The article “Between global citizenship and Qatarization: negotiating Qatar’s new knowledge economy within American branch campuses” by Vora uses qualitative techniques to explore how global citizenship, as espoused in the ideals of Western academia, interacts with the ‘Qatarization’ policy in American branch campuses. The article used techniques such as unstructured interviews, participant observations of foreign students in Qatar-based American institutions, and informal conversations with Qatar students, foreign resident students, and administrators to collect data. The techniques are less convincing because data collection involved neither reliable/validated instruments nor a defined sample. A questionnaire instrument with semi-structured questions could have allowed the researcher to probe the participants’ responses to gain deeper insights into the phenomenon. The study uses multiple methods to collect data, permitting the researcher to crosscheck the validity and accuracy of the respondents’ statements.
In the article, the research purpose and question, which narrows the focus of the qualitative study, are not identifiable. The author only states that the study explores students’ perceptions of the ideals of the Qatarization policy versus those promoted by American academia in Qatar. Thus, the study is exploratory. However, it lacks a clear research problem. As an ethnographic study, the research uses an idiographic approach to explore the participants’ views and perceptions, generating ideas and hypotheses for future research.
The article reviews several studies examining the disconnection between Qatar’s policy, which is structurally biased against foreign students, and the American academic system, which fosters the ideals of meritocracy and diversity. There is no clear literature review to provide a rationale for the current study.
The article does not define the sampling strategy used. The participants interviewed included native Qatar students, foreign students, faculty members, and administrators of the Education City (research site). The participants volunteered to give their views to the researcher between 2010 and 2012 (defined study period). They comprised of people familiar with the researcher. Thus, researcher bias is evident in the sampling process. Additionally, the lack of a sampling strategy may have limited the representativeness (internal validity) of the sample. Moreover, the fact that the study relied on participants drawn from a single research site limits its generalizability.
The article provides a clear descriptive analysis and interpretation of the qualitative data. It offers in-depth information about the topic and uses direct quotes from the interviewees to accentuate the main themes of the study. In this view, the author identifies and discusses three themes based on the qualitative data, namely, ‘working together’, diversity and hierarchy, and meritocracy in Qatar’s Education City versus American institutions. This approach is consistent with the qualitative data analysis standards. The article also cites ideas from other related studies to support these themes. The study involves inductive reasoning to synthesize the participants’ views into broader themes.
The article does not clarify the aims and objectives of the study. Its conclusions are drawn from the conversations and views of the participants regarding Qatarization and global orientation ideals. It gives some general conclusions based on the observations and patterns noted in the qualitative data.
Overall, the study’s strengths lie in the use of multiple data collection methods and an in-depth discussion of the concepts. However, the sampling strategy is flawed, affecting the study’s internal and external validity. Additionally, the research problem aims, and objectives, which are hallmarks of a good qualitative study, are lacking. In my view, the study’s cons far outweigh its pros largely because of the flawed sampling procedure.