Dr. Penny Dick, Sheffield University Management School, UK presented this seminar "Qualitative Research - The Perils and Pleasures of Publishing" as part of the Whitaker Institute Seminar Series at the Whitaker Institute on 15th March 2012.

1. 28/03/2012
1
Penny Dick
Sheffield University Management School
Qualitative research – the perils and pleasures of
publishing
Publishing in 4* journals
 More and more of these journals are increasingly sympathetic to
qualitative research
 The most important criterion is that you can show you are making
a distinct and definite contribution to existing theory/knowledge
 All ideas – no matter how brilliant – have to be located in the
existing literature and you need to explain precisely what you are
adding that is currently missing/poorly understood
 Also important is developing a specific research question (ideally)
or a highly focused aim:
“The aim of the paper is to examine how both institutional and
organizational processes and practices can act as structural signals
(Dabos and Rousseau, 2004) from which the psychological contract
is derived, and to show how these signals are embedded in the
actions of a variety of organizational agents. The focus is on
understanding how these processes impede mutuality of
understanding between the manager and the part-timer. “ (Dick,
2006, Journal of Organizational Behavior).

2. 28/03/2012
2
Epistemological and ontological
position
 This is very important in qualitative research – you need to make
statements about how you are understanding the status of your data and
how you are deriving your findings
 Be clear about whether you are adopting a deductive/inductive or
abductive approach – most qualitative management research tends to be
the last of these three
 Some excellent examples from the literature:
 Boiral, O. (2007) Corporate greening through ISO14001: A rational myth.
Organization Scence.18 (1) 127-146.
 Lee. M.D., MacDermid, S.M. Buck, L. (2000) Organizational paradigms of
reduced-load work: Accommodation, elaboration and transformation.
Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6) 1211-1226.
 Musson, G. Duberley, J. (2007) Change, change or be exchanged: The
discourse of participation and the manufacture of identity. Journal of
Management Studies, 44 (1) 133-164
 Zilber, T.B. (2002) Institutionalization as an interplay between actions,
meanings and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of
Management Journal. 45 (1) 234-254.
Theorisation
 One of the biggest hurdles for qualitative
researchers who will typically not be answering
hypotheses developed from the literature – is
moving from a descriptive (and thorough)
summary of your data to a theoretical analysis
 The description of how you did this has to be
detailed and illustrated – saying something like “I
identified the following themes” – will not wash in
a 4* journal
 My advice is to look at the qualitative papers
published in your journal of choice and try to
emulate what these authors have done in terms
of describing their methods and data analysis

3. 28/03/2012
3
Analysis
The relationship between the data and the
interpretation has to be very clear – make
sure that your claims are reflected in the
data
Over-interpretation/speculation/inflated and
unsupported claims will be trampled on by
reviewers
Tell a coherent story – structure and
organize your findings – use
diagrams/tables/figures where possible to
illustrate your ideas/summarise your findings
Responding to reviewers’ comments
 Balancing act – retaining the integrity of your own
ideas and incorporating the views of the reviewers
 Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath
water
 Pay very careful attention to the editorial guidelines
 Respond thoroughly and politely to every comment
the reviewers make
 You do not have to “do” everything the reviewers
suggest but if you choose to ignore their advice you
need to acknowledge it and explain why.
 The review process in top journals can be up to 5 or
6 if not more iterations – rejection remains a
possibility until the acceptance letter