Session 4: Qualitative Sampling and Data Collection

Sampling is the process of selecting units (e.g., people, organizations) from a population of
interest so that by studying the sample we may fairly generalize our results back to the population
from which they were chosen. Let's begin by covering some of the key terms in sampling like
"population" and "sampling frame."
Population is a group of persons or objects that possess some common characteristics that are
of interest to the researcher, and about which the researcher seeks to learn more. The target
population is composed of the entire group of people or objects to which the research wish to
generalize the findings of the study.
A sample is a group of individuals that represent s the characteristics of a population. The
process of choosing samples from a population is called sampling.
Advantages of Sampling (p 74 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
The following are the advantages of sampling in qualitative research.
1. It saves time, effort and resources. Dealing with a smaller number of participants is easier
than taking the whole population.
2. It minimizes casualties. In some studies, the respondents are needed to be examined
thoroughly, thus, resulting to withdrawal of some respondents from the roster. The
withdrawal of considerable number of respondents is crucial especially when only few of
them are selected. Therefore, sampling of the correct number of respondents needed for
study prevents undesirable casualties.
3. It paves the way for thorough investigation. Since the research respondents are only small
in number, the researcher could focus on each respondent and do a thorough examination
on them. More time of observation could be spent if there is a manageable number of
respondents.
4. It allows easy data handling, collection, and analysis. A small number of research
respondents allows the researcher to manage his/her data collection and analysis
procedures rather than doing it with a large number.

Sampling in Qualitative Research

There are two major sampling classification namely the probability sampling and non-probability
sampling.
 Qualitative sampling is a purposeful sampling technique in which the researcher sets a criteria
in selecting individuals and sites. The major criterion used in selecting respondents or sites is
the richness of information that can be drawn out from them. There are several strategies under
this sampling technique.

Nonprobability Sampling
(Trochim, William at http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualmeth.php)

The difference between nonprobability and probability sampling is that nonprobability sampling does
not involve random selection and probability sampling does. Does that mean that nonprobability
samples aren't representative of the population? Not necessarily. But it does mean that
nonprobability samples cannot depend upon the rationale of probability theory. At least with a
probabilistic sample, we know the odds or probability that we have represented the population well.
We are able to estimate confidence intervals for the statistic. With nonprobability samples, we may
or may not represent the population well, and it will often be hard for us to know how well we've done
so. In general, researchers prefer probabilistic or random sampling methods over non probabilistic
ones, and consider them to be more accurate and rigorous. However, in applied social research
there may be circumstances where it is not feasible, practical or theoretically sensible to do random
sampling. Here, we consider a wide range of non probabilistic alternatives.

We can divide nonprobability sampling methods into two broad types: accidental or purposive. Most
sampling methods are purposive in nature because we usually approach the sampling problem with
a specific plan in mind. The most important distinctions among these types of sampling methods are
the ones between the different types of purposive sampling approaches.

1. Accidental, Haphazard or Convenience Sampling

- One of the most common methods of sampling goes under the various titles listed here. I would
include in this category the traditional "man on the street" (of course, now it's probably the
"person on the street") interviews conducted frequently by television news programs to get a
quick (although non representative) reading of public opinion. I would also argue that the typical
use of college students in much psychological research is primarily a matter of convenience.
(You don't really believe that psychologists use college students because they believe they're
 representative of the population at large, do you?). In clinical practice, we might use clients who
are available to us as our sample. In many research contexts, we sample simply by asking for
volunteers. Clearly, the problem with all of these types of samples is that we have no evidence
that they are representative of the populations we're interested in generalizing to -- and in many
cases we would clearly suspect that they are not.
- It selects cases based on ease of accessibility. This strategy saves time, money and effort
however, it has the weakest rationale and the lowest credibility. This strategy may yield
information poor cases because they are picked simply because they are accessible, rather than
based on a specific strategy/rationale. Sampling co-workers, family members, or neighbors
simply because they are easily accessed by the researcher is an example of convenience
sampling. (p 77 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
2. Purposive Sampling

