I've read this discussion with interest and I say that a sample is a sample is a sample; it is ideally purposively contrived in order to satisfy the bounds of the researchers resources which are generally limited because of an absence of time and money.  But whatever logic is used to generate and frame a sample, the intention is to capture a slice of life and thereby heighten understanding of one or more of life's phenomena.  And I suspect that this broad-brush statement is applicable to both QN and QL research - the difference being in whether or not we generalize or we interpret. 

So how then can we justify a haphazard sample - whatever that remains?  Well, if the sampler admits to cobbling things together in a hurry, I guess it could be haphazard - or it could even be random; and if the same purposive sample admits to serendipitous opportunities, there might be an element within the sample that is a tad haphazardous - or it could even be seizing the research moment. I'm inclined to call that grounded methodology, but certainly not grounded theory.  Sigh.

cheers

Jens
--
___________________________________
Jens J. Hansen, Ph.D.(New England)
Senior Lecturer, Master of Educational Management,
UNITEC, Tomorrow's University, Te Kura Puukenga o Wairaka,
Private Bag 92025, Auckland, New Zealand
UNITEC Phone:  64 9 815 4321 Ext. 8797  UNITEC Fax:  64 9 815 4310
UNITEC email: [log in to unmask]

Home Address: 91 Domain Cresent, Muriwai Beach,
RD 1 Waimauku, West Auckland, New Zealand
Home Phone: 64 9 411 7703
Home email:  [log in to unmask]