Abrams - 2010 - Sampling 'Hard to Reach' Populations in Qualitative Research the Case of...

7/28/2019 Abrams - 2010 - Sampling 'Hard to Reach' Populations in Qualitative Research the Case of Incarcerated Youth

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/abrams-2010-sampling-hard-to-reach-populations-in-qualitative 1/16

http://qsw.sagepub.com/

Qualitative Social Work

http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/29/1473325010367821

The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/1473325010367821published online 30 June 2010Qualitative Social Work

Laura S. AbramsIncarcerated Youth

Sampling 'Hard to Reach' Populations in Qualitative Research: The Case of

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Qualitative Social Work Additional services and information for

http://qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://qsw.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010qsw.sagepub.comDownloaded from






http://www.sagepublications.com/

http://qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://qsw.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav





http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav




http://www.sagepublications.com/





Qualitative Social Work! The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 0(0): 1–15

www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/1473325010367821

Sampling ‘Hard to Reach’

Populations in

Qualitative Research

The Case of Incarcerated Youth

Laura S. Abrams

University of California, USA

ABSTRACT

Sampling is an integral component of all research designs.

Several qualitative research texts offer practical guides on

how to theorize, recruit, and retain a sample to fulfill the

aims of a given study. However, there is far less published

discussion among qualitative researchers about sampling

‘hard to reach’ populations such as transient youth and

young adults, homeless people, IV drug users, sex workers,

and incarcerated, institutionalized, or cognitively impaired

individuals. In this article, the author presents an overviewof qualitative sampling, including its underlying assumptions,

major methodological traditions, common characteristics,

and standards of assessment. Next, the article identifies sev-

eral challenges related to sampling hard to reach populations

that are of particular relevance for qualitative research.

Drawing on an example of a longitudinal qualitative study

of incarcerated youth, these challenges are then discussed in

relation to the assessment of ‘quality’ in qualitative research.

ARTICLE

KEY WORDS:

human subjects

qualitative

methods

sampling

social work

research 1

Qualitative Social Work OnlineFirst, published on June 30, 2010 as doi:10.1177/1473325010367821








Sampling is a cornerstone of research integrity in all forms of social science.

Whether quantitative or qualitative, grant proposals and methods sections in

journal articles are routinely evaluated by reviewers at least partially on the

basis of their proposed or implemented sampling strategies. For qualitativeresearch projects more specifically, several textbooks have offered practical road-

maps on how to define, recruit, and retain a sample to fulfill the overall goals of a

given study (cf. Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Miles and Huberman, 1994;

Padgett, 1998). These texts have defined the major types of qualitative sampling,

offered pragmatic information about sample recruitment and retention, and

attended to the role of the researcher and ‘use of self’ in recruiting potential

gatekeepers and participants and the ethical boundaries involved in these inter-

actions. However, there is far less discussion among qualitative scholars aboutsampling ‘hard to reach’ populations such as transient youth and young adults,

homeless people, IV drug users, sex workers, and incarcerated, institutionalized

and cognitively impaired individuals. Given social workers’ prominent interest in

these populations, a more robust conversation about the practical and theoretical

constraints involved in sampling hard to reach populations is needed.

This article attempts to begin this dialogue. First, I present an overview of

qualitative sampling, including its underlying assumptions, major methodologi-

cal traditions, common characteristics, and standards of assessment pertaining to

qualitative sampling. Next, I identify several challenges related to recruiting andsampling hard to reach populations in qualitative research studies. These con-

cepts and challenges are then illustrated through an example of a longitudinal

qualitative study of incarcerated youth. Drawing on this case example, the article

culminates with a discussion of sampling hard to reach populations as in relation

to the assessment of ‘quality’ in qualitative research.

QUALITATIVE SAMPLING: ASSUMPTIONS AND

COMMON CHARACTERISTICSQualitative and quantitative research methodologies have different underlying

assumptions, leading to major differences in sampling goals and strategies. On a

basic level, qualitative sampling is not typically intended to be ‘representative’ in

the sense of seeking to approximate known population parameters. This is the

case for a number of reasons. As Marshall (1996) explained, random sampling

assumes that population parameters are normally distributed. But in qualitative

studies, researchers usually have no basis to assume a ‘normal distribution’ of the

experiences, interactions, or settings that are of interest to them. Moreover,random sampling assumes that one person is ‘as good as the next’ as a data

point so long as they contribute to representing the larger population.

Qualitative researchers, on the other hand, recognize that some informants are

better are situated to provide key insight and understandings than others.

2 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)








Similarly, while random sampling tends to discard outliers, qualitative research is

often interested in extreme or ‘negative cases’ for their unique insights (Miles

and Huberman, 1994). In sum, probability sampling simply does not fit the goals

and assumptions of most qualitative research questions.Within the qualitative research paradigm, there are many variations in

sampling procedures, goals, and strategies. Several authors have suggested that

‘purposive sampling’ (also referred to as ‘judgment sampling’) and ‘theoretical

sampling’ are the main categories defining qualitative sampling approaches

(Coyne, 1997; Curtis et al., 2000; Marshall, 1996). To clarify, purposive sampling

refers to strategies in which the researcher exercises his or her judgment about

who will provide the best perspective on the phenomenon of interest, and then

intentionally invites those specific perspectives into the study. Theoretical sampling is associated more specifically with grounded theory, in which sampling strate-

gies are developed iteratively based on properties and categories that emerge in

the process of data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss and Corbin,

1998). Although there is some merit to the claim that these approaches are

different, the boundaries between them are not entirely clear. For example,

some have argued that within the broader rubric of theoretical sampling, a

certain degree of judgment or intentionality is almost always applied – particu-

larly in the initial stages of sample selection (Curtis et. al., 2000). Similarly,

purposive sampling strategies tend to be well thought out ahead of the study,but, akin to theoretical sampling, are also subject to change as the study

progresses (Padgett, 1998).

Sampling in qualitative research also varies according to paradigmatic and

disciplinary traditions. Phenomenological research, for example, tends to involve

small samples of carefully and purposively selected individuals who share a

common experience, with the goal of generating detailed patterns and relation-

ships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994). Ethnographers tend to use layers of sam-

pling decisions, based on the researchers’ judgment and knowledge of a cultureor setting to achieve a thick description of a culture, community, or social

context (Lofland and Lofland, 1995). In case study research, the most

pivotal sampling decision is made when the researcher selects the case or set

of cases to be studied. Following this decision, a researcher may use any number

of strategies – including both probability and non-probability sampling –

about how to study various elements of the case, such as archival documents,

people, or events (Yin, 1994). Each tradition carries a set of sampling conven-

tions that are adapted to the particular study topic and population (Creswell,

1998).Within these broader methodological genres, qualitative researchers may

use several techniques to achieve their overall sampling goals. Patton (2002)

defined many of these strategies, such as ‘maximum variation’ (i.e. seeking

cases that maximize a range of perspectives and differences); ‘homogenous’

Abrams Sampling ‘Hard to Reach’ Populations in Qualitative Research g 3








(emphasis added):

1. The sampling strategy should be relevant to the conceptual framework and ques-

tions addressed by the research;

2. The sample should be likely to generate rich information on the type of phenomena

which need to be studied;

3. The sample should enhance the ‘generalizeability’ of the findings (meaning a study’s

analytic boundaries, not population representation);

4. The sample should produce believable descriptions and explanations;

5. The sample should be ethical ; and

6. The sample should be feasible .

Several articles in nursing, medicine and other disciplines have recom-

mended these guidelines as useful assess qualitative research proposals and papers(c.f. Curtis et al., 2000; Devers and Frankel, 2000). However, to date, there are

no major published critiques or discussions of these standards.

Other scholars have posed assessment criteria that are more in keeping

with a grounded theory tradition and theoretical sampling. For example, Glaser

(1992) suggested (although not directly proscribed as in the earlier example) that

sampling in grounded theory should be achieved by:

1. Starting with a set of observations that meet the particular aims of the study;

2. Seeking full range and variation of developing categories through sampling;3. Sampling deliberately to test, and elaborate and verify the validity of a category;

4. Developing the relationships and interrelationships between categories through

further sample selection; and,

5. Knowing when saturation has occurred.

These guidelines pertain more specifically to grounded theory and theo-

retical sampling. And although scholars have widely articulated and discussed the

logic and methods of theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss and Corbin,

1998) there is no uniform agreement regarding the assessment of sampling

quality for these studies.

Further, Lincoln and Guba (1985) and other influential qualitative scholars

(Padgett, 1998; Sandelowski, 1995) have encouraged the appraisal of qualitative

research though the lens of ‘rigor,’ meaning the ‘degree to which a qualitative

study’s findings are authentic and the interpretations credible’ (Padgett, 1998: 88).

As Lincoln and Guba explained, a qualitative study’s rigor, or ‘trustworthiness’ can

be assessed by examining the credibility (i.e. the extent to which the findings

represent a credible conceptual interpretation), transferability (i.e. how the findings

extend beyond the bounds of the project), dependability (i.e. the quality of theintegrated process of data collection, data analysis and theory generation) and

confirmability (i.e. how well the inquiry’s findings are supported by the data that

is collected). Sampling is implicated, although not directly, in several of these axes,

particularly in the arenas of transferability and dependability. However, the









discourse around rigor in the published literature tends to focus more on data

analysis and interpretation, rather than directly on sampling per se.

Finally, articles published in applied disciplines outside of social work,

such as education and psychology, have outlined some general standards of assessment for qualitative research studies in which sampling is one piece of a

larger picture. Freeman et al.’s (2007) article in The Educational Researcher stated

that the reader should be provided with enough detail about the sample to judge

whether ‘depth of information and perspective’ has been achieved. Similarly, an

article published in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology suggested that authors

must ‘situate their sample,’ meaning that they should ‘describe the research

participants and their life circumstances to aid the reader in judging the range

of people and situations to which the findings might be relevant’ (Elliott et al.,1999: 221). These proposed guidelines are written very generally and are not

assumed to conform to any specific qualitative tradition.

On the basis of the literature reviewed, it appears that the overall leaning

of these assessment rubrics is that sampling matters greatly to the integrity of a

qualitative study, and in particular, has a strong relationship to the richness of the

data collected and the breadth and scope of the conclusions that are drawn.

Moreover, as a major component of a qualitative research design, sampling

decisions have a particular bearing on the degree to which the findings are

credible (to use Lincoln and Guba’s term) and on the boundaries of a study’sapplication to real world problems (Gibbs et al., 2007). It should be noted,

however, that very few of the aforementioned texts or articles make specific

mention of how these assessment rubrics apply to qualitative research studies that

are conducted with hard to reach populations.

HARD TO REACH POPULATIONS

Qualitative social work researchers have great interest in hard to reach popula-

tions such as homeless people, transient youth, IV drug users, sex workers, and

incarcerated, institutionalized, and cognitively impaired individuals, among

others. Researchers typically either recruit hard to reach participants through

agencies (cf. Juhlia, 2004; Taylor, 2009), or may use more street-based, snowball

sampling approaches (Miles, 2008). Some may even use combinations of these

approaches (cf. Miles and Okamoto, 2008; Wahab, 2004). Each of these routes

to gaining access to participants carries its own sets of benefits and limitations.

For example as Miles (2008) explained, agency-based samples provide easier

access, meeting spaces, and a more readily available pool of participants.However, agency-based samples tend to exclude the perspectives of individuals

who are not connected with social services agencies, and can present both

coercion and confidentiality concerns. Conversely, Miles (2008) suggested that

the main strength of a street-based recruitment approach is exposure to the most









at-risk individuals and groups. The major weaknesses involved are the amount of

time required to locate, select, and retain participants and increased difficulties in

establishing rapport.

Once the recruitment site and/or study setting is identified, the process of seeking individual perspectives typically follows. In studying hard to reach popu-

lations, a host of circumstances often force researchers to operate with samples of

available subjects – resulting in strategies that may best be placed in the category

of ‘convenience sampling’ (Faugier and Sargeant, 1997; Gibbs et al., 2007).

Convenience sampling, used in both quantitative and qualitative research stu-

dies, can be defined as reliance on participants who are readily available and

accessible to the researcher. This does not mean that researchers necessarily stop

people in shopping malls to gage their opinions (a typical image associated withconvenience sampling). Rather, qualitative researchers typically venture out to

places where people are likely to have key insight on their chosen topic, and

then proceed to recruit and sample available participants within those settings

(Padgett, 1998). In these cases, a purely purposeful or theoretical selection

process is typically precluded due to several institutional and practical constraints,

as described below.

Gatekeepers and Access

Researchers must take time to build connections with gatekeepers who provideaccess to a given population of interest. But in studies with hard to reach

populations, researchers often face difficulties gaining entree into to their desired

settings, and must negotiate various key permissions with agency directors,

bureaucracies and sometimes the courts. Once access is granted, institutional

structures or rules may limit the selection of individual participants in various

and sometimes unforeseen ways. For example, researchers seeking even small

samples are often forced to rely on referrals from gatekeepers, rather than their

own selection choices. Courts or institutions may not approve recruitmentfrom settings that are considered ‘ideal’ from the researchers’ perspective. The

upshot of these access issues is that sampling hard to reach populations is often

driven by rules and institutional regulations, rather than researchers’ needs or

goals.

Recruitment

Particularly with populations considered to be vulnerable to coercion, many

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) do not permit direct recruitment or snow-

ball sampling. Instead, they often require a researcher to post recruitment fliers,to make group presentations, or to provide information to an agency that then

requires potential participants to contact the researchers if they are interested in

the study. These indirect recruitment strategies mean that potential participants

must take initiative to volunteer for the study by making contact with









researchers, usually by phone. For example, in her qualitative study of transition

age youth Taylor (2007: 43) writes: ‘Since young people were recruited through

community providers, and, for ethical reasons, participated completely volunta-

rily, the resulting sample necessarily included only those youth who had at least alimited support network and enough initiative to call a stranger to volunteer for

a study’. As in this example, issues such as serious mental illness, lack of access to

a phone, homelessness, and institutionalization can make purposive or theore-

tical sampling quite difficult to accomplish.

Screening

Screening hard to reach individuals for the appropriateness of their individual

perspective also raises a set of logistical and ethical barriers that may compromisethe integrity of sample selection. For example, IRBs tend to require the

researchers to implement standard ‘phone screening consent scripts’ that may

be confusing or alienating for potential participants.1 Screening scripts also can

pose ethical concerns in cases when they include potentially ‘reportable’ issues

such as criminal activity, suicidal ideation, or child abuse. Striving to avoid these

ethical dilemmas, researchers may not ask potential participants the types of

questions that probe the participants’ backgrounds and perspectives in great

depth. Moreover, screening scripts are typically required to be delivered in a

standard manner. This limits the flexibility that may be needed to fully consider a participant’s perspective, such as, for example, when a research is seeking a

negative case, or perhaps embarking on a new phase of theoretical sampling.

Parental or Legal Guardian Consent

In conducting research with youth or individuals who are not legally able to

provide their own consent for other reasons, IRBs and institutional regulations

typically require researchers to obtain parent or legal guardian consent. This

requirement typically limits the pool of eligible participants because, for exam-ple, many transient youth have limited contact with their parents or legal guar-

dians, and depending on the study topic, youth may not want to participate if

their parents need to know about the study. The researchers themselves may not

even have access to the parents in a routine way, forcing them to expend a great

deal of energy just to reach the parents, let alone secure their consent.

Transience

Perhaps the most major barrier to retaining a sample of hard to reach individuals,

particularly in longitudinal qualitative studies, is transience. Even when research-ers have received access to a primary study site and IRB approval, retaining a

sample becomes quite challenging with populations who are not securely

housed, unlikely to have reliable phone service, and who are not typically

reachable by common communication channels (such as email or postal mail).









Thus, qualitative researchers must utilize creative strategies to retain transient

participants in their studies that are often expensive and time consuming (Taylor,

2009). Facing limited resources and the practicalities of completing a study, those

who actually complete a longitudinal study tend to be the most ‘stable’ amongtheir hard to reach group.

Case Example: Incarcerated Youth Study

A case example of a longitudinal qualitative study that I (as the Principal

Investigator) conducted in juvenile correctional institutions can help to illumi-

nate some of the issues raised in this discussion. This study, conducted over the

course of four years sought to understand the culture of correctional residential

treatment institutions, youths’ responses to treatment messages and correctionalpractices within these facilities, and their community reentry process. The data

collection methods included observation, longitudinal in-depth individual inter-

views with individual cases, and record reviews. Although the primary unit of

observation was the correctional settings, the study of individual cases through

interviews and record reviews provided critical information from which to

understand the youths’ experiences within these institutional settings

(cf. Abrams and Hyun, 2009; Abrams, 2006; Abrams et al., 2005).

To select the study sites, I started with one facility, and then chose the

next two facilities both strategically and sequentially. In regard to ‘strategic’considerations, the settings were intentionally varied in order to challenge and

refine evolving conclusions and theories. As such, the three institutions selected

were distinct based on size, type of offender served, length of stay, and ther-

apeutic programming and philosophy (for a more thorough description, see

Abrams and Hyun, 2009). I also considered practical and logistical matters

such as travel time, willingness of the institution’s supervisors to participate in

the project, and the feasibility of approval by the counties and courts governing

the institutions. Thus, a blend of theoretical and practical considerations drovethe selection of study sites.

Among the many youth who we (referring to myself and graduate student

researchers) observed during the course of the study, we recruited a subset of

offenders from each correctional institution to participate in a series of in-depth

interviews and record reviews. The approved recruitment protocol stipulated that

we make presentations to small groups of youth (5–10 at a time) about the study,

its purpose, the specific data collections procedures, and the voluntary nature of

the study. At the conclusion of the presentations, we then offered the youth the

opportunity to ask questions about the study, and then to put their name down ona list to reflect their interest. Most of the youth, but not all, indicated their will-

ingness to participate in the study during these sessions. However, per our

confidentiality agreements with the IRB and the correctional facilities, we were

not permitted to collect any identifying information (such as, for example, age,









type of crime, family background) about those who excluded themselves from the

study. Further, once youth indicated their willingness to participate, we did not

have meeting space or the time allotted in the program schedule to conduct in-

depth individual screenings. Rather, we collected the names of interested youthand proceeded to secure the necessary consents.

Regardless of the youths’ incarcerated status, both the IRB and the courts

required us to obtain parent/guardian consent for minors wishing to participate

in the study. This process limited about half of our pool of potential participants,

as parents were either unreachable, the youth did not want their parents to know

about the study, or more rarely, the parents declined their child’s participation.

As such, we had easier access to youths who had already reached the age of 18 or

whose parents visited the facilities on a routine basis. In all, 29 youths across thethree institutions participated in a series of interviews over periods ranging from

three to seven months (including varying periods of time when they exited the

facilities and returned home).

In the course of the study, we also faced attrition threats, largely due to

the transient nature of the population and our lack of control over the settings.

For example, we lost potential participants (i.e. those whose consents were in

progress) when their release dates were changed without warning, or when they

were arbitrarily transferred to another facility. Moreover, as we interviewed the

youth after their release, we lost touch with 9 of the 29 youth due to transience,re-incarceration, or lack of interest in completing the study once they were no

longer in secure confinement.

DISCUSSION

The sampling strategy used to select the study sites can best be described as

purposive, with some theoretical consideration involved. This is because

researcher judgment drove the selection of sites that were considered optimal

to observe and investigate the phenomenon of interest. The selection of sites was

also theoretically based in that we selected the institutions based on the observa-

tions and analyses conducted during the course of the study. In the selection of

specific study participants, however, our sampling strategy can best be categor-

ized as ‘convenience sampling.’ The researchers essentially opened the study to

any of the youth at the facility who were interested in taking part in the research

and whose parents consented to their participation. Based on literature reviewed

in this article, it appears that the sampling strategies used in this study had

strengths and weaknesses from which they can be assessed from within a quali-tative paradigm.

First, as seems to cut across nearly all assessment rubrics for qualitative

sampling, the study sample was highly relevant to the research questions

and aims, likely to generate rich information, and was ethical and feasible.









Moreover, the selection of settings was accomplished in an emergent manner

that fits with the general goals of developing theory and concepts inductively,

testing assumptions with repeated observations, and leaving room for flexibility

and reflexivity in the research process. In addition, length of time in the field (inthis case, the study took place over four years), or ‘prolonged engagement’

enhanced the trustworthiness of the study by ensuring that the meaning and

understandings of the participants lived experiences were not made in haste or

without depth of information (Padgett, 1998). Overall the study sample pro-

duced a wealth of information that was highly sufficient to understand youths’

experiences in correctional facilities, examine variations in these experiences, and

consider key differences between settings and individual cases.

It is also important to consider the weaknesses of the sampling strategiesthat were used. In this case, the interview and record review data from the 29

individual cases provided very rich material used in several publications. Yet

sample selection for this hard to reach population was constrained by many

factors outlined earlier in this paper, including institutional structure (rules of

access), parental consent requirements, recruitment and screening protocols, and

transience. As such, the sampling strategy for this component of the project was

not ideally theoretically nor purposive in the truest meaning of these terms.

Although not at all uncommon for a study with institutionalized and hard to

reach populations (Gibbs et al., 2007), the method of selecting these participantsdoes have a bearing on the study as a whole.

For example, we were not allowed to collect information on individuals

who did not participate due to self-exclusion or practical limitations (such as

parental consent). As such, it is uncertain whose voice was not excluded from in

this study, or if we achieved a maximum variation of perspectives. Moreover, the

sampling strategy for the selection of individual cases also rendered us unable to

pursue more specific sampling goals, such to find ‘confirming and disconfirming’

cases in the patterns that were emerging (Patton, 2002). This means that thedepth or breadth of information gathered from these individual cases is quite

difficult to assess. Overall, practical considerations, rather than theoretical ones,

drove the sampling strategy for the individual cases that were involved in this

study.

So how might qualitative researchers contend with the limitations

involved in sampling hard to reach populations? First, it seems of vital impor-

tance that sampling strategies, procedures, and their limitations are described

fully and acknowledged in a written proposal or final product. In preparing

methods sections, for example, researchers should be transparent about their decisions, and also provide information on whose perspectives may have been

excluded based on sampling constraints. All too often these details are left out of

articles and supplanted by ‘numbers only’ or demographic information, which

mirrors a quantitative model, yet tells the reader little about the dimensions and









quality of the sample (Gibbs et al., 2007). Qualitative scholars should also include

information on barriers encountered in their sampling procedures and how they

dealt with these obstacles along the way. This transparency can help to educate

others about the qualitative research process.Moreover, qualitative researchers should critically analyze their own sam-

pling strategies not on the basis of number of participants or population repre-

sentation, but rather on assessment anchors that exist within a qualitative

paradigm. Although qualitative scholars have not established any true consensus

about even the need for this type of assessment (Gibbs et al., 2007), a sampling

strategy should at baseline conform to the conventions of the chosen research

tradition. For example, authors who purport to be using some iteration of

grounded theory should assess how well they achieved a theoretical sample intheir study. All too often in proposals and journal articles, the congruence

between proposed methodology and sampling technique is lacking.

