•  
  •  
 

Abstract

The split of methodology into qualitative and quantitative had all sorts of negative consequences, including the neglecting of some important scientific goals, such as generalizing research results in qualitative studies. Even if they don’t talk about generalizations, many qualitative researchers illegitimately extend their research results to populations much wider than those investigated. The article shows that the generalization of research results (from sample to population) is possible in qualitative research but that it can only be achieved through a sampling procedure that complies with specific rules. The article describes this procedure of internal generalization of results through a logical or scientific inference process. It is a theoretical sampling process in four steps that does not place emphasis on the size of the sample, but on the criteria for choosing the participants and seeks to obtain the generalization of findings following data variations. The procedure offers some advantages such as the transparency of the sampling process, provocative novelties such as the possibility to adjust the research population during the research but has also significant limitations such as the effects generated by the difficulty of anticipating the complexity of the studied phenomena.

Keywords

internal generalization, inductive generalization, theoretical generalization, theoretical sampling, logical or scientific inference

Author Bio(s)

Florentina Scârneci-Domnişoru is a doctor in sociology and a professor at Transilvania University of Brașov, Romania. Her research and teaching focus on qualitative methods, identity and visual sociology. In her writings and speeches, she pleads for more methodological creativity and freedom, and she is very interested in innovative research techniques. She published the first book ever written in Romania about visual research - Visual Data in Social Research (2016) and the first methodological article ever written about the analogy technique – “‘If You Were an Animal, a Plant, a Meal, a Car… What Would You Be?’ The Use of Analogy in the Study of Identity Traits,” in Czech Sociological Review, 55(3), 2019. Please direct correspondence to fscarneci@unitbv.ro

Acknowledgements

Your encouragements, Ralu, your questions, Dana, and your doubts, Carmen, made me write! I thank my friend Raluca Filip and my colleagues, Daniela Sorea and Carmen Buzea, who also undertook a review of an earlier version of this article. I also thank the reviewers and editors of The Qualitative Report for their dedication and exceptional professionalism. I am especially grateful to Senior Editor Dragana Ilic. Declaration of Conflicting Interests: The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Ethical Statement: Ethical approval and informed consent are not applicable for this article. Preprint DOI: https://doi.org/10.32388/48L76Q

Publication Date

10-7-2024

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

DOI

10.46743/2160-3715/2024.7039

ORCID ID

0000-0002-6548-5411

ResearcherID

AFO-7293-2022

Share

 
COinS
 
 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.