qualitative research report journal

Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review

• Regular Article
• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2021
• Volume 31 , pages 679–689, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Drishti Yadav   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2974-0323 1  

101k Accesses

47 Citations

70 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This review aims to synthesize a published set of evaluative criteria for good qualitative research. The aim is to shed light on existing standards for assessing the rigor of qualitative research encompassing a range of epistemological and ontological standpoints. Using a systematic search strategy, published journal articles that deliberate criteria for rigorous research were identified. Then, references of relevant articles were surveyed to find noteworthy, distinct, and well-defined pointers to good qualitative research. This review presents an investigative assessment of the pivotal features in qualitative research that can permit the readers to pass judgment on its quality and to condemn it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the necessity to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. It also offers some prospects and recommendations to improve the quality of qualitative research. Based on the findings of this review, it is concluded that quality criteria are the aftereffect of socio-institutional procedures and existing paradigmatic conducts. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single and specific set of quality criteria is neither feasible nor anticipated. Since qualitative research is not a cohesive discipline, researchers need to educate and familiarize themselves with applicable norms and decisive factors to evaluate qualitative research from within its theoretical and methodological framework of origin.

Similar content being viewed by others

Good Qualitative Research: Opening up the Debate

Beyond qualitative/quantitative structuralism: the positivist qualitative research and the paradigmatic disclaimer.

What is Qualitative in Research

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

“… It is important to regularly dialogue about what makes for good qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 , p. 837)

To decide what represents good qualitative research is highly debatable. There are numerous methods that are contained within qualitative research and that are established on diverse philosophical perspectives. Bryman et al., ( 2008 , p. 262) suggest that “It is widely assumed that whereas quality criteria for quantitative research are well‐known and widely agreed, this is not the case for qualitative research.” Hence, the question “how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research” has been continuously debated. There are many areas of science and technology wherein these debates on the assessment of qualitative research have taken place. Examples include various areas of psychology: general psychology (Madill et al., 2000 ); counseling psychology (Morrow, 2005 ); and clinical psychology (Barker & Pistrang, 2005 ), and other disciplines of social sciences: social policy (Bryman et al., 2008 ); health research (Sparkes, 2001 ); business and management research (Johnson et al., 2006 ); information systems (Klein & Myers, 1999 ); and environmental studies (Reid & Gough, 2000 ). In the literature, these debates are enthused by the impression that the blanket application of criteria for good qualitative research developed around the positivist paradigm is improper. Such debates are based on the wide range of philosophical backgrounds within which qualitative research is conducted (e.g., Sandberg, 2000 ; Schwandt, 1996 ). The existence of methodological diversity led to the formulation of different sets of criteria applicable to qualitative research.

Among qualitative researchers, the dilemma of governing the measures to assess the quality of research is not a new phenomenon, especially when the virtuous triad of objectivity, reliability, and validity (Spencer et al., 2004 ) are not adequate. Occasionally, the criteria of quantitative research are used to evaluate qualitative research (Cohen & Crabtree, 2008 ; Lather, 2004 ). Indeed, Howe ( 2004 ) claims that the prevailing paradigm in educational research is scientifically based experimental research. Hypotheses and conjectures about the preeminence of quantitative research can weaken the worth and usefulness of qualitative research by neglecting the prominence of harmonizing match for purpose on research paradigm, the epistemological stance of the researcher, and the choice of methodology. Researchers have been reprimanded concerning this in “paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences” (Lincoln & Guba, 2000 ).

In general, qualitative research tends to come from a very different paradigmatic stance and intrinsically demands distinctive and out-of-the-ordinary criteria for evaluating good research and varieties of research contributions that can be made. This review attempts to present a series of evaluative criteria for qualitative researchers, arguing that their choice of criteria needs to be compatible with the unique nature of the research in question (its methodology, aims, and assumptions). This review aims to assist researchers in identifying some of the indispensable features or markers of high-quality qualitative research. In a nutshell, the purpose of this systematic literature review is to analyze the existing knowledge on high-quality qualitative research and to verify the existence of research studies dealing with the critical assessment of qualitative research based on the concept of diverse paradigmatic stances. Contrary to the existing reviews, this review also suggests some critical directions to follow to improve the quality of qualitative research in different epistemological and ontological perspectives. This review is also intended to provide guidelines for the acceleration of future developments and dialogues among qualitative researchers in the context of assessing the qualitative research.

The rest of this review article is structured in the following fashion: Sect.  Methods describes the method followed for performing this review. Section Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies provides a comprehensive description of the criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. This section is followed by a summary of the strategies to improve the quality of qualitative research in Sect.  Improving Quality: Strategies . Section  How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings? provides details on how to assess the quality of the research findings. After that, some of the quality checklists (as tools to evaluate quality) are discussed in Sect.  Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality . At last, the review ends with the concluding remarks presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook . Some prospects in qualitative research for enhancing its quality and usefulness in the social and techno-scientific research community are also presented in Sect.  Conclusions, Future Directions and Outlook .

For this review, a comprehensive literature search was performed from many databases using generic search terms such as Qualitative Research , Criteria , etc . The following databases were chosen for the literature search based on the high number of results: IEEE Explore, ScienceDirect, PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The following keywords (and their combinations using Boolean connectives OR/AND) were adopted for the literature search: qualitative research, criteria, quality, assessment, and validity. The synonyms for these keywords were collected and arranged in a logical structure (see Table 1 ). All publications in journals and conference proceedings later than 1950 till 2021 were considered for the search. Other articles extracted from the references of the papers identified in the electronic search were also included. A large number of publications on qualitative research were retrieved during the initial screening. Hence, to include the searches with the main focus on criteria for good qualitative research, an inclusion criterion was utilized in the search string.

From the selected databases, the search retrieved a total of 765 publications. Then, the duplicate records were removed. After that, based on the title and abstract, the remaining 426 publications were screened for their relevance by using the following inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2 ). Publications focusing on evaluation criteria for good qualitative research were included, whereas those works which delivered theoretical concepts on qualitative research were excluded. Based on the screening and eligibility, 45 research articles were identified that offered explicit criteria for evaluating the quality of qualitative research and were found to be relevant to this review.

Figure  1 illustrates the complete review process in the form of PRISMA flow diagram. PRISMA, i.e., “preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses” is employed in systematic reviews to refine the quality of reporting.

PRISMA flow diagram illustrating the search and inclusion process. N represents the number of records

Criteria for Evaluating Qualitative Studies

Fundamental criteria: general research quality.

Various researchers have put forward criteria for evaluating qualitative research, which have been summarized in Table 3 . Also, the criteria outlined in Table 4 effectively deliver the various approaches to evaluate and assess the quality of qualitative work. The entries in Table 4 are based on Tracy’s “Eight big‐tent criteria for excellent qualitative research” (Tracy, 2010 ). Tracy argues that high-quality qualitative work should formulate criteria focusing on the worthiness, relevance, timeliness, significance, morality, and practicality of the research topic, and the ethical stance of the research itself. Researchers have also suggested a series of questions as guiding principles to assess the quality of a qualitative study (Mays & Pope, 2020 ). Nassaji ( 2020 ) argues that good qualitative research should be robust, well informed, and thoroughly documented.

Qualitative Research: Interpretive Paradigms

All qualitative researchers follow highly abstract principles which bring together beliefs about ontology, epistemology, and methodology. These beliefs govern how the researcher perceives and acts. The net, which encompasses the researcher’s epistemological, ontological, and methodological premises, is referred to as a paradigm, or an interpretive structure, a “Basic set of beliefs that guides action” (Guba, 1990 ). Four major interpretive paradigms structure the qualitative research: positivist and postpositivist, constructivist interpretive, critical (Marxist, emancipatory), and feminist poststructural. The complexity of these four abstract paradigms increases at the level of concrete, specific interpretive communities. Table 5 presents these paradigms and their assumptions, including their criteria for evaluating research, and the typical form that an interpretive or theoretical statement assumes in each paradigm. Moreover, for evaluating qualitative research, quantitative conceptualizations of reliability and validity are proven to be incompatible (Horsburgh, 2003 ). In addition, a series of questions have been put forward in the literature to assist a reviewer (who is proficient in qualitative methods) for meticulous assessment and endorsement of qualitative research (Morse, 2003 ). Hammersley ( 2007 ) also suggests that guiding principles for qualitative research are advantageous, but methodological pluralism should not be simply acknowledged for all qualitative approaches. Seale ( 1999 ) also points out the significance of methodological cognizance in research studies.

Table 5 reflects that criteria for assessing the quality of qualitative research are the aftermath of socio-institutional practices and existing paradigmatic standpoints. Owing to the paradigmatic diversity of qualitative research, a single set of quality criteria is neither possible nor desirable. Hence, the researchers must be reflexive about the criteria they use in the various roles they play within their research community.

Improving Quality: Strategies

Another critical question is “How can the qualitative researchers ensure that the abovementioned quality criteria can be met?” Lincoln and Guba ( 1986 ) delineated several strategies to intensify each criteria of trustworthiness. Other researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 ; Shenton, 2004 ) also presented such strategies. A brief description of these strategies is shown in Table 6 .

It is worth mentioning that generalizability is also an integral part of qualitative research (Hays & McKibben, 2021 ). In general, the guiding principle pertaining to generalizability speaks about inducing and comprehending knowledge to synthesize interpretive components of an underlying context. Table 7 summarizes the main metasynthesis steps required to ascertain generalizability in qualitative research.

Figure  2 reflects the crucial components of a conceptual framework and their contribution to decisions regarding research design, implementation, and applications of results to future thinking, study, and practice (Johnson et al., 2020 ). The synergy and interrelationship of these components signifies their role to different stances of a qualitative research study.

Essential elements of a conceptual framework

In a nutshell, to assess the rationale of a study, its conceptual framework and research question(s), quality criteria must take account of the following: lucid context for the problem statement in the introduction; well-articulated research problems and questions; precise conceptual framework; distinct research purpose; and clear presentation and investigation of the paradigms. These criteria would expedite the quality of qualitative research.

How to Assess the Quality of the Research Findings?

The inclusion of quotes or similar research data enhances the confirmability in the write-up of the findings. The use of expressions (for instance, “80% of all respondents agreed that” or “only one of the interviewees mentioned that”) may also quantify qualitative findings (Stenfors et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the persuasive reason for “why this may not help in intensifying the research” has also been provided (Monrouxe & Rees, 2020 ). Further, the Discussion and Conclusion sections of an article also prove robust markers of high-quality qualitative research, as elucidated in Table 8 .

Quality Checklists: Tools for Assessing the Quality

Numerous checklists are available to speed up the assessment of the quality of qualitative research. However, if used uncritically and recklessly concerning the research context, these checklists may be counterproductive. I recommend that such lists and guiding principles may assist in pinpointing the markers of high-quality qualitative research. However, considering enormous variations in the authors’ theoretical and philosophical contexts, I would emphasize that high dependability on such checklists may say little about whether the findings can be applied in your setting. A combination of such checklists might be appropriate for novice researchers. Some of these checklists are listed below:

The most commonly used framework is Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) (Tong et al., 2007 ). This framework is recommended by some journals to be followed by the authors during article submission.

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) is another checklist that has been created particularly for medical education (O’Brien et al., 2014 ).

Also, Tracy ( 2010 ) and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP, 2021 ) offer criteria for qualitative research relevant across methods and approaches.

Further, researchers have also outlined different criteria as hallmarks of high-quality qualitative research. For instance, the “Road Trip Checklist” (Epp & Otnes, 2021 ) provides a quick reference to specific questions to address different elements of high-quality qualitative research.

Conclusions, Future Directions, and Outlook

This work presents a broad review of the criteria for good qualitative research. In addition, this article presents an exploratory analysis of the essential elements in qualitative research that can enable the readers of qualitative work to judge it as good research when objectively and adequately utilized. In this review, some of the essential markers that indicate high-quality qualitative research have been highlighted. I scope them narrowly to achieve rigor in qualitative research and note that they do not completely cover the broader considerations necessary for high-quality research. This review points out that a universal and versatile one-size-fits-all guideline for evaluating the quality of qualitative research does not exist. In other words, this review also emphasizes the non-existence of a set of common guidelines among qualitative researchers. In unison, this review reinforces that each qualitative approach should be treated uniquely on account of its own distinctive features for different epistemological and disciplinary positions. Owing to the sensitivity of the worth of qualitative research towards the specific context and the type of paradigmatic stance, researchers should themselves analyze what approaches can be and must be tailored to ensemble the distinct characteristics of the phenomenon under investigation. Although this article does not assert to put forward a magic bullet and to provide a one-stop solution for dealing with dilemmas about how, why, or whether to evaluate the “goodness” of qualitative research, it offers a platform to assist the researchers in improving their qualitative studies. This work provides an assembly of concerns to reflect on, a series of questions to ask, and multiple sets of criteria to look at, when attempting to determine the quality of qualitative research. Overall, this review underlines the crux of qualitative research and accentuates the need to evaluate such research by the very tenets of its being. Bringing together the vital arguments and delineating the requirements that good qualitative research should satisfy, this review strives to equip the researchers as well as reviewers to make well-versed judgment about the worth and significance of the qualitative research under scrutiny. In a nutshell, a comprehensive portrayal of the research process (from the context of research to the research objectives, research questions and design, speculative foundations, and from approaches of collecting data to analyzing the results, to deriving inferences) frequently proliferates the quality of a qualitative research.

Prospects : A Road Ahead for Qualitative Research

Irrefutably, qualitative research is a vivacious and evolving discipline wherein different epistemological and disciplinary positions have their own characteristics and importance. In addition, not surprisingly, owing to the sprouting and varied features of qualitative research, no consensus has been pulled off till date. Researchers have reflected various concerns and proposed several recommendations for editors and reviewers on conducting reviews of critical qualitative research (Levitt et al., 2021 ; McGinley et al., 2021 ). Following are some prospects and a few recommendations put forward towards the maturation of qualitative research and its quality evaluation:

In general, most of the manuscript and grant reviewers are not qualitative experts. Hence, it is more likely that they would prefer to adopt a broad set of criteria. However, researchers and reviewers need to keep in mind that it is inappropriate to utilize the same approaches and conducts among all qualitative research. Therefore, future work needs to focus on educating researchers and reviewers about the criteria to evaluate qualitative research from within the suitable theoretical and methodological context.

There is an urgent need to refurbish and augment critical assessment of some well-known and widely accepted tools (including checklists such as COREQ, SRQR) to interrogate their applicability on different aspects (along with their epistemological ramifications).

Efforts should be made towards creating more space for creativity, experimentation, and a dialogue between the diverse traditions of qualitative research. This would potentially help to avoid the enforcement of one's own set of quality criteria on the work carried out by others.

Moreover, journal reviewers need to be aware of various methodological practices and philosophical debates.

It is pivotal to highlight the expressions and considerations of qualitative researchers and bring them into a more open and transparent dialogue about assessing qualitative research in techno-scientific, academic, sociocultural, and political rooms.

Frequent debates on the use of evaluative criteria are required to solve some potentially resolved issues (including the applicability of a single set of criteria in multi-disciplinary aspects). Such debates would not only benefit the group of qualitative researchers themselves, but primarily assist in augmenting the well-being and vivacity of the entire discipline.

To conclude, I speculate that the criteria, and my perspective, may transfer to other methods, approaches, and contexts. I hope that they spark dialog and debate – about criteria for excellent qualitative research and the underpinnings of the discipline more broadly – and, therefore, help improve the quality of a qualitative study. Further, I anticipate that this review will assist the researchers to contemplate on the quality of their own research, to substantiate research design and help the reviewers to review qualitative research for journals. On a final note, I pinpoint the need to formulate a framework (encompassing the prerequisites of a qualitative study) by the cohesive efforts of qualitative researchers of different disciplines with different theoretic-paradigmatic origins. I believe that tailoring such a framework (of guiding principles) paves the way for qualitative researchers to consolidate the status of qualitative research in the wide-ranging open science debate. Dialogue on this issue across different approaches is crucial for the impending prospects of socio-techno-educational research.

Amin, M. E. K., Nørgaard, L. S., Cavaco, A. M., Witry, M. J., Hillman, L., Cernasev, A., & Desselle, S. P. (2020). Establishing trustworthiness and authenticity in qualitative pharmacy research. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 16 (10), 1472–1482.

Article   Google Scholar  

Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35 (3–4), 201–212.

Bryman, A., Becker, S., & Sempik, J. (2008). Quality criteria for quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research: A view from social policy. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11 (4), 261–276.

Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). ‘Clear as mud’: Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1–13.

CASP (2021). CASP checklists. Retrieved May 2021 from https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Cohen, D. J., & Crabtree, B. F. (2008). Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: Controversies and recommendations. The Annals of Family Medicine, 6 (4), 331–339.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar  

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38 (3), 215–229.

Epp, A. M., & Otnes, C. C. (2021). High-quality qualitative research: Getting into gear. Journal of Service Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670520961445

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog. In Alternative paradigms conference, mar, 1989, Indiana u, school of education, San Francisco, ca, us . Sage Publications, Inc.

Hammersley, M. (2007). The issue of quality in qualitative research. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 30 (3), 287–305.

Haven, T. L., Errington, T. M., Gleditsch, K. S., van Grootel, L., Jacobs, A. M., Kern, F. G., & Mokkink, L. B. (2020). Preregistering qualitative research: A Delphi study. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406920976417.

Hays, D. G., & McKibben, W. B. (2021). Promoting rigorous research: Generalizability and qualitative research. Journal of Counseling and Development, 99 (2), 178–188.

Horsburgh, D. (2003). Evaluation of qualitative research. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 12 (2), 307–312.

Howe, K. R. (2004). A critique of experimentalism. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 42–46.

Johnson, J. L., Adkins, D., & Chauvin, S. (2020). A review of the quality indicators of rigor in qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 84 (1), 7120.

Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: Towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8 (3), 131–156.

Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23 (1), 67–93.

Lather, P. (2004). This is your father’s paradigm: Government intrusion and the case of qualitative research in education. Qualitative Inquiry, 10 (1), 15–34.

