See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276455086

Writing Up Qualitative Research

Article  in  Families in society: the journal of contemporary human services · October 2005

DOI: 10.1606/1044-3894.3465

CITATIONS READS

19 7,946

1 author:

James Drisko
Smith College
95 PUBLICATIONS   593 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by James Drisko on 02 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 WRITERS AT WORK
Writing Up Qualitative Research
James W. Drisko
W
hat makes a good qualitative research report?
There is no simple answer as qualitative research
is not a single, unified tradition (Riessman,
1994). Qualitative research includes a wide range of
philosophies, research purposes, intended audiences,
methods, and reporting styles (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994;
Drisko, 1997; Greene, 1994). This wide range of legitimate
purposes is simultaneously a source of strength and a
source of confusion. Yet the qualitative research report
must always tell the story of the project, richly convey the
views of others, and detail implications. To help guide
researchers, this article provides some orientation regard-
ing writing up qualitative research. First, some general
issues are addressed. Next, three key areas that undermine
the overall quality of qualitative research reports are iden-
tified. Finally, an outline of areas to consider is offered with
more specific suggestions for qualitative researchers as
authors.
As Caputo (2004) points out, a manuscript for publica-
tion is the culmination of one’s work. All that was learned is
revised, trimmed, and synthesized to be useful to a selected
audience. The manuscript must be focused to make the
purposes, method, and findings both accessible and appeal-
ing to others while conforming to the guidelines of the
journal or volume to which it is submitted. Clarity, thor-
oughness, and writing style all matter. “Providing a road
map” for readers or “telling the story” of the research and its
yield are fine metaphors which emphasize the goal of
informing others.
While some scholars of qualitative research advocate for
widely varied, even experimental, reporting styles, this
paper focuses on issues represented in the contemporary
professional social work literature. Authors should innovate
to convey knowledge and process through their writing, yet
expectations of editorial reviewers and readers often force a
more traditional approach.
Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services | www.familiesinsociety.org | Copyright 2005 Alliance for Children and Families
Key Concerns: Clearly Stating
the Study Question
It may seem obvious, but stating the research question
clearly is where the research report starts. Researchers must
select and state the topic of focus for this specific
manuscript. Other parts of the story may be told elsewhere
at other times and for other purposes. Often the research
question can be reshaped into the manuscript title. In qual-
itative research, study questions may be quite broad, for
example, “How do social work practitioners evaluate their
practice efforts?” Once the question is stated, it should ori-
ent the manuscript and not vary within the manuscript.
Oddly, in many manuscripts I review, authors alter the
study question as it is restated between the introduction
and methodology, and again in the discussion. This can be
unsettling or bewildering for the reader. It seems that the
author has not really understood the purpose of the report
(or worse, of the research). It is true that new knowledge
and insight is often gained during the course of qualitative
research. This may cause the researcher’s area of interest to
change while doing the research. Yet once the research is
completed and the manuscript is prepared, the reader is
best oriented by a clear and consistent statement of the
study question. Key aspects or dimensions of the study
question can serve as headings or subheadings within the
report to guide both the researcher/author and the reader.
An Orienting Literature Review
Research questions both direct our attention and shape
how we think about the topic under study. The literature
review helps the reader understand key aspects of the con-
ceptual and empirical foundations of the study. Sometimes
limitations in prior conceptual work motivate qualitative
studies. Prior conceptualization may be limited, lacking in
relevance to the issue or population of interest, or may be
589
FAMILIES IN SOCIETY | Volume 86, No. 4
absent. In such cases, a brief description of the available
conceptualization is usually sufficient to establish the ratio-
nale for the study. In most reports a lengthy list of sources
is rarely needed; instead, identifying key sources is vital.
Similarly, prior empirical work, qualitative or quantitative,
may be lacking, indicating the need for qualitative research.
In my view, qualitative research is never done from a
“blank slate” start. Even eidetic phenomenological studies
(which are solely description) must establish the purposes
and merits of thick description within the context of the
prior literature and conceptualization. Some discussion of
how this research fits in with prior work is mandatory in all
