ABSTRACT
It is generally accepted by qualitative researchers that generalizability is neither desirable nor necessary; as such, studies are not designed to allow systematic generalizations to some wider population. Freidson (1975) has expressed this dilemma in cogent terms: “There is more to truth or validity than statistical representativeness” (p. 272). In a similar vein Guba and Lincoln (1989) have maintained, “Generalization, in the conventional paradigm, is absolute, at least when conditions for randomization and sampling are met” (p. 241). In spite of the difficulties of generalization in qualitative research, Maxwell (1992) has clarified that, “This is not to argue that issues of sampling, representativeness, and generalizability are unimportant in qualitative research” (p. 293). Maxwell then goes on to differentiate between: (a) internal generalizability, namely, generalizing within the community, group or institution studied to persons, events and settings that were not directly observed or interviewed; and (b) external generalizability, namely, generalizing to other communities, groups or institutions. Nevertheless, Maxwell (1992) concedes that this differentiation of generalizability (internal/external) is not always helpful:
A researcher studying a school, for example, can rarely visit every classroom, or even gain information about these classrooms by other means, and the issue of whether to consider the generalizability of the account for those unstudied classrooms internal or external is moot.