Levitt, H. M., Morrill, Z., Collins, K. M., & Rizo, J. L. (2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68 (3), 357.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986 (30), 73–84.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163–188). Sage Publications.

Madill, A., Jordan, A., & Shirley, C. (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: Realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. British Journal of Psychology, 91 (1), 1–20.

Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2020). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Research in Health Care . https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119410867.ch15

McGinley, S., Wei, W., Zhang, L., & Zheng, Y. (2021). The state of qualitative research in hospitality: A 5-year review 2014 to 2019. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 62 (1), 8–20.

Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, US.

Meyer, M., & Dykes, J. (2019). Criteria for rigor in visualization design study. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26 (1), 87–97.

Monrouxe, L. V., & Rees, C. E. (2020). When I say… quantification in qualitative research. Medical Education, 54 (3), 186–187.

Morrow, S. L. (2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 (2), 250.

Morse, J. M. (2003). A review committee’s guide for evaluating qualitative proposals. Qualitative Health Research, 13 (6), 833–851.

Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24 (4), 427–431.

O’Brien, B. C., Harris, I. B., Beckman, T. J., Reed, D. A., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89 (9), 1245–1251.

O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19 , 1609406919899220.

Reid, A., & Gough, S. (2000). Guidelines for reporting and evaluating qualitative research: What are the alternatives? Environmental Education Research, 6 (1), 59–91.

Rocco, T. S. (2010). Criteria for evaluating qualitative studies. Human Resource Development International . https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2010.501959

Sandberg, J. (2000). Understanding human competence at work: An interpretative approach. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (1), 9–25.

Schwandt, T. A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 2 (1), 58–72.

Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465–478.

Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22 (2), 63–75.

Sparkes, A. C. (2001). Myth 94: Qualitative health researchers will agree about validity. Qualitative Health Research, 11 (4), 538–552.

Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2004). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for assessing research evidence.

Stenfors, T., Kajamaa, A., & Bennett, D. (2020). How to assess the quality of qualitative research. The Clinical Teacher, 17 (6), 596–599.

Taylor, E. W., Beck, J., & Ainsworth, E. (2001). Publishing qualitative adult education research: A peer review perspective. Studies in the Education of Adults, 33 (2), 163–179.

Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007). Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19 (6), 349–357.

Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16 (10), 837–851.

Download references

Open access funding provided by TU Wien (TUW).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Informatics, Technische Universität Wien, 1040, Vienna, Austria

Drishti Yadav

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drishti Yadav .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Yadav, D. Criteria for Good Qualitative Research: A Comprehensive Review. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 31 , 679–689 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Download citation

Accepted : 28 August 2021

Published : 18 September 2021

Issue Date : December 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00619-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative research
• Evaluative criteria
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. Learn more about DOAJ’s privacy policy.

Hide this message

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience and security.

The Directory of Open Access Journals

Quick search, the qualitative report.

2160-3715 (Online)

• ISSN Portal

Publishing with this journal

The journal charges up to:

as publication fees (article processing charges or APCs).

There is a waiver policy for these charges.

Look up the journal's:

• Aims & scope
• Instructions for authors
• Editorial Board
• Open peer review

Expect on average 45 weeks from submission to publication.

Best practice

This journal began publishing in open access in 1990 . What does DOAJ define as Open Accesss?

This journal uses a CC BY-NC-SA license.

Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike

→ Look up their open access statement and their license terms .

The author retains unrestricted copyrights and publishing rights.

→ Learn more about their copyright policy .

Permanent article identifier:

Journal metadata

Publisher Nova Southeastern University , United States Manuscripts accepted in English

LCC subjects Look up the Library of Congress Classification Outline General Works: History of scholarship and learning. The humanities Social Sciences: Social sciences (General) Keywords social science qualitative research

WeChat QR code

• Find My Rep

You are here

The Sage website, including online ordering services, may be unavailable due to system maintenance on September 7th between 2:00 am and 8:00 am BST. If you need assistance, please  visit our Contact us page .

Thank you for your patience and we apologise for the inconvenience.

Qualitative Research

Preview this book.

• Description
• Aims and Scope
• Editorial Board
• Abstracting / Indexing
• Submission Guidelines

Qualitative Research  publishes papers with a clear methodological focus. We invite scholarship that has multi-disciplinary appeal, that debates and enlivens qualitative methods, and that pushes at the boundaries of established ways of doing qualitative research. We are interested in papers that are attentive to a wide audience, that are alive to new and diverse ways of thinking about qualitative methods, and that contribute to discussions within the pages of this journal. These discussions can be brought to life through empirical studies and research encounters, but we do not accept papers that focus on reporting the findings from qualitative research studies.

We see our journal as contributing to the community of academics across different fields who use qualitative methods as a way of making sense of the world. We understand methods and methodology as a practice and as a perspective, and welcome contributions that reflect on and critically engage with both aspects.  Qualitative Research is a space where ideas and understandings are used to open up methodological issues for reflection and debate, and we work hard to provide a supportive environment to foster this ethos.

• Academic Search Premier
• Anthropological Index Online
• Anthropological Literature
• Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
• British Education Index
• Business Source Corporate
• CD-ROM - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• CD-ROM - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Lterature on the Humanities and Social S
• CD-ROM International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• CD-ROM International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences
• Caredata CD (Discontinued)
• Combined Health Information Database (CHID)
• Contents Pages in Education
• Criminal Justice Abstracts
• Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature CINAHL
• Current Contents / Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Current Contents/ Social and Behavioral Sciences
• Current Index To Statistics
• EBSCO: Human Resources Abstracts
• Educational Research Abstracts Online - e-Psyche
• Family Index
• Family Index Database
• IBZ: International Bibliography of Periodical Literature
• IBZ: International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences
• International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
• Journal Citation Reports Social Sciences
• Journal Citation Reports/Social Sciences Edition
• MasterFILE Premier
• Online - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• Online - International Bibliography of Book Reviews of Scholarly Literature on the Humanities and Social
• Online - International Bibliography of Periodical Literature in the Humanities and Social Sciences
• Online - International Bibliography of Periodical Literature on the Humanities and Social Sciences
• PAIS Bulletin
• Psychological Abstracts
• Public Administration Abstracts
• Research Alert
• Research Into Higher Education Abstracts
• Social Care Online
• Social SciSearch
• Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI)
• Social Sciences Index
• Social Services Abstracts
• Social Work Abstracts
• Sociological Abstracts
• Sociology of Education Abstracts
• Worldwide Political Science Abstracts

Manuscript submission guidelines can be accessed on Sage Journals.

• Read Online
• Sample Issues
• Current Issue
• Email Alert
• Permissions
• Foreign rights
• Reprints and sponsorship
• Advertising

Individual Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, E-access

Institutional Subscription, Print Only

Institutional Subscription, Combined (Print & E-access)

Individual, Single Print Issue

Institutional, Single Print Issue

Subscription Information

To purchase a non-standard subscription or a back issue, please contact SAGE Customer Services for availability.

[email protected]  +44 (0) 20 7324 8701

Qualitative Psychology

• Read this journal
• Read free articles
• Journal snapshot
• Advertising information

Journal scope statement

The mission of the journal Qualitative Psychology ® is to provide a forum for innovative methodological, theoretical, and empirical work that advances qualitative inquiry in psychology. The journal publishes articles that underscore the distinctive contributions that qualitative research can make to the advancement of psychological knowledge. Studies published in this Journal often focus on substantive topics, while also highlighting issues of epistemology, the philosophy of science, methodological criteria, or other matters bearing upon the formulation, execution, and interpretation of qualitative research.

Qualitative Psychology publishes studies that represent a wide variety of methodological approaches including narrative, discourse analysis, life history, phenomenology, ethnography, action research, and case study. The journal is further concerned with discussions of teaching qualitative research and training of qualitative researchers.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion

Qualitative Psychology supports equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in its practices. More information on these initiatives, including our journal EDI statement, is available under EDI Efforts .

Editor’s Choice

One article from each issue of Qualitative Psychology will be highlighted as an “ Editor’s Choice ” article. Selection is based on the recommendations of the associate editors, the paper’s potential impact to the field, the distinction of expanding the contributors to, or the focus of, the science, or its discussion of an important future direction for science. Editor's Choice articles are featured alongside articles from other APA published journals in a bi-weekly newsletter and are temporarily made freely available to newsletter subscribers.

Author and editor spotlights

Explore journal highlights : free article summaries, editor interviews and editorials, journal awards, mentorship opportunities, and more.

Prior to submission, please carefully read and follow the submission guidelines detailed below. Manuscripts that do not conform to the submission guidelines may be returned without review.

Qualitative Psychology is now using a software system to screen submitted content for similarity with other published content. The system compares each submitted manuscript against a database of 25+ million scholarly publications, as well as content appearing on the open web.

This allows APA to check submissions for potential overlap with material previously published in scholarly journals (e.g., lifted or republished material). A similarity report will be generated by the system and provided to the Qualitative Psychology Editorial office for review immediately upon submission.

To submit to the editorial office of Heidi Levitt, please submit manuscripts electronically through the Manuscript Submission Portal in Microsoft Word or Open Office format.

Prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association using the 7 th edition and in compliance with the Journal Article Reporting Standards – Qualitative (PDF, 163KB) . Manuscripts should be copyedited for bias-free language (see Chapter 5 of the Publication Manual ). APA Style and Grammar Guidelines for the 7 th edition are available, and please see the Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (PDF, 232KB) .

You can read the editor's guidance for submitting to Qualitative Psychology  in their  editorial on PsycNet . Authors interested in learning more about our journal can also see a special section focused on the first decade of Qualitative Psychology in Volume 10, Issue 3 .

Submit Manuscript

Qualitative inquiry is relatively unbounded and affords a great deal of opportunity for creativity and originality. Thus, the editorship of the journal is going to specify general rather than rigid criteria for evaluation of submissions and will endeavor to stay open to novel approaches.

Nevertheless, there are some criteria that we'd like to outline in order to ensure that the articles published in Qualitative Psychology  are meritorious and of the highest quality. Articles will be evaluated according to the below criteria.

Manuscript preparation

Review APA's  Journal Manuscript Preparation Guidelines  before submitting your article.

Theoretical or methodological articles criteria

• Does the article advance our understanding of qualitative inquiry in terms of conceptualization or approach?
• Does the article position itself within approaches to the philosophy of science, interpretation theory, or epistemology?
• Does the article lay out postulates or hypotheses that lend themselves to further investigation through qualitative inquiry and/or additional theoretical analysis?
• Does the article adequately engage with existing literature?

Articles reporting results of original research criteria

• Is the topic meaningful? Is the presentation persuasive and illuminating? Will readers be enlightened on the topic by this article? Does the work advance psychological understanding?
• Is there adequate conceptualization (as opposed to simple description or reporting of themes)? Are there larger psychological questions addressed beyond reporting thematic description of a particular group of people?
• Has relevant other literature been joined? Is the relationship between this study and previous studies explicit?
• Has the mode of inquiry been explicated in detail so the reader can judge whether it was adequate and appropriate for the issues in question? This includes some discussion of the procedures of the work, and the processes of analysis and interpretation, and of how ethical challenges were met.
• Has the researcher taken into reflexive account his or her own role in the inquiry? Are assumptions and biases recognized?
• Does this work engage with methodological questions or debates? For some studies, the researcher might explicitly argue for the value of using a methodology that is different from the methods typically used to study this topic. In other cases, the researcher might explain how his or her study's design or findings further develop (or even challenge) some aspect of the qualitative approach it employs.
• Are interpretations well-grounded in presentation of data?
• Is there evidence that the researcher was tolerant of ambiguity, searched for alternative explanations, and considered negative instances? Is broader relevance considered?
• Is the contribution substantial in offering a sophisticated understanding of some aspect of human experience? Is this understanding deeply grounded in some stated perspective?
• Is the article well-written, thoughtfully shaped, sufficiently complex and engaging? Does the presentation invite further discussion?

As Qualitative Psychology will be published online as well as in print format, we strongly encourage the use of voice and video files (used with appropriate disguise and permission) to document your study.

Journal Article Reporting Standards

Authors should review the APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS) for quantitative , qualitative , and mixed methods . The standards offer ways to improve transparency in reporting to ensure that readers have the information necessary to evaluate the quality of the research and to facilitate collaboration and replication.

For quantitative manuscripts

JARS-Quant offers guidance to researchers using quantitative methods that may be used in research designs such as descriptive analyses, correlational analyses, quasi-experimental analyses, and experimental analyses. These JARS:

• recommend the division of hypotheses, analyses, and conclusions into primary, secondary, and exploratory groupings to allow for a full understanding of quantitative analyses presented in a manuscript and to enhance reproducibility;
• offer modules for authors reporting on replications, clinical trials, longitudinal studies, and observational studies, as well as the analytic methods of structural equation modeling and Bayesian analysis; and
• include guidelines on reporting on of study preregistration (including making protocols public); participant characteristics (including demographic characteristics; inclusion and exclusion criteria) psychometric characteristics of outcome measures and other variables, and planned data diagnostics and analytic strategy.

For qualitative manuscripts

JARS-Qual offers guidance to researchers using qualitative methods that may be used in research designs such as narrative data, grounded theory, phenomenological, critical, discursive, performative, ethnographic, consensual qualitative, case study, psychobiography, and thematic analysis approaches. These JARS:

• guide researchers to include a description of the researchers’ backgrounds and perspectives in approaching the study and how their prior understandings of the phenomenon were managed;
• provide guidance to support a description of all recruitment and data selection processes as well as data collection and data-analytic strategies used; and
• encourage a discussion of the ways that procedures used enhanced or compromised the methodological integrity of the findings.

The guidelines focus on transparency in methods reporting, recommending descriptions of how the researchers’ own perspectives affected the study, as well as the contexts in which the research and analysis took place.

For mixed methods manuscripts

JARS-Mixed offers guidance to researchers using both quantitative and qualitative methods within a study. These JARS:

• guide authors to follow the set of JARS that is appropriate for each component of the study; and
• guide authors to explicitly discuss the value of using a mixed method approach through the reporting of study aims, methods, findings, and discussion.

For all manuscripts

Authors should also review the new Journal Article Reporting Standards for Race, Ethnicity, and Culture (JARS–REC). Meant for all authors, regardless of research topic, JARS–REC include standards for all stages of research and manuscript writing, on, for example:

• Using the title, abstract, and keywords to identify race and ethnicity of participants without signaling Whiteness as default;
• Discussing the applicability of the theoretical approach to populations for which it was not developed;
• Addressing limits on generality, recognizing that generalizability is always constrained and is not the primary purpose of every study; and
• Considering whether findings could be misused to cause harm to members of historically excluded groups.
• For more, see the Guidance for Authors sections of the table (PDF, 184KB) .
• Special sections

Please see the special section proposal guidelines for detailed information on proposing special sections.

Double-space all copy. If specific participants are discussed in the article, please refer to them with names rather than initials.

Use pseudonyms unless there is some reason to use actual names and you have written permission to do so.

Other formatting instructions, as well as instructions on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and abstracts, appear in the Manual . Additional guidance on APA Style is available on the APA Style website .

Use Word's Insert Table function when you create tables. Using spaces or tabs in your table will create problems when the table is typeset and may result in errors.

Academic writing and English language editing services

Authors who feel that their manuscript may benefit from additional academic writing or language editing support prior to submission are encouraged to seek out such services at their host institutions, engage with colleagues and subject matter experts, and/or consider several vendors that offer discounts to APA authors .

Please note that APA does not endorse or take responsibility for the service providers listed. It is strictly a referral service.

Use of such service is not mandatory for publication in an APA journal. Use of one or more of these services does not guarantee selection for peer review, manuscript acceptance, or preference for publication in any APA journal.

Submitting supplemental materials

APA can place supplemental materials online, available via the published article in the APA PsycArticles ® database. Please see Supplementing Your Article With Online Material for more details.

Abstract and keywords

All manuscripts must include an abstract containing a maximum of 250 words typed on a separate page. After the abstract, please supply up to five keywords or brief phrases.

List references in alphabetical order. Each listed reference should be cited in text, and each text citation should be listed in the References section.

Examples of basic reference formats:

Journal article

McCauley, S. M., & Christiansen, M. H. (2019). Language learning as language use: A cross-linguistic model of child language development. Psychological Review , 126 (1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000126

Authored book

Brown, L. S. (2018). Feminist therapy (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000092-000

Chapter in an edited book

Balsam, K. F., Martell, C. R., Jones. K. P., & Safren, S. A. (2019). Affirmative cognitive behavior therapy with sexual and gender minority people. In G. Y. Iwamasa & P. A. Hays (Eds.), Culturally responsive cognitive behavior therapy: Practice and supervision (2nd ed., pp. 287–314). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000119-012

Preferred formats for graphics files are TIFF and JPG, and preferred format for vector-based files is EPS. Graphics downloaded or saved from web pages are not acceptable for publication. Multipanel figures (i.e., figures with parts labeled a, b, c, d, etc.) should be assembled into one file. When possible, please place symbol legends below the figure instead of to the side.

• All color line art and halftones: 300 DPI
• Black and white line tone and gray halftone images: 600 DPI

Line weights

• Color (RGB, CMYK) images: 2 pixels
• Grayscale images: 4 pixels
• Stroke weight: 0.5 points

APA offers authors the option to publish their figures online in color without the costs associated with print publication of color figures.

The same caption will appear on both the online (color) and print (black and white) versions. To ensure that the figure can be understood in both formats, authors should add alternative wording (e.g., “the red (dark gray) bars represent”) as needed.

For authors who prefer their figures to be published in color both in print and online, original color figures can be printed in color at the editor's and publisher's discretion provided the author agrees to pay:

• $900 for one figure
• An additional $600 for the second figure
• An additional $450 for each subsequent figure

Permissions

Authors of accepted papers must obtain and provide to the editor on final acceptance all necessary permissions to reproduce in print and electronic form any copyrighted work, including test materials (or portions thereof), photographs, and other graphic images (including those used as stimuli in experiments).

On advice of counsel, APA may decline to publish any image whose copyright status is unknown.

• Download Permissions Alert Form (PDF, 13KB)

Publication policies

For full details on publication policies, including use of Artificial Intelligence tools, please see APA Publishing Policies .

