The State of Qualitative Research in Hospitality: A 5-Year Review 2014 to 2019

2020 ◽  
pp. 193896552094029
Author(s):  
Sean McGinley ◽  
Wei Wei ◽  
Lu Zhang ◽  
Yanyan Zheng

In response to this special issue, concerned with methods and measurements, a comprehensive review of the last 5 years of qualitative research was conducted in the top five journals that primarily publish articles pertaining to the hospitality industry. A total of 197 articles were read and analyzed for this review with a focus on the state of trustworthiness in the contemporary hospitality literature. An outline of the methods, techniques, and successes are presented in this review as are recommendations for scholars, journal editors, journal reviewers, and our partners in industry who use qualitative data for many reasons including but not limited to employee satisfaction surveys, market focus groups, and employee exit interviews. In addition, the relatively novel and nascent ideas regarding empirical rigor such as transparency and replicability are introduced to the hospitality field.

Author(s):  
Sebastian Karcher ◽  
Dessislava Kirilova ◽  
Christiane Pagé ◽  
Nic Weber

Data sharing and reuse are becoming the norm in quantitative research. At the same time, significant skepticism still accompanies the sharing and reuse of qualitative research data on both ethical and epistemological grounds. Nevertheless, there is growing interest in the reuse of qualitative data, as demonstrated by the range of contributions in this special issue. In this research note, we address epistemological critiques of reusing qualitative data and argue that careful curation of data can enable what we term “epistemologically responsible reuse” of qualitative data. We begin by briefly defining qualitative data and summarizing common epistemological objections to their shareability or usefulness for secondary analysis. We then introduce the concept of curation as enabling epistemologically responsible reuse and a potential way to address such objections. We discuss three recent trends that we believe are enhancing curatorial practices and thus expand the opportunities for responsible reuse: improvements in data management practices among researchers, the development of collaborative curation practices at repositories focused on qualitative data and technological advances that support sharing rich qualitative data. Using three examples of successful reuse of qualitative data, we illustrate the potential of these three trends to further improve the availability of reusable data projects.


2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Lynda Kellam ◽  
Celia Emmelhainz

Welcome to the second issue of Volume 43 of the IASSIST Quarterly (IQ 43:2, 2019). Four papers are presented in this issue on qualitative research support. This special issue arises from conversations in the Qualitative Social Science and Humanities Data Interest Group (QSSHDIG) at IASSIST about how best to support qualitative researchers. This group was founded in 2016 to explore the challenges and opportunities facing data professionals in the social sciences and humanities, and has focused on using, reusing, sharing, and archiving of qualitative, textual, and other non-numeric data. In ‘Annotation for transparent inquiry (ATI),’ Sebastian Karcher and Nic Weber present their work on a new approach to transparency in qualitative research by the same name, which they have been exploring at the Qualitative Data Repository at the University of Syracuse, New York. As one solution to the problem of ‘showing one’s work’ in qualitative research, ATI allows researchers to link final reports back to the underlying qualitative and textual data used to support a claim. Using the example of Hypothes.is, they discuss the positives and negatives of ATI, particularly the amount of time required to annotate a qualitative article effectively and technical limitations in widespread web display. The next article highlights how archived materials can be re-used by qualitative researchers and used to build their arguments. In ‘Research driven approaches to archival discovery,’ Diana Marsh examines what qualitative researchers need from the collections at the National Anthropological Archives in the United States, in order to improve archival discovery for those not as accustomed to working in the archives. In ‘Bringing method to the madness,’ Mandy Swygart-Hobaugh, Leader of the Research Data Services Team at the Georgia State University Library, outlines a project created to bridge the gap between training researchers to use qualitative data software and training them in qualitative methods. Her answer has been a collaborative workshop with a sociology professor who provides a methodological framework while she applies those principles to a project in NVivo. These successful workshops have helped to encourage researchers to consider qualitative methods while at the same time promoting the use of CAQDAS software. Jonathan Cain, Liz Cooper, Sarah DeMott, and Alesia Montgomery in their article ‘Where QDA is hiding?’ draw on a study originally conducted for QSSHDIG to create a list of qualitative data services in libraries. When they realized that finding these services was quite difficult, they expanded the study to examine the discoverability of library sites supporting QDA. This study of 95 academic library websites provides insight into the issues of finding and accessing library websites that support the full range of qualitative research needs. They also outline the key characteristics of websites that provide more accessible access to qualitative data services. We thank our authors for participating in this special issue and providing their insights on qualitative data and research. If you are interested in issues related to qualitative research, then please join the Qualitative Social Sciences and Humanities Data Interest Group. Starting with IASSIST 2019 in Australia, our interest group has a new leadership team with two of our authors, Sebastian Karcher and Alesia Montgomery, taking over as co-conveners. We are certain that they would love to hear your ideas for the group, and we look forward to working with the qualitative data community more in the future.  Lynda Kellam, Cornell Institute for Social & Economic Research Celia Emmelhainz, University of California, Berkeley


Author(s):  
Jessica Lester ◽  
Noah Goodman ◽  
Michelle O'Reilly

This article introduces the special issue, “Diverse Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Research,” in which seven papers analyze one shared data set to illustrate different approaches to qualitative analysis. In addition to discussing the articles included in the special issue, this introduction provides an overview of applied research—highlighting some of the implications for qualitative research—and discusses how researchers could use the special issue to compare different qualitative approaches to choose one most appropriate for a given project’s goals.


2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 713-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Uwe Flick

Qualitative inquiry always used various kinds of data for understanding social issues and participants’ perspectives. Research and methodologies were debated for what data are adequate for studying social justice issues. Current challenges for concepts of data are new, for example, virtual and digital data, question traditional data (interviews, ethnography, etc.) in their relevance for understanding current life worlds. New methods produce new and other forms of data (e.g., mobile, virtual data). Neoliberal contexts produce questions about qualitative research and its data. What is an adequate and contemporary understanding of the concept of “data”? These questions are discussed in this special issue.


2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 118-125
Author(s):  
Shalva Weil

This article reviews the state of the art of qualitative research on femicide, which, until the publication of this Special Issue, has been extremely sparse. The paper mentions some of the limitations of the qualitative approach, such as time consumption, ethical liabilities, and non-generalizability. However, it advocates qualitative research because of its advantages in capturing the context, describing the experience, identifying the motives, highlighting the relationship between perpetrator and victim, identifying the risk factors, and suggesting apt policies. The article concludes by cautiously recommending a mixed-/merged-methods approach, which, in turn, depends upon the research question and has its own inherent disadvantages.


Commonwealth ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher Borick

“An Introduction to the Special to the Special Issue on Energy and the Environment” provides an overview of the state of the literature relating to Pennsylvania in these areas of public policy. It then introduces each of the articles in this issue of the journal. 


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 157-165
Author(s):  
Mansoor Mohamed Fazil

Abstract This research focuses on the issue of state-minority contestations involving transforming and reconstituting each other in post-independent Sri Lanka. This study uses a qualitative research method that involves critical categories of analysis. Migdal’s theory of state-in-society was applied because it provides an effective conceptual framework to analyse and explain the data. The results indicate that the unitary state structure and discriminatory policies contributed to the formation of a minority militant social force (the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – The LTTE) which fought with the state to form a separate state. The several factors that backed to the defeat of the LTTE in 2009 by the military of the state. This defeat has appreciably weakened the Tamil minority. This study also reveals that contestations between different social forces within society, within the state, and between the state and society in Sri Lanka still prevail, hampering the promulgation of inclusive policies. This study concludes that inclusive policies are imperative to end state minority contestations in Sri Lanka.


Author(s):  
Mohammad Yaghi

In this chapter, Yaghi offers detailed suggestions on how to code qualitative data after they have been gathered. Based on his doctoral dissertation, this chapter explains that the logic behind coding qualitative data is to turn a significant amount of information into categories that can be used to explain a phenomenon, reveal a concept, or render the data comparable across different case studies. It also elaborates through examples from author’s fieldwork in Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan on four potential problems that may face researchers in coding qualitative data. These are the questions of preparation, categorization, consistency, and saturation. The chapter concludes by asking researchers to be flexible, and open to the process of trial and error in coding, to confront the data with questions before categorization, and to gather sufficient data on their topics before running their qualitative surveys.


Author(s):  
Jeasik Cho

This book provides the qualitative research community with some insight on how to evaluate the quality of qualitative research. This topic has gained little attention during the past few decades. We, qualitative researchers, read journal articles, serve on masters’ and doctoral committees, and also make decisions on whether conference proposals, manuscripts, or large-scale grant proposals should be accepted or rejected. It is assumed that various perspectives or criteria, depending on various paradigms, theories, or fields of discipline, have been used in assessing the quality of qualitative research. Nonetheless, until now, no textbook has been specifically devoted to exploring theories, practices, and reflections associated with the evaluation of qualitative research. This book constructs a typology of evaluating qualitative research, examines actual information from websites and qualitative journal editors, and reflects on some challenges that are currently encountered by the qualitative research community. Many different kinds of journals’ review guidelines and available assessment tools are collected and analyzed. Consequently, core criteria that stand out among these evaluation tools are presented. Readers are invited to join the author to confidently proclaim: “Fortunately, there are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called ‘scientific research.’ ”


2020 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Caroline Doyle

ABSTRACT In the last ten years, Medellín, Colombia has undergone significant socioeconomic improvements and a reduction in homicides. By drawing from qualitative data collected in Medellín, this article shows how, despite these improvements, residents in the marginalized neighborhoods maintain a perception that the state is unable or unwilling to provide them with services, such as employment and order or social control. Criminal gangs in these neighborhoods appear to rely on, and even exploit, the weakness of the state, as they are able to get citizens to perceive them as more reliable and legitimate than the state. This article argues that it is important for Latin American policymakers to promote citizen engagement in the design and implementation of policies to reduce current levels of violence.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document