The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews
Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002 · Cited by 1,990
Vogl, T. M., Seidelin, C., Ganesh, B., & Bright, J. (2020) · Public Administration Review · doi:10.1111/puar.13286 · Cited by 209
A Reviewer’s Guide to Qualitative Rigor
Nowell, B., & Albrecht, K. (2019) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/muy052 · Cited by 185
Overcoming the Challenges of Collaboratively Adopting Artificial Intelligence in the Public Sector
Campion, A., Gasco-Hernandez, M., Jankin Mikhaylov, S., & Esteve, M. (2022) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/0894439320979953 · Cited by 162
The future of public administration research: An editor's perspective
McDonald, B. D., Hall, J. L., O'Flynn, J., & van Thiel, S. (2022) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/padm.12829 · Cited by 138
Metadata
- Authors
- Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, S.
- Venue
- Public Administration Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-09-07
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 593-605
- ISSN
- 0033-3352 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-6210
- OpenAlex
- W2752839399
- Cited by
- 208
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 46.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/puar.12837
- The paper
- Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2018). Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research. Public Administration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.