APA policy prohibits an author from submitting the same manuscript for concurrent consideration by two or more publications.

See also APA Journals ® Internet Posting Guidelines .

APA requires authors to reveal any possible conflict of interest in the conduct and reporting of research (e.g., financial interests in a test or procedure, funding by pharmaceutical companies for drug research).

• Download Full Disclosure of Interests Form (PDF, 41KB)

Ethical Principles

It is a violation of APA Ethical Principles to publish "as original data, data that have been previously published" (Standard 8.13).

In addition, APA Ethical Principles specify that "after research results are published, psychologists do not withhold the data on which their conclusions are based from other competent professionals who seek to verify the substantive claims through reanalysis and who intend to use such data only for that purpose, provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and unless legal rights concerning proprietary data preclude their release" (Standard 8.14). This said, the sharing of qualitative data may violate other ethical standards held dear by psychologists, such as protecting confidentiality or our responsibility to protecting the decisions of participants in deciding with whom they would like to share their data. For instance, participants may decide deliberately to share data with an investigator who is anti-racist or LGBTQ+ affirming and this should not be taken to imply that they wish to share their data with any researchers who they have not vetted.

Also, sharing data may not advance either scientific or verification purposes with qualitative data. The act of de-identifying data can remove contextual factors that are critical for the interpretation of findings and lead them not to be interpretable. Many qualitative methods use epistemological approaches that recognize that the methodological expertise, engagement with participants, and content knowledge of the investigator is critical for interpretation. For these reasons, it may not be reasonable to expect a researcher to undergo the extensive process of de-identifying data in order to share them with another competent researcher outside of the study team.

In contrast, qualitative methods have other processes that can be used to verify findings. Manuscripts typically include many quotations from text or other data sources and illustrate the process of analysis for each of the main findings. In this way, the evaluation of rigor can be conducted directly from the manuscript being submitted by a competent qualitative researcher.

APA expects authors to adhere to these standards. Specifically, APA expects authors to have their data available throughout the editorial review process and for at least 5 years after the date of publication.

Authors are required to state in writing that they have complied with APA ethical standards in the treatment of their participants, human or animal, or to describe the details of treatment. Authors must also state that they have permission to use any interview material, voice or video samples obtained from their participants and have sufficiently disguised material to assure anonymity (unless they have written permission not to do so).

• Download Certification of Compliance With APA Ethical Principles Form (PDF, 26KB)

The APA Ethics Office provides the full Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct electronically on its website in HTML, PDF, and Word format. You may also request a copy by emailing or calling the APA Ethics Office (202-336-5930). You may also read "Ethical Principles," December 1992, American Psychologist , Vol. 47, pp. 1597–1611.

In the 7th edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association , authors can find statements of cautions that indicate times when sharing data from qualitative projects may be both unethical and not useful in advancing science. Authors are encouraged to review these cautions to support them to make ethical decisions to share qualitative data.

Prior to the submission of a manuscript that is co-authored, all co-authors are expected to have agreed to have the manuscript submitted and to agree with the authorship order listed on the paper. It is the ethical responsibility of the first author to ensure this before submission.

Other information

See APA’s Publishing Policies page for more information on publication policies, including information on author contributorship and responsibilities of authors, author name changes after publication, the use of generative artificial intelligence, funder information and conflict-of-interest disclosures, duplicate publication, data publication and reuse, and preprints.

Visit the Journals Publishing Resource Center for more resources for writing, reviewing, and editing articles for publishing in APA journals.

Heidi M. Levitt, PhD University of Massachusetts at Boston, United States

Associate editors

Roberto Abreu, PhD University of Florida, United States

Leeat Granek, PhD York University, Canada

Elena Kim, PhD Bard College, NY, USA

Linda M. McMullen, PhD University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Editorial board

Rosemarie Anderson, PhD Sofia University, United States

Molly Andrews, PhD          University of East London, United Kingdom

Michael Bamberg, PhD Clark University, United States

Sunil Bhatia, Med, PhD Connecticut College, United States

Virginia Braun, PhD The University of Auckland, New Zealand

Svend Brinkmann, PhD Aalborg University, Denmark

Nico A. Canoy, PhD Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines

Scott D. Churchill, PhD University of Dallas, United States

Joshua W. Clegg, PhD John Jay College and The Graduate Center, City University of New York, United States

Nancy L. Deutsch, PhD University of Virginia, United States

William L. Dunlop, PhD University of California, Riverside, United States

Urmitapa Dutta, PhD University of Massachusetts Lowell, United States

Elizabeth Fein, PhD Dusquene University, United States

Michelle Fine, PhD The Graduate Center at City University of New York, United States

Daniel, Fishman, PhD Rutgers University, United States

Mark Freeman, PhD College of the Holy Cross, United States

Hanoch Flum, PhD Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel

David Frost, PhD University College London, United Kingdom

Gilbert Garza, PhD University of Dallas, United States

Marco Gemignani, PhD Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Spain

Kenneth Gergen, PhD Swarthmore College, United States

Carol Gilligan, PhD New York University, United States

David M. Goodman, PhD Boston College, United States

Nisha Gupta, PhD University of West Georgia, United States

Phillip Hammack, PhD University of California, United States

Tova Hartman, EdD Ono Academic College, Israel

James Christopher Head, PhD University of West Georgia, United States

James Lamiell, PhD Georgetown University, United States

Amia Lieblich, PhD The Hebrew University, Israel

M. Brinton Lykes, MDiv, PhD Boston College, United States

Anna Madill, PhD University of Leeds, United Kingdom

Jeanne Marecek, PhD Swarthmore College, United States

Joe Maxwell, PhD George Mason University, United States

Sara McClelland, PhD University of Michigan, United States

Kate Carter McLean, PhD Western Washington University, United States

Sue L. Motulsky, MA, EdD, CAS Lesley University, United States

Ora Nakash, PhD Smith College School for Social Work, United States 

Chaim Noy, PhD Ashkelon Academic College, Israel

Susan Opotow, PhD John Jay College & The Graduate Center at City University of New York, United States

Lisa Osbeck, PhD University of West Georgia, United States

Jason D. Reynolds (Taewon Choi), PhD University of San Francisco, United States

Paul Rhodes, PhD University of Sydney, Australia

Brent Dean Robbins, PhD Point Park University, United States

Onnie Rogers, PhD, Northwestern University, United States

João Salgado, PhD University Institute of Maia, Portugal

Brian Schiff, PhD The American University of Paris, France

Eva Simms, PhD Duquesne University, United States

Ilana Singh, PhD University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Louise Bordeaux Silverstein, PhD Yeshiva University, United States

Richard Allan Shweder, PhD University of Chicago, United States

Jefferson A. Singer, PhD Connecticut College, United States

Brent D. Slife, PhD Brigham Young University, United States

Renee Spencer Boston University, United States

Jennie Park-Taylor, PhD Fordham University, United States

Cristian Tileaga, PhD Loughborough University, United Kingdom

Deborah L. Tolman, EdD Hunter College, United States

Erin E. Toolis, PhD State University of New York at Old Westbury, United States

Rivka Tuval Mashiach, PhD Bar Ilan University, Israel

Jaan Valsiner, PhD Aalborg University, Denmark

H. Shellae Versey, PhD Fordham University, United States

Tiffany R. Williams, PhD Tennessee State University, United States

Frederick J. Wertz, PhD Fordham University, United States

Cynthia Winston-Proctor, PhD Howard University, United States

Stanton Wortham, PhD Boston College, United States

Abstracting and indexing services providing coverage of Qualitative Psychology ®

Special issue of APA’s journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 2, June 2022. This summer’s special issue is a compendium of articles about qualitative methodology and methods. These articles, taken together, display the creativity in the evolution of qualitative research methodology.

Special issue of APA’s journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 2, June 2021. The special issue provides examples of how the Listening Guide has been used with a variety of questions and in a range of contexts; it highlights innovations in use of the method and underscores the radical potential in replacing judgment with curiosity.

Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 6, No. 2, June 2019. The issue grapples with what is among the most important and intractable problems that have arisen in the study of narrative identity: How can we conceptualize stability and change in the life story?

Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 2, August 2018. The goal is to recognize ongoing achievements and to encourage the creation of new practices in the teaching of qualitative inquiry in undergraduate psychology programs.

Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 2, August 2017. Reflexivity is the art of taking the researcher's self as an object of scrutiny and examining how this self, with all its cognitive, emotional, and social parts, affects the research process.

Special issue of the APA journal Qualitative Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2016. The issue highlights the theoretical and methodological contributions of positive youth development and how the field could be further deepened and revitalized by more purposeful inclusion of qualitative methods throughout its studies.

Journal equity, diversity, and inclusion statement

Qualitative Psychology supports equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in its practices. Since its inception, our journal has had a history of valuing critical, feminist, anti-racist, critical disability, anti-colonial, multicultural, queer, epistemically diverse, and participatory forms of qualitative research. These forms of research center the voices and experiences of under-represented and minoritized communities and individuals and further a socially just psychology. We welcome submissions to our journal from these perspectives, especially those that attend to the unique challenges and issues in conducting qualitative research from these stances and with disenfranchised people.

Inclusive reporting standards

• Sample justifications (required)

More information on this journal’s reporting standards is listed under the submission guidelines tab .

Announcements

• Read the editor’s inaugural editorial
• Guidelines for reviewing manuscripts
• Read about Methodological Retrospectives

Editor Spotlight

• Read an interview with Editor Heidi M. Levitt, PhD

From APA Journals Article Spotlight ®

• Special section: Arts-based phenomenological research can evoke rich, sensual insight into the essence of human experience

Special section proposal

• Read the guidelines for submitting proposals

Journal Alert

Sign up to receive email alerts on the latest content published.

Welcome! Thank you for subscribing.

Subscriptions and access

• Pricing and individual access
• APA PsycArticles database

Calls for Papers

Access options

• APA publishing resources
• Educators and students
• Editor resource center

APA Publishing Insider

APA Publishing Insider is a free monthly newsletter with tips on APA Style, open science initiatives, active calls for papers, research summaries, and more.

Social media

Contact Journals

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

• Qualitative studies
• Research design
• Get an email alert for Qualitative studies
• Get the RSS feed for Qualitative studies

Showing 1 - 13 of 1,219

View by: Cover Page List Articles

Sort by: Recent Popular

We choose : Adolescent girls and young women’s choice for an HIV prevention product in a cross-over randomized clinical trial conducted in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe"> We choose : Adolescent girls and young women’s choice for an HIV prevention product in a cross-over randomized clinical trial conducted in South Africa, Uganda, and Zimbabwe

Millicent Atujuna, Kristin Williams,  [ ... ], Ariane van der Straten

Impact of bariatric surgery on premenopausal women’s womanliness: A qualitative systematic review and meta-synthesis

Rebecca Paul, Ellen Andersson,  [ ... ], Carina Berterö

“This is you teaching you:” Exploring providers’ perspectives on experiential learning and enhancing patient safety and outcomes in ketamine-assisted therapy

Elena Argento, Tashia Petker,  [ ... ], Zach Walsh

Perception and coping mechanisms of patients with diabetes mellitus during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ibadan, Nigeria

Olajumoke Ololade Tunji-Adepoju, Obasanjo Afolabi Bolarinwa, Richard Gyan Aboagye, Williams O. Balogun

Treating the disease and meeting the person with the illness-patient perspectives of needs during infective endocarditis, a qualitative study

Helena Lindberg, Johan Vaktnäs, Magnus Rasmussen, Ingrid Larsson

Dietary practice and associated factors among elderly people in Northwest Ethiopia, 2022: Community based mixed design

Mulat Tirfie Bayih, Adane Ambaye Kassa, Yeshalem Mulugeta Demilew

A qualitative study of stressors faced by older stroke patients in a convalescent rehabilitation hospital

Yuta Asada, Kaori Nishio, Kohei Iitsuka, Jun Yaeda

From many voices, one question: Community co-design of a population-based qualitative cancer research study

Susannah K. Ayre, Elizabeth A. Johnston,  [ ... ], Belinda C. Goodwin

Using residents and experts to evaluate the validity of areal wombling for detecting social boundaries: A small-scale feasibility study

Meng Le Zhang, Aneta Piekut,  [ ... ], Gwilym Pryce

Delphi studies in social and health sciences—Recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting (DELPHISTAR). Results of a Delphi study

Marlen Niederberger, Julia Schifano,  [ ... ], the DEWISS network

A qualitative exploration of migraine in students attending Irish Universities

Orla Flynn, Catherine Blake, Brona M. Fullen

A protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial to assess the impact of Balika Bodhu: A combined empowerment and social norm based sexual and reproductive health and rights intervention for married adolescent girls in rural Bangladesh

Mahfuz Al Mamun, Sultan Mahmud,  [ ... ], Ruchira Tabassum Naved

Digital transformation in college libraries: The effect of digital reading on reader service satisfaction

Yixin Lu, Shengguang Lin

Connect with Us

• PLOS ONE on Twitter
• PLOS on Facebook

Qualitative Research Journal

Issue(s) available: 61 – From Volume: 6 Issue: 1 , to Volume: 24 Issue: 4

• Issue 4 2024
• Issue 3 2024
• Issue 2 2024 When intercultural communication meets translation studies: divergent experiences in qualitative inquiries
• Issue 1 2024 Methodological entanglements – public pedagogy research
• Issue 5 2023
• Issue 4 2023
• Issue 3 2023
• Issue 2 2023
• Issue 1 2023
• Issue 4 2022
• Issue 3 2022
• Issue 2 2022
• Issue 1 2022 Critically Exploring Co-production
• Issue 4 2021
• Issue 3 2021
• Issue 2 2021
• Issue 1 2021
• Issue 4 2020 Research and Methodology in times of Crisis and Emergency
• Issue 3 2020 The Practice of Qualitative Research in Migration Studies: Ethical Issues as a Methodological Challenge
• Issue 2 2020
• Issue 1 2020
• Issue 4 2019 Creative approaches to researching further, higher and adult education
• Issue 3 2019
• Issue 2 2019
• Issue 1 2019 Journeys in and through sound
• Issue 4 2018
• Issue 3 2018
• Issue 2 2018 Revisiting ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’: 30 years later
• Issue 1 2018
• Issue 4 2017
• Issue 3 2017 Bordering, exclusions and necropolitics
• Issue 2 2017
• Issue 1 2017
• Issue 4 2016
• Issue 3 2016 Auto-, duo- and collaborative- ethnographies:
• Issue 2 2016
• Issue 1 2016
• Issue 4 2015 Art practice as methodological innovation
• Issue 3 2015
• Issue 2 2015 Sub-prime scholarship
• Issue 1 2015
• Issue 3 2014
• Issue 2 2014
• Issue 1 2014 Approaches to Researching Masculinities
• Issue 3 2013
• Issue 2 2013 Selected papers from the 2012 Association of Qualitative ResearchDiscourse, Power and Resistance Conference
• Issue 1 2013
• Issue 2 2012
• Issue 1 2012
• Issue 2 2011
• Issue 1 2011
• Issue 2 2010
• Issue 1 2010
• Issue 2 2009
• Issue 1 2009
• Issue 2 2008
• Issue 1 2008
• Issue 2 2007
• Issue 1 2007
• Issue 2 2006
• Issue 1 2006

Can we really teach the Generation Z? Opportunities and challenges at secondary level

The objective of this study is to explore Generation Z’s interpretation of educational practices at the secondary education level. By examining the expectations of Generation Z…

Relationships with horses and humans: Smith’s legacy

The purpose of this paper is to outline the contributions of Smiths legacy in Indigenous methodologies and to show how her interventions encourage and facilitate meaningful…

The door opens inward: meeting Linda Tuhiwai Smith

This article demonstrates the reach of Tuhiwai Smith’s ideas across Pacific research. It discusses the theoretical and practical influence of her seminal work Decolonizing …

The impact of decolonizing methodologies: reflections of Indigenous researchers

To share the narratives of six Indigenous Researchers representing the diverse thinking of Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders. The narratives describe the impact Decolonizing…

Becoming an academic in Spanish higher education: an in-depth narrative study

This article focuses on understanding the evolution of the academic identity of a university academic within the contemporary university context, highlighting the significant…

Unveiling creativity in artisanal beer through cultural and collective intelligence: a study of market in Mexico

The principal objective of the study is to analyze the influence of ethnicity, culture and collective intelligence in entrepreneurial creativity, innovation and marketing of…

Finding “the center point”: decolonial and indigenous methodologies in education historical research

This paper centers a decolonial and Indigenous methodological approaches to educational history research. This research offers how Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and…

“Let’s catch up at Shivaji Park”: emotively conversing on connecting and un/belonging through a public space

This paper is based on the personal connections of the four authors to Shivaji Park, the largest public space in Mumbai. Three of the authors are childhood friends and were once…

Language, disciplinarity and identity: an autoethnography of an international interdisciplinary doctoral student

While higher education has been encouraging interdisciplinary research, few studies have been conducted to understand how interdisciplinarity shapes the identity construction of…

Mele as methodology: crafting (k)new tools for Indigenous research

In Decolonizing Methodologies (1999), Linda Tuhiwai Smith asserted that “the master’s tools of colonization will not work to decolonize what the master built.” Smith challenged…

So, you think you are a leader? A qualitative study to understand patterns of presentation and symmetry among dimensions of leader identity

This study aims to explore individual leader identity development across four key dimensions: strength, integration, meaning and inclusiveness.

Echoes of silence: an embossed poetic inquiry

Silences in qualitative social science research present a unique and sometimes ambiguous challenge for researchers. When working with transcription artefacts, considering not only…

“Oh my phone, I can't live without you”: a phenomenological study of nomophobia among college students

Previous studies have identified concerns and anxiety in individuals who are without their mobile phones, which is known as nomophobia, an acronym for “no mobile phone phobia.”…

The opportunity of struggle: a case study on developing a Māori-centric nursing course

This paper delves into the enduring influence of Linda Tuhiwai Smith’s groundbreaking work, “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples,” while examining how the…

Reflexivity in co-constructed meanings: the impact of gender specific perspectives in the qualitative research context

This paper examines the impact of lived experiences and attitudinal blueprints on researchers within the context of masculinities research. It explores the negotiation of gendered…

Incorporating pragmatism in a behaviour change-led climate adaptation project: a collaborative reflection

This article argues the value of integrating pragmatism in applying behavioural science to complex challenges. We describe a behaviour change-led knowledge co-production process…

The power (and caveats) of body mapping as a visual methodology with vulnerable youth

This study aims to explore the NEET (Not in Education, Employment and Training) experiences of young people living in impoverished settings.

