Pitching research: ‘Qualitative cousins’, the ‘extended family’ and ‘living harmoniously’

1 Introduction

Faff (2018) provides a useful update on the pitching template and discusses the Qualitative Pitch proposed by Lodhia (2017). The author succinctly highlights that the adaptation by Lodhia (2017) focuses on modifying the basic building blocks of idea, data and tools (‘IDioT’) with theory, context and methodology (TCM) and extends the contribution to include theory, practice and policy. It is also encouraging that Faff (2018) considers that there is no major divergence in thinking between these approaches. This is correct. After all, the Qualitative Pitch is an adaptation of Faff (2015). There is indeed common ground between quantitative and qualitative approaches to research.

The idea behind development of the Qualitative Pitch was to provide a tool for qualitative researchers to express their research ideas succinctly. It aimed to provide a consistent framework that was reflective of the fundamentals of qualitative research and one which ensured that good quality research is undertaken. There is no doubt that the pitching template proposed by Faff (2015) provides the foundations for the Qualitative Pitch but its adaptation was necessary so that the basic premises critical to qualitative research are reflected by this template. Both the labels and the interpretation of them are essential and it is in this regard that a need arises to reflect on the specific attributes essential to qualitative research which need to be highlighted when initially designing or proposing a qualitative research project. This paper is therefore an opportunity to revisit the Qualitative Pitch and to assess whether qualitative researchers are well served by this pitching template.

The aim of this paper was to identify the research attributes that are critical for qualitative research, thereby highlighting that the Qualitative Pitch is an essential tool for initiating qualitative research projects. The paper therefore refutes the claim that ‘a universal pitching template should be used initially with the transition to a modified template once a threshold barrier or transition trigger regarding the use of theory is achieved’ (Faff, 2018, p. 25).

This paper is structured as follows. The ‘qualitative cousins’ and the ‘extended family’ primers provide the basis to discuss the Qualitative Pitch and developments in this space. The final section attempts to revisit the issues in relation the schism between qualitative and quantitative research and highlight recent developments, and is reflected by the ‘living harmoniously’ metaphor.

2 Qualitative cousins

The motivations for developing the Qualitative Pitch were twofold. The author had applied for an Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand (AFAANZ) grant when the pitching template was first introduced to these grants. He found it difficult to express some aspects of his qualitative project through this template and, upon reflection, felt that this template could be adapted to qualitative research in order to encourage researchers in the qualitative tradition to apply for these grants. A second long-term motivation was the need to express qualitative research clearly. This was based on the experience of having attended numerous presentations that used a qualitative research methodology where there would be at least one question from someone in the audience with a limited understanding of qualitative research, and where the presenter would struggle to describe the qualitative research process. A consistent approach for articulating qualitative research principles was envisioned, one which would emphasise the qualitative research design and establish the contributions to knowledge made by this research process.

The Qualitative Pitch (see Table 1) is a template specifically designed to provide a consistent approach to articulating qualitative research. It addresses the types of issues that could be investigated in qualitative research and therefore links the research questions to the qualitative research method. The fundamentals of qualitative research that need to be clarified at the outset are represented through the theory, context and methodology sections. These labels are critical – they represent the specific ‘tools of the trade’ for qualitative researchers and provide a consistent basis for describing the qualitative research design. Emphasis is on the approach to theorising (Llewellyn, 2003) and whether theory is to be applied at the start of the project or is developed iteratively through the data. The research context, its importance and accessibility are also of significance in qualitative research. The qualitative research methodology is another critical aspect and researchers need to discuss the methodological approach, the associated research methods and the approach to qualitative data analysis. The qualitative research design can be described consistently through qualitative sampling (purposive or theoretical), discussions on research credibility and trustworthiness, and thick description (Parker and Northcott, 2016). Another important aspect of the Qualitative Pitch is its emphasis on qualitative research generalisations through theoretical and/or naturalistic generalisations (Parker and Northcott, 2016). These link to the theoretical, practical and policy contributions of the study.

Faff (2018) highlights that the pitching template can address qualitative research and stresses that it is a flexible tool that can be adapted to different types of research. He suggests that Lodhia (2017) used the pitching template to pitch his Qualitative Pitch. Both these arguments are correct even though it must be emphasised that the approach used in Lodhia (2017) was to pitch an approach to undertaking research, not to pitch a qualitative research project. Moreover, the more relevant question is not whether the pitching template can be used to address qualitative research projects but whether the Qualitative Pitch provides the specific (and consistent) tools to qualitative researchers to formulate their research project. As highlighted above, the Qualitative Pitch emphasises the theory, context, methodology, theoretical and naturalistic generalisations, and theoretical, practice and policy contributions.

Some of the issues raised in Faff (2018) deserve close attention. At the outset, it must be acknowledged that the pitching research resources (Faff, 2017) have also been highlighted in Lodhia (2017) and that there is no doubting that pitching research is not really about perfecting a template design. In fact, emphasis is on creatively adapting the template to suit individual requirements. The Qualitative Pitch is an attempt to do so but with the foresight of having a consistent approach for qualitative research – emphasising the specifics of qualitative research essential to designing a research project.

An important issue raised by Faff (2018) is the need to change the interpretation rather than the label. This sounds reasonable but the suggestion of mapping from IDioT to TCM may not be necessary because, as pointed out in Lodhia (2017), idea, data and tools interpretations do not work well for qualitative research. Using quantitative labels for qualitative research ignores the critical attributes of qualitative research projects. Furthermore, the interpretation of the IDioTs guide is focused on a quantitative research project and provides limited guidance to qualitative researchers in formulating a qualitative research project. Qualitative researchers may map the IDioT guide to their qualitative research needs but do not have a consistent framework to do so. This is why the Qualitative Pitch was designed in the first place – TCM is a label that can be interpreted as the specific (consistent) tools for theorising (T), describing context (C) and specifying the research methodology (M) in qualitative research, attributes critical to qualitative research. Consequently, it is proposed that the TCM criteria be integral in designing the qualitative research project in the first place rather than being mapped from the IDioTs guide.

Faff supports the application of the pitching template to qualitative research through numerous examples of the use of this template for qualitative research. As pointed out earlier, the use of the pitching template in Lodhia (2017) was not for a qualitative research project, so this should not be used as an example of the application of the pitching template to qualitative research. The examples in Faff (2018) are commendable, representing high-quality projects. However, a question that can be posed is whether these templates could be expressed more clearly through the Qualitative Pitch or whether there are additional avenues that could be opened up by the Qualitative Pitch. This would certainly be addressed by the authors of these pitches.

An analysis of qualitative research templates illustrated in Faff (2018) suggests that there is a lack of detail in relation to the qualitative research approaches used. There is a lack of consistency in relation to some critical aspects of qualitative research across all templates with some of these aspects not being discussed in some of these pitches: the use of theory, the data analysis approach, the qualitative sampling approach, issues in relation to research credibility, discussion of research accessibility, and details on the generalisations from the qualitative research proposed (especially naturalistic generalisation). It also appears that some of these projects do indeed have practical and policy contributions that are not identified in these pitches. It is suggested that the use of the Qualitative Pitch would provide a consistent approach for expressing these ideas. Use of the Qualitative Pitch would also ensure that the qualitative research dimension of the research is expressed succinctly.

In evaluating these templates on an individual basis, it should be noted that the Qualitative Pitch may not even have existed at the time of the research. Therefore the analysis here is a refinement or extension of these pitches rather than a critique. Two of the pitches are discussed here to illustrate the benefits provided by the Qualitative Pitch as a pitching template for qualitative research ideas. They provide a useful basis for comparison as they have used different approaches (interviews, document analysis) and are specific to the accounting discipline.

Smith's template (see Faff, 2018, pp. 6–7) provides an excellent example of a well theorised qualitative research project. However, the role of theory in this project and its generalisability in relation to a single case study can be more clearly spelled out through the Qualitative Pitch. Moreover, naturalistic generalisations which provide practical insights cannot be discussed in the existing template. There is some discussion of research credibility but this could be expanded in a Qualitative Pitch. Similarly, details of the qualitative sampling approach used to select the case study and how the qualitative data was analysed could have been provided.

The pitch by Bowrey and Jones (see Faff, 2018, pp. 13–14) is an excellent example of a qualitative research project which uses documents instead of interviews. There is adequate discussion of the thematic analysis approach used. However, similar to Smith, the issues in relation to the role of theory in the project and theoretical and naturalistic generalisations remain. The theoretical approach requires further clarification, something that could have been explored through a Qualitative Pitch. Given the practical and policy relevance of the study, it is disappointing that the pitch is silent on these implications.

In summary, the above analysis (generally and specifically in terms of two accounting templates, both of which have been cited in Faff, 2018) suggests that use of the Qualitative Pitch provides specific tools of trade for qualitative researchers as it specifies critical qualitative research attributes. Both the specific labels and their underlying interpretation provide scope for pitching qualitative research ideas. This supports the claim that the Qualitative Pitch is a consistent framework for pitching qualitative research.

The role of theory in qualitative research is critical (Llewellyn, 2003; Parker and Northcott, 2016) and is at the heart for the call to replace the IDioT guide with TCM. Discussions of theory use in qualitative research do not necessarily create complexity but rather guide the research process. Theories in qualitative research can either inform the research process initially or could develop iteratively from the findings. They are linked to the research question and objectives, and provide a lens for interpreting qualitative data. It should therefore be recognised that theory has a prominent role in qualitative research and therefore the labels used in a quantitative-based pitch do not necessarily prompt appropriate explanation of the specifics of the theorisation process in qualitative research projects.

Contrary to what Faff (2018) suggests, there is no need for a threshold barrier or a transition trigger for the use of theory in qualitative research. Rather, theory should be part of all initial discussions when formulating project ideas and pitching a specific project. In fact, moving to theory considerations midway through a project can be problematic as it downplays the role of theory in qualitative research, regarding it as a simple add on. In qualitative research, researchers need to explicitly reflect on their theoretical and methodological positions (including ontological and epistemological assumptions), which in turn frame the research design. Therefore, the approach to theorisation (Llewellyn, 2003) has to be specified at the outset as highlighted in the Qualitative Pitch. The Qualitative Pitch provides scope for discussion of the role of theory in a qualitative research project, one of the key attributes of qualitative research.

To conclude the review of Faff (2018) in relation to the Qualitative Pitch, it is heartening to see the emphasis on practice and policy contributions, and the backup plan acknowledged. As discussed in Lodhia (2017), practice and policy implications are critical given the widening calls for industry-relevant research and, in line with naturalistic generalisations, should constitute specific criteria in pitching templates as expressed in the Qualitative Pitch. Issues of research access are also fundamental to the success of qualitative projects and alternative approaches should be explored at a research planning stage.

3 The extended family

Faff (2018) provides a useful update on the ‘extended family’ of pitching template resources and uses. This is commendable, highlighting the growing interest in pitching research since the publication of Faff (2015).

The Qualitative Pitch as well as Faff (2015) was utilised at the 2017 Australasian Centre for Social and Environmental Accounting Research (A-CSEAR) conference's emerging scholars colloquium held in Denarau Island, Fiji. Scholars had the option of using the Qualitative Pitch if their research was qualitative and Faff (2015), referred to as the Quantitative Pitch, if their research followed a quantitative approach. While the majority of scholars used the Qualitative Pitch, the Quantitative Pitch was also used by two scholars. Their submissions to the colloquium required a two-page pitch template which was used as a basis for their presentation to the audience at the colloquium.

