What is "good" science? What are "good" social sciences? What is "good" qualitative social research? What are the criteria and standards for such evaluations?

As far as the official discourses are concerned, the discussions about the foregoing questions have traditionally occurred in the context of theory of knowledge and the philosophy of science. In the early 20th century the idea of a "unitary science" was popular in Europe. It postulated and tried to work out common methodological principles and goodness criteria for all empirical sciences. But no such common basis for the specific requirements of the different disciplines was found. The traces of this tradition had a great impact on the social sciences in the "Western hemisphere"—especially since World War II. In contrast to the methods and methodologies for knowledge production in the natural sciences, hermeneutic and "qualitative" approaches were (and still are) considered less "scientific" and acceptable in the social sciences (with certain differences across disciplines and nations).

With the decreasing importance of the concepts of the philosophy of science (prototypically: Critical Rationalism) and with a stronger focus on "social relations" in science and scientific communities (e.g. in the KUHNian tradition), a new trend in the philosophy of science could be observed. Apart from goodness criteria grounded in logic and epistemology, the cognitive, social, economic, cultural, medial and historical characteristics of scientific research came into focus to ensure certainty of knowledge. It is not that these aspects did not play a role before. The prospects of practical application of knowledge in business and warfare have always strongly stimulated science, including the social sciences. Now these aspects have become part of the official discourse and object of detailed and realistic description and analysis. This has consequences for the politics of science.

In the 1970s, getting research funded by private industries was frowned upon in the West-German social sciences. Nowadays such funds are a widely accepted as proof of the quality of scientific work (projects, scientists). What scientific arguments justify this change in attitude?

The social standards for evaluating scientific knowledge production have changed considerably. Apart from a closer tie between research and "business", the publishing industry plays an important role in this context. The salient issues range from inner-scientific aspects of publishing (ranking of journals, frequency of citation, etc.) or outer-scientific resonance (in the mass media: press, television, etc.). Are these instances of and criteria for selection grounded in a scientifically justified rationality? How can one legitimize them from a scientific point of view?

The traditional methodological goodness criteria of the 20th century have come under pressure from at least two different sides in the recent past:

• The inner-scientific claims for (principally) attainable certainty of knowledge have weakened. Many received "rock-solid" ideas about the quality of scientific research have been put in perspective by recent work in the sociology of science, work that concerned the role and meaning of instruments for knowledge production, language, social contexts, discourses, epistemological subjects, etc. for our scientific knowledge. The sciences no longer aim for the "one truth", but attempt to determine the (legitimate) number of truths—or have even given up all claims for truth.
• Scientific work is to a greater extent guided and controlled by economic and administrative interests, evaluations and corresponding institutional procedures.

Obviously, there have been major changes over the past 25 years. What principals underlie the actually practized guidelines for the evaluation and assessment of the (qualitative) social sciences? What principles should be followed? Can social scientists contribute to this question? Why is there such a (strange) widespread silence concerning these essential and basic questions? Are there no science-internal standpoints regarding the justification of standards? Or do the protagonists—competing for the allocation of resources—prefer to follow dubious (and unofficially ridiculed) administrative criteria in order not to risk their chances to "win"?

In textbooks, the positions on the quality of qualitative research in the social sciences are spread across a broad spectrum. They range from an in-principal adoption of classical canonical standards of "quantitative" research (with certain modifications and adjustments) to demands for entirely new standards. So far, however, no agreement has been reached about a new, "alternative" catalogue of criteria. New and creative ideas about scientific knowledge production have emerged following the weakening of claims about the certainty of scientific knowledge (the recent self-reflexive debate in anthropology is a good example). At the same time, this critical approach to the certainty of knowledge weakens the "political" position of qualitative research against the ("quantitative") mainstream, and disadvantages the former in the competition for material resources to do research.

This charged field about the quality of research—constituted by diverse arguments from the theory of knowledge, scientific methodology, the sociology of science and the politics of science—define the topics for our FQS debate on "Quality of Qualitative Research". Currently, the discussions about these topics seem to have become unfashionable. But this situation itself seems to be part of the problem. There exists considerable uncertainty, which arises from a sense of epistemological arbitrariness and politically charged claims about the validity of knowledge production and practical, useful and accountable solutions to existing problems.

We hope that many authors and readers will be willing to deal with these questions in a scholarly way that is characterized by self-consciousness, autonomy and reflexivity.

Debate "Quality of Qualitative Research": Franz Breuer, Carlos Kölbl, Jo Reichertz, Wolff-Michael Roth

This FQS Debate deals with practices of (text- and research-) production and communication in the social sciences and their specific institutional and social structure and dynamic—including individual and trans-individual career strategies. We aim for a reflexive shift of the social sciences towards their own social structures and processes, for an ethnography of the social sciences with their politics and practices. What (ethno-) practices and politics do scientists (doing qualitative research) enact to be or become successful members in their occupational fields, that is, to obtain a job, sponsors, a reputation, resonance in the media, and so forth.

Our aims include an articulation of the relation between prerequisites and conditions of cultural production in the social sciences on the one hand and their results on the other hand. In the social sciences the epistemological subject and object overlap: social structures and processes examined in the social sciences are themselves conditions for the production of scientific work. We ask: How self-attentive and self-reflexive are social scientists in this regard? To what extent do they accept the claim for "objectivation"—that is naturally applied to the social world "out there"—in "our own" world of the social sciences? Can we treat the social sciences differently from other social settings?

In this FQS Debate the emphasis is on the situation of the social sciences, and on the social scientists, and their career-practices inside of the institutional and social structures of social science "in the making." Very different aspects could be of interest here. We give some examples for the broad spectrum of discussion topics:

• The "actual" practice of interpretation in research groups,
• the establishment of authority and image management of scientific authors,
• politics of applying for positions: temporal changes in relevant qualifications,
• qualification politics: strategies of doctoral advisors and doctoral candidates, etc.,
• funding politics: channels of information, committees, disciplinary communities, insider relationships, etc.,
• politics of publishing: being accepted and rejected by scientific journals,
• consequences of the (often) marginal position of qualitative social research opposed to "mainstream research" in the "quantitative paradigm,"
• social preferences and aversions in citing-practices,
• politics of editors and publishers,
• changes in scientific writing and the readership—for an expert audience vs. (also) for interested lay persons and others,
• changes in scientific work caused by computer, Internet, electronic publishing,
• changes in presentation-practices (Internet, Powerpoint, etc.),
• strategies of choosing "interesting" research topics (i.e. topics of social interest),
• preferences for methodical and theoretical "paradigms" that cannot be explained rationally,
• the meaning of preconceptions, ideology, and perspective-taking of the scientist-as-subject,
• "staging" strategies in institutionalized "evaluation" contexts,
• the scientists' public relations to popularize their research (does the idea of "to be" mean "to-be-in-the-media" also apply to scientists?),
• comparison of the production and communication in the social sciences—corresponding to the international and interdisciplinary character of FQS—in different countries, continents and (science-) cultures.

In informal conversations beyond the "publishable discourse" social scientists easily admit that these topics are important for science, scientific work, knowledge growth and gaining of resources, for careers and social positioning in the scientific community. Getting to know such practices and politics plays an important role in the socialization of young scientists. This debate is about bringing these aspects into consciousness so that they can be openly and seriously discussed.

We suggest a broad range of approaches and text-types (genres) for this FQS Debate: Of course the discussion will consist of qualitative studies about the social sciences in-the-making and theoretical essays. But the chosen form must open ways for describing interesting episodes, phenomena, and experiences with these problems in a way that is responsible and appropriate to the subject matter (narrative, auto-/biographical, poetic, fictional, etc).

Different perspectives of participants are of interest, too: the perspectives of applicants and assessors, evaluators and evaluated, graduates writing theses and their supervisors, students and teachers, social science administrators, etc.—we welcome all of them as authors!

Debate "Ethnography of the Career Politics": Wolff-Michael Roth, Jo Reichertz, Franz Breuer, Carlos Kölbl

This FQS Debate deals with ethics, which is understood, depending on the situation, as resource for action, contested field, practice, politics, and so on used to plan and enact qualitative research in a variety of settings. The Debate was brought about as a reflexive investigation of anything and everything concerning research ethics, pertaining to researchers and participants alike. Potential contributors might ask themselves, "What are the ethical dimensions of doing qualitative research with vulnerable populations?" Here, vulnerable refers to any adjective/concept used to demarcate differences along the lines of which inequity and injustice have been and are enacted in society, including sex/gender, race, culture, sexual preference, socioeconomic status, and so on.

Other topics that may be addressed in this Debate pertain to the way in which ethics reviews are used to mediate, moderate, control etc. qualitative research in its planning, review, and execution phases. For example, one might ask, "How is ethical review employed to curtail practitioner-research?" or "How is ethical review employed to curtail action research that brings out injustices in the workplace?" Sometimes the ethics of intersecting activity systems overlap or collide. Thus, one might also ask questions such as, "How do professional ethics of the workplace (school, company) interact with research ethics governed by regulations of another workplace (college, university, professional governing board)?"

In this FQS Debate, the emphasis is on ethics in all its dimensions, concerning not only the relation between researchers and participants, but also the relation between researchers and their institutions, researchers and the institutions of their participants, institutions and national policies, researchers and national policies, and so on. The focus, however, should not be only the problematic areas, the malpractices so to speak, but also attempts to enact good or best practices, such as in the training of future researchers. How does one include research ethics into the training of future researchers? How does an individual become an ethical researcher? How do practitioner-researchers resolve or integrate conflicting ethical principles?"

Authors who want to contribute to this Debate may use any genre appropriate for expressing the opinions, analyses, descriptions, etc. dealt with in the text. Of course, texts are especially strong and compelling when the genre corresponds to, reflexively elaborates, or highlights the contents—for as the Canadian communications guru Marshall McLUHAN pointed out, the medium is the message. The message of the medium and the content expressed by the medium therefore interact, and authors should feel free to choose (by interacting with the moderator, if they wish) the most appropriate genre for the message that they want to convey.

The perspectives of any stakeholder in research are welcome—including researchers, participants, research ethics board members, policy makers, lawyers, and philosophers. All of these are welcome as authors! What we want is to achieve as much elucidation of research ethics in qualitative research as possible, from as many perspectives as possible, by as many different stakeholders as possible.

Debate "Qualitative Research and Ethics": Wolff-Michael Roth

How do students in the social sciences learn (about) qualitative research methods and methodology—and how can such methods be taught? Under what conditions, in what ways, and by what means? How do students experience classes on this topic, and what do instructors think? What is the role of textbooks in this process, and how and where does a more personalized form of instruction enter the picture? What role does context play? ... It is questions of this kind that we intend to be addressed in the Debate on Teaching and Learning Qualitative Research Methods in the Social Sciences.

Of course there is no such thing as a or the qualitative method. Instead, we are faced with a wide range of rather heterogeneous methods and approaches that have been summarized under the heading of "qualitative." Quite plausibly there is also some heterogeneity concerning the ease with which these methods and approaches can be taught or learnt. Some methods have been standardized to a greater extent, and there exist rules for how and when they are to be applied—while others demand a greater degree of intuition and personal "artistry." And there may be variation in the extent to which the person of the researcher shapes methodical procedure and process. Taking this variation into account may in turn require specific methods of instruction, socialization procedures, and the like.

These considerations may be of special importance when it comes to teaching and learning (about) qualitative compared to quantitative methods. Do qualitative methods require a more personalized kind of instruction, a closer relationship between student and instructor (or should we say "mentor")? Is this an area where qualitative and quantitative methods differ? At least this has frequently been assumed to be the case and has in fact (from an outside perspective) been held against qualitative methods and methodology—in the sense of reproaching qualitative methods with a lack of objectivity, reliability, and of questioning their scientific credibility and reputation.

On the other hand, empirical studies of the processes and steps involved in scientific research (in recent traditions of the sociology and ethnology of science) have shown that the practice of quantitative, natural science types of method and methodology also varies considerably with locale and lab group. Even elementary research methods may be applied in very different ways across labs. Here, too, learning about methods is clearly not achieved by reading a textbook, but (in addition) by watching an instructor and by participating in the practice of lab work. Under special circumstances, even mature researchers have shown to visit labs in other countries to learn about how to make an experiment work.

In other words, is the difference in teaching and learning (about) qualitative and quantitative research methods a difference in prejudice more than in practice? Is the difference between qualitative and quantitative "schools" in the humanities and social sciences a question not of the role and importance of personal characteristics of the researcher, but of the attention that is accorded to these personal elements in the research process and the extent to which they are reflected upon?

Learning (about) qualitative methods should not be a rite performed in secret in the close community between mentor and student! In this debate, we are concerned with laying open, bringing to attention, and discussing such procedures, concepts, and personal experience, relating them back to the various methods and approaches (qualitative "schools"), academic disciplines, institutional and curricular environments and conditions, and the like. What are the conditions under which qualitative methods are taught and studied—both inside universities and outside, in lectures, seminars, or lab projects, in mandatory or in optional classes? What are the disciplines and programs where the demand for instruction in qualitative methods can be met? How is this achieved? And where is this not the case? What do students do if no guided instruction is available in their own institutional context? How do the conditions compare across academic disciplines and internationally? Does the so-called Bologna process (i.e. the attempt to streamline institutional structures by creating comparable BA and MA programs across Europe) have an effect on the conditions under which qualitative methods are taught in the social sciences? In this, we are naming only a few of the pertinent issues ...

The idea for initiating this debate arose in the context of the Second Berlin Summer School for Qualitative Research Methods that took place on July 14 and 15, 2006. There, a symposium on the topic of "Teaching and Learning (about) Qualitative Methods" was held where several experts presented their experience and points of view on this topic and subsequently discussed these with the audience. The discussion showed that the topic is clearly an important one and that both students and instructors from a variety of contexts are experiencing a number of problems and considerable pressure in dealing with them.

Thus, we would herewith like to present and moderate a forum that is open to perspectives, reports, and suggestions from a variety of areas and actors—for all questions related to the area of teaching and learning (about) qualitative research methods.

Contributions to this debate can come in different shapes and sizes, namely the following:

• Short contributions where one's own experience in teaching or learning (about) qualitative methods is presented and discussed, such as didactic concepts, activities, or stories about one's experience as a teacher or student. These shorter contributions need not have the format of a "scientific article"—references, abstract, keywords, etc. according to the usual FQS standards are not required. These shorter contributions are thus more or less informal (but they are, of course, also moderated).
• Regular contributions in the standard format conforming to FQS style; these are evaluated and selected according to the usual peer review procedure, managed by the moderators of the debate;
• Innovative contributions that play and experiment with conventions, genres, and other forms and formats; depending on their form, these submissions may be handled and treated (formally and by the editors) as either "regular" or "short" contributions.

Authors may choose between these formats. The final decision will be made in cooperation with the moderators.

Debate "Teaching and Learning Qualitative Methods": Margrit Schreier, Franz Breuer, Wolff-Michael Roth

In FQS 9(1) we launched a new debate: on social constructionism. In our view, social constructionism is, among other things, a good metatheory for grounding qualitative psychological research. In this sense, a debate on the constructionist perspective—often applied to psychological inquiry—is invaluable for qualitative social research in general.

Social constructionism invites celebrating a new kind of psychology that understands the challenges of the linguistic and the cultural turn turns and tries to inject them into the discipline. In their critical reflection of the discipline's academic mainstream, constructionist psychologists demonstrate that "objective knowledge" is historically and culturally contingent. They articulate what it means to give up culture-centric "universalisms" in an era of globalization and to how to understand psychological phenomena and functions as cultural constructions, not only in the field of academic research and theorizing, but also in various areas of applied psychology. Whereas social constructionism is well known and subject to scholarly debate debates in the English-speaking context, in German (and Swiss, Austrian) psychology the crucial contents and characteristics of a social constructionist psychology are hardly known

Today various orientations in academic and applied psychology describe themselves as "social constuctionist." Whereas many varieties of constructionism draw on postmodernist and post-structuralist theories, several constructionist writers focus mainly on a rather pragmatic view of language and construction (e.g. Kenneth GERGEN) or on a general theory of dialogical understanding (e.g. John SHOTTER). Discursive psychology often is defined via the specific method of psychological discourse analysis and there are constructionist oriented branches of cultural psychology, as for example the programmatic theory of the dialogical self (Hubert HERMANS & Harry KEMPEN). Writings in the field of critical (social) psychology have substantially coined constructionist theory and given it fresh impetus and new aspects (see, e.g., texts by Ian PARKER, Valerie WALKERDINE, Carla WILLIG, or John CROMBY) … more

Debate "Social Constructionism": Jo Reichertz, Barbara ZIELKE

FQS Interviews should provide insight into the richness and variety of qualitative research, and in the ideas, concepts, and (professional) biographies of those who have and those who continue to help to develop and promote this research tradition.

The following is a list of questions that can serve as an orientation to topics for interviews:

1. What influences, motivations, perspectives were especially important for you becoming and being a qualitative researcher? (Talking about the context of their own work and, if possible, also more personally about the becoming / being a qualitative researcher)
2. What is/was your contribution? (What do you expect for the future?) If applicable: What were the circumstances that caused you to change the course/style of your research? What made it necessary to do so?
3. What are the most important developments in qualitative research in general within your specific discipline (and beyond it)? (Discuss in more detail the nature of interdisciplinary work within your specific discipline and from international perspective)


4. What central challenges had to be managed, what "fights" (in general and in the specific discipline/country) were necessary (past and present), and what will be the coming challenges and "fights"?

Above all, interviews should not only contain specialized information only for specialists but should introduce the context, (current) questions, and discussions in the broad field of qualitative research. Doing these it is the task to define the challenges for qualitative research (and researchers) again and again, and to give the opportunity to learn about/from the history and tradition of qualitative research.

Interviews are especially helpful, because in an interview it is easier to talk about or debate ideas than in a typical academic article and, in addition, in interviews it is easier to create links between researchers and the products (and conditions of production) of their research.

Interviews can be conducted as face-to-face-conversations. They also can be conducted by e-mail (as an asynchronous communication) or as a synchronous talk in a chat room. The interviews could be of a more traditional format (question and answer-format), or as an open discussion without a clear role definition of interviewee and interviewer.

The interviews can be published in the "original" format (as the discussion actually evolved during e-mail-communication or in the chat room) or as an edited (re-arranged) version (we prefer the latter); editing or re-arrangement could mean that the dialogue will be "cleaned up," or that the interview is the base for a new written and/or new composed text.

In addition to the interview it would be helpful if the interviewers provide some additional information that helps readers gain some insight into the interviewee and the interview situation, and also about the published document. Therefore it would be useful to get information about the interviewed person (e.g., life stations, central publication, awards; information that provides some insight in the interviewee's contribution to qualitative research). It will also be necessary to provide information about the interview situation (place and time of the interview; initial contact between interviewer and interviewee, and method of interview used). Finally, some information about the published text and documentation used should be presented.

