Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health

Contents:

Author Info

  • Curtis, Sarah
  • Gesler, Wil
  • Smith, Glenn
  • Washburn, Sarah
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This paper focuses on the question of sampling (or selection of cases) in qualitative research. Although the literature includes some very useful discussions of qualitative sampling strategies, the question of sampling often seems to receive less attention in methodological discussion than questions of how data is collected or is analysed. Decisions about sampling are likely to be important in many qualitative studies (although it may not be an issue in some research). There are varying accounts of the principles applicable to sampling or case selection. Those who espouse 'theoretical sampling', based on a 'grounded theory' approach, are in some ways opposed to those who promote forms of 'purposive sampling' suitable for research informed by an existing body of social theory. Diversity also results from the many different methods for drawing purposive samples which are applicable to qualitative research. We explore the value of a framework suggested by Miles and Huberman [Miles, M., Huberman,, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London.], to evaluate the sampling strategies employed in three examples of research by the authors. Our examples comprise three studies which respectively involve selection of: 'healing places'; rural places which incorporated national anti-malarial policies; young male interviewees, identified as either chronically ill or disabled. The examples are used to show how in these three studies the (sometimes conflicting) requirements of the different criteria were resolved, as well as the potential and constraints placed on the research by the selection decisions which were made. We also consider how far the criteria Miles and Huberman suggest seem helpful for planning 'sample' selection in qualitative research.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VBF-3YDG0NP-8/2/8bd4b839720abf3c28fd1bc7aa62f2c5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 50 (2000)
    Issue (Month): 7-8 (April)
    Pages: 1001-1014

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:7-8:p:1001-1014

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description

    Order Information:
    Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional
    Web: http://www.elsevier.com/orderme/journalorderform.cws_home/315/journalorderform1/orderooc/id=654&ref=654_01_ooc_1&version=01

    Related research

    Keywords: Qualitative methods Sampling Geography of health;

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Anne Spencer, 2000. "Testing the Additive Independence Assumption in the QALY Model," Working Papers 427, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    2. Anthony Onwuegbuzie & R. Johnson & Kathleen Collins, 2011. "Assessing legitimation in mixed research: a new framework," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 45(6), pages 1253-1271, October.
    3. Cristian Parker & Mario Letelier & Juan Muñoz, 2013. "Elites, climate change and agency in a developing society: the Chilean case," Environment, Development and Sustainability, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1337-1363, October.
    4. Anthony Onwuegbuzie & Nancy Leech, 2010. "Generalization practices in qualitative research: a mixed methods case study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 44(5), pages 881-892, August.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:7-8:p:1001-1014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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