cases that meet some
predetermined criterion
of importance
Embedded in each strategy is the ability to compare and contrast, to identify similarities and differences in the phenomenon of interest. Nevertheless, some of these strategies (e.g., maximum variation sampling, extreme case sampling, intensity sampling, and purposeful random sampling) are used to identify and expand the range of variation or differences, similar to the use of quantitative measures to describe the variability or dispersion of values for a particular variable or variables, while other strategies (e.g., homogeneous sampling, typical case sampling, criterion sampling, and snowball sampling) are used to narrow the range of variation and focus on similarities. The latter are similar to the use of quantitative central tendency measures (e.g., mean, median, and mode). Moreover, certain strategies, like stratified purposeful sampling or opportunistic or emergent sampling, are designed to achieve both goals. As Patton (2002 , p. 240) explains, “the purpose of a stratified purposeful sample is to capture major variations rather than to identify a common core, although the latter may also emerge in the analysis. Each of the strata would constitute a fairly homogeneous sample.”
Despite its wide use, there are numerous challenges in identifying and applying the appropriate purposeful sampling strategy in any study. For instance, the range of variation in a sample from which purposive sample is to be taken is often not really known at the outset of a study. To set as the goal the sampling of information-rich informants that cover the range of variation assumes one knows that range of variation. Consequently, an iterative approach of sampling and re-sampling to draw an appropriate sample is usually recommended to make certain the theoretical saturation occurs ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). However, that saturation may be determined a-priori on the basis of an existing theory or conceptual framework, or it may emerge from the data themselves, as in a grounded theory approach ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). Second, there are a not insignificant number in the qualitative methods field who resist or refuse systematic sampling of any kind and reject the limiting nature of such realist, systematic, or positivist approaches. This includes critics of interventions and “bottom up” case studies and critiques. However, even those who equate purposeful sampling with systematic sampling must offer a rationale for selecting study participants that is linked with the aims of the investigation (i.e., why recruit these individuals for this particular study? What qualifies them to address the aims of the study?). While systematic sampling may be associated with a post-positivist tradition of qualitative data collection and analysis, such sampling is not inherently limited to such analyses and the need for such sampling is not inherently limited to post-positivist qualitative approaches ( Patton, 2002 ).
Characteristics of implementation research.
In implementation research, quantitative and qualitative methods often play important roles, either simultaneously or sequentially, for the purpose of answering the same question through convergence of results from different sources, answering related questions in a complementary fashion, using one set of methods to expand or explain the results obtained from use of the other set of methods, using one set of methods to develop questionnaires or conceptual models that inform the use of the other set, and using one set of methods to identify the sample for analysis using the other set of methods ( Palinkas et al., 2011 ). A review of mixed method designs in implementation research conducted by Palinkas and colleagues (2011) revealed seven different sequential and simultaneous structural arrangements, five different functions of mixed methods, and three different ways of linking quantitative and qualitative data together. However, this review did not consider the sampling strategies involved in the types of quantitative and qualitative methods common to implementation research, nor did it consider the consequences of the sampling strategy selected for one method or set of methods on the choice of sampling strategy for the other method or set of methods. For instance, one of the most significant challenges to sampling in sequential mixed method designs lies in the limitations the initial method may place on sampling for the subsequent method. As Morse and Neihaus (2009) observe, when the initial method is qualitative, the sample selected may be too small and lack randomization necessary to fulfill the assumptions for a subsequent quantitative analysis. On the other hand, when the initial method is quantitative, the sample selected may be too large for each individual to be included in qualitative inquiry and lack purposeful selection to reduce the sample size to one more appropriate for qualitative research. The fact that potential participants were recruited and selected at random does not necessarily make them information rich.
