Non Probability Sampling

Qualitative researchers typically make sampling choices that enable them to achieve a deep understanding
of whatever phenomenon it is that they are studying. Sometimes quantitative researchers work with
targeted or small samples. Qualitative research often employs a theoretical sampling strategy, where study
sites, respondents, or cases are selected based on theoretical considerations such as whether they fit the
phenomenon being studied (e.g., sustainable practices can only be studied in organizations that have
implemented sustainable practices), whether they possess certain characteristics that make them uniquely
suited for the study (e.g., a study of the drivers of firm innovations should include some firms that are high
innovators and some that are low innovators, in order to draw contrast between these firms), and so forth. In
this section, we’ll examine the techniques that these researchers typically employ when sampling as well
as the various types of samples that they are most likely to use in their work.

Nonprobability sampling refers to sampling techniques for which a person’s likelihood of being selected
for membership in the sample is unknown. Because we don’t know the likelihood of selection, with
nonprobability samples we don’t know whether a sample is likely to represent a larger population. But
that’s okay. Generalizing to a larger population is not the goal with nonprobability samples or qualitative
research. That said, the fact that nonprobability samples do not represent a larger population does not mean
that they are drawn arbitrarily or without any specific purpose in mind. We’ll take a closer look at the
process of selecting research elements when drawing a nonprobability sample. But first, let’s consider why
a researcher might choose to use a nonprobability sample.

When are nonprobability samples ideal? One instance might be when we’re starting a big research project.
For example, if we’re conducting survey research, we may want to administer a draft of our survey to a few
people who seem to resemble the folks we’re interested in studying in order to help work out kinks in the
survey. We might also use a nonprobability sample if we’re conducting a pilot study or some exploratory
research. This can be a quick way to gather some initial data and help get some idea of the lay of the land
before conducting a more extensive study. From these examples, we can see that nonprobability samples
can be useful for setting up, framing, or beginning research, even quantitative research. But it isn’t just
early stage research that relies on and benefits from nonprobability sampling techniques. Researchers also
use nonprobability samples in advanced stage research projects. In this case, these projects are usually
qualitative in nature, where the researcher’s goal is in-depth, idiographic understanding rather than more
generalizable, nomothetic understanding.
There are several types of nonprobability samples that researchers use. These include purposive samples,
snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples.

To draw a purposive sample, a researcher selects participants from a sampling frame because they have
characteristics that the researcher desires. A researcher begins with specific characteristics in mind that she
wishes to examine and then seeks out research participants who cover that full range of characteristics. For
example, if you are studying mental health supports on your campus, you may want to be sure to include
not only students, but mental health practitioners and student affairs administrators. You might also select
students who currently use mental health supports, those who dropped out of supports, and those who are
waiting to receive supports. The purposive part of purposive sampling comes from selecting specific
participants on purpose because you already know they have characteristics—being an administrator,
dropping out of mental health supports—that you need in your sample.

Note that these are different than inclusion criteria, which are more general requirements a person must
possess to be a part of your sample. For example, one of the inclusion criteria for a study of your campus’
mental health supports might be that participants had to have visited the mental health center in the past
year. That is different than purposive sampling. In purposive sampling, you know characteristics of
individuals and recruit them because of those characteristics. For example, you might recruit Jane because
she stopped seeking supports this month, JD because he has worked at the center for many years, and so
forth.

Also, it’s important to recognize that purposive sampling requires you to have prior information about your
participants before recruiting them because you need to know their perspectives or experiences before you
know whether you want them in your sample. This is a common mistake that many students make. They
may think they’re using purposive sampling because they’re recruiting people from the health center or
something like that. That’s not purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is recruiting specific people
because of the various characteristics and perspectives they bring to your sample. Imagine we were creating
a focus group. A purposive sample might gather clinicians, patients, administrators, staff, and former
patients together so they can talk as a group. Purposive sampling would seek out people that have each of
those attributes.

Quota sampling is another nonprobability sampling strategy that takes purposive sampling one step
further. When conducting quota sampling, a researcher identifies categories that are important to the study
and for which there is likely to be some variation. Subgroups are created based on each category, and the
researcher decides how many people to include from each subgroup and collects data from that number for
each subgroup. Let’s consider a study of student satisfaction with on-campus housing. Perhaps there are
two types of housing on your campus: apartments that include full kitchens and dorm rooms where residents
do not cook for themselves and instead eat in a dorm cafeteria. As a researcher, you might wish to
understand how satisfaction varies across these two types of housing arrangements. Perhaps you have the
time and resources to interview 20 campus residents, so you decide to interview 10 from each housing type.
It is possible as well that your review of literature on the topic suggests that campus housing experiences
vary by gender. If that is that case, perhaps you’ll decide on four important subgroups: men who live in
apartments, women who live in apartments, men who live in dorm rooms, and women who live in dorm
rooms. Your quota sample would include five people from each of the four subgroups.

In 1936, up-and-coming pollster George Gallup made history when he successfully predicted the outcome
of the presidential election using quota sampling methods. The leading polling entity at the time, The
Literary Digest, predicted that Alfred Landon would beat Franklin Roosevelt in the presidential election by
a landslide, but Gallup’s polling disagreed. Gallup successfully predicted Roosevelt’s win and subsequent
elections based on quota samples, but in 1948, Gallup incorrectly predicted that Dewey would beat Truman
in the US presidential election. Among other problems, the fact that Gallup’s quota categories did not
represent those who actually voted (Neuman, 2007) underscores the point that one should avoid attempting
to make statistical generalizations from data collected using quota sampling methods. While quota sampling
offers the strength of helping the researcher account for potentially relevant variation across study elements,
it would be a mistake to think of this strategy as yielding statistically representative findings. For that, you
need probability sampling, which we will discuss in the next section.

Researchers can also use snowball sampling techniques to identify study participants. In snowball
sampling, a researcher identifies one or two people she’d like to include in her study and then relies on
those initial participants to help identify additional study participants. Thus, the researcher’s sample builds
and becomes larger as the study continues, much as a snowball builds and becomes larger as it rolls through
the snow. Snowball sampling is an especially useful strategy when a researcher wishes to study a
stigmatized group or behavior. For example, a researcher who wanted to study how people with genital
herpes cope with their medical condition would be unlikely to find many participants by posting a call for
interviewees in the newspaper or making an announcement about the study at some large social gathering.
Instead, the researcher might know someone with the condition, interview that person, and ask the person
to refer others they may know with the genital herpes to contact you to participate in the study. Having a
previous participant vouch for the researcher may help new potential participants feel more comfortable
about being included in the study.

Snowball sampling is sometimes referred to as chain referral sampling. One research participant refers
another, and that person refers another, and that person refers another—thus a chain of potential participants
is identified. In addition to using this sampling strategy for potentially stigmatized populations, it is also a
useful strategy to use when the researcher’s group of interest is likely to be difficult to find, not only because
of some stigma associated with the group, but also because the group may be relatively rare.

Steven Kogan and colleagues (2011) used a type sampling similar to snowball sampling called respondent-
driven sampling (Heckathorn, 2012). They wished to study the sexual behaviors of non-college-bound
African American young adults who lived in high-poverty rural areas. The researchers first relied on their
own networks to identify study participants, but because members of the study’s target population were not
easy to find, access to the networks of initial study participants was very important for identifying additional
participants. Initial participants were given coupons to pass on to others they knew who qualified for the
study. Participants were given an added incentive for referring eligible study participants; they received
$50 for participating in the study and an additional $20 for each person they recruited who also participated
in the study. Using this strategy, Kogan and colleagues succeeded in recruiting 292 study participants.

Finally, convenience sampling is another nonprobability sampling strategy that is employed by both
qualitative and quantitative researchers. To draw a convenience sample, a researcher simply collects data
from those people or other relevant elements to which she has most convenient access. This method, also
sometimes referred to as availability sampling, is most useful in exploratory research or in student projects
in which probability sampling is too costly or difficult. If you’ve ever been interviewed by a fellow student
for a class project, you have likely been a part of a convenience sample. While convenience samples offer
one major benefit—convenience—they do not offer the rigor needed to make conclusions about larger
populations. That is the subject of our next section on probability sampling.