Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research

Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: OSPINA, Sonia M., ESTEVE, Marc, LEE, Seulki
Format: text
Language:English
Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3519
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4777/viewcontent/AssessingQS_PAR_2018_av.pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Singapore Management University
Language: English
id sg-smu-ink.soss_research-4777
record_format dspace
spelling sg-smu-ink.soss_research-47772022-02-07T03:14:00Z Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research OSPINA, Sonia M. ESTEVE, Marc LEE, Seulki Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five-year period (2010–14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice. 2018-07-01T07:00:00Z text application/pdf https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3519 info:doi/10.1111/puar.12837 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4777/viewcontent/AssessingQS_PAR_2018_av.pdf http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Research Collection School of Social Sciences eng Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University Public administration qualitative research research methods research quality Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration
institution Singapore Management University
building SMU Libraries
continent Asia
country Singapore
Singapore
content_provider SMU Libraries
collection InK@SMU
language English
topic Public administration
qualitative research
research methods
research quality
Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration
spellingShingle Public administration
qualitative research
research methods
research quality
Public Affairs, Public Policy and Public Administration
OSPINA, Sonia M.
ESTEVE, Marc
LEE, Seulki
Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research
description Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions. This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five-year period (2010–14) in the six top public administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second, qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of qualitative research practice.
format text
author OSPINA, Sonia M.
ESTEVE, Marc
LEE, Seulki
author_facet OSPINA, Sonia M.
ESTEVE, Marc
LEE, Seulki
author_sort OSPINA, Sonia M.
title Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research
title_short Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research
title_full Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research
title_fullStr Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research
title_full_unstemmed Assessing qualitative studies in public administration research
title_sort assessing qualitative studies in public administration research
publisher Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
publishDate 2018
url https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/3519
https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/soss_research/article/4777/viewcontent/AssessingQS_PAR_2018_av.pdf
_version_ 1770576101281628160