron, 2017 ; Goos, 2019 ; Vithal et al., 2023 ) and issues of power throughout the publishing process (Andrade-Molina et al., 2020 ; Mesa & Wagner, 2019 ; Valoyes-Chávez et al., 2021 ; Vithal et al., 2023 ; Wagner, 2021 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ) including those issues related to peer review (Lee et al., 2012 ; Mesa et al., 2021 ; Wagner, 2021 ). Clearly substantiated by literature evidence, our representation problem was worthy of further investigation.

As one of several actions (see Brodie, 2022 ; Scheiner et al., 2024 ), we decided to survey voices in the field. This action was situated in the context of our own agenda as an “equity, diversity, and inclusion committee” set up by the JMTE editorial board in 2022. We created a questionnaire, to be disseminated to the mathematics education community worldwide, in which we asked respondents to share some of the constraints and affordances of publishing in mathematics education journals such as JMTE. Our aim was to provide a way for underrepresented authors to voice their experiences, thus adding insight to the representation issue mentioned above. Our view of diversity went beyond geography, and we hoped to hear from both researchers in underrepresented regions and researchers marginalised within well-represented world regions. In this paper, we present an overview of the questionnaire findings regarding barriers to publishing so that we may further the conversation within the mathematics education community on this important issue of representation in academic publishing.

Literature background

One roadblock for publishing in an English-medium research journal such as JMTE may be the language, as has been noted by editors and published authors in mathematics education journals. As outlined by Meaney ( 2013 ), English has become the “lingua franca” of the mathematics education research community. Having one dominating language of communication confers both benefits and disadvantages; the greatest risk being that we may lose the diversity of perspectives that come from non-Western and non-English speaking countries. Geiger et al. ( 2022 ) use Bakhtin’s notion of heteroglossia to explore how converging on a single language constrains the diversity of ideas generated by the field and argue that the extent of the problem is greatly underestimated by native English speakers. Caron ( 2017 ) shares the “Francophone” perspective in a self-reflective paper about how difficult it is to express thoughts in English when it is not one’s main language. She notes that mathematics education is sensitive and complex, requiring a “delicate use of words” (p. 13). Goos ( 2019 ) furthers the argument by suggesting that language issues go beyond technical difficulties as barriers can arise from the subtle differences between semantic fields. Language support in the editorial process is important, but insufficient to address underrepresentation and the extreme of misrepresentation (Mesa & Wagner, 2019 ).

The above issues of language are connected to globalisation of mathematics education (Geiger et al., 2022 ; Mesa & Wagner, 2019 ). With so much of the research field already dominated by a few, this means those who come from less represented regions may be faced with additional challenges. Context provides a “rich source” of problems for investigation, necessary for rationalising and substantiating any given study, yet international journals require one to go beyond the local and speak to international relevance (Goos, 2019 ). This raises the question of to whom it might be relevant. In a publishing context dominated by the Global North (Vithal et al., 2023 ) the making relevant of a study may mean instead altering the concerns to match those of majority groups in majority countries (Mesa & Wagner, 2019 ). Wagner et al. ( 2020 ) ask, to whose mathematics experience the research attends. An example of this may be seen in the way manuscripts from the USA do not always explain their contexts, and perhaps USA-based reviewers do not expect them to (Goos, 2019 ), while authors from other countries are required to. Another example is provided by Caron ( 2017 ) who researches in Quebec—a French speaking province of Canada. Here the situation is reversed, as the research location reflects North American concerns that are not well understood by the French journals targeted for this work.

Also connected to the specific challenges of language and context, the setting of many Western publishing contexts creates structural and colonial issues in the neoliberal publishing discourse (Meaney, 2013 ). The “publish or perish” mantra has greater implications for those from non-English speaking countries who must nevertheless publish in prestigious, typically English-medium, journals (Valoyes-Chávez et al., 2021 ) to show that they are sufficiently competitive. Journal ranking systems and metrics themselves contribute to sites of exclusion (Andrade-Molina et al., 2020 ) and citation devices, together with funding requirements, constitute a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle (Meaney, 2013 ). The systems of peer review are implicated and shaped by issues of power (Valoyes-Chávez et al., 2021 ). Bias in peer review reflects all the above issues already discussed, for example language bias in review is somewhat mitigated by having blind reviewers (Lee et al., 2012 ), demonstrating how it is easier to “see” language problems when you already know an author is from a non-English speaking country. Bias also exists related to the content of the manuscript submitted (Lee et al., 2012 ), for example when not reflecting the majority concerns as previously discussed. A fair review, by contrast, notes that there are many types of “Englishes,” takes the author’s perspective (Mesa et al., 2021 ), and focuses on the novel contribution of the manuscript (Wagner, 2021 ). An initiative of editors in 2020–2021 to address this issue of bias in reviewing led to signing of a joint statement. Footnote 1 This statement includes: “Presumptions of racial and cultural superiority in reviewing have in that way added to a chronic silencing of the voices of authors from historically oppressed groups in society at large.” (Choppin & Battey et al., 2021 , para 1; see also Scheiner et al., 2024 ).

While the literature reviewed briefly here raises important issues, we note that this work largely comes from those already amplified voices; many of these authors are privileged as editors of English-language journals in mathematics education. Although the authors have experience and a perspective on such issues, they do not tend to face them personally. Comparatively absent are perspectives from the underrepresented members of our mathematics education research community, such as those from non-English-speaking countries, the Global South, or those who have not been able to publish their research in English-medium journals. The need to hear from these other voices, and to understand how different expressions of the problem of representation matters to their research and academic lives, is clear.

The following question guided our investigation: What do voices from the mathematics education community raise in their responses to questions about publishing in English-medium research journals like JMTE?

Methodological approach

Our study belongs to the body of mathematics education research utilising survey questionnaires to gather information in relation to complex international topics that require collective understanding by seeing individual or local experiences together. Bakker et al. ( 2021 ), for example, used similar survey methods to collect questionnaire data around the topic of what themes research in mathematics education should focus on in the decade starting in 2020. Matthews et al. ( 2022 ) also used survey methods around the topic of equity in mathematics education. These are examples of survey studies that, like ours, produced a quantity of data to support the qualitative discussion of the participants’ responses, beyond descriptive measures.

The broad aim of our study was to inform our efforts in making JMTE more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. Yet we chose not to limit ourselves to this journal only, assuming that our findings would have relevance to the wider community. More specifically, the main aim for our research was to unpack potential causes for the lack of global geographical representation in published articles within English-medium mathematics education journals. As a first step to improving representation, we needed a better understanding of the issues faced by participants of the mathematics education research community worldwide.

The questionnaire design and procedures were submitted to the first author’s institution and ethical approval was obtained. During the meetings to design our questionnaire, we considered and discussed several candidate questions in English, and how they could be put in combination. We were aware that the problem of representation is multidimensional, hence not easily measurable or associated with a unique set of questions. Nonetheless, we were also aware that our chosen questions would prompt responses in different directions. Correspondingly, we formulated open questions that would allow us to access reasons or explanations underlying the representation problem as seen by participants.

From June 2022 we each distributed the questionnaire invite among our networks, for example to our personal mailing lists, social media groups, conference contacts, and we used a snowballing recruitment by asking people to pass along the invite. Because we are ourselves a geographically diverse group (based on five continents), this immediately generated a wide distribution. To expand the recruitment of geographic regions further, one author translated the questionnaire into Spanish, Footnote 2 for distribution in Spanish-speaking countries, and the English language version of the questionnaire invite was published in an editorial of JMTE (Brodie, 2022 ). The link to both language versions of the questionnaire was presented with an introductory information letter. In this letter, we presented ourselves as “a committee made up of members of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (JMTE)” with the goal being “to expand the scope of manuscript submissions and publications from historically underrepresented countries and people”.

The questionnaire

Participation in our final questionnaire, with 12 questions, was intended to take no more than ten minutes and included:

Demographic and career questions: Which country are you based in? What position do you hold? What is your main area of research interest?

Questions about access to research articles and institutional support: What percentage of your work is allocated to research? How is your institutional access to journals? How do you access articles you wish to read?

Questions about experiences of publishing in mathematics education journals generally: In what type of journals have you published? What aspects do you consider when selecting a journal for your manuscript?

Questions about experiences of publishing in JMTE specifically: Have you published in/submitted to JMTE and Do you read JMTE articles? Would you like to comment on your experiences of the reviewing process?

Two final open-ended questions: What challenges/barriers do you face in getting your writing published? What supports are available to you to help get your writing published? (e.g. from your institution, from peers, from journals) . Note these open questions were not specific to JMTE.

The respondents

Our reach through e-mail lists and local networks in search of potential respondents was wide. We obtained 416 responses from people based in 72 countries (Table  1 ) and with differing prior experience of publishing in JMTE (Table  2 ). On the one hand, some of our choices during the questionnaire design (e.g. the preparation of a Spanish version of the survey) visibly had an impact on the final sample. On the other hand, the distribution through wider lists and networks favoured the participation of respondents who were not influenced by collaboration with us, hence attaining a more diverse selection.

Though a substantial number of responses come from the USA, making North America the most dominant region in this dataset, a wide array of countries is represented, from every continent. It is worth noting that we would not expect participation to be proportional to population. Some countries have small communities of mathematics education researchers in comparison with their population. In Pakistan, for example, mathematics education is part of education courses, but active academic research in this field is limited to two or three institutions of higher learning. This highlights the difficulties in defining what might constitute an adequate representation globally.

To dig more deeply into the results, we decided to group countries according to whether they were from the Global North or Global South. This was not unproblematic as definitions are not always consistent. We settled on a classification list from Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South ), which places countries from Africa, Central and South America, and parts of Asia and Australasia in the Global South, and regions such as Europe, North America, and other parts of Asia and Australasia in the Global North. However, we acknowledge that any such decision is inherently questionable (see Scheiner et al., 2024 , for elaboration).

Directly related to our aim of learning about experiences of publishing in JMTE specifically, we asked respondents about their interest to submit to and read the journal, as shown in Table  2 .

This table shows that our questionnaire reached researchers who would have liked to publish in journals such as JMTE. Many respondents read the journal, and many were interested in submitting, but far fewer had gone on to publish in the journal, suggesting that respondents may have faced barriers to successful publication. Further, while approximately one-third of respondents to these questions were from the Global South, this proportion certainly does not reflect the proportion of those who have published in the journal.

The analytical methods

As a group we met virtually once per month over one year and a half to discuss the questionnaire data. Our first wave of analysis involved creating a spreadsheet of the data, organising the responses to each question, and creating categories and counts of the data. As our meetings progressed, we decided that we wanted to focus on quantitative results coming from the itemised questions but also on qualitative insights coming from the open questions posed to the participants. Several potential themes were evident in the reflective and exploratory discussions around what the voices of the participants had raised about publishing in English-medium research journals like JMTE. Our reading of the literature also informed this process.

To generate themes, we adopted a theme investigation approach (van Leeuwen et al., 2020 ), where a theme is seen as a tool aimed at reframing a given problem by understanding its underlying issues and the root causes for its complexity. We followed van Leeuwen et al., ( 2020 ) steps of identifying themes, immersing ourselves in them, sharing and discussing, reflecting, and finally visualising and connecting. To produce themes, the diversity within the team and the process of continuous discussion were fundamental. Some of us had similar personal and professional experiences to those reported in questionnaire responses. This provided an additional perspective of intersubjectivity to the analytical processes.

Our themes were generated from responses across the dataset; however, in our presentation of findings we focus primarily on responses related to barriers to publishing as these emerged strongly in the dataset, and these were our main goal for investigation. All the original categories we created and counted in the first stage of analysis are represented in the final themes; for example, one barrier was “time,” and another was “finances” and these both contributed to the institutional constraints theme. Because the questions we analysed were open-ended, we do not present counts of our resulting themes; we felt this quantification would be a false representation of the opinions expressed. There were many ways to answer the questions, and choosing to answer in one way does not preclude agreement with another answer. We believe the themes we present in the following section will resonate with readers.

