How publishing works in this field
Theory does the work that a hypothesis does elsewhere. A paper is assessed on whether it advances a conversation, so the literature review establishes the gap and the discussion has to return to it explicitly. Empirical findings without a theoretical contribution are the commonest reason otherwise competent papers are rejected here.
Coverage sits mainly in the Social Sciences Citation Index and in Scopus, and the two disagree about which journals count. Books and edited collections still matter in several subfields, particularly anthropology, so an article-only strategy under-represents how the field actually publishes.
What slows papers down here
Mixed-methods papers struggle for length. Doing both strands properly rarely fits a single word limit, and reviewers object when one strand is thin. Splitting into two papers, or designating one strand as clearly subordinate, usually works better than compressing both.
Anonymisation in qualitative work is harder than removing names, particularly in small communities or single organisations, where role and timeline details identify people. Journals expect an account of how that was managed.
Worth reading next
Questions we are asked in this field
Enough that the finding changes something in an existing conversation. State which literature you are speaking to, what it currently holds, and what your evidence revises. A finding presented without that framing reads as a report rather than research.
Often yes. Word limits rarely allow both strands to be reported properly, and a thin strand attracts rejection. If you keep them together, make clear which is primary and report the other at a depth the limit actually permits.
In several subfields, yes — anthropology and parts of sociology still treat the monograph as a major output. It depends on your subfield and your assessment framework, so check both before planning an article-only strategy.