Conceptualising “the more-than-migrant child”

Using a feminist, post-structural and posthuman theoretical framing the paper argues for elevating the complexity of conceptions of migrant children’s engagements with and…

Harnessing the potential of translanguaging in Tanzanian secondary education

This study aims to explore motives behind teachers' and students' use of translanguaging and how they use it in Tanzanian public secondary school classrooms.

Fiction-writing and wonder: documenting a collaborative, creative writing process

We articulate cycles of creative storying and data analysis and the wonder that motivated the project by detailing our reading, thinking and writing processes to contribute to the…

Tell me about your trauma: an empathetic approach-based protocol for interviewing school leaders who have experienced a crisis

In this study, we illuminate how techniques can be incorporated into interview protocols when conducting research with educational leaders who are being asked to discuss their…

Advancing women to leadership in academia: does personal branding matter?

Personal branding is a strategic tool of marketing and communication to define success in organisations. While it constitutes a conscious attempt to commodify self and audit self…

Outside the field, inside the home: lessons learned from adapting qualitative research strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic

This collaborative paper presents three case studies on four scholars' experiences with remote data collection. The authors highlight the challenges and strengths of online…

Using data as poetry and text in case study research – poetic representations of adult learner experiences in neighbourhood houses

We argue this method of inquiry better represents the participants' learning, lives and experiences in the formal neoliberal education system prioritising performativity…

Women leaders' lived experiences of bravery in leadership

The research aims to understand the stories of women leaders who have demonstrated bravery in leadership. By analyzing their lived experiences through storytelling and narratives…

Conducting collage elicitation research online: what happens when we remove the scissors and glue?

This autoethnographic article presents the adaptation of collage—an arts-based method traditionally used in face-to-face settings—into an online research tool. It emphasizes the…

Reflections on a cross-cultural interview study

The aim of this article is to address some aspects of a cross-cultural interview study conducted in a PhD research project. This is done by reflecting on and discussing the…

“But our worlds are different!”: reflexivity as a tool to negotiate insider–outsider dilemmas

In ethnographic research, negotiating insider–outsider perspectives is essential in order to get closer to the participants’ lives. By highlighting the importance of empathy and…

The use of digital technologies in the co-creation process of photo elicitation

This article approaches the possibilities of photo elicitation as a technique for social research in the landscape of technology-mediated instantaneous interpersonal communication.

Negotiating with technology: advancing the virtual in qualitative research methods

This study aims to describe key elements that are critical to virtual qualitative research especially while working with practitioners as participants.

“Online group discussion was challenging but we enjoyed it!” an exploratory practice in extensive reading

While many works have reported adopting exploratory practice (EP) principles in language teaching research, only a few studies have explored the enactment of EP in an online…

Free association and qualitative research interviewing: perspectives and applications

This paper contributes to a dialogue about the psychoanalytic concept of free association and its application in the context of qualitative research interviewing. In doing so, it…

Opportunities and challenges facing LGBTQ+ people in employment in rural England post-pandemic: a thematic analysis

The following study aimed to better understand rural dwelling LGBTQ+ adults’ experiences of the challenges and opportunities facing their working lives in England.

Translanguaging approaches and perceptions of Iranian EGP teachers in bi/multilingual educational spaces: a qualitative inquiry

This study aims to analyze translanguaging practices and beliefs of Iranian English for General Purposes (EGP) teachers and find discrepancies between the practice and perception…

It's too late – the post has gone viral already: a novel methodological stance to explore K-12 teachers' lived experiences of adult cyber abuse

The purpose of this scoping rapid review was to identify and analyse existing qualitative methodologies that have been used to investigate K-12 teachers' lived experiences of…

“A balancing act of keeping the faith and maintaining wellbeing”: perspectives from Australian faith communities during the pandemic

The pandemic presented many new challenges is all spheres of life including faith communities. Around the globe, lockdowns took pace at various stages with varying restrictions…

Online date, start – end:

Copyright holder:, open access:.

• Dr Mark Vicars

Further Information

• About the journal (opens new window)
• Purchase information (opens new window)
• Editorial team (opens new window)
• Write for this journal (opens new window)

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research

A synthesis of recommendations.

O’Brien, Bridget C. PhD; Harris, Ilene B. PhD; Beckman, Thomas J. MD; Reed, Darcy A. MD, MPH; Cook, David A. MD, MHPE

Dr. O’Brien is assistant professor, Department of Medicine and Office of Research and Development in Medical Education, University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, San Francisco, California.

Dr. Harris is professor and head, Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.

Dr. Beckman is professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Reed is associate professor of medicine and medical education, Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Dr. Cook is associate director, Mayo Clinic Online Learning, research chair, Mayo Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, and professor of medicine and medical education, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.

Funding/Support: This study was funded in part by a research review grant from the Society for Directors of Research in Medical Education.

Other disclosures: None reported.

Ethical approval: Reported as not applicable.

Disclaimer: The funding agency had no role in the study design, analysis, interpretation, writing of the manuscript, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Supplemental digital content for this article is available at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 .

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. O’Brien, Office of Research and Development in Medical Education, UCSF School of Medicine, Box 3202, 1855 Folsom St., Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94143-3202; e-mail: [email protected] .

Purpose 

Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.

Method 

The authors identified guidelines, reporting standards, and critical appraisal criteria for qualitative research by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google through July 2013; reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources; and contacting experts. Specifically, two authors reviewed a sample of sources to generate an initial set of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research. Through an iterative process of reviewing sources, modifying the set of items, and coding all sources for items, the authors prepared a near-final list of items and descriptions and sent this list to five external reviewers for feedback. The final items and descriptions included in the reporting standards reflect this feedback.

Results 

The Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) consists of 21 items. The authors define and explain key elements of each item and provide examples from recently published articles to illustrate ways in which the standards can be met.

Conclusions 

The SRQR aims to improve the transparency of all aspects of qualitative research by providing clear standards for reporting qualitative research. These standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings.

Qualitative research contributes to the literature in many disciplines by describing, interpreting, and generating theories about social interactions and individual experiences as they occur in natural, rather than experimental, situations. 1–3 Some recent examples include studies of professional dilemmas, 4 medical students’ early experiences of workplace learning, 5 patients’ experiences of disease and interventions, 6–8 and patients’ perspectives about incident disclosures. 9 The purpose of qualitative research is to understand the perspectives/experiences of individuals or groups and the contexts in which these perspectives or experiences are situated. 1 , 2 , 10

Qualitative research is increasingly common and valued in the medical and medical education literature. 1 , 10–13 However, the quality of such research can be difficult to evaluate because of incomplete reporting of key elements. 14 , 15 Quality is multifaceted and includes consideration of the importance of the research question, the rigor of the research methods, the appropriateness and salience of the inferences, and the clarity and completeness of reporting. 16 , 17 Although there is much debate about standards for methodological rigor in qualitative research, 13 , 14 , 18–20 there is widespread agreement about the need for clear and complete reporting. 14 , 21 , 22 Optimal reporting would enable editors, reviewers, other researchers, and practitioners to critically appraise qualitative studies and apply and synthesize the results. One important step in improving the quality of reporting is to formulate and define clear reporting standards.

Authors have proposed guidelines for the quality of qualitative research, including those in the fields of medical education, 23–25 clinical and health services research, 26–28 and general education research. 29 , 30 Yet in nearly all cases, the authors do not describe how the guidelines were created, and often fail to distinguish reporting quality from the other facets of quality (e.g., the research question or methods). Several authors suggest standards for reporting qualitative research, 15 , 20 , 29–33 but their articles focus on a subset of qualitative data collection methods (e.g., interviews), fail to explain how the authors developed the reporting criteria, narrowly construe qualitative research (e.g., thematic analysis) in ways that may exclude other approaches, and/or lack specific examples to help others see how the standards might be achieved. Thus, there remains a compelling need for defensible and broadly applicable standards for reporting qualitative research.

We designed and carried out the present study to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research through a rigorous synthesis of published articles and expert recommendations.

We formulated standards for reporting qualitative research by using a rigorous and systematic approach in which we reviewed previously proposed recommendations by experts in qualitative methods. Our research team consisted of two PhD researchers and one physician with formal training and experience in qualitative methods, and two physicians with experience, but no formal training, in qualitative methods.

We first identified previously proposed recommendations by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Google using combinations of terms such as “qualitative methods,” “qualitative research,” “qualitative guidelines,” “qualitative standards,” and “critical appraisal” and by reviewing the reference lists of retrieved sources, reviewing the Equator Network, 22 and contacting experts. We conducted our first search in January 2007 and our last search in July 2013. Most recommendations were published in peer-reviewed journals, but some were available only on the Internet, and one was an interim draft from a national organization. We report the full set of the 40 sources reviewed in Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 .

Two of us (B.O., I.H.) reviewed an initial sample of sources to generate a comprehensive list of items that were potentially important in reporting qualitative research (Draft A). All of us then worked in pairs to review all sources and code the presence or absence of each item in a given source. From Draft A, we then distilled a shorter list (Draft B) by identifying core concepts and combining related items, taking into account the number of times each item appeared in these sources. We then compared the items in Draft B with material in the original sources to check for missing concepts, modify accordingly, and add explanatory definitions to create a prefinal list of items (Draft C).

We circulated Draft C to five experienced qualitative researchers (see the acknowledgments) for review. We asked them to note any omitted or redundant items and to suggest improvements to the wording to enhance clarity and relevance across a broad spectrum of qualitative inquiry. In response to their reviews, we consolidated some items and made minor revisions to the wording of labels and definitions to create the final set of reporting standards—the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)—summarized in Table 1 .

To explicate how the final set of standards reflect the material in the original sources, two of us (B.O., D.A.C.) selected by consensus the 25 most complete sources of recommendations and identified which standards reflected the concepts found in each original source (see Table 2 ).

The SRQR is a list of 21 items that we consider essential for complete, transparent reporting of qualitative research (see Table 1 ). As explained above, we developed these items through a rigorous synthesis of prior recommendations and concepts from published sources (see Table 2 ; see also Supplemental Digital Appendix 1, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 ) and expert review. These 21 items provide a framework and recommendations for reporting qualitative studies. Given the wide range of qualitative approaches and methodologies, we attempted to select items with broad relevance.

The SRQR includes the article’s title and abstract (items 1 and 2); problem formulation and research question (items 3 and 4); research design and methods of data collection and analysis (items 5 through 15); results, interpretation, discussion, and integration (items 16 through 19); and other information (items 20 and 21). Supplemental Digital Appendix 2, found at https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 , contains a detailed explanation of each item, along with examples from recently published qualitative studies. Below, we briefly describe the standards, with a particular focus on those unique to qualitative research.

Titles, abstracts, and introductory material. Reporting standards for titles, abstracts, and introductory material (problem formulation, research question) in qualitative research are very similar to those for quantitative research, except that the results reported in the abstract are narrative rather than numerical, and authors rarely present a specific hypothesis. 29 , 30

Research design and methods. Reporting on research design and methods of data collection and analysis highlights several distinctive features of qualitative research. Many of the criteria we reviewed focus not only on identifying and describing all aspects of the methods (e.g., approach, researcher characteristics and role, sampling strategy, context, data collection and analysis) but also on justifying each choice. 13 , 14 This ensures that authors make their assumptions and decisions transparent to readers. This standard is less commonly expected in quantitative research, perhaps because most quantitative researchers share positivist assumptions and generally agree about standards for rigor of various study designs and sampling techniques. 14 Just as quantitative reporting standards encourage authors to describe how they implemented methods such as randomization and measurement validity, several qualitative reporting criteria recommend that authors describe how they implemented a presumably familiar technique in their study rather than simply mentioning the technique. 10 , 14 , 32 For example, authors often state that data collection occurred until saturation, with no mention of how they defined and recognized saturation. Similarly, authors often mention an “iterative process,” with minimal description of the nature of the iterations. The SRQR emphasizes the importance of explaining and elaborating on these important processes. Nearly all of the original sources recommended describing the characteristics and role of the researcher (i.e., reflexivity). Members of the research team often form relationships with participants, and analytic processes are highly interpretive in most qualitative research. Therefore, reviewers and readers must understand how these relationships and the researchers’ perspectives and assumptions influenced data collection and interpretation. 15 , 23 , 26 , 34

Results. Reporting of qualitative research results should identify the main analytic findings. Often, these findings involve interpretation and contextualization, which represent a departure from the tradition in quantitative studies of objectively reporting results. The presentation of results often varies with the specific qualitative approach and methodology; thus, rigid rules for reporting qualitative findings are inappropriate. However, authors should provide evidence (e.g., examples, quotes, or text excerpts) to substantiate the main analytic findings. 20 , 29

Discussion. The discussion of qualitative results will generally include connections to existing literature and/or theoretical or conceptual frameworks, the scope and boundaries of the results (transferability), and study limitations. 10–12 , 28 In some qualitative traditions, the results and discussion may not have distinct boundaries; we recommend that authors include the substance of each item regardless of the section in which it appears.

The purpose of the SRQR is to improve the quality of reporting of qualitative research studies. We hope that these 21 recommended reporting standards will assist authors during manuscript preparation, editors and reviewers in evaluating a manuscript for potential publication, and readers when critically appraising, applying, and synthesizing study findings. As with other reporting guidelines, 35–37 we anticipate that the SRQR will evolve as it is applied and evaluated in practice. We welcome suggestions for refinement.

Qualitative studies explore “how?” and “why?” questions related to social or human problems or phenomena. 10 , 38 Purposes of qualitative studies include understanding meaning from participants’ perspectives (How do they interpret or make sense of an event, situation, or action?); understanding the nature and influence of the context surrounding events or actions; generating theories about new or poorly understood events, situations, or actions; and understanding the processes that led to a desired (or undesired) outcome. 38 Many different approaches (e.g., ethnography, phenomenology, discourse analysis, case study, grounded theory) and methodologies (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observation, analysis of documents) may be used in qualitative research, each with its own assumptions and traditions. 1 , 2 A strength of many qualitative approaches and methodologies is the opportunity for flexibility and adaptability throughout the data collection and analysis process. We endeavored to maintain that flexibility by intentionally defining items to avoid favoring one approach or method over others. As such, we trust that the SRQR will support all approaches and methods of qualitative research by making reports more explicit and transparent, while still allowing investigators the flexibility to use the study design and reporting format most appropriate to their study. It may be helpful, in the future, to develop approach-specific extensions of the SRQR, as has been done for guidelines in quantitative research (e.g., the CONSORT extensions). 37

Limitations, strengths, and boundaries

We deliberately avoided recommendations that define methodological rigor, and therefore it would be inappropriate to use the SRQR to judge the quality of research methods and findings. Many of the original sources from which we derived the SRQR were intended as criteria for methodological rigor or critical appraisal rather than reporting; for these, we inferred the information that would be needed to evaluate the criterion. Occasionally, we found conflicting recommendations in the literature (e.g., recommending specific techniques such as multiple coders or member checking to demonstrate trustworthiness); we resolved these conflicting recommendations through selection of the most frequent recommendations and by consensus among ourselves.

Some qualitative researchers have described the limitations of checklists as a means to improve methodological rigor. 13 We nonetheless believe that a checklist for reporting standards will help to enhance the transparency of qualitative research studies and thereby advance the field. 29 , 39

Strengths of this work include the grounding in previously published criteria, the diversity of experience and perspectives among us, and critical review by experts in three countries.

Implications and application

Similar to other reporting guidelines, 35–37 the SRQR may be viewed as a starting point for defining reporting standards in qualitative research. Although our personal experience lies in health professions education, the SRQR is based on sources originating in diverse health care and non-health-care fields. We intentionally crafted the SRQR to include various paradigms, approaches, and methodologies used in qualitative research. The elaborations offered in Supplemental Digital Appendix 2 (see https://links.lww.com/ACADMED/A218 ) should provide sufficient description and examples to enable both novice and experienced researchers to use these standards. Thus, the SRQR should apply broadly across disciplines, methodologies, topics, study participants, and users.

The SRQR items reflect information essential for inclusion in a qualitative research report, but should not be viewed as prescribing a rigid format or standardized content. Individual study needs, author preferences, and journal requirements may necessitate a different sequence or organization than that shown in Table 1 . Journal word restrictions may prevent a full exposition of each item, and the relative importance of a given item will vary by study. Thus, although all 21 standards would ideally be reflected in any given report, authors should prioritize attention to those items that are most relevant to the given study, findings, context, and readership.

Application of the SRQR need not be limited to the writing phase of a given study. These standards can assist researchers in planning qualitative studies and in the careful documentation of processes and decisions made throughout the study. By considering these recommendations early on, researchers may be more likely to identify the paradigm and approach most appropriate to their research, consider and use strategies for ensuring trustworthiness, and keep track of procedures and decisions.

Journal editors can facilitate the review process by providing the SRQR to reviewers and applying its standards, thus establishing more explicit expectations for qualitative studies. Although the recommendations do not address or advocate specific approaches, methods, or quality standards, they do help reviewers identify information that is missing from manuscripts.

As authors and editors apply the SRQR, readers will have more complete information about a given study, thus facilitating judgments about the trustworthiness, relevance, and transferability of findings to their own context and/or to related literature. Complete reporting will also facilitate meaningful synthesis of qualitative results across studies. 40 We anticipate that such transparency will, over time, help to identify previously unappreciated gaps in the rigor and relevance of research findings. Investigators, editors, and educators can then work to remedy these deficiencies and, thereby, enhance the overall quality of qualitative research.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Margaret Bearman, PhD, Calvin Chou, MD, PhD, Karen Hauer, MD, Ayelet Kuper, MD, DPhil, Arianne Teherani, PhD, and participants in the UCSF weekly educational scholarship works-in-progress group (ESCape) for critically reviewing the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.

References Cited Only in Table 2

Supplemental digital content.

• ACADMED_89_9_2014_05_22_OBRIEN_1301196_SDC1.pdf; [PDF] (385 KB)
• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

Readers Of this Article Also Read

The distinctions between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework, the positivism paradigm of research, common qualitative methodologies and research designs in health professions..., summary of instructions for authors, the problem and power of professionalism: a critical analysis of medical....

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal

• Submit your paper
• Author guidelines
• Editorial team
• Indexing & metrics
• Calls for papers & news

Before you start

For queries relating to the status of your paper pre decision, please contact the Editor or Journal Editorial Office. For queries post acceptance, please contact the Supplier Project Manager. These details can be found in the Editorial Team section.

Author responsibilities

Our goal is to provide you with a professional and courteous experience at each stage of the review and publication process. There are also some responsibilities that sit with you as the author. Our expectation is that you will:

• Respond swiftly to any queries during the publication process.
• Be accountable for all aspects of your work. This includes investigating and resolving any questions about accuracy or research integrity .
• Treat communications between you and the journal editor as confidential until an editorial decision has been made.
• Include anyone who has made a substantial and meaningful contribution to the submission (anyone else involved in the paper should be listed in the acknowledgements).
• Exclude anyone who hasn’t contributed to the paper, or who has chosen not to be associated with the research.
• In accordance with COPE’s position statement on AI tools , Large Language Models cannot be credited with authorship as they are incapable of conceptualising a research design without human direction and cannot be accountable for the integrity, originality, and validity of the published work. The author(s) must describe the content created or modified as well as appropriately cite the name and version of the AI tool used; any additional works drawn on by the AI tool should also be appropriately cited and referenced. Standard tools that are used to improve spelling and grammar are not included within the parameters of this guidance. The Editor and Publisher reserve the right to determine whether the use of an AI tool is permissible.
• If your article involves human participants, you must ensure you have considered whether or not you require ethical approval for your research, and include this information as part of your submission. Find out more about informed consent .

Generative AI usage key principles

• Copywriting any part of an article using a generative AI tool/LLM would not be permissible, including the generation of the abstract or the literature review, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The generation or reporting of results using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible, for as per Emerald’s authorship criteria, the author(s) must be responsible for the creation and interpretation of their work and accountable for its accuracy, integrity, and validity.
• The in-text reporting of statistics using a generative AI tool/LLM is not permissible due to concerns over the authenticity, integrity, and validity of the data produced, although the use of such a tool to aid in the analysis of the work would be permissible.
• Copy-editing an article using a generative AI tool/LLM in order to improve its language and readability would be permissible as this mirrors standard tools already employed to improve spelling and grammar, and uses existing author-created material, rather than generating wholly new content, while the author(s) remains responsible for the original work.
• The submission and publication of images created by AI tools or large-scale generative models is not permitted.

Research and publishing ethics

Our editors and employees work hard to ensure the content we publish is ethically sound. To help us achieve that goal, we closely follow the advice laid out in the guidelines and flowcharts on the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) website .

We have also developed our research and publishing ethics guidelines . If you haven’t already read these, we urge you to do so – they will help you avoid the most common publishing ethics issues.

A few key points:

• Any manuscript you submit to this journal should be original. That means it should not have been published before in its current, or similar, form. Exceptions to this rule are outlined in our pre-print and conference paper policies .  If any substantial element of your paper has been previously published, you need to declare this to the journal editor upon submission. Please note, the journal editor may use  Crossref Similarity Check  to check on the originality of submissions received. This service compares submissions against a database of 49 million works from 800 scholarly publishers.
• Your work should not have been submitted elsewhere and should not be under consideration by any other publication.
• If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it upon submission; this allows the editor to decide how they would like to proceed. Read about conflict of interest in our research and publishing ethics guidelines .
• By submitting your work to Emerald, you are guaranteeing that the work is not in infringement of any existing copyright.
• If you have written about a company/individual/organisation in detail using information that is not publicly available, have spent time within that company/organisation, or the work features named/interviewed employees, you will need to clear permission by using the  consent to publish form ; please also see our permissions guidance for full details. If you have to clear permission with the company/individual/organisation, consent must be given either by the named individual in question or their representative, a board member of the company/organisation, or a HR department representative of the company/organisation.
• You have an ethical obligation and responsibility to conduct your research in adherence to national and international research ethics guidelines, as well as the ethical principles outlined by your discipline and any relevant authorities, and to be transparent about your research methods in such a way that all involved in the publication process may fairly and appropriately evaluate your work. For all research involving human participants, you must ensure that you have obtained informed consent, meaning that you must inform all participants in your work (or their legal representative) as to why the research is being conducted, whether their anonymity is protected, how their data will be stored and used, and whether there are any associated risks from participation in the study; the submitted work must confirm that informed consent was obtained and detail how this was addressed in accordance with our policy on informed consent .  
• Where appropriate, you must provide an ethical statement within the submitted work confirming that your research received institutional and national (or international) ethical approval, and that it complies with all relevant guidelines and regulations for studies involving humans, whether that be data, individuals, or samples. Specifically, the statement should contain the name and location of the institutional ethics reviewing committee or review board, the approval number, the date of approval, and the details of the national or international guidelines that were followed, as well as any other relevant information. You should also include details of how the work adheres to relevant consent guidelines along with confirming that informed consent was secured for all participants. The details of these statements should ensure that author and participant anonymity is not compromised. Any work submitted without a suitable ethical statement and details of informed consent for all participants, where required, will be returned to the authors and will not be considered further until appropriate and clear documentation is provided. Emerald reserves the right to reject work without sufficient evidence of informed consent from human participants and ethical approval where required.

Third party copyright permissions

Prior to article submission, you need to ensure you’ve applied for, and received, written permission to use any material in your manuscript that has been created by a third party. Please note, we are unable to publish any article that still has permissions pending. The rights we require are:

• Non-exclusive rights to reproduce the material in the article or book chapter.
• Print and electronic rights.
• Worldwide English-language rights.
• To use the material for the life of the work. That means there should be no time restrictions on its re-use e.g. a one-year licence.

We are a member of the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) and participate in the STM permissions guidelines , a reciprocal free exchange of material with other STM publishers.  In some cases, this may mean that you don’t need permission to re-use content. If so, please highlight this at the submission stage.

Please take a few moments to read our guide to publishing permissions  to ensure you have met all the requirements, so that we can process your submission without delay.

Open access submissions and information

All our journals currently offer two open access (OA) publishing paths; gold open access and green open access.

If you would like to, or are required to, make the branded publisher PDF (also known as the version of record) freely available immediately upon publication, you can select the gold open access route once your paper is accepted. 

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge) . This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

Alternatively, if you would like to, or are required to, publish open access but your funding doesn’t cover the cost of the APC, you can choose the green open access, or self-archiving, route. As soon as your article is published, you can make the author accepted manuscript (the version accepted for publication) openly available, free from payment and embargo periods.

You can find out more about our open access routes, our APCs and waivers and read our FAQs on our open research page. 

Find out about open

Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines

We are a signatory of the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) Guidelines , a framework that supports the reproducibility of research through the adoption of transparent research practices. That means we encourage you to:

• Cite and fully reference all data, program code, and other methods in your article.
• Include persistent identifiers, such as a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), in references for datasets and program codes. Persistent identifiers ensure future access to unique published digital objects, such as a piece of text or datasets. Persistent identifiers are assigned to datasets by digital archives, such as institutional repositories and partners in the Data Preservation Alliance for the Social Sciences (Data-PASS).
• Follow appropriate international and national procedures with respect to data protection, rights to privacy and other ethical considerations, whenever you cite data. For further guidance please refer to our  research and publishing ethics guidelines . For an example on how to cite datasets, please refer to the references section below.

Prepare your submission

Manuscript support services.

We are pleased to partner with Editage, a platform that connects you with relevant experts in language support, translation, editing, visuals, consulting, and more. After you’ve agreed a fee, they will work with you to enhance your manuscript and get it submission-ready.

This is an optional service for authors who feel they need a little extra support. It does not guarantee your work will be accepted for review or publication.

Visit Editage

Manuscript requirements

Before you submit your manuscript, it’s important you read and follow the guidelines below. You will also find some useful tips in our structure your journal submission how-to guide.

Submit your manuscript

There are a number of key steps you should follow to ensure a smooth and trouble-free submission.

Double check your manuscript

Before submitting your work, it is your responsibility to check that the manuscript is complete, grammatically correct, and without spelling or typographical errors. A few other important points:

• Give the journal aims and scope a final read. Is your manuscript definitely a good fit? If it isn’t, the editor may decline it without peer review.
• Does your manuscript comply with our research and publishing ethics guidelines ?
• Have you cleared any necessary publishing permissions ?
• Have you followed all the formatting requirements laid out in these author guidelines?
• If you need to refer to your own work, use wording such as ‘previous research has demonstrated’ not ‘our previous research has demonstrated’.
• If you need to refer to your own, currently unpublished work, don’t include this work in the reference list.
• Any acknowledgments or author biographies should be uploaded as separate files.
• Carry out a final check to ensure that no author names appear anywhere in the manuscript. This includes in figures or captions.

You will find a helpful submission checklist on the website Think.Check.Submit .

The submission process

All manuscripts should be submitted through our editorial system by the corresponding author.

The only way to submit to the journal is through the journal’s ScholarOne site as accessed via the Emerald website, and not by email or through any third-party agent/company, journal representative, or website. Submissions should be done directly by the author(s) through the ScholarOne site and not via a third-party proxy on their behalf.

A separate author account is required for each journal you submit to. If this is your first time submitting to this journal, please choose the Create an account or Register now option in the editorial system. If you already have an Emerald login, you are welcome to reuse the existing username and password here.

Please note, the next time you log into the system, you will be asked for your username. This will be the email address you entered when you set up your account.

Don't forget to add your  ORCiD ID during the submission process. It will be embedded in your published article, along with a link to the ORCiD registry allowing others to easily match you with your work.

Don’t have one yet? It only takes a few moments to register for a free ORCiD identifier .

Visit the ScholarOne support centre  for further help and guidance.

What you can expect next

You will receive an automated email from the journal editor, confirming your successful submission. It will provide you with a manuscript number, which will be used in all future correspondence about your submission. If you have any reason to suspect the confirmation email you receive might be fraudulent, please contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Post submission

Review and decision process.

Each submission is checked by the editor. At this stage, they may choose to decline or unsubmit your manuscript if it doesn’t fit the journal aims and scope, or they feel the language/manuscript quality is too low.

If they think it might be suitable for the publication, they will send it to at least two independent referees for double anonymous peer review.  Once these reviewers have provided their feedback, the editor may decide to accept your manuscript, request minor or major revisions, or decline your work.

This journal offers an article transfer service. If the editor decides to decline your manuscript, either before or after peer review, they may offer to transfer it to a more relevant Emerald journal in this field. If you accept, your ScholarOne author account, and the accounts of your co-authors, will automatically transfer to the new journal, along with your manuscript and any accompanying peer review reports. However, you will still need to log in to ScholarOne to complete the submission process using your existing username and password. While accepting a transfer does not guarantee the receiving journal will publish your work, an editor will only suggest a transfer if they feel your article is a good fit with the new title.

While all journals work to different timescales, the goal is that the editor will inform you of their first decision within 60 days.

During this period, we will send you automated updates on the progress of your manuscript via our submission system, or you can log in to check on the current status of your paper.  Each time we contact you, we will quote the manuscript number you were given at the point of submission. If you receive an email that does not match these criteria, it could be fraudulent and we recommend you contact the journal editor in the first instance.

Manuscript transfer service

Emerald’s manuscript transfer service takes the pain out of the submission process if your manuscript doesn’t fit your initial journal choice. Our team of expert Editors from participating journals work together to identify alternative journals that better align with your research, ensuring your work finds the ideal publication home it deserves. Our dedicated team is committed to supporting authors like you in finding the right home for your research.

If a journal is participating in the manuscript transfer program, the Editor has the option to recommend your paper for transfer. If a transfer decision is made by the Editor, you will receive an email with the details of the recommended journal and the option to accept or reject the transfer. It’s always down to you as the author to decide if you’d like to accept. If you do accept, your paper and any reviewer reports will automatically be transferred to the recommended journals. Authors will then confirm resubmissions in the new journal’s ScholarOne system.

Our Manuscript Transfer Service page has more information on the process.

If your submission is accepted

Open access.

Once your paper is accepted, you will have the opportunity to indicate whether you would like to publish your paper via the gold open access route.

If you’ve chosen to publish gold open access, this is the point you will be asked to pay the APC (article processing charge).  This varies per journal and can be found on our APC price list or on the editorial system at the point of submission. Your article will be published with a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 user licence , which outlines how readers can reuse your work.

For UK journal article authors - if you wish to submit your work accepted by Emerald to REF 2021, you must make a ‘closed deposit’ of your accepted manuscript to your respective institutional repository upon acceptance of your article. Articles accepted for publication after 1st April 2018 should be deposited as soon as possible, but no later than three months after the acceptance date. For further information and guidance, please refer to the REF 2021 website.

All accepted authors are sent an email with a link to a licence form.  This should be checked for accuracy, for example whether contact and affiliation details are up to date and your name is spelled correctly, and then returned to us electronically. If there is a reason why you can’t assign copyright to us, you should discuss this with your journal content editor. You will find their contact details on the editorial team section above.

Proofing and typesetting

Once we have received your completed licence form, the article will pass directly into the production process. We will carry out editorial checks, copyediting, and typesetting and then return proofs to you (if you are the corresponding author) for your review. This is your opportunity to correct any typographical errors, grammatical errors or incorrect author details. We can’t accept requests to rewrite texts at this stage.

When the page proofs are finalised, the fully typeset and proofed version of record is published online. This is referred to as the EarlyCite version. While an EarlyCite article has yet to be assigned to a volume or issue, it does have a digital object identifier (DOI) and is fully citable. It will be compiled into an issue according to the journal’s issue schedule, with papers being added by chronological date of publication.

How to share your paper

Visit our author rights page  to find out how you can reuse and share your work.

To find tips on increasing the visibility of your published paper, read about  how to promote your work .

Correcting inaccuracies in your published paper

Sometimes errors are made during the research, writing and publishing processes. When these issues arise, we have the option of withdrawing the paper or introducing a correction notice. Find out more about our  article withdrawal and correction policies .

Need to make a change to the author list? See our frequently asked questions (FAQs) below.

Frequently asked questions

• Dr. Richard Longman Open University - UK [email protected]
• Dr Paulina Segarra Universidad Anáhuac México - Mexico [email protected]

Editor Emeritae

• Professor Catherine Cassell University of Birmingham - UK
• Professor Albert Mills Saint Mary's University - Canada
• Professor Jean Helms Mills Saint Mary's University - Canada
• Professor Gillian Symon Royal Holloway, University of London - UK

Social Media Editor

• Dr. Nicholous Deal Mount Saint Vincent University - Canada

Associate Editor

• Professor Caio César Coelho Rodrigues FGV/EAESP - Brazil
• Dr Sadhvi Dar Queen Mary University of London - UK
• Prof. Vijayta Doshi (Special issues) Indian Institute of Management Udaipur - India
• Dr Dimitria Groutsis The University of Sydney - Australia
• Dr Christopher Hartt Dalhousie University - Canada
• Professor Jacky Hong University of Macau, China
• Dr David Jacobs Morgan State University - USA
• Dr. Ana Lopes Newcastle University - UK
• Dr Jamie McDonald University of Texas at San Antonio - USA
• Dr Charlotta Niemisto Åbo Akademi University - Finland
• Jussara Jéssica Pereira Getulio Vargas Foundation, São Paulo, Brazil
• Dr Amanda Peticca-Harris Grenoble Ecole de Management - France
• Professor Henriett Primecz Corvinus University of Budapest - Hungary
• Dr. Jenny Rodriguez University of Manchester - UK
• Dr. Stefanie Ruel Open University - UK
• Dr Fernanda Sauerbronn Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
• Dr. Stephanie Schreven University of Dundee - UK
• Dr Beata Segercrantz University of Helsinki - Finland
• Dr Nidhi Srinivas The New School - USA
• Dr Peter Svensson Lund University - Sweden
• Dr Amy Thurlow Mount Saint Vincent University - Canada
• Dr Cristian E. Villanueva Universidad Anahuac - Mexico
• Dr Laura Visser Monash University - Australia
• Emma Ferguson Emerald Publishing - UK [email protected]

Journal Editorial Office (For queries related to pre-acceptance)

• Prashant Bangera Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Supplier Project Manager (For queries related to post-acceptance)

• Suryalakshmi Balakrishnan Emerald Publishing [email protected]

Editorial Advisory Board

• Professor Iiris Aaltio Jyvaskyla University - Finland
• Professor Paul Adler University of Southern California - USA
• Dr Susan Ainsworth The University of Melbourne - Australia
• Professor Karen Ashcraft University of Colorado Boulder - USA
• Professor Howard S Becker San Francisco - USA
• Professor David Boje New Mexico State University - USA
• Professor Anne de Bruin University of Auckland - New Zealand
• Professor Marta Calas University of Massachusetts Amherst - USA
• Professor Ann Cunliffe University of Bradford - UK
• Dr Ardha Danieli University of Warwick - UK
• Professor Joanne Duberley University of Birmingham - UK
• Dr Gabrielle Durepos Mount Saint Vincent University - Canada
• Professor Alex Faria FGV University - Brazil
• Professor Martha Feldman University of California, Irvine - USA
• Professor David Fryer The University of Queensland - Australia
• Professor Silvia Gherardi University of Trento - Italy
• Professor Jeff Hearn Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration - Finland
• Professor Christopher Humphrey University of Manchester - UK
• Professor Liisa Husu Orebro University - Sweden
• Professor Paula Hyde Manchester Business School - UK
• Dr. Eduardo Infante Universidad de Sevilla - Spain
• Dr Marjut Jyrkinen University of Helsinki - Finland
• Professor Sten Jönsson Göteborg University - Sweden
• Professor Nigel King University of Huddersfield - UK
• Professor Stephen Andrew Linstead University of York - UK
• Professor John van Maanen MIT Sloan School of Management - USA
• Professor Antonio Mutti University of Pavia - Italy
• Professor Michael Myers University of Auckland Business School - New Zealand
• Professor Stella M. Nkomo University of Pretoria - South Africa
• Professor Brendan O'Dwyer University of Manchester, UK and Amsterdam University - Netherlands
• Professor Pushkala Prasad Skidmore College, USA - USA
• Professor Katrina Pritchard Swansea University - UK
• Dr Asta Pundziene Kaunas University of Technology - Lithuania
• Professor John Rodwell Swinburne University of Technology - Australia
• Professor Barbara Simpson University of Strathclyde - UK
• Professor Linda Smircich University of Massachusetts Amherst - USA
• Professor Chris Steyaert University of St Gallen - Switzerland
• Professor Roy Suddaby University of Victoria - Canada
• Professor Richard Thorpe University of Leeds - UK
• Professor Juhani Vaivio Aalto University School of Economics - Finland
• Professor M Vickers University of Western Sydney - Australia

Citation metrics

CiteScore 2023

Further information

CiteScore is a simple way of measuring the citation impact of sources, such as journals.

Calculating the CiteScore is based on the number of citations to documents (articles, reviews, conference papers, book chapters, and data papers) by a journal over four years, divided by the number of the same document types indexed in Scopus and published in those same four years.

For more information and methodology visit the Scopus definition

CiteScore Tracker 2024

(updated monthly)

CiteScore Tracker is calculated in the same way as CiteScore, but for the current year rather than previous, complete years.

The CiteScore Tracker calculation is updated every month, as a current indication of a title's performance.

2023 Impact Factor

The Journal Impact Factor is published each year by Clarivate Analytics. It is a measure of the number of times an average paper in a particular journal is cited during the preceding two years.

For more information and methodology see Clarivate Analytics

5-year Impact Factor (2023)

A base of five years may be more appropriate for journals in certain fields because the body of citations may not be large enough to make reasonable comparisons, or it may take longer than two years to publish and distribute leading to a longer period before others cite the work.

Actual value is intentionally only displayed for the most recent year. Earlier values are available in the Journal Citation Reports from Clarivate Analytics .

Publication timeline

Time to first decision

Time to first decision , expressed in days, the "first decision" occurs when the journal’s editorial team reviews the peer reviewers’ comments and recommendations. Based on this feedback, they decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript.

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024

Acceptance to publication

Acceptance to publication , expressed in days, is the average time between when the journal’s editorial team decide whether to accept, reject, or request revisions for the manuscript and the date of publication in the journal. 

Data is taken from the previous 12 months (Last updated July 2024)

Acceptance rate

The acceptance rate is a measurement of how many manuscripts a journal accepts for publication compared to the total number of manuscripts submitted expressed as a percentage %

Data is taken from submissions between 1st June 2023 and 31st May 2024 .

This figure is the total amount of downloads for all articles published early cite in the last 12 months

(Last updated: July 2024)

This journal is abstracted and indexed by

• Business Source Alumni Edition
• Complete/Corporate Plus/Elite/Premier (EBSCO)
• Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Management & Marketing
• Emerging Sources Citation Index ESCI (Clarivate Analytics)
• OCLC's Electronic Collections Online,
• ReadCube Discovery

This journal is ranked by

• Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) Quality Journal List
• Australian Research Council (ERA Journal List)
• BFI (Denmark)
• NSD (Norway)
• Polish Scholarly Bibliography (PBN)
• The Publication Forum (Finland)

Reviewer information

Peer review process.

This journal engages in a double-anonymous peer review process, which strives to match the expertise of a reviewer with the submitted manuscript. Reviews are completed with evidence of thoughtful engagement with the manuscript, provide constructive feedback, and add value to the overall knowledge and information presented in the manuscript.

The mission of the peer review process is to achieve excellence and rigour in scholarly publications and research.

Our vision is to give voice to professionals in the subject area who contribute unique and diverse scholarly perspectives to the field.

The journal values diverse perspectives from the field and reviewers who provide critical, constructive, and respectful feedback to authors. Reviewers come from a variety of organizations, careers, and backgrounds from around the world.

All invitations to review, abstracts, manuscripts, and reviews should be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share their review or information about the review process with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved, even after publication. This also applies to other reviewers’ “comments to author” which are shared with you on decision.

Resources to guide you through the review process

Discover practical tips and guidance on all aspects of peer review in our reviewers' section. See how being a reviewer could benefit your career, and discover what's involved in shaping a review.

More reviewer information

Calls for papers

Methodological frontiers for intersectional theorizing: advancing qualitative approaches for research in labour and organizations.

Submit your paper here! Introduction This Special Issue is interested in showcasing the innovative possibilities offered by feminist and intersec...

QROM Gender and Diversity Paper Collection

QROM presents another group of freely available published papers, covering the topics of gender and diversity in qualitative research. You can access the below papers for free until the end of November 2023. We encourage all authors in this field ...

QROM Workplace Bullying Paper Collection

We are pleased to share our second group of freely available published papers, covering the topic of workplace bullying. This is an important topic, and QROM encourages authors in this field to submit their papers to the journal. ...

QROM Classic Paper Collection

Introducing an exciting new feature of the journal Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management (QROM). Over the next few months, we plan to make groups of published papers freely available, in categories such as 'Classic...

Thank you to the 2022 Reviewers of Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2022 reviewers for this journal. We are very grateful for the contributions made. With their help, the journal has been able to publish such high...

QROM Co-Editor Awarded Honorary Doctorate

The QROM team are delighted to announce that one of our Co-Editors, Professor Jean Helms Mills, has recently been rewarded an honorary doctorate by The University of Jyväskylä. The faculties of the University award honorary doctorates to persons w...

Thank you to the 2021 Reviewers of Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management

The publishing and editorial teams would like to thank the following, for their invaluable service as 2021 reviewers for this journal. We are very gratefu...

Thank you to the 2019 Reviewers for Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management (QROM)

The academic process as we know it could not exist without the service you provide. We are grateful for your continued support of the journal: Galit Ailon Mirian Assumpcao Lima Marcos Barros Dharmaraju Bathini ...

Thank You to the Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management Reviewers of 2018

Chahrazad Abdallah Ruth Abrams Madeleine Abrandt Dahlgren Raj Agnihotri Gazi Alam Fahreen Alamgir Rafael Alcadipani Christopher Alcantara Hanan Alhaddi Stephen Allen Lindsey And...

Literati awards

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management - Literati Award Winners 2023

We are pleased to announce our 2023 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Papers Conforming to and resisting imposed id...

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal  - Literati Award Winners 2022 

We are pleased to announce our 2022 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper “Practicing care in qualitati...

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management - Literati Award Winners 2021

We are pleased to announce our 2021 Literati Award winners. Outstanding Paper Indigenous knowledges, priorities and process...

Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management is an international journal committed to encouraging and publishing critical qualitative work from researchers and practitioners within the management and organizational field throughout the world.

Aims and scope

The journal seeks to provide a forum for qualitative researchers through which they can share their work with others and,  in particular , discuss issues of research practice pertinent to qualitative approaches.

We are looking for articles that don’t just arrive at useful findings based on qualitative methods but which:

• provide an “in-depth” study of the processes involved (e.g., what activities/ interrelationships can be identified in arriving at a particular conclusion?)
• discuss/reflect on issues of research practice (i.e., what we can learn from applying selected qualitative methods);
• are critical (i.e., broadly concerned with understanding the impact of managing and organizing on human experience and life chances);
• are focussed on subjective experience (i.e., provides in-depth understanding of what people feel about the processes involved); 
• are context oriented (e.g., provides understanding of the context in which the study is conducted and the potential influence on the people under study);
• provides an in-depth account of key aspects of the (qualitative) research applied and the challenges involved (e.g., what methods were used, how/why were they used, and what lessons are to be learned from adopting a particular research strategy)

Unique attributes  

QROM  is the only journal that focuses exclusively on excellence in qualitative research across the management and organizational discipline. The journal encourages research which is critical, focused on subjective experience and context-oriented. Any topic relevant to organization and management studies is suitable. 

To encourage reflexive practice and the dissemination of critical skills in the field, the journal includes a section entitled Insider Accounts, where authors can give a frank and in-depth account of some aspect of their (qualitative) research practice. Book Reviews of relevant texts are also published under the auspices of the Book Review Editor.

Research stemming from qualitative techniques covers a spectrum of methods and can be located within a wide range of epistemological perspectives. Many of these techniques are not well known or utilized by researchers in the management and organizational studies arena despite the potentially unique perspectives they provide on important and contemporary management research issues. We encourage submissions from all epistemological perspectives that are broadly critical. 

Key benefits

QROM  is essential reading for both academics wanting an overview of the current state of the art of qualitative methods in management and organizational research and for practitioners seeking knowledge of excellent examples of applied qualitative empirical work.  QROM :

• Is the only journal that focuses exclusively on excellence in qualitative research across the management and organizational discipline
• Provides an outlet for high quality qualitative research
• Demonstrates the significant impact that outputs of qualitative research can have on everyday managerial practice
• Highlights the diverse range of subject areas to which qualitative research can contribute

Latest articles

These are the latest articles published in this journal (Last updated: July 2024 )

Understanding youth empowerment: a youth participatory action research approach

"€œdifficulty mentioning the m word"€: perceptions of a woman disclosing negative menopause symptoms in the workplace, past is prologue: from human relations to social exchange theory, top downloaded articles.

These are the most downloaded articles over the last 12 months for this journal (Last updated: July 2024 )

Reclaiming space in family histories: Impressionistic memory work as a feminist approach to historiography and storytelling

Examining theories, mediators, and moderators in financial well-being literature: a systematic review and future research agenda, revealing white supremacy culture in an organization that supports queer and trans youth.

These are the top cited articles for this journal, from the last 12 months according to Crossref (Last updated: July 2024 )

A thorn by any other name: The acceptability of terminology for subtle slights in UK workplaces

This title is aligned with our responsible management goal

We aim to champion researchers, practitioners, policymakers and organisations who share our goals of contributing to a more ethical, responsible and sustainable way of working.

Related journals

This journal is part of our HR, learning & organisation studies collection. Explore our HR, learning & organisation studies subject area to find out more.  

See all related journals

Journal of Organizational Ethnography

Journal of Organizational Ethnography is the only journal that is specifically dedicated to the theme of organizational...

International Journal of Organizational Analysis

The aim of the International Journal of Organizational Analysis is to provide a robust and discursive forum for the...

International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior

International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior focuses on the presentation, development, discussion, and...

Login | Register

• Current Issues
• Previous Issues
• Editorial Team
• Managerial Board
• Become a Reviewer
• Submission Guidelines
• Harvard Citation Style
• Vancouver Citation Style
• APA Citation Style
• Download RIS
• Download BibTeX

Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review

• Madoda Sitshange (University of Stellenbosch)

Significant poverty levels raise critical questions about the impact of poverty eradication programs. Literature reviews play a critical role in highlighting impactful and ineffective socio-economic approaches. This article presents a review of nine qualitative studies that were reported between 2006 and 2013 in poor urban, semi-rural, and rural communities in South Africa. The main goal of this paper is to describe how low-income communities were impacted by programs to reduce poverty. Themes on strength-based interventions, participation, and holistic-multidimensional approaches, emerge from the content analysis as the best account of the impact of community-based poverty eradication programs. Due to the qualitative nature of the small sample of studies under review, a thematic synthesis of the qualitative data provides baseline evidence for further research to assess progress in the provision of development programs, and to generate more insight to strengthen evidence-informed approaches to address persistently high rates of poverty.

Keywords: poverty eradication, community-based programs, thematic synthesis, systematic review, qualitative evidence, social development

Sitshange, M., (2024) “Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review”, Social Development Issues 46(3): 7. doi: https://doi.org/10.3998/sdi.6771

Downloads: Download XML Download PDF

15 Downloads

Published on 04 sep 2024, peer reviewed, creative commons attribution 4.0, introduction.

A higher rate of poverty indicates that South Africa might not reach the 2030 National Development Plan (NDP) target of reducing poverty-induced hunger to 0 percent ( National Development Plan, 2012 ). The Human Development Report (HDR) presented data showing that 18.9 percent of the population, about 11 million South Africans, live on less than R28 ($1.90) for a day. In terms of the Human Development Index, a measurement of equality developed by the United Nations (UN) that ranks countries by analyzing their quality of life against their rate of industrial development, ranked South Africa 114 out of 189 countries due to its declining standard of living and deepening income inequality ( Human Development Report, 2022 ). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, inequality worsened as the country has dropped two levels lower on the index as a result of more than 2 million job losses ( Human Development Report, 2022 ; World Bank, 2022 ).

Consistent with the statistics that are reported by global development agencies, Statistics South Africa reported that 55.5 percent of the South African population could not afford to meet their basic needs ( Stats SA, 2017 ). In terms of the Gini coefficient index, which measures inequality on a scale from 0 to 1 (where the higher values indicate higher inequality), inequality rose from 0.66 in 1993 to 0.72 in 2006: despite a decrease from 2006 to 0.68 in 2015, South Africa is the most unequal country in the world ( Stats SA, 2017 ). The World Inequality Report presented data showing that in 2014 the richest 10 percent of the population received two-thirds of the national income, while the top 1 percent received 20 percent of the national income ( Alvaredo, Chancel, Piketty, Saez, & Zucman, 2018 ).

Women make up a large percentage of the poor. Compared to male-headed households, poverty is consistently higher in female-headed households. In 2015, poverty was found to be 51.2 percent among female-headed households compared to 31.4 percent in male-headed households ( Stats SA, 2019 ). Gender “…disparities are still predominant in South Africa’s labor market with unemployment at 29.5 for women and 26.1 for men” (National Development Agency, 2019:10). In addition to gender inequality, racial disparities continue to define post-apartheid South Africa socio-economic fault lines. While the post-1994 government social and economic transformation policies improved the living conditions of many black South Africans, many still live in poverty. Unemployment rates are 30.5 percent for black Africans and 8 percent for whites. Race still affects the ability to find a job, as well as the wages received once employed ( World Bank, 2018 ).

Literature Review

The reviewer’s content analysis of the qualitative studies under review was guided by theoretical perspectives in poverty studies. According to Bradshaw (2007) , five main theoretical perspectives provide a comprehensive view of the causes, effects, and solutions to poverty: (1) Individual deficiencies, (2) Cultural belief systems that support subcultures in poverty, (3) Political-economic distortions, (4) Geographical disparities, or (5) Cumulative and circumstantial origins.

Theoretical perspectives on poverty that proffer individualistic, systematic, and cyclical explanations are summarized in Table 1 advanced into a variety of multidimensional perspectives that inform contemporary analysis and research. According to Adetoro, Ngidi, and Danso-Abbeam (2023), “a multidimensional approach has been developed to analyze a wide range of multiple poverty interrelated levels involving severe deprivation of basic human needs, such as health, education, income-generation and living standards”. The Human Development Report (2022) links the concept of multidimensional poverty with a lack of clean water, inadequate access to healthcare services, malnutrition, poor health, and poor housing conditions.

Five theories of poverty

Source: Adopted from Bradshaw (2007) .

There seem to be definite areas of alignment between the South African social security system and the multidimensional poverty formulation. The Department of Social Development provides comprehensive social assistance programs for indigent individuals and families to access a range of benefits such as cash transfers, food aid, and a range of welfare services. Free basic education, free health care, and free social housing are part of social benefits that are provided by housing, health, and education government departments. A multi-departmental approach that collectively provides a range of poverty reduction programs is consistent with a multidimensional theoretical approach to poverty that is applied on a national scale to address inequality, vulnerability, and urban-to-rural poverty ( Mert & Kadioglu, 2016 ). Uni-dimensional assessments of poverty that look at monetary value and consumption, in conjunction with broader multi-dimensional approaches that focus on child poverty, early childhood development and literacy, are indicative of a dynamic theory of poverty that incorporates most of the elements in Bradshaw’s (2007) theory of poverty which considers individualistic to economic-political factors.

Zizzamia, Schotte, and Leibbrandt (2019) posit the concept of poverty dynamics, as referring to a fluid state where individuals, families, and communities experience cyclical periods of chronic poverty, transient poverty, and vulnerable poverty. In expanding on the poverty dynamics perspective, Schotte, Zizzamia, and Leibbrandt (2018) define fluid and cyclical poverty situations as conditions where the chronic poor are trapped in poverty, the transient poor are classified as below the poverty line but with above-average chances of escaping poverty, and the vulnerable are classified as above the poverty line but with above-average chances of falling into poverty. In terms of the poverty dynamics theory, a considerable share of the South African population can be classified as the transient poor and the vulnerable group, estimated as 27 percent of the population ( Zizzamia et al., 2019 ). The poverty dynamics theory draws attention to the rural and urban working poor as most vulnerable due to economic instability and volatile labor markets, irregular forms of employment, and government incompetence, which makes poverty a constant threat in their daily lives, hence are the largest population group that are beneficiaries of poverty alleviation programs.

Contextualization

Meta-synthesizing several qualitative studies sharing similar themes and methods is a well-tested scientific method for assessing and presenting broader experiences ( Graham & Masters-Awatere, 2020 ), which only some research studies can provide. The overriding aim of this article is to present a review of a small sample of primary research studies, that apply qualitative procedures to report data on the impact of poverty eradication programs, by addressing the following questions: In what ways did beneficiaries of community-based poverty eradication programs describe, in their own words, their impact? How did the beneficiaries of poverty eradication programs perceive the extent to which their living conditions improved because of poverty eradication programs?

The two research questions that guide the content analysis of qualitative studies are aimed at highlighting practices and approaches that are associated with positive and negative program outcomes. A review that focuses on program impact might contribute to the knowledge that the implementers of social development interventions need to strengthen the provision of poverty eradication programs. Global, regional, national, and/or local poverty eradication program providers require analysis of program impact to reduce high rates of poverty. Drawing key lessons from systematic reviews, using a review of literature in the paper is in line with the consensus in the research literature that (reviews) play an important role in documenting and disseminating scientific evidence on the impact of programs ( Hlongwa & Hlongwana, 2020 ; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006 ).

A review of poverty eradication programs implemented between 2006 and 2013 is intended to contribute to Lombard’s (2008) 10-year review of the implementation of the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997). The reviewer’s intention in presenting a thematic synthesis of studies focusing on poverty eradication is motivated by a need to provide another perspective on the progress of the social development approach by addressing both the root causes and effects of poverty.

Methodology

A thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on poverty eradication is guided by the question: How were the intended beneficiaries impacted by community-based poverty eradication programs? In addressing the research question, the reviewer sought to highlight themes and trends that may assist in reporting progress in the implementation of social development approaches.

The following keywords in the research report titles, abstracts, keywords, and text, guided the search for qualitative studies: “poverty/poverty-eradication/poverty-alleviation/poverty-reduction/anti-poverty”, “social exclusion”, “community-based program(s)/project(s)”, and “program/project impact”. The reviewer sourced relevant literature through an electronic search using the following databases: Social Science Citation Index on the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Social Science Database. A desktop internet search formed a critical part of the search, and some unpublished studies were accessed through the expert opinion of social development researchers. An online search of research reports in development studies, economics, social work, social development, politics, public health, sociology, psychology, and related social sciences and/or humanities disciplines, formed an essential part of the desktop internet search. Peer-reviewed online scientific publications were also examined. University websites were also searched for unpublished dissertations and technical research reports that focus on poverty eradication programs.

The entire search yielded studies that were reported during 2006–2013. This 10-year period is crucial for tracking and assessing progress since the social development approach became official policy, through the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997). The search for qualitative studies produced 76 research reports. The reviewer screened the 76 research studies using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as presented in Table 2 .

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

After a comprehensive search of the literature, the reviewer applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the titles, abstracts, keywords, and text of the 76 reports to remove excluded and duplicated reports. While this is a review of literature, the Preferred Re-porting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) ( Shamseer et al., 2015 ) was applied by the reviewer, to explain the process used to arrive at studies selected for thematic synthesis, as outlined in Figure 1 .

Systematic review process-map.

Of the 76 studies, 16 studies were sourced through a desktop internet search, while an electronic database search yielded 60 studies. Of the 76 studies that represent data on issues related to poverty eradication, social exclusion, and community-based programs, 59 were excluded: 47 mainly because they are quantitative studies, eight use poverty definitions that are inconsistent with the literature review, another set of eight studies did not report the impact of community-based programs, while six studies neither indicate whether ethics clearance was obtained nor peer-review was conducted. Of the 17 studies that complied with the inclusion criteria, further screening narrowed down the number to 15, because two studies were duplicates. After further full-text eligibility assessment, the reviewer narrowed down the number to nine short-listed studies. After re-applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the short-listed studies, the reviewer arrived at nine final qualitative studies to be reviewed.

A blind procedure, where a second reviewer, without knowledge of the nine short-listed studies, repeated the process-map that is outlined above, by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the 76 selected studies. The second reviewer confirmed the suitability of the nine studies selected for inclusion in the systematic review. All the included studies were debated to address any inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity as far as the inclusion and exclusion criteria required, and whether the processing of studies through the process-map was standardized and replicable. All nine studies listed in Table 2 are included mainly because of three factors: they all address “‘poverty/poverty-eradication/poverty-alleviation/poverty-reduction/anti-poverty”, “social exclusion”, “community-based program(s)/project(s)”, present qualitative data, and underwent ethics clearance or were peer-reviewed. Adato, Carter, and May (2006) explore household poverty traps and social exclusion. Mashau (2006) and Nkosi (2010) investigate the poverty situation and the impact of a strategy for poverty alleviation in rural and urban areas, while Van der Merwe (2006) provides a description and analysis of the very personal, subjective experience of poverty by Afrikaans-speaking people.

Stephen (2008) , explores factors that might have an impact on the communities’ anti-poverty projects. The study focuses on four projects: two agricultural projects and two non-agricultural projects. Blaauw, Viljoen, and Schenck’s (2011) study sought to determine the prevalence of child-headed households in Gauteng in order to establish a database and to ensure access to aid programs by needy child-headed households. Strydom, Wessels, and Strydom’s (2010) study assesses the effects of health issues and poverty on families in rural areas. Kaeana and Ross (2012) investigated beneficiaries’ perceptions of income-generating projects as alleviators or perpetrators of poverty, and lastly, Sikrweqe (2013) assessed whether a local program contributed towards achieving the goals of poverty reduction.

Table 3 further outlines the sample number and type, the age range of the participants, data collection procedures, and the geographical locations where each study was conducted. All the studies present qualitative data. A study with the smallest sample number reported four participants and a study with the largest sample size reported 700 participants. The age range of the respondents in all nine studies fell within the 18–60 bracket. All the studies (n = 9) interviewed people living and working in underprivileged communities. An overview of geographical areas where the qualitative data were collected shows that the studies were collected in five provinces in South Africa: Gauteng (n = 3), KwaZulu-Natal (n = 2), Limpopo (n = 2), Northern Cape (n = 1), and the Eastern Cape (n = 1).

Studies included in the systematic review.

Guided by relevant theoretical perspectives in poverty, social development, and community-based programs, the reviewer content analyzed the studies by coding of text “line-by-line”; followed by the development of “descriptive themes”; and lastly, the generation of “analytical themes” ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 ; Tong, Palmer, Craig, & Strippoli, 2016 ). “Thematic analysis” completed the identification and confirmation of emerging themes ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 ), and allowed the reviewer to present the qualitative evidence directly from the studies under review. The procedure that was followed by the reviewer enabled explicit translation of the qualitative data by “…synthesizing them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses” ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 , p. 1).

Results and Discussion

A thematic synthesis of 2006 to 2013 qualitative studies on the impact of community-based women empowerment programs.

The discussion of findings is presented under three themes: strength-based interventions, participation, and holistic, multi-dimensional approaches. Guided by the literature on poverty eradication, social exclusion, and community-based programs, a comprehensive content analysis of the qualitative data from the studies selected for review enabled the extraction and presentation of the following discussion of the research results.

Strength-based interventions

A content analysis of community-based poverty eradication programs shows that developing the strength of indigent individuals and families is crucial. Strydom et al.’s (2010) study highlights the importance of linkages between the well-being and happiness of beneficiaries and social services providers’ acceptance and enhancement of their (i.e., beneficiaries of poverty-eradication programs) strengths, and material and human resources. The impact of programs, in other words, will be greatly enhanced by leveraging underutilized personal and group coping and survival capabilities. Leveraging underutilized coping and survival capabilities might sustain the structure and functioning of indigent individuals, families, and communities ( Strydom et al., 2010 ). In an urban setting, Van der Merwe (2006 , p.141) posits that psychosocial programs “…need to capitalise on existing strengths and cultivate new personal strengths such as self-confidence, creativity, and capacity for hard work, self-determination, optimism and faith”.

Authors specifically identify social connections, as opposed to social isolation and social exclusion, as crucial for community-based programs to empower indigent individuals and families, to access income-generating opportunities or to cope better in times of periodical cycles of vulnerability to poverty ( Adato et al., 2006 ; Blaauw et al., 2011 ; Sikrweqe, 2013 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ).

Community-based poverty eradication programs that focus on building the strengths of women and children report a crucial area that social service providers need to focus on. Nkosi’s (2010) study found that child-headed and female-headed households went beyond being passive beneficiaries of cash transfers, to using limited savings to access crucial life-skills that translated into increased school attendance, fewer risks of malnutrition, and exposure to abuse. According to Blaauw et al. (2011) , school-based poverty eradication programs play a crucial role in improving the socioeconomic circumstances of child-headed households, primarily by directly linking the development of strengths to child-headed households to directly accessing social services and cash-transfers, rather than relying on adults who might abuse the resources. Even though poverty and the scarcity of resources can cause conflict in households, the respondents in Strydom et al.’s (2010) study felt strongly that the family was their important strength. As a strength that poverty eradication programs must build on, authors present data confirming the family as a form of social capital that is best placed to stabilize basic livelihood levels, owing to the observation that families have the capacity to adapt, change, and become closer in times of social and economic shocks ( Mashau, 2006 ; Stephen, 2008 ).

Gaps in eradicating poverty through the development of individual and family strengths receive great attention in the research literature. According to Adato et al. (2006 , p. 226), for individuals and families that are considered to be living below the poverty line, “…social capital at best helps stabilize livelihoods at low levels and does little to promote upward mobility”. Access to programs that provide a combination of assets with financial value, income-generating capabilities, and access to markets to build on assets over time, could sustainably address both the root causes and effects of poverty, and upward social mobility ( Adato et al., 2006 ; Stephen, 2008 ; Van der Merwe, 2006 ). Focusing poverty eradication programs on individuals and families has its critical limitations. According to Blaauw et al.’s (2011) post-intervention analysis, 26.2 percent of households cannot support even one person with their total monthly income, while less than 40 percent would be able to support a household of two to three members, with only 11.5 percent able to support a household size of four people, and none of the respondents’ households able to support a household size of six members. Holistic and multi-dimensional poverty eradication programs require evidence-informed approaches to supplement and complement strength-based interventions that support individuals, families, and larger communities.

Participation

Participation allowed the beneficiaries of community-based poverty eradication programs to highlight progress and identify gaps in service delivery ( Kaeana & Ross, 2012 ). Sikrweqe’s (2013) study echoes the theme of opening program monitoring and evaluating the voices of the beneficiaries, by presenting data showing that ward committees went beyond improving the participation of beneficiaries, and ensuring that the beneficiaries directly influence decisions about future developments in the neighborhood. The ability of ordinary members of society to influence decisions about development issues deepens democratic practices and governance ( Sikrweqe, 2013 ). Mashau’s (2006) assessment of a flagship local job creation project, highlights a human-centered approach to a collaborative approach to poverty eradication, that brought together the combined strengths of all key stakeholders, ordinary community members, government officials, business people, and non-governmental and faith-based organizations.

At a more practical level, Van der Merwe’s (2006) study emphasizes that, where possible, the beneficiaries must participate in all important areas and phases of program implementation to promote the type of community ownership that will invest in long-term sustainability. In recognition that participation in community-based poverty eradication programs is easier said than done, authors recommend further in-depth research analysis of the impact of participation on the outcomes of poverty eradication programs ( Blaauw et al., 2011 ; Kaeana & Ross, 2012 ; Mashau, 2006 ; Nkosi, 2010 ; Stephen, 2008 ; Van der Merwe, 2006 ). According to Stephen (2008) , least participatory programs tended to have pensioners as the majority of beneficiaries, thereby sensitizing social service providers to be more realistic and strategic in customizing models of participation to be more consistent with the capabilities of the intended beneficiaries.

The main conclusion in Kaeana and Ross’s (2012) study is that income-generating projects achieved their aims to some extent, but there were areas of improvement in terms of the participation of beneficiaries in decision-making. In reiterating the theme of the importance and limitations of participation, Adato et al. (2006) assert that while the impact of the beneficiaries’ participation in poverty eradication programs cannot be denied, there is no compelling evidence that community participation in poverty eradication translated directly into economic advancement and the accumulation of assets with long-term financial value. The link between the level of beneficiary participation in program processes to the reduction of poverty appears to be complex and still to be sufficiently examined, especially when participation occurs within holistic and multi-dimensional approaches.

Holistic and multi-dimensional approaches

A comprehensive and integrated research-informed approach to establish a local and contextually grounded database, according to Blaauw et al. (2011) and Strydom et al. (2010) , sets a standard for poverty to be addressed as the main target of health, development, education, employment creation, and environmental programs. A holistic, multi-disciplinary, and multi-dimensional approach to poverty eradication could be more impactful, in respect of the data that shows that poverty mainly manifests itself in the deprivation of income-generating opportunities, housing, lack of clean water, sanitation, health services, electricity, literacy, public infra-structure, and so on ( Mashau, 2006 ; Sikrweqe, 2012; Stephen, 2008 ; Strydom et al., 2010 ).

According to Kaeana and Ross’s (2012) study, a holistic and multi-pronged approach to poverty eradication needs to integrate income generation and employment creation, the provision of social and physical infrastructure including clinics and schools, measures to address social exclusion and institutionalized racism, xenophobia and sexism, the promotion of sustainable livelihoods, and the dissemination of the type of knowledge and skills that fosters human development at the community level. Community-based programs to raise awareness, through education and skills development are central themes that are frequently reported by the studies under review. For instance, more impactful community-based poverty eradication programs had more beneficiaries with secondary school education, while the worst performing were fewer ( Blaauw et al., 2011 ; Mashau, 2006 ; Nkosi, 2010 ; Van Der Merwe, 2006 ).

Deeper structural changes require innovative and novel approaches in light of growing levels of poverty, unemployment, and socio-economic inequality. According to some authors, the broader problem of “…poverty alleviation seems unlikely to be resolved until deeper structural changes make time and markets work more effectively for the broader community of all South Africans” ( Adato et al., 2006 , p. 245). A theme that cuts across most studies is that current social security programs play a significant role in alleviating poverty, but because of the growing inequality, the social security systems need to be improved to address gaps and shortcomings ( Adato et al., 2006 ; Kaeana & Ross, 2012 ; Sikrweqe, 2012). The research participants in Nkosi’s (2010) study, correctly recommend that gaps and weaknesses in social security programs can be best addressed through intersectoral collaborations between governmental and non-governmental service providers, in conjunction with the training of beneficiaries as a key element towards the sustenance of program impact and comprehensive service delivery. The findings are consistent will the assertion that policymakers recognize the integrated approach as more effective in low-middle-income countries ( Kumar & Cheng, 2024 ).

Recommendations

Similar to systematic reviews, literature reviews analyze an ever-growing scope of research on “best practices” for policy-making and policy evaluation ( Sundberg & Taylor-Gooby, 2013 ; Van Rooyen, Steward, & De Wet, 2012 ). This paper reviews the qualitative evidence to highlight approaches in poverty eradication that can be inferred as impactful and ineffective, subject to more advanced analysis through large-scale reviews that apply qualitative and quantitative methods. This article recommends further systematic reviews that will analyze studies conducted between 2016 and 2023, to provide a more recent and comprehensive picture of the progress and challenges related to social development programs. Reviews place greater emphasis on transparency and accountability ( Thomas & Harden, 2008 ), by providing an overview of impactful and ineffective approaches that no single study can provide. Themes on beneficiaries’ strengths and direct involvement in crucial phases of holistic and multi-multidimensional community-development processes, emerge in the paper as significant to track in forthcoming systematic reviews. Training and research in the three themes outlined above are key areas of focus in assessing progress in the implementation of the social development approach. As noted in a related paper, training “emerges as an important option in expanding the prospects of the intended beneficiaries of community-based programs” ( Sitshange, 2022 ).

Conclusions

Reviews are critical in evaluating the impact of poverty eradication programs. According to the authors, poverty alleviation programs have been ineffective and unsustainable ( Dipela & Mohapi, 2021 ; Raniga, 2018 ), hence high rates of poverty are consistently reported by statisticians. Reviewers of research studies have a responsibility to beyond painting the impact of poverty through numbers, to highlighting the impact of programs using the voices of community members. The thematic synthesis of qualitative research studies in poverty eradication notes a gap between theory and practice. While laws, policies, and institutions are in place to eradicate poverty, reviews need to empower relevant laws, policies, and institutions to prove impact and sustainability using evidence-based frames of reference. While the review that is presented in the paper is qualitative and limited, it lays a basis for more advanced studies on the impact of poverty eradication programs on individuals and groups.

Adato, M., Carter, M. R., & May, J. (2006). Exploring poverty traps and social exclusion in South Africa using qualitative and quantitative data. The Journal of Development Studies , 42(2), 226–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500405345 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220380500405345

Adetoro, A. A., Ngidi, M. S. C., & Danso-Abbeam, G. (2023). Towards the global zero poverty agenda: Examining the multidimensional poverty situation in South Africa. SN Social Sciences , 3(148), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00735-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-023-00735-2

Alvaredo, F., Chancel, L., Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2018). World Inequality Report 2018, World Inequality Lab.

Blaauw, D., Viljoen, K., & Schenck, R. (2011). “Life is not pap and vleis”: Poverty in child-headed households in Gauteng. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 47(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.15270/47-2-132 https://doi.org/10.15270/47-2-132

Bradshaw, T. K. (2007). Theories of poverty and anti-poverty programs in community development. Journal of the Community Development Society , 38(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330709490182 https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330709490182

Dipela, M. P., & Mohapi, B. (2021). Barriers affecting effective monitoring and evaluation of poverty alleviation projects within Waterberg District. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 57(3), 278–301. https://doi.org/10.15270/57-3-948 https://doi.org/10.15270/57-3-948

Graham, R., & Masters-Awatere, B. (2020). Experiences of Māori of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public health system: A systematic review of two decades of published qualitative research. Aust NZ J Public Health , 44(3), 193–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12971 https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12971

Hlongwa, M., & Hlongwana, K. (2020). Men’s perspectives on HIV self-testing in sub-Saharan Africa: A qualitative systematic review protocol. JBI Evid Synth , 18(3), 571–575. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00097 https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00097

Human Development Report. (2022). Report to explore uncertainty in the Anthropocene . United Nations: Geneva.

Kaeana, R., & Ross, E. (2012). Income-generating projects: Alleviating or perpetuating poverty. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 48(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.15270/48-1-102 https://doi.org/10.15270/48-1-102

Kearney, M. H. (2001). Enduring love: Grounded formal theory of women’s experience of domestic violence. Research in Nursing and Health , 24(4), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1029 https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.1029

Kumar, V., & Cheng, S. C. (2024). A comparative literature review of integrated approach in health care in high and low-middle-income countries. Social Development Issues , 46(1), 25–44. https://doi.org/10.3998/sdi.5294 https://doi.org/10.3998/sdi.5294

Lombard, A. (2008). The implementation of the white paper for social welfare. The Social Work Practitioner-Researcher , 20(2), 154–173. http://hdl.handle.net/2263/9739 http://hdl.handle.net/2263/9739

Mashau, T. D. (2006). Towards a strategy for poverty alleviation in Mashau . Master’s diss., North-West University.

Mert, K., & Kadioglu, H. (2016). Nursing interventions to help prevent children from working on the streets. International Nursing Review , 63(3), 429–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12301. Epub 2016 Jul 19. PMID: 27430362. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12301. Epub 2016 Jul 19. PMID: 27430362.

National Development Plan. (2012). National Development Plan 2030: Our future make it work . Pretoria: National Planning Commission.

Nkosi, B. W. G. (2010). An impact of flagship program: An approach to poverty alleviation . Master’s diss., University of Zululand.

Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviews in the social sciences . Oxford: Blackwell.

Porritt, K., Gomersall, J. C., & Lockwood, C. S. (2014). Study selection and critical appraisal. AJN American Journal of Nurs-ing , 114(6), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450430.97383.64 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000450430.97383.64

Raniga, T. (2018). Poverty alleviation, social protection policy and sustainability of economic development cooperatives: Voices of women residing in Bhambhayi, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 54(4), 394–406. https://doi.org/10.15270/54-4-668 https://doi.org/10.15270/54-4-668

Republic of South Africa (RSA). (1997). Ministry of Welfare and Population. White Paper for Social Welfare. Notice 1008 of 1997. Government Gazette , 368, (18166). Pretoria: Government Printer.

Schotte, S., Zizzamia, R., & Leibbrandt, M. (2018). A poverty dynamics approach to social stratification: The South Africa case. World Development , 110 (2018), 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.024 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.05.024

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P): Elaboration and explanation. BMJ , 586, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647

Sikrweqe, N. P. (2013). Integrated development planning as a poverty reduction strategy in the King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality, Eastern Cape Province . Master’s diss., University of South Africa.

Sitshange, M. (2022). A thematic synthesis of income-generating studies conducted from 2007 to 2012 in Gauteng, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 58(4), 382–393. https://doi.org/10.15270/58-4-1072 https://doi.org/10.15270/58-4-1072

Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). (2017). Poverty Trends in South Africa. An examination of absolute poverty between 2006 and 2015 . Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.

Statistics South Africa (Stats SA). (2019). Marginalised Groups Indicator Report. Report No. 0319-05. Retrieved from https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/03-19-05/03-19-052019.pdf https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/03-19-05/03-19-052019.pdf

Stephen, K. (2008). The impact of poverty alleviation projects in Ga-Molepo area in Polokwane Municipality, Limpopo Province . Master’s diss., University of Limpopo.

Strydom, C., Wessels, C., & Strydom, H. (2010). The role of the social worker to empower families in a deep rural community. Social Work/Maatskaplike Werk , 46(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.15270/46-2-172 https://doi.org/10.15270/46-2-172

Sundberg, T., & Taylor-Gooby, P. (2013). A systematic review of comparative studies of attitudes to social policy. Social Policy & Administration , 47(4), 416–433. ISSN 0144-5596. https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12027 https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12027

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology , 8(45), 1471–2288. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45

Tong, A., Palmer, S., Craig, J. C., & Strippoli, G. F. M. (2016). A guide to reading and using systematic reviews of qualitative research. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation , 31(6), 897–903. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu354 https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfu354

Van der Merwe, K. (2006). The phenomenology of experiencing poverty – An exploration. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa , 2(1), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v2i1.311 https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v2i1.311

Van Rooyen, C., Steward, R., & De Wet, T. (2012). The impact of microfinance in Sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review of the evidence. World Development , 40(11), 2249–2262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.012

World Bank. (2018). Overcoming poverty and inequality in South Africa: An assessment of drivers, constraints and opportunities. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/pdf/124521-rev-ouo-south-africa-povertyand-inequality-assessment-report-2018-fnal-web.pdf https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/530481521735906534/pdf/124521-rev-ouo-south-africa-povertyand-inequality-assessment-report-2018-fnal-web.pdf

World Bank. (2022). Report on inequality in Southern Africa: An assessment of the Southern African Customs Union. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2022/03/09/inequality-in-southern-africa-an-assessment-of-the-southern-african-customs-union https://www.worldbank.org/en/events/2022/03/09/inequality-in-southern-africa-an-assessment-of-the-southern-african-customs-union

Zizzamia, R., Schotte, S., & Leibbrandt, M. (2019). Snakes and ladders and loaded dice: Poverty dynamics and inequality in South Africa, 2008-2017 , WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2019-25, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).

Madoda Sitshange, Department of Social Work, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa and Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Harvard-Style Citation

Sitshange, M. (2024) 'Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review', Social Development Issues . 46(3) doi: 10.3998/sdi.6771

Show: Vancouver Citation Style | APA Citation Style

Vancouver-Style Citation

Sitshange, M. Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review. Social Development Issues. 2024 9; 46(3) doi: 10.3998/sdi.6771

Show: Harvard Citation Style | APA Citation Style

APA-Style Citation

Sitshange, M. (2024, 9 4). Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review. Social Development Issues 46(3) doi: 10.3998/sdi.6771

Show: Harvard Citation Style | {% trans 'Vancouver Citation Style' %}

Non Specialist Summary

This article has no summary

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

A qualitative study on the relationship between faculty mobility and scientific impact: toward the sustainable development of higher education.

1. Introduction

2. literature review, 2.1. faculty mobility, 2.2. scientific impact, 2.3. relationship between faculty mobility and scientific impact, 3. data and research methodology, 3.1. dataset, 3.2. research methodology, 3.2.1. descriptive statistical analysis.

• Mobility Frequency: This study uses the change in the authors’ correspondence addresses as an indicator of mobility frequency. Samples with abnormal data and excessive mobility experiences were excluded, and only samples with 1–5 instances of mobility were included in the subsequent analysis.
• Citation Count: The number of times a paper is cited by other papers after publication is called the citation count. This reflects the referential value and importance of an original paper for subsequent research. Highly cited papers represent the frontier and hot issues in the field.
• Difference in Citation Count ( δ ): This refers to the difference in citation counts of papers by faculty members after mobility compared to the citation counts before mobility.

3.2.2. Normality Test

3.2.3. spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, 3.2.4. wilcoxon signed-rank test, 4.1. spearman’s rank correlation analysis of faculty mobility and citations, 4.1.1. correlation analysis of overall faculty mobility frequency and citations, 4.1.2. correlation analysis of faculty mobility frequency and paper citations by discipline, 4.2. wilcoxon signed-rank test analysis of faculty mobility and paper citations, 4.3. wilcoxon signed-rank test analysis of faculty mobility frequency and paper citations, 4.3.1. analysis of differences in paper citations by overall faculty mobility frequency, 4.3.2. analysis of differences in citations by discipline, 5. discussion and conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

• Huisman, J. International staff mobility. In Research Handbook on Academic Careers and Managing Academics ; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2022; pp. 325–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kilag, O.K.T.; Malbas, M.H.; Miñoza, J.R.; Ledesma, M.M.R.; Vestal, A.B.E.; Sasan, J.M.V. The Views of the Faculty on the Effectiveness of Teacher Education Programs in Developing Lifelong Learning Competence. Eur. J. High. Educ. Acad. Adv. 2024 , 1 , 92–102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brotherhood, T.; Hammond, C.D.; Kim, Y. Towards an actor-centered typology of internationalization: A study of junior international faculty in Japanese universities. High. Educ. 2020 , 79 , 497–514. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seggie, F.N.; Çalıkoğlu, A. Changing patterns of international academic mobility: The experiences of Western-origin faculty members in Turkey. Comp. J. Comp. Int. Educ. 2023 , 53 , 1–18. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fitzgerald, A.; Parr, G.; Williams, J.; Wellam, R.; Howard, B.; Zandes, S.; Diug, B. Interfaculty collaboration for improving international mobility experiences: Sustaining a dialogue across difference. Teach. High. Educ. 2023 , 28 , 51–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Seeber, M.; Debacker, N.; Meoli, M.; Vandevelde, K. Exploring the effects of mobility and foreign nationality on internal career progression in universities. High. Educ. 2023 , 85 , 1041–1081. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Verginer, L.; Riccaboni, M. Talent goes to global cities: The world network of scientists’ mobility. Res. Policy 2021 , 50 , 104127. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Vaccario, G.; Verginer, L.; Schweitzer, F. Reproducing scientists’ mobility: A data-driven model. Sci. Rep. 2021 , 11 , 10733. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Liu, T.; Pei, T.; Fang, Z.; Wu, M.; Liu, X.; Yan, X.; Song, C.; Jiang, J.; Jiang, L.; Chen, J. Spatiotemporal mobility network of global scientists, 1970–2020. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2024 , 1–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Momeni, F.; Karimi, F.; Mayr, P.; Peters, I.; Dietze, S. The many facets of academic mobility and its impact on scholars’ career. J. Inf. 2022 , 16 , 101280. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bojica, A.M.; Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Alegre, J. A cross-country configurational approach to international academic mobility: Exploring mobility effects on academics’ career progression in EU countries. High. Educ. 2023 , 86 , 1081–1105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gureyev, V.N.; Mazov, N.A.; Kosyakov, D.V.; Guskov, A.E. Review and analysis of publications on scientific mobility: Assessment of influence, motivation, and trends. Scientometrics 2020 , 124 , 1599–1630. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Netz, N.; Hampel, S.; Aman, V. What effects does international mobility have on scientists’ careers? A systematic review. Res. Eval. 2020 , 29 , 327–351. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Azoulay, P.; Ganguli, I.; Zivin, J.G. The mobility of elite life scientists: Professional and personal determinants. Res. Policy 2017 , 46 , 573–590. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Chang, Y.H.; Huang, M.H. Analysis of factors affecting scientific migration move and distance by academic age, migrant type, and country: Migrant researchers in the field of business and management. J. Inf. 2023 , 17 , 101371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marini, G.; Xu, X. Big fishes in a big pond: A comparison between foreign and Chinese academics’ research influence in Mainland China. Int. J. Chin. Educ. 2023 , 12 , 2212585X221145244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, M.; Hu, X. Movers’ advantages: The effect of mobility on scientists’ productivity and collaboration. J. Inf. 2022 , 16 , 101311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gu, J.; Pan, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, J. International mobility matters: Research collaboration and scientific productivity. J. Inf. 2024 , 18 , 101522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Han, F.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, S.; Yuan, J. International mobility characteristics, effects of, and effects on elite scientists. J. Inf. 2024 , 18 , 101485. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Altbach, P.G.; Reisberg, L.; Rumbley, L.E. Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution ; Brill: Leiden, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 22. [ Google Scholar ]
• Marini, G. Brexit and the war for talents: Push & pull evidence about competitiveness. High. Educ. 2024 , 1–16. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Selmer, J.; Dickmann, M.; Froese, F.J.; Lauring, J.; Reiche, B.S.; Shaffer, M. The potential of virtual global mobility: Implications for practice and future research. J. Glob. Mobil. Home Expatr. Manag. Res. 2022 , 10 , 1–13. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Guo, Y.; Jasovska, P.; Rammal, H.G.; Rose, E.L. Global mobility of professionals and the transfer of tacit knowledge in multinational service firms. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020 , 24 , 553–567. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gérard, E.; Lebeau, Y. Trajectories within international academic mobility: A renewed perspective on the dynamics and hierarchies of the global higher education field. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2023 , 100 , 102780. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• De Haas, H. A theory of migration: The aspirations-capabilities framework. Comp. Migr. Stud. 2021 , 9 , 8. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cohen, R. Theories of Migration ; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, W.O. Academic migration and reshaping of pedagogy and epistemology: An insider-outsider perspective. In Academic Migration, Discipline Knowledge and Pedagogical Practice: Voices from the Asia-Pacific ; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 161–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huo, Y. A survey of reading promotion methods in universities in Mainland China. J. Contemp. Educ. Res. 2018 , 2 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, X.; Chen, Y. Faculty Mobility Patterns in Major Chinese Universities. J. High. Educ. Res. 2019 , 30 , 123–145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuzhabekova, A.; Lee, J. Relocation decision of international faculty in Kazakhstan. J. Stud. Int. Educ. 2018 , 22 , 414–433. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lee, J.T.; Kuzhabekova, A. Reverse flow in academic mobility from core to periphery: Motivations of international faculty working in Kazakhstan. High. Educ. 2018 , 76 , 369–386. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sawyer, R.K.; Henriksen, D. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation ; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whyte, W.H. The organization man. In American Social Character ; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 70–86. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baruffaldi, S.H.; Landoni, P. Mobility intentions of foreign researchers: The role of non-economic motivations. Ind. Innov. 2016 , 23 , 87–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brogaard, J.; Engelberg, J.; Van Wesep, E. Do economists swing for the fences after tenure? J. Econ. Perspect. 2018 , 32 , 179–194. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Van Dalen, H.P. How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: The case of economists. Scientometrics 2021 , 126 , 1675–1694. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stremersch, S.; Winer, R.S.; Camacho, N. Faculty research incentives and business school health: A new perspective from and for marketing. J. Mark. 2021 , 85 , 1–21. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Niles, M.T.; Schimanski, L.A.; McKiernan, E.C.; Alperin, J.P. Why we publish where we do: Faculty publishing values and their relationship to review, promotion and tenure expectations. PLoS ONE 2020 , 15 , e0228914. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; You, Y. How the world-class university project affects scientific productivity? Evidence from a survey of faculty members in China. High. Educ. Policy 2018 , 31 , 583–605. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yang, X.; Cai, X.; Cai, J. The effect of the tenure track on faculty member’s job insecurity and innovative work behavior. High. Educ. 2024 , 1–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mueller, C.M.; Gaudilliere, D.K.; Kin, C.; Menorca, R.; Girod, S. Gender disparities in scholarly productivity of US academic surgeons. J. Surg. Res. 2016 , 203 , 28–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Yang, X.; Cai, X.; Li, T. Does the tenure track influence academic research? An empirical study of faculty members in China. Stud. High. Educ. 2024 , 49 , 476–492. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Nafukho, F.M.; Wekullo, C.S.; Muyia, M.H. Examining research productivity of faculty in selected leading public universities in Kenya. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2019 , 66 , 44–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mixon, F.G., Jr.; Upadhyaya, K.P. When forgiveness beats permission: Exploring the scholarly ethos of clinical faculty in economics. Am. J. Econ. Sociol. 2024 , 83 , 75–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clancy, M.; Correa, D.; Dworkin, J.; Niehaus, P.; Watney, C.; Williams, H. Want to speed up scientific progress? First understand how science policy works. Nature 2023 , 620 , 724–726. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zweig, D. Competing for talent: China’s strategies to reverse the brain drain. Int. Lab. Rev. 2006 , 145 , 65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, J.; Wei, C.; Li, J. Is the research performance of Chinese returnees better than that of their local counterparts? Scientometrics 2023 , 128 , 3091–3105. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Marini, G.; Yang, L. Globally bred Chinese talents returning home: An analysis of a reverse brain-drain flagship policy. Sci. Public Policy 2021 , 48 , 541–552. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhao, Z.; Bu, Y.; Kang, L.; Min, C.; Bian, Y.; Tang, L.; Li, J. An investigation of the relationship between scientists’ mobility to/from China and their research performance. J. Inf. 2020 , 14 , 101037. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cao, C.; Baas, J.; Wagner, C.S.; Jonkers, K. Returning scientists and the emergence of China’s science system. Sci. Public Policy 2020 , 47 , 172–183. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shi, D.; Liu, W.; Wang, Y. Has China’s Young Thousand Talents program been successful in recruiting and nurturing top-caliber scientists? Science 2023 , 379 , 62–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Halevi, G.; Moed, H.F.; Bar-Ilan, J. Researchers’ mobility, productivity and impact: Case of top producing authors in seven disciplines. Publ. Res. Q. 2016 , 32 , 22–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ryazanova, O.; McNamara, P. Choices and consequences: Impact of mobility on research-career capital and promotion in business schools. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2019 , 18 , 186–212. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fu, Y.C.; Vásquez, J.J.M.; Macasaet, B.T.; Hou, A.Y.C.; Powell, J.J. Game of brains: Examining researcher brain gain and brain drain and research university policy. High. Educ. Policy 2023 , 18 , 1–22. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jin, C.; Ma, Y.; Uzzi, B. Scientific prizes and the extraordinary growth of scientific topics. Nat. Commun. 2021 , 12 , 5619. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Santos, J.M.; Horta, H.; Li, H. Are the strategic research agendas of researchers in the social sciences determinants of research productivity? Scientometrics 2022 , 127 , 3719–3747. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Petersen, A.M. Multiscale impact of researcher mobility. J. R. Soc. Interface 2018 , 15 , 20180580. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Finocchi, I.; Ribichini, A.; Schaerf, M. An analysis of international mobility and research productivity in computer science. Scientometrics 2023 , 128 , 6147–6175. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ejermo, O.; Fassio, C.; Källström, J. Does mobility across universities raise scientific productivity? Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2020 , 82 , 603–624. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Iversen, E.J.; Woolley, R. International mobility and career progression of European academics. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (STI 2023), Leiden, The Netherlands, 27–29 September 2023. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, D.; Song, C.; Barabási, A.L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science 2013 , 342 , 127–132. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Hunter, R.S.; Oswald, A.J.; Charlton, B.G. The elite brain drain. Econ. J. 2009 , 119 , F231–F251. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson, J.; McKenzie, D. The economic consequences of ‘brain drain’of the best and brightest: Microeconomic evidence from five countries. Econ. J. 2012 , 122 , 339–375. [ Google Scholar ]
• De Rassenfosse, G.; Murovana, T.; Uhlbach, W.H. The effects of war on Ukrainian research. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023 , 10 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Zhang, J.; Su, X.; Wang, Y. A Qualitative Study on the Relationship between Faculty Mobility and Scientific Impact: Toward the Sustainable Development of Higher Education. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 7739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177739

Zhang J, Su X, Wang Y. A Qualitative Study on the Relationship between Faculty Mobility and Scientific Impact: Toward the Sustainable Development of Higher Education. Sustainability . 2024; 16(17):7739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177739

Zhang, Jun, Xiaoyan Su, and Yifei Wang. 2024. "A Qualitative Study on the Relationship between Faculty Mobility and Scientific Impact: Toward the Sustainable Development of Higher Education" Sustainability 16, no. 17: 7739. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177739

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals