Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research

• Published date: 01 July 2018
• Author: Sonia M. Ospina,Marc Esteve,Seulki Lee
• Date: 01 July 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837

Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research 593

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 4, pp. 593–605. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12837.

Seulki Lee is a doctoral candidate in New

York University ’ s Wagner Graduate School

of Public Service. Her current research

focuses on accountability challenges in

collaborative governance. Other research

interests include performance management,

citizen satisfaction, and leadership. She

was the recipient of the Fulbright Graduate

Study Award 2015.

E-mail: seulki.lee@nyu.edu

Marc Esteve is associate professor of

international public management in the

School of Public Policy, University College

London, and visiting professor at ESADE

Business School, Barcelona. His primary

research interests focus on understanding

how individual characteristics influence

decision making, specifically in

interorganizational collaborations. He has

published in journals such as the

Journal of

Public Administration Research and Theory,

Public Administration Review, International

Public Management Journal,

and

Public

Administration

.

E-mail: marc.esteve@ucl.ac.uk

Sonia M. Ospina is professor of

public management and policy in New

York University ’ s Wagner Graduate School

of Public Service, where she teaches

qualitative research methods. Interested in

participation and inclusion in democratic

governance, she does social change

leadership and social innovation research

and aims to develop collective leadership

theory. She is an elected fellow of National

Academy of Public Administration in the

United States and the Scientific Council of

the United Nations–based Latin American

Center for Development Administration.

E-mail: sonia.ospina@nyu.edu

Research Article

Abstract : Systematic reviews of research methods in the public administration field have assessed the progress of

research practice and offered relevant recommendations to further develop research quality. But most recent reviews

examine quantitative studies, and the few assessments of qualitative scholarship tend to focus on specific dimensions.

This article calls attention to the overall practice of qualitative research in the field of public administration. The

authors analyzed 129 qualitative studies published during a five-year period (2010–14) in the six top public

administration journals, combining bibliometric and qualitative analyses. Three findings are drawn from the

analysis. First, qualitative work represents a very small percentage of the journal articles published in the field. Second,

qualitative research practice uses a small range of methodologies, mainly case studies. Finally, there is inconsistency in

reporting methodological decisions. The article discusses the implications of these findings and offers recommendations

to ensure methodological rigor while considering the integrity of the logic of inquiry and reporting standards of

qualitative research practice.

Evidence for Practice

• Qualitative research, based on thick descriptions of real-life settings and understandings of participants ’

worldviews, can help close the gap between practitioners and researchers.

• Scholars should care about methodological reporting standards, as this can enhance research credibility for

policy makers.

• Public administration research should increase the use of certain qualitative traditions (e.g., ethnography and

participatory action research) to enrich the interaction between researchers and practitioners.

Sonia M. Ospina

New York University

Marc Esteve

University College London

Seulki Lee

New York University

Assessing Qualitative Studies in

Public Administration Research

T he exponential growth of quantitative

research (Pitts and Fernandez 2009 ) has

been accompanied by a parallel, continued

development of qualitative research (Dryzek 1990 ;

Fischer 2003 ; Miller 2012 ; Stone 2002 ; Yanow and

Schwartz-Shea 2014 ). These trends reflect a rich

and robust tradition of empirical research in public

administration (PA). In this context, qualitative

research can be viewed as a well-established

methodology capable of answering “big questions”

in PA and helpful to strengthen the field ’ s links to

practice (Stout 2013 ). Over time, conversations

have shifted from questions about legitimacy to

more productive exchanges around frameworks and

approaches (Riccucci 2010 ; Stout 2013 ), criteria to

improve rigor (Brower, Abolafia, and Carr 2000 ;

Dodge, Ospina, and Foldy 2005 ; Lowery and Evans

2004 ; Miller 2012 ; Stout 2013 ), and sound research

design (Cappellaro 2017 ; Schwartz-Shea and Yanow

2012 ).

This is consistent with “the explosion of reflections on

qualitative research and methodology in recent years”

in the social and administrative sciences (Blatter,

Haverland, and Van Hulst 2016 , xix). Of importance

for PA are efforts in political science (e.g., Blatter,

Haverland, and Van Hulst 2016 ) and management

(e.g., Boisot and McKelvey 2010 ) to bolster

appreciation of good qualitative research practices and

their potential contributions to knowledge generation.

The primacy of quantitative methodologies in most

disciplines demands that we continue to ensure that

both types of research have equal standing regarding

the legitimacy of knowledge claims generated by

empirical research (Blatter, Haverland, and Van Hulst

2016 ; Ospina and Uhl-Bien 2012 ).

Periodic assessments of research practice can

contribute to this goal. However, the most recent

comprehensive assessment of PA qualitative studies

dates from 2000 (Brower, Abolafia, and Carr 2000 ),

with a smaller effort reported in 2004 (Lowery and

Evans 2004 ). As of today, there is no systematic

answer to how the overall practice of qualitative

research has evolved since these reviews were

published. Indeed, we do not even know whether

This manuscript was originally submitted

and accepted as

Research Synthesis

article.

The feature editor, Michael McGuire, is

gratefully acknowledged for their work

in soliciting and developing this content.

Effective with Volume 78, the

Research

Synthesis

feature has been discontinued.