As researchers studying hard to reach populations will inevitably encoun-

ter some barriers to achieving their desired sample, it is important to fold in other

methods or procedures to counterbalance these limitations. For example, using

additional methods of data collection or gathering a range of perspectives (i.e.

triangulation) can provide additional evidence to enhance both the breadth and

depth of the study findings (Padgett, 1998). The strategy of prolonged engage-

ment in the field helps the researcher to understand the range of perspectivesinvolved in the study, as well as the extent to which those perspectives were

captured by the sampling methods that were used. Providing detail is again quite

useful for reviewers, students, and practitioners to assess the range of perspectives

that were gathered in the course of the study.

In addition to critically appraising our own strategies and responding to

the given limitations, it is important to simultaneously work to eliminate some

of the external limitations and constraints described in this article. For example,

the presence of qualitative researchers and/or researchers who are highlyinformed about qualitative research on University and other institutional IRB

review boards can make a difference in how decisions, requirements, and stipu-

lations are made concerning qualitative proposals and projects. Similarly, quali-

tative researchers must continue to educate gatekeepers and institutions about

qualitative research, including the pivotal role of recruitment and sampling in

research integrity. Raising awareness about researchers’ needs in regard to sample

selection can eventually help to lift some of the external barriers to achieving our

desired strategies.

CONCLUSION

Qualitative researchers have historically been placed on the ‘defensive’ in regard

to methodology, particularly in academic disciplines – including social work –









with a more visible and dominant quantitative tradition. Sampling plays a role in

these tensions. Purely quantitative researchers criticize low sample sizes and lack

of generalizability in qualitative research, even when these terms are not applic-

able in a qualitative paradigm. Yet as qualitative research gains more prominencewithin social work and other applied disciplines, it is vitally important that we as

qualitative researchers engage in conversation, within a qualitative framework,

about the constraints imposed by settings, gatekeepers, IRBs, and the participants

themselves when conducting research with hard to reach populations. A more

visible conversation about how we assess the ‘quality’ or ‘rigor’ of qualitative

research has recently evolved in professional and academic circles across several

applied academic disciplines (Elliot et al., 1999; Gibbs et al., 2007; Freeman

et al., 2007). Optimally qualitative researchers themselves should play a major role in these discussions and the assessment standards that are used in the scien-

tific playing field. But in addition, frank dialogue about how sampling is actually

accomplished with hard to reach populations – including both constraints and

opportunity – will advance our own critical thinking about qualitative methods

and help to guide the next generation of scholars in the field.

Note

1 See for example the screening script format at the University of California,

Los Angeles: http://www.oprs.ucla.edu/human/forms/screening.

References

Abrams, L. S. (2006) ‘Listening to Offenders: Can Residential Treatment Prevent

Recidivism?’ Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 23(1): 61–85.

Abrams, L. S. and Hyun, A. (2009) ‘Mapping a Process of Negotiated Identity Among

Incarcerated Male Juvenile Offenders’, Youth and Society 41(1): 26–52.

Abrams, L. S., Kim, K. and Anderson-Nathe, B. (2005) ‘Paradoxes of Treatment in

Juvenile Corrections’, Child & Youth Care Forum 34(1): 7–25.Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative

Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Coyne, I. T. (1997) ‘Sampling in Qualitative Research Purposeful and Theoretical

Sampling: Merging or Clear Boundaries?’ Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 623–30.

Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five

Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G. and Washburn, S. (2000) ‘Approaches to Sampling

and Case Selection in Qualitative Research: Examples in the Geography of Health’,

Social Science & Medicine 50: 1000–14.

Devers, K. J. (1999) ‘How Will We Know ‘‘Good’’ Qualitative Research When We

See It? Beginning the Dialogue in Health Services Research’, Health Services Research

34(5, pt 2): 1153–88.

Devers, K. J. and Frankel, R. M. (2000) ‘Study Design in Qualitative Research-2:

Sampling and Data Collection Strategies’, Education for Health 13: 261–71.









Elliot, R., Fisher, C. T. and Rennie, D. L. (1999) ‘Evolving Guidelines for Publication of

Qualitative Research Studies in Psychology and Related Fields’, The British Journal of

Clinical Psychology 2: 215–29.

Faugier, J. and Mary, S. (1997) ‘Sampling Hard to Reach Populations’, Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 790–7.

Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K. and St Pierre, E. A. (2007)

‘Standards of Evidence on Qualitative Research: An Incitement to Discourse’,

Educational Researcher 36(1): 25–32.

Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., Willis, K., Green, J., Welch, N. and Dalym, J. (2007) ‘What Have

Sampling and Data Collection Got To Do With Good Qualitative Research?’

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 31(6): 540–4.

Gilgun, J. and Abrams, L. S. (2002) ‘Commentary on Denzin: The Nature and

Usefulness of Qualitative Social Work Research: Some Thoughts and an Invitationto Dialogue’, Qualitative Social Work 1(1): 39–55.

Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing . Mill Valley,

CA: Sociology Press.

Juhlia, K. (2004) ‘Talking Back to Stigmatized Identities: Negotiation of Culturally

Dominant Categorizations in Interviews With Shelter Residents’, Qualitative Social

Work 3: 259–75.

Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. H. (1995) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative

Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (1999) Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd edn.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Marshall, M. N. (1996) ‘Sampling for Qualitative Research’, Family Practice 13(6): 522–5.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 2nd edn.


Miles, B.W. (2008) ‘Recruitment in Qualitative Research with Hard-to-Reach Youth:

Experiences and Issues Taken from Multiple Studies with Homeless Youth’, paper

presented at the Society for Social Work Research, Washington, DC, January.

Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded

Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Miles, B. W. and Okamoto, S. K. (2008) ‘The Social Construction of Deviant Behavior

in Homeless and Runaway Youth: Implications for Practice’, Child and Adolescent

Social Work Journal 25: 425–41.

Morse, J. M. and Richards, L. (2002) Read Me First: A User’s Guide to Qualitative Methods.


Moustakas, C. E. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Padgett, D. K. (1998) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research: Challenges and Rewards.


Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Sandelowski, M. (1995) ‘Sample Size in Qualitative Research’, Research in Nursing and

Health 18(2): 179–83.









Strauss, A. and Juliet, C. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for

Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Taylor, S.A. (2007) ‘Cause I want to do something with myself: Vulnerable Emerging

Adults Navigate Transitions to School and Work’, PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Taylor, S. A. (2009) ‘Engaging and Retaining Vulnerable Youth in a Short-Term

Longitudinal Qualitative Study’, Qualitative Social Work 8(3): 391–408.

Wahab, S. (2004) ‘Tricks of the Trade: What Social Workers Can Learn About Female

Sex Workers Through Dialogue’, Qualitative Social Work 3: 139–60.

Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE.

Laura S. Abrams is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Welfare

at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research focuses on the culture

of treatment institutions for juvenile offenders, the community reentry process,

and identity transitions among vulnerable youth. Address: Department of Social

Welfare, UCLA School of Public Affairs. 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box

951656, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656, USA. [email: [email protected]]


Abrams - 2010 - Sampling 'Hard to Reach' Populations in Qualitative Research the Case of...

Documents

Transcript of Abrams - 2010 - Sampling 'Hard to Reach' Populations in Qualitative Research the Case of...