Qualitative generalization, not to the population but to the phenomenon: Reconceptualizing variation in qualitative research.

Abstract

A question that qualitative researchers are asked frequently is how they justify generalizing their finding to populations. In this article, I argue that this question results from a misunderstanding of generalization that conflates of the logic and mechanics of statistical generalization with that inherent in the process typically used in qualitative methods, which does not rely on probability sampling procedures. To clarify the differences in these processes, I propose the concept of qualitative generalization. It is built upon the work of scholars who have identified the logic of qualitative research as rooted in a cycle of inferential processes that identify forms of stability and variation in their data. Instead of using probability sampling to capture variability in samples which reflects that in a population, qualitative researchers use this cycle to develop a map of variation in their data, which reflects the practice and experience of the phenomena under study-a logic describing generalization to the phenomenon, not the population. The initial application of this self-correcting cycle of inferences underpins the later stage of transferability of findings by readers. The framework of methodological integrity is considered to explain how research goals, epistemological perspectives, and study characteristics (e.g., diversity) influence the identification of variation and, ultimately, qualitative generalization. This framework orients researchers to identify variation that can increase fidelity and utility, supporting qualitative generalization. The formulation of qualitative generalization proposed is seen as congruent with existing practices across a variety of qualitative traditions and with reasoning intrinsic to qualitative methods.

How Personality Impacts Remote Workers in Mainland China: A Qualitative Study

“…The codes and themes of each interview were compared to determine when participants no longer presented new information during the interview process. This methodology is supported by Levitt (2021), which states that qualitative researchers must consider the conditions and processes linked with the experience and the presentation of the phenomenon. Codes and themes allowed the researcher to clarify each research participant's lived experience and their unique experience with the phenomenon of remote work in China.…”

“…Qualitative research is frequently rejected because the number of participants is considered too small even though adequate data exists. Quantitative analysis logic is inappropriately applied to qualitative analysis (Levitt, 2021). Qualitative methods and research often involve investigating only a few instances of a phenomenon in many different environments (Roald et al, 2021).…”

Communicating with patients and families about illness progression and end of life: a review of studies using direct observation of clinical practice

“…The same aggregative approach employed in the 2014 review [ 16 ] was also used for the current review. This review process involved procedures used in primary conversation and discourse analysis research: detailed case-by-case analysis, proceeding to analytic generalisations across cases, while ensuring any such generalisations remain congruent with the details of individual cases [ 38 , 39 ]. Because generalisations in these types of research relate to phenomena not populations [ 39 ], this review focuses on the function of communication practices.…”

“…This review process involved procedures used in primary conversation and discourse analysis research: detailed case-by-case analysis, proceeding to analytic generalisations across cases, while ensuring any such generalisations remain congruent with the details of individual cases [ 38 , 39 ]. Because generalisations in these types of research relate to phenomena not populations [ 39 ], this review focuses on the function of communication practices. Nevertheless, to enable exploration of the transferability of findings [ 39 ], including across different populations and clinical contexts, only findings made in more than two included studies were included in the synthesis.…”

“…Because generalisations in these types of research relate to phenomena not populations [ 39 ], this review focuses on the function of communication practices. Nevertheless, to enable exploration of the transferability of findings [ 39 ], including across different populations and clinical contexts, only findings made in more than two included studies were included in the synthesis. The focus of synthesis was restricted to analytic claims made by the original study authors, rather than those that might be additionally identified by the review team through the pooling of data from across the included studies.…”