Cited by 1,189Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsQualitative Research Methods and EthicsSport Psychology and Performance

Generalizability in qualitative research: misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences

Open access
Smith, Brett·2018·Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health

Abstract

Generalisation in relation to qualitative research has rarely been discussed in-depth in sport and exercise psychology, the sociology of sport, sport coaching, or sport management journals. Often there is no mention of generalizability in qualitative studies. When generalizability is mentioned in sport and exercise science journals it is often talked about briefly or highlighted as a limitation/weakness of qualitative research. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed discussion of generalisation in order to dispel any misunderstandings or myths about generalizability in qualitative research and offer guidance about how researchers might consider generalisation. It is emphasised that it is a misunderstanding to claim that qualitative research lacks generalizability. It is highlighted that statistical types of generalizability that inform quantitative research are not applicable to judge the value of qualitative research or claim that it lacks generalizability. Reasons as to why researchers might consider generalizability in qualitative research are then offered. It is emphasised that generalisations can be made from qualitative research, but just not in the same way as quantitative results are. To help guide how generalisation might be considered, four different types of generalizability are presented: naturalistic generalisation, transferability, analytical generalizability and intersectional generalizability. Practical strategies are also offered for considering generalizability when seeking to publish qualitative research or reflect on already published work. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations to support high quality and rigorous qualitative research for scholars – including journal editors and reviewers – in relation to generalizability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/2159676x.2017.1393221

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, B.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Smith, Brett
Venue
Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health
Published
2017-10-23
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
137-149
ISSN
  • 1939-8441 (ISSN-L)
  • 2159-676X
  • 2159-6778
OpenAlex
W2766601772
Cited by
1,189
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 111 · 2025: 196 · 2024: 149 · 2023: 137 · 2022: 157 · 2021: 146 · 2020: 129 · 2019: 97 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 5
FWCI
285.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Qualitative Research in Sport Exercise and Health (publishedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Utah Agricultural Experiment Station
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Sport Psychology and Performance
Keywords
generalizability, qualitative research, transferability, sport and exercise science, research rigor

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