Additionally, it is possible—and this is what makes online publishing very interesting—to publish photos of the interviewee (and interviewer) and the audio-/video tapes of the interview which could be part of the document or published as separate data.

All FQS readers may suggest individuals or topics for interviews. However, you must contact the editors prior to submitting an interview. Interviews submitted without prior inquiry may not be published.

Please note that we do not limit the number of interviewees or interviewers give because the length and kind of documentation depend on the content of the interview, but please inform the editors in cases of very long texts. The submitted interviews will be evaluated according to the criteria listed in the paragraph "Requirements for Interviews." If they do not fit these criteria, suggestions to revise may be given by the FQS editors.

The guidelines for FQS Interviews should follow the Guidelines for Layout valid for any manuscript submitted to FQS.

• Interviews Already Published
• Gallery

The requirement for reviewers is to encourage sub-, intra- and interdisciplinary dialogs. The task is to offer insights into the respective research field to FQS readers, independent of their discipline(s). Above all, reviews should introduce the respective context of a field of activity in an understandable way and should outline the respective research topics in order to clarify the specific contribution of the media unit(s) therein. Summaries of contents, therefore, should to be avoided. Instead, contents should be discussed while considering the background of the respective research field and should be evaluated critically. Please see also the following Editorial Notes:

• Reevaluating Book Reviews—As Scientific Contributions
• 2 Years FQS Review: 18 Publishers, 74 Reviews, 3383 Mails
• Standards, Expectations, and Potentials of On-line Reviews. Using the Special Issue: FQS Reviews II to Provide Some Considerations and an Invitation to Share in Further Discussions

In order to be selected as worthy of reviewing, a media unit must belong to the wide area of qualitative social research. In particular, it must deal with the theoretical and methodological bases of qualitative research empirical studies with a recognizable link to qualitative methodology. This is particularly important, when dealing with one of the following topics: "Sign – Body – Identity," Work – School – Organizations – Institutions," "(Public) Health – Psychotherapy" or "Online Research – (New) Media."

Reviews can be constructed as

1. Reviews
2. Review essays
3. Collective reviews of several units
4. Review symposia

a) Reviews

Media units should be presented as a substantial outline of the research field, framed by a short introduction which makes a connection between the media unit and the research field under consideration and should be followed by an evaluation.

b) Review essay

Review essays should go far beyond a summary of the contents. The research field should be briefly introduced with reference to other publications in order to clarify whether the reviewed media unit contributes to this field or not. The claims raised by the media unit should be evaluated as well.

c) Collective reviews

Collective reviews are produced by a reviewer (or a review team) reviewing more than one media unit dealing with a specific topic. The aim of the review is to unveil how these media units contribute to the research area under consideration in a comparative discussion. Collective reviews are not just a loose collection of single reviews. Instead, they should help to clarify the respective research field by bringing the contrasting contributions of the specific media units together.

d) Review symposium

Review symposia are reviews of one (or more) media unit(s) by several authors or author teams. Review symposiums can be held in different ways:

• The traditional way of informing the readership about possible diverging perspectives is to ask for several reviews of one media unit. Several brief reviews are introduced and subsequently commented upon by an (additional) author.
• In addition, we welcome special efforts to organize interactive on-line review symposia of media unit(s), for example, chat-conferences, where the author(s) or the editor(s) of the media unit are also included.
• Finally, it is also possible to publish a report about an off-line discussion of a media unit.

Note: We do not prescribe a formal range of minimum/maximum words, as the length of the review should depend on the respective media unit and the individual reviewer's perspective.

Suggestions for reviews can be submitted to the Book Review-Editor by interested authors. It is not advisable to send a review without previous consultation as we like to first explore whether the media unit is likely to be interesting to the FQS readership. For reviews without prior inquiry, there is no guarantee for publication.

Media units, which are offered to the editorship for reviewing, will be placed on the list of available media units; interested reviewers may also request the media unit from the Book Review-Editor.

The FQS Book Review-Editor should immediately be informed once the media unit(s) is (are) received.

Reviews should be submitted within six months after receiving the consent of the Book Review-Editor and/or receipt of the media unit. Earlier submissions are appreciated; if you are not able to finish the review on time, please inform the Book Review-Editor. Although this deadline might seem rather short, it is necessary in order to prevent considerable delays between the publication of the media unit(s) and the publication of the reviews as well as to offer our readership up-to-date information.

The submitted reviews will be evaluated according to the criteria listed in the paragraph "Requirements for Reviews", and if they do not fit this criteria, suggestions to revise may be given by the FQS editorship.

The guidelines for FQS Reviews follow the Guidelines for Layout valid for any manuscripts submitted to FQS (while review essays should provide a characterizing header, this is not necessary for reviews). In addition to these guidelines, reviews and review essays should contain bibliographic information about the author, title, place of publication and publisher, ISBN (and for book series, if necessary, the ISSN), and prices (the place of publication as well as for the currencies sFr, US$, EUR, GB Pound).

• List of Available Media Units
• Reviews in Preparation
• Published Reviews

The interdisciplinary and international dialogs FQS pursues are also expected of reports and reporters. Reporters have the charge to offer through their reports insights into a particular research field, as reflected in conference proceedings, for the varied readership of FQS. Above all, reports should not only contain specialized information for sub-groups but should introduce the context in which a conference was held, and explicate the questions and lines of development of a field of activity in an understandable way, thereby outlining the specific contribution of the event. Therefore it is necessary to critically classify and evaluate the respective conference topics and contributions. Three "functions" shall be provided by reports:

1. Content depiction: Readers should be presented with a first outline of the conference's contents and the topics raised. It should also illustrate the (explicit/implicit) claims made by conference participants.
2. Evaluation: The report should also include a critical appreciation (of single contributions) of the event, thus giving readers an assessment of how successful a conference was in reaching its stated goals. At the same time—in order to unfold this critical appreciation—it is necessary to place the reported conference in a broader context. To do this effectively, the methodologies (e.g. ethnography, text analysis) employed by the presenters need to be adequately described and how they relate to issues within the field explained.
3. Contextualization: The report should adequately introduce the research field represented by the conference and should offer some explication of the issues and arguments within that field. Therefore, as a starting point, reporters are required to introduce a topic area/research field and to reveal the pressing issues and concerns within that field and to offer critical comments on the ways these issues and concerns are being dealt with. This should be represented by the achievements and desiderata contained in the conference's contributions and the reporter's comments.

Beyond considering the subject background of the conference, describing central topics and evaluating them, it is requested that reports provide references on conference information (abstracts, proceedings or the URL of the event) as well as information about a published volume of conference papers, future conferences on related topics, workshops, or other activities related to the reported conference, all contributing to an extensive impression of the event. Also, if possible, we urge reporters to make use of other forms of presentation such as conference photographs, audio- or video-files of sessions, and making them accessible as external files.

To be selected, a conference report must address the wide area of qualitative social research, and in particular it must deal with the theoretical and methodological bases of qualitative research. Moreover conference reports on different topic areas of social and cultural sciences research as well as on "Online Research—(New) Media" are desired. You will find further information in the Editorial Note FQS Conferences.

Report forms

Reports on conferences, symposia, workshops and working-group-meetings, depending on the respective event, may take on the form of

1. Conference Note
2. Conference Essay
3. Discussing several events collectively
4. Conference Symposia

a) Conference Note

Conference Notes should present a meaningful outline of the research field as represented by the conference, framed by a short introduction that makes a connection between the conference and the research field under consideration and should be followed by an evaluation.

b) Conference Essay

Conference Essays should offer a deep consideration of the conference's contents. The research field should be briefly introduced and a description of how the conference did or did not contribute to the field offered. Conference Essays will be understood to be independent contributions similar to articles and will summarize the "state of the art," making the summary available for discussion.

