Does research using qualitative methods (grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology) have more impact?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In spite of the increasing use of qualitative research methods in library and information studies, it is unclear whether using qualitative methods (grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology) results in an above average impact in library and information science (LIS). Articles using any of the three qualitative methods published from 2003 to 2013 and indexed in Web of Science in the category of “Information Science & Library Science” (N = 299) were studied. The number of citations and Mendeley readers for each article was compared to the other articles published in the same journal and same volume using mean normalised rank (rank-1/articles-1). The results showed no statistically significant difference between the citation rates of qualitative articles with those of other articles. Qualitative articles on average had a smaller Mendeley readership than the other articles did and the difference was statistically significant. Given the increasing interest in qualitative methods, it is suggested that LIS schools in their education programs and journals in their editorial policies should put more emphasis on issues related to the rigour of qualitative research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)201-207
Number of pages7
JournalLibrary and Information Science Research
Volume40
Issue number3-4
Early online dateSep 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Nov 2018

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Does research using qualitative methods (grounded theory, ethnography, and phenomenology) have more impact?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this