Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research

Sonia M. Ospina, Marc Esteve, Seulki Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five-year period (2010-14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPublic Administration Review
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

research practice
public administration
qualitative research
research method
integrity
methodology
Qualitative study
Public Administration
Qualitative research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Public Administration
  • Marketing

Cite this

Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research. / Ospina, Sonia M.; Esteve, Marc; Lee, Seulki.

In: Public Administration Review, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fd410d1520a642b9998c87ce3e1d8911,
title = "Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research",
abstract = "Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five-year period (2010-14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.",
author = "Ospina, {Sonia M.} and Marc Esteve and Seulki Lee",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1111/puar.12837",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Public Administration Review",
issn = "0033-3352",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research

AU - Ospina, Sonia M.

AU - Esteve, Marc

AU - Lee, Seulki

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five-year period (2010-14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.

AB - Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five-year period (2010-14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029763540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029763540&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/puar.12837

DO - 10.1111/puar.12837

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85029763540

JO - Public Administration Review

JF - Public Administration Review

SN - 0033-3352

ER -