Publishing inAMJ—Part 7: What's Different about Qualitative Research?

Over the past six issues, our editorial team has presented a series on how to write effective AMJ submissions. Much of what this series has covered is relevant to both quantitative and qualitative papers. For example, the five criteria that Colquitt and George (June 2011 “From the Editors” [vol. 54: 432– 435]) identify for choosing topics—significance, novelty, curiosity, scope, and actionability—apply equally well to qualitative work. However, there are also key differences. For example, qualitative work does not typically suffer from the measurement, operationalization and model specification problems identified by Bono and McNamara (August 2011 “From the Editors” [vol. 54: 657–660]). As our opening quote illustrates, these differences are not always easy to articulate or explain. In this final FTE for the “Publishing in AMJ” series, we provide our perspective on the key differences. To do this, we focus our thoughts around this provocative question: If a colleague who has only ever published quantitative papers before asked you to identify the main differences between qualitative and quantitative papers (besides the type of data presented), how would you respond? We put this question to a panel of some of AMJ’s top qualitative authors and reviewers. We believe we hit a chord with this question, as we received 24 replies (from more than half of the people we contacted), a return that far exceeded our expectations. There was a range of responses from our colleagues; some felt the differences were stark, whereas others felt the differences were superficial. Rather than merely reporting back what they said, we synthesized their views (and sprinkled in some of the more revealing quotes) while bringing to bear our own experiences from the more than 180 decisions we have cast in our tenure as associate editors responsible for qualitative manuscripts. Instead of providing a point-by-point comparison with what has been written previously in the series (a result that would be too long and too tedious), we offer a more holistic view of the unique attributes of a qualitative paper for AMJ. In this way, an author who reads this editorial will receive helpful guidance on the writing process without having to read the other six pieces but could also find direct comparisons if reading the current FTE in conjunction with the previous six pieces. We illustrate our points from the many qualitative AMJ Best Article Award Winners. We hope this editorial will prove insightful not only for those researchers who have attempted to publish qualitative research in AMJ in the past, but also for those who may wish to do so for the first time in the future.