DESCRIPTION

Documenting and disseminating failure means openly sharing aspects of a research project, or entire studies, that were unsuccessful, in order to present research experiences honestly and in a spirit of generosity to ongoing work. 'Failure' here can be understood in a broad sense, relating to any stage of the research process, including, as Clarke and Sousa note, 'ontology [...], design [...], methodological frameworks, [...] data collection [...] and analysis [...] and community engagement' (2020, 1). Following Sousa and Clarke, 'research failures are defined here as situations or events of consequence in which your choices, presence, or influence contributed conceivably to an adverse or undesirable research process or outcomes' (2019, 1). Verbuyst and Galzka's (2023) discussion of failure in ethnography, for example, includes failure of access to the field, failure to engage participants, failure of relevant theorization, and ethical challenges.

Documenting and disseminating failure is not commonplace in the reporting of research. As Nairn et al. note, '[t]he complexity and messiness of the research process is often concealed within articles that present a coherent narrative' (2005, 236), a phenomenon that may be linked both to journals' preferences for narratives of research success (Jemielniak & Kostera, 2010, 336) and the broader 'neoliberal trajectory of higher education' (Davies et al., 2021, n.p.), within which narratives of individual success are privileged and failure rendered taboo. Whether linked to publication bias or these broader pressures, the exclusion of failure from the published research record leads to research waste, limits opportunities for mutual learning, and creates a misleading representation of the research landscape.

In experimental and hypothesis-testing research, one phenomenon that is read as research failure is the null outcome: the failure of the research to prove a hypothesis to a significant degree, leading to researchers discarding the work due to a publication bias towards positive findings. Several well-documented open practices exist to ensure the research record reflects the experimental and hypothesis-testing research that has taken place regardless of success or failure: pre-registration requires registration of hypotheses and methods prior to data collection; registered reports guarantee publication of studies on the basis of a pre-registration rather than subsequent outcomes; initiatives such as RARE (Reporting All Results Efficiently) advocate for the publication of all results in study registries (Laitin et al., 2021) and venues such as the Journal of Trial and Error provide an outlet for 'null and mixed statistical results' (Devine et al., 2020, 4). In qualitative and mixed methods research, the routes for open documentation and dissemination of failure (here in such forms as a flaw in research design) have been less clearly defined, though they do exist. Recent years have seen special issues focusing on failure in a number of social research journals, including the International Journal of Qualitative Methods (see Clark and Sousa, 2020) and Emotion, Space and Society (see Davies et al., 2021), while the Journal of Organizational Ethnography introduced a recurring special journal section on 'Navigating failure in ethnography' in 2023 (see Verbuyst & Galazka, 2023). Alongside these dedicated spaces, there exists a nascent tradition of documenting failure in mainstream venues. As Eckert, writing in 2020, notes, 'In recent years, [...] a small yet growing body of literature in qualitative research not only creates visibility of failure as a normal part of research, but also establishes a "counternarrative" [...] of failure by showing the insights that can be gained from working with these data' (2020, 1). This body of literature includes the emerging genre of articles reflecting on 'failed' research interviews (e.g. Jacobsson & Åkerström, 2013; Nairn et al., 2005; Prior, 2014; Roulston, 2014).

How and where can researchers document failure in qualitative and mixed methods research? Firstly, reflections on failure can be included as a component of any research account. In their 'Manifesto for better research failure', Clark and Sousa (2020) suggest that project reports of all kinds should include a section on what failed and why; Eckert (2020, 4), for example, reports including a chapter devoted to such reflection in their published dissertation. As discussed, accounts of research failure may also be documented in stand-alone articles; while an obvious venue for these is a dedicated special issue, they can and should also be submitted to venues such as methods journals, as in the example of Gregory (2019), which is published as a 'qualitative study protocol' in the International Journal of Qualitative Methods. Within a research publication, failure can be documented in ways that are appropriate to the study type: for example, Green (2025) shares extracts from field notes, Hendriks (2024) uses ethnographic vignettes to document and reflect on instances of research failure, and Nairn et al. (2005) includes excerpts from the 'failed' interview at the centre of the account. Such in-text documentation can be further bolstered by sharing more extensive open materials, which might include interview schedules, blank consent forms or open data for research interactions or research designs that 'failed'.

Documenting and disseminating research failure not only facilitates a more complete and representative research record, but can also 'offer invaluable insights to future research and researchers alike' (Gregory, 2019, abstract), 'provide a useful tool for investigating the theory and practice of qualitative research' (Nairn et al., 2005, 222) and 'force us to look at the field with fresh eyes, formulate new research questions, adapt our methods and explore new field sites' (Verbuyst & Galazka, 2023, 67). In addition to these benefits for methodological development and rigour, Sjøvoll et al. note the potential for such transparency to create new ethical and reflective spaces in research that 'open up for generating different practices, practices that are highly needed in our current climate of conformity, constant evaluation and streamlined efficiency' (2020, 6).

References

Clark, A.M. and Sousa, B.J. (2020). 'A Manifesto for Better Research Failure', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920973858

Davies, T., et al. (2021). 'Reclaiming Failure in Geography: Academic Honesty in a Neoliberal World'. Emotion, Space and Society, 30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2021.100769

Devine, S., et al. (2020). 'Science Fails. Let's Publish'. Journal of Trial & Error, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.36850/ed1

Eckert, J. (2020). '"Shoot! Can We Restart the Interview?": Lessons From Practicing "Uncomfortable Reflexivity"', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920963810

Green, J.F. (2025). 'The Ebb and Flow of Feeling and Display in Research: Intermittent "Failure of Face" while Conducting a Workplace Ethnography', Journal of Organizational Ethnography. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-11-2024-0088

Gregory, K. (2019). 'Lessons of a Failed Study: Lone Research, Media Analysis, and the Limitations of Bracketing', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919842450

Hendriks, T.D. (2024). 'Data, Disasters and Disquietude in Ethnography: Learning by Trial and Error how to Behave like a Civil Servant in Malawi', Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 13(3), 482–493. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-09-2023-0051

Jacobsson, K. and Åkerström, M. (2013). 'Interviewees with an Agenda: Learning from a "Failed" Interview', Qualitative Research: QR, 13(6), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112465631

Jemielniak, D. and Kostera, M. (2010). 'Narratives of Irony and Failure in Ethnographic Work', Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27(4), 335–347. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.177

Laitin, D.D. et al. (2021). 'Reporting All Results Efficiently: A RARE Proposal to Open Up the File Drawer', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences - PNAS, 118(52). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2106178118

Nairn, K., et al. (2005). 'A Counter-narrative of a "Failed" Interview', Qualitative Research: QR, 5(2), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105050836

Prior, M.T. (2014). 'Re-Examining Alignment in a "Failed" L2 Autobiographic Research Interview', Qualitative Inquiry, 20(4), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800413513730

Roulston, K. (2014). 'Interactional Problems in Research Interviews', Qualitative Research: QR, 14(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112473497

Sjøvoll, V., et al. (2020). 'Abandoned Ideas and the Energies of Failure'. Emotion, Space and Society, 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2020.100709

Sousa, B.J. and Clark, A.M. (2019). 'The Ubiquity and Invisibility of Research Failures: A Call to Share More', International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919846977

Verbuyst, R. and Galazka, A.M. (2023). 'Introducing "Navigating Failure in Ethnography": A Forum about Failure in Ethnographic Research', Journal of Organizational Ethnography, 12(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOE-10-2022-0027