followed this thread with interest yesterday but was unwell so didn't
contribute - now here's my short but sweet contribution
sometimes I wonder whether even using the term 'sampling' with all it's
connotations can be construed as attempting to 'live up' to a quant
standard, when really qual should be setting it's own. What does 'sampling'
mean? How relevant is it to the qual endeavour when it is so associated
with the positivistic tradition that you have explain for hours to someone
why qualitative sampling is different?
does this make any sense?
Sarah Delaney
Research Officer
Health Services Research Centre
Department of Psychology
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
The Mercer Building
Mercer Street Lower
Dublin 2
00-353-1-4022121
[log in to unmask]
> ----------
> From: Jean Schensul
> Reply To: qual-software
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 5:16 pm
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Haphazard sampling
>
> For a good introduction to multiple forms of sampling and the conditions
> under which they are useful and appropriate in qualitative research see
> Chapter 10 of Book 2 of the Ethnographer's Toolkit, Altamirapress. Book 2
> is entitled "Essential Ethnographic Methods", authors are S. Schensul, J.
> Schensul and M. LeCompte. The chapter is entitled Ethnographic Sampling.
>
> "Accidental sampling" is a term that is not only inappropriate, it is
> detrimental to the qualitative research endeavor and I would suggest
> eliminating it immediately.
>
> Jean J. Schensul, Ph.D.
> Institute for Community Research
> Hartford, CT. U.S.A.
>
|