Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Administration & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Brower, R. S.
Right arrow Articles by Carr, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

On Improving Qualitative Methods in Public Administration Research

Ralph S. Brower

Florida State University

Mitchel Y. Abolafia

State University of New York at Albany

Jered B. Carr

College of Charleston

What do exemplary qualitative accounts look like, and how do they convince readers of their correctness? What sort of standards can be used to assess qualitative research accounts for public administration? To address these questions, the authors examined 72 recent qualitative research journal articles. Proceeding from a set of preliminary guidelines, they worked iteratively between articles and the emergent template to produce refined guidelines. In addition, they identified specific types of dilemmas for public bureaucracies and policies that trigger researchers’ strategies for persuading readers that their qualitative accounts are credible. They conclude with four actionable recommendations for improving the field’s qualitative research.

Administration & Society, Vol. 32, No. 4, 363-397 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/00953990022019470
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Public Adm Res TheoryHome page
D. P. Moynihan
The Network Governance of Crisis Response: Case Studies of Incident Command Systems
J. Public Adm. Res. Theory., October 1, 2009; 19(4): 895 - 915.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Administration & SocietyHome page
R. Freeman
Epistemological Bricolage: How Practitioners Make Sense of Learning
Administration Society, July 1, 2007; 39(4): 476 - 496.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 The American Review of Public AdministrationHome page
J. B. Thatcher, R. S. Brower, and R. M. Mason
Organizational Fields and the Diffusion of Information Technologies Within and Across the Nonprofit and Public Sectors: A Preliminary Theory
The American Review of Public Administration, December 1, 2006; 36(4): 437 - 454.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Administration & SocietyHome page
B. E. Wright, L. J. Manigault, and T. R. Black
Quantitative Research Measurement in Public Administration: An Assessment of Journal Publications
Administration Society, January 1, 2004; 35(6): 747 - 764.
[Abstract] [PDF]