Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

In research, generalization is the application of a finding from one study or in one situation to other studies and situations. As described below, it may take different forms depending on the nature of the finding and the situation. Generalizability is the ability of a finding to be generalized to other studies and situations. It is through generalization and generalizability that a study can contribute to theory. Generalization takes different forms depending on the nature of the research process and what is researched. In action research and related processes such as case study research, generalization and generalizability can be contentious. There, some have argued that the uniqueness of a single research situation inhibits generalization. Some have proposed, on philosophical grounds, that the concept of generalization belongs in traditional research, not elsewhere. Others respond by pointing out that such views depend on too narrow a definition of generalization. Yet others like Yvonna Lincoln sidestep the controversy by using other terms, such as transferability, instead of generalizability. Or, like Robert Stake, they suggest that generalizability in qualitative research (including action research) is more the responsibility of the user of research than of the researcher. These topics are further explored below.

Generalizability and Action Research

In most of its forms, action research can be regarded as alternating between stages of action and reflection. An action is carried out. The researchers then reflect on the action and its outcomes and plan their next actions in the light of their reflection. Through reflection, the researchers increase their understanding both of the situation and of the actions that are likely to improve the situation. To the extent that they and others can use the new understanding elsewhere, generalization is possible, and a contribution to knowledge can be achieved. This is very different from the quantitative research processes for which generalization was first posited as an important characteristic. For traditional research, generalization is powerful when it applies. An expectation has developed in some quarters that all good research should display the same qualities. However, this overlooks two important considerations. One is that in traditional research, the results generalize only to situations in which all and only the same variables are operating. That is rare in field research. The other is that non-experimental forms of research may pursue different outcomes or research situations that are less tractable or observe a different design logic. Generalization may then take different forms or be achieved in different ways.

Unlike traditional quantitative research, much action research uses an emergent process—one that is modified and refined gradually as understanding of the research situation deepens. This has two further implications. The first is that a situation doesn't have to be understood fully at the beginning—and it seldom is. As understanding of the research situation develops, so do the theoretical and practical implications deepen. Second, action researchers may therefore learn as much about the research process and how to modify it as they do about the situation that is being researched and improved. Peter Checkland, writing about the form of action research known as Soft Systems Methodology, has been explicit about this. He strongly urges that the conceptual framework of the research and the intended methodology are specified ahead of time. They are then modified through engagement with the research process.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading