International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1949-4270   |  e-ISSN: 1949-4289

Original article | Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 2022, Vol. 17(1) 247-277

Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: A Research Profiling Study

Mahmut Bozkurt & Fatih Ozturk

pp. 247 - 277   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-2110-27-0003.R1

Published online: March 01, 2022  |   Number of Views: 283  |  Number of Download: 386


The principal objective of this study was to profile qualitative research in social sciences through a comprehensive examination of 10,637 documents. An analysis on how scholars from central/peripheral countries included in the qualitative research citations/publications is presented. Central/peripheral distinction is used to determine the trends in the globalization of qualitative research. With the comprehensive examination,  this paper will shed light on the discussion of the patterns of globalization in qualitative research. Science mapping technique among bibliometric methods was employed. This paper is based on studies that published in journals that use the English word/term  "qualitative" in their titles. The data for this study encompassed 10,637 documents published between 1995 and 2019 by 16,884 authors. Our findings reveal that qualitative research continue to be mostly North America- and Europe-centered initiatives. A similar situation is also observed for the most cited publications and the affiliated institutes of their authors. The studies focus primarily on the individuals' self and social experiences, social psychology, and their knowledge, attitude, and behaviors in education. The most cited publications and the institutions with the highest number of publications are all North America- and Europe-centered. Another finding is that six of every 10 qualitative research are about medical sciences.

Keywords: Qualitative research community, science mapping, bibliometric analysis, qualitative research field

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Bozkurt, M. & Ozturk, F. (2022). Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: A Research Profiling Study . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), 247-277. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2022.248.13

Bozkurt, M. and Ozturk, F. (2022). Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: A Research Profiling Study . Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 17(1), pp. 247-277.

Chicago 16th edition
Bozkurt, Mahmut and Fatih Ozturk (2022). "Qualitative Research in Social Sciences: A Research Profiling Study ". Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research 17 (1):247-277. doi:10.29329/epasr.2022.248.13.

  1. Aguado-López, E., Becerril-García, A., & Godínez-Larios, S. (2018). Become associated or perish: functional collaboration within the social sciences in Latin America, Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas 161, 3-22. Doi: 10.5477/cis/reis.161.3  [Google Scholar]
  2. Alasuutari, P. (2004). The globalization of qualitative research. In: Seale, C.C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., & Silverman, D. (Eds.). Qualitative research practice (595–608). London: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alise, M.A., & Teddlie, C. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 4(2), 103-126. Doi: 10.1177/1558689809360805  [Google Scholar]
  4. Aria, M., Misuraca, M., & Spano, M. (2020). Mapping the evolution of social research and data science on 30 years of Social Indicators Research. Social Indicators Research, 149, 803-831. Doi: 10.1007/s11205-020-02281-3  [Google Scholar]
  5. Bradley, J., Devarakonda, S., Davey, A., et al. (2020). Co-citations in context: Disciplinary heterogeneity is relevant. Quantitative Science Studies 1(1), 264–276. Doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00007  [Google Scholar]
  6. Broadus, R.N. (1987). Toward a definition of bibliometrics. Scientometrics, 12(5-6), 373-379. Doi: 10.1007/BF02016680  [Google Scholar]
  7. Callon, M., Courtial, J.P., & Laville, F. (1991). Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research—the case of polymer chemistry. Scientometrics,  22(1), 155–205. Doi: 10.1007/BF02019280   [Google Scholar]
  8. Charmaz, K. (2014). Grounded theory in global perspective: Reviews by international researchers. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 1074–1084. Doi: 10.1177/1077800414545235  [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns inscientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. Doi: 10.1002/asi.20317  [Google Scholar]
  10. Chen, Z. (2016). Challenges and strategies of teaching qualitative research in China. Qualitative Inquiry, 22(2), 72–82. Doi: 10.1177/1077800415617209  [Google Scholar]
  11. Chenail, R.J., George, S.S., Wulff, D., & Laughlin, M. (2007). Mentoring qualitative research authors globally: The qualitative report experience. The Qualitative Report, 12(1), 67-81. Doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1644  [Google Scholar]
  12. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Cobo, M.J., Lopez Herrera, A.G., Herrera Viedma, E., & Herrera, F. (2011). Science mapping software tools: review, analysis and cooperative study among tools. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 62(7), 1382-1402. Doi: 10.1002/asi.21525  [Google Scholar]
  14. Coser, L.A. (1971). Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing.  [Google Scholar]
  15. Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2018). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., 1-35). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  16. Diodato, V.P., & Gellatly, P. (2013). Dictionary of bibliometrics. New York Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dubrow, J.K., Kołczyńska, M., Slomczynski, K.M., & Tomescu-Dubrow, I. (2018). Sociologists Everywhere: Country Representation in Conferences Hosted by the International Sociological Association, 1990–2012. Current Sociology, (66)3, 337–55. Doi: 10.1177/0011392115590612  [Google Scholar]
  18. Erickson, F. (2011). A history of qualitative inquiry in social and educational research. In: Denzin, N.K., & Guba, L. (Eds.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th Ed., 43-59). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  19. Estrada, S.M. (2016). Exploring tensions in knowledge networks: Convergences and divergences from social capital, actor-network theory and sociologies of the South. Current Sociology Review, 65(6), 886 –908. Doi: 10.1177/0011392116676298  [Google Scholar]
  20. Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., et al. (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338-342. Doi: 10.1096/fj.07-9492LSF  [Google Scholar]
  21. Flick, U., & Röhnsch, R. (2014). Migrating diseases— Triangulating approaches: Applying qualitative inquiry as a global endeavor. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 1096-1109. Doi: 10.1177/1077800414543694  [Google Scholar]
  22. Flick, U. (2014). Qualitative inquiry—2.0 at 20? developments, trends, and challenges for the politics of research. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(7), 599 –608. Doi: 10.1177/1077800415583296  [Google Scholar]
  23. Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.  [Google Scholar]
  24. Gobo, G. (2011). Glocalizing methodology? The encounter between local methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14, 417–437. Doi: 10.1080/13645579.2011.611379  [Google Scholar]
  25. Guba, E., Lynham, S.A., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2018). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In: Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Ed.). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., 108–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hsiung, P.C. (2015). Doing (critical) qualitative research in China in a global era. International Sociology, 30, 86–102. Doi: 10.1177/0268580914555934  [Google Scholar]
  27. Hsiung, P.C. (2012). The globalization of qualitative research: Challenging Anglo-American domination and local hege-monic discourse. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research ,13(1). Doi: 10.17169/fqs-13.1.1710  [Google Scholar]
  28. Kawabata, M., & Gastaldo, D. (2015). The less said, the better: interpreting silence in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 14(4), 1–9. Doi: 10.1177/1609406915618123  [Google Scholar]
  29. Kessler, M.M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentations, 14(1), 10–25. Doi: 10.1002/asi.5090140103  [Google Scholar]
  30. Jokić, M., Mateljan, S. & Petrović, N. (2017). Are the social sciences from the European post-socialist countries integrated in the "Western social sciences"? 16th International Conference on Scientometrics and Informetrics, 16-20 October, Wuhan, China. [Google Scholar]
  31. Loseke, D.R. & Cahill, S.E. (2007). Publishing qualitative manuscripts: Lessons learned. In: Seale, C.C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., & Silverman, D. (Eds.), Qualitative Research Practice (491-506). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mosbah-Natanson, S. & Gingras,Y. (2014). The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009). Current Sociology, 62(5), 626 –646. Doi: 10.1177/0011392113498866  [Google Scholar]
  33. Persson, O., Danell, R., & Wiborg Schneider, J. (2009). How to use Bibexcel for various types of bibliometric analysis. In: Åström, F., Danell, R., Larsen, B., et al. (Eds.), Celebrating scholarly communication studies: A Festschrift for Olle Persson at his 60th birthday (Vol. 5, pp. 9–24). Leuven, Belgium: International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics. [Google Scholar]
  34. Porter, A.L., Kongthon, A., & Lu, J.C. (2002). Research profiling: Improving the literature review. Scientometrics, 53(3), 351-370. Doi: 10.1023/A:1014873029258  [Google Scholar]
  35. Reay, T. (2014). Publishing qualitative research. Family Business Review, 27(2), 95-102. Doi: 10.1177/0894486514529209  [Google Scholar]
  36. Ross, A.A. & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2012). Prevalence of mixed methods research in mathematics education. Mathematics Educator, 22(1), 84-113. [Google Scholar]
  37. Römkens, R. (1997). Prevalence of wife abuse in the Netherlands: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in survey research. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(1), 99-125. Doi: 10.1177/088626097012001007  [Google Scholar]
  38. Seale, C.C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., & Silverman, D. (2004). Introduction: Inside qualitative research. In: Seale, C.C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., & Silverman, D. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 1–13). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication. [Google Scholar]
  39. Small, H. (1973). Co–citation in scientific literature: New measure of relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265-269. Doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406  [Google Scholar]
  40. Smith, M.L. (1987). Publishing qualitative research. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 173-183. Doi: 10.3102/00028312024002173  [Google Scholar]
  41. Smith, L.T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Tracy, S.J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. Doi: 10.1177/1077800410383121  [Google Scholar]
  43. Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3  [Google Scholar]
  44. Van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111, 1053–1070. Doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7  [Google Scholar]
  45. Weaver, D. (2011). Neither too scientific nor a spy:negotiating the ethnographic ınterview in russia dorothy. Comparative Sociology, 10, 145–157. Doi: 10.1163/156913310X493069  [Google Scholar]
  46. Zilber, T.B. (2015). Turning a disadvantage into a resource: Working at the periphery. European Management Journal, 33(6), 423-430. Doi: 10.1016/j.emj.2015.11.002  [Google Scholar]
  47. Zukoski, A.P., & Thorburn, S. (2009). Experiences of stigma and discrimination among adults living with HIV in a low HIV-prevalence context: a qualitative analysis. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 23(4), 267-276. Doi: 10.1089/apc.2008.0168  [Google Scholar]