The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research
Abstract
Generalizability is a major concern to those who do, and use, research. Statistical, sampling-based generalizability is well known, but methodologists have long been aware of conceptions of generalizability beyond the statistical. The purpose of this essay is to clarify the concept of generalizability by critically examining its nature, illustrating its use and misuse, and presenting a framework for classifying its different forms. The framework organizes the different forms into four types, which are defined by the distinction between empirical and theoretical kinds of statements. On the one hand, the framework affirms the bounds within which statistical, sampling-based generalizability is legitimate. On the other hand, the framework indicates ways in which researchers in information systems and other fields may properly lay claim to generalizability, and thereby broader relevance, even when their inquiry falls outside the bounds of sampling-based research.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
The Discovery of Grounded Theory; Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., Strauss, A. L., & Strutzel, E. (1968) · Nursing Research · doi:10.1097/00006199-196807000-00014 · Cited by 39,449
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
The social construction of reality : a treatise in the sociology of knowledge
Simpson, G., Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2091739 · Cited by 16,462
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461
Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable
DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.3.1.60 · Cited by 10,697
Task-Technology Fit and Individual Performance
Goodhue, D. L., & Thompson, R. L. (1995) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249689 · Cited by 6,006
A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems1
Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249410 · Cited by 5,263
Cited by
The Nature of Theory in Information Systems1
Gregor, S. (2006) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148742 · Cited by 3,306
Walsham, G. (2006) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000589 · Cited by 2,217
Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1070.0165 · Cited by 2,060
Urquhart, C., Lehmann, H., & Myers, M. D. (2010) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00328.x · Cited by 841
Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations
Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu‐Nathan, T. S. (2015) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12042 · Cited by 791
Metadata
- Authors
- Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. L.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 221-243
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W2118717649
- Cited by
- 1,551
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 47.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.