Howard-Grenville, J., Nelson, A., Vough, H., and Zilber, T. B.’s (2021) editorial, titled “Achieving Fit and Avoiding Misfit in Qualitative Research,” published in the Academy of Management Journal, serves as a crucial guide for authors aiming to publish high-quality qualitative research. The authors contend that the most important kind of “fit” within a research project and its resulting paper is internal coherence. This means that the research question and its motivation, data collection methods, data analysis techniques, findings, and the development and contribution of theory must all align seamlessly with each other and with the underlying assumptions of the chosen research approach.
This concept of internal coherence is particularly vital for inductive, qualitative research, which frequently starts with data and recursively builds towards theory. This iterative process, involving deepening inquiry, shifting data focus, or adjusting theoretical frames, can inadvertently lead to a loss of coherence between the various elements of a paper. The authors, drawing on their extensive experience as editors, highlight that a lack of internal coherence is a common and significant reason for the rejection of qualitative manuscripts. Their primary objective with this editorial is to provide authors with practical insights and questions to proactively identify and prevent such misfits, fostering the development of papers that are cohesive and adhere to the contemporary norms of good qualitative research.
The editorial also contextualizes its advice by exploring prior and ongoing tensions surrounding the notion of “fit” in qualitative research. Historically, qualitative scholars faced pressure to adapt their practices to the expectations of reviewers predominantly trained in quantitative methods. While qualitative research is now well-represented and accepted in the Academy of Management Journal (comprising almost 20% of manuscripts under review and appearing in its pages), new tensions have emerged. Authors sometimes struggle to align their work with perceived methodological standards, occasionally leading to the unreflective adoption of templates or stylized approaches. For instance, methods sections have become longer and more uniform, and even ethnographies often follow a “detective story” template, despite the potential for variety. The authors caution against such template-driven approaches that might not genuinely fit the data or research questions, advocating instead for authenticity and variety in analytical approaches and presentation styles.
A second tension arises from the evolving discourse around research transparency. The practices and reasons for transparency differ significantly between qualitative and quantitative research. Authors of qualitative papers navigate choices and tensions in meeting readers’ expectations and evolving norms concerning transparency. Howard-Grenville et al. (2021) argue that achieving internal coherence can help alleviate these tensions by signaling confident and authentic engagement from the authors and enhancing the overall transparency of their work.
To guide authors, the editorial presents a simplified yet powerful model (Figure 1), illustrating the five key areas of fit essential for internal coherence: Research Question & Motivation, Data Collection, Data Analysis, Findings, and Theory Development & Contribution. This model encourages authors to ask critical questions throughout their research and writing process to ensure interconnectedness between these elements.
Key areas of fit and common misfits highlighted in the editorial include:
- Research Question and Motivation:
- Can the research question be addressed by the data? (Arrow 1) This foundational question requires authors to explicitly acknowledge their paradigmatic stance (e.g., constructivist, interpretivist), as this shapes data collection, analysis, and theoretical use. A common misfit is using data unsuited for the question, such as relying on retrospective interviews as direct accounts of past events, rather than acknowledging their constructive nature or using archived interviews for historical inquiry. Another example is using only interview data for questions focused on interactions or daily practices, where observation or video recording would offer richer insights into “what people do in the flow of action”.
- Does the research question connect with a theoretical conversation and cue up a theoretical contribution? (Arrow 2) A strong paper skillfully links to existing theoretical conversations. A common misfit occurs when authors use rich data or an interesting phenomenon as the sole motivation, connecting only to an empirical puzzle without engaging the underlying theory or mechanisms from prior work. The authors emphasize that research questions must be “just right” in scope – neither too narrow (focusing tightly on a specific empirical setting) nor too broad (attempting a “grand theory” beyond the data’s capacity).
- Data Collection and Data Analysis:
- Do the data collected fit with the analytical approach? (Arrow 3) This involves both the quantity and quality of data. The editorial warns that “more is not always better” when it comes to data quantity, as vast amounts can lead to a reduction of richness and a superficial focus on patterns, potentially yielding less profound insights. Conversely, having “too little data” to support the analysis is also a problem, though there is no “one size fits all” answer to how much data is enough; it must suit the research purpose and demonstrate robust analytical work.
- The quality of data analysis and its transparent description are crucial. The authors highlight a common misfit in methods sections: generic, formulaic descriptions of coding (e.g., “open coding, classifying, organizing into categories”) that lack specificity, examples, and fail to convey the “messy process” of discovery, puzzlement, and “aha” moments that characterize qualitative analysis. Authors are encouraged to provide examples, articulate key decisions, and explain how insights from early analysis or existing literature shaped their inquiry. They also note that coding is not the only analytical approach, and authors should avoid forcing their analysis into conventional templates if other approaches, like narrative analysis, are more appropriate for their data.
- Findings, Theory Development, and Contribution:
- Do the findings and theory development tie strongly to what emerged from the analysis? (Arrow 4) Qualitative papers often integrate theory development within the findings section, illustrating theorized constructs with data extracts. Misfit arises when there’s an imbalance between “showing” data and “telling” from it, or when labels and constructs are used inconsistently between the analysis and findings sections. Reviewers often note claims in the discussion section that are interesting but not sufficiently grounded in the empirical findings, underscoring the need for a clear chain of logic and supporting evidence.
- Does the theory development and overall contribution connect to the research question and motivation? (Arrow 5) Given the evolving nature of qualitative research and paper writing, a common issue is a discussion section that fails to adequately return to the original research question and motivation. Authors might rush to broader implications without explicitly demonstrating how their empirical work addressed or expanded the initial theoretical conversation. The editorial urges authors to articulate the answer to their research question, address the initial theoretical critiques, and then “open up the funnel” to craft broader theoretical and practical implications.
In conclusion, Howard-Grenville et al. (2021) acknowledge the significant progress of qualitative research in management scholarship, offering a multitude of ways to craft compelling contributions. However, the open-ended nature of qualitative inquiry can make achieving internal coherence challenging. By providing a clear framework and probing questions, the editorial seeks to empower authors to critically assess their work, navigate methodological complexities, and ultimately produce stronger, more authentic, and impactful qualitative papers that enhance organizational scholarship.
Reference: Howard-Grenville, J., Nelson, A., Vough, H., & Zilber, T. B. (2021). From the editors: Achieving fit and avoiding misfit in qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1313–1323. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2021.4005