This article discusses the importance of considering purpose and design as elements to determine if research is worthy of publication. It reflects the tenets of the transformative paradigm as a framework for conducting research that is viewed as worthy of being conducted by members of marginalized communities, and consequently potentially worthy of publication.
AppelbaumM.CooperH., KlineR.B., Mayo–WilsonE., NezuA.M., & RaoS.M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 3–25.
2.
ChilisaB. (2012) Indigenous research methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
CramF., ChilisaB., & MertensD.M. (2013). The journey begins. In MertensD.M., CramF., ChilisaB. (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research (pp. 11–40). Walnut Hills, CA: Left Coast Press.
HarrisR., HolmesH., & MertensD.M. (2009). Research ethics in sign language communities. Sign Language Studies, 26, 101–112.
6.
HoodS., HopsonR., & FriersonH. (2015). (Eds.) Continuing the journey to reposition culture and cultural context in evaluation theory and practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
7.
MertensD.M. (in press). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
LevittH.M., BambergM., CreswellJ. W., FrostD.M., JosselsonR., Suárez, & Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary qualitative meta–analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46.
10.
LeFrançoisB.A., BeresfordP., & RussoJ. (2016). Editorial: Destination Mad Studies. Intersectionalities: A Global Journal of Social Work Analysis, Research, Polity, and Practice, 5(3), 1–10.
11.
SullivanM. (2009). Philosophy, ethics, and the disability community. In MertensD.M. & GinsbergP. E. (Eds.), The handbook of social research ethics (pp. 69–84). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
