Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-3
Practicing Qualitative Research Under the “Big Tent”: Origins,Development,and Continuing Relevance of the Eight Big-Tent Framework for Qualitative Quality
Developed from a keynote delivered at the 21st Annual International Congress of Qualitative Inquiry (ICQI) in 2025, this article explores the joys and challenges of practicing qualitative research within the “big-tent” framework—an inclusive and evolving space for diverse paradigms, methods, and voices. I reflect on the development and application of the Eight Big-Tent Framework, which I originally designed to help researchers craft rigorous, resonant, and impactful qualitative inquiry. The article discusses the distinction between end goals and the varied practices that support them, addresses common misreadings of the framework, and responds to critiques that have emerged over time. Emphasizing curiosity, collaboration, and accessibility, I advocate for a vision of qualitative research that values both philosophical diversity and methodological coherence. Ultimately, I offer guidance for dwelling well in the Big Tent—encouraging research that is reflexive, service-oriented, and committed to human flourishing.
BhattacharyaK. (2018). Coloring memories and imaginations of “home”: Crafting a de/colonizing autoethnography. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 18(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708617734010
3.
BhattacharyaK. (2021). Rejecting labels and colonization: In exile from post-qualitative approaches. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(2), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800420941049
4.
BloorM. (2001). Techniques of validation in qualitative research: A critical commentary. In EmersonR. M. (Ed.), Contemporary field research (pp. 383–396). Waveland Press.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2021). To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 13(2), 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1704846
7.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2025). Reporting guidelines for qualitative research: A values-based approach. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 22(2), 399–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2024.2382244
8.
BurkeS. (2016). Rethinking ‘validity’ and ‘trustworthiness’ in qualitative inquiry: How might we judge the quality of qualitative research in sport and exercise sciences? In SmithB.SparkesA. C. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of qualitative research in sport and exercise, (pp. 330–339). Routledge.
CheekJ. (2007). Qualitative inquiry, ethics and politics of evidence: Working within these spaces rather than being worked over by them. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1051–1059. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800407308227
11.
CorleyK. (2012). Publishing in AMJ—Part 7: What’s different about qualitative research?Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 509–513. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.4003
12.
CrenshawK. (2013). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In MaschkeK. (Ed.), Feminist legal theories (pp. 23–51). Routledge.
13.
CreswellJ. W.PothC. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
14.
GunasekaranS.AkM. (2002). Cheese rheology and texture. CRC Press.
15.
DavisM. S. (1971). That’s interesting! Towards a phenomenology of sociology and a sociology of phenomenology. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 309–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839317100100211
16.
DeetzS. A. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. State University of New York Press.
17.
DenzinN. K. (1978). Triangulation: A case for methodological evaluation and combination. In Sociological methods (pp. 339–357).
18.
DenzinN. K. (2008). The new paradigm dialogs and qualitative inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(4), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390802136995
DenzinN. K. (2017b). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Routledge.
21.
DenzinN. K. (2018). The qualitative manifesto: A call to arms. Routledge.
22.
DenzinN. K.GiardinaM. D. (Eds.). (2024). Qualitative inquiry in transition—Pasts, presents, & futures: A critical reader. Taylor & Francis.
23.
EllingsonL. L. (2017). Embodiment in qualitative research. Routledge.
24.
EllingsonL. L. (2008). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research. Sage.
25.
EllisC. (2007). Telling secrets, revealing lives: Relational ethics in research with intimate others. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406294947
26.
FaulknerS. L. (2016). Poetry as method: Reporting research through verse. Routledge.
27.
FineM.TuckE.Zeller-BerkmanS. (2008). Do you believe in Geneva? Methods and ethics at the global-local nexus. In N. Denzin, Y. Lincoln, & L. T. Smith (Eds.), Handbook of critical and Indigenous methodologies (pp. 157–177). Sage.
28.
FletcherJ. (1966). Situation ethics: The new morality. Westminster John Knox Press.
29.
FlickU. (Ed.). (2024). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research quality. Sage.
30.
FlyvbjergB. (2011). Case study. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301–316). Sage.
31.
GeertzC. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. Basic Books.
32.
GonzalezM. C. (2000). The four seasons of ethnography: A creation-centered ontology for ethnography. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(5), 623–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(00)00020-1
33.
GordonJ.PattersonJ. A. (2013). Response to Tracy’s under the “big tent”: Establishing universal criteria for evaluating qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 689–695. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413500934
34.
HarleyB.CornelissenJ. (2022). Rigor with or without templates? The pursuit of methodological rigor in qualitative research. Organizational Research Methods, 25(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120937786
35.
Koro-LjungbergM.MacLureM.UlmerJ. (2018). D...a...t...a..., data++, data, and some problematics. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 462–484). Sage.
36.
LatherP. (1986). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft place. Interchange, 17(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406294947
37.
LatherP.St. PierreE. A. (2014). Post-qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(6), 629–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2013.788752
38.
LeachR. B.ZaninA. C.TracyS. J.AdameE. A. (2023). Collective compassion: Responding to structural barriers to compassion with agentic action in healthcare organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 38(3), 477–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189231209724
39.
LeachR. B.DehnertM.ReutlingerC.MarrC.TracyS. J. (2024). Setting up the tent poles: An overview, discussion, and extension of the big-tent model of qualitative quality. In FlickU. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research quality (pp. 469–483). Sage.
