Tackling the Problem of Transferability in IS Qualitative Research
2008
- 758Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage758
- Abstract Views477
- Downloads281
Article Description
Despite the diverse calls for transferability in IS research, most IS qualitative research studies still pay little attention to the potential applicability of their results in other social contexts (settings). We argue that one way to support the assessment of transferability is to characterize the deep features of the research setting. The two main premises of this paper are that although in IS qualitative research knowledge about results is context-bound, (1) the settings in which IS phenomena occur may have common features and characteristics, and therefore, the settings may be commensurable, and (2) the transferability of research results from one setting to another depends on the fittingness between the features and characteristics of the settings. In this article, we draw on the constituents of structure proposed by Giddens to suggest these common features and develop a framework of four pure ‘structural configurations’. We demonstrate proof of concept concerning the feasibility of this framework by classifying the research settings of a sample of papers. We consider this framework may be a first approximation to typifying the setting in which IS phenomena occur, and therefore, a way to support the transferability of IS qualitative research by delineating the applicability of its results.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know