Hi Roland
Echoing David's comments I don't think I've come across the term haphazard
before in this context either - probably a reflection of my limited reading!
It seems to suffer from the same problem as "accidental" when applied to
non-probability sampling.
I prefer the term "purposive sampling"
Tony Hudson
47 Ridgewell Close, London, SE26 5AP, UK
Tel: +44(0)20 8778 0233
>From: Rowland Atkinson <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: qual-software <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Haphazard sampling
>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:37:08 +0000
>
>Hi all
>
>I was wondering if anyone else has reservations about the use of the term
>haphazard sampling to describe sampling strategies used in qualitative
>reserach. It strikes me that even if one is sympathetic with the idea that
>qual strategies are not respresentative (which I am) the last thing that
>they are is haphazard - is this a form of epistemological superority? All
>qual research has to carefully plan and uncover key actors and contacts to
>generate data which makes the term seem something of a hangover from a time
>when quant methods were seen as having all the answers.
>
>Im intersted in what others think,
>
>cheers
>
>Rowland
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
|