ABSTRACT. Four authors from art education, early childhood literacy education, and social studies education explore what counts as social science research with help from the blinded peer review process. The authors invite readers to think with wrongness when vetting data from a composite character named Reviewer 2, using artful methods of expression. The purpose of this article is not to complain about the experiences with Reviewer 2, but rather to explore the interface between academic publishing and knowledge production, specifically how our knowing and being as scholars is intimately entangled with academic publishing. We interact with author and essayist Chuck Klosterman’s question “But What If We’re Wrong?” in relation to dominant research assumptions and practices. Klosterman’s book calls readers to ponder issues of ontology and epistemology not only in the present time, but also in an unknown future. Each author will share data from personal Reviewer 2 experiences and then diffract that data with/in Klosterman’s Razor, or the idea that the most convincing assumptions also have the potential for wrongness. Data include paraphrased excerpts from qualitative inquiry studies published as a book, manuscripts, and conference proposal reviews. The article “closes” by addressing the new and unexpected “openings” resulting from the entanglement of collaboration and with Klosterman’s book and Reviewer 2’s reviews. pp. 28–50

Keywords: post-qualitative research; qualitative inquiry; review process; diffraction; ethics; wrongness

doi:10.22381/KC6220183