Publishing Qualitative Research

Abstract

This paper constitutes a slight departure from editorial policy for AERJ. Far from contributing to general knowledge through empirical analysis, the paper is meant to serve a self-referent and practical purpose. It is meant to signify to the discipline that manuscripts based on qualitative research are being welcomed by AERJ editors. It is also meant to assist the editors in recognizing instances of qualitative research and choosing those manuscripts with the greatest relevance and scholarly merit. The author was asked to define qualitative research in education, describe what form an AERJ article based on qualitative research might take, and state some criteria that can be used by the editors and referees to judge the merit of such studies. Seemingly straightforward, the task could hardly be more daunting. The body of work labeled qualitative is richly variegated and its theories of method diverse to the point of disorderliness. Qualitative research is vexed by the problem of different labels. One sees terms such as naturalistic research, participant observation, case study, and ethnography, as well as qualitative research, used interchangeably. If the terms and the work described can be distinguished, it would be a task that requires a separate paper, and, for the present purposes, I will treat them as a package. In addition to the diversity of labels, the field has grown out of diverse disciplines (anthropology, sociology, psychology). Qualitative research is further divided by differing views of the nature of reality (whether there is a world of social objects and forces separate from the observer's perception of them), of object fields judged to be appropriate for study (from whole institutions or communities to brief encounters), of beliefs about the merits of different research methods and ways of representing findings, and of criteria for judging studies. These divisions have created socially bounded territories, acrimonious exchanges among adherents, and institutionalized schools of thought. How then should the editors judge and select manuscripts when such different ways of thinking about and doing qualitative