Dear Colleagues
Have you ever had such publishing experience that the editor evaluates your qualitative research according to the rigors of quantitative research?
My story:
The editor of one of the journals assessed (negatively) my article containing a qualitative case study research, according to the quantitative research rigor. He stated:
"The analysis falls well short of the rigor required of an academic publication. No evidence is provided about whether the results would generalize to other settings, apparently there were no control groups, there are no statistical tests, the results did not generate enough clicks or sales to have a clear interpretation, etc. "
I have answered (and waiting for reaction):
"...you assessed it according to the rigor of the quantitative research ("no statistical test", "to generalize"), while my research is qualitative ("to identify categories and/or patterns") and implemented according to the procedure suggested by K. Eisenhardt.
Please read the classic article by Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (attached), which analyzes four observations (stories) and doesn't contain tests. Eisenhardt is quoted in almost all articles made with the case study (qualitative) research method. Please rate my article according to the principles of the qualitative research rigor."
Bourgeois LJ, III and Eisenhardt KM (1988) Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry. Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 7 (Jul., 1988), pp. 816-835
Have you ever had such experience when editor or reviewer uses quantitative research rigors to assess a qualitative research?
What is your experience as to publishing the qualitative research?
Regards
Richard Kleczek
There is a quality to quantitative analyses, and there is a quantification of qualitative analytics. There is no divide, but both must be reciprocal and reciprocated.
Hope this helps,
Matthew
Interesting question. I appreciate all effort to conduct a good research, it may be qualitative or quantitative. In some cases both can be treated as quantitative, in others not. Thank you, Ryszard, for sharing your case.
Dear Colleagues
K Eisenhardt (1989) explicitly suggests a separate scientific rigor for qualitative case study research (theoretical sampling instead the random sampling, replication instead statistical tests, identification of local patterns instead the generalization of results). Bourgeois and Eisenhardt (1988) made their famous empirical research (based on four observations in very narrow context) that meets the specific rigor. Their empirical research should not be evaluated along the principles of quantitative research rigor (random sampling, statistical test, generalization etc). Such evaluation creates nonsense = the result that their classic research (and my research also, that tries to follow the specific rigor) doesn't meet the scientific standards.
Eisenhardt, K M (1989) Building Theories From Case Study Research
Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review; Oct 1989; 14, 4; pp. 532-550
Bourgeois LJ, III and Eisenhardt KM (1988) Strategic Decision Processes in High Velocity Environments: Four Cases in the Microcomputer Industry. Management Science, Vol. 34, No. 7 (Jul., 1988), pp. 816-835
Regards
Richard Kleczek
PS
The researchers from Nordic School develop their research based on the qualitative case study method with good results.
To get the answers to different questions a problem can be researched on the basis of two different processes.
Qualitative research: A research is figured as qualitative if the purpose of the study is primarily to describe a situation, phenomenon, problem or event; if the information is gathered through the use of variables measured on nominal or ordinal scales; that are also called as qualitative measurement scale; and if the analysis is done to establish the variation in the situation, phenomenon or problem without qualifying it.............https://researchpedia.info/what-is-quantitative-and-qualitative-research/@
Hallo!
Unfortunately, I faced another example of the use of quantitative study evaluation criteria to evaluate my qualitative study by an editor: "There is a concern that the sample size in your study is rather small – 33 individual interviews. It may not produce robust results ". By the way one of classic sigle case study research (Echeverri and Skålén 2011) did 33 interviews: 'The present article draws mostly on the 34 interviews conducted during the second and third rounds' (Echeverri and Skålén 2011, p. 13)
Echeverri P and Skålén P (2011) Co-creation and co-destruction: A practice-theory based study of interactive value formation. Marketing Theory, 11(3): 351-373.
What do you think of it?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science
- Research Topics