Mapping the Landscape, Measuring the Gap: Qualitative Methods Reporting in Information Science Research

ABSTRACT We examined qualitative methods reporting in Information Science research by analyzing ASIS&T conference papers (2018–2022) and comparing findings with journal publishing guidelines. Our study of 117 papers using exclusively qualitative methods revealed significant gaps in methodological documentation. While 78.6% of papers involved human subjects research (primarily interviews), only 28.3% mentioned IRB approval. Similarly, 66.7% failed to describe analytical tools used. Journal publishing guidelines across the field showed inconsistent requirements for qualitative research reporting, with some mandating IRB disclosure while others provided minimal direction. The prevalent use of passive voice in methods sections often obscured critical information about data producers and collection processes. These findings demonstrate a need for more standardized reporting guidelines for qualitative research in Information Science. We recommend that ASIS&T publishing venues require authors to provide, at minimum: data production year(s), clear identification of data producers, persistent identifiers when available, and IRB approval status for human subjects research. These measures could enhance transparency and facilitate better understanding of qualitative research practices in the field.