40.
LevittH. M.MotulskyS. L.WertzF. J.MorrowS. L.PonterottoJ. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting methodological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4(1), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000082
41.
LewisJ.RitchieJ.OrmstonR.MorrellG. (2014). Generalising from qualitative research. In RitchieJ.LewisJ.McNaughton NichollsC.OrmstonR. (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 347–366). Sage.
42.
LindlofT. R. (1995). Qualitative communication research methods. Sage.
43.
LindlofT. R.TaylorB. C. (2017). Qualitative communication research methods. Sage.
44.
LópezC.TracyS. J. (2020). Anchoring the big tent: How organizational autoethnography exemplifies and stretches notions of qualitative quality. In HermannA. F. (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of organizational autoethnography (pp. 383–398). Routledge.
45.
Lutgen-SandvikP.TracyS. J.AlbertsJ. K. (2007). Burned by bullying in the American workplace: Prevalence, perception, degree, and impact. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 837–862.
46.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.
47.
MitchellC. F.OreE. J.WutichA.SturtzSreetharanC.BrewisA.DavisO. I. (2022). Sister-girl talk: A community-based method for group interviewing and analysis. Field Methods, 34(2), 181–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X221093824
48.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
49.
OwensO. L.BeerJ. M.RevelsA.LevkoffS. (2017). Feasibility of using a video diary methodology with older African Americans living alone. Qualitative Social Work, 18(3), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325017729570
50.
RavenekM. J.RudmanD. L. (2013). Bridging conceptions of quality in moments of qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12(1), 436–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691301200122
51.
RichardsonL.St PierreE. A. (2018). Writing: A method of inquiry. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (5th ed., pp. 818–838). Sage.
52.
RonaiC. R. (1992). The reflexive self through narrative: A night in the life of an erotic dancer/researcher. In EllisC.FlahertyM. G. (Eds.), Investigating subjectivity: Research on lived experience (pp. 102–123). Sage.
ScarduzioJ. A.Geist-MartinP. (2008). Making sense of fractured identities: Male professors’ narratives of sexual harassment. Communication Monographs, 75(4), 369–395. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750802512363
55.
SmallM. L.CalarcoJ. M. (2022). Qualitative literacy: A guide to evaluating ethnographic and interview research. University of California Press.
56.
SmithB. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1393221
57.
SmithB.McGannonK. R. (2017). Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2017.1317357
58.
StakeR. E.TrumbullD. J. (1982). Naturalistic generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and Social Science, 7(1&2), 1–12.
TracyS. J. (2000). Becoming a character for commerce: Emotion labor, self subordination and discursive construction of identity in a total institution. Management Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 90–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318900141004
62.
TracyS. J. (2005). Locking up emotion: Moving beyond dissonance for understanding emotion labor discomfort. Communication Monographs, 72(3), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500206474
63.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
64.
TracyS. J. (2012). The toxic and mythical combination of a deductive writing logic for inductive qualitative research. Qualitative Communication Research, 1(1), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1525/qcr.2012.1.1.109
65.
TracyS. J. (2018). A phronetic iterative approach to data analysis in qualitative research. Journal of Qualitative Research, 19(2), 61–76. https://doi.org/10.22284/qr.2018.19.2.61
66.
TracyS. J. (2025). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (3rd ed.). Wiley.
67.
TracyS. J.Gist-MackeyA. N.DehnertM. (2024). Phronetic iterative qualitative data analysis (PIQDA) in organizational communication. In BrummansB. H. J. M.TaylorB. C.SivunenA. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in organizational communication (pp. 381–399). Sage.
68.
TracyS. J.Lutgen-SandvikP.AlbertsJ. K. (2006). Nightmares, demons and slaves: Exploring the painful metaphors of workplace bullying. Management Communication Quarterly, 20(2), 148–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318906291980
69.
TracyS. J.ReutlingerC. (2020). How is qualitative data? An interrogation and puppet show dream. In GiardinaM. D.DenzinN. K. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the politics of resistance (pp. 55–73). Routledge.
70.
TracyS. J.RiveraK. D. (2010). Endorsing equity and applauding stay-at-home moms: How male voices on work-life reveal aversive sexism and flickers of transformation. Management Communication Quarterly, 24(1), 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318909352248
71.
TracyS. J.TracyK. (1998). Emotion labor at 911: A case study and theoretical critique. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 26(4), 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909889809365516
72.
TsaiA. C.KohrtB. A.MatthewsL. T.BetancourtT. S.LeeJ. K.PapachristosA. V.WeiserS. D.DworkinS. L. (2016). Promises and pitfalls of data sharing in qualitative research. Social Science & Medicine, 169, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.08.004
73.
Tuval-MashiachR. (2017). Raising the curtain: The importance of transparency in qualitative research. Qualitative Psychology, 4(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000062
74.
VagleM. D. (2018). Crafting phenomenological research. Routledge.
75.
WayD.TracyS. J. (2012). Conceptualizing compassion as recognizing, relating and (re)acting: An ethnographic study of compassionate communication at hospice. Communication Monographs, 79(3), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2012.697630
76.
ZaninA. C. (2018). Structuring bodywork: Control and agency in athlete injury discourse. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(3), 267–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1465578
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
