Vote: Publish pending major changes.
First, I think this is a very important study, and I appreciate the work the authors have put into the organization and analysis. There remains limited qualitative research on this area and this current study can provide important insights. I have included feedback and suggestions on strengthening this current study to ensure that it connects to the current literature and remains methodologically strong. Best of luck to the researchers on this project:
Literature Review
I would encourage the authors to expand their literature review in certain areas. For example, are there additional citations (similar to Krill et al, 2016) that support the need for the current study?
A synthesized summary of the existing literature would provide stronger support and justification for the current study. This is an important part. Try to use this section to justify why this study is valuable in filling the gaps within the literature.
Methodology
The Method section would benefit from more in-depth discussion. Why was your specific methodology selected, what is the strength of this methodology, are there previous studies that you cite that support your decision to use semi-structured interviews? What previous research did the authors use when constructing this current study?
Please expand on “convenience sampling,” and its potential strength/limitations.
How was the sampling method supported or constrained by attempts to diversity the sample group?
Did the researchers email the respondents directly or did the program staff email the researchers? Did the program staff serve as an intermediary during the recruitment process?
Discuss the date/institution that provided IRB approval.
What additional steps did the researchers take to try to ensure confidentiality and anonymity was maintained (beyond interviewing in a private setting)?
What was the overall response rate when the research team attempted to recruit respondents?
Please expand on why you felt the sample size was adequate. What would the authors say to someone who would argue the sample size is too small?
Results
Your results section (as well as Discussion section) made limited reference to existing research and specific theoretical orientations. Please elaborate on what existing research and/or theoretical framework this study is in conversation with.
The authors should avoid ending sections (Theme 2 for example) with a quote. A stronger summary and connection to current literature would help frame the specific theme and contextualize the importance of the current research study.
Is there a specific theoretical framework this study is connected to? More discussion of how this contributes to the discipline is important.
The “Individualist Approaches” section was interesting. More discussion of existing literature is needed to support your analysis. Does this “individualistic” approach reflect a certain cultural norm within the legal world, lack of support within the justice system, or American society more broadly? I think the authors could expand on this section with more analysis and inclusion of corresponding literature.
Strengths, Limitations, & Implications
This section references the “emerging research in this area.” Your literature review and analysis section need to discuss the existing literature more explicitly.
It’s clear that this study can provide important contribution to the literature, but the authors must provide a stronger synthesis of the body of literature that exists and justify why the current study fills a specific gap. This is an important point that would strengthen the author’s main findings.
The sample size is an important limitation – it should be stated more clearly and justified.
As required in Qualitative Criminology, your manuscript should discuss implications more clearly as well.
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)