Reacting to the new APA guidelines for reporting qualitative studies

Yesterday the APA published guidelines for both qualitative and quantitative studies. I have had a quick flick both and am generally very encouraged. I might write about the quantitative guidelines this weekend, but I am going to write about the second paper now.


If you want to read the paper

Journal Article Reporting Standards for Qualitative Primary, Qualitative Meta-Analytic, and Mixed Methods Research in Psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board Task Force Report,” (PDF, 163KB) by Heidi M. Levitt, PhD, University of Massachusetts Boston,: Michael Bamberg, PhD, Clark University; John W. Creswell, PhD, University of Michigan Medical School; David M. Frost, PhD, University College London; Ruthellen Josselson, PhD, Fielding Graduate University; and Carola Suárez-Orozco, PhD, University of California, Los Angeles, American Psychologist, Jan. 18, 2018.

I am just going to concentrate on the qualitative primary reporting standards.

The first eight pages are a good primer for quantitative research. I am very encouraged by the amount of flexibility that Levitt et al suggest is important, a worry before I read this was that they would be too constrained, but that is not a worry.

The main meat of the article is the table that begins on page 34.
The table has three columns, the section/subsection heading, a description of information and notes to reviewers and authors.

Here are some guidance notes I am particularly happy to see.


"Reviewers: The introduction may include case examples, personal narratives, vignettes, or other illustrative material."

"Reviewers: Method sections can be written in a chronological or narrative format." 
 

"Reviewers: Findings section tends to be longer than in quantitative papers because of the demonstrative rhetoric needed to permit the evaluation of the analytic procedure."

"Reviewers: Depending on the approach to inquiry, findings and discussion may be combined or a personalized discursive style might be used to portray the researchers’ involvement in the analysis."

All of these suggestions reinforce the notion that qualitative research is a very different thing to quantitative research and to some extent this should be reflected in how qualitative research is written, rather than mirroring the way that quantitative research is written.

I am very encouraged, and hope we will adopt these guidelines into our teaching practice.