Search results

This paper aims to represent a response to issues raised in the continuing quantitative-qualitative debate by Valtakoski (2020). Which appeared in a Journal of Services Marketing (JSM) special issue on qualitative research in service-oriented research.

The authors performed a content analysis of 1,268 papers that were published in JSM (1987-2019). In addition, the authors had data that is held in JSM’s manuscript central submission portal.

The analysis shows that while there is a dominance of quantitative methods in the journal, the proportion of qualitative papers is growing. During 2014-2019, 83.4 per cent of submitted papers to JSM represented quantitative research and 14 per cent represented qualitative research; however, 75 per cent of accepted papers were quantitative and 25 per cent were qualitative/mixed methods. Thus, the proportion of published qualitative studies are increasing and have a higher chance of receiving an acceptance decision compared to quantitative studies. Additionally, the largest percentage of qualitative papers published in JSM derive from corresponding authors outside of North America.

Service researchers who opt to use inductive research methods, which tend to use qualitative research, will not confront discrimination based solely upon the use of a research methodology among editors or reviewers at JSM.

JSM welcomes qualitative research that has rich practical implications.

This study is one of the first to provide authors with a detailed analysis and responses to the qualitative-quantitative debate in marketing.

The authors seek to show the extent and nature of qualitative research in international marketing in IMR (International Marketing Review) and then aim to understand and explain developments in this area. They explore the global coverage of extant qualitative work in IMR and reflect on the thematic focus, theoretical purpose, research design and transparency of methods prevailing in these studies.

The authors identify and content-analyze 79 qualitative international marketing-focused articles published in IMR from 1990 to 2010.

The analysis revealed several areas that can assist researchers in identifying gaps to be filled by future qualitative international marketing studies. These include: global coverage needs to be further developed; an increase in the number of comparative studies, yet insights from three or more countries remain scarce; extant qualitative studies seem to explore ten key themes; there is a growing trend in theory elaboration studies; interviews are still the most popular data collection method, yet the repertoire of methods is expanding; there is an upward trend in higher transparency in the description of data collection and analysis, but this needs further development.

The paper fosters the development of qualitative research in international marketing by: highlighting the value of qualitative research for advancing theory in this field; inspiring international marketing scholars to learn more about qualitative methods; and offering guidelines to researchers that seek to advance this field.

This paper aims to offer an insight into the emergent qualitative methodological profile and its distinctive contribution to accounting and management scholarship, particularly reflecting upon the contribution of Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (QRAM).

It examines the range of qualitative methodologies employed in the research published across the ten years of QRAM and analyses the methodological discourse and its contribution to the armoury available to qualitative researchers. In association with these methodological developments, the paper offers a critique of the articulated role of theory in contemporary accounting and management qualitative research.

A wide range of qualitative methodologies are found to be in evidence, with considerable scope for further adoption and development of some. Methodological exposition papers are found to be a significant contribution in the past decade and include methodological framework building, methodological applications, methodological critiques, and methodological development exemplars. Alongside methodology, the dual role of theory as either informing or reflecting methodology is presented.

The paper provides a critical analysis and consideration of qualitative methodological literature development in the last ten years of accounting and management research literature, particularly reflected in QRAM. It identifies dominant methodologies in use, as well as opportunities for expanding the methodological menu in accounting and management research. Furthermore, it classifies groups of methodological papers and their contributing perspectives, as well as addressing the often-vexed relationship between theory and methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a personal, reflective analysis of publications over the last decade in Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management (QRAM) and to assess the implications for the future development of the journal, the practice of qualitative accounting research and the broader standing of the accounting discipline.

Reviewing QRAM published papers across a range of themes, including the spirit of generated debate, the representation and classification of qualitative research and the range of contributory authors. Using the review to identify important patterns and trends in the standing and practice of qualitative accounting research.

Highlighting the existence and contribution of numerous carefully crafted, thought provoking papers published in QRAM and drawing on them to present a number of important challenges, priorities and attractive opportunities for the future development of qualitative accounting research. Encouraging greater diversity, flexibility and creativity in the undertaking and utilisation of qualitative accounting research.

Emphasising how thinking differently about the emotions and lived experiences of qualitative accounting research(ers) can serve to inspire theoretical development, enhance trust in researcher judgement, and stimulate more fruitful and intellectually rewarding ways of doing qualitative accounting research.

Reminding of the value of reading papers as compared to relying on formal journal rankings. Revealing residing defensiveness tendencies in the undertaking of qualitative accounting research and arguing that restrictive representations and conceptions of “legitimate” qualitative accounting research are constraining what can be achieved and experienced both by individual accounting researchers and the discipline more generally.

Qualitative researchers have been criticised for not justifying sample size decisions in their research. This short paper addresses the issue of which sample sizes are appropriate and valid within different approaches to qualitative research.

The sparse literature on sample sizes in qualitative research is reviewed and discussed. This examination is informed by the personal experience of the author in terms of assessing, as an editor, reviewer comments as they relate to sample size in qualitative research. Also, the discussion is informed by the author’s own experience of undertaking commercial and academic qualitative research over the last 31 years.

In qualitative research, the determination of sample size is contextual and partially dependent upon the scientific paradigm under which investigation is taking place. For example, qualitative research which is oriented towards positivism, will require larger samples than in-depth qualitative research does, so that a representative picture of the whole population under review can be gained. Nonetheless, the paper also concludes that sample sizes involving one single case can be highly informative and meaningful as demonstrated in examples from management and medical research. Unique examples of research using a single sample or case but involving new areas or findings that are potentially highly relevant, can be worthy of publication. Theoretical saturation can also be useful as a guide in designing qualitative research, with practical research illustrating that samples of 12 may be cases where data saturation occurs among a relatively homogeneous population.