A re-examination of the 22 studies and an additional 6 studies published since 2009 revealed that only 5 studies ( Aarons & Palinkas, 2007 ; Bachman et al., 2009 ; Palinkas et al., 2011 ; Palinkas et al., 2012 ; Slade et al., 2003) made a specific reference to purposeful sampling. An additional three studies ( Henke et al., 2008 ; Proctor et al., 2007 ; Swain et al., 2010 ) did not make explicit reference to purposeful sampling but did provide a rationale for sample selection. The remaining 20 studies provided no description of the sampling strategy used to identify participants for qualitative data collection and analysis; however, a rationale could be inferred based on a description of who were recruited and selected for participation. Of the 28 studies, 3 used more than one sampling strategy. Twenty-one of the 28 studies (75%) used some form of criterion sampling. In most instances, the criterion used is related to the individual’s role, either in the research project (i.e., trainer, team leader), or the agency (program director, clinical supervisor, clinician); in other words, criterion of inclusion in a certain category (criterion-i), in contrast to cases that are external to a specific criterion (criterion-e). For instance, in a series of studies based on the National Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Project, participants included semi-structured interviews with consultant trainers and program leaders at each study site ( Brunette et al., 2008 ; Marshall et al., 2008 ; Marty et al., 2007; Rapp et al., 2010 ; Woltmann et al., 2008 ). Six studies used some form of maximum variation sampling to ensure representativeness and diversity of organizations and individual practitioners. Two studies used intensity sampling to make contrasts. Aarons and Palinkas (2007) , for example, purposefully selected 15 child welfare case managers representing those having the most positive and those having the most negative views of SafeCare, an evidence-based prevention intervention, based on results of a web-based quantitative survey asking about the perceived value and usefulness of SafeCare. Kramer and Burns (2008) recruited and interviewed clinicians providing usual care and clinicians who dropped out of a study prior to consent to contrast with clinicians who provided the intervention under investigation. One study ( Hoagwood et al., 2007 ), used a typical case approach to identify participants for a qualitative assessment of the challenges faced in implementing a trauma-focused intervention for youth. One study ( Green & Aarons, 2011 ) used a combined snowball sampling/criterion-i strategy by asking recruited program managers to identify clinicians, administrative support staff, and consumers for project recruitment. County mental directors, agency directors, and program managers were recruited to represent the policy interests of implementation while clinicians, administrative support staff and consumers were recruited to represent the direct practice perspectives of EBP implementation.
Table 2 below provides a description of the use of different purposeful sampling strategies in mixed methods implementation studies. Criterion-i sampling was most frequently used in mixed methods implementation studies that employed a simultaneous design where the qualitative method was secondary to the quantitative method or studies that employed a simultaneous structure where the qualitative and quantitative methods were assigned equal priority. These mixed method designs were used to complement the depth of understanding afforded by the qualitative methods with the breadth of understanding afforded by the quantitative methods (n = 13), to explain or elaborate upon the findings of one set of methods (usually quantitative) with the findings from the other set of methods (n = 10), or to seek convergence through triangulation of results or quantifying qualitative data (n = 8). The process of mixing methods in the large majority (n = 18) of these studies involved embedding the qualitative study within the larger quantitative study. In one study (Goia & Dziadosz, 2008), criterion sampling was used in a simultaneous design where quantitative and qualitative data were merged together in a complementary fashion, and in two studies (Aarons et al., 2012; Zazelli et al., 2008 ), quantitative and qualitative data were connected together, one in sequential design for the purpose of developing a conceptual model ( Zazelli et al., 2008 ), and one in a simultaneous design for the purpose of complementing one another (Aarons et al., 2012). Three of the six studies that used maximum variation sampling used a simultaneous structure with quantitative methods taking priority over qualitative methods and a process of embedding the qualitative methods in a larger quantitative study ( Henke et al., 2008 ; Palinkas et al., 2010; Slade et al., 2008 ). Two of the six studies used maximum variation sampling in a sequential design ( Aarons et al., 2009 ; Zazelli et al., 2008 ) and one in a simultaneous design (Henke et al., 2010) for the purpose of development, and three used it in a simultaneous design for complementarity ( Bachman et al., 2009 ; Henke et al., 2008; Palinkas, Ell, Hansen, Cabassa, & Wells, 2011 ). The two studies relying upon intensity sampling used a simultaneous structure for the purpose of either convergence or expansion, and both studies involved a qualitative study embedded in a larger quantitative study ( Aarons & Palinkas, 2007 ; Kramer & Burns, 2008 ). The single typical case study involved a simultaneous design where the qualitative study was embedded in a larger quantitative study for the purpose of complementarity ( Hoagwood et al., 2007 ). The snowball/maximum variation study involved a sequential design where the qualitative study was merged into the quantitative data for the purpose of convergence and conceptual model development ( Green & Aarons, 2011 ). Although not used in any of the 28 implementation studies examined here, another common sequential sampling strategy is using criteria sampling of the larger quantitative sample to produce a second-stage qualitative sample in a manner similar to maximum variation sampling, except that the former narrows the range of variation while the latter expands the range.
Purposeful sampling strategies and mixed method designs in implementation research
Sampling strategy | Structure | Design | Function |
---|---|---|---|
Single stage sampling (n = 22) | |||
Criterion (n = 18) | Simultaneous (n = 17) Sequential (n = 6) | Merged (n = 9) Connected (n = 9) Embedded (n = 14) | Convergence (n = 6) Complementarity (n = 12) Expansion (n = 10) Development (n = 3) Sampling (n = 4) |
Maximum variation (n = 4) | Simultaneous (n = 3) Sequential (n = 1) | Merged (n = 1) Connected (n = 1) Embedded (n = 2) | Convergence (n = 1) Complementarity (n = 2) Expansion (n = 1) Development (n = 2) |
Intensity (n = 1) | Simultaneous Sequential | Merged Connected Embedded | Convergence Complementarity Expansion Development |
Typical case Study (n = 1) | Simultaneous | Embedded | Complementarity |
Multistage sampling (n = 4) | |||
Criterion/maximum variation (n = 2) | Simultaneous Sequential | Embedded Connected | Complementarity Development |
Criterion/intensity (n = 1) | Simultaneous | Embedded | Convergence Complementarity Expansion |
Criterion/snowball (n = 1) | Sequential | Connected | Convergence Development |
Criterion-i sampling as a purposeful sampling strategy shares many characteristics with random probability sampling, despite having different aims and different procedures for identifying and selecting potential participants. In both instances, study participants are drawn from agencies, organizations or systems involved in the implementation process. Individuals are selected based on the assumption that they possess knowledge and experience with the phenomenon of interest (i.e., the implementation of an EBP) and thus will be able to provide information that is both detailed (depth) and generalizable (breadth). Participants for a qualitative study, usually service providers, consumers, agency directors, or state policy-makers, are drawn from the larger sample of participants in the quantitative study. They are selected from the larger sample because they meet the same criteria, in this case, playing a specific role in the organization and/or implementation process. To some extent, they are assumed to be “representative” of that role, although implementation studies rarely explain the rationale for selecting only some and not all of the available role representatives (i.e., recruiting 15 providers from an agency for semi-structured interviews out of an available sample of 25 providers). From the perspective of qualitative methodology, participants who meet or exceed a specific criterion or criteria possess intimate (or, at the very least, greater) knowledge of the phenomenon of interest by virtue of their experience, making them information-rich cases.
However, criterion sampling may not be the most appropriate strategy for implementation research because by attempting to capture both breadth and depth of understanding, it may actually be inadequate to the task of accomplishing either. Although qualitative methods are often contrasted with quantitative methods on the basis of depth versus breadth, they actually require elements of both in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Ideally, the goal of achieving theoretical saturation by providing as much detail as possible involves selection of individuals or cases that can ensure all aspects of that phenomenon are included in the examination and that any one aspect is thoroughly examined. This goal, therefore, requires an approach that sequentially or simultaneously expands and narrows the field of view, respectively. By selecting only individuals who meet a specific criterion defined on the basis of their role in the implementation process or who have a specific experience (e.g., engaged only in an implementation defined as successful or only in one defined as unsuccessful), one may fail to capture the experiences or activities of other groups playing other roles in the process. For instance, a focus only on practitioners may fail to capture the insights, experiences, and activities of consumers, family members, agency directors, administrative staff, or state policy leaders in the implementation process, thus limiting the breadth of understanding of that process. On the other hand, selecting participants on the basis of whether they were a practitioner, consumer, director, staff, or any of the above, may fail to identify those with the greatest experience or most knowledgeable or most able to communicate what they know and/or have experienced, thus limiting the depth of understanding of the implementation process.
To address the potential limitations of criterion sampling, other purposeful sampling strategies should be considered and possibly adopted in implementation research ( Figure 1 ). For instance, strategies placing greater emphasis on breadth and variation such as maximum variation, extreme case, confirming and disconfirming case sampling are better suited for an examination of differences, while strategies placing greater emphasis on depth and similarity such as homogeneous, snowball, and typical case sampling are better suited for an examination of commonalities or similarities, even though both types of sampling strategies include a focus on both differences and similarities. Alternatives to criterion sampling may be more appropriate to the specific functions of mixed methods, however. For instance, using qualitative methods for the purpose of complementarity may require that a sampling strategy emphasize similarity if it is to achieve depth of understanding or explore and develop hypotheses that complement a quantitative probability sampling strategy achieving breadth of understanding and testing hypotheses ( Kemper et al., 2003 ). Similarly, mixed methods that address related questions for the purpose of expanding or explaining results or developing new measures or conceptual models may require a purposeful sampling strategy aiming for similarity that complements probability sampling aiming for variation or dispersion. A narrowly focused purposeful sampling strategy for qualitative analysis that “complements” a broader focused probability sample for quantitative analysis may help to achieve a balance between increasing inference quality/trustworthiness (internal validity) and generalizability/transferability (external validity). A single method that focuses only on a broad view may decrease internal validity at the expense of external validity ( Kemper et al., 2003 ). On the other hand, the aim of convergence (answering the same question with either method) may suggest use of a purposeful sampling strategy that aims for breadth that parallels the quantitative probability sampling strategy.
