This study aims to describe how researchers may incorporate four different generalisation methods (working hypothesis, analytic generalisation, critical case and naturalistic generalisation) to aid them in properly generaliseing from case study results. It was found that critical cases can be used in combination with working hypothesis to determine the falsifiability of the hypotheses. Working hypothesis and analytic generalisation complement each other by making it possible for researchers to generalise to both theory and new hypotheses (i.e. both inductively and deductively). Lastly, naturalistic and analytic generalisation enables a double-ended generalisation, where both the reader and the scientist themself generalise to specific situations and over-all theory, respectively.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:hh-32960 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Wikfeldt, Emma |
| Publisher | Högskolan i Halmstad, Akademin för ekonomi, teknik och naturvetenskap |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds