How to Survive in a Research Minefield. Challenges and Advice for Rookie Qualitative Researchers

Qualitative research is successfully used in various disciplines of science, sometimes being the only way to scientifically explain the phenomenon under study. This also applies to studies of organizations analyzed from the perspective of management or economics. At the same time, qualitative research involves many challenges for a researcher (Bansal & Corley, 2012; Gephart, 2004; Suddaby, 2006; Kalman, 2019; Wohlfart, 2020). They begin at the design stage and do not end (most often even increase) at the stage of field research, and its analysis and presentation (Johnston & Dowling, 2023; Saxena, 2017). What is more, all these challenges may vary significantly due to the specificity of the phenomena, processes and entities under study (Eisenhardt & Greabner, 2007; Siggelkow, 2007; Moosa, 2013; Johnston & Dowling, 2023). They are often difficult to overcome for experienced researchers, but for novices, i.e., rookies just starting their journey with qualitative research, they can be like a minefield and are especially hard and stressful (Kalman, 2019; Dunn, 1991).

There are works in the literature that present the challenges related to the different stages of qualitative research, i.e., designing, running, analyzing, presenting, and publishing (e.g., VanderKaay et al., 2018; Anderson, 2010; Reay, 2014; Czernek-Marszałek & McCabe, 2021; Rockmann & Vough, 2023), and some of them concern novice researchers (Johnston & Dowling, 2023; Kalman, 2019; Saxena, 2017; Wohlfart, 2020). However, there are important gaps in the literature regarding this topic.

Firstly, although some authors identify and describe qualitative research challenges referring to their own experience (e.g., Bansal & Corley, 2012; Gephart, 2004) also as novice researchers (Tsai, 2014; Ausband, 2006; Brown, 2021; Saxena, 2017; Wohlfart, 2020), very rarely (with some exceptions, e.g., Kalman, 2019) do they present qualitative research challenges based on the findings of empirical research on this topic, giving a voice to their research participants, i.e., allowing novice researchers to share their own reflections. Meanwhile, this is the most persuasive way to present, exemplify and explain what challenges are the most difficult, and what mistakes to avoid and how to do so (Wohlfart, 2020). This in turn allows novice researchers to run “rigorous and high-quality qualitative research without being mentally and emotionally drained” (Kalman, 2019, p. 346).

Secondly, only in some works are the challenges of qualitative research addressed with the reference to various stages of conducting this type of research—from design to presentation, including publication (Kalman, 2019; Saxena, 2017; Ausband, 2006). This is certainly in part because of the iterative nature of qualitative research, in which stages cannot be clearly separated. Many challenges occur during the whole research process to a greater or lesser extent. However, showing which challenges are the greatest for novice qualitative researchers and when they occur can be even more valuable from a practical point of view, for example, by providing such researchers with appropriate support at a particular point in the research process.

Thirdly, those papers that point out the challenges associated with conducting qualitative research concern disciplines such as, medicine, pharmacy, recreation, or other fields (e.g., Anderson, 2010; Dodgson, 2019; Eakin, 2016; Johnston & Dowling, 2023). There is a lack of works addressed to researchers in the field of organizational and management studies. Perhaps one reason is that quantitative research still dominates, especially in economics (Lenger, 2019), whose representatives also examine organizations.

Fourthly, artificial intelligence (AI) is nowadays indicated as useful tool for analyzing qualitative data. Therefore, there is an increasing discussion in the literature about the use of AI in qualitative research (Christou, 2023; Hitch, 2024; Sun et al., 2025). However, it must be stressed that researchers still play a key role in the process of conducting qualitative studies and for now AI is only a tool that can support them (Anis & French, 2023). But importantly, this supportive role of AI is possible only if a researcher has knowledge, competences and skills, as well as experience in conducting this type of research. Thus, there is an even greater need for a discussion on the challenges associated with conducting qualitative research, including the researcher’s competences such as intuition, creativity, sensitivity, and attention to ethical issues. Such a discussion is especially important for novice researchers who may mistakenly believe that AI is currently able to replace a researcher.

Finally, while it may be interesting, the context of the challenges faced by qualitative researchers conducting research in organizational sciences in countries where the tradition of doing qualitative research is still relatively short, e.g., Poland, has still not been presented in empirical studies. In Polish economics and business universities, only in the last years is qualitative research more often used and increasingly treated as a valid scientific approach, enabling the solving of scientific research problems. Therefore, PhD students and assistant professors are gaining more and more experience in conducting this type of research, although—as the findings of this research showed—they face a lot of challenges.

Thus, taking into account the above gaps, and at the same time the usefulness of qualitative research in organizational and management studies, the aim of this paper is to present and understand the challenges of conducting (designing, running, analyzing, presenting and publishing) qualitative research from the perspective of novice researchers, i.e., assistant professors and doctoral students. This paper presents the findings of two-stage qualitative research conducted with PhD students and assistant professors of one of the Polish economic universities. In total there were conducted interviews with eleven people: in the first stage there was a focus group interview (FGI) with five research participants and in the second stage there were six individual in-depth interviews (IDIs).

The contribution to existing knowledge is that the paper identifies and exemplifies numerous challenges of conducting qualitative research in organizational and management studies. Those challenges are broken down into stages of the research process and presented in an important and often overlooked context—firstly, from the perspective of the novices themselves; secondly, the research conducted in organization and management studies; and thirdly, in a Polish context that has hardly been discussed in the literature at all. Moreover, some of the challenges identified in the research have not been addressed in the literature so far. As Kalman (2019, p. 345) claims “examining the experiences of novice researchers about qualitative inquiry may help both instructors and supervisors of qualitative research raise awareness of their students’ reflexivity, which is significant for developing a reflexive mindset and culture required for high-quality qualitative research”. Thus, this research is also of practical value; it makes it possible to formulate a number of practical recommendations that can serve current and future qualitative researchers in organizational and management studies, especially novice scientists and their supervisors. This is especially important in the context of the AI, which at the current stage of its development, although can significantly improve the process of qualitative research, does not yet allow to avoid many important challenges of conducting qualitative research. At the same time, it generates new challenges (e.g., ethical ones) that researchers, including novice ones, will have to face.

In order to identify, describe and explain challenges perceived by novice qualitative researchers at various stages of preparing their doctoral thesis, qualitative research was used. It follows the interpretative paradigm, assuming that reality is as perceived by the interviewees themselves (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Therefore, to truly understand the situation of a specific group of people, we need to give them a voice. Moreover, the context under study—being not formerly analyzed in the literature—is another argument for using this type of research.

To achieve the aim of this paper, research was conducted in two stages that lasted from March to May, 2021. The first stage was an FGI with five people, and the second stage was individual IDIs with six people. Thus, altogether 11 novice researchers were chosen in a purposeful sample selection in this research. This study follows a conceptual approach in sample size selection. According to this approach so-called “information power” determines decisions about the sample size, i.e., “the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed” (Malterud, Siersma, & Guassora, 2016, p. 1). The criterion for sample size selection was therefore its adequacy in relation to the research aim (Czernek-Marszałek & McCabe, 2024). Thus, the researcher was not focused on gathering a large number of interviewees, but on inviting those who, thanks to their experience, provide a valuable exemplification of the challenges faced by rookie qualitative researchers. To conduct both the FGIs and IDIs, an interview guide was used containing a range of issues that the researcher asked about during the interview.

In selecting the sample the following criteria had to be fulfilled by research participants in both research stages: 1) be an assistant professor at a university or a doctoral student at least in the second year of study (at the stage of at least planning empirical research); 2) before obtaining a PhD degree; 3) having some experience (based on the opinions of the interlocutors themselves) in conducting (at least in designing) qualitative research. All interviewees were studying the operation of the organizations in different branches (sport, tourism, public sector, performing arts, etc.) and from different perspectives (inter-organizational relationships, effectiveness, sustainable development, strategy, etc.).

The first FGI was conducted with a group of five doctoral students from one of the Polish economic universities. These were students in the second year of doctoral school in the field of management and were members of the same lecture group. In the FGI the researcher asked interviewees more general questions about the challenges of writing a doctoral thesis, including those related to designing, conducting, analyzing and presenting/publishing qualitative research. The FGI conversation showed that most of the interlocutors had little experience in conducting qualitative research and their statements – when it came to empirical research – mainly concerned challenges related to its designing.

Therefore, it was decided to conduct the second stage of research in the form of IDIs with more experienced, although still novice qualitative researchers – being at the stage of running field research or after its completion. Therefore, assistant professors (four people) and students in the final year of doctoral studies (two people) were selected for the research. All these people either submitted their doctoral thesis or were finalizing it. At this second stage of the research IDIs were conducted with these research participants, as it was believed that this form of interview would allow for a more in-depth discussion about the individual challenges in doing qualitative research. They were asked about the challenges related to the preparation of a doctoral thesis, including designing, running, analyzing and presenting/publishing of qualitative research. Indeed, this group of interlocutors had much more to say in the context of field research or its analysis, so it complemented-well the group of interlocutors from FGI, who in their statements focused more on the research planning stage. The characteristics of the interviewees at both stages of the study are presented in Table 1.

The FGI lasted 2 hours and 24 minutes. The IDIs lasted over 8 hours in total, of which the longest interview lasted 2 hours and 5 minutes and the shortest was 1 hour and 1 min. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, all interviews were conducted online using the Google Meet platform. What is important, however, is that the interviewees talked about their experiences referring to qualitative research most often carried out before the pandemic, and thus, in the field.

All interviews were recorded with the consent of the interviewees. The interview transcripts were then written down, coded and analyzed using the Miles and Huberman (1994) approach: data reduction, display, and verification. Both deductive and inductive codes were used. The deductive codes consisted of 8 different types of challenges of doing qualitative research known from the literature, presented in the theoretical part and in Table 2. The research analysis and using inductive (emerging) codes made it possible to specify these groups of challenges and characterize them using the perspective of rookie qualitative researchers in managerial and organizational studies in one of the Polish economics universities. Then the identified challenges were organized into categories related to the stage of the research process, i.e., designing (D), running (R), analyzing (A), presenting and publishing (P&P) qualitative research and all stages (AS) when a given type of challenge appeared in relation to each stage of research and it would be difficult to assign it to selected ones. The list of deductive and inductive codes, together with categories related to the stage of a research process is presented in Table 2.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the research, activities regarding credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability were undertaken (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). To ensure credibility, prolonged engagement was ensured (at each research stage, the researcher conducted all interviews, asking additional questions and encouraging interlocutors to speak more broadly and support their statements with examples), triangulation of methods (IDI and FGI), and member checking – presenting the findings to a group of doctoral students for feedback. Transferability focused on assuring a thick description (Geertz, 1973) by presenting rich data (including quotations) and showing the context in which the study was conducted. Dependability and confirmability were ensured by making interview notes describing the setting and aspects of the interview that were noted during the interview itself and during transcript analysis. The notes also included the researcher’s subjective reactions to the environment and their perceived relationship with the interviewees (reflexivity) (Berger, 2015; Robinson, 2014; Anderson, 2017).

The research identified and described the challenges of conducting qualitative research, not in general terms – as has been most often presented in the literature to date (Holmes, 2020; Magilvy & Thomas, 2009) – but from the perspective of novice researchers, allowing them to express their reflections on the issue. This specific context of rookie qualitative researchers preparing their thesis in one of Polish economics universities provided enriched and detailed knowledge about the challenges of conducting such research. Moreover, the study presented and arranged the qualitative research challenges by study stages, from design to presentation and publication phase. The research showed that in the case of novice researchers the vast majority of challenges of doing qualitative research, i.e., time and labor intensity, lack of universal patterns, the need to meet multiple requirements for ensuring rigor, the uncertainty of the research process, and that the specific qualities of the researcher are present in all phases of qualitative research, i.e., designing, running, analyzing, presenting, and publishing. Additionally, the research has shown that some of the challenges were specific only to selected phases: for running qualitative research these were the challenges related to field research (logistical, organizational and time challenges very burdensome in in case of time pressure to complete PhD thesis); for the analyzing phase – difficulty of “grasping” a large amount of material (its synthesis, selection and structuring—even more difficult in the absence of a researcher’s experience and a supervisor familiar with qualitative research methodology), and for presenting and publishing—the need to assure consistency of the story told with adherence to methodological rigor, see Figure 1.

