CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,767Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsEducational Research and MethodsHealth Policy Implementation Science

Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies

Open access
Polit, Denise F., Beck, Cheryl Tatano·2010·International Journal of Nursing Studies
DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Generalization, which is an act of reasoning that involves drawing broad inferences from particular observations, is widely-acknowledged as a quality standard in quantitative research, but is more controversial in qualitative research. The goal of most qualitative studies is not to generalize but rather to provide a rich, contextualized understanding of some aspect of human experience through the intensive study of particular cases. Yet, in an environment where evidence for improving practice is held in high esteem, generalization in relation to knowledge claims merits careful attention by both qualitative and quantitative researchers. Issues relating to generalization are, however, often ignored or misrepresented by both groups of researchers. Three models of generalization, as proposed in a seminal article by Firestone, are discussed in this paper: classic sample-to-population (statistical) generalization, analytic generalization, and case-to-case transfer (transferability). Suggestions for enhancing the capacity for generalization in terms of all three models are offered. The suggestions cover such issues as planned replication, sampling strategies, systematic reviews, reflexivity and higher-order conceptualization, thick description, mixed methods research, and the RE-AIM framework within pragmatic trials.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Statements such as '13 out of 20 participants said X' are meaningless because sampling in qualitative research is not designed to be representative of a wider population, but purposive to capture diversity around a phenomenon.

    “This kind of statement is clearly meaningless because the sampling in qualitative research is not designed to be representative of a wider population, but purposive to capture diversity around a phenomenon [41].”

    From Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research (2013) · cites this paper as [41]

    Section 3.1, “Replication in sampling” (page unavailable), describes purposive qualitative sampling, including maximum variation sampling. But the claim’s central conclusion—that reporting how many participants said something is meaningless—conflicts with Section 3.5, “Know thy Data” (page unavailable), which says quantifying qualitative data can confirm conclusions and generate meaning. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The research team should comprise at least two independent coders with experience in qualitative research.

    “The research team should comprise at least two independent coders with experience in qualitative research. 8”

    From Research and scholarly methods: Thematic analysis (2023) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 3.5, “Know thy Data” (page not supplied), recommends that qualitative researchers engage deeply with their data, but does not prescribe a coding team. Searches for independent coders, multiple coders, and coding-team qualifications found no passage requiring at least two experienced qualitative coders. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]14. Glaser, B.G., 2002. Conceptualisation: on theory and theorizing using grounded theory. In: Bron, A., Schemmenn, M. (Eds.), Social Science Theories and Adult Education Research. Lit Verlag, Munster, pp. 313- 335.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • University of Connecticut (US)
Corresponding author
Polit, Denise F.
ORCID
Beck, Cheryl Tatano
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-11
Volume
47
Issue
11
Pages
1451-1458
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
OpenAlex
W1971845200
Cited by
1,767
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 155 · 2025: 180 · 2024: 214 · 2023: 176 · 2022: 168 · 2021: 202 · 2020: 143 · 2019: 119 · 2018: 93 · 2017: 73 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 32
FWCI
111.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EduLLL - Greek Educational Content Repository (EKT) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
generalization, transferability, qualitative research, quantitative research, replication, sampling strategy, systematic reviews, reflexivity, thick description, mixed methods, RE-AIM framework, pragmatic trials, evidence-based practice
MeSH terms
Nursing Research, Models, Nursing, Evidence-Based Nursing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review