This document provides advice for publishing qualitative research. It discusses why researchers should publish their work, options for publication like journals and books, and what it takes to get published in top-tier journals. It notes the peer review process and common reasons for rejection, including lack of theoretical contribution or methodological flaws. The document provides tips for developing theory, collecting sufficient qualitative data, targeting the right journal, and framing the paper to demonstrate its contribution to knowledge.

1. Publishing Qualitative
Research: Reflections and
Some Suggestions
Jean Clarke, Associate Professor,
Leeds University Business School

2. Structure of presentation
1. Why publish?
2. What are the options? How to choose?
3. What it takes to get published in top-tier journals
4. Practical steps and other reflections

3. I. Why publish?
1.(implicit)
requirement for PhD
2.Making your work public
3.Advancement of career
4.A useful motto for every researcher
– “Research is not finished until it is published’’

4. II. What are the options?
 Journal articles -- books -- on-line publishing – business magazines--
working paper series--newspapers
 How to choose between them?
1. Who is your audience
2. Objectives, quality and nature of the study
3. Credentials of outlet
4. Developmental approach important
 In business and management: primary focus on journal
publications
1. ABS list, RAE 1*/2*/3*/4*
2. Social Sciences Citation Index; e.g., management list, business list
3. US tenure system: top tier list of journals in subject areas
4. FT list of journals (45)

5. The Review Process
 Manuscripts submitted to academic journals are subject to a peer
review process
 This process is often double-blind and gives some assurance of
quality
 If the findings are judged to be significant and robust by one’s
peers (other ‘experts’ in the field), then the manuscript will be
accepted and published as a new contribution to knowledge
 If the findings are judged to be insignificant and not robust, then a
manuscript will be rejected
 By definition, the peer review process is a social process. Peer
review involves having your work evaluated by others

6. THE REVIEW PROCESS
Paper Submitted
Reject Send for Review Return
Reject Major mods. Minor mods. Accept
Rewrite and resubmit
Reject Rewrite Accept
Publish

7. Theory
 Hypotheses or propositions involve constructs/variables and relationships
 These require theoretical definitions and underlying mechanisms (theoretical
grounding)
 Theoretical development is the price of entry
 Building new theory – new constructs and relationships
 Extending existing theory – new antecedents, outcomes and contexts (not simply
testing or application)
 Building new theory is very high risk and is frequently judged naïve or just plain
wrong
 By definition, such papers have weakly defined or mixed audiences
 Finding an audience for new theory means positioning around a topic or a problem

8. Theory
 Theory Generation
 What’s the practical problem? We lack basic understanding of process
 What does current theory tell us? We know some variables
 What does current theory not tell us? We don’t know process
 How is current study going to help fill this gap? New process theory
 Theory Elaboration
 What’s the practical problem? We lack complete understanding of process
 What does current theory tell us? We have some related theories that might
explain process
 What does current theory not tell us? We don’t know which theories best fit
 How is current study going to help fill this gap? Elaborated theory

9. Reasons for Reject After Review
[based on 270 papers in 2003-2004 JMS]
Reason # %
Lack of contribution 248 92
Failure to develop theoretical 205 76
contribution
Fatal flaws in methods 189 70
Deficiencies in analysis 156 58

10. Competition for space
 “the pressure on authors to place their work in the highest-
tier journals can be expected to increase. Where this trend
will lead is uncertain, but it is already affecting the operations
and outcomes of top-tier and specialty journals alike. In
addition, it may be shifting the balance of the types of research
produced (for example, toward meta-analyses and away from
primary studies)” (Rynes, 2007: 489).
 Lower acceptance rates for top-tier journals (ASQ, AMR,
AMJ) but also for followers (JIBS, OSc, Ost, JMS)

11. Major Problems in getting
Qualitative Research published
1. The lack of a contribution to knowledge
2. The ‘story’ is not convincing
3. Ignoring the rationale for research
4. The “missing methods” problem
5. Making qualitative research appear quantitative
6. Lack of balance between theory and data

12. Qualitative research: Trend
towards more data
Qualitative research in AMJ
 1980 – 1984
 Two studies
 Average 19 interviews
 1985 – 1989
 Twelve studies
 Average 33 interviews
 1990 – 1994
 Twenty studies
 Average 50 interviews
 1995 – 1999
 Sixteen studies
 Average 52 interviews
 2000 – 2005
 Thirty-three studies
 Average 82 interviews

13. Rules of thumb…cross-sectionally
 Estimated 2013/2014 standards
 For publication in a “C” Journal
 LRP, BJM, Organization
 25 – 35 (or equivalent)
 Up to roughly three months field/data work
 For publication in a “B” Journal
 JMS, OSt., OSc, JIBS
 30 – 50 (or equivalent)
 Up to roughly six months field/data work
 For publication in an “A” Journal
 ASQ, AMJ, SMJ
 60 – 120 (or equivalent)
 Up to roughly a year of field/data work

14. Rules of thumb – work
wise
Picture this:
 An established academic publishes an article per year…
 Each successful article goes through two rounds of revisions
(equaling three submissions)…
 “the success rate of one article in a top journal every two years
combined with an eventual acceptance rate of 20 percent for
articles initially targeted to the top journals implies that very
active scholars initiate 2.5 articles per year” (Glick et al., JOB,
2007).
 Mind you, this is just the writing, thus not counting:
 Vacation
 Conferences
 Manuscript rejections
 Teaching responsibilities
 Administrative responsibilities
 Data collection and analysis efforts

15. IV. Practical steps
 1. Don’t be in a rush to submit
 It will only come back to you as a desk reject
 2. Get the paper circulated
 Comments from supervisors, colleagues
 Present at internal staff seminars
 Present at external workshops, conferences, etc.
 Revise and polish before submission

16.  3. Targeting the journal
 Subject area
 Aims and scope of journal
 Has journal had papers on this topic?
 Style of journal
 Quantitative vs Qualitative
 Theory vs Empirical vs Applied
 How papers are framed
 Level of journal
 See listings of journal quality
 Your view on quality of paper
 “If you are not getting rejected, you are aiming too low” -- Donald Siegel
[Assoc Ed, JBV]

17.  4. Submitting to journal
 Read the papers in the journal
 cite papers on your topic
 cited authors may be your reviewers
 see structure and framing of papers
 “We went through previous AMJ papers line-by-line. We identified
standard phrasing and framing” -- Frans van den Bosch [Erasmus
University, published in AMJ 2006]
 Follow style guidelines
 citation and heading style, etc.
 abstract
 number the pages
 get rid of track changes and internal notes to yourself!
• Submit to ONE journal at a time!!!

18.  5. Frame your paper!
 Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997): framing practices -- synthesize prior research
and show how existing research is wanting in some respects → sets up
opportunity for advancing knowledge (contribution)
 Locke and Golden-Biddle (1997)
 Synthesize prior research as incomplete (need for further
development/specification)
 Synthesize prior research as inadequate (extant literature does not sufficiently
incorporate different perspectives on the phenomenon under investigation)
 Synthesize prior research as incommensurable (extant literature not only
overlooks relevant perspectives but is also simply wrong)
Positioning is where you locate your study in a stream of research, bridge
between framed gap or problem and offered solution

19. …other reflections
 Think about writing collaboratively:
 Enable material to be seen in a new, fresh way.
 Maximise opportunities for dissemination of research.
 Teamwork can help refine arguments
 Offer emotional support.
 Strategies for Collaborative Writing:
 Relaying – handing on as in a relay race.
 Portioning- dividing up the task among the team.
 Sounding – sounding out ideas on the rest of the team

20. …other reflections
 Writing skills
 Copy style and writing of exemplary papers
 Use of colleagues or professional copy-editors
 Method skills
 Rigour (advanced methods) and stay abreast of
developments
 Ongoing training and development needed
Conceptual and craft skills
 Framing and positioning
 Increasing emphasis on formalisation and interaction
models

21. Conclusion
“There are probably rules for writing the persuasive, memorable
and publishable qualitative research article, but rest assured, no
one knows what they are”.
Van Maanen (1988).

22. And finally…..
 Good Luck!!!