[For votes to count, referees must reasonably explain why they voted as they did. Thus, please explain your vote. If you voted to publish pending minor changes, specify each change, why it is needed, and, possibly, how it should/could be done.]
The paper was competently written. That said, I didn’t find that it presented any original ideas presented through the analysis of data. It did provide some thorough literature reviews but it did not present data or an analysis thereof offering conceptual or theoretical ideas that advanced this literature. I applaud the author’s willingness to help others conduct and complete qualitative dissertations, however, in my view, this type of work is more properly placed in outlets such as The Criminologist.