Writing and Reviewing Qualitative Research Without Boilerplate

Michael G. Pratt’s 2009 editorial in the Academy of Management Journal, “For the Lack of a Boilerplate: Tips on Writing Up (and Reviewing) Qualitative Research”, offers practical guidance for authors and reviewers of inductive qualitative studies aimed at top-tier journals. This post summarises its core problem, the paths Pratt warns against and the better paths he recommends.

The core problem: no boilerplate

By “boilerplate” Pratt means a standard template or shared language for writing up research. Quantitative papers have one; qualitative papers do not. This absence creates a chain of problems: authors lack direction, reviewers lack shared criteria, contributions are missed and papers are rejected. Yet qualitative researchers do not want a single rigid template either, because creativity and methodological diversity are among the approach’s main strengths. The editorial’s goal is to balance that freedom with clear guidance on writing an account that is well evidenced and makes a real theoretical contribution.

Dangerous paths to avoid

Pratt identifies two broad dangers: an imbalance between theory and data, and trying to make qualitative research look quantitative.

Telling, not showing. Some authors present only their interpretations without the data behind them, which breaks the chain of evidence. Moving all data into tables is a variant of the same problem.

Showing without interpreting. The opposite error is thick description that never connects to a significant theoretical contribution, which journals such as AMJ require.

Deductive shorthand. Using quantitative language in an inductive study, such as “controlling for confounds”, invites reviewers to judge the work with the wrong evaluative frame.

Quantifying qualitative data. Counting in small samples can mislead, overlook meaning and produce the “worst of all worlds”: neither statistically robust nor qualitatively rich.

Mixing inductive and deductive designs inappropriately. Building deductive elements such as random sampling into an inductive design is more than a rhetorical problem and is very hard to fix after data collection.

Better paths to follow

Include the basics in the methods section. Strong qualitative papers explain why the study is needed, whether it builds new theory or elaborates existing theory, why the context and unit of analysis were chosen, and how data were collected and analysed.

Show data smartly. Show plenty of data, especially in early drafts, so reviewers can see the patterns. Use short “power quotes” in the text and fuller “proof quotes” in tables.

Use organising figures. Figures can show the methodological process, the chain of evidence from raw data to theoretical constructs, and the final process model.

Tell a coherent story. Treat themes as characters and choose one protagonist, the focal theme. Too many protagonists blur the contribution.

Model successful authors. Study and try on the writing styles of researchers who regularly publish qualitative work in top journals.

Why it matters for health researchers

Health management and health services research increasingly use qualitative designs, and the same problems Pratt describes appear in health journals. The editorial is a compact checklist for writing a qualitative paper that shows its evidence, interprets it and makes the contribution clear.

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.