When we evaluate the representativeness and generalizability of results of qualitative studies, it is useful to employ the idea of "fit"; that is, results and conclusions based on a study of one context can be generalized to another if the second context matches the first closely in key characteristics. Such an approach requires careful contextualization, which makes possible subsequent generalization (or qualified generalization) of the results to other similar populations and similar contexts (Schofield 1993). Using this reasoning, we can generalize from the conclusions reached in this research to other groups of parents with deaf children if key characteristics of the parents, their children, and their access to rehabilitation services all match. The parents interviewed in the first study and most of the parents who wrote the letters analyzed in the second study were living in urban areas rather than in the countryside; they were on the whole well-educated, middle-income families rather than poor and uneducated. Both groups of parents had children who were preschoolers at the time, although there was a significant difference in the children's ages—the average age of children whose parents were interviewed was 5.8 years (range 3.8 to 7.0 years); the average age of the children whose parents wrote letters was 2.6 years (range 0.7 to 7.0 years). Thus their attitudes and opinions reflect their different experiences: those interviewed had a child attending a rehabilitation center, while most parents writing letters were at an earlier stage, sooner after diagnosis and before any experience with rehabilitation services. Assuming that parents' socioeconomic circumstances, level of education, and place of residence (urban/rural) are key defining characteristics, and comparing the findings of my studies with the information presented in chapters 2 to 4, I believe that the findings from the interview data and from the analysis of letters are broadly representative of the views and attitudes of well-educated, urban Chinese parents with preschool-age deaf children.
A couple of final observations need to be made. I assume that many readers of this book, whether they are audiologists, teachers, researchers, or parents of deaf children, are familiar with deaf education in the West. They may perceive that many difficulties and shortcomings noted regarding the situation of young deaf children in China, often by Chinese professionals themselves, have still to be adequately addressed in Western countries: early diagnosis and intervention for all deaf children, for example, and optimal early development of language in profoundly deaf children of hearing parents. I do not intend this book as criticism of one society; the focus on China may draw attention away from circumstances in other countries, but many of the core issues and challenges faced by those involved in deaf education are universal.