From the editor

Abstract

This issue of QMMR is all about good fits. The theme is an important one. A lot of what we do as researchers centers around this goal. Where will I study political science? (Which program is the right fit?) How can I understand this research problem? (Is there a good theoretical fit for this topic?) Identifying the appropriate method for answering the research question at hand is an integral component of the early stages of any research project. It is, in other words, about finding the right methodological fit. The right methodological fit may not be obvious. It may also be controversial. Take, for example, the pursuit of data transparency in political science. The ethical and practical ramifications of transparency have been debated widely. This is for good reason. The practice is not always appropriate and therefore should not be universally promoted. Debate is also fundamentally important for methodological praxis. However, this issue of QMMR sets the debate aside to acknowledge, quite simply, that many qualitative scholars are committed to making their research more transparent. This issue offers a set of case studies on how to undertake transparent qualitative research successfully and effectively. These case studies come from transparency practitioners with different epistemological perspectives and who use a variety of methods. Transparency, as the introduction succinctly highlights, is not a “‘one size fits all’ proposition.” The essays, therefore, offer a variety of strategies for fitting the goal of transparency into different types of qualitative research projects. The issue also provides insight on a challenging practical problem associated with spatial analysis. Many of the groups, units, and areas that we study do not easily conform to formally recognized borders. Consequently, it is often very difficult to fit the unit of analysis to the shape files available. The original article included in this issue explores different qualitative and mixed methods techniques that can be used to construct more accurate shape files for the “non-jurisdictional units”—gangs, immigration patterns, religious or ethnic groups, neighborhoods—that so often are the object of our research. The authors ask: How can we better fit the spatial analysis to the research at hand? They explore a variety of techniques that can be used to achieve this goal. I would like to close out my letter with an appeal to our readers, and especially to junior scholars and graduate students: If you have an idea for a symposium or an original article that engages with the use of qualitative and mixed methods, please send it to QMMR! You may not be sure that your idea or article is appropriate—in other words, you may worry about its fit, heh, heh, heh—but I encourage you to send it anyway. QMMR is a great opportunity to circulate methodological innovations in a shorter and therefore more accessible format. I hope to hear from you soon!