Purposeful and Random Sampling Strategies for Mixed Method Implementation Studies
Furthermore, the specific nature of implementation research suggests that a multistage purposeful sampling strategy be used. Three different multistage sampling strategies are illustrated in Figure 1 below. Several qualitative methodologists recommend sampling for variation (breadth) before sampling for commonalities (depth) ( Glaser, 1978 ; Bernard, 2002 ) (Multistage I). Also known as a “funnel approach”, this strategy is often recommended when conducting semi-structured interviews ( Spradley, 1979 ) or focus groups ( Morgan, 1997 ). This approach begins with a broad view of the topic and then proceeds to narrow down the conversation to very specific components of the topic. However, as noted earlier, the lack of a clear understanding of the nature of the range may require an iterative approach where each stage of data analysis helps to determine subsequent means of data collection and analysis ( Denzen, 1978 ; Patton, 2001) (Multistage II). Similarly, multistage purposeful sampling designs like opportunistic or emergent sampling, allow the option of adding to a sample to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities after data collection has been initiated (Patton, 2001, p. 240) (Multistage III). Multistage I models generally involve two stages, while a Multistage II model requires a minimum of 3 stages, alternating from sampling for variation to sampling for similarity. A Multistage III model begins with sampling for variation and ends with sampling for similarity, but may involve one or more intervening stages of sampling for variation or similarity as the need or opportunity arises.
Multistage purposeful sampling is also consistent with the use of hybrid designs to simultaneously examine intervention effectiveness and implementation. An extension of the concept of “practical clinical trials” ( Tunis, Stryer & Clancey, 2003 ), effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs provide benefits such as more rapid translational gains in clinical intervention uptake, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for researchers and decision makers ( Curran et al., 2012 ). Such designs may give equal priority to the testing of clinical treatments and implementation strategies (Hybrid Type 2) or give priority to the testing of treatment effectiveness (Hybrid Type 1) or implementation strategy (Hybrid Type 3). Curran and colleagues (2012) suggest that evaluation of the intervention’s effectiveness will require or involve use of quantitative measures while evaluation of the implementation process will require or involve use of mixed methods. When conducting a Hybrid Type 1 design (conducting a process evaluation of implementation in the context of a clinical effectiveness trial), the qualitative data could be used to inform the findings of the effectiveness trial. Thus, an effectiveness trial that finds substantial variation might purposefully select participants using a broader strategy like sampling for disconfirming cases to account for the variation. For instance, group randomized trials require knowledge of the contexts and circumstances similar and different across sites to account for inevitable site differences in interventions and assist local implementations of an intervention ( Bloom & Michalopoulos, 2013 ; Raudenbush & Liu, 2000 ). Alternatively, a narrow strategy may be used to account for the lack of variation. In either instance, the choice of a purposeful sampling strategy is determined by the outcomes of the quantitative analysis that is based on a probability sampling strategy. In Hybrid Type 2 and Type 3 designs where the implementation process is given equal or greater priority than the effectiveness trial, the purposeful sampling strategy must be first and foremost consistent with the aims of the implementation study, which may be to understand variation, central tendencies, or both. In all three instances, the sampling strategy employed for the implementation study may vary based on the priority assigned to that study relative to the effectiveness trial. For instance, purposeful sampling for a Hybrid Type 1 design may give higher priority to variation and comparison to understand the parameters of implementation processes or context as a contribution to an understanding of effectiveness outcomes (i.e., using qualitative data to expand upon or explain the results of the effectiveness trial), In effect, these process measures could be seen as modifiers of innovation/EBP outcome. In contrast, purposeful sampling for a Hybrid Type 3 design may give higher priority to similarity and depth to understand the core features of successful outcomes only.
Finally, multistage sampling strategies may be more consistent with innovations in experimental designs representing alternatives to the classic randomized controlled trial in community-based settings that have greater feasibility, acceptability, and external validity. While RCT designs provide the highest level of evidence, “in many clinical and community settings, and especially in studies with underserved populations and low resource settings, randomization may not be feasible or acceptable” ( Glasgow, et al., 2005 , p. 554). Randomized trials are also “relatively poor in assessing the benefit from complex public health or medical interventions that account for individual preferences for or against certain interventions, differential adherence or attrition, or varying dosage or tailoring of an intervention to individual needs” ( Brown et al., 2009 , p. 2). Several alternatives to the randomized design have been proposed, such as “interrupted time series,” “multiple baseline across settings” or “regression-discontinuity” designs. Optimal designs represent one such alternative to the classic RCT and are addressed in detail by Duan and colleagues (this issue) . Like purposeful sampling, optimal designs are intended to capture information-rich cases, usually identified as individuals most likely to benefit from the experimental intervention. The goal here is not to identify the typical or average patient, but patients who represent one end of the variation in an extreme case, intensity sampling, or criterion sampling strategy. Hence, a sampling strategy that begins by sampling for variation at the first stage and then sampling for homogeneity within a specific parameter of that variation (i.e., one end or the other of the distribution) at the second stage would seem the best approach for identifying an “optimal” sample for the clinical trial.
Another alternative to the classic RCT are the adaptive designs proposed by Brown and colleagues ( Brown et al, 2006 ; Brown et al., 2008 ; Brown et al., 2009 ). Adaptive designs are a sequence of trials that draw on the results of existing studies to determine the next stage of evaluation research. They use cumulative knowledge of current treatment successes or failures to change qualities of the ongoing trial. An adaptive intervention modifies what an individual subject (or community for a group-based trial) receives in response to his or her preferences or initial responses to an intervention. Consistent with multistage sampling in qualitative research, the design is somewhat iterative in nature in the sense that information gained from analysis of data collected at the first stage influences the nature of the data collected, and the way they are collected, at subsequent stages ( Denzen, 1978 ). Furthermore, many of these adaptive designs may benefit from a multistage purposeful sampling strategy at early phases of the clinical trial to identify the range of variation and core characteristics of study participants. This information can then be used for the purposes of identifying optimal dose of treatment, limiting sample size, randomizing participants into different enrollment procedures, determining who should be eligible for random assignment (as in the optimal design) to maximize treatment adherence and minimize dropout, or identifying incentives and motives that may be used to encourage participation in the trial itself.
Alternatives to the classic RCT design may also be desirable in studies that adopt a community-based participatory research framework ( Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003 ), considered to be an important tool on conducting implementation research ( Palinkas & Soydan, 2012 ). Such frameworks suggest that identification and recruitment of potential study participants will place greater emphasis on the priorities and “local knowledge” of community partners than on the need to sample for variation or uniformity. In this instance, the first stage of sampling may approximate the strategy of sampling politically important cases ( Patton, 2002 ) at the first stage, followed by other sampling strategies intended to maximize variations in stakeholder opinions or experience.
On the basis of this review, the following recommendations are offered for the use of purposeful sampling in mixed method implementation research. First, many mixed methods studies in health services research and implementation science do not clearly identify or provide a rationale for the sampling procedure for either quantitative or qualitative components of the study ( Wisdom et al., 2011 ), so a primary recommendation is for researchers to clearly describe their sampling strategies and provide the rationale for the strategy.
Second, use of a single stage strategy for purposeful sampling for qualitative portions of a mixed methods implementation study should adhere to the same general principles that govern all forms of sampling, qualitative or quantitative. Kemper and colleagues (2003) identify seven such principles: 1) the sampling strategy should stem logically from the conceptual framework as well as the research questions being addressed by the study; 2) the sample should be able to generate a thorough database on the type of phenomenon under study; 3) the sample should at least allow the possibility of drawing clear inferences and credible explanations from the data; 4) the sampling strategy must be ethical; 5) the sampling plan should be feasible; 6) the sampling plan should allow the researcher to transfer/generalize the conclusions of the study to other settings or populations; and 7) the sampling scheme should be as efficient as practical.
Third, the field of implementation research is at a stage itself where qualitative methods are intended primarily to explore the barriers and facilitators of EBP implementation and to develop new conceptual models of implementation process and outcomes. This is especially important in state implementation research, where fiscal necessities are driving policy reforms for which knowledge about EBP implementation barriers and facilitators are urgently needed. Thus a multistage strategy for purposeful sampling should begin first with a broader view with an emphasis on variation or dispersion and move to a narrow view with an emphasis on similarity or central tendencies. Such a strategy is necessary for the task of finding the optimal balance between internal and external validity.
Fourth, if we assume that probability sampling will be the preferred strategy for the quantitative components of most implementation research, the selection of a single or multistage purposeful sampling strategy should be based, in part, on how it relates to the probability sample, either for the purpose of answering the same question (in which case a strategy emphasizing variation and dispersion is preferred) or the for answering related questions (in which case, a strategy emphasizing similarity and central tendencies is preferred).
Fifth, it should be kept in mind that all sampling procedures, whether purposeful or probability, are designed to capture elements of both similarity and differences, of both centrality and dispersion, because both elements are essential to the task of generating new knowledge through the processes of comparison and contrast. Selecting a strategy that gives emphasis to one does not mean that it cannot be used for the other. Having said that, our analysis has assumed at least some degree of concordance between breadth of understanding associated with quantitative probability sampling and purposeful sampling strategies that emphasize variation on the one hand, and between the depth of understanding and purposeful sampling strategies that emphasize similarity on the other hand. While there may be some merit to that assumption, depth of understanding requires both an understanding of variation and common elements.
Finally, it should also be kept in mind that quantitative data can be generated from a purposeful sampling strategy and qualitative data can be generated from a probability sampling strategy. Each set of data is suited to a specific objective and each must adhere to a specific set of assumptions and requirements. Nevertheless, the promise of mixed methods, like the promise of implementation science, lies in its ability to move beyond the confines of existing methodological approaches and develop innovative solutions to important and complex problems. For states engaged in EBP implementation, the need for these solutions is urgent.
Multistage Purposeful Sampling Strategies
This study was funded through a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (P30-MH090322: K. Hoagwood, PI).
3429 Accesses
4 Citations
This chapter explains how to design suitable sampling strategies for qualitative research. The focus of this chapter is purposive (or theoretical) sampling to produce credible and trustworthy explanations of a phenomenon (a specific aspect of society). A specific research question (RQ) guides the methodology (the study design or approach ). It defines the participants, location, and actions to be used to answer the question. Qualitative studies use specific tools and techniques ( methods ) to sample people, organizations, or whatever is to be examined. The methodology guides the selection of tools and techniques for sampling, data analysis, quality assurance, etc. These all vary according to the purpose and design of the study and the RQ. In this chapter, a fake example is used to demonstrate how to apply your sampling strategy in a developing country.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research, the role of sampling in mixed methods-research.
Douglas, H. (2010). Divergent orientations in social entrepreneurship organisations. In K. Hockerts, J. Robinson, & J. Mair (Eds.), Values and opportunities in social entrepreneurship (pp. 71–95). Palgrave Macmillan.
Chapter Google Scholar
Douglas, H., Eti-Tofinga, B., & Singh, G. (2018a). Contextualising social enterprise in Fiji. Social Enterprise Journal, 14 (2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2017-0032
Article Google Scholar
Douglas, H., Eti-Tofinga, B., & Singh, G. (2018b). Hybrid organisations contributing to wellbeing in small Pacific island countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9 (4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2017-0081
Douglas, H., & Borbasi, S. (2009). Parental perspectives on disability: The story of Sam, Anna, and Marcus. Disabilities: Insights from across fields and around the world, 2 , 201–217.
Google Scholar
Douglas, H. (1999). Community transport in rural Queensland: Using community resources effectively in small communities. Paper presented at the 5th National Rural Health Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 14–17th March.
Douglas, H. (2006). Action, blastoff, chaos: ABC of successful youth participation. Child, Youth and Environments, 16 (1). Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye
Douglas, H. (2007). Methodological sampling issues for researching new nonprofit organisations. Paper presented at the 52nd International Council for Small Business (ICSB) 13–15 June, Turku, Finland.
Draper, H., Wilson, S., Flanagan, S., & Ives, J. (2009). Offering payments, reimbursement and incentives to patients and family doctors to encourage participation in research. Family Practice, 26 (3), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmp011
Puamua, P. Q. (1999). Understanding Fijian under-achievement: An integrated perspective. Directions, 21 (2), 100–112.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
The University of Queensland, The Royal Society of Queensland, Activation Australia, Brisbane, Australia
Heather Douglas
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Heather Douglas .
Editors and affiliations.
Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
M. Rezaul Islam
Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Niaz Ahmed Khan
Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
Rajendra Baikady
Reprints and permissions
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
Douglas, H. (2022). Sampling Techniques for Qualitative Research. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_29
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_29
Published : 27 October 2022
Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7
Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2
eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
A lock ( ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.
Related Topics:
Ascii files, using ascii files.
Note: SAS and SPSS programs need to be used to convert ASCII into SAS and SPSS datasets. How to use the ASCII data varies from one software package to another. Column positions for each variable usually have to be specified. Column positions for each variable can be found in the documentation for each year's data. Consult your software documentation for more information.
Using Access files
Note: The file is stored in compressed form to improve download time; it will need to be uncompressed before it can be used. See file formats help for more information on uncompressing the file.
Note: Each year of YRBSS data should go in its own folder because each year has its own format library. Format libraries are not comparable across years.
The SAS format library contains the formats used to make SAS output more readable. Formats are linked to the data so that results are displayed as words ("Male" or "Female", for instance) instead of numbers (1 or 2). The SAS YRBS data file is designed to use its companion format library.
The following example SAS program shows how to use the format library. It assumes that both the data file and the format library are in "c:data". Note that the program contains two libname statements. The first libname statement indicates where the data file is located; the second libname statement indicates where the format library is located.
where the data are */ where the formats are */ proc freq data=mydata.yrbs2005; run; |
Using the format library is recommended but technically is optional. If you do not want to use the format library, include the following statement at the start of your SAS program:
look for formats */ |
Please note that each year of YRBS data has its own format library. Format libraries are not the same across years of data.