Figure 1:

Challenges of conducting qualitative research at its various stages from the perspective of novice researchers

Source: own elaboration

A more detailed presentation of those challenges from the perspective of novice researchers with the reference to individual research stages, rarely found in the literature (e.g., Kalman, 2019; Saxena, 2017; Ausband, 2006), is done in Table 3. Such an approach makes it possible to show which challenges and why are the most significant for novice qualitative researchers and when (at which stage of qualitative research) they occur. This, in turn, brings us closer to potential recommendations on how to best meet these challenges, also with the help of the academic community in organizational and management studies.

The challenges presented in the “Challenge” column in Table 3 are more general in nature, i.e., they apply to both experienced and inexperienced researchers, since they are mainly due to the specifics of qualitative research, as stressed previously in the literature. However, some of the identified challenges presented in Table 3, those in the “Characteristics” column, are new and are specific to novice researchers. These may also arise from other conditions related to the social context in which the interviewees operate, especially the type of scientific area: organizational and management studies, and the university where the research was conducted. Moreover, they may depend on whether and to what extent the novice researchers received help from their supervisors, what kind of support their university provided, or what stage of their research work they were at when the research was conducted.

Thus, the added value of this study is that it not only identifies which challenges are particularly difficult for novice researchers and when, but also why and what the potential consequences of facing these challenges might be. Even when research findings presented below are supported by the other literature on qualitative novice researchers’ challenges, often these conclusions were not supported by empirical research, as it is done in this paper. Moreover, this study shows some of challenges from a different perspective than before. Interestingly, some factors previously identified in the literature (Gephart, 2004; Langley, 1999; Kalman, 2019; Huy, 2012; Graebner, Martin, & Roundy, 2012) as solely or mainly difficulties in conducting qualitative research were seen by the interviewees not necessarily in terms of problems, but also as advantages of qualitative research (e.g., working with words or the lack of universal patterns)—more about it further in this section.

Referring to particular groups of challenges in terms of the time-consuming and labor-intensive nature of the research (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Gephart 2004; Sangasubana, 2009) (point 1. in Table 3), all the interviewees stressed that the long and arduous research process in qualitative research (at all its stages) clashes with the reality of academic work, where researchers are held accountable for projects (including PhD theses) that must be completed within a certain timeframe (Eakin, 2016; Wohlfart, 2020; VanderKaay et al., 2018; Nagel et al., 2015). The research findings presented in this paper showed what the consequences of such time pressure may be. For instance, it often prevented novice researchers from deepening their research as much as would be desired, or created a strong sense of frustration. Regarding the stage of research designing, the interviewees mentioned, for example, the challenge of the long and tedious, even called “unpleasant” process of arranging interviews. Moreover, they strongly emphasized their inexperience in doing field research. They mentioned having a wide range of doubts at this stage. One of them was how to direct the interview after asking broad open questions. This problem is also mentioned by Johnston and Dowling (2023), who suggested that for novice researchers the laddered question technique may be helpful. Participants also had doubts whether to inform potential interviewees in advance about the long duration of the interview. As a result, it was not uncommon for novice researchers to have to re-schedule an interview (which made research process longer), or for some questions to be dropped in a hurry (which potentially negatively impacted the credibility of the research). Such situations, they said, caused them a lot of stress, especially when conducting their first interviews. Thus, the role of advice from more experienced researchers is crucial already at the research design stage. This is in line with Wohlfart’s reflections (2020, p. 3) on the first own qualitative research: “The result of our work was (1) way too long, (2) way too rigid and (3) inclusive of far too many topics. Looking back, I regret that the other researchers did not intervene or improve the structure of the interview guide”. Regarding the stage of research analysis and interpretation, similarly to Kalman’s (2019) findings, novice researchers often stressed the long, difficult, and extremely tedious coding process.

