Skip to main content
Log in

Transferability and Naturalistic Generalization: New Generalizability Concepts for Social Science or Old Wine in New Bottles?

  • Published:
Quality & Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interpretative qualitative social science has attempted to distinguish itself from quantitative social science by rejecting traditional or ‘received’ notions of generalization. Traditional concepts of scientific generalization it is claimed are based on a misguided objectivism as to the mechanisms operating in the social world, and particularly the ability of statements to capture such mechanisms in any abstract sense. Instead they propose new versions of the generalizability concept e.g. ‘transferability’, which relies on the context dependent judgement of ‘fit’ between two or more cases instances made by a researcher. This paper argues that the transferability concept, as outlined and argued by interpretativist methodologists, is thoroughly coextensive with notions of generalizability formalized for natural science and naturalistic social science by philosophers and methodologists of science. Therefore, it may be concluded that the interpretativist claim to a break with received scientific traditions is a premature one, at least with regard to the issue of generalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle (1928). The Oxford Translation of Aristotle, Vol. 1 (translated and edited by G. R. G. Mure). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Churchland P. (1979). Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge, MA, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook T., Campbell D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago, Rand McNally

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach L.J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist 30:116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin N. (1983). Interpretive interactionism. In: Morgan G. (eds) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (1994). Introduction: entering the field of qualitative research. In: Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Donmoyer R. (1990). Generalizability and the single case study. In: Eisner E.W., Peshkin A. (eds) Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate. New York, Teachers College Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M. (1974). Explanation and scientific understanding. Journal of Philosophy 71:5–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz C. (1973). The Interpretation of Culture. New York, Basic Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman N. (1955). Fact, Fiction and Forecast. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba E.G., Lincoln Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutting G. (1982). Scientific realism versus constructive empiricism: a dialogue. The Monist 65:336–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1972 [1739]). A Treatise on Human Nature. London: Fontana.

  • Kincaid H. (1996). Philosophical Foundations of the Social Sciences: Analyzing Controversies in Social Research. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. (2000). The only generalization is: there is no generalization. In: Gomm R., Hammersley M., Foster P. (eds) Case Study Method. London, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin E. (1984). A case for scientific realism. In: Leplin J. (eds) Scientific Realism. Berkeley, University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescher N. (1970). Scientific Explanation. New York, Free Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg A. (1980). Sociobiology and the Preemption of Social Science. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwandt T. (1994). Constructivist, interpretativist approaches to human inquiry. In: Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellars W. (1963). Science, Perception and Reality. New York, Humanities

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake R. (1994). Case studies. In: Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R. (2000 [1978]). The case study method in social inquiry. In: R. Gomm, M. Hammersley & P. Foster (eds.), Case Study Method. London: Sage Publications.

  • Steel D. (2004). Social mechanisms and causal inference. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 34:55–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor C. (1994). Interpretation and the sciences of man. In: Martin M., McIntyre L. (eds) Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams M. (1998). The social world as knowable. In: May T., Williams M. (eds) Knowing the Social World. Buckingham, Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams M. (2000). Science and Social Science. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomas Hellström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hellström, T. Transferability and Naturalistic Generalization: New Generalizability Concepts for Social Science or Old Wine in New Bottles?. Qual Quant 42, 321–337 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9048-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9048-0

Keywords

Navigation