Dr. Awais e Siraj Managing Director Genzee Solutions, A Strategy, Balanced Scorecard, Scenario Planning, Competency Based Human Resource Management Consulting Company

1. Using
Qualitative
Research
to
Generalize
By
Dr.
Awais
e
Siraj,
Managing
Director/CEO
Genzee
Solutions,
Islamabad,
Pakistan
ABSTRACT:
Qualitative
studies
are
generally
about
what
people
actually
do
or
say
in
specific
time,
place
and
situation
for
relatively
smaller
samples.
They
are
not
about
numbers,
data,
and
large
or
representative
sample
of
the
population.
The
history
and
traditions
of
qualitative
research
are
now
distinct
in
nature
and
have
evolved
through
time
and
critics.
Likewise,
its
mechanics
of
collecting
empirical
evidence,
sampling
and
analysis
are
diverse
and
resilient.
It
is
not
the
beauty
of
the
outcome
but
the
beauty
of
the
research
process
that
make
qualitative
research
rigorous
and
robust.
After
describing
the
key
concepts
of
qualitative
research,
this
paper
takes
a
detailed
account
of
the
issue
of
generalizability
of
qualitative
research
findings
and
concludes
that
any
material
which
is
logical,
crafted
by
a
Bricoleur,
contextual,
richly
described
and
trustworthy
is
as
‘generlizable’
as
any
other.
Introduction
Qualitative
research
is
a
complex
set
of
assumptions,
concepts
and
an
interconnected
family
of
terms.
(Denzin
and
Lincoln
2008)
The
results
and
conclusions
drawn
through
qualitative
research
have
proven
themselves
to
be
persuasive
and
full
of
insight.
Various
theoretical
frameworks
have
been
suggested
for
qualitative
research.
They
are
characteristically
different
in
their
theory,
technique
and
approach
yet
they
have
a
common
emphasis
on
recording
and
presenting
data
in
detail
and
depth.
All
qualitative
studies
are
also
linked
with
one
another
because
of
their
plentiful
narration
and
description
of
emotional,
cultural
and
social
life.
Qualitative
studies
are
generally
about
what
people
actually
do
or
say
in
specific
time,
place
and
situation.
Qualitative
studies
are
also
about
social
things
like
events,
cultures,
movements,
organizations
and
relationships
and
how
they
develop
in
temporal
and
social
context.
(Morill
and
Fine
1997)
Qualitative
researches
are
thus
connected
through
narratives
and
rich
descriptions
of
research
cases.
History
and
Traditions
of
Qualitative
Research:
Denzen
and
Lincoln
(2005b)
have
put
forward
a
summary
of
various
stages
through
which
qualitative
research
has
progressed
over
the
years.
The
first
stage
is
called
“the
traditional
period”
ranging
from
early
twentieth
century
to
the
Second
World
War.
This
stage,
heavily
instilled
with
‘positivism’
refers
to
the
sections
of
life
which
were
considered
alienated
from
the
society.
The
post
Second
World
War
to
the
1970s
is
called
the
‘the
modernist
phase’
during
which
the
inclination
still
remained
towards
positivism
but
a
serious
attempt
was
made
towards
establishing
the
rigor
in
qualitative
enquiries.
From
1970
to
1986,
the
period
of
‘blurred
genre’
seriously
considered
incorporation
of
ontological
and
epistemological
challenges
into
qualitative
research.
From
mid
1980’s
onwards,
the
written
work
of
research
received
limited
scientific
authority
because
of
the
criticism
that
social
locations
are
heavily

2. influencing
the
researchers.
This
period
was
names
as
‘crises
of
representation’
as
the
field
work
of
researchers
was
considered
as
‘just
one
way
of
representing
reality’.
However
‘crises
of
representation’
led
to
‘a
triple
crises’
of
‘postmodern
period
of
experimental
ethnographic
writing’,
‘post-­‐experimental
enquiry’
and
the
‘methodologically
contested
present’.
The
period
of
Mid
1990s
or
‘postmodern
period
of
experimental
writing’
pressurized
the
social
researchers
to
explore
a
variety
of
ways
of
representing
people.
From
1995
–
2000
the
AltaMira
press
encouraged
experimental
and
interdisciplinary
writing
attempting
to
break
‘long-­‐standing
boundaries’.
During
2000
to
2004,
much
of
the
debate
focused
on
‘research
quality
criteria’
marked
by
considerable
disagreements
on
how
qualitative
research
‘should’
be
conducted
and
streamlining
of
its
future
course.
From
2005,
qualitative
research
is
marked
by
challenges
against
social
research
on
its
value
addition
towards
traditional
science.
For
future,
“Randomized
field
trials…….will
occupy
the
time
of
one
group
of
researchers
while
the
pursuit
of
a
socially
and
culturally
responsive,
communitarian,
justice
oriented
set
of
studies
will
consume
the
meaningful
working
moments
of
the
other.”(Lincoln
and
Denzin
2005:
1123)
These
moments
and
their
description
is
not
definite
because
what
has
been
predicted
for
future
is
already
happening.
Gubrium
and
Holstein
(1997)
put
forward
four
traditions
of
qualitative
research.
Naturalism;
seeking
interaction
and
descriptions
of
people
in
natural
setting
and
accepting
reality
as
reality
is.
Ethnomethodology;
with
a
natural
orientation,
ethnomethodology
seeks
to
understand
the
creation
of
social
order
through
interaction
and
talk.
Emotionalism:
seeks
deeper
understanding
and
realities
of
humans.
Postmodernism;
focuses
on
processes
that
form
the
building
blocks
of
social
reality.
What
is
Qualitative
Research?
Qualitative
research
can
be
regarded
as
a
research
strategy
that
puts
a
great
deal
of
stress
on
words
rather
than
numbers
in
the
collection
and
analysis
of
data.
(Bryman
2008)
Qualitative
research
primarily
puts
emphasis
on
an
‘inductive’
approach
as
against
the
‘inductive’
approach,
to
the
relationship
between
research
and
theory.
It
is
concerned
with
theory
generation
while
rejecting
the
norms
and
practices
of
positivism
and
of
natural
sciences
research.
Encapsulating
the
ways
in
which
social
world
is
interpreted
by
people,
qualitative
research
incorporates
social
reality
as
an
individual’s
property.
While
quantitative
research
is
sometimes
referred
to
as
‘positivism’
and
‘realism’,
qualitative
research
is
referred
to
‘interpretivism’
and
‘phenomenology’.
Interpetivists
argue
that
people
and
institutions
form
the
subject
matter
of
social
sciences
and
are
characteristically
different
from
the
subject
matters
of
natural
sciences.
They
have
feelings,
emotions
and
behavior
which
cannot
be
characterized
into
atoms,
molecules
and
electrons.
(Schutz
1962:
59)
“Phenomenology”
as
the
opposite
of
positivism
focuses
on
how
a
researcher
should
record
perceptions
of
what
individuals
perceive
of
the
world
around
them.
“The
phenomenologist
attempts
to
see
things
from
that
person’s
point
of
view”
(Bogdon
and
Taylor
1975:
13-­‐14,
emphasis
in
original)

3. Qualitative
research
also
holds
on
the
ontological
position
of
‘constructionism’
(or
‘constructivism’)
as
against
the
position
‘objectivism’
occupied
by
quantitative
research.
Constructivism
puts
social
actors
at
the
center
of
their
focus
as
they
are
considered
to
play
a
vital
role
in
all
social
phenomena.
Constructivists
believe
that
all
social
phenomena
are
in
a
perpetual
state
of
change.
Lately,
it
has
also
been
accepted
that
whatever
is
observed,
recorded
and
written
by
a
researcher
through
his
personal
observation
and
involvement
will
be
regarded
as
constructions.
Constructionism,
therefore
is
used
in
two
connotations:
relation
to
the
social
world
and
relation
to
the
nature
of
knowledge
of
the
social
world.
(Bryman
2008)
Bricoleur
and
Bricolage
and
Montage
“Jack
of
all
trades,
a
kind
of
professional
do-­‐it-­‐yourself”
is
the
term
used
by
Levi-­‐Strauss
to
describe
a
Bricoleur.
(Levi-­‐Strauss,
1966,
p.17)
Since
qualitative
researcher
can
be
described
as
a
naturalist,
social
critic,
performer,
filmmaker,
scientist
etc.
he
or
she
may
also
be
considered
as
a
Bricoleur
or
a
person
who
converts
images
into
a
mosaic.
He
may
also
be
considered
as
a
quilt
maker
or
because
he
uses
contingent
strategies,
empirical
materials
and
methods.
(Denzin
and
Lincoln
2008).
It
the
intellect
of
the
researcher
that
allows
him
to
put
pieces
of
whatever
material
is
at
hand
together
through
questions
that
are
asked
at
a
given
time
and
in
relation
to
research
context.
The
concept
of
‘montage’
comes
in
when
the
quilt-­‐making
has
to
go
beyond
practical
considerations
and
pragmatism.
(Cook
1981,
Monaco
1981)
Montage
puts
disconnected
images
into
a
systematic
sequence
that
can
lead
to
some
creative
sense-­‐making
and
impact.
By
seamlessly
blending
images
into
one
another,
different
scenes
are
unfolded
simultaneously
and
not
sequentially
to
draw
interpretations.
Grounded
Theory
Grounded
theory
has
been
defined
as
‘theory
was
derived
from
data,
systematically
gathered
and
analyzed
through
the
research
process.
In
this
method,
data
collection,
analysis
and
eventual
theory
stand
in
close
relationship
to
one
another’
(Strauss
and
Corbin
1988:
12).
The
first
characteristic
feature
of
grounded
theory
is
that
it
is
not
a
theory
per
se
but
an
approach
to
generate
theory
out
of
data.
The
second
characteristic
feature
is
that
it
is
recursive
or
self
–
repeating
meaning
thereby
that
collection
of
data
and
its
analysis
run
after
one
another
in
a
cyclic
fashion.
As
originators
of
the
concept
of
Grounded
Theory,
Glaser
and
Strauss
(1967)
suggested
that
the
process
of
research,
while
confirming
existing
theories,
should
not
make
the
researcher
oblivion
to
the
fact
that
new
theories
can
also
emerge
from
the
available
and
existing
data.
This
makes
research
and
inductive
process
rather
than
a
deductive
progression.
Glaser
also
proposed
that
findings
must
also
be
compared
constantly
with
the
emerging
theories
in
order
to
stay
abreast
with
research.
For
the
process
to
be
effective,
it
is
strongly
suggested
that
the
researcher
must
improve
his
‘theoretical
sensitivity’
to
patterns,
categories,
concepts
and
their
interrelationship
so
as
not
to
miss
out
the
emerging
theories.
The
most
central
process
in
grounded
theory
is
coding.
The
process
of
coding
begins
immediately
after
the
collection
of
initial
data
and
broken
down
into
its
constituent
elements
with
conspicuous
names.
(Charmaz
2000:
515).

4. Distinction
can
easily
be
made
in
three
types
of
coding:
(Strauss
and
Corbin
1990)
Open
Coding:
“The
process
of
breaking
down,
examining,
comparing,
conceptualizing
and
categorizing
data”(1990:
61)
This
coding
process
leads
to
concepts
which
can
later
be
categorized
into
groups
until
theoretical
saturation
level
is
reached
meaning
thereby
that
all
categories
that
could
possibly
be
identified
have
been
identified
and
it
is
now
time
to
move
to
Axial
Coding.
Axial
Coding:
Axial
coding
is
the
process
of
finding
causal
connections
and
interactions
among
different
categories.
