Document Type : Research Paper
Author
Department of Linguistics, Languages, and Cultures, Second Language Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
Abstract
This paper critically examines the growing debate over the relevance of replication in qualitative research, especially within language education. While replication has long been central to quantitative research as a means of ensuring generalizability, transparency, and methodological rigor, its applicability to qualitative paradigms remains contested. Advocates argue that replication, particularly in its conceptual form, can enhance the trustworthiness of qualitative inquiry by promoting transparency and reflexivity. Critics, however, question whether replication is compatible with qualitative traditions that emphasize contextuality, subjectivity, and co-construction. This paper explores these tensions by differentiating between generalizability and transferability and evaluating whether the notion of replication, originally rooted in positivist assumptions, can be reframed to align with qualitative values. The paper further examines alternative concepts such as analytic and intersectional generalizability. It concludes that the term replication may not fully capture the aims of many qualitative inquiries, and the broader goals of rigor, transparency, and meaningful knowledge-building can still be pursued through established qualitative practices. This discussion invites more nuanced approaches to evaluating quality in qualitative research by considering how replication aligns with, or conflicts with, the epistemological and methodological foundations of different qualitative paradigms.
Keywords
Brandt, M. J., Ijzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., Grange, J. A., Perugini, M., Spies, J. R., & van ’t Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.005
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932
Campbell, D. T. (1986). Relabeling internal and external validity for applied social scientists. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 1986(31), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1434
Carminati, L. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: A tale of two traditions. Qualitative Health Research, 28(13), 2094–2101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732318788379
Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076829
Darvin, R., & Norton, B. (2015). Identity and a model of investment in applied linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 36–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190514000191
Davies, D., & Dodd, J. (2002). Qualitative research and the question of rigor. Qualitative Health Research, 12, 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973230201200211
De Costa, P. I., Valmori, L., & Choi, I. (2017). Qualitative research methods. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 522–540). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315676968-29
Delmar, C. (2010). “Generalizability” as recognition: Reflections on a foundational problem in qualitative research. Qualitative Studies, 1(2), 115–128. https://doi.org/10.7146/qs.v1i2.3828
Dunlap, K. (1926). The experimental methods of psychology. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Psychologies of 1925 (pp. 331–353). Clark University Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11020-022
Hallberg, L. (2013). Quality criteria and generalization of results from qualitative studies. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being, 8, 10–3402. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v8i0.20647
Hellström, T. (2008). Transferability and naturalistic generalization: New generalizability concepts for social science or old wine in new bottles? Quality & Quantity, 42(3), 321–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9048-0
Hiver, P., & Al‐Hoorie, A. H. (2020). Reexamining the role of vision in second language motivation: A preregistered conceptual replication of You, Dörnyei, and Csizér (2016). Language Learning, 70(1), 48–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12371
Kidder, L. H., & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In M. M. Mark & L. Shotland (Eds.), New Directions in Program Evaluation (pp. 57–75). Jossey-Bass. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1459
Kitto, S. C., Chesters, J., & Grbich, C. (2008). Quality in qualitative research. Medical Journal of Australia, 188(4), 243–246. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01595.x
LeBel, E. P., Berger, D., Campbell, L., & Loving, T. J. (2017). Falsifiability is not optional. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000106
Leppink, J. (2017). Revisiting the quantitative–qualitative-mixed methods labels: Research questions, developments, and the need for replication. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 12(2), 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.11.008
Lewis, J., Ritchie, J., Ormston, R., & Morrell, G. (2014). Generalizing from qualitative research. In J. Ritchie, J. Lewis, C. McNaughton Nicholls, & R. Ormston (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (2nd ed., pp. 347–366). Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Macionis, J., & Gerber, L. (2010). Sociology (7th ed.). Pearson.
Makel, M. C., Hodges, J., Cook, B. G., & Plucker, J. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211001356
Makel, M. C., Meyer, M. S., Simonsen, M. A., Roberts, A. M., & Plucker, J. A. (2022). Replication is relevant to qualitative research. Educational Research and Evaluation, 27(1–2), 215–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2021.2022310
Marsden, E., Morgan-Short, K., Thompson, S., & Abugaber, D. (2018). Replication in second-language research: Narrative and systematic reviews and recommendations for the field. Language Learning, 68(2), 321–391. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12286
Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitatively oriented research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3).
McManus, K. (2023). Why and how to replicate quasi-experimentally. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/x3e4u
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Peterson, D., & Panofsky, A. (2021). Self-correction in science: The diagnostic and integrative motives for replication. Social Studies of Science, 51(4), 583–605. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127211005551
Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2021). Replication is important for educational psychology: Recent developments and key issues. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796
Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2010). Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: Myths and strategies. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 1451–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004
Porte, G., & McManus, K. (2019). Doing replication research in applied linguistics. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315621395
Pownall, M. (2024). Is replication possible in qualitative research? A response to Makel et al. (2022). Educational Research and Evaluation, 29(1–2), 104–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2024.2314526
Pratt, M. G., Kaplan, S., & Whittington, R. (2020). Editorial essay: The tumult over transparency: Decoupling transparency from replication in establishing trustworthy qualitative research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 65(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219887663
Proctor, R. W., & Chen, J. (2012). Dissociating influences of key and hand separation on the Stroop color-identification effect. Acta Psychologica, 141(1), 39–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.06.005
Riazi, A. M., Rezvani, R., & Ghanbar, H. (2023a). Trustworthiness in L2 writing research: A review and analysis of qualitative articles in the Journal of Second Language Writing. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100065
Riazi, M., Ghanbar, H., & Rezvani, R. (2023b). Qualitative data coding and analysis: A systematic review of the papers published in the Journal of Second Language Writing. Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, 11(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.30466/ijltr.2023.121271
Schmidt, S. (2009). Shall we really do it again? The powerful concept of replication is neglected in the social sciences. Review of General Psychology, 13(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015108
Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201
Smith, B. (2018). Generalizability in qualitative research: Misunderstandings, opportunities and recommendations for the sport and exercise sciences. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 10(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2017.1393221
Stake, R. E. (2013). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
Stroebe, W., & Strack, F. (2014). The alleged crisis and the illusion of exact replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(1), 59–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613514450
Tuval-Mashiach, R. (2021). Is replication relevant for qualitative research? Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 365. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000217
)