Classifying generalization: paradigm war or abuse of terminology?

  • John N. Williams
  • Eric W. K. Tsang


Lee and Baskerville (2003) attempted to clarify the concept of generalization and classify it intofour types. In Tsang and Williams (2012) we objected to their account of generalization as well as their classification and offered repairs. Then we proposed a classification of induction, within which we distinguished five types of generalization. In their (2012) rejoinder, they argue that their classification is compatible with ours, claiming that theirs offers a ‘new language’. Insofar as we resist this ‘new language’ and insofar as they think that our position commits us to positivism and the rejection of interpretivism, they conclude both that our classification is more restrictive than theirs and also that we embrace ‘paradigmatic domination’. Lee and Baskerville’s classification of generalization is based on a distinction between theoretical and empirical statements. Accordingly we will first clarify the terms ‘theoretical statement’ and ‘empirical statement’. We note that they find nofault with our classification of induction, we re-state our main objections to their classification that remain unanswered and we show that their classification of generalizing is in fact incompatible with ours. We argue that their account of generalization retains fatal flaws that mean it should not be relied upon. We demonstrate that our classification is not committed to any paradigm and so we do not embrace ‘paradigmatic domination’.


Research methodology generalization induction deduction Hume’s problem of induction paradigm 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  2. Carroll, L. (1872). Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There, Raleigh, NC: Hayes Barton Press.Google Scholar
  3. Compeau, D., Marcolin, B., Kelley, H. and Higgins, C. (2012). Generalizability of Information Systems Research Using Student Subjects—A reflection on our practices and recommendations for future research, Information Systems Research 23(4): 1093–1109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Copi, I.M. and Cohen, C. (1998). Introduction to Logic, 10th edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  5. Farber, I., Mooney, B., Nowacki, M., Tan, Y.G. and Williams, J.N. (2011). Thinking Things Through: An introduction to analytical skills, 2nd edn., Singapore: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Gefen, D. and Straub, D.W. (1997). Gender Differences in the Perception and Use of E-Mail: An extension to the technology acceptance model, MIS Quarterly 21(4): 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gensler, H. (2001). Introduction to Logic, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Goodman, N. (1955). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hurley, P. (2003). A Concise Introduction to Logic, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  10. Ignatiadis, I. and Nandhakumar, J. (2006). The Impact of Enterprise Systems on Organizational Resilience, Journal of Information Technology 22(1): 36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lax, E. (2004). The Mold in Dr. Florey’s Coat: The story of the penicillin miracle, New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, A.S. (1991). Integrating Positivist and Interpretive Approaches to Organizational Research, Organization Science 2(4): 342–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee, A.S. and Baskerville, R.L. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research 14(3): 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee, A.S. and Baskerville, R.L. (2012). Conceptualizing Generalizability: New contributions and a reply, MIS Quarterly 36(3): 749–761.Google Scholar
  16. Margulis, L. and Schwartz, K.V. (1998). Five Kingdoms: An illustrated guide to the phyla of life on Earth, 3rd edn., New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  17. Masterman, M. (1970). The Nature of a Paradigm, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore, G.E. (1959). Philosophical Papers. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  19. Neter, J., Wasserman, W. and Whitmore, G.A. (1988). Applied Statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  20. Phillips, D.C. (1987). Philosophy, Science, and Social Inquiry: Contemporary methodological controversies in social science and related applied fields of research, Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Reichenbach, H. (1938). Experience and Prediction: An analysis of the foundations and the structure of knowledge, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Reichenbach, H. (1949). The Theory of Probability: An inquiry into the logical and mathematical foundations of the calculus of probability, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. Rheinwald R. (1993). An Epistemic Solution to Goodman’s New Riddle of Induction, Synthese 95(1): 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, A. (1993). Hume and the Philosophy of Science, in D. Norton (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Hume. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 64–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Russell, B. (1906). On the Nature of Truth, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 7: 28–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strawson, P.F. (1952). Introduction to Logical Theory, London: Methuen and Company.Google Scholar
  27. Tsang, E.W.K. and Williams, J.N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, clarifications, and a classification of induction, MIS Quarterly 36(3): 729–748.Google Scholar
  28. Weinert, F. (ed.) (1995). Laws of Nature: Essays on the philosophical, scientific and historical dimensions, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Wittgenstein, L. (2001). Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edn., Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Information Technology (JIT) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John N. Williams
    • 1
  • Eric W. K. Tsang
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Social SciencesSingapore Management UniversitySingapore
  2. 2.Naveen Jindal School of ManagementUniversity of Texas at DallasUSA

Personalised recommendations