Is research with qualitative data more prevalent and impactful now? Interviews, case studies, focus groups and ethnographies

TL;DR

This study systematically analyzes the increasing prevalence and citation impact of qualitative research methods like interviews, case studies, focus groups, and ethnographies across academia from 1996 to 2019, highlighting their growing importance.

Contribution

It provides the first comprehensive cross-disciplinary analysis of qualitative research prevalence and impact over time, emphasizing the rise of qualitative methods in academia.

Findings

Qualitative research methods have increased in prevalence since 1996.

All 27 broad academic fields now publish qualitative research.

Interviews are the most common qualitative data collection method.

Abstract

Researchers, editors, educators and publishers need to understand the mix of research methods used in their field to guide decision making, with a current concern being that qualitative research is threatened by big data. Although there have been many studies of the prevalence of different methods within individual narrow fields, there have been no systematic studies across academia. In response, this article assesses the prevalence and citation impact of academic research 1996-2019 that reports one of four common methods to gather qualitative data: interviews; focus groups; case studies; ethnography. The results show that, with minor exceptions, the prevalence of qualitative data has increased, often substantially, since 1996. In addition, all 27 broad fields (as classified by Scopus) now publish some qualitative research, with interviewing being by far the most common approach. This suggest that qualitative methods teaching and should increase, and researchers, editors and publishers should be increasingly open to the value that qualitative data can bring.