It is worth adding that there is currently an ongoing discussion on coding qualitative research with the use of AI (e.g., Sun et al., 2025), and one could claim that this challenge (i.e., the tedious coding process) is no longer relevant. However, the same current research shows that AI still does not solve the problem of difficult and tedious work on text coding, AI is possibly treated as an additional coder (e.g. for the purpose of triangulation), and the researchers should do the coding on their own anyway (Marshall & Naff, 2024; Zhang et al., 2023).

Regarding the challenges of fieldwork itself (point 2. in Table 3), the findings of the study showed that the biggest problems here were logistical, organizational, and time challenges (VanderKaay et al., 2018). For novice researchers with limited time and research budget, this fieldwork was seen as difficult and very stressful. However, the interviewees revealed that at the same time they perceived this stage of research as very informative. It was also pointed out that outsourcing the research to an external research agency would avoid some of the identified logistical or organizational challenges. However, they were aware that it would prevent them from gaining experience – so valuable for a novice researcher – and would not enable the collection of such valuable research material as can only be acquired by a researcher through direct contact with the field (Suddaby, 2006). Such awareness among novice researchers is certainly important and valuable, but it can be gained only after fieldwork, during which much can be learned (Saxena, 2017; Wohlfart, 2020). As Kalpokaite and Radivojevic (2019, p. 44) claim, “the ‘craft’ of qualitative research is best learned by doing, which also means making decisions, mistakes, and having the patience for understanding to clarify with time and practice”.

Another challenge for novice researchers was grasping the large amount of material (point 3. in Table 3). The main problem for them was the synthesis, selection and structuring of the most valuable content. This is a challenge even for more experienced researchers (Kanter, 1977; Langley, 1999), and thus, proved to be particularly difficult for novice researchers. As they mentioned, they felt absolutely overwhelmed with data and even, as one interviewee put it, “paralyzed” by it. Huy (2012) calls this phenomenon “data asphyxiation”. The research showed that these feelings were strongly associated with two issues: the need to maintain a certain structure and volume of the PhD thesis, it could not be too extensive, and also the limited time for completing the doctorate, on which the person’s further academic career often depended. Interestingly, the literature indicates that working with words, compared to working with numbers, can be more difficult (Gephart, 2004; Langley, 1999). However, at the same time, some of the interviewees found this work inspiring and developing, much more enjoyable than, for example, quantitative analysis. One interviewee even described it as similar to working with puzzles, resulting in an overall picture, i.e., an interesting and coherent story. This is interesting result, because much more often the challenges and problems are stressed by qualitative researchers in the area of grasping the large amount of material, especially by novices.

Another challenge for novice researchers was the lack of universal algorithms or accepted patterns of conducting qualitative research (point 4. in Table 3). This is in line with the general literature on qualitative studies (Suddaby, 2006; Malterud, 2001) – the so-called “cooking without a recipe” (Graebner et al., 2012). However, as the research has shown, for inexperienced researchers this challenge was of particular importance at the stage of analyzing data, especially for those who could not count on the help of their supervisors. For instance, the interviewees found the need to choose between different methods of text analysis difficult—often indicating that they did not have sufficient knowledge on the subject or experience. This is consistent with other research on the challenges for inexperienced researchers in conducting qualitative research (e.g., Backman & Kyngäs, 1999; Wohlfart, 2020). As VanderKaay, et al. (2018) stress, in qualitative research the choice of a set of methods can be approached quite pragmatically. Such a pragmatic approach is also recommended for novice scientists (Silverman, 2011; Patton, 2002; Seale et al., 2007). Hammersley, for example, says that novice researchers should be encouraged to become “neither ostriches nor fighting cocks” (2004, p. 557). However, regardless of which research approaches and methods are used, researchers should be knowledgeable about them in order to pragmatically select them. This, as the research has shown, has often been a problem for rookie researchers. At the same time, however, some interlocutors who had the support of their supervisors saw the lack of universal patterns characteristic of qualitative research also as an advantage. The fact that they perceived a certain freedom in thinking and acting, which they could probably afford thanks to the support of more experienced colleagues, has not been emphasized in the literature in the context of novice researchers so far.