research reports. Later, the discussion section should point
out what the current study offers to extend prior knowl-
edge. Prior work should be selected thoughtfully and
reported in an integrated manner, not reported in an
author-by-author list. Theory, methods, and findings may
all warrant focused review.
Identifying the Method(s) of Study
To further orient the reader or reviewer, the study methods
should be identified and applied thoroughly and consis-
tently. There are a wide range of approaches to qualitative
research. In turn, the researcher is faced with the dilemma
of selecting a single research method or selecting multiple
methods to be used in combination. Where a single method
is selected, a brief rationale for the selection is warranted.
For example, microethnography might be applied to the
study of an organization’s actual day-to-day functioning.
Where components of several qualitative methods are
applied in novel combination, the researcher must clarify
the rationale for selecting each component. For example,
use of “ethnographic interviews” within a “constructivist
study” demands clarification of the linkage between these
elements. For clarity the researcher should briefly explain
how potentially distinctive research methods were selected
and combined to strengthen the study.
It is probably safe to assume that reviewers and readers of
qualitative reports vary widely in their knowledge of meth-
ods and even their understanding of the details of specific,
named, qualitative research methods. Opportunities to
develop broad expertise in qualitative research methods is
sorely lacking in social work. As a result, authors are obli-
gated to carefully describe methodological choices and even
the content of the selected method(s). Many current pre-
sentations, manuscripts, and published articles offer very
little information about research methodology. This may
suggest that descriptions of methodology, and their consis-
tent application in the research and report, are unimpor-
tant. This is not so; readers need them. Editors of several
journals state that inadequacies of research methodology
are the single most common cause for rejection of qualita-
tive research manuscripts. Research methods must be
clearly described.
590
Once a researcher selects and identifies a methodology,
it is important that the methodology is applied appropri-
ately and fully. For example, ethnographic studies that do
not detail prolonged engagement, that emphasize inter-
views but omit observations, or that do not report the
views of participants in detail seem to be inappropriate to
the rubric of “ethnography.” While such studies may have
merit, they fail as ethnographies. Similarly, studies using
Glaser and Strauss’s (1967) grounded theory method
should yield a theory, not just descriptive statements
(Wells, 1995). Internal consistency should be expected in
the application of qualitative research methods.
Observation is a valuable tool in qualitative research.
Observation allows researchers to collect data on events that
are covert or that may not easily be captured and conveyed
in words. For example, learning to ride a bicycle is a form of
integrative tacit knowledge that is not predominantly word-
oriented. Similarly, social processes, position, posture, tone
of voice, and expression may best be documented via obser-
vation. Such observations require careful description and
interpretation to convey the full scene in depth, meaning-
fully. Observational methods should be carefully described
to support the credibility of the final report.
These three general issues set forth core concerns for
authors of qualitative research. What follows is an outline
of specific concerns to help frame a qualitative report.
Establishing the Epistemology,
Purposes, and Intended Audience
Beyond the statement of the research question, the intro-
duction to a qualitative research report should also iden-
tify the chosen epistemology or philosophy that orients
the study. This statement may be brief: “Using a realist
epistemology, we ….” In other cases it may be longer if the
content is likely to be unfamiliar to most readers: “The
study employed Fals-Borda’s (1991) approach to partici-
patory action research. This value-based, emancipatory,
constructivist method ….” In either case, a clear statement
allows the author to orient readers and reviewers to their
research approach. At the same time, a foundation for
establishing internal consistency among elements of ques-
tion, method, and report is established.
Bear in mind that not all researchers imagine episte-
mology as a choice. However, reviewing manuscripts
under realist premises when the research has assumed
constructivist or critical premises is sure to be misleading
and to cause confusion. The researcher must ensure that
the reader has enough information to consider the report
within its own premises—even if they are unfamiliar.
Editors, of course, must select reviewers who possess
familiarity with the epistemologies and philosophical
foundations of the manuscripts they review.
Authors should also clarify the intended audience and
purposes of the report. Qualitative research may be used to

explore, discover, share perspective(s), raise consciousness,
evaluate, or even test theory. State the objectives. Some
authors suggest that qualitative research can be a vehicle
for effective social change. While all manuscripts for pro-
fessional journal publication are mainly geared to fellow
academics, some qualitative reports are intended for lay
people or specific targeted audiences. That is, some quali-
tative reports seek to raise consciousness about an unfa-
miliar belief, event, or behavior to influence policy makers
or to shape public opinion (Greene, 1994). Research done
to improve program performance, originally directed to
inform specific line staff and administrators, may need to
be “repackaged” when written up for a larger academic
audience. What the report seeks to accomplish and who it
is intended for should be clear to the reader.
Methods
All good research requires reporting of methods in suffi-
cient detail to provide a road map for readers regarding
how the data were collected and analyzed. With a single,
named method, such as narrative analysis, a brief orient-
ing statement is needed to make explicit the specific
authors and sources being employed. Bear in mind that
even narrative analysis has variants and different schools
of thought. Where multiple techniques drawn from differ-
ent research methods are employed, a clear rationale for
the use of each technique is needed. Clear, however, does
not necessarily mean long.
Sample
Inductive qualitative research usually involves a cycle of
sample selection, data collection, and data analysis lead-
ing to later revision and elaboration. This iterative
approach is the heart of “flexible method” research
(Anastas, 2000). It seeks to improve the credibility/valid-
ity of the research and to ensure that the researcher
understands and can convey the events and meanings as
understood by participants to the best degree possible.
The nature of this iterative cycle, as applied in the
research, should be clear to the reader.
Researchers should clearly specify the nature of the
study sample and the rationale for its selection. Most qual-
itative samples are purposive or theoretical in design
(Drisko, 2003). They are also best if selected using a two-
part strategy consisting of (a) an initial, general, sample
selection followed by (b) sampling for differences among
views to ensure thoroughness (Drisko, 2003; LeCompte &
Preissle, 1993). While Patton (1980) offers a broad range of
named sampling strategies, his work provides little detail
on the rationale for each strategy. All good sampling
strategies must include steps to seek out and weigh poten-
tially contradictory findings (Drisko, 1997). These steps
should be reported to help establish the credibility/validity
of the research.
Drisko | Writing Up Qualitative Research
Transferability (or Generalization)
Transferability describes the applicability of findings and
conclusions derived from one context to a second context
(Leininger, 1994). Transferability often takes the form of
identifying sensitizing concepts that may be applicable in
other settings (though this often is not be established with
any certainty). In such cases, any notable limitations to
transferability should be stated. Of course, not all qualita-
tive research seeks transferability as a research goal. Some
qualitative research is intentionally context dependent or
standpoint specific. Again, in such cases, the researcher
should clarify likely limits to transferability across persons
and contexts in the discussion section of the report.
Oddly, some qualitative reports carefully locate their
premises and samples as context dependent, but then in the
discussion section go on to overgeneralize findings to con-
texts and populations that have not been studied.
Researchers must temper enthusiasm for interesting findings
with care not to make claims that are unsupported by the
research methods, collected data, and selected epistemology.
Data Collection
Researchers should specify the nature of data collection
methods employed in the study. The consistency of the
research methods with the study philosophy and purposes
must be made plain, especially if multiple techniques or
methods are employed. Prolonged engagement with par-
ticipants, settings, and the collected data typically
strengthen qualitative research. Except for case studies of
novel events, single interviews or single contacts with par-
ticipants and contexts are rarely optimal.
Using multiple methods of data collection also strength-
ens most qualitative research. Combining interviews and
observations, documents and interviews, or interviews,
observations, and artifacts enhances the quality of qualita-
tive research by providing a basis for triangulated analysis.
Of course, data must be sought from participants, settings,
or sources that can potentially contradict the emerging pic-
ture to challenge potential biases.
Data Analysis
Researchers should clearly identify their chosen
method(s) of data analysis, consistent with the study epis-
temology and objectives. These named methods must also
be evident in the report, with detail on specific strategies
(member checks, triangulation, etc.) clearly specified.
Inconsistencies should be stated and discussed.
Oddly, authors frequently use general phrases like “I
employed a content analysis” without citation, apparently
ignorant of the fact that content analysis is a specific tra-
dition of qualitative research. A similar inadequate
description is “thematic analysis was undertaken” without
indicating how the themes were generated and apparently
assuming this is a specific method of qualitative data anal-
ysis. (It is not.)
591
FAMILIES IN SOCIETY | Volume 86, No. 4
Still another issue in data analysis is that too many
qualitative reports use the “sound bite” approach to
conveying participants’ views and voices. That is, a sin-
gle, brief, quotation is used to illustrate an entire cate-
gory or class of findings. The reader is left to presume all
participants really said only this and that little variation
in views or type of expression was found. Of course,
qualitative researchers usually have enough real-world
experience to know that different people rarely say
exactly the same thing in the same way (and at a later
date may even deny what we have in audio recordings).
Thus, a key challenge is to illustrate in detail how codes
and concepts were formulated. Multiple examples are
optimal, but pose challenges in a 20-page manuscript.
At least one code should be discussed in detail and read-
ers should always be provided with enough raw data to
form their own interpretations. One solution to the
page length issue is to carefully focus a qualitative report
on a limited number of topics. “Online appendices” of
materials linked to published articles may emerge as an
additional resource in the next few years. Such addi-
tional material would help overcome the page-length
limitations of publications.
Qualitative research using observational methods also
poses reporting challenges. Researchers must convey con-
text and events clearly and fully. Some researchers will
need to interpret the observed events to make them mean-
ingful in the context. Such an interpretive process can
require considerable page length, but is necessary to pro-
vide the reader with raw data and to illuminate how cod-
ing and analyses were done. Here, too, online appendices
could provide greater access to video, pictures, or audio
files, enhancing the completeness and credibility of obser-
vationally based qualitative research.
The point of providing more data and more informa-
tion about data analysis is to enhance the credibility or
verisimilitude of the report. Data and analysis must fully
convey what local participants’ know or experience within
their local context (Leininger, 1994). Establishing context
may also require considerable page space and raw data.
Providing contextual data also enhances the confirmabil-
ity of research reports. Finally, establishing “saturation,” or
the point at which collecting additional data does not add
new data or perspectives, requires prolonged engagement
and extensive reporting of raw data with varied perspec-
tives on it. Claims of saturation require discussion of
efforts to identify and engage with potentially contradic-
tory or divergent data except in case studies of
single, novel cases.
Findings
Several issues related to the reporting of findings are included
in the review of methods above. The key is to provide the
reader with ample raw data—the words and views of partic-
592
ipants in their own voices. Use lots of direct quotes. Sound
bites or single illustrations are not adequate as they fail to
persuade the reader that the author has not simply lined up
evidence to support a previously held position. Qualitative
research should show how conclusions were drawn and let
participants’ views come alive to the reader. Yes, this is diffi-
cult in a 20-page manuscript, but it is possible with focus and
careful editing. Still, some qualitative research will require a
two-part article presentation or a monograph format for
adequate presentation. Innovations such as online appen-
dices may soon allow for the inclusion of more raw data, as
well as the use of audio and video files to add depth and
immediacy to qualitative reports (Drisko, 2005).
Discussion
Most published qualitative research includes a final sec-
tion that (a) links the findings to the prior literature, (b)
draws any novel conclusions, (c) restates the limitations
of the study, and (d) offers recommendations or implica-
tions based on the research yield. Labeling each section
(usually via subheadings) helps the reader, but is not
always needed if the content makes plain to the reader the
purpose of each subsection. Qualitative research may
yield results that affirm, contradict, add complexity to, or
offer new and novel findings unmentioned in the prior
literature. Authors should make each major contribution
of the study clear and explicit. Beyond linking the current
work to the prior literature, the discussion may point out
newly apparent definitional or conceptual limitations,
illustrate the impact of context and population specific
understandings, point out subjugated knowledge, or
identify variation in processes unmentioned in the
summative literature. For example, Padgett, Yedidia,
Kerner, and Mandelblatt’s (2001) description of the con-
cept of “Air” in the origins of breast cancer as understood
by African American women pointed to truly novel
knowledge unmentioned in prior published work. No
prior medical or human services literature addressed this
issue, but its implications for effective practice with this
population are many.
All research has limitations. The discussion section
should include a statement (or restatement) of the limi-
tations of the current study in order to help readers bear
in mind any cautions relevant to applying the study yield.
This is particularly important as the final section of a
research report typically makes recommendations for
practice, policy, or future research. Helping readers
understand where the implications are best targeted, and
their limitations, is crucial to making the implications
optimally useful. Implications and recommendations
should be clear and focused. Implications for theory
should also be tied to the prior related literature.
Implications for practice, administration, and policy
should be made specifically.
 Drisko | Writing Up Qualitative Research

LeCompte, M., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in

Other Resources educational research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Leininger, M. (1994). Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative
There are not many resources specifically addressing how studies. In J. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research
to write up a qualitative research report. Fortunately, methods (pp. 95–115). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Padgett, D., Yedidia, M., Kerner, J., & Mandelblatt, J. (2001). The
there are a few useful starting points. Wolcott’s (1990) emotional consequences of false positive mammography: African
monograph is widely cited as a useful source for American women’s reactions in their own words. Women and
researchers writing up qualitative research. Ely, Vinz, Health, 33(3/4), 1–14.
Padgett, D. (2004). The Qualitative Research Experience. New York:
Anzul and Downing (1997) offer their varying personal Wadsworth Publishing.
views on strategies for reporting on qualitative research. Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Newbury Park, CA:
Golden-Biddle and Locke (1997) offer guidance for Sage.
authors of organizational level research. Fine (1994) Richardson, L. (1998). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y.
Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (pp.
details moral and political obligations and challenges for 345–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
qualitative authors. Denzin, in several publications and as Riessman, C. K. (1994). Preface: Making room for diversity in social
editor of the journal Qualitative Inquiry has promoted a work research. In C. K. Riessman (Ed.), Qualitative studies in social
work (pp. vii–xx). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
wide range of reporting formats for qualitative research Wells, K. (1995). The strategy of grounded theory: Possibilities and
(researcher-centered reports, poetry, hybrid methods). problems. Social Work Research, 19, 33–37.
These forms are not yet widely apparent in social work Wolcott, H. (1990). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
journals. Many strong examples of qualitative research in
social work, each with commentary from the author, are
found in Padgett’s (2004) The Qualitative Research James W. Drisko, PhD, LICSW, is professor and chair, Research
Experience. As a starting point, this article provides a gen- Sequence, Smith College School for Social Work, Lilly Hall,
Northampton, MA 01060. He is also a member of the Editorial Advisory
eral guide with a specific social work focus. Board of Families in Society. Correspondence regarding this article may
be sent to the above address or to jdrisko@smith.edu.
References
Anastas, J. (2000). Research design for social work and the human services Manuscript received: April 7, 2005
(2nd ed.). New York: Columbia University Press. Accepted: April 17, 2005
Caputo, R. (2004). Advice for those wanting to publish quantitative
research. Families in Society, 85, 401–405.
Conboy, A. (1998). Personal communications and a series of e-mail
communications regarding the use of evaluative criteria by a class
of doctoral social work students at Yeshiva University’s Wurzweiler
School of Social Work.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–22). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Drisko, J. (2005, January). Using images, sound and video in research: The
tools are available now! Juried workshop presented at the Annual
Conference of the Society for Social Work & Research Annual
Meeting, Miami, FL.
Drisko, J. (2003, January). Improving sampling strategies and terminology
in qualitative research. Juried paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Society for Social Work and Research,
Washington, DC.
Drisko, J. (1999, January). Rigor in qualitative research. Juried paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Social Work
and Research, Austin, TX.
Drisko, J. (1997). Strengthening qualitative studies and reports:
Standards to enhance academic integrity. Journal of Social Work
Education, 33, 185–197.
Ely, M., Vinz, R., Anzul, M., & Downing, M. (1997). On writing
qualitative research: Living by words. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Fals-Borda, O. (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with
participatory action-research. Bogota, Columbia: Cinep.
Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens: Reinventing the self and other in
qualitative research. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research (pp. 70–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory.
Chicago: Aldine.
Golden-Biddle, K., & Locke, K. (1997). Composing qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greene, J. (1994). Qualitative program evaluation: Practice and promise.
In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research
(pp. 530–544). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

593

View publication stats