IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v8y2015i02p228-232_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stop Apologizing for Your Samples, Start Embracing Them

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Xiaoyuan (Susan)
  • Barnes-Farrell, Janet L.
  • Dalal, Dev K.

Abstract

Landers and Behrend (2015) call for editors and reviewers to resist using heuristics when evaluating samples in research as well as for researchers to cautiously consider choosing the samples appropriate for their research questions. Whereas we fully agree with the former conclusion, we believe the latter can be extended even further to encourage researchers to embrace the strengths of their samples for understanding their research rather than simply defending their samples. We believe that samples are not inherently better or worse but rather better suited for different research objectives. In this commentary, we identify three continua on which research goals can differ to demonstrate that all samples can inform science. Depending on the position of one's research on these continua, different samples exhibit different strengths; the continua described below can be used to anchor one's sample to demonstrate how it can benefit, rather than limit, research conclusions. As discussed in the focal article, researchers will often apologize for their convenience samples as one of a litany of limitations; we hope that researchers will move sampling issues out of the limitations section and into the main discussion.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Xiaoyuan (Susan) & Barnes-Farrell, Janet L. & Dalal, Dev K., 2015. "Stop Apologizing for Your Samples, Start Embracing Them," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 228-232, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:228-232_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942615000309/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:8:y:2015:i:02:p:228-232_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.