We made several decisions when grouping our data, such as by Global North and Global South, as discussed above. We also acknowledge that we could have divided the responses differently. For example, we considered separating predominantly English-speaking from non-English-speaking countries to assist in our consideration of the role of language in publishing experiences. However, we soon saw that there were many people with English as a second (or third) language who were working in English-speaking countries and we decided against making this categorisation as it did not allow us to compare between respondents who did and did not face language challenges. In any quotes from respondents, we have chosen to give the country they specified, yet we emphasise that this identification may hide the marginalised experience for the respondent, as is often evident in the quote itself.

In the sections to follow, we present an overview of our findings regarding barriers faced in publishing, we note how these align with the research literature, and we conclude with answers to our research questions and make recommendations for the field of mathematics education.

Amplifying voices from the field: an overview of findings

We report the findings in three sections that point to three broad themes: Language; Research location; and Institutional constraints. In each section we define and elaborate our understanding of the theme and illustrate with verbatim quotes from the questionnaire data.

Theme 1. Language

Over half the respondents to our survey were either based in countries where English is not an official language, or they self-identified as not speaking English as one of their home languages. These respondents provided important insights into different language-related challenges they face. These challenges go beyond the technicalities of translation and are particularly pronounced for non-native English speakers. They include nuances of meaning and cultural significations associated with expressing complex ideas in another language, alongside broader implications for academic participation and visibility within our community.

It is worth emphasising that language may be a broadly experienced challenge. For example, some survey participants are based in countries where English serves as the official language, such as the USA, or as a common language, whether officially (e.g. South Africa) or unofficially (e.g. Sweden). The sociolinguistic realities of the participants’ countries do not uniformly determine the experiences of English-related challenges in academic publishing. For instance, two participants from USA remarked, “English is not my first language, so some challenges are related to just editing before submission,” and “Language is definitely another barrier”. Similarly, two participants from South Africa noted, “Consult English first language speaker,” and “Difficulty to write high standard English papers, especially, if English is not my first or home language”. A respondent from Sweden mentioned the need for support with the English language, adding, “even though I’m classified as native speaker”. This illustrates that a subset of participants in countries where English is a common language (e.g. within institutions and media), who are themselves bilingual or multilingual with English as one of their languages, face challenges with academic writing in English.

Articulating ideas in English

Several respondents underscored the challenges associated with articulating complex ideas in English, highlighting the difficulties in formulating ideas in English that might be expressed more naturally or precisely in their home languages. For example, a participant from Greece explained: “It is demanding for a non-native English speaker to express ideas”. Similarly, a respondent from Germany remarked, “Actually, writing in English is maximum 95% as precise for me as I wish. So, language is an issue, still after 30 years in the field”. These comments underline the difficulty of articulating complex ideas in the academic writing register of a language other than a home language of the researcher, as well as the challenge of translating nuanced ideas into academic written English while retaining their original meaning and impact.

Issues around use of academic language for publishing in English are entwined with broader, more complex issues, such as the role of language in the development of thinking and mental structures. This relationship is highlighted by the experiences and observations of some respondents. For instance, one participant from Chile noted the distinct cognitive frameworks and mental structures among Latinx, attributing these differences to more than linguistic factors: “English and Latinos think differently, we have others mental structures, it can be the language as well as the idiosyncrasy of the country itself” (Chile). This perspective underscores the profound impact of language, as perceived by some authors, on thought processes that are seen as idiosyncratic of featured communication and shaping academic expression and communication.

Additionally, some respondents expressed a sense of disadvantage due to their non-native status in English. For instance, a participant from the Czech Republic stated, “… Native speakers have great advantage in that they can formulate ideas in English scientifically”. A respondent from Portugal mentioned, “My poor confidence in writing in English, it takes me longer to make a decision”. These remarks reveal a perceived barrier that affects their confidence and ease in the academic publishing process. It is noteworthy how these participants seem to equate English nativeness with proficiency in academic English writing or the ability to use “English scientifically”. This perspective contrasts with the views expressed by the respondent from Sweden, as well as by other participants from the USA and South Africa, suggesting that fluency in academic English writing may also be an issue for native English speakers. Distinguishing academic English from English proficiency in general is important because understanding journal writing as a genre with multiple registers is a challenge for both people who have and who do not have English as a home language. Cummins ( 2000 ) identified and made a distinction between academic Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) and social Basic Interpersonal Communication Skill (BICS). Developing CALP or academic language proficiency in a language that is not a home language, however, implies additional challenges that may not be visible to all or distinguishable from the quality of the research.

Some participants pointed to issues of “linguistic classism” and “prejudices” in English academic publishing:

… we often face challenges in English writing, so some editors/reviewers adopt a kind of linguistic classism (sorry for being rude but this is how we feel many times) in which linguistic issues take precedence over the quality of the research (Spain).

Some respondents mentioned the high linguistic standards expected by prestigious journals as a significant barrier for authors who do not have English as a home language, even affecting their choice of publication venues. For example, a respondent from Colombia stated they need to seek out journals in a language other than English, since they do not possess the level of English proficiency required for publication, even if this means publishing their research in a journal with a lower impact factor:

El otro gran limitante es el inglés que en mi caso no domino por lo que los que estamos en esta situación, a veces nos toca buscar revistas en español cuyo impacto suele ser menor en estos momentos. [ The other big limitation is English which, in my case, I do not master, so for those of us in this situation, sometimes we have to find journals in Spanish which currently have lower impact: translated by authors] (Colombia).

This indicates that language barriers affect not only the writing process but also the selection of journals for submission.

The shift to journals published in languages other than English to navigate linguistic barriers, however, does not necessarily mitigate the challenges associated with academic writing. The issue of adhering to the academic register in written mode, regardless of the language of publication, was emphasised by another participant from Colombia, who pointed out the need for guidance on “every aspect of academic writing in international journals in Spanish or English”. Thus, the language barriers identified by some scholars are not solely tied to English; the academic register of journals, including those in Spanish, presents its own set of challenges.

