With qualitative research apparently threatened by big data, researchers, editors, educators, librarians, and publishers need to understand the mix of research methods used in their field to guide decision making. In response, this study assesses the prevalence and citation impact of academic research between 1996 and 2019 that reports one of four common methods to gather qualitative data: interviews, focus groups, case studies, and ethnography. 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. The citation impact of interview and focus group research mostly decreased over time, whereas of case study citation impact increased, and ethnography was above average in its two core subject areas. This suggests that methods teachers, researchers, editors, librarians, and publishers should be increasingly open to the value of qualitative data.

由于定性研究显然受到大数据的威胁，研究人员、编辑、教育工作者、图书馆员和出版商需要了解他们领域中使用的研究方法的组合，以指导决策。作为回应，本研究评估了 1996 年至 2019 年间学术研究的普遍性和引用影响，这些研究报告了收集定性数据的四种常用方法之一：访谈、焦点小组、案例研究和民族志。除了少数例外，自 1996 年以来，定性数据的普遍性增加了，通常是大幅增加。此外，所有 27 个广泛领域（由 Scopus 分类）现在都发表了一些定性研究，访谈是迄今为止最常见的方法。访谈和焦点小组研究的引文影响随着时间的推移大多下降，而案例研究的引文影响增加，和民族志在其两个核心学科领域高于平均水平。这表明方法教师、研究人员、编辑、图书馆员和出版商应该对定性数据的价值越来越开放。