Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply
Tsang and Williams offer some good and provocative ideas in their critique of our earlier article on generalizing and generalizability. In this essay we will advance some new ideas by building on those collected in both Tsang and Williams and our original article (Lee and Baskerville 2003). Because...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Published: |
MIS Research Centre
2012
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://misq.org/conceptualizing-generalizability-new-contributions-and-a-reply.html?SID=080sul9434t7kgb2636m2a1843 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/44223 |
| _version_ | 1848756936929968128 |
|---|---|
| author | Allen, L. Baskerville, Richard |
| author_facet | Allen, L. Baskerville, Richard |
| author_sort | Allen, L. |
| building | Curtin Institutional Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | Tsang and Williams offer some good and provocative ideas in their critique of our earlier article on generalizing and generalizability. In this essay we will advance some new ideas by building on those collected in both Tsang and Williams and our original article (Lee and Baskerville 2003). Because IS is a pluralist scientific discipline, one in which both qualitative and quantitative (and both interpretive and positivist) research approaches are valued, “generalize” is unlikely to be a viable term or concept if only one IS research paradigm may lay claim to it and excludes others from using it. Both papers agree on this point, but approach the problem differently. Where we originally generalized generalizability by offering new language, Tsang and Williams conceptualize generalizability by framing it more closely to its older, more statistically oriented form. We agree about the importance of induction and about the classification or taxonomy of different types of induction. We build further in this essay, advancing the ethical questions raised by generalization: A formulation of judgment calls that need to be made when generalizing a theory to a new setting. We further demonstrate how the process of generalizing may actually proceed, based on the common ground between Tsang and Williams and our original article. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T09:20:07Z |
| format | Journal Article |
| id | curtin-20.500.11937-44223 |
| institution | Curtin University Malaysia |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T09:20:07Z |
| publishDate | 2012 |
| publisher | MIS Research Centre |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | curtin-20.500.11937-442232017-02-28T01:48:39Z Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply Allen, L. Baskerville, Richard reference theory Research approach philosophy philosophical approach type of theory Tsang and Williams offer some good and provocative ideas in their critique of our earlier article on generalizing and generalizability. In this essay we will advance some new ideas by building on those collected in both Tsang and Williams and our original article (Lee and Baskerville 2003). Because IS is a pluralist scientific discipline, one in which both qualitative and quantitative (and both interpretive and positivist) research approaches are valued, “generalize” is unlikely to be a viable term or concept if only one IS research paradigm may lay claim to it and excludes others from using it. Both papers agree on this point, but approach the problem differently. Where we originally generalized generalizability by offering new language, Tsang and Williams conceptualize generalizability by framing it more closely to its older, more statistically oriented form. We agree about the importance of induction and about the classification or taxonomy of different types of induction. We build further in this essay, advancing the ethical questions raised by generalization: A formulation of judgment calls that need to be made when generalizing a theory to a new setting. We further demonstrate how the process of generalizing may actually proceed, based on the common ground between Tsang and Williams and our original article. 2012 Journal Article http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/44223 http://misq.org/conceptualizing-generalizability-new-contributions-and-a-reply.html?SID=080sul9434t7kgb2636m2a1843 MIS Research Centre restricted |
| spellingShingle | reference theory Research approach philosophy philosophical approach type of theory Allen, L. Baskerville, Richard Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply |
| title | Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply |
| title_full | Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply |
| title_fullStr | Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply |
| title_full_unstemmed | Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply |
| title_short | Conceptualizing generalizability: New contributions and a reply |
| title_sort | conceptualizing generalizability: new contributions and a reply |
| topic | reference theory Research approach philosophy philosophical approach type of theory |
| url | http://misq.org/conceptualizing-generalizability-new-contributions-and-a-reply.html?SID=080sul9434t7kgb2636m2a1843 http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/44223 |