The complexity of academic writing, and the issue of developing the CALP dimension as posed in Cummins ( 2000 ), raised by a variety of participants problematises or challenges any polarisation between English “natives” and English “non-natives” in the discussion of our survey data. We cannot know from our data how different the situation is between academic writing in English and academic writing in a home language for researchers whose dominant language is not English.

Desire for more inclusive publishing practices

Scholars underscored the critical need for support systems within the academic community to mitigate language issues, particularly for those who do not have English as a home language. For example, a respondent from Turkey stated, “Due to the fact that I am not a native English speaker, I usually receive a warning that my manuscript requires proofreading. I request that you provide free editing services”. This suggests a desire for more inclusive practices that accommodate non-native English speakers. In turn, the call for more inclusive practices extends beyond the provision of language support services to address deeper issues of epistemic diversity and epistemic justice within the research community. As stated by another respondent:

Another thing that could help is having a more diverse pool of editorial board members who can ‘see’ the articles and their quality beyond issues of language. Unprejudiced editorial members who are also knowledgeable and sensible about the epistemic positions of researchers from non-dominant groups (Chile).

Furthermore, some participants mentioned how the necessity of translating their manuscripts is a considerable and additional step in their publication process. A respondent from Mexico pointed out the complexities and financial burdens introduced by the need for professional translation service. Another participant elaborated:

The biggest barrier to publishing in English is the language barrier. While there is a competence to communicate in English, writing an academic text in another language is much more complex. This implies that it must be sent for translation, and many times, the translators do not maintain the sense that the author wanted to give it (for linguistic or grammatical reasons). In addition, this sending for translation requires a payment that is not cheap (Chile).

The need for translation, and the associated challenges and costs, highlight the difficulties in ensuring that the nuanced meanings and intentions of the author are preserved.

My institution hires a free proofreading service for our manuscript. However, they are not mathematics educators and non-native English speakers. Therefore, their language editing does not help that much. (Turkey)

These insights highlight a growing awareness and demand for systemic changes within international academic publishing. Such changes aim to foster an environment where linguistic diversity is not seen as a barrier but as an integral part of the rich tapestry of academic discourse. More inclusive measures are seen as essential steps towards recognising and valuing the wide range of epistemic contributions from across the global research community, ensuring that all voices, irrespective of linguistic background, are heard and respected. Concerns are raised that certain linguistic structures and expressions may not translate well into English, potentially marginalising diverse ways of thinking and of expressing complex ideas. Language hence poses a problem to diversity, equity, and inclusion as English-only journals clearly lack linguistic diversity; equity is compromised for those scholars who must pay more (real costs of translation and editing) and who face prejudice with reviews. A result is lack of inclusion of some scholars and their potentially novel ways of thinking. As we will elaborate in the final section, we call for journals to make space for the diversity of languages spoken.

Theme 2. Research Location

A key element that came through in the responses is how the location of the research influences researcher’s experiences of publishing. By “location” we refer to both the geographical context and location of the content within the wider discipline of mathematics education. Our analysis of the questionnaire responses suggested two main dimensions regarding research location, which we have called: marginal–mainstream; and local–global.

Marginal–mainstream

An issue that arose throughout the responses was researchers’ experiences of marginality within the discipline. Various content aspects of marginality were discussed. One was research methods, indicating that some research practices were mainstreamed and favoured over others. These practices ranged from data collection to analytic methods to theoretical framings. One participant’s comment summarised many of the responses:

It seems that there is not very good acceptance of works with theoretical or methodological frameworks other than the ‘classic’ or those that are fashionable. Furthermore, it seems that an article cannot be written in a different way. That is, use literary resources and not necessarily follow the formula of introduction, theoretical framework.... conclusion. In short, in general, there are few spaces to do new things (Chile).

Longitudinal datasets or data that seemed messier than more usual studies were perceived to review more poorly than studies that had cleaner and more straight-forward results. One respondent from Sweden stated, “my research area (large-scale PD programs) includes, many times, null results. I find it harder to publish null (or sometimes even negative) results than positive results”. Analytic methods were another area where the marginal–mainstream divide was discussed. “Traditional” or “classic” were adjectives used in the questionnaire to express barriers to some researchers’ work. One participant from USA expressed the challenge of working away from mainstream coding and theoretical frameworks.

Experiences of marginality were not limited to methods. Some researchers felt marginalised because of their research interest and stated that they consider other publication outlets because their work did not fit with research that was historically published in JMTE. These marginalised research areas include newer theories (e.g. embodied cognition, positioning theory), alternative perspectives (e.g. creativity or student-centred perspectives) and topics (e.g. informal mathematics, equity issues in teacher education). Marginality was also perceived in the context of the work. One participant from Mexico replied, “It is clear to me that, despite this kind of efforts, the field of mathematics education research still is Anglocentric and Eurocentric”. Some respondents also cited the context of their work as a barrier to publication. This included work that was not connected to the Common Core Standards in the USA, even though the work was done outside the USA where the standards were not relevant.

Lastly, one compelling response highlighted the issue of marginality within marginalised groups. They stated:

My work sometimes challenges the latest thinking about equity. Ironically, I see math ed scholars marginalizing scholars from historically excluded groups in the name of equity, because their work doesn’t fit the current equity mold. I suspect this is from insecurity on the part of many math ed researchers -- they know about the latest equity trends, but not enough to feel confident in questioning or countering those trends when it might make sense to do so. (USA)

This quote exemplifies prior marginalised work with an equity focus becoming mainstream and then marginalising other subgroups within that equity focus.

Local–global

Intersecting with the marginal–mainstream dimension is how the local contexts relate to global concerns and issues in mathematics education. The dimension of local–global relates to the need for the authors to make their local context accessible and to show the relevance of the local study to the international community. As mentioned in the prior subsection, contextual issues such as local concerns and commitments (e.g. Common Core Math in the USA) tend to lean toward the Global North. Authors from less represented countries, usually the Global South, are often asked to do more to explain their local context and demonstrate relevance to research of the Global North. Some researchers from the Global South found this aspect to be particularly challenging and concerning, wondering why local contexts cannot speak to global issues or how to achieve these links in manuscripts. Some of these comments are related to the language issues discussed above but go beyond them. “I find it challenging to present regional research in such a way that the international community recognizes its relevance” (Mexico).

We note here that all research is done locally, within a context that may be similar or different from other contexts. What seems unfair, to some respondents and to us, is that researchers from some contexts, predominantly in the Global South, are consistently asked to show the relevance of their research to global concerns, while researchers from the more dominant countries are not often asked to do so. This assumes that the Global North is the norm, which all other countries must fit, rather than requiring all authors to think about global concerns beyond their own contexts.

Additionally, many scholars work in isolation, making it more difficult to publish. Finding a significant focus and contribution may be difficult for these researchers. When larger, highly funded teams work on projects together, it is easier to see how various pieces come together and where one’s work can make significant contributions. It is much harder for individual researchers to see how smaller studies fit into the broader literature. For example, a scholar from Brunei, said it is “difficult to present the claim as new piece of knowledge as there have always been so much information available. It is always a challenge to add new knowledge in the web of already available information”.

There is much research about the gatekeeping role of mathematics (Gutierrez, 2013 ; Wagner, 2021 ), and clearly the mathematics education research community also engage in gatekeeping practices. The mainstream becomes de-facto “global”, while the marginal research and minoritised contexts must do extra work to justify their research. Two clear steps forward emerge here. First, as the Chilean respondent suggests, is for all journals to ensure a diverse pool of reviewers. Second, for reviewers to insist that mainstream research, especially when conducted in the Global North, justifies the relevance of their work to other (minoritised) contexts. Currently, it is a common practice to ensure authors cite the journal in which they seek publication. What if authors were instead required to cite journals from diverse geographical contexts? In other words, rather than having to justify a local interest to the global community, perhaps the mainstream contexts should have to justify the significance locally, and across different locations. This revolution in citation practice could alter the metrics that serve to systematically reward global journals over local ones.

Theme 3. Institutional constraints

In response to the question of challenges to publishing their work, there were many researchers who spoke of institutional constraints. By “institution” we refer to both the institution in which they work—specifically, the university, and the institution of journals themselves. One quote stood out that reflects the tension inherent in the conditions imposed by the journal institutions: “The usual result [from reviewers is] critical criticism aimed to discourage publishing – it is like how do you dare publish with us” (South Africa). Thus, while the university institution puts enormous pressure on academics to publish, the journal institution appears equally motivated not to publish their work. To use a colloquial expression (in English language), this means we academics are “stuck between a rock and a hard place”. However, as the various responses below indicate, the “hard place” of the university institution is much harder for some, and the “rock” of the journal institution is similarly less giving for some. In the sections below we present the barriers described pertaining to the institutional rocks and hard places.

The “rock”: the institution of the journal

The constraints imposed by journals, as mentioned by respondents, were perceived as coming from the editors and reviewers themselves, or were due to the logistics of the submission, review, and publishing process.

While a few respondents stated the challenge was situated with themselves needing to learn how to deal with review comments, many more had complaints regarding the work of reviewers and editors—or in the (presumably facetious) words of one respondent “Getting the reviewers to recognize the brilliance of my work:)” (USA). Generally, complaints fell into three main categories (1) incompetent reviewing; (2) biased reviewing (or bias from the editor); (3) lack of direction or poor decision-making from the editor.

There were a range of responses about “incompetent reviewing”. For example, a respondent from Czech Republic wrote of reviewers without expertise in either quantitative or qualitative methodologies and another from Brazil wrote about lack of understanding of theory and methodology more generally. The following quote was specific:

In the past I have experienced the following challenges with the reviews I received on my work (not from JMTE): a) extensive delays (up to 13 months from the first decision letter); b) reviewers who want to promote their own research agenda (theoretical or methodological) and c) reviewers that do not read the work properly and rely on first impressions and superficial elements of the paper. (UK)

Going beyond incompetence, many responses related to bias in the reviewing, including comments about content, context, methods used, or the language/ethnicity of the author. A responder from Canada wrote of the “different cliques inside math education” such as mathematics professors versus those who came from a teaching background. A participant from South Africa noted a “well known” bias from editors that happened “when they see an African name”. Another response from Chile noted something similar about the Global South, while a professor from the USA commented that “reviewers often center whiteness and research and theoretical approaches by and about white people”. Additionally, bias was noted related to language. A response from Croatia wrote of the consistent requirement that “the language should be checked” despite having already had it edited by a native English speaker, an example of the “linguistic classism” mentioned earlier.

A few respondents spoke of poor direction or decision making from the editor, such as when a manuscript is rejected without review, or the editor fails to summarise the revisions needed, despite contradictory advice from reviewers. One respondent from Lebanon thought the handling editors should take underrepresentation into consideration, while another suggested the need for a more varied reviewer pool:

The present pool wants the same kind of articles over and over again. Where are the newer theories (embodied cognition, positioning theory etc), more novel methodologies (eyetracking, focus group discussions) or more novel themes (informal learning of teaching maths, equity issues in TE) (Unspecified)

One respondent felt that even with reviewer buy-in, their context was a barrier to acceptance in the journal.

I have also had positive comments from reviewers, responded to these, only to get it rejected by the editor because s/he didn't like that we used a concept differently from how it was used in his/her context. So there are some difficulties that could be ironed out here. (Unspecified)

There were also comments made regarding the logistics involved in the publishing process, such as: knowing how to find the right journal; the time taken for review; costs charged for publication, word or space constraints. A few respondents had specific comments about their experience with JMTE regarding communication issues and errors involved in the production process. A few people commented on the difficulty in finding the right journal, especially when the descriptions of aims and scope are vague. Word limits can be constraining, and several people commented on the length of time of the review process “It takes very long to receive feedback after an article has been submitted” (Malawi). Moreover a few commented on the costs involved for Open Access publishing or the editing services suggested by journals:

Am referred to editing services which when engaged do not change much of the text. Sometimes a lot of time is taken before a response is provided and high publication fees. (Qatar)

The “hard place”: on institutional support

Our analysis of the data clearly demonstrates the differing levels of support for researchers in terms of a publishing and research culture. As indicated in the quotes below such support includes financial, collegial, and university support in all aspects of the research process, including funding, selecting, and submitting to journals.

Lack of colleagues in my institution/context, lack of colleagues available in my country who involve in mathematics education research, having very little time allocated for doing research within the context of my professional life. (Sri Lanka)

Funding for Open Access manuscripts was mentioned as an issue in some countries. While some universities and/or countries have agreements to pay for Open Access, so that the financial burden does not fall on the researchers, this does not seem to be the case in all countries and institutions.

Funding for Open Access for accepted submitted manuscripts because most times my research is unfunded and Brunei does not fall in the medium and low-income countries. (Brunei)

In some countries, educational institutions offer different types of work contracts from part-time instructors to full-time researchers. Thus, the conditions for much of the university academic personnel to get involved in research projects are limited. In addition, instructors and full-time researchers often have a heavy teaching load. In general, teaching activities is a necessary condition for academics to get promoted, but it is not sufficient—they need to be involved in research projects and get their work published in indexed journals.

I don’t have any support from my institution, I’m a contract worker, I don’t have a base job. From some colleagues if there is support, especially from researchers from the Asian continent, the indexed journals are abundant, it is necessary to select those that are not useful. (Mexico)

There were several participants who wished for institutional support to get their work translated to English and to receive editing advice during the process of preparing their research manuscript to fulfil international academic standards:

My institution can support me with some money for translations or proofreading, or even for paying journal fees, but you have to meet very strict conditions, sometimes unrealistic for the research dynamics (Mexico) None. The only support is state funding from the government through research projects in which items for translations can be included. However, the resources are not sufficient for all the researchers in the area. (Chile)

Some of the participants pointed out that their universities did not have the culture and traditions to support researchers to get involved in research programs. Therefore, doing and publishing research becomes an individual project that is carried out with the individual’s own resources.

En mi país no hay cultura de publicación, poco apoyo para la investigación y desconocimiento de los procesos de selección de la revista apropiada. [In my country there is not a publishing culture, little support for research and lack of knowledge of the processes of selecting the appropriate journal] (Guatemala)

Some participants pointed to a lack of support regarding publishing fees, for example a participant from Turkey: “Our university does not acknowledge journals that charge a publishing fee” and another participant from Ethiopia: “Some journals provide waiver for our country's research studies. But the support provided from our institution for educational research is very small and sometimes, none at all”. One participant from Australia noted the tension, or impossibility, with the comment:

My institution has the expectation papers are published in Q1 [top quartile] journals, many of which charge for publication and then cost more for open access, for which I do not get funding. (Australia)

In general, universities appear to privilege publication in indexed journals with high impact factors. Researchers in mathematics education may be disadvantaged due to a system to assess and evaluate researchers’ academic work that has been developed in other areas such as biology, physics, chemistry. Further, the onus is on the Global South to bend to the metrics of the Global North. Thus, researchers face serious difficulties to get their work published in journals that fulfil their institution’s requirements. In addition, it is clear from several responses that some universities offer little or no support to researchers to get their work published.

While neoliberal agendas may increase the squeeze between rock and hard place, it is worth noting how the two institution types are in “cahoots” here. Journals rely on university pressure to publish in their profit-making enterprises, and universities require the journals to be exclusive so that they may compete in the international marketplace by obtaining high rankings from their publication in prestigious journals. We note also that comments from various respondents suggest that for some this situation is a tighter squeeze than for others, as they are writing from a more marginalised position, experiencing bias from reviewers, and at the same time face greater institutional pressure, with less institutional support. We call on those with more breathing space to instigate systemic change to this dynamic, to perhaps push back against both institutions.

The findings shed light on the systemic barriers within academic publishing, highlighting the dominant role of English and the Global North and the resulting challenges for non-native English speakers or those from the South. The significant disparities in representation, the influence of institutional pressures, and the complexity of the peer review process underscore the inequalities that permeate all systems involved within the academic publishing “game”. In particular, the experiences shared by respondents from different geographical locations highlight the urgent need for journals and the wider academic community to critically assess and redesign their practices to accommodate and celebrate linguistic and epistemic diversity.

To summarise, first, our survey reveals that language poses a significant barrier in publishing for many academics who are not native in speaking or writing English. Challenges include difficulties in linguistic expression, the need for meaning-accurate translation, and perceived disadvantages when compared with native English speakers and writers, especially in top-tier journals. The implications of these challenges are substantial in our field, where English often serves as the lingua franca (Meaney, 2013 ). The problem exists at an individual level, such as for the scholars who struggle with proficiency in the academic register (Cummins, 2000 ) of English (including native speakers and writers), yet who are nevertheless required to communicate findings in English journals; something Meaney ( 2013 ) describes as an act of oppression. Yet the language problem exists on a wider scale than just for the individual; the entire community is impoverished when we lose the diversity that comes from greater inclusion of those who think differently (Geiger et al., 2022 ; Meaney, 2013 ).

This situation highlights the need for more inclusive publishing practices that acknowledge and support the linguistic diversity of our community. In our data, there were no comments about the increased technological capacity for meaning-accurate translation, yet this and other solutions may be supportive and are possible. Journals should explore new opportunities for supporting diverse language speakers. For equity reasons any additional expense would need to be borne by institutions (e.g. the journal, the university), not the researchers. Among other possible solutions are language support considering the unique language backgrounds of the authors, encouraging submissions in multiple languages, and a peer-review process that recognises the linguistic efforts of all scholars—whether native or non-native English speakers and writers—in using the written academic register (of research journals) in this language. Some of these solutions have been suggested before (Meaney, 2013 ; Mesa, 2004 ), yet our data indicate they have not yet been attained.

Second, there are other ways in which marginalisation has been experienced by researchers submitting to journals such as JMTE. Our colleagues’ experiences are that papers have been rejected based on not being located mainstream enough in relation to topic, methods, and context. Further, respondents from some countries shared the frustration of having to situate their local research within a global context that often does not reflect their unique experiences and challenges (see also Mesa & Wagner, 2019 ; Wagner et al., 2020 ). Many Global South and some Global North researchers are asked to articulate the relevance of their work for other contexts, while some Global North researchers are not asked to do so, and their context is thus kept mainstream and constructed as “normal”; the review process itself appears designed to facilitate the sort of gatekeeping (Wagner, 2021 ) that might seem simply an unintended by-product. The “right” kind of article (by the “right” kind of scholar from the “right” context) is admitted and the others are excluded (see also Valoyes-Chávez et al., 2021 ). This process allows the reviewer’s agenda, whether unconscious or not, to prevail. Thus, we continue to dilute the richness of local contexts, homogenise knowledge production in our field (Andrade-Molina et al., 2020 ), and maintain forms of exclusivity.

This finding is key to our argument and highlights the need for a more equitable approach to research evaluation, one that values diverse contexts and perspectives. Journals and reviewers need to recognise that all research is inherently local, and its relevance should not be measured in terms of its applicability to the dominant global discourse, considering this dominance may limit research. Bakker and colleagues’ recent survey noted “Several respondents expressed a concern that the current goals of mathematics education do not reflect humanity’s and societies’ needs and interests well” (Bakker et al., 2021 , p. 7). We need new perspectives on what might be a “global” concern. We should expect all authors to articulate their research foci as distinct from and related to such re-defined global concerns. And we need a re-centring of the local as a concern in mathematics education research.

To achieve the above, an important first step would be for journals to have a diverse pool of reviewers and editors, and to continually update this pool. The challenges described in each theme suggest that this diversity needs to be linguistic, geographical, and epistemological/methodological. But it is also worth questioning how the pool is selected in the first place—it is typically drawn from those who have learned to play the publishing game, following the mainstream rules. Accordingly, the reviewers and editors need to be aware of their unconscious biases and journals may need to do considerable work, educating reviewers to ensure that the reviewing process constitutes a supportive and safe space.

Finally, university support plays a key role in enabling researchers to publish their work. Our survey reveals significant disparities in the level of support available to researchers from different regions. Researchers from the Global South often report limited access to resources, including funding for Open Access publishing and support in navigating the publishing process. 'Publish or perish' pressures exacerbate these inequalities (Valoyes-Chávez et al., 2021 ), particularly for scholars from less affluent institutions or countries. The expectation to publish in high-impact journals, which are often prohibitively expensive, adds to the challenges faced by these researchers (Andrade-Molina et al., 2020 ; Geiger et al., 2022 ). Furthermore, the lack of institutional support for language editing and translation services places an additional burden on non-native English speakers, who often must pay for these services out of their own pockets. We suggest disrupting this problem with the following solution: high-ranking journals could occasionally publish a special issue in a language other than English (e.g. Spanish). This way speakers of other languages may take advantage of the journal metrics without the disadvantage of English-medium publishing. There are certainly academics in our discipline who have the language (and other) expertise to serve as guest editors for this kind of issue.

Limitations

We must acknowledge a key limitation of our study; that is, the representativeness of our data. We do not know to whom or how many our recruitment process reached, and thus we cannot gain a sense of the proportion that responded. Our reach was limited to those in our networks, or who read JMTE editorials. This means we did not reach those who are less well-networked and likely more marginalised. We know our data lack representation despite the broad range of participant countries; for example, from Canada we received two responses only (compared with 77 from USA), there were very few participants from Asia, and many countries are not represented at all, despite 107 countries participating in ICME 13 (Gieger et al., 2022 ). It would be hard to know if we had achieved an adequate representation, yet it is easy to see when representation is not achieved in examples such as these.

Additionally, we chose not to ask for racial, gender, or other such identifications, and although the open-ended questions might have allowed for mention of related barriers, the responses were not very explicit on this (see also Wagner et al., 2020 ). Further research might more deliberately explore the impact of other identities on success in publishing. A final limitation we mention is that while the open-ended responses of our questionnaire enabled us to understand some of the nuance in barriers to publishing, potentially interview data could enrich our understandings further; this might be an area for future research.

The question framing our study was: What do voices from the mathematics education community raise in their responses to questions about publishing in English-medium research journals like JMTE? Our findings are consistent with our expectations and the existing literature that examines the globalisation of academic discourse and its impact on all scholars. This suggests that editors and experienced authors are aware of issues facing the underrepresented. However, we have yet to see any real change. This study’s emphasis on the voices of the underrepresented not only highlights the hurdles they face, but also enriches our understanding of the nuances and multiple layers of exclusion within academic publishing. Language, location, and institutions work together to marginalise research and researchers. In addition, the insights into institutional constraints highlight the uneven levels of support available to researchers, which has a direct impact on their opportunities to contribute to the global pool of knowledge.

Further, our findings suggest that JMTE and other English language journals do indeed continue to create barriers for many authors. We suggest it is a responsibility of editors and editorial boards to act.

The discussion section outlined some actionable suggestions international journals may take to foster a more equitable, diverse, and inclusive publishing environment. They include:

Ensuring there is a diverse and educated pool of associate editors, editorial boards, and reviewers, for example by providing webinars to potential reviewers on how to conduct sensitive reviews, that is, with a conscious effort to take on the author’s perspective.

Developing and improving language support systems for all potential authors, for example by considering free professional editing services to authors from the Global South, and other marginalised regions, and particularly for those whose first language is not English.

Deliberately increasing visibility of more local research interests, for example by: ensuring a diverse geographical representation of research contexts across issues, promoting indigenous scholarship, changing citation expectations to favour diversity rather than homogeneity within the journal, or strategic use of special issues.

