# data[].attributes.body
Well written

(Too?) extensive background

A lot of method

Clear on the epistemological position

Not very surprising or revolutionary results.

# data[].attributes.body
Forskningsfråga saknas? Enbart syfte som presenteras

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting but not surprising results. Good quality article

# data[].attributes.body
The research question was well matched to the method. But could have been explicitly written out.

# data[].attributes.body
Presenteras tydligt!

# data[].attributes.body
We can not find it explicity written.

# data[].attributes.body
Feels like 3 themes are few...?

We feel like the second theme is has a long name and it doesn´t really capture what is shown about this "dualism" in the article.

# data[].attributes.body
Intressant ämne! Lite svårt att hänga med i texten, kan också berott på kort tid? Bra matchning mellan metod och ämne.

# data[].attributes.body
Vi saknar en överblick av teman/underteman, kanske en karta hade kunnat hjälpa

# data[].attributes.body
The quotes deepens the understanding and makes the participants more alive/real to the reader.

The direct quotes makes it easier to understand the writers conclusions and themes.

# data[].attributes.body
Did the participants knew that the researcher was looking for a double standard? This wasn't clear. And if not, how ethically is that?

# data[].attributes.body
They gave the epistemological position clearly to the reader.

Gave a lot of background that deepens the understanding of the article, results and to the terms used.

# data[].attributes.body
Ingen tydlig forskningsfråga/hypotes, men presenterar syfte och inramning. De förutsätter dock tex att dubbelmoral finns. Lite deduktiv?

# data[].attributes.body
More themes?

Broader participant sample would have been interesting (women whp do not engage in casual sex?)

# data[].attributes.body
Did they really use an inductive approach? Seems like the authors already had an idea of what they were looking for?

# data[].attributes.body
Is it common for the author to explicitly state their epistemological position? They do in this article, but in general, is it common? And if not, how do you as a reader find the epistemological position?

# data[].attributes.body
Interesting research (yet slighlty unclear/inexplicit) question and angle. Extensive and relevant background information. Clear epistemological standpoint.

# data[].attributes.body
Vi i gruppen får olika känsla av rubrikerna. Delade meningar om ifall de är tillräckligt levande eller tydliga. Bra val citat för att levandegöra innehållet - gör det spännande att läsa. Vi reagerade på att citaten innehåller dialogiska utbyten, vilket var intressant. Gör det lättare att förstå hur innehållet producerats, i linje med konstruktivistisk hållning.

# data[].attributes.body
The research question seeks to examine young womens views on casual sex but their sample considers only women who explicitly identifies as engaging in casual sex.

# data[].attributes.body
Few and large themes, although they were relevant to the research question they seemed more like "lables"? Would've been interesting to see the authors' thematic map. How much can the emergent themes be coupled to the actual interview questions or more spontaneous themes that the interviewees bring up?

# data[].attributes.body
The two first themes were interesting and well described. The last theme was a bit short and could have been elaborated on. Theme two and three are very similar

# data[].attributes.body
Clear epistemological standpoint, extensive background.

# data[].attributes.body
Lätt att hänga med på vilka teman de hittat och hur de underbyggs. Hade dock velat ha mer av processen i att identifiera teman, tex kodning.

# data[].attributes.body
Would've liked a clearer presentation of the coding process

# data[].attributes.body
reflexivity analysis, ethical considerations?