Sample sizes as low as one can be justified. Researchers and reviewers may find the discussion in this paper to be a useful guide to determining and critiquing sample size in qualitative research.

Sample size in qualitative research is always mentioned by reviewers of qualitative papers but discussion tends to be simplistic and relatively uninformed. The current paper draws attention to how sample sizes, at both ends of the size continuum, can be justified by researchers. This will also aid reviewers in their making of comments about the appropriateness of sample sizes in qualitative research.

This paper aims to identify specific challenges and opportunities when crafting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research. In addition, it offers potential remedies to frequent challenges when conducting such reviews.

This piece is based on recent methodological advice on conducting literature reviews and my own experience when conducting and publishing reviews that primarily cover qualitative accounting research.

The author chart three typical advantages and three typical use cases of literature reviews of qualitative accounting research, as well as the typical process steps and outputs of such reviews. Along with these process steps, The author identifies three overarching specific challenges when conducting such reviews and discusses potential remedies. Overall, this paper suggests that literature reviews of qualitative accounting research feature idiosyncratic challenges but offer specific opportunities at the same time.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to offer advice on the specific challenges and opportunities when conducting literature reviews of qualitative accounting research.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and articulate concepts and approaches to qualitative generalisation that will offer qualitative accounting researchers avenues for enhancing and justifying the general applicability of their research findings and conclusions.

The study and arguments draw from multidisciplinary approaches to this issue. The analysis and theorising is based on published qualitative research literatures from the fields of education, health sciences, sociology, information systems, management and marketing, as well as accounting.

The paper develops two overarching generalisation concepts for application by qualitative accounting researchers. These are built upon a number of qualitative generalisation concepts that have emerged in the multidisciplinary literatures. It also articulates strategies for enhancing the generalisability of qualitative accounting research findings.

The paper provides qualitative accounting researchers with understandings, arguments and justifications for the generalisability of their research and the related potential for wider accounting and societal contributions. It also articulates the key factors that impact on the quality of research generalisation that qualitative researchers can offer.

This paper presents the most comprehensively sourced and developed approach to the concepts, strategies and unique deliverables of qualitative generalising hitherto available in the accounting research literature.

The purpose of this paper is to review the evolution of empirical research methods in Journal of Services Marketing (JSM), how the choice of methodology is related to the research topic, and how methodology affects the impact of papers published in JSM.

Based on citation data from Scopus, bibliometric methods are used to describe the methodological evolution of literature over the period 1987-2017. Indicator correlations and logistic regression are used to test the methodological predispositions of research topics. Negative binomial regression is used to test the impact of paper methodology on paper citations on 1,036 papers.

Qualitative research methods have remained relatively rarely used in JSM (7.5 per cent qualitative papers, 13.4 per cent mixed methods), with no major changes over the past 15 years. The variety of research methods has slightly increased in the latest years. There are considerable differences in the methodological predispositions of research topics. The methodology does not directly affect the impact of papers. However, use of mixed methods may positively affect paper impact. Papers focusing on conceptual development tend to be cited more.

The review indicates that quantitative methods dominate research in JSM. However, future research challenges in service marketing research call for a reconsideration of the role of qualitative research for JSM. Findings point out that several research topics could benefit from further qualitative research.

Provides an overview of the latest development in research methodologies used in JSM, and direct statistical evidence on how paper methodology and other characteristics influence paper impact. Identifies areas for further qualitative research.

The purpose of this Special Issue of Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management is to focus on qualitative research in accounting from a North American perspective. The goal is to highlight the possibility of greater contributions to qualitative research in accounting from researchers based in North America and to highlight some significant contributions produced by authors in North American universities in the qualitative domain.

The paper is conceptual in nature.

This sample of North American qualitative research in accounting provides an example of some of the different types of qualitative work being done. In most respects the articles are similar to qualitative research being done in other parts of the world. Perhaps the key difference is that the research has been undertaken for the most part by senior researchers who have been able to take some risks with a research paradigm that may not be widely accepted at their universities or they may be fortunate to be located at universities which value such research.

The paper broadens the view of qualitative research to North America where it appears that qualitative research has been relatively undervalued in recent years.

The purpose of this paper is to report on a review of the writing practices and experiences of scholars who have published qualitative papers in the field of entrepreneurship. It evaluates existing knowledge about how “well‐published” entrepreneurship scholars go about writing up qualitative research. It identifies the antecedents, processes, and consequences of qualitative research authorship as self‐described by authors.

Scholars who had published qualitative papers in the five top‐ranked entrepreneurship journals over a 20‐year period were asked to complete a qualitative survey about their writing practices. A qualitative analysis of 37 usable replies was undertaken.

Entrepreneurship scholars perceive their qualitative research writing to be more enriching and philosophical than quantitative research. Although they feel strong connections with their research subjects, they find qualitative research difficult and time consuming to write up. It is hard to bridge the gap between working with large amounts of transcribed data and the editorial requirements of journals, without losing the vitality of data. Qualitative research and subsequent writing skills have often been learned by trial and error. Many are inspired by specific texts, which may include novels, poems or plays.

This work shows how useful it is to discuss qualitative writing processes so that we may learn from the “blood, toil, tears and sweat” of those who have already successfully navigated both the writing and publishing of qualitative research.

Although there is a vigorous debate within the entrepreneurship literature about the prevalence and suitability of different methods and methodological approaches, there is no explicit discussion of how researchers engage with writing up qualitative research for publication. The paper addresses this gap and shares insights and guidance from our community of practice.