c) Collective Reports

Collective Reports contain reports made by a reporter or a report team of two (or several) conferences considering the same or similar topic. The aim of the report is to make known how these events contribute to the research area under consideration in a comparative discussion. Collective reports are not a loose collection of single reports. Rather, collective reports should help to clarify the respective research field by synthesizing significant main lines and fields of discussion.

d) Conference Symposia

Conference Symposia are reports of one or more event(s) by several reporters or report teams, who write individual brief reports. One author should write an introduction and a concluding comment. In addition, an on-line conference symposium could take place; for example, a chat-conference with the organizer(s) of a conference.

Note: We do not prescribe a range of minimum/maximum words allowed for a contribution, as the length of the report should depend on the respective event and the individual reporter's perspective.

Announcement of Conference Reports

Suggestions for reports can be submitted to the Conference Report-Editor(s) by interested authors. It is not advisable to send a report without previous consultation as we would like first to decide whether the proposed report overlaps with other reports and whether the event is likely to be interesting and relevant for the FQS readership. For reports submitted without prior inquiry there is no guarantee of publication. Conferences, symposia, and work shops that are regarded as interesting and relevant for a report by the editorial board will be placed on the list of conference announcements.

Time Schedule for Reviewing

Reports should be submitted within six months after the event took place. Earlier submissions are appreciated; if you are not able to finish the report on time, please inform the Conference Report-Editor(s). Although this deadline might seem rather short, it is necessary in order to provide current information to readers.

The submitted reports will be evaluated according to the criteria listed in the paragraph "Requirements for Reports." If submissions do not fulfil these criteria suggestions for revisions may be given by the FQS editorship.

Guidelines for Layout

The guidelines for FQS Conferences follow the Guidelines for Layout valid for any manuscripts submitted to FQS (while report essays should provide a descriptive header, this is not necessary for report notes). In addition to these guidelines, report notes and report essays should contain extensive information on organizers, organizing institutions, conference title, and place of event.

• Published Conference Reports
• Conference Announcements

• Autonomous Metropolitan University, Iztapalapa, Mexico
• CAQDAS Networking Project, UK
• Center for Qualitative Psychology, University of Tübingen, Germany
• Centre for Technology and Society, Technical University of Berlin, Germany
• European PhD on Social Representations and Communication
• Graduate School of Social Sciences, Archive for Life Course Research, University of Bremen, Germany
• Maison des sciences de l'homme, France
• Qualitative Data Archival Resource Center (Qualidata), UK
• Social Science Information Centre, Germany
• Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia Departamento de Didáctica, Organización Escolar y Didácticas Especiales, España
• Virtual Library of Psychology, Saarland University and State Library, Germany

• European Sociological Association, Qualitative Methods Research Network
• Flemish Federation for Sport Psychology
• German Educational Assocation, Commission "Erziehungswissenschaftliche Biographieforschung"
• German Sociological Assocation, Section "Biographieforschung"
• German Sociological Assocation, Section "Medien- und Kommunikationssoziologie"
• German Sociological Assocation, Section "Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung"
• German Sociological Assocation, Section "Wissenssoziologie"
• Medical Society for Psychotherapy
• New German Psychological Society
• Society for Applied Sociology
• Swiss Sociological Assocation

• Athenea Digital
• Biograf. Czech and Slovak journal for qualitative research
• BIOS. Zeitschrift für Biographieforschung, Oral History und Lebensverlaufsanalysen
• Culture & Psychology
• Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung (HSR)
• International Journal of Qualitative Methods
• Journal für Psychologie
• Journal of Integrated Social Sciences
• Psychologie & Gesellschaftskritik
• Psychotherapie und Sozialwissenschaft. Zeitschrift für Qualitative Forschung
• Sozialwissenschaften und Berufspraxis

See also the publishers FQS is cooperating with while providing FQS Reviews.