Curtis_2000_approaches to sampling and case selection in QR.pdf

# Sampling strategies in qualitative health geography research This section delves into the crucial aspect of sampling within qualitative health geography research, emphasizing its importance in selecting cases and illustrating practical application through case studies [1](#page=1) [2](#page=2). ### 1.1 The significance of sampling in qualitative research Sampling, or the selection of cases for study, is a fundamental element of qualitative research, often receiving less attention in methodological discussions than data collection or analysis techniques. Rigorous attention to sampling is essential for the validity of qualitative findings. While some qualitative research may not involve explicit sampling if cases are predetermined by the research question (intrinsic casework), instrumental or collective casework necessitates deliberate selection of cases to explore research themes [2](#page=2). ### 1.2 Principles of qualitative sampling Qualitative sampling differs from statistical sampling in that it is not based on theories of probability. Instead, it employs purposive or theoretical criteria. Key features of qualitative samples include [2](#page=2): * Small sample sizes studied intensively, generating large amounts of data [2](#page=2). * Sequential selection of cases, often interleaved with coding and analysis, rather than a fully pre-specified sample [2](#page=2). * Conceptually driven selection, either by an existing theoretical framework or an evolving theory derived from the data [2](#page=2). * A reflexive and explicit rationale for case selection due to ethical and theoretical implications [2](#page=2). * The aim of analytic generalization (applying findings to wider theory based on how cases fit constructs) rather than statistical generalization to populations [2](#page=2). #### 1.2.1 Theoretical vs. Purposive Sampling A notable tension exists between 'theoretical sampling,' which aims to generate theory grounded in data during fieldwork, and 'purposive sampling,' used for research informed by existing social theory [2](#page=2). ### 1.3 Guidelines for evaluating qualitative sampling strategies: Miles and Huberman's framework Miles and Huberman proposed a checklist of six criteria for evaluating sampling strategies in qualitative research. These guidelines, adapted for this study, are [3](#page=3): 1. **Relevance to the conceptual framework and research questions (MH1):** This involves considering whether sampling provides cases pertinent to a pre-existing framework or influences the development of inductive theory [3](#page=3). 2. **Likelihood of generating rich information (MH2):** The sample should yield in-depth descriptions of phenomena crucial to the study [3](#page=3). 3. **Enhancement of generalizability (MH3):** For qualitative research, this refers to analytic generalizability, not statistical representativeness [3](#page=3). 4. **Production of believable descriptions/explanations (MH4):** The research should provide a convincing and true-to-life account, considering the reliability and potential biases of information sources [3](#page=3). 5. **Ethical considerations (MH5):** This includes assessing informed consent, benefits/risks to participants, and the researcher-informant relationship [3](#page=3). 6. **Feasibility of the sampling plan (MH6):** Practical aspects like cost (time and money), accessibility, and compatibility with the researcher's work style and competencies are considered [3](#page=3). > **Tip:** The authors acknowledge the potential for post-hoc rationalization when applying these criteria to past research, but argue that using specific examples of real research is essential for methodological discussions [4](#page=4). ### 1.4 Case studies illustrating sampling in practice Three studies in health geography are presented to demonstrate the application and evaluation of these sampling criteria: #### 1.4.1 Study 1: Selecting cases for an international study on healing places Wil Gesler explored 'therapeutic landscapes,' focusing on places with a lasting reputation for healing [5](#page=5). * **Conceptual framework (MH1):** The framework evolved from a reviewer's suggestion, identifying factors like nature, sense of place, and social relationships contributing to healing [5](#page=5). * **Rich information (MH2):** The selection prioritized places with substantial written accounts for library research and those offering direct observational opportunities. Initial ideas for imaginary sites were abandoned in favor of real places with historical depth [5](#page=5). * **Generalizability (MH3):** The aim was to select places from different historical circumstances to enhance conceptual weight, leading to the selection of Bath (England), Epidauros (Greece), and Lourdes (France) [5](#page=5) [6](#page=6). * **Believable descriptions (MH4):** This was not an explicit selection requirement but was supported by the corroboration of evidence within each setting [6](#page=6). * **Ethics (MH5):** Ethical concerns were primarily at Lourdes, where the researcher joined a pilgrimage and openly disclosed their research [6](#page=6). * **Feasibility (MH6):** Abundant library materials and accessibility within Western countries, given travel funding, were key [5](#page=5) [6](#page=6). > **Example:** The choice of Bath, Epidauros, and Lourdes aimed to represent diverse historical contexts for healing, enhancing the conceptual generalizability of findings [5](#page=5) [6](#page=6). Challenges included balancing criteria, such as the desire for non-Western sites (enhancing generalizability) versus feasibility [6](#page=6). #### 1.4.2 Study 2: 'Placing' anti-malaria control efforts in North Carolina Sarah Washburn investigated the social context of malaria ecology and how power relations shape anti-malarial practices [7](#page=7). * **Conceptual framework (MH1):** The study linked national policy to local places, examining how social relations (gender, race, class, rural status) influenced practices and disease ecologies [7](#page=7). * **Rich information (MH2):** The process involved identifying references to North Carolina places in international and national literature and selecting discourses that would generate substantial information [7](#page=7). * **Generalizability (MH3):** Linking local contexts to national/international accounts aimed for conceptual generalizability [7](#page=7). * **Believable descriptions (MH4):** This was not a primary selection priority, with the researcher presuming that public accounts were intended to be believed, acknowledging that myths and untruths could also shape practice [8](#page=8). * **Ethics (MH5):** A significant ethical compromise was made by limiting data to extant newspaper accounts, which favored dominant social groups and excluded subaltern voices [8](#page=8). * **Feasibility (MH6):** Limiting the study to North Carolina and using accessible newspaper accounts were driven by feasibility constraints [7](#page=7) [8](#page=8). > **Example:** The decision to primarily use newspaper accounts, while feasible and theoretically relevant, raised ethical concerns about excluding the perspectives of less influential social groups [8](#page=8). The study selected Roanoke Rapids, Edenton, Sampson County, and Pamlico County, illustrating how anti-malaria activities were mediated by racism, sexism, and class-based discrimination [8](#page=8). #### 1.4.3 Study 3: Selecting a sample for research with 'chronically ill/disabled' people Glenn Smith examined the life stories of young males with chronic illness or disability, focusing on gender and sexuality [8](#page=8) [9](#page=9). * **Conceptual framework (MH1):** The framework aimed to redress the decontextualization of chronic illness experience in academia, drawing on the social model of disability, ideas of space, and life story methodology [9](#page=9). * **Rich information (MH2):** Informants needed to articulate their stories illustratively and appear trustworthy and balanced. The researcher sought individuals capable of conveying depth and balanced reflection [10](#page=10) [11](#page=11). * **Generalizability (MH3):** A sample with diverse conditions was deemed more appropriate than focusing on a single disease to capture commonalities rather than just individual symptoms [10](#page=10). * **Believable descriptions (MH4):** The interpretation of "believable" and "true to real life" was influenced by the researcher's positionality, method, and conceptual framework [11](#page=11). * **Ethics (MH5):** Ethical considerations were paramount, including diversifying sources of informants and navigating complex requirements from medical ethics committees [10](#page=10) [11](#page=11) [9](#page=9). * **Feasibility (MH6):** The study was initially located within a local Health Authority area for feasibility and to utilize their contacts. However, challenges in finding local support groups and ethical approval complexities necessitated revising the geographical scope to include wider East London [10](#page=10) [9](#page=9). > **Tip:** The researcher found that ethical considerations for sampling individuals were more complex than for places, requiring justification to multiple ethics committees with potentially differing priorities [12](#page=12). The sampling strategy evolved, incorporating individuals with conditions recognized as 'disability' based on evolving theoretical, feasible, and ethical considerations [11](#page=11). ### 1.5 Conclusion: The importance of balancing criteria The discussed case studies highlight that while Miles and Huberman's criteria are relevant, qualitative sampling strategies are not blueprints and must be specific to each study. The most challenging aspect of designing accountable sampling strategies is finding the right balance between often conflicting criteria, such as theoretical rigor versus ethical considerations, and practical feasibility. Explicitly reporting these decisions and their implications enhances the interpretive power and clarity of qualitative research findings. Attention to these criteria can also improve the efficiency of sample selection by focusing effort on the most pertinent cases [12](#page=12) [13](#page=13). --- # Evaluation criteria for qualitative sampling This topic explores the framework of six criteria proposed by Miles and Huberman for evaluating qualitative sampling strategies, examining their relevance and application across diverse research scenarios [3](#page=3). ### 2.1 The need for evaluation criteria in qualitative sampling Qualitative research, while often idiographic, benefits from clear guidelines to ensure rigor and justify sampling strategies. These criteria can particularly assist less experienced researchers in designing qualitative samples. Miles and Huberman's proposed "checklist" of six attributes serves as a foundation for assessing these strategies [3](#page=3). ### 2.2 Miles and Huberman's six criteria for evaluating qualitative sampling Miles and Huberman suggest that sampling strategies can be evaluated based on the following six criteria: #### 2.2.1 Criterion 1: Relevance to the conceptual framework and research questions (MH1) This criterion focuses on whether the sampling strategy aligns with the study's existing conceptual framework or supports the inductive development of theory from the data. It involves considering if the chosen cases are pertinent to the research's theoretical underpinnings and how the sampling choice might influence theory generation [3](#page=3). * **Example:** In Study 1 (healing places), the researcher aimed to select places that empirically supported concepts such as nature as a healer, sense of place, and symbolic landscapes, directly linking the sample choice to the conceptual framework [5](#page=5). * **Tip:** Ensure your sampling strategy actively contributes to or tests the core theoretical concepts of your research. #### 2.2.2 Criterion 2: Likelihood of generating rich information (MH2) This criterion assesses whether the sample is likely to yield substantial and detailed information about the phenomena of interest. Qualitative research relies on "thick description," making it crucial that selected cases provide ample data on conceptually important aspects [3](#page=3). * **Example:** Study 1 sought places with lasting reputations for healing, believing these would be rich in historical and observational material. Study 3 required individuals capable of articulating their life stories to be illustrative of their illness experience [10](#page=10) [5](#page=5). * **Tip:** Consider the depth and detail of information a potential case can offer before including it in your sample. #### 2.2.3 Criterion 3: Enhancement of generalizability (MH3) For qualitative research, generalizability refers to analytic generalizability rather than statistical generalization to a population. The sample should enable findings to be transferable to other contexts or similar phenomena, often through conceptual power [3](#page=3). * **Example:** Study 1 aimed for generalizability to Western healing places by selecting sites that varied historically and geographically, identifying common "healing environments". Study 2 aimed for conceptual generalizability by linking local contexts to national and international policy accounts [6](#page=6) [7](#page=7). * **Tip:** Think about how your sample, through its diversity or representative characteristics, can inform broader theoretical understandings beyond the immediate cases studied. #### 2.2.4 Criterion 4: Production of believable descriptions/explanations (MH4) This criterion relates to the validity of qualitative research, ensuring that findings provide a convincing account of reality. It can also involve issues of reliability and potential biases in the data sources that might influence the explanations derived [3](#page=3). * **Example:** Study 1 believed that internal corroboration of evidence within each setting contributed to believable descriptions. Study 3 considered the subject's ability to appear trustworthy and balanced to articulate their story [10](#page=10) [6](#page=6). * **Tip:** Consider how your data collection and analysis methods will contribute to the credibility and trustworthiness of your findings. #### 2.2.5 Criterion 5: Ethical considerations (MH5) This criterion examines the ethical implications of the sampling strategy, including informed consent, potential risks and benefits to participants, and the researcher-informant relationship. It also extends to ethical issues concerning individuals excluded from the research [3](#page=3). * **Example:** Study 3 faced complex ethical challenges in recruiting participants with chronic illness/disability, requiring negotiation with medical ethics committees and careful consideration of participant vulnerability. Study 2 noted an ethical compromise in excluding subaltern voices by relying solely on public newspaper accounts [10](#page=10) [8](#page=8) [9](#page=9). * **Tip:** Proactively identify and address ethical dilemmas inherent in your sampling approach, especially when working with vulnerable populations. #### 2.2.6 Criterion 6: Feasibility of the sampling plan (MH6) This criterion considers the