Generalizability in Qualitative Research: A Tale of Two Traditions

Abstract

Generalizability in qualitative research has been a controversial topic given that interpretivist scholars have resisted the dominant role and mandate of the positivist tradition within social sciences. Aiming to find universal laws, the positivist paradigm has made generalizability a crucial criterion for evaluating the rigor of quantitative research. This positivist echo has led generalizability to acquire a quantitative meaning, inappropriate for describing qualitative studies. The purpose of qualitative research has, thus, been directed toward providing in-depth explanations and meanings rather than generalizing findings. Through a critical review of empirical and theoretical studies, this commentary seeks to show that in qualitative domains, generalizability is possible provided that, first, generalizability is the main objective of the study; second, due precautions concerning the philosophy and terminology selected are taken. Hence, this commentary contributes to the literature on qualitative research by making suggestions for more consistent and unanimous procedures to adopt in qualitative inquiries.

The Development and Evaluation of a Participant Led Physical Activity Intervention for People with Disabilities Who Intend to Become More Active

“…As the qualitative results support the quantitative results we feel confident that our conclusions are strong suggestions for future research focusing on effective interventions that reduce sedentary time and promote physical activity for intenders with disabilities. To add confidence to the suggestions, this research could be repeated with a larger sample size which would also allow a control group and examine the generalizability of qualitative results in terms of naturalistic generalizability, analytic generalizability, and/or transferability (Carminati, 2018;Smith, 2018).…”

Responsive evaluation of stakeholder dialogue as a worksite health promotion intervention to contribute to the reduction of SEP related health inequalities: a study protocol

“…Responsive Evaluation results in context-specific outcomes. In the field of social sciences and health promotion, there have been discussions about the external validity of such context-specific outcomes [34,36,37]. In her commentary, Carminati (2018) [37] proposes transferability as an alternative term for generalizability for research that comprises only or mainly context bound data instead of quantitative data.…”

“…In the field of social sciences and health promotion, there have been discussions about the external validity of such context-specific outcomes [34,36,37]. In her commentary, Carminati (2018) [37] proposes transferability as an alternative term for generalizability for research that comprises only or mainly context bound data instead of quantitative data. Transferability means that outcomes of a study can be 'transferred' to other contexts by the readers through extrapolation and application of the 'thick description' of the findings [24,37].…”

A state‐of‐the‐art review of the experience of care coordination interventions for people living with multimorbidity

“…Similarly, some articles in our review called for more research to ensure generalisability of the findings (Mao et al, 2017; Scholz Mellum et al, 2018; Yeager et al, 2018). We have two concerns about this approach: Qualitative studies are inherently context‐driven (Carminati, 2018; Crabtree & Miller, 1999), and arguably any results open to researcher interpretation are unable to be generalised. An alternative perspective is that of trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), comprising methods and strategies to judge the quality of a qualitative study.…”

“…Only two of the 18 articles included in our review addressed trustworthiness (Hjelm et al, 2015; Sefcik et al, 2018). There are various strategies to ensure the trustworthiness of qualitative studies (Carminati, 2018; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, 1986; Noble & Smith, 2015); a discussion of these is beyond the scope of this review. The use of reporting guidelines as mentioned above can assist with reporting the trustworthiness of qualitative studies (Korstjens & Moser, 2018).…”