Quite a lot of attention was paid by the interviewees to the need to meet the many requirements of the research procedure (point 5. in Table 3)—to ensure methodological rigor—i.e. research trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability) at various stages of the research procedure. Of all the challenges, this one was the most difficult for the novice researchers (it is worth noting, however, that many of the other challenges discussed here largely boil down to this very challenge). Here, the interviewees referred to a number of problems, particularly at the stage of conducting fieldwork. They mentioned a lack of theoretical and practical knowledge of how to meet the criteria of methodological rigor in qualitative research – they claimed that they did not obtain this knowledge during their doctoral studies. This is in line with the shortcomings of the educational process at universities (however, not necessary in the field of organizational and management studies) mentioned in works of Nagel et al. (2015), Charmaz, (2014), Eakin (2016), and VanderKaay et al. (2018). Moreover, the interviewees mentioned numerous doubts, including ethical ones, while conducting interviews (Robinson, 2014; Tsai, 2013). This corresponds with Moosa’s (2013, p. 483) reflections as a novice researcher regarding problems in anonymizing and representing research participants from a small community: “Although ethical guidelines are written to inform and guide researchers, how these guidelines are interpreted by novice researchers can present some formidable challenges to those carrying out research in different cultural contexts”. Additionally, novice researchers mentioned the difficulty of applying triangulation of methods, which resulted from a lack of experience (Sangasubana, 2009). They indicated mistakes in outsourced transcriptions, which they were not able to do on their own due to the need to complete their thesis on time, and at the time when this study was run, there was a lack of access to computer software for doing transcriptions in Polish. This is in line with Moosa (2013, p. 492), who claims that time constraints did not allow her to conduct the research as she wished: “my research did not involve the participants to this [desired] level, and their voices were also not brought to the fore as much as I would have wished because my agenda to complete the thesis presented time constraints that prevented me from involving my participants at every stage of the research process”. All this negatively affects the research credibility. The participants also pointed to difficulties in ensuring the trustworthiness of the research, especially dependability and confirmability, due to difficulties at the stage of data analysis and presentation, e.g. doubts about how to code material or how to select relevant citations accurately so as to reflect the studied phenomenon, etc. This corresponds with Wohlfart’s (2020, p. 3) experiences as a novice researcher: “I found it extremely difficult to select exemplary quotes (wanting to find affirmative statements from all interview partners of a specific category in order to generalize for that sub-sample)”.

Finally, the interviewees also mentioned that their constant reflection regarding their relationship with the studied social context (reflexivity) (Berger, 2015; Anderson, 2017), which is important at every stage of the research to ensure its trustworthiness (confirmability), as also very difficult for them. This difficulty is natural for any field researcher (Robinson, 2014; Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995; Sangasubana, 2009), but as the research findings show, it is a particular challenge for inexperienced researchers. Dodgson (2019, p. 2) claims that novice researchers “may become overwhelmed by the complexity of situating his/herself in relationship to the participant other”. Holmes (2020) also stresses that novice researchers usually have to struggle with identifying their positionality. This is because their values, and thus, also the subjective contextual aspects of their positionality or ‘situatedness’ often changes over time (Holmes, 2020). Moreover, Holmes’ (2020, p. 4) findings show that reflexivity is a skill resulting from the process, i.e., the experience gained by the researcher: “exploring their positionality and writing a positionality statement can take considerable time and much ‘soul searching’. It is not a process that can be rushed”. Therefore, taking into account all the identified difficulties, the findings of this research follow Anderson (2017) and Tsai’s (2013) advice that in order to ensure methodological rigor in their research, novice researchers should rely on their thesis supervisor and the peer review process for good quality journals.

Another challenge is to ensure the consistency of the story told (in a new and interesting way) with adherence to methodological rigor and the work’s assumptions (point 6. in Table 3) (Bansal & Corley, 2012; Golden-Biddle & Locke, 2007; Siggelkow, 2007). At the research presentation and publication stage, such a problem can occur especially among inexperienced scientists (Kalman, 2019). Indeed, as the research findings show, novice researchers had doubts about how to ensure a balance between capturing the specifics of the interviewees/industry/environment studied (reflected, for example, by very loose and informal quotes) and the assumptions and rigor (including language) of a scientific work. To some extent this relates to Saxena’s (2017) reflections as novice researcher, who mentioned that a challenge for her was presenting findings in such a way that they follow methodological rigor and do not appear as obvious statements to the readers. Thus, based on the research findings, one can agree with the advice of Malterud (2001) that here again, the role of supervisors is very important. Such supervisors should pay attention to ensuring that the choice of citations does not detract from the scientific quality of the work, but also that there is not an excessive focus on methodological rigor at the expense of an interesting presentation of the story.

Regarding the uncertainty of the entire process (see point 7. in Table 3) in qualitative research (Manson, 2002; Robinson, 2014), the interviewees claimed that this was due to the many twists and turns (Bansal & Corley, 2012; Saxena, 2017) during all research stages, resulting from the emergent and iterative nature of qualitative research (Backman & Kyngäs, 1999). This is in line with Kalman’s (2019, p. 354) research findings, which showed that “the challenges faced in data collection, analysis and interpretation caused the novices to feel uncertainty, vulnerability, and a sense of hitting a brick wall, which in turn triggered them to engage in a struggle to get out of the knots in which they were tied up”. Kalman’s (2019) participants perceived qualitative research as “blurry and demanding”. This study has shown that this was a very difficult challenge leading to frustration for novice researchers as they had to complete their theses within a set and limited timeframe, while at the same time it was unclear when the research would be completed and what the ultimate outcome would be (for example, because of a need for re-coding, going back to the field or to the literature, and/or the difficulty in predicting when the saturation effect would occur). This corresponds with what Backman and Kyngäs (1999) claim, that while uncertainty occurs during the whole research process, especially when building theory, novice researchers may experience the phases of qualitative research as very chaotic, and may feel unable to make any discoveries at that point.

Finally, in terms of the important characteristics of the researcher (point 8. in Table 3) (Gephart, 2004; Hammersley & Atkinson, 2000; Suddaby, 2006; Siggelkow, 2007), the inexperience of the interviewees in conducting qualitative research came to the fore, causing a lot of stress for many interlocutors during all stages of the research process, especially when they conducted their first interviews. Creswell (2007) claims that it is the experience of qualitative researchers in collecting and analyzing data that shapes the whole research process.

Finally, it should be emphasized that the challenges identified can currently only be partially reduced by using AI in qualitative research (e.g., in relation to transcription or partial analysis of material that must be finally analyzed by the researcher anyway). Still, despite the growing usefulness of AI, due to its limitations – it is the researcher who designs the qualitative research and decides on each element of the research process, and above all takes responsibility for each of these elements. The characterized challenges will certainly change in the future, but this is a topic for a different discussion and many questions in this regard still remain unanswered.

The research also allowed us to identify some practical recommendations, directions for future research, as well as limitations that should be eliminated in future research.

Regarding practical recommendations there is a great need to deepen novice researchers’ knowledge and, above all, practical skills with regard to conducting qualitative research. The research showed that among the interviewees, both knowledge and practical skills were a stress-inducing factor at various stages of conducting qualitative research. Qualified qualitative researchers are therefore needed, who as lecturers at the university, provide practical guidance in conducting this type of research. It would be very good if such lecturers were at the same time experienced supervisors, i.e., people most closely working with doctoral students. As research has shown, this is a very important element, since the lack of supervisors’ competences in running qualitative research was a significant challenge for inexperienced researchers who decided to do qualitative study. It was also stressed in the literature by Nagel et al. (2015) who mentioned that choosing a mentor or supervisor for qualitative research may be difficult because many scientists at universities have experience in quantitative rather than qualitative research. Thus, also institutional and financial support for educational programs is needed. As Wohlfart (2020, p. 4) calls: “I want to appeal to researchers with experience in qualitative research: help us! Specifically, study programs of the Humanities and Social Sciences need to integrate courses and texts on qualitative research. Currently, qualitative research is often being negated by lecturers, researchers and journal editors alike.” Certainly, taking care of the curriculum, including an appropriate number of hours in qualitative research methodology, workshops conducted by experienced researchers who are themselves qualitative researchers, would be beneficial for those preparing dissertations in qualitative studies.

It is also important to increase the knowledge of both novice researchers and experienced researchers, including supervisors, in the field of using AI for qualitative research. Here, the role of experienced researchers seems crucial, because – in the face of the possible uncritical admiration for AI by rookie researchers and the desire to speed up or facilitate many works related to qualitative research – it is they who should be responsible for safeguarding the qualitative research trustworthiness. Although AI can facilitate or speed up many works, it still lacks certain properties, especially those that are key in qualitative research, such as researcher intuition and deep analysis skills (e.g., emotions, nuances, atypical elements) (Anis & French, 2023; Sun et al., 2025). Qualitative researchers should know both the advantages and disadvantages of using AI in order to conduct valuable research using this tool. Supervisors must also draw inexperienced researchers’ attention to ethical issues (such as using AI to transcribe research, analyze material—e.g., coding) (Marshall & Naff, 2024). The interviewees should be, for example, aware that their image or statements are being analyzed by AI and becoming part of the training material.

Finally, taking into account the above, it would also be worthwhile to create or develop (where they already exist) so-called qualitative communities of research and/or practice, the creation of which has already been advocated by other authors in other qualitative research communities (Eakin, 2016; Cheek, Corlis, & Radoslovich, 2009). Such groups of researchers enable knowledge sharing, learning and support, especially for less experienced researchers. It is important that such communities are formed in relation to a specific research area/discipline, in this case, organizational and management studies. Such a group of people with similar experiences, passions, problems or challenges are always eager to discuss and develop their knowledge and skills. Given that in many scientific communities qualitative research still has to prove its standing in science, such groups would also help strengthen the position of the research itself in the community and create a kind of qualitative researcher culture. According to Denzin (2016), the future of qualitative research is now, which is why these types of communities are urgently needed, including in Polish universities, as the findings of this research show.

On the basis of the research, some recommendations for future empirical research can also be formulated. Firstly, as mentioned before, some of the challenges of conducting qualitative research were not necessarily perceived only negatively by novice qualitative researchers. Some of them were perceived as stimulating, inspiring or cognitively creative factors. In this regard, it would be worth conducting more in-depth research in the future to determine whether this perspective is dependent on, for example, age (as a characteristic of young people [more curious about the world, with an open mind] or as reflective the level of experience in conducting qualitative research, or on whether a novice researcher has someone experienced to help, thanks to which he/she is less stressed about the challenges associated with qualitative research and at the same time enjoys the positive benefits they bring). Secondly, it would be worth comparing the experiences of novice Polish qualitative researchers with those from other countries, as well as other universities. It may turn out that some of the identified challenges are different, for example, due to the different status of qualitative vs. quantitative research in a particular country, or due to a different curriculum in doctoral schools. It would also be worthwhile conducting similar research in other communities of novice researchers—i.e., not only among researchers in organizational and management studies, but also among representatives of other fields and disciplines. This type of research (e.g., regarding medical or nursing students) does exist in the literature (Anderson, 2010; Dodgson, 2019; Eakin, 2016; Johnston & Dowling, 2023) but it is relatively scarce.

This research has some limitations. Firstly, the study was carried out with a group of 11 novice researchers, hence the findings are limited and not representative. Additionally, only a few of these people were at the stage of completing qualitative research for their doctoral thesis and their experiences in particular were used to identify challenges at all stages of the research process. The remaining participants mainly commented on the substantive preparation provided by doctoral school (the stage of designing the research). Secondly, the conclusions drawn are dependent on the context in which the research was conducted—i.e., researchers from one Polish university and from the field of organizational and management studies. The situation may have looked different if the study had included novice researchers from other countries or from a different area of science. For example, qualitative research conducted on topics related to medicine, e.g., among seriously ill or infirm people (e.g. Johnston & Dowling, 2023), shows that some of the challenges identified in this study can be even greater, and result from difficult conversations that require empathy and delicacy.

Nevertheless, many of the identified challenges and their nature will most certainly be similar in other communities, while the research itself can serve as a basis for further discussion on the subject.