practical aspects of implementing the sampling strategy, including resource costs (money, time), accessibility of participants or sites, and compatibility with the researcher's abilities and work style. Researcher competencies, such as communication skills, are also relevant [3](#page=3). * **Example:** Study 1 limited its geographical scope to the Western World due to travel funding constraints. Study 2 limited its geographical scope to North Carolina due to feasibility concerns with broader regional travel. Study 3 had to revise its geographical location due to limited support groups and difficulty accessing participants [10](#page=10) [5](#page=5) [7](#page=7). * **Tip:** Be realistic about available resources and practical constraints when designing your sampling strategy. ### 2.3 Application and tensions between criteria The three case studies illustrate that researchers often balance a range of criteria, sometimes experiencing conflicts between them. The importance of each criterion varies significantly between studies. For instance, ethical considerations are more complex when sampling individuals compared to places [12](#page=12) [4](#page=4). * **Tension Example:** In Study 2, the choice to use public newspaper accounts for feasibility and relevance (MH1, MH2, MH6) led to an ethical compromise by excluding subaltern voices (MH5) [8](#page=8). * **Tip:** Recognize that achieving perfect alignment across all criteria may be impossible; prioritize and make conscious decisions about which criteria are most critical for your specific research. ### 2.4 Evolving sampling strategies In some qualitative research, the sampling strategy and conceptual framework can evolve in response to emergent findings. This is particularly true when researchers aim to incorporate participants' views in defining conceptual categories [11](#page=11) [12](#page=12). * **Example:** In Study 3, the researcher revised their sampling strategy to include individuals with visible impairments based on ongoing reflection and the nature of the emerging interviews [11](#page=11). * **Tip:** Be open to refining your sampling strategy as your research progresses, especially if new insights or practical challenges arise. ### 2.5 Conclusion on usefulness of criteria While none of the researchers explicitly used Miles and Huberman's checklist during their initial research design, all six criteria were found to be relevant in retrospect. The criteria provide a useful framework for evaluating and justifying qualitative sampling strategies, even though the interpretation of terms like "believable" can be context-dependent. The primary challenge in designing accountable sampling strategies lies in finding the right balance between conflicting criteria [11](#page=11) [12](#page=12). --- # Case studies of sampling in health geography research This section explores the practical challenges and decision-making processes involved in selecting research cases within health geography through three distinct case studies. ### 3.1 Evaluating qualitative sampling strategies Qualitative research sampling strategies can be assessed using a set of six criteria proposed by Miles and Huberman. These criteria serve as guidelines for ensuring the rigor of qualitative research and are particularly helpful for less experienced researchers [3](#page=3). #### 3.1.1 The six criteria for evaluating sampling strategies 1. **Relevance to the conceptual framework and research questions (MH1)**: The sampling strategy should align with the research's theoretical underpinnings and the specific questions being asked. This involves considering whether the selected cases fit into pre-existing categories or if they will facilitate inductive theory development [3](#page=3). 2. **Likely to generate rich information (MH2)**: The chosen cases should be capable of yielding detailed and insightful data relevant to the phenomena under investigation. Intensive research relies on "thick description" of important phenomena [3](#page=3). 3. **Enhance generalizability (MH3)**: For qualitative samples, the focus is on analytic generalizability rather than statistical generalizability to a wider population. This means the findings should have conceptual weight that can be applied to other contexts [3](#page=3) [6](#page=6). 4. **Produce believable descriptions/explanations (MH4)**: The research findings should offer a convincing account and explanation of real-life observations. This criterion also touches upon the reliability and potential biases of information sources [3](#page=3). 5. **Ethical considerations (MH5)**: This criterion encompasses aspects such as obtaining informed consent, potential benefits and risks for participants, and the researcher-informant relationship. It also includes ethical considerations for excluded cases [3](#page=3). 6. **Feasibility of the sampling plan (MH6)**: This involves assessing the practical aspects of the research, including resource costs (money and time), accessibility of cases, compatibility with the researcher's work style, and the researcher's competencies (e.g., linguistic skills, ability to relate to informants) [3](#page=3). > **Tip:** While these criteria provide a useful framework, their application can involve tensions and conflicts between simultaneous goals [11](#page=11) [6](#page=6). ### 3.2 Case study 1: Selecting cases for an international study on healing places This study by Wil Gesler examined places with a long-standing reputation for healing, aiming to understand what contributes to these "therapeutic landscapes" [5](#page=5). #### 3.2.1 Conceptual framework and initial selection The conceptual framework emerged from previous work, identifying factors contributing to healing places, including nature, sense of place, symbolic landscapes, medical beliefs, and social relationships. The research distinguished between "healing" (experiential) and "curing" (measurable). The initial goal was to find empirically validated places that people believed possessed healing power [5](#page=5). #### 3.2.2 Application of Miles and Huberman criteria * **MH1 (Relevance)**: The selection aimed to identify places that would provide information on the conceptual framework's themes [5](#page=5). * **MH2 (Rich information)**: The researcher sought places with a lasting reputation for healing to ensure a wealth of information. Preliminary investigations into library resources and the ability to visit sites were crucial [5](#page=5). * **MH6 (Feasibility)**: The requirement to visit sites limited potential study sites to the Western World due to travel funding constraints [5](#page=5). * **MH3 (Generalizability)**: The third requirement was for places with diverse historical circumstances to enhance conceptual generalizability [5](#page=5). #### 3.2.3 Final case selection and outcomes The final three choices were Bath (England), Epidauros (Greece), and Lourdes (France). These sites were selected based on lasting reputation, available library sources, accessibility, and different historical contexts [6](#page=6). * **MH1 and MH2**: Both criteria were met, with archival and observational material illustrating the conceptual framework's themes, and each site providing rich detail [6](#page=6). * **MH3**: Generalizability was deemed to extend to Western healing places, strengthened by common "healing environments" (natural, built, historical, beliefs, symbolic, social) found across the sites [6](#page=6). * **MH4**: While not an explicit selection requirement, believability was supported by the resonance and corroboration of evidence within each setting [6](#page=6). * **MH5**: Ethical concerns were primarily relevant at Lourdes, where open communication with pilgrims was maintained [6](#page=6). * **MH6**: All three sites were feasible due to abundant library materials and reasonable travel funding [6](#page=6). Conflicts arose between criteria, such as desired relevance versus richness of information, and feasibility limiting broader generalizability to non-Western sites [6](#page=6). ### 3.3 Case study 2: 'Placing' anti-malaria control efforts in North Carolina Sarah Washburn's study investigated how national anti-malarial policies shaped local practices, focusing on power relations and social differences (gender, race, class) within specific places [7](#page=7). #### 3.3.1 Research aims and context The thesis linked national policy to local places to analyze how power relations influence anti-malarial practices. Malaria was chosen due to its historical association with ideas of "race". The study focused on the southern United States from 1910-1925, a period when malaria transmission was understood and control efforts became a national priority [7](#page=7). #### 3.3.2 Sampling strategy and criteria A case study method was chosen to link particular places to local social contexts [7](#page=7). * **MH6 (Feasibility)**: Initially planning a regional approach across the southern US was limited to North Carolina due to travel feasibility [7](#page=7). * **MH2 (Rich information)**: Places were selected based on references in international and national literature to generate rich data and allow for conceptual generalizability (MH3) [7](#page=7). * **MH5 (Ethics)**: The choice of data sources had ethical consequences, particularly concerning the inclusion of subaltern voices [7](#page=7). #### 3.3.3 Data sources and selection The researcher struggled with choosing local account types, balancing feasibility, relevance, and ethics. Extant newspaper accounts were chosen as they were most feasible, relevant to the conceptual framework, and amenable to critical analysis of ideological content and material effect [7](#page=7) [8](#page=8). * **Ethical compromise (MH5)**: Limiting data to public accounts, predominantly generated by dominant social groups, excluded subaltern voices, creating a bias towards those in positions of power [8](#page=8). #### 3.3.4 Final case selection and outcomes Four study locations were chosen in North Carolina: Roanoke Rapids, Edenton, Sampson County, and Pamlico County. These sites illustrated anti-malaria activities mediated by racism, sexism, class-based, and rural status discrimination [8](#page=8). * **MH1 (Relevance)**: This was the primary criterion, focusing on how social relations modified malaria control policy [8](#page=8). * **MH2 (Rich information)**: Obtaining a reasonable amount of data for each place was key [8](#page=8). * **MH5 (Ethics)**: Addressing ethical issues and ensuring conceptual generalizability (MH3) were important [8](#page=8). * **MH4 (Believability)**: This was not a priority for site selection, as myths and untruths could be as important as "truths" in shaping practice [8](#page=8). * **MH6 (Feasibility)**: Feasibility was significant due to limited resources [8](#page=8). Tensions between criteria, particularly the exclusion of subaltern voices, led to ethical weaknesses [8](#page=8). ### 3.4 Case study 3: Selecting a sample for research with 'chronically ill/disabled' people Glenn Smith's research explored the life stories of individuals with chronic illness or disability, focusing on gender and sexuality, and the experience of illness as an integral part of identity [9](#page=9). #### 3.4.1 Conceptual framework and initial sampling strategy The research aimed to address the decontextualized academic literature on chronic illness by drawing on a social model of disability, concepts of space, and life story methodology [9](#page=9). * **MH6 (Feasibility)**: The geographical location was initially set within a local Health Authority area for feasibility and to utilize their contacts [9](#page=9). * **MH5 (Ethics)**: Ethical sampling within disability studies suggested that disabled people should be more influential in informant choice than medical professionals. To address this, a diversified source of informants was aimed for [9](#page=9). * **MH1 (Relevance)**: Informants needed to fulfill specific research requirements and the conceptual framework [10](#page=10). * **MH2 & MH3**: Subjects had to articulate their experiences illustratively and appear trustworthy. A sample of individuals with diverse conditions was preferred over focusing on a single disease [10](#page=10). * **MH2 & MH6 (Richness and Feasibility)**: The researcher, being male, believed same-sex interaction would be more feasible and ethical for discussing sensitive gender and sexuality issues. Age was also considered for feasibility and to capture illness development from childhood/early adolescence [10](#page=10). The initial strategy was to select young adult males with long-standing chronic illness in East London, contacted via non-medical and medical sources [10](#page=10). #### 3.4.2 Transition to a working sample and challenges The transition from strategy to a working sample proved problematic, requiring reconsideration of ethics (MH5) and feasibility (MH6) to obtain "rich" and "usable" information (MH2) [10](#page=10). * **Geographical Revision**: Limited support groups and poor response rates from advertising and local hospitals led to a revision of the study area to include more of London. This also necessitated obtaining ethical approval from multiple medical ethics committees [10](#page=10). * **Ethical Committee Scrutiny**: Ethics committees, often operating under principles designed for statistical sampling and clinical trials, required rigorous justification for this qualitative study. This process highlighted differing perspectives on what is ethically most important for qualitative research [10](#page=10). * **Informant Selection Challenges**: Initial attempts to recruit informants through advertisements yielded unsuitable candidates, with loneliness being a key ethical concern (MH5). The researcher felt it unethical to form a "researcher and researched" relationship with individuals needing a friend, as it could compromise confidences (MH2 and MH4) [11](#page=11). #### 3.4.3 Revised sampling strategy and outcomes The revised strategy involved young adult males with long-standing chronic illness or disability in a wider East London area, recruited from various sources, including the health service, and adhering to ethical criteria from both the researcher and medical ethics committees [11](#page=11). #### 3.4.4 Reservations about Miles and Huberman criteria The researcher had two reservations about using the Miles and Huberman criteria directly: * **Vagueness of "Normality"**: Criteria like generating "believable descriptions/explanations that are true to 'real life'" (MH4) are inherently subjective and influenced by the researcher's positionality, method, and conceptual framework [11](#page=11). * **Elaboration on Ethics (MH5)**: The criterion on ethics needs more detailed discussion, questioning whose ethics are being applied and whether excluding individuals unable to articulate their experiences easily is ethical. Balancing competing principles from disability studies, medical ethics committees, individual needs, and research goals was crucial [11](#page=11). Despite these reservations, the criteria, when used thoughtfully, can aid in making more informed decisions in qualitative research sampling [11](#page=11). --- ## Common mistakes to avoid - Review all topics thoroughly before exams - Pay attention to formulas and key definitions - Practice with examples provided in each section - Don't memorize without understanding the underlying concepts

| Term | Definition | |------|------------| | Qualitative Research | A research methodology that focuses on understanding experiences, perspectives, and meanings, typically involving non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and textual analysis. It aims for in-depth exploration rather than statistical generalization. | | Sampling | The process of selecting a subset of individuals or cases from a larger population for study. In qualitative research, sampling is often purposive or theoretical, aiming to select information-rich cases that are relevant to the research question. | | Case Selection | The specific act of choosing particular instances or subjects for in-depth study within a qualitative research project. This is a critical aspect of qualitative sampling. | | Theoretical Sampling | A method of sampling in qualitative research, often associated with grounded theory, where cases are selected sequentially based on emerging theories or concepts derived from the data. The sampling strategy evolves as the research progresses. | | Purposive Sampling | A non-probability sampling technique where the researcher deliberately selects participants or cases based on specific characteristics or criteria that are relevant to the research question. The goal is to select cases that will provide rich information. | | Grounded Theory | A qualitative research methodology that aims to develop theory directly from the data collected. It involves systematic processes of data collection, coding, and analysis to generate an inductively derived theory. | | Analytic Generalization | The process of generalizing findings from a qualitative study to broader theory or existing concepts, rather than to a statistical population. This is achieved by examining how selected cases fit with or extend theoretical constructs. | | Statistical Generalization | The process of generalizing findings from a sample to a larger population based on probability theory and representative sampling methods. This is typically the aim of quantitative research. | | Thick Description | Detailed and rich accounts of phenomena that provide context, meaning, and insight into the experiences of individuals or groups. It is a key element in qualitative data analysis and interpretation. | | Feasibility | The practicality of a research plan, considering factors such as time, cost, resources, and the researcher's capabilities. In sampling, it relates to the accessibility of potential cases and the manageability of the selection process. | | Ethical Considerations | The moral principles and guidelines that researchers must adhere to when conducting studies involving human participants. This includes issues of informed consent, confidentiality, privacy, and minimizing harm. | | Conceptual Framework | The underlying theoretical structure or set of concepts that guides a research study. It shapes the research questions, the data collected, and the interpretation of findings. | | Data Collection | The systematic process of gathering information for a research study, which in qualitative research can include interviews, focus groups, observations, and document analysis. | | Data Analysis | The process of organizing, inspecting, and interpreting qualitative data to identify patterns, themes, and relationships. This often involves coding, categorization, and narrative synthesis. | | Reflexivity | The process by which researchers critically examine their own role, biases, and assumptions in the research process and how these might influence the data collected and interpreted. | | Validity (in qualitative research) | The extent to which a qualitative study accurately reflects the phenomenon it aims to investigate. This can be assessed through various means, including credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. | | Reliability (in qualitative research) | Refers to the consistency of findings. In qualitative research, this is often discussed in terms of the dependability of the data sources and the rigor of the analytical process. | | Informants | Individuals who provide information to researchers in qualitative studies, often through interviews or participation in observations. They are seen as sources of rich, in-depth data. | | Gatekeepers | Individuals or groups who control access to potential research participants or sites. Researchers often need to negotiate with gatekeepers to gain entry for their studies. | | Social Model of Disability | A framework that posits disability as a social construct, arising from societal barriers and discrimination rather than inherent individual limitations. It emphasizes the role of society in creating disabling environments. | | Therapeutic Landscapes | Places that are perceived to have positive effects on health and well-being. This concept explores how the environment, including natural, built, social, and symbolic elements, can contribute to healing and health. |