Both mentors and emerging scholars commented on the usefulness of the two pitching templates for succinctly clarifying existing research ideas. Mentors found a two-page summary which captured the entire research project quite useful and focused, enabling them to provide useful feedback to the scholars. Scholars were also appreciative of the two pitching templates and suggested that in addition to describing their current projects, the Qualitative Pitch was an enabler for developing their research thinking further. The role of theory in qualitative research, the qualitative research analysis tools (and approaches to make them credible) and the issue of generalisation especially in relation to case studies were specific issues that were found to be useful in developing qualitative research ideas. They also highlighted that a specific label devoted to context enabled them to emphasise the research context and its role in the research project.

The 2018 emerging scholars colloquium of A-CSEAR (run independently of the author of the Qualitative Pitch template) will continue with the use of the Quantitative and Qualitative Pitch. It is envisaged that the Qualitative Pitch will be utilised at further conferences and events, especially those that support qualitative research. Its role as a complement to the original pitching template also highlights a need for it to be available as an option at major conferences. The qualitative and quantitative labels used at A-CSEAR 2017 and 2018 emerging scholars colloquium could be a useful approach towards providing alternative approaches to research design at events.

A significant recognition of the Qualitative Pitch has been its use for the 2018 AFAANZ research grants program. Similar to A-CSEAR 2017, researchers had the option of either choosing Faff (2015) for quantitative pitches or Lodhia (2017) for qualitative research projects. This development clearly highlights acknowledgement of the Qualitative Pitch as a viable approach to pitching qualitative research ideas.

In addition to the vast uses of the pitching template suggested in Faff (2015), Faff (2018) and Lodhia (2017), an additional use could be to undertake reviews. Novice researchers in accounting often struggle to comprehend reviewing a paper for a major journal and there are not usually sufficient guidelines readily available to assist them in this process. The Qualitative Pitch (and for that matter, Faff, 2015) can be used at all stages of research, not just for initiating a project. This includes reverse engineering published work. The pitch template (quantitative or qualitative) can therefore assist novice reviewers in this process, providing them with insights into the major issues to be evaluated in a research paper.

A possible further adaptation of the pitching template could be in relation to mixed methods research. Mixed methods requires a research design that uses both quantitative and qualitative research methods. This is not the same as combining these methods; mixed methods represents a specific methodology that designs research questions which require both quantitative and qualitative methods to collect data to address specific requirements. Consequently, merely using two different templates for each research method would not be sufficient; rather, a specific pitch template for mixed methods would be essential.

4 Living harmoniously

As highlighted in Lodhia (2017, p. 18), the time for paradigm wars has passed. There is a need for appreciation of both quantitative and qualitative research and this begins with an understanding of their specific ‘tools of trade’. In relation to qualitative research, the theory, context and methodology, the theoretical and naturalistic generalisations, leading to theory, practice and policy contributions, and accessibility to the research field, require a specific pitch to address these unique features.

Recent developments in accounting research within Australasia suggest that there is an increasing acknowledgement and appreciation of both the quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. Accounting and Finance has a special issue on qualitative research that will be published soon and this is step in the right direction from the academic accounting association in Australia and New Zealand towards recognising different approaches to research. It is hoped that this is the initial step towards bridging the schism between quantitative and qualitative research envisioned in Lodhia (2017) and that more papers in the qualitative tradition are published in accounting journals. Another positive development as discussed earlier is the recognition of the Qualitative Pitch by the AFAANZ research grants committee with the 2018 applications providing details of this template as an alternative to Faff (2015).

To conclude, this paper acknowledges the usefulness of the pitching template developed by Faff (2015) but stresses that a universal pitch for accounting research does not capture the intricacies of qualitative research. This, however, does not exacerbate the qualitative and quantitative accounting research schism but is merely cognisant of the two predominant paradigms that exist for such research. Both pitches emphasise the key elements of designing a research project, but there are differences between the quantitative and qualitative research paradigm. Researchers should have the option of choosing between a Quantitative Pitch or a Qualitative Pitch, depending on their research approaches and personal preferences. The Qualitative Pitch assists in formulating qualitative research ideas and is a consistent framework for undertaking good quality (qualitative) research.