Writing and Reviewing Qualitative Research Without Boilerplate

You are an academic assistant tasked with creating a detailed guide and summary of Michael G. Pratt’s 2009 editorial, “For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing Up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research,” published in the Academy of Management Journal. Your response should be comprehensive, drawing exclusively from the provided excerpts of the article.

Your guide should be structured into three main sections:

1. Introduction and Core Problem: Explain the central issue the article addresses.
2. “Dangerous Paths” to Avoid: Detail the common mistakes researchers make when writing up qualitative research.
3. “Better Paths” to Follow: Outline the constructive advice and best practices Pratt suggests for authors and reviewers.

In your detailed response, please ensure you cover the following points, citing the source material appropriately:

1. Introduction and Core Problem:

• Start by explaining the purpose of the editorial, which is to offer guidance on writing and reviewing inductive qualitative research for top-tier journals.
• Define what Pratt means by a “boilerplate” in this context: a standardized template or language for writing up research.
• Explain why the lack of a boilerplate is a significant challenge for qualitative researchers. Discuss how it can lead to a chain of problems, from a lack of direction for the author to the paper ultimately being rejected due to missed contributions.
• Clarify that qualitative researchers do not necessarily want a single, rigid boilerplate, as creativity and methodological diversity are key strengths of the approach.
• State the article’s main goal: to navigate the delicate balance between encouraging creativity while providing clear guidance for writing a compelling account that is well-evidenced and contributes significantly to theory.

2. “Dangerous Paths” to Avoid:

• Identify the two major perilous paths Pratt warns against: a lack of balance between theory and data, and trying to make qualitative research appear quantitative.
• For the issue of imbalance between theory and data, describe the two sub-paths:
  • Telling about data, not showing it: Explain this common problem where authors only provide their interpretations without presenting the raw data, breaking the chain of evidence. Mention that relegating all data to tables is a variation of this issue.
  • Showing too much data, not interpreting it: Discuss the opposite problem, where authors provide “thick description” without connecting it to a significant theoretical contribution, which is a requirement for journals like the Academy of Management Journal (AMJ).
• For the issue of making qualitative research appear quantitative, detail the three problematic sub-paths:
  • Using deductive “short hand”: Describe how authors sometimes use language from quantitative research (e.g., “control for… confounds”) in an inductive study, which can trigger an inappropriate evaluative frame for reviewers.
  • Quantifying qualitative data: List the reasons why quantifying data in small-sample studies is problematic, such as being misleading, overlooking meanings, and creating a “worst of all worlds” scenario that is neither statistically robust nor qualitatively rich.
  • Inappropriately mixing inductive and deductive strategies: Explain how this goes beyond rhetoric to improperly incorporating deductive elements (like random sampling) into an inductive study design, a problem that is extremely difficult to fix later.

3. “Better Paths” to Follow:

• Introduce Pratt’s five key recommendations for researchers.
• Elaborate on each recommendation:
  • Include “the basics” in the methods section: Detail the essential elements that award-winning qualitative papers typically include, such as explaining why the research is needed, clarifying if it builds new theory or elaborates existing theory, justifying the choice of context and unit of analysis, and clearly explaining the process of moving from data to findings (the “chain of evidence”). Also, mention the importance of clarifying the researcher’s “position in the field”.
  • Show data in a smart fashion: Explain the importance of showing ample data, especially in early drafts, as it allows reviewers to see the patterns and offer constructive feedback. Differentiate between “power quotes” in the body of the text and “proof quotes” in tables.
  • Use organizing figures: Describe how figures can visually depict the methodological process, the chain of evidence from raw data to theoretical constructs, and the overall findings or process model.
  • Tell a coherent story: Explain the narrative strategy of treating themes as “characters” and identifying a central protagonist (the focal theme) to create a clear and focused story. This helps avoid the common mistake of having too many protagonists, which obscures the paper’s contribution.
  • Model successful authors: Advise researchers to find and “try on” the writing styles of authors who consistently publish qualitative work in top-tier journals to learn effective practices for overcoming the “boilerplate hurdle”.

Finally, conclude your guide by referencing the APA citation for the article.

APA Reference:

Pratt, M. G. (2009). For the lack of a boilerplate: Tips on writing up (and reviewing) qualitative research. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 856–862.