How to Survive in a Research Minefield. Challenges and Advice for Rookie Qualitative Researchers
Katarzyna Czernek
What the paper says
Purpose The aim of this paper is to present and understand the challenges of conducting qualitative research from the perspective of novice researchers preparing their PhD thesis at the university. Methodology This paper shows the findings of qualitative study conducted with assistant professors and doctoral students at one of the Polish economic universities. The research was conducted in two stages – the first was a focus group interview (FGI) and the second consisted of individual in-depth interviews (IDIs) altogether with 11 novice researchers. All interviews were recorded, transcribed, and coded using a deductive-inductive approach. Findings The challenges identified include, among others, the lack of theoretical and practical knowledge of how to meet the criteria of methodological rigor; problems with synthesizing, selecting and structuring the collected material; the issue of ensuring consistency of the story told with adherence to methodological rigor; ethical or reflexivity dilemmas. All this is accompanied by a number of twists and turns, combined with a lack of experience and constraints on resources. Practical implications Findings will allow for actions to be taken that may help novice researchers, their supervisors, and people deciding on doctoral school programs to overcome barriers of preparing thesis using qualitative research. Showing the challenges and ways to overcome them in relation to different stages of the qualitative research process additionally strengthens practical implications. Originality/value So far, there has been a lack of papers showing the challenges in conducting qualitative research by novice economics and management researchers. This paper fills this gap.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.