Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

The Role of Sampling in Qualitative Research

2005; Rapid Intellect Group; Volume: 9; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

1096-1453

Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Nancy L. Leech,

Statistics Education and Methodologies

Abstract Many researchers state that size and sampling are not issues in research. However, we argue that making sampling and size considerations is central to research. First, we refute arguments made by researchers who claim that sampling and size considerations are not relevant. Second, we contend that sampling represents multidimensional construct. Third, we posit that most studies involve some type of analytical generalization. Thus, choosing size and sampling scheme represent an active process of reflection. In quantitative research, size and sampling considerations usually are made with the goal of making statistical generalizations, which involve generalizing findings and inferences from representative statistical to the population from which the was drawn. Conversely, because most does not involve making statistical generalizations, many researchers state that size and sampling are not issues in and that sampling does not explain what is undertaken in inquiries (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, in press-d). These beliefs have been echoed by many members of leading listserv that has membership of more than 1,500 researchers (i.e., qualrs-l@listserv.uga.edu). Interestingly, using the keywords qualitative research and as well as qualitative research and sample size, in searching the ERIC (i.e., Educational Resource Information Center) and PsycINFO databases, yielded only four journal articles (i.e., Crowley, 1994/1995; Jones, 2002; Merriam, 1995; Sandelowski, 1995) that discussed the issue of sampling and/or size in research. Thus, it is evident that the concept of size in relation to has not been discussed or considered as valid addition for researchers. While quantitative researchers use complex mathematical formulae to make size considerations, and they promote the use of random sampling (even though the overwhelming majority of studies utilize non-random samples), size considerations in studies are neither mathematical nor systematic. Rather, they involve making series of decisions not only about how many individuals to include in study and how to select these individuals, but also about the conditions under which this selection will take place. These decisions are extremely important and, as stated by Curtis, Gesler, Smith, and Washburn (2000), It seems essential to be explicit about these [decisions], rather than leaving them hidden, and to consider the implications of the choice for the way that the ... study can be interpreted (p. 1012). Several reasons have been given by these proponents to support their claims that sampling and size considerations are not relevant in research. In particular, some researchers associate sampling and/or size considerations with an obsession with (logical) positivism, which virtually all researchers reject (Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Schwandt, 2000). Yet, rejecting positivism should not lead researchers automatically to reject considerations, such as sampling, that are made by quantitative researchers. Another reason provided for downplaying the importance of making size and sampling considerations is that they represent methodolatry, which refers to having a preoccupation with selecting and defending methods to the exclusion of the actual story being told (Janesick, 2000, p. 390). However, it can be argued that providing information to readers about size and sampling schemes adds more richness to the story telling. Further, delineating these considerations helps to ensure that reports are public, as recommended by Constas (1992). Because researchers typically are not interested in making generalizations to underlying populations, it is not unusual for researchers to conclude that sampling is not an issue. …