Researchers, editors, educators and publishers need to understand the mix of research methods used in their field to guide decision making, with a current concern being that qualitative research is threatened by big data. Although there have been many studies of the prevalence of different methods within individual narrow fields, there have been no systematic studies across academia. In response, this article assesses the prevalence and citation impact of academic research 1996-2019 that reports one of four common methods to gather qualitative data: interviews; focus groups; case studies; ethnography. The results show that, with minor exceptions, the prevalence of qualitative data has increased, often substantially, since 1996. In addition, all 27 broad fields (as classified by Scopus) now publish some qualitative research, with interviewing being by far the most common approach. This suggest that qualitative methods teaching and should increase, and researchers, editors and publishers should be increasingly open to the value that qualitative data can bring.

中文翻译：

---

现在使用定性数据进行的研究是否更普遍且更具影响力？访谈，案例研究，焦点小组和民族志

研究人员，编辑，教育工作者和出版商需要了解其领域中用于指导决策的多种研究方法，目前关注的是定性研究受到大数据的威胁。尽管在单个狭窄领域内有许多关于不同方法的流行的研究，但在整个学术界还没有系统的研究。作为回应，本文评估了1996-2019年学术研究的普遍性和引文影响，该研究报告了收集定性数据的四种常用方法之一：访谈；访谈法；文献综述；文献综述。专门小组; 实例探究; 人种志。结果表明，自1996年以来，除少数例外，定性数据的普及率通常在很大程度上增加了。此外，所有27个广泛领域（按Scopus分类）现在都发表了一些定性研究，到目前为止，面试是最常见的方法。这表明定性方法的教学应不断增加，研究人员，编辑和出版商应日益对定性数据可以带来的价值持开放态度。