In qualitative research only theory can be generalized from one setting to the other setting. But the result cannot be generalized because the context of one setting is different from another setting. My question; rather confusion is that theory is derived from our results then what does this mean that theory can be generalized but not results? Please elaborate. Thank you.
The results coming from a qualitative research context are valid just for that context. To become a theory results must be verified in different contexts. It means checking if you get the same results in different settings. New checkings could be done anytime. A theory is always falsifiable.
You can generate theories in qualitative research but they are also contextual. See grounded theory. In these studies you are also trying to check if the results are valid for different people when you follow deviant cases. Using induction you can generalize your results to other similar cases. But the resulted theory is also valid just for similar cases. You could test the theory to see if it is valid for different populations in quantitative studies.
I think there is another possibility to develop theories from results. When you analyse different results from different settings and try to discover patterns.
Results are always tied with the context they come from, theories can exceed contexts.
You'll be able to generalize the theory, but you'll need to make a step further and test via quantitative research the hypotheses depicted from qualitative results.
Qualitative research is intended to understand the experiences and context of the participants. These experiences are not generalizable in the same way that quantitative research is generalized. But much statistical social science research is not truely generalizable, regardless of the qiality of the statistics, because they are too many confounding variables that cannot be controlled for.
See the attached for an example.
Article Environmental factors affecting Computer Assisted Language L...
Sania you got well informed answers above specially from knowledgeable colleagues Heather Douglas and Michael Marek. I guess the two confusing 'things' are 'findings' and 'Theory'. Findings from your study in particular setting are usually concrete and empirically grounded in data. These findings when properly organized constitute substantive theory. Substantive theories are developed for specific concern related to social reality and may not be found relevant exactly in its original shape in other settings. On the other hand, formal theory operates at much higher level of abstraction and is usually applicable at much wider level than particular social reality in specific settings. Hence you may say that the theory developed from qualitative research findings has analytical generalizability i.e. the new concepts and contingencies suggested in your findings are worthy of investigation in new setting/cases not investigated to check if they are relevant or not? Statistical generalizability is not concern in qualitative studies.
So to conclude, one substantive theory, developed in a particular context when combined with other substantive theories may give birth to a formal theory which is more abstract than original substantive theories and generalizable to wider context than specific context as it contains findings from many settings. If you clarify the confusion between findings and theory, I hope you will be able to understand the puzzle.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology
- Qualitative Research