The Challenge of Qualitative Generalisations in Communication Research

Abstract

Department of Communication, Journalism and Computer Science, Roskilde University, Universitetsvej 1, DK-4000 Roskilde, bha@ruc.dk One of the questions by which we usually judge each others’ research and our students’ analytical skills is “what can we actually say using this piece of work?” What kinds of claims of generality are made, and how validly are these claims sustained? Valid generalisation is usually considered an important element of convincing research both in the qualitatively and the quantitatively oriented approaches to communication research (Jensen, 2002:266-68). Yet particularly among qualitatively oriented researchers, the possibility as well as the desirability of generalising beyond the particular context of data-production is sometimes questioned. There is quite a body of literature describing the different analytical designs and models of inference and their consequences for generalisation at an epistemological level of theory of science (e.g., Blaikie, 1993; Danermark et al., 2002; Jensen, 2002; Ragin, 1987; Sayer, 1992). But it seems more difficult to find literature that describes concretely how to go about making valid generalisations at a practical methodological level, at least as regards research based on qualitative data. It appears to be implicitly assumed that we are able to appropriate and implement rather abstract, general and complex knowledge into well-functioning practical choices – something we would definitely question if it were assumed about any other group of text-users. Thus, the purpose of this article is to contribute to the ongoing discussions within communication research by concretely exemplifying different strategies for making qualitative generalisations. This is attempted in two steps. First, the article discusses different principles and priorities in qualitative generalisation. Second, the article describes three different concrete examples of generalisations in a research project on consumption and communication, explains how they were made and discusses why these categories can be understood as such types of generalisations.