For further information on using format libraries, please consult your SAS documentation.
Using SPSS Files:
Are yrbss results available by zip code, census tract, school, local school district, or county are yrbss results available for my town/city/local school district.
YRBSS data are not available by zip code, census tract, or school. Sample size limitations and confidentiality requirements do not support analyses at these levels.
YRBSS data are available for a small number of specifically funded local school districts or counties. CDC funds certain local school districts to conduct the YRBSS. Some of those local school districts are county-based. See Participation Maps & History for more information about county-based local school districts with YRBSS data. Data are only available for local school districts or counties on the list; no other local YRBSS data are available.
County-level identifiers are not available in the national YRBS dataset or in most state datasets.
YRBSS datasets are available for the United States overall, most states, some territories, some local school districts, and some tribal governments. Availability depends on YRBSS participation, data quality, and data-sharing policies. See Participation Maps & History for more information about data availability.
National YRBS datasets and documentation are available for download at YRBSS Data & Documentation . There is no charge for the data nor is permission needed to download or use the data.
Results are not available from every state for several reasons. First, four states (Minnesota, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming) do not participate in the YRBSS. Second, some states that do participate do not achieve a high enough overall response rate to receive weighted results. Therefore, their results are not posted on the CDC website and CDC does not distribute their data.
The Participation Map and the Participation History & Data Quality tables provide more details on which states participated in the YRBSS and whether they obtained weighted data.
National YRBSS datasets and documentation are available for download at YRBSS Data & Documentation . There is no charge for the data nor is permission needed to download or use the data.
The national YRBS datasets posted on the YRBSS website do not contain state or region identifiers because the national samples are not constructed to provide representative data at state or region levels. However, national YRBS datasets with state identifiers included are available upon request using the YRBSS Data Request Form .
The national YRBS datasets will not contain data from every state because the national YRBS is an independent sample; it is not the aggregate of individual state and local datasets.
No, the national YRBS results are not the combination of state and local school district data. The national YRBS data are a separately drawn sample of high school students in grades 9–12 in the U.S. Some states may not have any schools chosen as part of the sample. States and local school districts each use a sample design that produces a representative sample of students in grades 9–12 for their state or local school district.
If you want to analyze state or local school district data please see Participation Maps & History for more information about data availability.
No. The national YRBS sample is designed to be representative of students in grades 9–12 in the United States overall but does necessarily include students from every state.
National YRBS datasets are available in two file formats: Access and ASCII. Additionally, SAS and SPSS programs are provided to convert the ASCII data into SAS and SPSS datasets. They can be downloaded at YRBSS Data & Documentation .
State, local school district, territory, and tribal government data sets from surveys conducted since 1999 are available in SAS, SPSS, ASCII, and Access formats. State, local school district, territory, and tribal government datasets from surveys conducted prior to 1999 are available in ASCII only.
YRBSS is the largest public health surveillance system in the U.S, monitoring multiple health-related behaviors among high school students.
COMMENTS
Answer 1: In qualitative research, samples are selected subjectively according to. the pur pose of the study, whereas in quantitative researc h probability sampling. technique are used to select ...
In this context, in part as a reaction against the positioning of qualitative research as less vital and relevant given its refusal to undertake random sampling with large numbers - due to a fundamental asymmetry in goals (e.g. Lincoln and Guba, 1985) and inability in
In quantitative studies, the sampling plan, including sample size, is determined in detail in beforehand but qualitative research projects start with a broadly defined sampling plan. This plan enables you to include a variety of settings and situations and a variety of participants, including negative cases or extreme cases to obtain rich data.
However, mixed methods studies also have unique considerations based on the relationship of quantitative and qualitative research within the study. Sampling in Qualitative Research Sampling in qualitative research may be divided into two major areas: overall sampling strategies and issues around sample size.
sampling in qualitative research is that numbers are unimportant in ensuring the adequacy of a sampling strategy" (p. 179). Nevertheless, some methodologists have provided guidelines for selecting samples in qualitative studies based on the research design (e.g., case study, ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory) or research method (e.g.,
Abstract. Qualitative sampling methods differ from quantitative sampling methods. It is important that one understands those differences, as well as, appropriate qualitative sampling techniques. Appropriate sampling choices enhance the rigor of qualitative research studies. These types of sampling strategies are presented, along with the pros ...
A population sample is a. chosen subset usually representative of a wider population. In this chapter, both sampling and. data collection techniques used in qualitative research are the focus. 1 ...
what is commonly referred to as qualitative from quantitative inquiry is the kind of sampling used. While qualitative research typically involves pur-poseful sampling to enhance understanding of the information-rich case (Patton, 1990), quantitative research ideally involves probability sampling to permit statistical inferences to be made. Although
Abstract. In gerontology the most recognized and elaborate discourse about sampling is generally thought to be in quantitative research associated with survey research and medical research. But ...
The importance of sampling extends to the ability to draw accurate inferences, and it is an integral part of qualitative guidelines across research methods. Sampling considerations are important in quantitative and qualitative research when considering a target population and when drawing a sample that will either allow us to generalize (i.e ...
Knowledge of sampling methods is essential to design quality research. Critical questions are provided to help researchers choose a sampling method. This article reviews probability and non-probability sampling methods, lists and defines specific sampling techniques, and provides pros and cons for consideration.
Qualitative studies use specific tools and techniques (methods) to sample people, organizations, or whatever is to be examined. The methodology guides the selection of tools and techniques for sampling, data analysis, quality assurance, etc. These all vary according to the purpose and design of the study and the RQ.
Principles of Purposeful Sampling. Purposeful sampling is a technique widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources (Patton, 2002).This involves identifying and selecting individuals or groups of individuals that are especially knowledgeable about or experienced with a phenomenon of interest ...
This chapter explains how to design suitable sampling strategies for qualitative research. The focus of this chapter is purposive (or theoretical) sampling to produce credible and trustworthy explanations of a phenomenon (a specific aspect of society). A specific research question (RQ) guides the methodology (the study design or approach).It defines the participants, location, and actions to ...
Qualitative research is a type of scientific research. In general terms, scientific research consists of an investigation that: • seeks answers to a question. • systematically uses a predefined set of procedures to answer the question. • collects evidence. • produces findings that were not determined in advance.
Mine tends to start with a reminder about the different philosophical assumptions undergirding qualitative and quantitative research projects ( Staller, 2013 ). As Abrams (2010) points out, this difference leads to "major differences in sampling goals and strategies." (p.537). Patton (2002) argues, "perhaps nothing better captures the ...
Sampling for Qualitative Research •The aim of the qualitative research is to understand, from within, the subjective reality of the study participants. •This will not be achieved through superficial knowledge about a large, representative sample of individuals. •Rather we want to reach people within the study area
A qualitative sampling plan describes how many observations, interviews, focus group discussions or cases are needed to ensure that the findings will contribute rich data. In quantitative studies, the sampling plan, including sample size, is determined in detail in beforehand but qualitative research projects start with a broadly defined ...
The methods literature regarding sampling in qualitative research is characterized by important inconsistencies and ambiguities, which can be problematic for students and researchers seeking a ...
Qualitative sampling strategies are designed to generate a deep understanding of a topic rather than ... Qualitative and quantitative research should be reflexive and dynamic because the practitioner is part of the research, not separate from it (Malterud, 2001; Aamodt, 1982). ... Introduction to qualitative research methods for monitoring and ...
Change" initiative, using a mixed-methods approach with purposive sampling. First, interviews and formative prototype testing yielded qualitative data which we analyzed with several coding cycles. These qualitative methods illuminated the work domain, broke it into learning use cases, and identified design requirements.
In gerontology the most recognized and elaborate discourse about sampling is generally thought to be in quantitative research associated with survey research and medical research. But sampling has long been a central concern in the social and humanistic inquiry, albeit in a different guise suited to the different goals. There is a need for more ...
Using SAS files. Save the SAS Format Program, SAS Input Program, and the ASCII data files to a folder on your computer. Open the SAS Format Program in SAS and edit it according to the instructions included in the comments in the program.
Cluster sampling is advantageous for those researcher s. whose subjects are fragmented over large geographical areas as it saves time and money. (Davis, 2005). The stages to cluster sa mpling can ...
115. Chapter 7 Sampling data and data collection in qualitative research. Depending on the types of data required for a qualita-. tive study, various methods of collecting data can be used ...
ority in both quantitative and qualitative assessments. 2. RELATED WORK 2.1. SAR-to-Optical Image Translation The interpretation of SAR images is a critical yet challenging task in remote sensing, with a growing interest in converting SAR to more interpretable optical images. Traditional meth-arXiv:2407.16921v1 [cs.CV] 24 Jul 2024
Quantitative and qualitative research design represent the two sides of a coin in research project and Hammed (2020) citing Guba (1982) illustrated the axiomatic differences between the two ...
Including of possible differences in purpose, method, data sources, and data analysis. | Introduction According to Dr Ndalama (2023) define qualitative research as the study of the nature of ...
A mixed-methods approach was used, gathering quantitative data through survey questionnaires and qualitative data through interviews to assess authors' satisfaction levels with the journal's ...