Contributors: Xuejun Yin  Reviewed by: Zhoumin Wu, Wei Gao, Dalei Zhang

 Qualitative method plays an important role in implementation science by helping researchers understand complex contexts, explain implementation processes, identify barriers and facilitators, and inform intervention optimization and implementation strategy refinement. As the field of implementation science continues to develop, qualitative research is increasingly used not only to explore experiences, meanings, and contexts, but also to support intervention delivery, programme scale-up, policy translation, and practice-oriented decision-making. However, qualitative methods may differ substantially in their design logic, analytical approaches, and standards of rigor depending on their epistemological orientation, research purpose, stage of implementation, and intended use. Clarifying how qualitative research is positioned within implementation science has therefore become an important methodological issue for the field.

Recently, Professor Xuejun Yin from the School of Public Health published a methodological article entitled “Rethinking qualitative inquiry in implementation science: clarifying purpose, design, and rigor” in Implementation Science, a leading international journal in the field of implementation science. The article discusses the positioning, design logic, and evaluation standards of qualitative research in implementation science.

 The article notes that qualitative research in implementation science is often expected to serve different purposes. Some studies aim to develop in-depth contextual understanding and conceptual insight, while others are designed to provide timely evidence for intervention scale-up, implementation strategy adaptation, or near-term practice decisions. When these differences are not made explicit, qualitative studies may be designed or evaluated according to standards that do not align well with their intended purpose. This can lead to mismatches in expectations, particularly regarding the use of theoretical frameworks, openness to unexpected findings, and the meaning of methodological rigor.

To address this issue, the article proposes a positioning framework for qualitative inquiry in implementation science. The framework locates qualitative research along a continuum from Generative to Pragmatic to Action-oriented orientations. It emphasizes that the positioning of qualitative research is shaped by several interrelated factors, including the primary purpose of the study, time and resource constraints, the existing state of knowledge about the phenomenon or context, and stakeholder expectations.

The article further argues that qualitative research in implementation science should not be treated as a single, homogeneous methodological category. Nor should its rigor be assessed according to one fixed set of standards. Instead, qualitative research should be evaluated in relation to the type of knowledge it seeks to produce, the practical purposes it serves, and the contribution it aims to make. Making methodological positioning explicit can help reduce mismatches in study design, peer review, and journal assessment, while also supporting the more transparent, rigorous, and purposeful use of qualitative research in implementation science.

Professor Xuejun Yin is the first author and corresponding author of the article, and Nanchang University is the sole corresponding affiliation.

Link：https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13012-026-01519-x