English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Qualitative research in the information systems (IS) discipline has come a long way, from being dismissed as “exploratory research” or “preresearch,” not worthy of being featured in “scientific” and authoritative journals in the discipline, to a state where such research is seen as legitimate and even welcome within much of the mainstream IS research community. Recent editorials have expressed concerns regarding the research community’s lack of awareness about the diverse nature of qualitative research and the apparent confusion regarding how these diverse approaches are different. In this two-part editorial, Part 1 focused on analyzing first-generation qualitative research approaches based on four key elements (theory, data, analysis, and claims), and discussed how each of these elements might vary depending on the type (i.e., genre) of the qualitative study. In Part 2, we examine qualitative studies published over the past 17 years in four leading journals for evidence related to the genres identified in Part 1 of this editorial. Specifically, our goal was to assess the recognition of various genres in the published papers, and to determine whether there was sufficient internal consistency for a given genre within each paper. Based on the results of the assessment, we offer lessons for authors, reviewers, and editors.

journal of the association for information systems

Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2)