Unit 2

Schumacher and neuman

Issues and techniques of sampling
in qualitative and quantitative
Schumacher and neuman . Refer
from both books
 Sampling in quantitative
• Probability methods
• Non probability methods
 Sampling in quant
• Sample: Group of individuals from whom data are collected
• Population: total group to which results can be generalized
• Probability Sampling: In probability sampling subjects are drawn from a
larger population in such a way that the probability of selecting each
member of the population is known.
• Steps in probability sampling : Define target Population… Identify
sampling frame… Determine sample size…Determine method of
Sampling…Select sample

• Several methods of probability sampling can be used to draw

representative, or unbiased, samples from a population. Each method
involves some type of random sampling, in which each member of the
population as a whole, or of subgroups of the population, has the same
chance of being selected as other members in the same group.
 Sampling
• Sample: A smaller set of cases a researcher selects
from a larger pool and generalizes to the
population
• Sampling element: It is a unit of analysis or case in
a population. It can be a person, a group or an
organization that is being measured
• Population: the abstract idea of a large group of
many cases from which a researcher draws a
sample and to which the results from the sample
are generalized. It may also be called as ‘universe’
• Target Population: The concretely specified large group of
many cases of which a researcher draws a sample and to
which results from a sample are generalized
• Sampling ratio: It is the ratio of size of the sample to the
size of the target population. E.g. if the population is 500
and the researcher samples 100, then sampling ratio is
500/100= 0.20 or 20%
• Population is an abstract concept. E.g. a city (population),
some born, some die, some leave the place etc.
• Sampling frame: As population is an abstract concept, it is
important to operationalize the population by developing a
specific list that closely approximates all the elements in
the population. This list is called sampling frame. There are
many kinds of sampling frames like telephone directories,
tax records etc
• A mismatch between sampling frame and the
conceptually defined population can be a major
source of error
• Sampling frame could be inaccurate (e.g. for
counting the number of people in the city,
telephone directories will not be beneficial as
some may not have landlines). Some may be
accurate (e.g. number of students enrolled at a
university)
• Parameter: A characteristic of the entire
population that is estimated from sample. They
use information from the sample called a ‘statistic’
to estimate population parameters
• Sampling error: Refers to how closely a sample
matches the population. The characteristics of
the sample do not match the population due
to sampling error.
a. Error caused by sampling
b. Error due to non response
• Sample size: greater the sample size, better
representation and decreased sampling error
 Types of probability sampling
1. Simple Random Sampling
• In simple random sampling, subjects are
selected from the population so that all
members have the same probability of being
chosen. This method is often used when the
population is small.
• Sample can be selected by lottery method,
table of random numbers, softwares like spss
• Discus adv and disadv
2. Systematic Sampling:
• In systematic sampling, every nth element is
selected from a list of all elements in the survey
population, beginning with a randomly selected
element.
• There is a possible weakness in systematic sampling
if the list of cases in the population is arranged in a
systematic pattern that is related to what is being
investigated.
• But this can be used if the list is in rank order E.g. if
the list is arranged in the increasing order of
difficulty, then the sample gets good representation
3. Stratified Random Sampling:
• In this procedure, the population is divided into subgroups, or strata, on
the basis of a variable chosen by the researcher, such as gender, age,
location, or level of education. Once the population has been divided,
samples are drawn randomly from each subgroup.
• The number of subjects drawn is either proportional or non
proportional. Proportional (or proportionate) sampling is based on the
percentage of subjects in the population that is present in each stratum.
Thus, if 40 percent of the subjects in the population are represented in
the first stratum, then 40 percent of the final sample should be from
that stratum.
• In non proportional (or disproportionate) sampling, the researcher
selects the same number of subjects to be in each stratum of the
sample.
• Proportional or non proportional sampling from each stratum is done
with either simple random sampling or systematic sampling from
elements in each group.
• Better than random sampling as there is better representation
4. Cluster Sampling
• In cluster sampling, however, the researcher
identifies convenient, naturally occurring
groups, such as neighborhoods, schools,
districts, and regions, not individual subjects,
and then randomly selects some of these units
for the study.
• Cluster sampling is needed in studies in which
the researcher cannot obtain a complete list
of all members of the population but can
identify groups, or clusters, of subjects.
 Types of non probability sampling
Nonprobability sampling does not include any type of
random selection from a population.
1. Convenience Sampling:
• In convenience sampling (also called available sampling)
a group of subjects is selected on the basis of being
accessible or expedient.
• Although this type of sample makes it easier to conduct
the research, there is no precise way of generalizing from
the sample to any type of population.
• Convenience samples are widely used in both
quantitative and qualitative studies
2. Purposeful Sampling:
• In purposeful sampling (sometimes called purposive
sampling), the researcher selects particular elements
from the population that will be representative or
informative about the topic of interest.
• In quantitative studies, the emphasis is more on
relying on the judgment of the researcher to select a
sample that is representative of the population or that
includes subjects with needed characteristics. That is,
the emphasis tends to be on representativeness,
whereas qualitative researchers are more interested
in selecting cases that are information rich.
3. Quota Sampling:
• Quota sampling is used when the researcher is
unable to take a probability sample but is still able
to select subjects on the basis of characteristics of
the population.
• Certain quotas are established so that the sample
represents the population according to these
characteristics.
• The advantage of this type of sampling is that it is
more representative of the population than is a
purposeful or convenience sample, but the reliance
on the judgment of the researcher to select the
subjects may be a limitation.
4. Snowball sampling:
5. Deviant case: Get cases that substantially differ from the dominant pattern (a
special type of purposive sample).
We use deviant case sampling (also called extreme case sampling) when we are
interested in cases that differ from the dominant pattern, mainstream, or
predominant characteristics of other cases. Similar to purposive sampling, we
use a variety of techniques to locate cases with specific characteristics. The goal
is to locate a collection of unusual, different, or peculiar cases that are not
representative of the whole. We select cases because they are unusual. We can
sometimes learn more about social life by considering cases that fall outside
the general pattern or including what is beyond the main flow of events.
For example, we want to study high school dropouts Let us say that previous
research suggested that a majority of dropouts come from low-income, single-
parent families and tend to be racial minorities.
By looking at atypical dropouts we might learn more about the reasons for
dropping out.
6. Sequential: Get cases until there is no additional
information or new characteristics (often used with
other sampling methods)
Sequential sampling is also similar to purposive
sampling. We use purposive sampling to try to locate
as many relevant cases as possible. Sequential
sampling differs because we continue to gather
cases until the amount of new information ends or a
certain diversity of cases is reached. The principle is
to gather cases until we reach a saturation point.
7. Theoretical: Get cases that will help reveal
features that are theoretically important about
a particular setting/topic.
In theoretical sampling, what we sample (e.g.,
people, situations, events, time periods) comes
from grounded theory. A growing theoretical
interest guides the selection of sample cases.
The researcher selects cases based on new
insights that the sample could provide.
8. Adaptive Sampling and Hidden Populations:
In contrast to sampling the general population or visible and
accessible people, sampling hidden populations (i.e., people
who engage in clandestine or concealed activities) is a
recurrent issue in the studies of deviant or stigmatized behavior
(such as victims of sexual violence, illegal drug users). This
method illustrates the creative application of sampling
principles, mixing qualitative and quantitative styles of research
and combining probability with nonprobability techniques
Adaptive sampling A nonprobability sampling technique used for
hidden populations in which several approaches to identify and
recruit, including a snowball or referral method, may be used.
• Refer to the advantages and disadvantages of
every method in schumacher (table- pg 153-
154)
 HOW SAMPLING AFFECTS RESEARCH
1. Sample Size: depends on
• Type of design: different for correlational etc
• Research hypothesis:
• Finance
• Importance of study: for exploratory study small number is
acceptable
• Number of variables: more number of variables, more the sample
• Reliability: if reliability is low, more sample is required to fix it
• Accuracy: more accuracy… more sample will give less marginal
error
• Attrition: if during intervention, subjects will go… then have a
large sample size from the beginning
2. Subject Motivation:
• The extent to which subjects are motivated to
respond in certain ways can have substantial
effects.
3. Sampling Bias:
• Sampling bias occurs when the researcher
consciously or unconsciously selects subjects that
result in an inaccurate finding. This is deliberately
accomplished by including subjects who have the
point of view that is desired by the researcher.
• Biased samples also occur nondeliberately, often
because of inadequate knowledge of what is
needed to obtain an unbiased sample.
4. Response Variability:
• In quantitative studies and maximum variation
designs, there is a need to sample a sufficient
number of participants so that adequate
variability of responses is obtained. In
quantitative studies, variation is needed to
show differences and relationships.
5. Volunteer Samples:
 QUALITATIVE SAMPLING STRATEGIES
(Schumacher)
• Regardless of the form of the data, purposeful sampling is used.

• Qualitative sampling, in contrast to probabilistic sampling, is “selecting information-rich

cases for study in-depth” (Patton, 2002, p. 242) when one wants to understand
something about those cases without needing or desiring to generalize to all such cases.
Qualitative sampling is done to increase the utility of information obtained from small
samples. these samples are chosen because they are likely to be knowledgeable and
informative about the phenomena the researcher is investigating.
• The power and logic of qualitative sampling is that a few cases studied in depth yield
many insights about the topic, whereas the logic of probability sampling depends on
selecting a random or statistically representative sample for generalization to a larger
population.
• Probability sampling procedures such as simple random or stratified sampling may be
inappropriate when (1) generalizability of the findings is not the purpose; (2) only one or
two subunits of a population are relevant to the research problem; (3) the researchers
have no access to the whole group from whichthey wish to sample; or (4) statistical
sampling is precluded because of logistical and ethical reasons.
• Site Selection: Site selection, in which a site is selected
to locate people involved in a particular event.
1. Comprehensive Sampling: Comprehensive sampling, in
which every participant, group, setting, event, or other
relevant information is examined, is the preferred
sampling strategy. Each subunit is manageable in size
and so diverse that one does not want to lose possible
variation. For example, a study of inclusion with
autistic children in one school division would probably
require observation of all autistic children.
2. Maximum Variation Sampling: Maximum variation sampling, or quota
sampling, is a strategy to illuminate different aspects of
the research problem. For instance, a researcher may divide a
population of elementary school
teachers by number of years of service into three categories and select
key informants in each

category to investigate career development. This is not a representative

sample because the qual-
itative researcher is merely using this strategy to describe in detail
different meanings of teacher

career development for individuals with different years of service.

3. Snowball sampling, also called network sampling, is a
strategy in which each successive participant or group is
named by a preceding group or individual. Participant
referrals are the basis for choosing a sample. The researcher
develops a profile of the attributes or particular trait sought
and asks each participant to suggest others who fit the
profile or have the attribute.
This strategy may be used in situations in which the individuals
sought do not form a naturally bounded group but are
scattered throughout populations. Snowball sampling is
frequently used for indepth interview studies rather than
participant observation research.
4. Sampling by Case Type
Other sampling strategies are used when a study requires an examination of a particular type of
case. Case refers to an in-depth analysis of a phenomenon and not the number of people
sampled. Examples of sampling by case type are extreme-case, intensive-case, typical-case,
unique- case, reputational-case, critical-case, and concept/theory-based sampling.
• Extreme case: Choose extreme cases after knowing the typical or average case—e.g.,
outstanding successes, crisis events.
• Intense case Select cases that are dramatic but not extreme illustrations—e.g., below-
average students.
• Typical case Know the typical characteristics of a group and sample by cases—e.g., selection
of a typical high school principal would eliminate women, persons too young or too old, and
single men.
• Unique case Choose the unusual or rare case of some dimension or event—e.g., the
implementation of a new federal policy mandate.
• Reputational case Obtain the recommendation of knowledgeable experts for the best
examples—e.g., a principal nominates competent teachers or state officials identify
effective schools.
• Critical case Identify the case that can illustrate some phenomenon dramatically—e.g., the
real test case or the ideal case.
• Concept/theory-based Select by information-rich persons or situations known to
experience the concept or to be attempting to implement the concept/theory—e.g., a
school implementing site based management, teacher burnout.
• Combination of purposeful sampling strategies- Choose various sampling strategies as
needed or desired for research purposes, especially in large-scale studies and lengthy
process studies.
 Sample size in qualitative study
• Although there are statistical rules for probability sample size, there are only guidelines
for qualitative sample size. Thus, qualitative samples can range from 1 to 40 or more.
Typically, a qualitative sample seems small compared with the sample needed to
generalize to a larger population.
• The following are guidelines for determining sample size:
1. Purpose of the study. A case study that is descriptive/exploratory may not need as
many persons as a self-contained study that is descriptive/explanatory.
2. Focus of the study. A process-focused study at one site may have fewer participants
than an interview study using network sampling.
3. Primary data collection strategy. Qualitative researchers are guided by circumstances.
For instance, a study may have a small sample size, but the researcher may be
continually return- ing to the same situation or the same informants, seeking
confirmation. The number of days in the field is usually reported.
4. Availability of informants. Some informants are rare and difficult to locate; others are
relatively easy to identify and locate.
5. Redundancy of data. Would adding more individuals or returning to the field yield any
new insights?
6. Researchers submit the obtained sample size to peer review. Most qualitative
researchers propose a minimum sample size and then continue to add to the sample
as the study progresses.
 Issues of quality and ethics in quantitative
and qualitative researches
• Quantitative research ethics (neuman)- done
in dairy+ APA (code of ethics)
• Qualitative research ethics (schumarcher)
(362-363)+ chapter 4 (ethical issues)
• Issues of quality (ullin, robinson and tolley
paper)+ creswell paper
 APA ethics
• Beneficence and non-maleficence
• Fidelity and responsibility
• Integrity
• Justice
• Respect for people’s rights and dignity
 Qualitative research ethics
1. Ethical Dilemmas in Fieldwork: Qualitative researchers need to plan
how they will handle the ethical dilemmas in interactive data
collection. Most qualitative researchers devise roles that elicit
cooperation, trust, openness, and acceptance.
2. Informed Consent as a Dialogue: In gaining permission, most
researchers give participants assurances of confidentiality and
anonymity and describe the intended use of the data. Many
researchers view informed consent as a dialogue with each new
participant. Usually, the time required for participation and the
noninterfering, non-judgmental research role is explained.
Informants select interview times and places. Because researchers
need to establish trusting relationships, they plan how to handle the
dialogue. Most participants can detect and reject insincerity and
manipulation.
3. Confidentiality and Anonymity: Researchers
have a dual responsibility: to protect the
individuals’ confidences from other persons in
the setting and to protect the informants from
the general reading public.
4. Privacy and Empowerment: Deception
violates informed consent and privacy.
5. Caring and Fairness: Although physical harm
to informants seldom occurs in qualitative
research, some persons may experience
humiliation and loss of trust.
 From chapter 4 (ethics)
1. Do No Harm.
2. Privacy and Anonymity.
3. Confidentiality.
4. Informed Consent.
5. Rapport and Friendship.
6. Intrusiveness.
7. Inappropriate Behavior.
8. Data Interpretation.
Issues in quality (ullin, robbinson and tolley
paper)
• Quality in quantitative research
1. Credibility (validity): in quant research validity is an extent to which a
measurement taps a concept it intends to measure. In qual research,
it refers to the confidence in the truth of findings.
2. Dependability (Reliability): in quant researches, it refers to the extent
the findings can be replicated. In qual researches, replicability is not
the goal but to the extent the results are dependble
3. Confirmability (Objectivity): in qual researches, it refers to whether
the data accurately reflects the participant’s perspectives and
experiences
4. (Predictivity):
5. Transferability (generalization): in qual researches, it refers to what
extent the concepts can be applied in other contexts
 Quality in qualitative research (cresswell
paper)
• Quality basically refers to validity
• validity as how accurately the account represents participants’ realities of the social
phenomena and is credible to them (Schwandt, 1997).
• Researchers uses different lens to find validity in research
1. Researchers determine how long to remain in the field, whether the data are saturated
to esatablish good themes or categories, and how the analysis of the data evolves into
a persuasive narrative.
• Patton (1980) describes this process as one where qualitative analysts return to their
data “over and over again to see if the constructs, categories, explanations, and
interpretations make sense”
2. Qualitative inquirers may use a second lens to establish the validity of their account: the
participants in the study. Those who employ this lens seek to
actively involve participants in assessing whether the interpretations accurately represent
them.
3. A third lens may be the credibility of an account by individuals external to the study.
Reviewers not affiliated with the project may help establish validity as well as various
readers for whom the account is written.
 Different validity procedures
1. Triangulation: Denzin (1978) identified four types of
triangulation: across data sources (i.e., participants),
theories, methods (i.e., interview, observations,
documents), and among different investigators.

A popular practice is for qualitative inquirers to

provide corroborating evidence collected through
multiple methods, such as observations, interviews,
and documents to locate major and minor themes.
2. Disconfirming evidence: It is the process where investigators first
establish the preliminary themes or categories in a study and then
search through the data for evidence that is consistent with or
disconfirms these themes. In this process, researchers rely on
their own lens, and this represents a constructivist approach in
that it is less systematic than other procedures and relies on
examining all of the multiple perspectiveson a theme or category.

As evidence for the validity of a narrative account, however, this

search for disconfirming evidence provides further support of the
account’s credibility because reality, according to constructivists, is
multiple and complex.
3. Researcher reflexivity: A third validity procedure is for researchers to
self-disclose their assumptions, beliefs, and biases.
This is the process whereby researchers report on
personal beliefs, values, and biases that may shape

their inquiry. It is particularly important for re-

searchers to acknowledge and describe their enter- ing beliefs and
biases early in the research process

to allow readers to understand their positions, and

then to bracket or suspend those researcher biases
as the study proceeds.
4. Member checking: With member checking, the validity proce-
dure shifts from the researchers to participants in

the study. Lincoln and Guba (1985) describe mem-

ber checks as “the most crucial technique for es-
tablishing credibility” (p. 314) in a study. It consists

of taking data and interpretations back to the par-

ticipants in the study so that they can confirm the

credibility of the information and narrative account.

With the lens focused on participants, the research-

ers systematically check the data and the narrative

account. Several procedures facilitate this process. A

popular strategy is to convene a focus group of
participants to review the findings.
5. Prolonged engagement in the field: Another validity
procedure is for researchers
to stay at the research site for a prolonged period of time.
Fetterman (1989) contends that “working
with people day in and day out for long periods of

time is what gives ethnographic research its valid-

ity and vitality”
During repeated observa-
tion, the researchers build trust with participants,
6. Collaboration: Credible data also come from close collabo-
ration with participants throughout the process of

research. Collaboration means that the participants

are involved in the study as co-researchers or in
less formal arrangements. In practice, collaboration may assume multi-
ple forms. For example, participants may help form

the research questions, assist with data collection

and analysis, and be involved in writing the narra-

tive account.
7. The audit trail: The credibility of a study is established by
turning to individuals external to the project, such
as auditors—formally brought into the study—or

readers who examine the narrative account and at-

test to its credibility. Researchers may also use an ex-
ternal auditor to review their study. The goal of a

formal audit is to examine both the process and prod-

uct of the inquiry, and determine the trustworthi-
ness of the findings.
8. Thick, rich description: Another procedure for establishing
credibility
in a study is to describe the setting, the participants,
and the themes of a qualitative study in rich detail. The purpose
of a thick description is that it creates verisimilitude,
statements that produce for
the readers the feeling that they have experienced,
or could experience, the events being described in
a study. Thus, credibility is established through
the lens of readers who read a narrative account
and are transported into a setting or situation.
9. Peer debriefing: A peer review or debriefing is the review of
the data and research process by someone who is

familiar with the research or the phenomenon be-

ing explored. A peer reviewer provides support,

plays devil’s advocate, challenges the researchers’

assumptions, pushes the researchers to the next step
methodologically, and asks hard questions about
methods and interpretations
Role of reflexivity in knowledge generation

• Schumarcher (pg 356-358)

• Paper on braketting
• Paper on reflexivity
 Reflexivity (schumacher)
• Reflexivity is acknowledging your role as a researcher. As researchers are a part of
research process, so their own experiences and assumptions may also influence
the research process
• Reflexivity is an important procedure for establishing credibility. Qualitative
researchers thus do not deny human subjectivity, but rather take it into account
through various strategies.
• Qualitative research depends to a great extent on the interpersonal skills of the
inquirer, such as building trust, maintaining good relations, being nonjudgmental,
and respecting the norms of the situation.
• The progress of the study often depends primarily on the relationship the
researcher builds with the participants.
• The interactive process is relatively personal; no two investigators observe,
interview, or relate to others in exactly the same way. These issues are handled
primarily within the actual study to enhance reflexivity.
• Data obtained from informants are valid even though they may represent particular
views or have been influenced by the researcher’s presence.
• Potential researcher bias can be minimized if the researcher spends enough time in
the field and employs multiple data collection strategies to corroborate the
 Strategies to Enhance Reflexivity
• Qualitative researchers combine any of seven possible
strategies to monitor and evaluate the impact of their
subjectivity
1. Peer Debriefer : A peer debriefer is a disinterested
colleague who discusses the researcher’s preliminary
analysis and next strategies. Such a discussion makes more
explicit the tacit knowledge that the inquirer has acquired.
The peer debriefer also poses searching questions to help
the researcher understand his or her own posture and its
role in the inquiry. In addition, this dialogue may reduce
the stress that normally accompanies fieldwork.
2. Field Log A field log documents the persistent fieldwork and
provides a chronological record by date and time spent in the
field, including getting access to sites and participants. The field
log also contains, for each entry, the places and person involved.
3. Reflex Journal A reflex journal is a continuous record of the
decisions made during the emergent design and rationale. This
allows for justification, based on the available information at the
time, of the modifications of the research problem and
strategies. The reflex journal also contains assessments of the
trustworthiness of each dataset. A reflex journal traces the
researcher’s ideas and personal reactions throughout the
fieldwork.
4. Ethical Considerations Recorded Researchers make strategy choices in
the field, some of which are based primarily on ethical
considerations. A record of ethical concerns helps to justify choices in
data collection and analysis.
5. Audibility Audibility is the practice of maintaining a record of data
management techniques and decision rules that document the chain
of evidence or decision trail. That record includes the codes,
categories, and themes used in description and interpretation as well
as drafts and preliminary diagrams. Thus, the chain of evidence will
be available for inspection and confirmation by outside reviewers.
Audibility criteria can be met with or without an outside reviewer—
that is, an auditor who submits a reviewer’s appraisal. An alternative
is to place a list of files, codes, categories, and decision rules in an
appendix for readers’ perusal.
• Formal Corroboration of Initial Findings Surveys,
focus groups, and in-depth interviews with those
not selected originally may be used for formal
confirmation, especially when the findings
depend on a few informants. As a corroboration
activity, the data must be completely analyzed
first. Confirmation activities ensure that the
patterns found have not been unduly
contaminated by the researcher.
• It is not possible for qualitative researchers to be totally
objective, because total objectivity is not humanly
possible (Crotty, 1996; Schutz, 1994). Each person’s
values are the result of a number of factors that include
personality, socioeconomic status, and culture (Burkitt,
1997; Colaizzi, 1978; Porter, 1993).
• The means by which researchers endeavor not to allow
their assumptions to shape the data collection process
and the persistent effort not to impose their own
understanding and constructions on the data are known
as bracketing
• BRACKETING: Bracketing is a means of
demonstrating the validity of the data
collection and analytic processes. This, in turn,
facilitates the readers’ ability to assess the
validity of studies that purport to be free of
researcher influence (Porter, 1993).
• REFLEXIVITY: The ability to put aside personal
feelings and preconceptions is more a function
of how reflexive one is rather than how
objective one is because it is not possible for
researchers to set aside things about which
they are not aware.
• Reflexivity involves the realization that
researchers are part of the social world that
they study (Frank, 1997).
• Maps are offered on five variants of reflexivity,
namely: (i) introspection; (ii) intersubjective
reflection; (iii) mutual collaboration; (iv) social
critique, and (v) discursive deconstruction.
• Introspection: Those researchers who begin their research with the data
of their experience seek to ‘embrace their own humanness as the basis
for psychological understanding’ (Walsh, 1995: 335). Here, researchers’
own reflecting,intuiting and thinking are used as primary evidence
(Moustakas, 1994).
• Moustakas (1990) describes this process in terms of forming the
research question: ‘The task of the initial engagement is to discover an
intense interest, a passionate concern that calls out to the researcher’
• In addition to examining one’s own experience and personal meanings
for their own sake, insights can emerge from personal introspection
which then form the basis of a more generalized understanding and
interpretations.
• The challenge for researchers using introspection is to use personal
revelation not as an end in itself but as a springboard for interpretations
and more general insight.
• Reflexivity as intersubjective reflection: Here, researchers explore the mutual
meanings emerging
• within the research relationship. They focus on the situated and negotiated

• nature of the research encounter and, for those of a psychodynamic persua-

• sion, how unconscious processes structure relations been the researcher

• and participant. The process here involves more than reflection – instead, a
radical self-reflective consciousness radical self-reflective consciousness
• Hunt (1989) identifies how her status as an
• unwanted female outsider raised a number of unconscious issues which then
• impacted on the research relationship:
• Reflexivity as mutual collaboration: Researchers making use of reflexivity as mutual
collaboration are found
• using a broad range of methodologies,
• Recognizing research as a co-constituted account, adherents of participa-
• tive research argue that as research participants also have the capacity to be

• reflexive beings, they can be co-opted into the research as co-researchers.

• Collaborative reflexivity offers the opportunity to hear, and take into
• account, multiple voices and conflicting positions.
• Reflexivity as mutual collaboration (Finlay, 2002) involves capturing the participants’
experience of/in the research process. According to Finlay (ibid), this approach
implies that research participants take part in reflexive dialogues, in which they
express their thoughts and interpretations. These might complement and add new
insight into the researcher’s process of confronting, modifying and honing his or her
interpretations. This way of applying reflexivity offers the opportunity to hear, and
take into account, multiple voices and conflicting positions.
• Reflexivity as social critique: One particular concern for researchers using reflexivity as social
critique is
• how to manage the power imbalance between researcher and participant.
• They openly acknowledge tensions arising from different social positions, for
• instance, in relation to class, gender and race.
• Gough (1999) explores his use
• of humour to breach the ‘detached researcher’ stance. I suppose the use of humour helps to
suggest the illusion of ‘normal’ conversa-
• tion, with the researcher temporarily colluding as one of the ‘lads’,
• Similarly, reflecting retrospectively, Willott (1998) examines the individual,
• social–political and research implications of being a feminist researcher
• researching men:

• There is a tension between being a researcher and being a feminist. As a femi-

• nist I want to see a change in the patriarchal relations between men and

• women. I would like this change to extend to my relationships with the research
• participants, but found it difficult to challenge directly.
• Reflexivity as discursive deconstruction
• In reflexivity as discursive deconstruction,
attention is paid to the ambiguity

• of meanings in language used and how this

impacts on modes of presenta-
• tion.
Quantitative and qualitative approaches: overview, differences and
convergences in mixed methods

Neuman (ch 1,2,6,7)

Schumacher (ch 2,
 Research and its purpose (neuman, ch2)
Basic and applied research: Basic research Research designed to advance fundamental
knowledge about how the world works and build/test theoretical explanations by
focusing on the “why” question. The scientific community is its primary audience.

Applied research Research designed to offer practical solutions to a concrete problem

or address the immediate and specific needs of clinicians or practitioners.

Three Types of Applied Research.

1. Evaluation research Applied research in which one tries to determine how well a
program or policy is working or reaching its goals and objectives.
2. Action research Applied research in which the primary goal is to facilitate social
change or bring about a value-oriented political-social goal.
3. Participatory action research Action research in which the research participants
actively help design and conduct the research study. It emphasizes democratizing
knowledge-creation and engaging in collective action, and it assumes that political
knowledge emerges from participating in research.
Two Tools in Applied Research. Many applied re-
searchers use two tools as part of their research studies: needs assessment
and cost-benefit analysis.
1. A needs assessment involves collecting data

to determine major social needs and their severity.

A first issue is to prioritize serious needs or problems.
A second issue is to identify information sources for the needs assessment. For
example, when deciding to conduct a needs assessment for a
program to aid people who are homeless, who is in a best position to provide
information?
A third issue is that explicit, immediate needs may not include the full range of
less visible issues or link them to long-term solutions. For example,
we learn that people who are homeless say they need housing. After
examining the situation, how-
ever, we determine that housing would be available if these people had jobs.

A fourth issue is that the needs assessment may generate political controversy.
It may suggest solu-
tions beyond local control or without a realistic chance of implementation.
Economists developed the second tool, cost-benefit analysis. It involves
estimating the future costs and benefits of a proposed action and assigning them
monetary values. We start by identifying all consequences including tangibles,
such as job creation, business formation, or graduation rates and intangibles,
such as clean air, political freedom, scenic beauty, or low stress levels of a
program or action. Next, we assign each consequence a monetary value; some
(such as costs) may be negative, some (e.g., benefits) positive, and some neutral.
We then calculate a probability or likelihood for each consequence. Lastly, we
compare all costs to benefits and decide whether they balance.

For example, I see widening a road as a benefit. It will allow me to travel to work
much more rapidly and reduce congestion. However, a homeowner who lives
along the road sees it as a cost. Building the road will require removing some of
his or her front yard, in-
crease noise and pollution, and lower the house’s market value.
 PURPOSE OF RESEARCH (nueman, ch 2)

Exploratory research Research whose primary

purpose is to examine a little understood issue or
phenomenon and to develop preliminary ideas about
it and move toward refined research questions.

Descriptive research Research in which the primary

purpose is to “paint a picture” using words or numbers
and to present a profile, a classification of types, or an
outline of steps to answer questions such as who, when,
where, and how.

Explanatory research Research whose primary

purpose is to explain why events occur and to build,
elaborate, extend, or test theory.
Steps in quant research (neuman, ch1)

1.Select a topic.
2.Focus the question.
3.Design the study.
4.Collect data.
5.Analyze the data.
6.Interpret the data.
7.Inform others.
Steps in qualitative research (neuman,ch1)

1.Acknowledge self and context.

2.Adopt a perspective. : relate to theory or
paradigm
3–6. Design a study and collect, analyze, and
interpret data.
7. Inform others.
 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUES (neuman,
ch2+ schumacher ch2 )
Quantitative:
1. Experiments.

2. Surveys.

3. Nonreactive Research. In experimental and sur vey research, we actively

engage the people we

study by creating experimental conditions or directly asking questions.
These are called reactive methods because a research participant could
react in some way because he or she is aware of being in a study. Other
quantitative research is called nonreactive research because the study
participants are not aware that information about them is part of a study.
Four types of nonreactive studies are unobtrusive research, existing
statistical information, content analysis, and secondary data analysis.
Secondary data analysisis the statistical analysis of quantitative data that
were previously collected and stored (often originally from a survey).
Qualitative
1. Field Research.Qualitative research in which the

researcher directly observes and records notes on

people in a natural setting for an extended period of
time.
2. Historical-comparative research Qualitative research in

which the researcher examines data on events and

conditions in the historical past and/or in different
societies.
3. Ethnographic research: from ch 2 schumarcher

4. Case study
Difference in qual and quant (neuman ch 1)

QUANTITATIVE APPROACH QUALITATIVE APPROACH

Measure objective facts Focus on variables Focus on interactive
Construct social reality, processes, events
cultural meaning

Reliability the key factor Authenticity the key factor

Value free Values present and explicit

Separate theory and data Theory and data fused
Independent of context Situationally constrained
Many cases, subjects Few cases, subjects
Statistical analysis Thematic analysis
Researcher detached Researcher involved
 QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
ORIENTATIONS TOWARD
RESEARCH (nueman, ch strategies of research design

A first difference originates in the nature of the data itself. Soft data (i.e.,
words, sentences, photos, symbols) dictate qualitative research strategies
and data collection techniques that differ from hard data (in the form of
numbers) for which quantitative approaches are used.

In a quantitative study, we rely more on positivist principles and use a

language of variables and hypotheses. Our emphasis is on precisely
measuring variables and test hypotheses. In a qualitative study, we rely
more on the principles from interpretive or critical social science. We
speak a language of “cases and contexts” and of cultural meaning. Our
emphasis is on conducting detailed examinations of specific cases that
arise in the nat- ural flow of social life.
In a quantitative study, we usually try to verify or falsify a
relationship or hypothesis we already have in mind. We focus on
an outcome or effect found across numerous cases. In many
qualitative studies, we often generate
new hypotheses and describe details of the causal mechanism or
process for a narrow set of cases.
A fourth difference between quantitative and qualitative studies
is that each has a distinct “logic” and path of conducting
research. In a quantitative study, we employ a logic that is
systematic and follows a linear research path. In a qualitative
study, the logic arises from ongoing practice and we follow a
nonlinear research path.
Reconstructed Logic and Logic in Practice
A reconstructed logic emphasizes using an explicit research
process. Reconstructed logic has been “reconstructed” or
restated from the many messy details of doing a real-life study
into an idealized, formal set of steps with standard practices
and consistent principles, terms, and rules. it is characteristic
of quantitative research.

The logic in practice is messy and closer to the concrete

practice of doing research. Logic in practice includes advice
that comes from the practical activities of doing specific real-
life studies more than a set of restated, ideal rules. it is
characteristic of qualitative research.
 Linear and Nonlinear Paths
The path is a metaphor for a sequence of things to do: what you finish
first or where you have been and what comes next. When using the
linear research path, we follow a fixed sequence of steps that are like a
staircase that leads upward in one direction.

By following a linear path, we move in a direct, narrow, and straight way

toward a conclusion. It is most widely used in quantitative research.

By contrast, a nonlinear research path requires us to make successive

passes through the steps. We may move forward, backward, and
sideways before advancing again. It is more of a spiral than a straight
staircase. We move upward but slowly and indirectly. With each cycle or
repetition, we may collect new data and gain new insights. It is most
widely used in qualitative research.
 Objectivity and Integrity
Personal openness and integrity by the individual
researcher are central to a qualitative study.

By contrast, in a quantitative study, we stress

neutrality and objectivity. In a quantitative study,
we
rely on the principle of replication, adhere to stan-
dardized procedures, measure with numbers, and
analyze the data with statistics.
 Preplanned and Emergent Research
Questions
Most qualitative studies start with a vague or
loosely defined topic. Focusing on a specific research question continues while we gather
data. Flexibility in qualitative research encourages us to continuously focus throughout a
study.

In a quantitative study, we narrow a topic into

a focused question as a discrete planning step before
we finalize the study design. Focusing the question
is a step in the process of developing a testable
hypothesis (to be discussed later). It guides the
study design before you collect any data.

In a qualitative study, we can use the data to

help narrow the focus. In a quantitative study, we
must focus without the benefit of data and use other
techniques.
TABLE 1 Quantitative Research versus
Qualitative Research (nueman)
QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
Researchers test hypotheses that are stated Researchers capture and discover meaning once
at the beginning. they become immersed in the data.

Concepts are in the form of distinct variables. Concepts are in the form of themes, motifs, generalizations, and taxonomies.

Measures are systematically created before data Measures are created in an ad hoc manner and are often specific to the individual
collection and are standardized. setting or researcher.

Data are in the form of numbers from precise Data are in the form of words and images from documents, observations, and transcripts.
measurement.

Theory is largely causal and is deductive. Theory can be causal or noncausal and is often inductive.
Procedures are standard, and replication is Research procedures are particular, and replication is very rare
frequent.

Analysis proceeds by using statistics, tables, or

charts and discussing how what they show relates
to hypotheses.

Analysis proceeds by extracting themes or generalizations

from evidence and organizing data to present a coherent,
consistent picture.
QUALITATIVE DESIGN ISSUES (neuman)
1. The Language of Cases and Contexts: Most qualitative studies involve a language
of cases and contexts, employ bricolage (discussed later in this chapter), examine
social processes and cases in their social context, and study interpretations or
meanings in specific socio-cultural settings. Qualitative data may appear to be
soft, intangible, and elusive. This does not mean that we cannot capture them.
2. Grounded Theory: In qualitative research, we may develop theory during the
data collection process. This largely inductive method means that we are building
theory from data or ground the theory in the data. In grounded theory, we build
from specific observations to broader concepts that organize observational data
and then continue to build principles or themes that connect the concepts.
3. The Context Is Critical: In qualitative research, we usually emphasize the social
context because the meaning of a social action, event, or statement greatly
depends on the context in which it appears. Social context includes time context
(when something occurs), spatial context (where something occurs), emotional
context (the feelings regarding how something occurs), and socio-cultural context
(the social situation and cultural milieu in which something occurs).
4. Bricolage: A bricoleuris someone who has learned to be adept in
diverse areas, can draw on a variety of sources, and makes do with
whatever is at hand.12
A successful bricoleur possesses a deep knowledge
of materials, a set of esoteric skills, and a capacity
to combine or create flexibly. The typical bricoleur
is often a highly inventive and skilled craftsperson, repair person, or
jack-of-all-trades. A qualitative study draws on a variety of skills,
materials, and approaches as needed.
5. The Case and Process: We can divide all empirical social research
into two groups: case study (with one or a few cases) or cross-case
(comprising many cases).13 Most qualitative studies use a “case-
oriented approach [that] places cases, not variables, center stage”
Rather than precise measures of a huge number of cases, as is
typical
of quantitative research, we acquire in-depth of knowledge and an
astute insight into a small num ber of cases.
6. Interpretation: To interpret means to assign significance or coher-
ent meaning.
hypotheses. Qualitative studies rarely include tables with numbers. The
only visual presentations of data may be maps, photographs, or
diagrams showing how ideas are related.
First-order interpretation Interpretations from the point of view of the
people being studied.

Second-order interpretation Qualitative inter-

pretations from the point of view of the researcher who conducted a
study.
Third-order interpretation Qualitative interpreta-
tions made by the readers of a research report.
 QUANTITATIVE DESIGN ISSUES
1 The Language of Variables and Hypotheses:
Variable A concept or its empirical measure that
can take on multiple values.
The categories or levels of a variable. E.g. gender is a
variable and male is attribute
Types of Variables.: IV and DV
Intervening variable A variable that comes logically or
temporally after the independent variable and before
the dependent variable and through
which their causal relation operates.
2. Causal Theory and Hypotheses:
Causal hypothesis A statement of a causal expla-
nation or proposition that has at least one indepen-
dent and one dependent variable and has yet to be
empirically tested.
Types of hypothesis: null and alternative
Double-barreled hypothesis A confusing and
poorly designed hypothesis with two independent
variables in which it is unclear whether one or
the other variable or both in combination produce
an effect.
3. Errors
Tautology The relationship is true by Poverty is caused by having
definition very little
and involves circular money.
reasoning.

Teleology The cause is an intention People get married in

that is religious
inappropriate, or it has ceremonies because
misplaced society
temporal order. wants them to.

Ecological fallacy The empirical observations New York has a high crime
are at too rate. Joan
high a level for the causal lives in New York.
relationship Therefore, she
that is stated. probably stole my watch.
 Qualitative and quantitative measurement
In quantitative studies, measurement is a distinct step in the research process that occurs prior to
data collection. Quantitative measurement has a special terminology and set of techniques because
the goal is to precisely capture details of the empirical social world and express what we find in
numbers.

In qualitative studies, we measure with alternatives to numbers, and measurement is less a

separate research step. Because the process is more inductive, we are measuring and creating new
concepts simultaneously with the process of gathering data.

The first difference is timing. In quantitative research, we think about variables and convert them
into specific actions during a planning stage that is before and separate from gathering or analyzing
data. In qualitative research, we measure while in the data collection phase.

A second difference involves the data itself. In a quantitative study, we use techniques that will pro-
duce data in the form of numbers. In a qualitative study, data sometimes come in the form of
numbers; more often, the data are written or spoken words, actions, sounds, symbols,
physical objects, or visual images

A third difference involves how we connect concepts with data. In quantitative research, we
contemplate and reflect on concepts before we gather data. We select measurement techniques to
bridge the abstract concepts with the empirical data. In qualitative research, we also reflect on con-
cepts before gathering data. However, many of the concepts we use are developed and refined during
or after the process of data collection.
Mention differences in sampling and ethics
 Convergence in mixed methods (ch 2
schumacher)
The use of mixed method research designs, which combine quantitative and qualitative
methods
Explanatory Designs: How mixed method designs are used can vary considerably,
depending on the weight given to
each approach and when each is used.
In an explanatory design, quantitative data are collected first and, depending on the
results, qualitative data are gathered second to elucidate, elaborate on, or explain the
quantitative findings.
Exploratory Designs: In a second type of mixed method design, the qualitative data are
gathered first and a quan-
titative phase follows.
Triangulation Designs: The third kind of mixed method study is called a triangulation
design. In this design, both
qualitative and quantitative data are collected at about the same time. Triangulation is
used when the strengths of one method offset the weaknesses of the other, so that
together,
they provide a more comprehensive set of data.
The case for separate paradigms is that qualitative and quantitative researchers hold different epistemological
assumptions
Indeed qualitative researchers are embracing even greater reflexivity
While research practices diverge, there is considerable pressure for convergence at this present time
Curriculum also focus now more on convergence
Convergence may target multiple audience

Working Qualitatively and Quantitatively

The association of qualitative research with an inductive logic of enquiry and quantitative research with
hypothetic‐deduction can often be reversed in practice; both types of research may employ both forms of logic.

Result generalization is there in both but in different ways. Explain

The Context of Enquiry

Both methods have issues of sampling, operationalising def and other methodological issues
Context of Justification

Both justifies data. And its difficult sometimes to

combine the justification of data
When we combine methods, there are a number of possible outcomes; corroboration of results is only one of
at least four possibilities
Corroboration: The ‘same results’ are derived from both qualitative and quantitative methods.
•
Elaboration: The qualitative data analysis exemplifies how the quantitative findings apply in particular cases.
•
Complementarity: The qualitative and quantitative results differ but together they generate insights.
•
Contradiction: Where qualitative data and quantitative findings conflict.
Bryman distinguishes between the ways in which qualitative and quantitative research are combined in terms
of: (a) the importance given to qualitative and quantitative approaches in the research investigation and (b) the
time ordering or sequencing of the approaches.
Give 1 example of research where you can do
convergence in the following categories
1. The Research Design Phase
2. The Fieldwork Phase
3. Interpretation and Contextualization

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/
10.1080/13645570500154642