2025/08/01 by Kristina M. Scharp, Elizabeth A. Hintz, Sandra Vera Zambrano · 1 voice
Social Sciences · #Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics #Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research #Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
paper · pdf · doi:10.1093/joc/jqaf020
openalex publication_date 2025/08/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/15
If the discipline’s goal is to advance practice, policy, and theory, it is imperative that communication scholars are engaging in rigorous research and that our flagship field-general journals (Communication Monographs [CM], Communication Research [CR], Human Communication Research [HCR], and Journal of Communication [JOC], which we refer to as the “Big Four” hereafter) are publishing the most meaningful inter- and sub-disciplinary work. When a methodological perspective has been largely absent from knowledge production, the potential to generate the most robust scholarship is diminished in terms of what we offer our own as well as other fields, public policy, clinical practice, communities, organizations, and individuals. Given the ways qualitative methods have been historically and contemporarily underrepresented within the Big Four (Hintz et al., 2025), this special issue serves as an invitation to reimagine what counts as knowledge, what questions and answers are possible, and what tools are available to make field-general contributions. In doing so, we argue for the importance of qualitative research and for a more expansive way of contributing to the field. Presently, qualitative communication research is often criticized for being “too descriptive” or for its inability to generate theoretical frameworks and heuristics meaningful beyond a single case or isolated social context (Braithwaite et al., 2014). Yet, this misnomer (which emphasizes generalizability at the expense of nuance and context) ironically contributes to the homogeneity and stagnation of communication research (Chakravartty et al., 2018; Freelon et al., 2023). Thus, to develop as a discipline and consistent with the editorial vision for Journal of Communication set forth by Ewoldsen et al. (2023), we argue that we must be more inclusive of different ways of knowing that allow researchers to ask new questions and address different goals. Specifically, qualitative communication research provides important insights into what communicating is like, how it happens, and the institutional and ideological forces enabling and constraining what is possible. This scholarship is an integral part of communication research as it provides the context that inspires hypothesis testing, nuance to discern what results mean in practice, and situated understanding that accounts for the complexities inherent in communication (Braithwaite et al., 2014; Scharp & Dorrance Hall, 2024; Tracy, 2024). Anecdotally, qualitative researchers have long lamented that their scholarship has been summarily excluded from our flagship communication journals. Desk rejections and a perceived hostility based on historical trends have left many qualitative researchers reluctant to even send their work to these outlets for review. Yet, other scholars have claimed that there has never been more qualitative research in the Big Four and that the field has been evolving methodologically. To avoid conjecture, we set out to provide a historical picture of the methodological representation within the Big Four over the last 50 years (i.e., the years in which all of the Big four have been publishing, 1974–2024). A comprehensive content analysis of all 6,874 articles published within the Big Four between 1974 and 2024 revealed that only 5.4% (n = 369) were classified as qualitative research—operationalized as including a method section, presenting a research question and/or goal statement, and reporting qualitative exemplars. Regarding the average percentage of a given Big Four journal’s publications in a decade that were qualitative (i.e., the average percentage of qualitative publications across five decades), CM led with (20.22%), followed by JOC (16.22%), HCR (5.84%), and lastly CR (2.74%). Despite these statistics, all Big Four journals published significantly more studies with qualitative research questions and exemplars over time, suggesting that trends are, indeed, shifting. Nevertheless, these shifts are small—between 2014 and 2024, 89.5% of all research published in the Big Four journals still reported exclusively quantitative methods (down from a high of 95.8% between 1984 and 1993; Hintz et al., 2025). The near exclusion of qualitative methods from the Big Four holds structural consequences regarding how the field develops. We argue that the absence of qualitative research in our most public and well-regarded journals creates what we call the spiral of exclusion. This mechanism works thusly: (a) qualitative researchers cannot publish their work in the Big Four, (b) these scholars cannot get jobs or earn tenure at doctorate-granting institutions, (c) graduate students are not exposed to rigorous qualitative methods training nor are mentored to publish their qualitative communication work in prestigious outlets; (d) without prestigious publications, qualitative researchers encounter difficulty establishing their reputation which has implications for graduate recruitment, editorial board invitations, and who might later become Editor-In-Chief; and finally, (e) the lack of expertise on editorial boards and in leadership positions perpetuates desk rejections, inappropriate reviewer assignments, and reviewers being ill-equipped to evaluate qualitative work based on appropriate metatheoretical commitments. Although it is possible for a small, tightknit group of primarily U.S.-based qualitative researchers employed at research-intensive institutions to overcome this (Freelon et al., 2023; Hintz et al., 2025), the spiral of exclusion limits not only what people study, but whether they have the training to study it well, and whether they can make knowledge claims suitable for the Big Four. To help address the spiral of exclusion, we now present this special issue designed to showcase the contributions of qualitative research to communication theorizing and research methods. Although these articles are not a panacea, they are provocation to think about how qualitative methods can advance new questions and make meaningful contributions to communication studies. The special issue begins with a piece by Dutta and his colleagues, who advocate for decolonialization and qualitative approaches for culture-centered innovations. These authors not only address the oppressive interplay of colonialism, imperialism, and racial capitalism, but also present tangible decolonizing research methods and practices that foster communication interventions for social justice. Next, Cooke-Jackson and colleagues present a new interpretive theory—theory of memorable messages. This theory allows scholars to understand how the messages that individuals remember for long periods of time help shape their own identities, beliefs, and behaviors. The middle section of this special issue pertains to underutilized and novel qualitative methodological innovations. Meyers and Davidson advocate for longitudinal qualitative interviewing as a method to understand how communication phenomena are processual. Karppinen and colleagues present blocking and threading analysis as a way to understand identity construction. They argue that identities emerge through the constant shifting of similarities/unity/commonalities and differences/social boundaries with others. Peattie, then, focuses on visual critical ethnography to bring a critical lens to documenting and interpreting socially constructed phenomena for public audiences. Our special issue concludes with two shorter articles. Rivera and Lane discuss the digitalization of communication practices, introducing the concept of digital qualitative fluidity to illustrate how traditional boundaries between interviewing and ethnography can dissolve through the use of contemporary, digital technologies. Finally, Rice and McAllum conclude the special issue by presenting a typology of various risks qualitative researchers might encounter and offering strategies to address them. Although this special issue serves as a leap toward recognizing qualitative research’s potential, numerous emerging issues are on the horizon which will continue to shape this conversation. The introduction and widespread uptake of large language models and artificial intelligence will continue to call into question taken-for-granted qualitative research methodologies and practices. Ethical and data privacy concerns (see Humphreys et al., 2021), coupled with the increased adoption of digital and online sources of data collection (e.g., social media posts, memes, audiovisual data), present qualitative researchers with more challenges and opportunities for studying human communication than ever before. Likewise, qualitative data analysis software programs continue to advance yet remain underutilized, offering researchers numerous avenues for both enriching and streamlining qualitative data analysis and visualization practices. At a time when researchers around the world are facing unprecedented challenges brought about by rapidly shifting political and institutional priorities, qualitative researchers remain uniquely poised to meet such challenges by advocating for the power of nuanced, contextualized insights. Our special issue is only the beginning of what is possible. Not only are more diverse theories and methods necessary, but new voices will also bring new possibilities. Indeed, our content analysis revealed that only 721 scholars have ever published qualitative research in the Big Four since 1974 (Hintz et al., 2025). Furthermore, only 10 individual scholars have ever published five or more qualitative studies in the Big Four, and only two individual scholars have ever published qualitative research in all four of the flagship journals. Although these scholars have made notable strides, it is also savvy to recognize how they are interconnected. For example, four of 10 have worked at the same institution, many of these scholars work or trained with each other, and the only two scholars to ever publish in all four flagship journals both currently work at Rutgers University, USA. The future of qualitative research must expand beyond the halls of a select few institutions concentrated within the United States (see also Freelon et al., 2023). Indeed, more scholarship from across the world is essential, especially from the Global South which has been historically overlooked, to provide nuanced insights into meaningful phenomena. As such, qualitative research must be represented in our flagship journals more robustly if we want to realize the potential of what communication studies can offer. The spiral of exclusion must be broken. We hope you agree. In addition to the articles in this special issue, we want to acknowledge the contributions of two graduate students (Cimmiaron F. Alvarez and Haley Nolan-Cody) who were tasked with manually sampling and coding the nearly 7,000 journal articles comprising the content analysis referenced in this introduction. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the many qualitative research experts that served as reviewers. We are so grateful for your time and the ways you have enhanced this special issue: Galina Bolen, Rutgers University Patrice Buzzanell, University of South Florida Marleah Dean, University of South Florida Patricia Gettings, University of Albany Justin Eckstein, Pacific Lutheran University Laura Ellingson, Santa Clara University Susan Herring, Indiana University Bloomington Aubrey Huber, University of South Florida Rene Kaufmann, University of Kentucky Jeffrey Lane, Rutgers University Pamela Lannutti, Widener University Camilo Leon-Quijano, Institut d’Ethnologie et d’Anthrologie Sociale Meng Li, Loyola Marymount University João C. Magalhães, University of Groningen Chris McRae, University of South Florida Rosalia Mendez Murillo, University of Texas-Austin Andy Merolla, University of California, Santa Barbara Motti Neiger, Bar-Ilan University Anne Oeldorf-Hirsch, University of Connecticut Kent Ono, University of Utah Matthew Powers, University of Washington Raka Shome, Villanova University Natasha Shrikant, University of Colorado—Boulder Jiyoun Suk, University of Connecticut Nadja Tadic, Georgetown University Lindsey Thomas, Illinois State University Sarah Tracy, Arizona State University Saskia Witteborn, The Chinese University of Hong Kong DaJung Woo, Rutgers University