It
is
the
stage
when
the
research
needs
to
make
use
of
deductive
as
well
as
inductive
analysis
to
establish
causal
relationships
and
finding
reasons
for
further
exploration
and
research
into
each
category.
Selective
Coding:
Selective
coding
encourages
the
researcher
to
identify
a
‘core’
category
that
must
take
the
center
stage
and
ensure
that
all
other
categories
are
either
revolving
around
it
or
at
least
connected
to
it
in
some
way
so
as
to
make
a
story
line
which
is
coherent
and
making
some
sense.
Denzin
and
Lincoln
are
however
not
very
much
fascinated
by
the
ideas
and
concepts
of
grounded
theory
and
argue
that
“grounded
theory
does
not
refer
to
some
special
order
of
theorizing
per
se”.
Glaser
himself
was
later
of
the
view
that
fitting
data
into
an
inflexible
framework
will
result
in
creating
data’s
irrelevance
to
the
core
study
purpose.
Another
dilemma
came
to
surface
when
Glaser
stressed
that
open
coding
and
theoretical
sampling
will
lead
to
research
problem
in
contrast
to
the
argument
of
Strauss
and
Corbin
that
phenomenon
to
be
studied
is
the
research
question.
Grounded
theory
therefore
has
its
own
pluses
and
minuses
Methods
of
Collecting
and
Analyzing
Empirical
Materials
The
first
criticism
that
qualitative
researchers
face
from
the
believers
of
quantitative
researchers
is
that
qualitative
research
is
too
subjective
and
impressionistic.
However
this
debate
cannot
move
forward
unless
we
study
the
methods
of
qualitative
research.
Narrative
Inquiry
is
emerging
and
occupying
a
considerable
ground
in
qualitative
research.
Chase
defines
narrative
enquiry
as
an
“amalgam
of
interdisciplinary
lenses,
diverse
disciplinary
approaches
and
both
traditional
and
innovative
methods-­‐all
revolving
around
an
interest
in
biographical
particulars
as
narrated
by
the
one
who
lives
them”.
(Chase
2003)
Narrative
enquiry
has
evolved
through
the
first
half
of
2oth
century
from
the
life
history
method
primarily
used
by
sociologists
and
anthropologists
to
the
second
wave
feminists
who
used
personal
narratives
to
invigorate
it.
It
later
moved
on
contemporary
scholars
who
used
interviews
to
understand
individual
performance
and
its
stories.
Sociolinguists
in
between
feminists
and
contemporary
scholars
used
narratives
as
kind
of
dialogue.
Narratives
make
sense
of
the
world
because
they
describe
performances,
actions
and
ways
of
acting
in
socially
constrained
form.
Narrative
researchers
frequently
make
use
of
first
person
to
“emphasize
their
own
narrative
action”.
Chase
has
outlined
sociological,
anthropological,
autoethnographic,
psychological
and
performance
studies
as
discrete
approaches
to
narrative

5. analysis.
Chase
has
also
emphasized
that
the
challenges
of
‘interpretive
authority’
and
‘hearing
the
story
that
is
being’
must
need
to
be
addressed
seriously.
Narrative
enquiries
can
also
be
used
to
make
progress
in
a
social
change
agenda.
Like
one
candle
lights
another,
Testimonios
(A
Testimonio
is
a
type
of
oral
history,
life
history
or
life
story;
it
is
an
explicitly
political
narrative
that
describes
and
resists
oppression.
Beverley,
2000;
Tierney,
2000)
can
unite
and
activate
a
group
of
people,
even
a
nation
to
rise
up
against
repression,
social
injustice
and
violence.
Stories
of
the
underprivileged
can
move
the
emotionally
insensitive
to
an
emotionally
sensitive
space.
The
second
form
of
enquiry
is
the
Art-­‐Based
Inquiry
is
largely
intertextual
in
nature.
Crossing
the
border
between
research
and
art,
an
art-­‐based
inquiry
used
the
methods,
practices
and
aesthetics
of
performance,
literary
and
visual
arts
not
excluding
drama,
theater,
dance,
video,
film,
collage
and
photography.
The
history
of
this
methodology
can
be
traced
in
postcolonial
postmodern
context.
The
best
use
of
this
inquiry
is
political
self-­‐expression
and
political
activism
that
can
be
ignited
through
the
use
of
street
theatre,
street
and
children
art
and
war-­‐
time
photo
memories.
Art-­‐based
inquiry
can
also
facilitate
the
transformation
process
by
initially
exposing
the
sources
of
resistance
as
well
as
oppression.
The
action
approach
of
art-­‐
based
work
is
so
powerful
that
it
can
potentially
change
the
mindset
of
people
through
their
bodies,
voices,
cameras
and
paintbrushes
whatever
they
decide
to
choose
and
use
a
tool
for
social
change
agenda.
The
history
of
interviewing
as
the
most
common
and
widely
accepted
form
of
inquiry
can
be
traced
back
to
ancient
Egyptians
and
their
population
census.
(Babbie
1992)
In
the
recent
eras,
it
gained
popularity
in
clinical
and
psychological
practices
and
was
used
initially
for
clinical
diagnosis
and
counseling.
With
a
strong
inclination
on
measurement,
it
became
a
popular
instrument
during
World
War
I
for
psychological
testing.
We
are
now
living
in
an
interview
society
where
we
believe
that
only
interviews
can
produce
meaningful
data
about
experiences
of
life
and
their
context.
I
a
culture
driven
heavily
by
the
influence
of
mass
media,
interview
is
now
a
customary
feature
rather
than
a
privilege.
Starting
from
its
basic
classification
of
structured,
semi
structures,
unstructured
and
open
–
ended,
it
is
now
sophisticated
enough
to
include
and
adapt
the
oral
history
interview,
on-­‐line
interviewing,
creative
interviewing,
focused
interviewing,
feminist
interviewing,
gendered
interviewing
and
multivoiced
or
postmodern
interviewing.
Interviewing
brings
together
the
researcher
and
the
researched
through
emotional
engagement,
openness
and
a
trusting
relationship
which
stands
in
stark
contrast
to
the
positivist
or
quantitative
school
of
thought
which
proposes
detachment
between
them.
(Oakley
1981)
The
fundamental
basis
of
all
research
methods
in
behavioral
and
social
sciences
is
observation.
(Adler
and
Adler
1994).
Observation
is
“the
mainstay
of
the
ethnographic
enterprise”
(Werner
and
Schoepfle,
1987)
Social
studies
that
are
primarily
geared
towards
interviewing
use
‘observation’
in
combination
to
study
human
response
through
the
use
of
body
and
its
parts.
(Gestures,
eye
movements,
etc.)
Observation
can
be
in
a
natural
or
an
experimental
setting.
Angrosino
(2000)
argues
that
since
all
observations
involves
participation
of
the
researcher
in
the
world
which
is
being
studied,
the
concept
of
‘detached
observation’
and
the
colonial
word
of
‘subject’
stand
invalid.
This
leads
to
another
interesting
debate
of
‘intrusion’
and
its
ethical

6. repercussions
whereby
the
Institutional
Review
Boards
of
research
institutions
are
expected
to
play
their
role
in
outlining
boundaries
of
researcher
engagement
with
the
researched.
Observational
research
is
not
considered
as
an
analysis
of
culture
or
society.
Instead
it
focuses
on
changing
human
relationships
which
have
a
profound
impact
of
lives
of
people
and
society.
Photography,
World
Wide
Web,
motion
pictures,
interactive
CD’s,
CD
–
Roms
and
virtual
reality
are
now
being
increasingly
used
by
anthropologists
and
sociologists
to
find
links
between
visual
perception
and
human
existence.
Though
there
are
still
challenges
of
what
to
record,
when
to
record
and
how
to
record
couple
with
ethical
issues
of
identification
and
publication
of
images,
visual
sociology
is
still
an
accepted
form
of
research
in
traditional
ethnography
as
it
conjoins
the
stories
with
facts
to
establish
truth.
The
ever-­‐changing
environment
of
visual
forms
of
recording
data
through
fast
changes
in
technology
makes
the
process
yet
more
complicated.
Auto-­‐ethnography
can
be
used
to
make
the
personal
political
(Holman
2003).
“Auto-­‐
ethnographies
breathe
life
into
life
ethnographies”.
It
is
a
balancing
act
and
works
to
bind
the
culture
and
self
together.
Auto-­‐ethnography
is
“research,
writing
and
method
that
connect
the
autobiographical
and
personal
to
the
cultural
and
social.
This
form
usually
features
concrete
action,
emotion,
embodiment,
self
consciousness,
and
introspection….and
claims
the
conventions
of
literary
writing”
(Ellis,
2004,
p.xix).
Or
Autoethnograpy
is
“a
self-­‐narrative
the
critiques
the
situatedness
of
self
with
others
in
social
contexts”
(Spry,
2001,
p.
710)
or
Autoethnography
is
“texts
that
democratize
the
representational
sphere
of
culture
by
locating
the
particular
experiences
of
individuals
in
a
tension
with
dominant
expression
of
discursive
powers”
(Neuman,
1996,
p.
189)
An
interesting
form
of
research
methodology
has
developed
over
the
years
which
used
computer
facilitated
images
of
social
structures
and
cultures.
While
in
the
‘offline’
the
‘body’
is
present.
In
a
computer
assisted
environment,
since
the
people
are
do
not
occupy
the
same
physical
space
and
the
non-­‐verbal
communication
is
almost
absent,
the
process
per
se
requires
a
more
deliberate
exchange
of
information.
The
Analytic
Perspectives
are
based
on
the
presumption
that
social
systems
and
their
interpretation
have
indigenous
modes
of
orderliness
and
qualitative
researchers
must
be
loyal
to
the
indigenousness
and
develop
analytic
strategies
around
it.
Collective
actions
must
take
priority
over
individual
actions
and
more
discipline
needs
to
be
brought
into
narrative,
discourse
and
semiotic
analysis.
The
Foucault’s
Methodologies
revolve
around
three
phases:
Archaeology,
genealogy
and
care
of
the
self.
Among
these
three,
genealogy
has
remained
the
focus
of
attention.
However
both
archaeology
and
genealogy
have
been
used
as
methods
of
qualitative
research.
In
order
to
understand
archaeology,
it
is
a
must
to
understand
“savior”
and
“connaissance”.
Formal
knowledge
is
savior
whereas
connaissance
refers
to
formal
bodies
of
knowledge.
Conversation
Analysis
and
Discourse
Analysis
form
the
two
main
traditions
of
social
science
used
for
the
analysis
of
transcripts.
An
analysis
of
what
is
‘said’
and
an
analysis
of
the
process
through
which
it
was
said
conjointly
can
educate
the
researcher
more
than
either
of
the
process.

7. Last
but
not
the
least
is
of
qualitative
methods
is
Focus
Groups.
Focus
groups
in
social
sciences
gained
popularity
as
early
as
World
War
II.
Focus
group
is
the
key
methodology
where
politics,
pedagogy
and
interpretive
inquiry
crosscut
and
cross
represents
one
another.
On
a
pragmatic
level,
focus
groups
generate
large
quantities
of
material
in
a
very
short
time
from
a
large
group
of
people.
Another
distinct
advantage
of
focus
group
is
that
the
data
collected
in
group
setting
is
more
robust
than
an
individual
setting
because
the
group
dynamics
pay
a
positive
role
in
generating
conflicting
material
which
is
more
useful
for
debate
and
argument
development.
The
discussion
above
has
given
a
very
brief
overview
of
the
methods
for
collection
and
analysis
of
qualitative
data.
It
is
the
job
of
the
researcher/Bricoleur
to
be
familiar
with
all
the
processes
in
order
to
justify
robustness
of
research
through
their
appropriate
use.
Sampling
in
Qualitative
Research
Various
sampling
methodologies
are
used
in
qualitative
research.
Some
may
be
used
in
both
qualitative
and
quantitative
research
like
probability
samples
but
qualitative
research
is
generally
characterized
by
“purposive
sampling”,
“theoretical
sampling”,
and
“not
just
people”.
(Bryman
2008)
In
purposive
sampling,
the
researcher
uses
more
of
a
non-­‐probability
sampling
method
rather
than
selecting
on
a
random
basis.
The
objective
of
purposive
sampling
is
to
identify
participants
and
research
subjects
that
have
close
association
with
the
research
topic
and
questions.
However
purposive
sampling
must
not
also
be
confused
with
convenience
sample
because
a
convenience
sample
is
related
to
the
proximity
and
approach
of
the
researcher
whereas
purposive
sample
allows
the
researcher
to
handpick
the
subjects
according
to
the
relevance,
association,
experience
and
knowledge
of
the
subject
under
study.
The
researcher
can
have
a
clear
cut
inclusion
and
exclusion
criteria.
The
closest
to
purposive
sampling
is
snowball
sampling
whereby
initially
the
researcher
may
not
have
the
desired
number
of
respondents
but
through
referrals
and
recommendation
of
the
initial
respondents,
the
researcher
can
reach
a
larger
group
through
snowball
effect.
“Theoretical
sampling
is
the
process
of
data
collection
for
generating
theory
whereby
the
analyst
jointly
collects,
codes
and
analyzes
his
data
and
decides
what
data
to
collect
next
and
where
to
find
them,
in
order
to
develop
his
theory
as
it
emerges.
The
process
of
data
collection
is
controlled
by
the
emerging
theory,
whether
substantive
or
formal”
(Glaser
and
Strauss
1967:
45)
This
definition
establishes
the
fact
that
theoretical
sampling
used
in
grounded
theory
is
an
ongoing
process
as
against
a
onetime
activity.
“Not
just
people”
may
refer
to
time,
context,
environment
and
cultures.
People
exhibit
different
behaviors
in
different
parts
of
the
day,
different
days
of
year
and
different
years
of
life.
Likewise,
environment
and
culture
also
play
a
role
in
ethnographic
studies.
Reliability
and
Validity
in
Qualitative
Research
In
quantitative
research,
the
quality
of
data
collected
is
measured
through
reliability
and
validity.
The
knee-­‐jerk
response
for
a
qualitative
researcher
to
this
is
that
it
is
‘not
possible’.

8. However
Mason
(1996:
21)
has
argued
that
reliability
and
validity
as
in
quantitative
research
are
measures
of
rigor,
quality
and
generalizability
of
research
and
are
achieved
through
certain
disciplinary
conventions,
principles
and
methodologies.
The
same
is
true
for
observations,
interviews
and
ethnographies.
All
we
need
to
do
is
to
establish
what
we
are
writing
as
a
qualitative
researcher
is
a
true
and
fair
representation
of
facts.
The
four
characteristic
terms
are
External
Reliability,
Internal
Reliability,
Internal
Validity
and
External
Validity.
While
Mason
(1996)
tried
to
establish
that
there
is
hardly
much
difference
between
the
meaning
of
these
terms
in
the
either
context
of
qualitative
and
quantitative
research,
Le
Compte
and
Goetz
(1982)
and
Kirk
and
Miller
(1986)
tried
to
defend
the
case
by
finding
a
different
meaning
for
the
same
terminology.
The
distinguishing
statement
came
from
Lincoln
and
Guba
(1985)
and
Guba
and
Lincoln
(1994)
whereby
they
proposed
a
different
terminology
altogether
for
qualitative
research
in
order
to
make
it
more
meaningful.
They
proposed
two
primary
criteria
of
trustworthiness
and
authenticity
for
qualitative
research.
Trustworthiness
encapsulates
Credibility,
a
substitute
for
internal
validity,
Transferability,
a
substitute
for
external
validity,
Dependability,
a
substitute
for
reliability
and
Confirmability
as
a
substitute
for
objectivity.
The
components
of
authenticity
include
fairness,
ontological
authenticity,
educative
authenticity,
catalytic
authenticity
and
tactical
authenticity.
A
detailed
discussion
on
all
these
terms
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
paper.
However,
one
out
of
these,
generalizability
or
external
validity
is
the
main
topic
of
this
paper
and
will
be
discussed
in
detail.
Probability
sampling
may
be
used
in
qualitative
research
though
its
application
remains
somewhat
limited
to
interview
based
studies
instead
of
ethnographic
studies.
However,
there
are
no
clear
cut
guidelines
for
a
qualitative
researcher
as
to
how
and
when
probability
sampling
is
to
be
applied.
This
depends
on
the
research
strategy
per
se.
If
the
objective
is
to
generalize
the
findings
to
a
wider
population,
it
is
imperative
to
use
probability
sampling
instead
of
purposive
sampling.
To
What
Extent
it
is
Possible
to
Generalize
on
the
Basis
of
Qualitative
Research?
Two
types
of
generalizations
have
been
proposed
by
Mason
(2002):
Empirical
generalization
is
based
on
the
analysis
of
data
drawn
from
a
representative
sample
of
the
population.
Empirical
generalization
is
normally
possible
if
the
sample
is
a
true
subset
of
the
population.
This
is
more
common
in
quantitative
research
whereby
it
is
possible
to
do
a
probability
sample.
Within
probability
sample
are
simple
random
sample,
systematic
sample,
stratified
random
sample
and
cluster
sample.
If
a
census
is
conducted,
then
the
idea
of
generalization
stands
invalid
anyway
as
the
researcher
has
included
the
entire
population
and
does
not
need
to
generalize.
Unfortunately,
this
method
is
the
least
commonly
applied
method
in
qualitative
research.
Empirical
generalization
is
not
a
plausible
option
for
qualitative
research
also
because
it
is
impossible
to
bring
the
social
setting
of
a
study
to
a
standstill
and
keep
the
circumstances
similar
during
a
repetition.
(LeCompte
and
Geotz
1982).
Theoretical
generalization
is
the
more
commonly
accepted
norm
in
qualitative
research.
But
there
is
no
structured
formula
to
theoretical
generalization.
The
researcher
has
to
be
cautious
and
prepared
for
this
while
deciding
the
logical
framework
before
the
start
of
research
as
to

9. what
extent
would
it
is
desirable
and
possible
to
generalize
on
the
basic
of
findings
and
this
has
to
be
incorporated
into
the
study
in
advance.
Theoretical
generalization
is
based
on
differing
logics
which
may
or
may
not
be
‘theoretical’
in
nature.
A
cogent
theoretical
reasoning
and
not
statistical
data
is
the
decision
maker
for
generalization.
(Mitchell
1983:
207)
Despite
the
fact
the
any
research
sample
is
drawn
from
a
non
–
representative
population,
it
is
still
possible
to
argue
the
ability
and
strength
for
generalization.
Without
any
support
from
the
sampling
strategy
to
generalize,
a
‘theoretical
generalization’
is
still
possible
if
strong
arguments
are
put
forward
to
support
that
the
characteristics
of
the
sample
are
quite
similar
to
the
wider
population
under
inquiry.
A
theoretical
generalization
may
also
be
about
a
process
in
a
specific
setting.
Consider
that
a
researcher
has
conducted
a
study
on
a
process
in
a
defined
and
specific
environment
and
came
with
certain
findings.
The
theoretic
argument
can
take
two
positions:
The
process
can
be
replicated
with
similar
results
provided
exactly
the
same
environmental
settings
are
replicated
or
if
the
environment
is
exactly
similar
to
the
on
described
in
the
study,
the
process
under
consideration
will
produce
similar
results.
Another
possibility
of
theoretical
generalization
is
to
support
political
and
social
change.
If
a
researcher
has
selected
a
case
of
a
philanthropist
with
the
objective
of
studying
philanthropic
solutions
in
a
purely
repressive
society,
the
case
can
be
made
a
basis
of
generalization
to
argue
that
“if
ten
percent
of
the
members
of
this
community
start
leading
a
life
like
Mr.
XYZ,
ninety
percent
of
the
problems
of
poverty
and
social
evils
will
be
solved”.
However
the
greater
goal
should
be
to
investigate
systems,
processes
and
issues
which
are
central
to
a
larger
body
of
explanation
and
knowledge.
Generalization
in
a
qualitative
study
also
depends
a
lot
on
the
thoroughness
and
meticulousness
of
the
study
process.
If
the
researcher
has
demonstrated
the
accuracy
of
the
research
process
and
the
validity
of
method
as
well
as
its
interpretation,
any
meaningful
generalization
would
be
valid
and
acceptable.
Though
any
researcher
is
free
to
choose
sampling
units
for
a
study,
a
prudent
explanation
and
documentation
of
the
process
and
its
strategic
intentions
will
add
credibility
to
the
research.
In
terms
of
qualitative
research,
credibility,
as
subset
of
trustworthiness
as
defined
by
Guba
and
Lincoln
(1994)
can
be
established
in
two
ways:
Firstly
by
making
sure
that
the
research
process
has
been
undertaken
meticulously
using
all
principles
of
good
practices
and
secondly,
by
securing
a
respondent
validation
meaning
thereby
that
the
research
findings
were
submitted
to
the
people
who
were
studied
and
a
confirmation
from
them
that
the
researcher
has
understood
and
recorded
their
point
of
view
in
the
same
fashion
as
they
wanted
it.
One
of
the
strategic
debates
that
hinders
generalization
is
the
issue
of
context.
The
strongest
support
for
generalization
will
become
convenient
if
the
researcher
can
take
into
account
a
range
of
contexts
and
compare
them
to
draw
cross-­‐contextual
generalities
from
the
process
itself.
This
way,
the
researcher
will
be
able
to
demonstrate
a
very
close
relationship
between
context
and
explanation
making
generalization
robust.

10. Another
term
coined
by
Williams
(2000:
215)
is
moderatum
generalizations.
He
describes
moderatum
generalizations
as
the
“ones
in
which
aspects
of
the
focus
of
inquiry
can
be
seen
to
be
instances
of
a
broader
set
of
recognizable
features”.
He
also
argues
that
generalizations
put
forward
by
qualitative
researchers
are
a
rule
rather
than
an
exception.
A
researcher,
while
describing
findings
of
one
group
can
draw
comparisons
with
research
finding
for
comparable
groups
which
could
have
been
done
by
other
researchers.
Nevertheless,
moderatum
generalization
will
stay
different
and
cautious
in
comparison
to
statistical
generalizations
drawn
from
probability
samples.
It
would
very
relevant
to
briefly
mention
the
use
of
CAQDAS,
NUD*IST
and
NVivo
in
this
context.
All
of
them
are
supposedly
statistical
softwares
to
identify
the
key
concepts
and
analyze
the
qualitative
data
but
they
do
not
come
anyway
near
SPSS
in
terms
of
their
usage
and
universality.
The
reason
is
not
a
shortcoming
in
the
software
as
such
but
it
is
the
diverging
methodology
of
qualitative
and
qualitative
research
that
makes
them
vulnerable.
However
the
limits
of
generalizability
of
qualitative
data
can
be
defeated
through
an
intelligent
and
limited
use
of
these
softwares
by
showing
numbers,
aggregation
and
counting
in
a
useful
manner.
Moreover,
the
software
leads
to
a
‘detachment’
of
researcher
from
the
findings
with
all
risks
of
missing
out
obvious
themes
due
to
engagement
in
the
overwhelming
nature
of
the
software
use.
Generalization
is
also
impacted
by
the
manner
in
which
a
data
is
organized.
One
way
to
support
analytic
logic
is
to
use
cross-­‐sectional
indexing
and
categorical
analysis.
Another
strategy
for
analytic
logic
is
contextual,
case
study
and
holistic
approach.
Researchers
have
used
either
or
both
strategies
with
mixed
responses.
Cross
sectional
analysis
focuses
on
specified
themes
instead
of
drawing
comparisons.
Contextual,
case
study
or
holistic
approach
helps
in
categorical
analysis.
Again
the
question
here
in
not
about
what
each
category
carries
with
it.
The
question
is
about
the
strategic
choice
that
a
researcher
makes.
Summary
and
Conclusion
Qualitative
Research
is
a
research
methodology
focusing
on
words
instead
of
numbers
in
data
collection
and
analysis.
Qualitative
researchers
are
inductivists,
interpretivists
and
constuctivists.
Qualitaitve
research
has
evolved
through
nine
moments
in
history
and
four
traditions
as
described
above.
The
methods
of
collecting
and
analyzing
materials
which
are
considered
empirical
in
terms
of
qualitative
inquiry
are
also
characteristically
different
from
one
another
as
well
as
from
those
of
quantitative
research
with
more
emphasis
on
seeing
the
world
through
the
eyes
of
the
respondent
rather
than
through
the
eyes
of
researcher.
All
methods
of
qualitative
research
put
the
researcher
in
close
proximity
to
the
researched,
sometimes
making
him
part
of
the
world
which
is
being
studied.
Likewise,
the
sampling
strategies
have
changed
from
probability
and
non-­‐probability
sample
in
quantitative
research
to
purposive
sampling
in
qualitative
research.
The
concept
of
‘grounded’
theory
in
qualitative
research
makes
the
process
all
the
more
exigent.
The
challenges
of
validity
and
reliability
have
also
been
reduced
to
insignificance
by
introduction
of
a
different
terminology
like
trustworthiness
and
authenticity
with
some
subsets.
Computer
assisted
data
analysis
applications,
though
used
with
caution
add

11. to
the
genuineness
and
legitimacy
of
the
process.
The
entire
description
is
to
establish
the
robustness
and
vigor
of
the
process.
Although
generalization
is
not
easy
to
establish
in
any
social
research
process,
it
has
achieved
a
level
or
acceptance
in
both
qualitative
and
quantitative
research.
In
quantitative
research,
it
is
established
through
statistical
tools
and
an
assessment
of
external
validity.
The
same
objective
is
achieved
in
qualitative
research
through
logic
and
‘thick
description’
(Geertz
1973)
or
‘rich
accounts
of
the
details
of
a
culture’
and
thus
establishing
transferability
through
trustworthiness.
Therefore,
a
strategy
which
is
logical,
crafted
by
a
bricoleur
contextual,
richly
described
and
trustworthy
is
as
‘generlizable’
as
any
other
strategy.
References:
1. Adler,
P.
A.,
and
Adler,
P.
(1994),
Observational
Techniques.
In
N.
K.
Denzin
and
Y.
S.
Lincoln
(Eds.)
Handbook
of
Qualitative
Research
(pp.
377-­‐392).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
2. Angrosino,
M.
V.,
and
Perez,
K.
(2000)
Rethinking
Observation:
From
Method
to
Context.
In
N.
K.
Denzin
and
Y.
S.
Lincoln
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Qualitative
Research
(2nd
Ed.,
pp.673-­‐702)
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
3. Atkinson,
P.
A.,
&
Delamont,
S.
(2004).
Analysis
and
Postmodernism.
In
M.
Hardy
and
A.
Bryman
(Eds.).
Handbook
of
analysi
(pp.
667-­‐681).
London:
Sage
4. Babbie,
E.
(1992).
The
practice
of
social
research
(6th
ed.).
Belmont,
CA:
Wadsworth
5.
Bogdan,
R.,
and
Taylor,
S.
J.
(1975)
Introduction
to
Qualitative
Research
Methods:
A
Phenomenological
Approach
to
the
Social
Sciences
(New
York:
Wiley)
6. Bryman
A.,
(2008)
Social
Research
Methods,
Third
Edition,
Oxford
University
Press.
7. Charmaz,
K.
(2000),
Grounded
Theory:
Objectivist
and
Constructivist
Methods’,
in
N.
K.
Denzin
and
Y.
S.
Lincoln
(eds.),
Handbook
of
Qualitative
Research
(2nd
Edn,;
Thousand
Oaks,
Calif.:Sage)
8. Chase,
S.
E.
(1995b),
Taking
Narrative
Seriously:
Consequences
for
Method
and
Theory
in
Interview
Studies.
In
R.
Josselson
and
A.
Leiblich
(Eds.),
Interpreting
Experience:
The
Narrative
Study
of
Lives
(pp.1-­‐26).
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
9. Chase,
S.
E.
(2003),
Learning
to
Listen:
Narrative
Principles
in
Qualitative
Research
Methods
Course.
In
R.
Josselson
and
A.
Leiblich
and
D.P.
McAdams(Eds.),
Up,
close
and
personal:
The
Teaching
and
Learning
of
Narrative
Research
(pp.
79-­‐99).
Washington
DC:
Americal
Psychological
Association.
10. Cook,
D.
A.,
(1981).
A
history
of
narrative
film.
New
York:
W.
W.
Norton
11. Denzin
Norman
K.,
Lincoln
Yvonna
S.,
Collecting
and
Interpreting
Qualitative
Materials,
3rd
Ed.
Sage
Publications
Inc.
2008.
12. Ellis,
C.
(2004).
The
ethnographic
I:
A
methodological
novel
about
teaching
and
doing
autoethnography.
Walnut
Creek,
CA:
AltaMira
13. Finley,
S.
(2000a).
“Dream
Child”:
The
role
of
poetic
dialogue
in
homeless
research.
Qualitaitve
Inquiry,
6,
432-­‐434.
14. Finley,
S.,
(2000b)
From
the
streets
to
the
classrooms:
Street
intellectuals
as
teacher
educators,
collaborations
in
revolutionary
pedagogy.
In
K.
Sloan
and
J.
T.
Sears
(Eds.),
Democratic
Curriculum
Theory
and
Practice;
retrieving
public
spaces
(pp.
98-­‐113).
Troy,
NY:
Educator’s
International
Press.

12. 15. Finley,
S.,
(2001).
Painting
Life
Histories.
Journal
of
Curriculum
Theorizing,
17(2),
13-­‐26
16. Finley,
S.,
(2003a).
Art
based
inquiry
in
QI:
Seven
years
from
crisis
to
guerilla
warfare,
Qualitative
Inquiry,
9,
281-­‐296
17. Glaser,
B.
G.
and
Strauss,
A.
L.
(1967)
The
Discovery
of
Grounded
Theory,
Strategies
for
Qualitative
Research
(Chicago:
Aldine)
18. Goodwin,
J.
and
Horoqitz,
R.
‘Introduction:
The
Methodological
Strengths
and
Dilemmas
of
Qualitative
Sociology’,
Qualitative
Sociology,
Vol.
25,
No.
1,
Spring
2002
19. Guba,
E.
G.,
and
Lincoln,
Y.
S.
(1994),
Competing
Paradigms
in
Qualitative
Research,
In
N.
K.
Denzin
and
Y.
S.
Licoln
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Qualitative
Research
(Thousand
Oaks,
Calif.:
Sage)
20. Harper,
D.
(1993).
On
the
authority
of
the
image:
Visual
Sociology
at
the
Cross
Roads.
In
N.
K.
Denzin
and
Y.
Lincoln
(Eds.),
Handbook
of
Qualitative
Research
(pp.
403-­‐412).
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage
21. Holman
Jones,
S.
(2003).
What
we
save:
A
bricolage
on/about
team
ethnography.
American
Communication
Journal,
6(2).
(Online).
Available:
www.acjournal.org
22. Kamberelis,
G.,
&
Dimitriadis,
G.
(2005).
On
qualitative
inquiry.
New
York:
Columbia
University,
Teachers
College
Press
23. LeCompte,
M.D.,
and
Goetz,
J.
P.,
(1982),
Problems
of
Reliability
and
Validity
in
Ethnographic
Research,
Review
of
Educational
Research,
52:
31-­‐60
24. Levi-­‐Strauss,
C.
(1966).
The
Savage
Mind
(2nd
Ed.).
Chicago:
University
of
Chicago
Press
25. Lincoln,
Y.
S.,
and
Guba,
E.
(1985),
Naturalistic
Inquiry
(Beverley
Hills,
Calif.:Sage)
26. Markham,
A.
(2004a).
The
Internet
as
research
context.
In
C.
Seale,
J.
Gubrium,
G.
Giampietro,
and
D.
Silverman
(Eds.)
Qualitative
Research
Practice.
London:
Sage
27. Markham,
A.
(2004b)
Internet
as
a
tool
for
qualitative
research.
In
D.
Silverman
(Ed.),
Qualitative
Research:
Theory,
Method
and
Practice
(pp.
95-­‐123).
London:
Sage
28. Mason,
J.,
(1996),
Qualitative
Researching
(London:
Sage)
29. Mitchell,
J.
C.
(1983),
Case
and
situation
analysis,
Sociological
Review,
31:
186-­‐211
30. Morill,
C.,
&
Fine,
G.
A.
(1997).
Ethnographic
Contributions
to
Organizational
Sociology,
Sociological
Methods
and
Research,
25,
42
–
51.
31. Neumann,
M.
(1996).
Collecting
ourselves
at
the
end
of
the
century.
In
C.
Ellis
&
A.
P.
Bochner
(Eds.)
Composing
Ethnography:
Alternative
Forms
of
Qualitative
Writing
(pp.
172-­‐198)
Walnut
Creek,
CA:
AltaMira
32. Oakley,
A.
(1981).
Interviewing
Women:
A
Contradiction
in
Terms.
In
H.
Roberts
(Ed.),
Doing
Feminist
Research
(pp.
30-­‐61).
London:
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul.
33. Perakyla,
A.,
(1995).
AIDS
Counseling:
Institutional
Interaction
and
clinical
practice,
Cambridge
UK:
Cambridge
University
Press
34. Scheurich,
J.
J.
(1997).
Research
Methods
in
the
Postmodern.
London:
Falmer
35. Schutz,
A.
(1962),
Collected
Papers
I,
The
Problem
of
Social
Reality,(The
Hague:
Martinus
Nijhof)
36. Spry,
T.
(2001).
Performing
Autoethnography:
An
embodied
methodological
praxis.
Qualitative
Inquiry,
7,
706-­‐732
37.
Stauss,
A.,
and
Corbin,
J.
M.
(1990),
Basics
of
Qualitative
Research:
Grounded
Theory
Procedures
Techniques
(Newbury
Park,
Calif.
:
Sage)

13. 38. Werner,
O.,
&
Schoepfle,
G.
M.
(1987).
Systematic
Field
Work,
vol.
1:
Foundations
of
Ethnography
and
Interviewing.
Newbury
Park,
CA:
Sage
39. Williams,
M.
(2000),
Interpretivism
and
Generalization,
Sociology,
34:
209-­‐24