The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Alternative Arguments for Generalizing from Data as Applied to Qualitative Research
Abstract
One criticism about qualitative research is that it is difficult to generalize findings to settings not studied. To explore this issue, I examine three broad arguments for generalizing from data: sample-to-population extrapolation, analytic generalization, and case-to-case transfer. Qualitative research often uses the last argument, but some efforts have been made to use the first two. I suggest that analytic generalization can be very helpful for qualitative researchers but that sample-to-population extrapolation is not likely to be.
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
Cited by
Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects
Shenton, A. K. (2004) · Education for Information · doi:10.3233/efi-2004-22201 · Cited by 9,748
Sample size in qualitative research
Sandelowski, M. (1995) · Research in Nursing & Health · doi:10.1002/nur.4770180211 · Cited by 4,372
Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004 · Cited by 1,767
Qualitative research methods in health technology assessment: a review of the literature.
Murphy, Dingwall, Greatbatch, Parker, & Watson (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2160 · Cited by 1,107
Rigour in qualitative case-study research
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326 · Cited by 803
Metadata
- Authors
- Firestone, W. A.
- Venue
- Educational Researcher
- Published
- 1993-05
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 16
- ISSN
- 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2156118686
- Cited by
- 896
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 58.73
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Alternative Arguments for Generalizing from Data as Applied to Qualitative Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1177100
- The paper
- Firestone, W. A. (1993). Alternative Arguments for Generalizing from Data as Applied to Qualitative Research. Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.2307/1177100
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.
