Quality & Quantity

, Volume 44, Issue 5, pp 881–892 | Cite as

Generalization practices in qualitative research: a mixed methods case study



The purpose of this mixed methods case study was to examine the generalization practices in qualitative research published in a reputable qualitative journal. In order to accomplish this, all qualitative research articles published in Qualitative Report since its inception in 1990 (n =  273) were examined. A quantitative analysis of the all 125 empirical qualitative research articles revealed that a significant proportion (i.e., 29.6%) of studies involved generalizations beyond the underlying sample that were made inappropriately by the author(s). A qualitative analysis identified the types of over-generalizations that occurred, which included making general recommendations for future practice and providing general policy implications based only on a few cases. Thus, a significant proportion of articles published in Qualitative Report lack what we call interpretive consistency.


Qualitative research Generalization Statistical generalization Analytic generalization Sampling Sample size Interpretive consistency Mixed methods Sequential mixed methods analysis Case study 


  1. Altman D.G.: Practical Statistics for Medical Research. Chapman and Hall, London (1991)Google Scholar
  2. Cohen J.: A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 20, 37–46 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Connolly P.: Dancing to the wrong tune: ethnography generalization and research on racism in schools. In: Connolly, P., Troyna, B.(eds) Researching Racism in Education: Politics, Theory, and Practice, pp. 122–139. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK (1998)Google Scholar
  4. Constas M.A.: Qualitative data analysis as a public event: the documentation of category development procedures. Am. Educ. Res. J. 29, 253–266 (1992)Google Scholar
  5. Curtis S., Gesler W., Smith G., Washburn S.: Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health. Soc. Sci. Med. 50, 1001–1014 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Cruz, P.: Caregivers’ experiences of informal support in the context of HIV/AIDS. Qual. Rep. 7(3). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR7-3/dcruz.html (2002). Retrieved 1 March 2005
  7. Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S.: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2nd edn, pp. 1–28. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2000)Google Scholar
  8. Firestone W.A.: Alternative arguments for generalizing from data, as applied to qualitative research. Educ. Res. 22(4), 16–23 (1993)Google Scholar
  9. Glass G.V., Hopkins K.D.: Statistical methods in education and psychology, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1984)Google Scholar
  10. Greene J.C., Caracelli V.J., Graham W.F.: Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 11, 255–274 (1989)Google Scholar
  11. Halpern, E.S.: Auditing naturalistic inquiries: the development and application of a model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University (1983)Google Scholar
  12. Joffres, C., Haughey, M. : Elementary teachers’ commitment declines: antecedents, processes, and outcomes [99 paragraphs]. Qual. Rep. [On-line serial] 6(1). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-1/joffres.html (2001). Retrieved 2 March 2005
  13. Johnson R.B., Christensen L.B.: Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches, 3rd edn. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA (2004)Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy M.: Generalizing from single case studies. Eval. Q. 3, 661–678 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leech, N.L., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.: A typology of mixed methods research designs. Invited James E. McLean Outstanding Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada (2005)Google Scholar
  16. Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G.: Naturalistic Inquiry. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA (1985)Google Scholar
  17. Maxwell J.A.: Qualitative Research Design. Sage, Newbury Park, CA (1996)Google Scholar
  18. Micceri T.: The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychol. Bull. 105(1), 156–166 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miles M., Huberman A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1994)Google Scholar
  20. Miller, D.S.: A note on the representation of environmental risks in the News. [24 paragraphs]. Qual. Rep. [On-line serial] 4(1/2) http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-1/miller.html (2000). Retrieved 2 March 2005
  21. Onwuegbuzie A.J.: Expanding the framework of internal and external validity in quantitative research. Res. Sch. 10(1), 71–90 (2003a)Google Scholar
  22. Onwuegbuzie A.J.: Effect sizes in qualitative research: a prolegomenon. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 37, 393–409 (2003b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Collins, K.M.T. : A typology of mixed methods sampling designs in social science research. Qual. Rep. 12, 281–316. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR12-2/onwuegbuzie2.pdf (2007). Retrieved 5 September 2007
  24. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Daniel, L.G.: Typology of analytical and interpretational errors in quantitative and qualitative educational research. Curr. Issues Educ. [On-line] 6(2). http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume6/number2/ (2003)
  25. Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L.: Enhancing the interpretation of “significant” findings: the role of mixed methods research. Qual. Rep. 9(4), 770–792. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR9-4/ onwuegbuzie.pdf (2004). Retrieved 19 June 2006
  26. Onwuegbuzie A.J., Leech N.L.: A call for qualitative power analyses. Qual. Quant. Int. J. Methodol. 41, 105–121 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Onwuegbuzie A.J., Teddlie C.: A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In: Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C.(eds) Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, pp. 351–383. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)Google Scholar
  28. Shaver J.P., Norton R.S.: Populations, samples, randomness, and replication in two social studies journals. Theory Res. Soc. Educ. 8(2), 1–20 (1980)Google Scholar
  29. Shaver J.P., Norton R.S.: Randomness and replication in ten years of the American Educational Research Journal. Educ. Res. 9(1), 9–15 (1980)Google Scholar
  30. Stake R.E.: Case study methods in educational research. In: Jaeger, R.M(eds) Complementary Methods for Research in Education, 2nd edn., American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC (1997)Google Scholar
  31. Stake R.E.: Qualitative case studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.(eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, 3rd edn., pp. 443–466. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2005)Google Scholar
  32. Tashakkori A., Teddlie C.: Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 46. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (1998)Google Scholar
  33. The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edn. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA (1993)Google Scholar
  34. The Qualitative Report.: An online journal for dedicated to qualitative research since 1990. http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/ (2005). Retrieved 20 February 2005
  35. Turner, W.G. : Our new children: the surrogate role of companion animals in women’s lives. [46 paragraphs]. Qual. Rep. [On-line serial] 6(1). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR6-1/turner.html (2001). Retrieved 20 February 2005
  36. Williamson Shafer D., Serlin R.C.: What good are statistics that don’t generalize?. Educ. Res. 33(9), 14–25 (2005)Google Scholar
  37. Yin R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. Applied Social Research Methods Series, vol. 5. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Leadership and CounselingSam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations