Generalization in IS research: a critique of the conflicting positions of Lee & Baskerville and Tsang & Williams

  • Peter B. Seddon
  • Rens Scheepers


This paper is a companion to the paper on generalization in IS research by Williams and Tsang published in this edition of the Journal of Information Technology. Its purpose is to discuss the implications of the robust exchange of views about the meaning of the term “generalization” in four papers, two by Lee and Baskerville, and two by Tsang and Williams. The objectives of this paper are, first, to help the reader understand the issues by summarizing the arguments in the various papers, and second, to assess the implications of the debate for future IS research. Our conclusion is that when the papers are interpreted from the perspectives of the respective pairs of authors, most of what they say is sound. However because their perspectives are so different, their differences of opinion are also very real. As a way of showing that neither pair of authors’ conception of generalization is the “last word” on this topic, the paper also compares key concepts from both pairs of authors with those from Seddon and Scheepers. It is argued that although the Seddon and Scheepers’ framework is also not the “last word”, it may prove more useful than either of the two preceding frameworks.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ariño, A., & Ring, P.S. (2010). The role of fairness in alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10), 1054–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T. Norrie, A. (1998). Critical Realism: Essential Readings, Milton Park: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Berger JO (2003). Could Fisher, Jeffreys and Neyman have agreed on testing, Statistical Science, 18(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhaskar R. (1978). A Realist Theory of Science. Hassocks, Sussex: Harvester, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Bunge, M. (1996). Finding Philosophy in Social Science, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Campbell, D. (1975). “Degrees of freedom” and the case study. Comparative Political Stud., 8(2), 178–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campbell, D. and Stanley, J (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  8. Collier, A. (1994). Critical Realism: An Introduction to Roy Bhaskar’s Philosophy, London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
  9. Compeau, D., Marcolin, B, Kelley, H, Higgins, C. (2012). Research commentary— Generalizability of information systems research using student subjects—A reflection on our practices and recommendations for future research, Information Systems Research 23, 1087–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cronbach, L.J. (1982). Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  11. Dubin, R. (1978). Theory Building (Rev. ed.), London: Free Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  13. Galileo (1610). (viewed July 2014)
  14. Geertz, C. (1956). Religious belief and economic behavior in a central Javanese town: some preliminary considerations. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 4(2), 134–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geertz, C. (1960). The Religion of Java, Chicago: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gillham, B. (2005). Research Interviewing: The Range Of Techniques: A Practical Guide, McGraw-Hill International.Google Scholar
  17. Goodman, S.N. (2005). Introduction to Bayesian methods 1: measuring the strength of evidence, Clinical Trials (2), 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems, MIS Quarterly 30(3), 611–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hume, D. (1748) An enquiry concerning human understanding, in Selby-Bigge LA (1777) ed., Enquiries Concerning The Human Understanding, and Concerning the Principles of Morals, by David Hume, Oxford: Clarenden Press,, viewed Jan 2013.Google Scholar
  20. King, W.R. and He, J. (2005) External validity in survey research, Communications of the AIS, 16, 880–894.Google Scholar
  21. Kolakowski, L. (1968). The Alienation of Reason: A History of Positivist Thought, Doubleday, Garden City, NY.Google Scholar
  22. Lacity, M.C. & Willcocks, L.P. (1998). An empirical investigation of information technology sourcing practices: lessons from experience. MIS Quarterly, 22(3), 363–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee, A.S. (1989). Case studies as natural experiments, Human Relations 42(2), 117–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee A.S. and Baskerville, R.L. (2003). Generalizing generalizability in Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research 14(3), 221–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lee, A.S. and Baskerville, R.L. (2012). Conceptualizing generalizability: new contributions and a reply, MIS Quarterly 36(3), pp. 749–761.Google Scholar
  26. Mingers, J. (2006). Realising Systems Thinking: Knowledge and Action in Management Science, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  27. NASA (2014). Our Solar System: Moons, (viewed July 2014).
  28. Peirce, C.S. (1903). A syllabus of certain topics of logic, The Essential Peirce, Vol. 2, Indiana University Press (see also, viewed July 2013).
  29. Pettigrew, A.M. (1985a). Contextualist research: a natural way to think, in E. E. Lawler, III, A.M. Mohrman, Jr., S.A. Mohrman, G.E. Ledford, Jr., and T. G. Cummings (eds.), Doing Research that Is Useful for Theory and Practice, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, pp. 223–274.Google Scholar
  30. Pettigrew, A.M. (1985b). Contextualist research and the study of organizational change processes, in E. Mumford, R. Hirschheim, G. Fitzgerald, and T. Wood-Harper (eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, B.V. (North-holland), pp. 53–78.Google Scholar
  31. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: theory and practice, Organization Science 1(3), 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K.L. (1993). Survey research in management information systems: an assessment. Journal of Management Information Systems, 10(2), 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seddon, P.B. and Scheepers, R. (2006). Other-settings generalization in IS Research, Proceedings, International Conference on Information Systems, Milwaukee, 1141–1158.Google Scholar
  34. Seddon, P.B. and Scheepers, R. (2012). Drawing general conclusions from samples: towards the improved treatment of generalization of knowledge claims in IS research, European Journal of Information Systems, 21, 6–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.Google Scholar
  36. Sivo, S.A., Saunders, C., Chang, Q., Jiang, J.J. (2006). How low should you go? Low response rates and the validity of inference in IS Questionnaire research, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 7(6), 351–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsang, E.W.K. (2014). Case studies and generalization in information systems research: a critical realist perspective, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  38. Tsang, E.W.K. and Williams, J.N. (2012). Generalization and induction: misconceptions, clarifications, and a classification of induction, MIS Quarterly 36(3), 729–748Google Scholar
  39. Williams, J.N. and Tsang, E.W.K. (2014). Classifying generalization: paradigm war or abuse of terminology?, Journal of Information Technology Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R.K. (1994). Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 2nd ed., California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  41. Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 3rd ed., California: Sage Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Information Technology (JIT) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter B. Seddon
    • 1
  • Rens Scheepers
    • 2
  1. 1.The University of MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations