Metalogue as Methodology

Abstract

Peer review, standard practice for most scholarly journals, often involves mundane discussions between writer and referees mediated by an editor. Occasionally invoked are more controversial issues such as the nature of science or the standards associated with good scientific practice. This article makes a case for recognizing the critical significance of this site — where exchanges between authors, editors and referees take place — as the location where boundaries of acceptable scholarship are negotiated. I argue that metalogues — written conversations among parties that preserve individual voices while revealing contested areas — offer a method of inquiry for exploring the creation of scholarship. Using referees' comments, this article explores what one contested area might look like using writing style as an example. It models the metalogue as a method of inquiry. An advantage of this practice is making visible otherwise abstract philosophical debates through applied examples using empirical evidence generated during the review process.