- In purposive sampling, we sample with a purpose in mind. We usually would have one or more
specific predefined groups we are seeking. For instance, have you ever run into people in a mall
or on the street who are carrying a clipboard and who are stopping various people and asking if
they could interview them? Most likely they are conducting a purposive sample (and most likely
they are engaged in market research). They might be looking for Caucasian females between
30-40 years old. They size up the people passing by and anyone who looks to be in that category
they stop to ask if they will participate. One of the first things they're likely to do is verify that the
respondent does in fact meet the criteria for being in the sample. Purposive sampling can be
very useful for situations where you need to reach a targeted sample quickly and where sampling
for proportionality is not the primary concern. With a purposive sample, you are likely to get the
opinions of your target population, but you are also likely to overweight subgroups in your
population that are more readily accessible.

- All of the methods that follow can be considered subcategories of purposive sampling methods.
We might sample for specific groups or types of people as in modal instance, expert, or quota
sampling. We might sample for diversity as in heterogeneity sampling. Or, we might capitalize
on informal social networks to identify specific respondents who are hard to locate otherwise, as
 in snowball sampling. In all of these methods we know what we want -- we are sampling with a
purpose.
- It looks at a random sample and adds credibility to a sample when the potential purposeful
sample is larger than one can handle. While this is a type of random sampling that uses small
sample sizes, its goal is to increase credibility, not to encourage representativeness or the ability
to generalize. For example, if clients at a drug rehabilitation program is studied, 10 out of 300
current cases may be selected. This reduces judgement within a purposeful category because
the cases are picked randomly and without regard to the program outcome.

3. Modal Instance Sampling

- In statistics, the mode is the most frequently occurring value in a distribution. In sampling, when
we do a modal instance sample, we are sampling the most frequent case, or the "typical" case.
In a lot of informal public opinion polls, for instance, they interview a "typical" voter. There are a
number of problems with this sampling approach. First, how do we know what the "typical" or
"modal" case is? We could say that the modal voter is a person who is of average age,
educational level, and income in the population. But, it's not clear that using the averages of
these is the fairest (consider the skewed distribution of income, for instance). And, how do you
know that those three variables -- age, education, income -- are the only or even the most
relevant for classifying the typical voter? What if religion or ethnicity is an important
discriminator? Clearly, modal instance sampling is only sensible for informal sampling contexts.

4. Expert Sampling
- Expert sampling involves the assembling of a sample of persons with known or demonstrable
experience and expertise in some area. Often, we convene such a sample under the auspices
of a "panel of experts." There are actually two reasons you might do expert sampling. First,
because it would be the best way to elicit the views of persons who have specific expertise. In
this case, expert sampling is essentially just a specific subcase of purposive sampling. But the
other reason you might use expert sampling is to provide evidence for the validity of another
sampling approach you've chosen. For instance, let's say you do modal instance sampling and
are concerned that the criteria you used for defining the modal instance are subject to criticism.
 You might convene an expert panel consisting of persons with acknowledged experience and
insight into that field or topic and ask them to examine your modal definitions and comment on
their appropriateness and validity. The advantage of doing this is that you aren't out on your own
trying to defend your decisions -- you have some acknowledged experts to back you. The
disadvantage is that even the experts can be, and often are, wrong.

5. Quota Sampling
- In quota sampling, you select people nonrandomly according to some fixed quota. There are two
types of quota sampling: proportional and non proportional. In proportional quota sampling you
want to represent the major characteristics of the population by sampling a proportional amount
of each. For instance, if you know the population has 40% women and 60% men, and that you
want a total sample size of 100, you will continue sampling until you get those percentages and
then you will stop. So, if you've already got the 40 women for your sample, but not the sixty men,
you will continue to sample men but even if legitimate women respondents come along, you will
not sample them because you have already "met your quota." The problem here (as in much
purposive sampling) is that you have to decide the specific characteristics on which you will base
the quota. Will it be by gender, age, education race, religion, etc.?

- Nonproportional quota sampling is a bit less restrictive. In this method, you specify the minimum
number of sampled units you want in each category. here, you're not concerned with having
numbers that match the proportions in the population. Instead, you simply want to have enough
to assure that you will be able to talk about even small groups in the population. This method is
the nonprobabilistic analogue of stratified random sampling in that it is typically used to assure
that smaller groups are adequately represented in your sample.

6. Heterogeneity Sampling
- We sample for heterogeneity when we want to include all opinions or views, and we aren't
concerned about representing these views proportionately. Another term for this is sampling for
diversity. In many brainstorming or nominal group processes (including concept mapping), we
would use some form of heterogeneity sampling because our primary interest is in getting broad
spectrum of ideas, not identifying the "average" or "modal instance" ones. In effect, what we
 would like to be sampling is not people, but ideas. We imagine that there is a universe of all
possible ideas relevant to some topic and that we want to sample this population, not the
population of people who have the ideas. Clearly, in order to get all of the ideas, and especially
the "outlier" or unusual ones, we have to include a broad and diverse range of participants.
Heterogeneity sampling is, in this sense, almost the opposite of modal instance sampling.

7. Snowball Sampling
- In snowball sampling, you begin by identifying someone who meets the criteria for inclusion in
your study. You then ask them to recommend others who they may know who also meet the
criteria. Although this method would hardly lead to representative samples, there are times when
it may be the best method available. Snowball sampling is especially useful when you are trying
to reach populations that are inaccessible or hard to find. For instance, if you are studying the
homeless, you are not likely to be able to find good lists of homeless people within a specific
geographical area. However, if you go to that area and identify one or two, you may find that
they know very well who the other homeless people in their vicinity are and how you can find
them.
- Snowball or chain sampling is done by asking relevant people if they know someone or
somebody fitted or is willing to participate in a study. For instance, a researcher will use the
social media to ask people if they can refer persons who meet the criteria to become the
respondents for the research study. From these nominations, the researcher would select
participants to be included as members of the sample. (p 75 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente
et al)

*Additional Information About Sampling In Qualitative Research (pp 75-76 – Research in Daily Life
by Clemente et al)

8. Extreme or deviant case sampling

- Focuses at highly unusual manifestations of the phenomenon of interest. This strategy tries to
select particular cases that would gather the most information about a given research topic. For
example, in a group of patients in a psychiatric ward, a researcher might choose to include in
his/her samples those who have extreme cases of schizophrenia or those who have suicidal
tendencies other than those who have common problems of depression or anxiety.
9. Intensity sampling
- It involves information-rich cases that manifest the phenomenon intensely, but not extremely
(e.g., good students and poor students, above average and below average). The strategy is also
similar to extreme or deviant case sampling because it uses the same logic. The difference is
that the cases selected are not as extreme. This type of sampling requires prior information on
the variation of the phenomenon under a particular emotion, say envy, the respondent to be
selected should have had an intense experience with this particular emotion; a mild or extreme
experience would not likely explain the phenomena in the same way as an intense experience
would.
10. Maximum variation sampling
- It selects a wide range of variation on dimensional of interest. The purpose is to discover or
uncover central themes, core elements, and/or shared dimensions that cut across a diverse
sample. It also provides an opportunity to document unique or diverse variations. For example,
to implement this sampling, a matrix (of communities, people, etc.) is created where each item
on the matrix is as different (on relevant dimensions) as possible from all other items.
11. Homogeneous sampling
- Brings together people of similar backgrounds and experiences. It reduces variation, simplifies
analysis and facilitates group interview. This strategy is used most often when conducting focus
groups. For example, in a study about a parenting program, all single-parent, female head of
households are selected.
12. Typical case sampling
- It focuses on what is typical, normal and/or average. This strategy may be adopted when one
needs to present a qualitative profile of one or more typical cases. In this sampling, a broad
consensus is required about what is “average”. For example, in a study that involves
development projects in the “Third World countries, a typical case sampling of “average” villages
may be conducted. Such study would uncover critical issues to be addressed for most villages
by looking at the samples.
13. Critical case sampling
- It looks at cases that will produce critical information. In order to use this method, what
constitutes a critical case must be known. This method permits logical generalization and
 maximum application of information to other cases because what is true to one case should also
be true to all other cases. For example, if people’s understanding of a particular set of federal
regulations is desired, the regulations may be presented to a group of highly educated people.
(“If they cannot understand them, then most people probably cannot”) and/or to a group of
undereducated people (“If they can understand them, then most people probably can”)
14. Criterion sampling
- It selects all cases that meet some predetermined criterion. This strategy is typically applied
when considering quality assurance issues. In essence, cases which are information-rich ad
which might reveal a major system weakness that could be improved may be choses. For
example, the average length of stay of s patient who have undergone a certain surgical
procedure is three days. Any patient who have undergone the same surgical procedure and
whose stay exceeded three days may be set as a criterion of becoming a sample in the study.
Interviewing these cases may offer information related to aspects of the process/system that
could be improved.

15. Operational construct or theoretical sampling

- Identifies manifestations of a theoretical construct of interest to elaborate and examine the
construct. This strategy is used in grounded theory studies in which people or incidents are
sampled based on whether or not they manifest an important theoretical or operational construct.
For example, if the theory of resiliency in adults who were physically abused as children is
studied, people who meet the theory-driven criteria for resiliency are selected.

16. Confirming and disconfirming sampling

- It seek cases that are both “expected” and the “exception” to what is expected. This strategy
deepens initial analysis, seeks exceptions, and tests variation. Both confirming cases (those that
add depth, richness, credibility) as well as disconfirming cases (those that do not fit and are the
source of rival interpretations) must be found. This strategy is typically adopted after an initial
fieldwork has established what a confirming case would be. For example, in a study about factors
affecting academic performance, the researcher must present cases of positive and negative
factors that affect students’ achievement. In this case, good school facilities and low teacher-to-
 student ratios may be positive factors while low parental involvement and low economic status
may be negative factors affecting academic performance.

17. Stratified purposeful sampling

-It focuses on characteristics and comparisons of particular subgroups of interest. This strategy
is similar to stratified random sampling (samples taken within samples), except that the sample
size in the former is typically much smaller. In stratified sampling, samples based on
characteristic are stratified. Thus, in conducting a study about academic performance, the
samples are clustered into below average, average, and above average learners. The main goal
of this sampling is to capture major variations (although common themes emerge).

18. Combination or mixed purposeful sampling

- It combines two or more sampling techniques. Basically, using more than one strategy is
considered combination or mixed purposeful sampling. This type of meets multiple interests and
needs. For example, snowball sampling or chain sampling may be used to identify extreme or
deviant cases. That is, people may be asked to identify cases that would be considered
extreme/deviant and do this until a consensus on a set of cases needed is attained.

19. Opportunistic or emergent sampling

- It follows new leads during fieldwork, takes the advantage of the unexpected, and is flexible. This
strategy takes advantage of whatever is readily available for the researcher and considers other
samples that may be useful for the researcher as they come. For example, in studying sixth grade
pupils’ awareness of a topic, it may be advisable to include fifth grade pupils as well to gain additional
understanding.

Sample Sizes: Considerations (p 77 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)

- How do we determine the number of samples needed in the study?

When determining the sample size for qualitative research, it is important to remember that there are
no hard and fast rules. There are, however, at least two considerations on sample size in a qualitative
investigation.
 1. What sample size will reach saturation or redundancy? That is, how large does the sample need
to be allowed for the identification of consistent patterns? Some researchers say the size of the
sample should be large enough to leave the researcher with “nothing left to learn”. In other words,
one might conduct interviews, and after the tenth one, realize that there are no new concepts
emerging. That is, the concepts and themes begin to be redundant.
2. How large a sample is needed to represent the variation within target population? That s, how
large must a sample be in order to assess an appropriate amount of diversity or variation
represented in the population of interest?

The sample size is estimated based on the approach used in the study or the data collection method
employed. However, experts prescribe numbers for sample size in some qualitative research studies.
Cited from Creswell (2015) one to ten subjects are recommended for phenomenology (Dukes, 1984),
20 to 30 individuals for grounded theory Charmaz, 2006), four to five respondents for case study and
single culture sharing groups for ethnography.

Common Data Collection

Qualitative Data
(Trochim, William at http://www.socialreseahmethods.net/kb/qualmeth.php

Qualitative data is extremely varied in nature. It includes virtually any information that can be captured that
is not numerical in nature. Here are some of the major categories or types:

1. Documentary analysis (p 79 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)

- This may require the researcher to examine available resources or documents. Inspecting the
primary and secondary sources is important when using this type of data collection.
2. Written Documents
- Usually this refers to existing documents (as opposed transcripts of interviews conducted for the
research). It can include newspapers, magazines, books, websites, memos, transcripts of
conversations, annual reports, and so on. Usually written documents are analyzed with some
form of content analysis.
3. Interview
- Interviews happen when the researcher personally asks the key informants about things or
information he/she needs form the subjects. The interviewer must be trained to conduct an
effective interview. There are different types of interview:
a. In-Depth Interviews
- In-Depth Interviews include both individual interviews (e.g., one-on-one) as well as "group"
interviews (including focus groups). The data can be recorded in a wide variety of ways including
stenography, audio recording, video recording or written notes. In depth interviews differ from
direct observation primarily in the nature of the interaction. In interviews it is assumed that there
is a questioner and one or more interviewees. The purpose of the interview is to probe the ideas
of the interviewees about the phenomenon of interest.
b. Unstructured Interviewing
- Unstructured interviewing involves direct interaction between the researcher and a respondent
or group. It differs from traditional structured interviewing in several important ways. First,
although the researcher may have some initial guiding questions or core concepts to ask about,
there is no formal structured instrument or protocol. Second, the interviewer is free to move the
conversation in any direction of interest that may come up. Consequently, unstructured
interviewing is particularly useful for exploring a topic broadly. However, there is a price for this
lack of structure. Because each interview tends to be unique with no predetermined set of
questions asked of all respondents, it is usually more difficult to analyze unstructured interview
data, especially when synthesizing across respondents
- Occurs when the researcher prepares an outline of the topics that he/she needs to personally
ask from the interviewee in spontaneous and conversation-like manner. In this kind of interview,
the researcher should be knowledgeable about the topic and skilled in asking probing questions.
(p 79 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
c. Structured interview
- It happens when the researcher prepared and organized questions that the respondents will
answer. The researcher does not ask beyond what is written in the interview sheet but could ask
the interviewee for the purpose of clarifying his/her answers. ( p 79 – Research in Daily Life by
Clemente et al)

