Interpretative analysis of qualitative data has been likened to a form of creative storytelling. However, analysis of qualitative health research data is often subject to concerns derived from quantitative empiricism such as replicability, bias and impartiality. In applied health research, it seems that qualitative portrayals have become dominated by descriptive reporting at the expense of interpretative accounts. I conducted a documentary analysis based on 32 peer reviewer reports (received 2014–2019) in connection with four interpretative qualitative health research manuscripts. Peer reviewers were mostly positive towards the manuscripts and the findings of the studies seemed to resonate with them. Yet, interpretive analysis was viewed negatively leading to a lack of trust in the findings. Three broad issues seemed to trouble reviewers. First, line by line coding of all data was thought to be paramount in order to assure replicability. Second, it was asserted that verbatim quotations from participants must be included in the findings section otherwise the findings could be considered erroneous. Third, data should be subjected to a comparative analysis based on similarities and differences, rather than an interpretive approach, as this was thought to be more systematic. I offer a reflexive account of my positionality and understandings of interpretative creativity. The art of storytelling through qualitative data seems to have been derided within applied health research, with a push towards reportage of basic facts. Peer reviewers are evaluating creative analyses against a quantitative paradigm. This methodological conservatism is encouraging an oversimplification of the complexity resident in many qualitative datasets.
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)
CORE (COnnecting REpositories)