The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fitting Oval Pegs Into Round Holes: Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals
Abstract
A study of qualitative researchers who have submitted and/or published their research in top-tier North American organizational and management journals reveals the evaluative criteria-in-use at these journals. Specifically, when asked to take the perspective of an (a) author, (b) evaluator (reviewer or editor), and (c) judge of the comparisons between qualitative and quantitative research, three publication tensions were evident. The author offers the metaphor of ``fitting a round peg into an oval hole'' as a means of capturing these tensions and as a vehicle for organizing the various ways these tensions can be managed.
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
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,666
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
From the Editors: What Grounded Theory is Not
Suddaby, R. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083020 · Cited by 2,859 · cited 1×
“This article seeks to contribute to a small, but growing, body of research that centers on publishing qualitative research in organizational and management outlets (Gephardt, 2004; Golden-Biddle & Locke, 1993, 1997; Lee, 1999; Suddaby, 2006).”
BackgroundBarley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Pratt, M. G., Rockmann, K. W., & Kaufmann, J. B. (2006) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2006.20786060 · Cited by 1,973
Self-citationProblems of Reliability and Validity in Ethnographic Research
LeCompte, M. D., & Goetz, J. P. (1982) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543052001031 · Cited by 1,740
Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research
Kirk, J., & Miller, M. (1986) · doi:10.4135/9781412985659 · Cited by 1,462
Cited by
Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428112452151 · Cited by 13,227
Petriglieri, G., Ashford, S. J., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2019) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839218759646 · Cited by 744
The ‘‘what’’and ‘‘how’’of case study rigor: three strategies based on published work
Gibbert, M., & Ruigrok, W. (2010) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/1094428109351319 · Cited by 506
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839219887663 · Cited by 458
Self-citationCounting in Qualitative Research: Why to Conduct it, When to Avoid it, and When to Closet it
Hannah, D. R., & Lautsch, B. A. (2011) · Journal of Management Inquiry · doi:10.1177/1056492610375988 · Cited by 282
Metadata
- Authors
- Pratt, M. G.
- Venue
- Organizational Research Methods
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-08-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 481-509
- ISSN
- 1094-4281 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-7425
- OpenAlex
- W2085643406
- Cited by
- 636
- References
- 8
- FWCI
- 37.71
- 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: Fitting Oval Pegs Into Round Holes: Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1094428107303349
- The paper
- Pratt, M. G. (2008). Fitting Oval Pegs Into Round Holes: Tensions in Evaluating and Publishing Qualitative Research in Top-Tier North American Journals. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107303349
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.