By embracing changes in these directions, the research field can advance towards a more equitable and truly international scholarly environment that values and leverages the rich tapestry of languages and perspectives that scholars around the world bring to the global knowledge pool. However, this is just the first step. We must also continue our conversations, as called for by Mesa and Wagner ( 2019 ) and promoted at conferences (Brodie et al., 2024 ; Valoyes-Chávez et al., 2021 ), regarding how to make systemic changes to a process in which we are all complicit (Andrade-Molina et al., 2020 ) and yet remains inequitable; all the while enabling the journals to make enormous profits. Yet disrupting this enterprise will be no easy task. We call on the entire community, and ourselves, to take up this challenge.

See https://mathematicseducationjournals.com .

We took advantage of the expertise in our team considering our knowledge that many academics from Spanish speaking countries are encouraged to publish in English, regardless of their own expertise with the language. We acknowledge that, ideally, we would have had a variety of different language translations. We also noted a number of Spanish speakers answered the English version of the questionnaire nonetheless.

Abtahi, Y., & Planas, N. (2024). Mathematics teaching and teacher education against marginalisation, or towards equity, diversity and inclusion. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56 (3), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-024-01602-x

Article   Google Scholar  

Andrade-Molina, M., Montecino, A., & Aguilar, M. S. (2020). Beyond quality metrics: Defying journal rankings as the philosopher’s stone of mathematics education research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 103 , 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09932-9

Bakker, A., Cai, J., & Zenger, L. (2021). Future themes of mathematics education research: An international survey before and during the pandemic. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 107 (1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10049-w

Brodie, K. (2022). What might diversity mean in JMTE? Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 25 , 503–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09552-5

Brodie, K., Darragh, L., Halai, A., Planas, N., Potari, D., Santos Trigo, M., Scheiner, T., & Walkoe, J. (2024). Promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion in publishing mathematics education research. In 15th International Congress on Mathematical Education . Australia: Sydney.

Caron, F. (2017). Challenges and opportunities for publishing in mathematics education: The personal viewpoint of a francophone researcher. For the Learning of Mathematics, 37 (1), 13–15.

Google Scholar  

Choppin, J., & Battery, D. (2021). Mathematics education research journal editors’ statement. https://mathematicseducationjournals.com/ (Accessed 4 June 2024).

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: bilingual children in the crossfire . Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853596773

Book   Google Scholar  

Geiger, V., Delzoppo, C., & Straesser, R. (2022). Supporting English non-dominant language authors’ efforts to publish: Perspectives from the editors-in-chief of highly recognised journals in Mathematics Education. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 111 , 543–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10174-0

Goos, M. (2019). Publishing for international impact in mathematics education research journals. In K. R. Leatham (Ed.), Designing, conducting, and publishing quality research in mathematics education (pp. 213–225). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23505-5_15

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Gutiérrez, R. (2013). The Sociopolitical turn in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44 (1), 37–68. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0037

Lee, C., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2012). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information, Science and Technology, 64 (1), 2–17.

Matthews, P. G., Herbst, P., Crespo, S., & Lichtenstein, E. K. (2022). Continuing a conversation about equity-focused research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 53 (5), 342–349. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc-2022-0125

Meaney, T. (2013). The privileging of English in mathematics education research, just a necessary evil? In: M. Berger, K. Brodie, V. Frith, & K. le Roux (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th International Mathematics Education and Society Conference. pp. 65–84. MES.

Mesa, V. (2004). JRME in the global village Parlez vous Français? Habla Ud. Español? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35 (1), 2–4.

Mesa, V., Bakker, A., Venkat, H., Wagner, D., Bikner-Ahshahs, A., Fitzsimons, G., Gutiérrez, A., Tamsin, M., Prediger, S., Radford, L., & Van Dooren, W. (2021). Writing reviews: Perspectives from the editors of educational studies in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 108 , 419–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-021-10114-4

Mesa, V., & Wagner, D. (2019). Behind the door: A critical look at the process of publication in educational studies in mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 101 , 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-019-09900-y

Scheiner, T., Brodie, K., Planas, N., Darragh, L., Halai, A, Potari, D., Santos-Trigo, M., & Walkoe, J. (2024). Addressing equity, diversity and inclusion in academic publishing: key initiatives from JMTE. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-024-09636-4

Valoyes-Chávez, L., Andrade-Molina, M., Montecino, A., & Wagner, D. (2021). Publish or perish: Power and bias in peer review processes in mathematics education journals. In: D. Kollosche (Ed.), Proceedings of the 11 th International Mathematics Education and Society Conference. Vol. 1, pp. 111–114. MES.

van Leeuwen, J. P., Rijken, D., Bloothoofd, I., & Cobussen, E. (2020). Finding new perspectives through theme investigation. The Design Journal, 23 (3), 441–461.

Vithal, R., Brodie, K., & Subbaye, R. (2023). Equity in mathematics education. ZDM – Mathematics Education, 56 (1), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-023-01504-4

Wagner, D. (2021). Gatekeeping in mathematics education. In M. Inprasitha, N. Changsri, & N. Boonsena (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44 th Conference of the Psychology of Mathematics Education. Vol. 1, pp. 1–18. PME.

Wagner, D., Bakker, A., Meaney, T., Mesa, V., Prediger, S., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). What can we do against racism in mathematics education research? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 104 , 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-020-09969-w

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Lisa Darragh

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Karin Brodie

The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan

Anjum Halai

Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain

Núria Planas

National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Despina Potari

Centre for Research and Advanced Studies, Cinvestav-IPN, Mexico City, Mexico

Manuel Santos-Trigo

Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane, Australia

Thorsten Scheiner

Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

University of Maryland, Maryland, USA

Janet Walkoe

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Darragh .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

One author, Nuria Planas, is one of the guest editors for the special issue we are submitting to. Other than this, the corresponding author confirms there is no conflict of interest on behalf of the authors.

Ethical approval

It was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on 14 July 2022 for three years. Reference number UAHPEC24572.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Darragh, L., Brodie, K., Halai, A. et al. Publishing mathematics education research in English: amplifying voices from the field. J Math Teacher Educ (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-024-09659-x

Download citation

Accepted : 04 September 2024

Published : 13 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-024-09659-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Mathematics education research
• Academic publishing practices
• Language, location, and institutional barriers
• Representation in publishing
• Equity, diversity, and inclusion in academic journals
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research