On the Horizon
:
A Qualitative Leap
Peter Bachiochi
Eastern Connecticut State University
Normally Im not one prone to conspiracy theories, but when it comes to qualitative research, the Fox Mulder in me comes out. (An X-Files reference is still relevant, isnt it?) Ive known folks whove conducted and published qualitative studies, so its not a conspiracy on a grand scale, but it just seems like there should be more qualitative research in I-O. To try to get to the bottom of this, I asked two journal editors and a journal editor-to-be what they thought about the situation. All of them were willing to talk, so I was already beginning to doubt the existence of a conspiracy. I spoke with
Tom Lee, editor of Academy of Management Journal (AMJ), Shelly Zedeck, editor of
Journal of Applied Psychology (JAP), and Ann Marie Ryan, incoming editor of
Personnel Psychology.
First, I asked if they felt that qualitative research has been underrepresented in I-O journals in the past 20 years. Ann Marie followed my first question with another question (ah, perhaps there is a conspiracy after all!): What do you mean by qualitative research? Instead of trying to trick me and divert my investigation, she made the important point that many studies that might be considered quantitative may have qualitative components (e.g., analyses of follow-up interview comments, observations by the researchers). This combination approach is probably much more common than I recognized. She also noted that there are high-quality qualitative studies being published in outlets such as
AMJ and Administrative Science Quarterly. Ann Marie felt that perhaps qualitative researchers consider specific outlets first, and that these outlets may not be I-O or management journals. She noted that there is probably some self-selection that happens as some journals are considered by authors as the more appropriate places for their work.
When I asked Tom Lee of AMJ the same question, he mentioned that AMJ has published relatively large numbers of qualitative studies, more than other journals. In fact, he noted that some of the best paper award winners in the past have been largely qualitative studies. He mentioned that past editors pushed hard to get submissions of qualitative work and that they have been relatively successful at publishing them. He clearly stated, though, that he felt it was not necessarily more difficult to get qualitative research published compared to quantitative studies. As we spoke, my conspiracy theory was starting to crumble.
Shelly Zedeck provided some additional insight into why qualitative studies may not be as well represented in the major I-O journals. He mentioned that I-O training focuses heavily on methodology, and as a result, we tend to use statistically sophisticated approaches that are typically reliant on large samples. The outcome can sometimes be dustbowl empiricism: elegant designs and analyses that are lacking a sound theoretical core. When I asked him if he felt that graduate programs provide adequate coverage of qualitative methods, he felt that we generally ignore it. Although we have done very little of it in the past, he was quick to note that we do seem to be trying to provide more and better training in qualitative methods.
Tom Lee and Ann Marie Ryan largely agreed. Tom felt that, as a general rule, we dont provide adequate training, but that depends on whether or not the faculty in a given program have interest. There are also not many books on the topic, which may hamper efforts to provide additional training. Ann Marie mentioned that students at Michigan State are exposed to fundamental issues and methods of qualitative research in their Applied Research Methods course. Although there are regular seminars on qualitative research, these courses may not be taken by I-O students. This is probably the case at most other I-O programs, too.
What I find interesting is the assumption by many graduate students (and some of their faculty mentors) that process-oriented research that uses few if any statistics is necessarily less rigorous. Ive often noticed among I-O faculty and graduate students a certain disdain for less statistically elaborate approaches to research. Perhaps greater exposure to the rigor that is required for sound qualitative research may change some of these perceptions. Its true that more statistically intense approaches (i.e., IRT, SEM, etc.) have received greater attention recently in I-O, but as Tom Lee mentioned, this sort of attention is a generational thing. He felt that a transition to increased qualitative research training, if it happens, will be a very slow transition. When enough people decide its cool, it will happen.
But will qualitative research become cool? I asked each of the editors if they thought there would be more qualitative research done in the next 20 years. There was some caution in their responses. Shelly Zedeck noted that he would like to see more qualitative research published. In fact,
JAP is going to have a call in the near future for a special edition focusing on qualitative research. However, he cautioned against simple case studies without organizational implications. He emphasized that good qualitative research (like any sound research) needs to generate further research/hypotheses and provide insights into underlying constructs to be valuable.
Tom Lee did not foresee a giant tidal wave of qualitative research coming, but was optimistic that its frequency might increase. He noted that good qualitative research is extremely difficult to do and that it doesnt typically fit into the usual tenure timetable. He was concerned, though, that if qualitative research did become the cool thing to do, that it might become algorithmic; researchers would just apply the same approach and that it wouldnt be right for the research question being asked. He didnt want to see qualitative research evolve into eyeball factor analysis.
But some of the similar hardware and software advances that have facilitated advances in more statistically oriented approaches may help qualitative research. Ann Marie noted advances in software that make qualitative analyses much more efficient. Software such as NUD*IST (thats Non-numeric Unstructured Data for Indexing Searching and Theorizing) can make the time-intensive process of content coding easier to manage. Ann Marie also brought to my attention a service from AT&T to record and transcribe phone interviews and e-mail you a file of the interview within a couple of days. This just scratches the surface of the advances that have made qualitative research a more realistic endeavor.
So it appears that there isnt really a conspiracy in place to hold down qualitative researchers. There are reasons why qualitative research doesnt get published. For instance, although the editors didnt necessarily keep track of statistics on the issue, they noted that the rejection rate could be assumed to be similar to other studies. As such, many of the articles submitted are just not going to get published. Similarly, for one reason or another, researchers may feel that most I-O journals are not the first choice for qualitative research. There is also some misunderstanding about what really constitutes qualitative research. Tom Lee noted that some researchers say that theyre doing grounded theory research, but then dont really do it. Grounded theory doesnt have to be tabula rasa; existing knowledge is what we build on, not neglect.
So it could be that I-O researchers do less qualitative research because of the time involved. Or perhaps their training provided very little background on how to do qualitative research well. Or maybe they just dont see as much of it in the typical I-O journals and thus surmise that it would be difficult to get published. But after collecting some (qualitative?) data of my own, I can safely say that there isnt a conspiracy against qualitative research among I-O journal editors. On the contrary, the journals seem to be quite open to qualitative research submissions and
JAP will be explicitly seeking them out shortly! Although Im not going to run out and take a course on ethnography, it does appear that qualitative research has a promising future in I-O psychology.
January 2003 Table
of Contents | TIP Home
| SIOP Home