Penny Dick

1. Penny Dick Sheffield University Management School Qualitative research – the perils and pleasures of publishing

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

3. Epistemological and ontological position • This is very important in qualitative research – you need to make statements about how you are understanding the status of your data and how you are deriving your findings • Be clear about whether you are adopting a deductive/inductive or abductive approach – most qualitative management research tends to be the last of these three • Some excellent examples from the literature: • Boiral, O. (2007) Corporate greening through ISO14001: A rational myth. Organization Scence.18 (1) 127-146. • Lee. M.D., MacDermid, S.M. Buck, L. (2000) Organizational paradigms of reduced-load work: Accommodation, elaboration and transformation. Academy of Management Journal, 43 (6) 1211-1226. • Musson, G. Duberley, J. (2007) Change, change or be exchanged: The discourse of participation and the manufacture of identity. Journal of Management Studies, 44 (1) 133-164 • Zilber, T.B. (2002) Institutionalization as an interplay between actions, meanings and actors: The case of a rape crisis center in Israel. Academy of Management Journal. 45 (1) 234-254.

4. Theorisation • One of the biggest hurdles for qualitative researchers who will typically not be answering hypotheses developed from the literature – is moving from a descriptive (and thorough) summary of your data to a theoretical analysis • The description of how you did this has to be detailed and illustrated – saying something like “I identified the following themes” – will not wash in a 4* journal • My advice is to look at the qualitative papers published in your journal of choice and try to emulate what these authors have done in terms of describing their methods and data analysis

5. Analysis • The relationship between the data and the interpretation has to be very clear – make sure that your claims are reflected in the data • Over-interpretation/speculation/inflated and unsupported claims will be trampled on by reviewers • Tell a coherent story – structure and organize your findings – use diagrams/tables/figures where possible to illustrate your ideas/summarise your findings

6. Responding to reviewers’ comments • Balancing act – retaining the integrity of your own ideas and incorporating the views of the reviewers • Be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water • Pay very careful attention to the editorial guidelines • Respond thoroughly and politely to every comment the reviewers make • You do not have to “do” everything the reviewers suggest but if you choose to ignore their advice you need to acknowledge it and explain why. • The review process in top journals can be up to 5 or 6 if not more iterations – rejection remains a possibility until the acceptance letter