d. Semi-structured interview
 - The researcher prepares a specific set of questions but could ask follow-up questions to the
respondents for them to elaborate their answers. It is easy for the researcher to gather additional
information and to have an in-depth perspective on the responses of the interviewee when this
type of interview is used. (p 79 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
4. Observation
- In this technique, the researcher tracks the subjects behavioral change over a specific period of
time. Observation may happen in the following manner.
a. Participant Observation
- One of the most common methods for qualitative data collection, participant observation is also
one of the most demanding. It requires that the researcher become a participant in the culture
or context being observed. The literature on participant observation discusses how to enter the
context, the role of the researcher as a participant, the collection and storage of field notes, and
the analysis of field data. Participant observation often requires months or years of intensive
work because the researcher needs to become accepted as a natural part of the culture in order
to assure that the observations are of the natural phenomenon.
- The observer in this type of observation requires the researcher to be involved in the usual
activities of the subjects. This gives the researcher direct and first-hand experience of what the
respondents are experiencing. (p 79 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
b. Naturalistic observation
- In this type of observation, the researcher observes the subjects in the natural setting or in their
actual environment. The observation is done from outside of the environment. (p 79 – Research
in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
c. Direct Observation
- Direct observation is distinguished from participant observation in a number of ways. First, a
direct observer doesn't typically try to become a participant in the context. However, the direct
observer does strive to be as unobtrusive as possible so as not to bias the observations. Second,
direct observation suggests a more detached perspective. The researcher is watching rather
than taking part. Consequently, technology can be a useful part of direct observation. For
instance, one can videotape the phenomenon or observe from behind one-way mirrors. Third,
direct observation tends to be more focused than participant observation. The researcher is
observing certain sampled situations or people rather than trying to become immersed in the
 entire context. Finally, direct observation tends not to take as long as participant observation.
For instance, one might observe child-mother interactions under specific circumstances in a
laboratory setting from behind a one-way mirror, looking especially for the nonverbal cues being
used.
- Direct observation is meant very broadly here. It differs from interviewing in that the observer
does not actively query the respondent. It can include everything from field research where one
lives in another context or culture for a period of time to photographs that illustrate some aspect
of the phenomenon. The data can be recorded in many of the same ways as interviews
(stenography, audio, video) and through pictures, photos or drawings (e.g., those courtroom
drawings of witnesses are a form of direct observation).
d. Non- naturalistic observation
- This is also called “ideal situation” observation. Subjects are taken away from their actual
environment and are subjected to ideal conditions determined by the researcher. (p 79 –
Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
5. Case Studies
- A case study is an intensive study of a specific individual or specific context. For instance, Freud
developed case studies of several individuals as the basis for the theory of psychoanalysis and
Piaget did case studies of children to study developmental phases. There is no single way to
conduct a case study, and a combination of methods (e.g., unstructured interviewing, direct
observation) can be used.
6. Questionnaire
- This is one of the most commonly used data collection instruments. Questionnaire are easier to
administer and could gather larger turnout on a single time. It requires respondents to answer a
prepared set of questions regarding the information that the researcher wants to elicit from them.
The following are some types of questions used:
i. Yes or No. Items in the questionnaire are answerable by yes or no.
ii. Recognition. Respondents made to choose from the choices given in the questionnaire.
iii. Completion. Respondents are requested to supply the necessary information in the
blanks placed after each statement or question. This is also called open-ended
questionnaire.
 iv. Coding. The respondents are asked to rank or give numerical rating for the information
required often.
v. Subjective. The respondents are free to give their opinions and answers to the questions
posed by the researcher.
vi. Combination. This makes use of one or more type of questions in a single questionnaire.
(p 80 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)
7. Focus Group Discussion (FDG)
- It is a good way to gather people from similar backgrounds or experiences together to discuss
a specific topic of interest. They are guided by a moderator (or group facilitator) who introduces
the topics for discussion and motivates the group to participate actively.
- The strength of FDG relies on allowing the participants to agree or disagree with each other. In
this case, it provides an insight of how the group thinks about issues, inconsistencies and
variations that exist in their community.
- The FDG can be used to explore the meaning of survey findings that cannot be explained
statistically, determine the range of opinions and views about a topic of interest and collect wide
variety of local terms. In bridging research and policy, FDG can be useful in providing an insight
about opinions among parties involved in the change process thus enabling the process to be
managed more smoothly. It is also a good method to employ prior to designing questionnaire.
(p 80 – Research in Daily Life by Clemente et al)

Data Analysis

https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/43454_10.pdf