sampling method in qualitative research example

Chapter 5. Sampling

Introduction.

Most Americans will experience unemployment at some point in their lives. Sarah Damaske ( 2021 ) was interested in learning about how men and women experience unemployment differently. To answer this question, she interviewed unemployed people. After conducting a “pilot study” with twenty interviewees, she realized she was also interested in finding out how working-class and middle-class persons experienced unemployment differently. She found one hundred persons through local unemployment offices. She purposefully selected a roughly equal number of men and women and working-class and middle-class persons for the study. This would allow her to make the kinds of comparisons she was interested in. She further refined her selection of persons to interview:

I decided that I needed to be able to focus my attention on gender and class; therefore, I interviewed only people born between 1962 and 1987 (ages 28–52, the prime working and child-rearing years), those who worked full-time before their job loss, those who experienced an involuntary job loss during the past year, and those who did not lose a job for cause (e.g., were not fired because of their behavior at work). ( 244 )

The people she ultimately interviewed compose her sample. They represent (“sample”) the larger population of the involuntarily unemployed. This “theoretically informed stratified sampling design” allowed Damaske “to achieve relatively equal distribution of participation across gender and class,” but it came with some limitations. For one, the unemployment centers were located in primarily White areas of the country, so there were very few persons of color interviewed. Qualitative researchers must make these kinds of decisions all the time—who to include and who not to include. There is never an absolutely correct decision, as the choice is linked to the particular research question posed by the particular researcher, although some sampling choices are more compelling than others. In this case, Damaske made the choice to foreground both gender and class rather than compare all middle-class men and women or women of color from different class positions or just talk to White men. She leaves the door open for other researchers to sample differently. Because science is a collective enterprise, it is most likely someone will be inspired to conduct a similar study as Damaske’s but with an entirely different sample.

This chapter is all about sampling. After you have developed a research question and have a general idea of how you will collect data (observations or interviews), how do you go about actually finding people and sites to study? Although there is no “correct number” of people to interview, the sample should follow the research question and research design. You might remember studying sampling in a quantitative research course. Sampling is important here too, but it works a bit differently. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research involves nonprobability sampling. This chapter explains why this is so and what qualities instead make a good sample for qualitative research.

Quick Terms Refresher

• The population is the entire group that you want to draw conclusions about.
• The sample is the specific group of individuals that you will collect data from.
• Sampling frame is the actual list of individuals that the sample will be drawn from. Ideally, it should include the entire target population (and nobody who is not part of that population).
• Sample size is how many individuals (or units) are included in your sample.

The “Who” of Your Research Study

After you have turned your general research interest into an actual research question and identified an approach you want to take to answer that question, you will need to specify the people you will be interviewing or observing. In most qualitative research, the objects of your study will indeed be people. In some cases, however, your objects might be content left by people (e.g., diaries, yearbooks, photographs) or documents (official or unofficial) or even institutions (e.g., schools, medical centers) and locations (e.g., nation-states, cities). Chances are, whatever “people, places, or things” are the objects of your study, you will not really be able to talk to, observe, or follow every single individual/object of the entire population of interest. You will need to create a sample of the population . Sampling in qualitative research has different purposes and goals than sampling in quantitative research. Sampling in both allows you to say something of interest about a population without having to include the entire population in your sample.

We begin this chapter with the case of a population of interest composed of actual people. After we have a better understanding of populations and samples that involve real people, we’ll discuss sampling in other types of qualitative research, such as archival research, content analysis, and case studies. We’ll then move to a larger discussion about the difference between sampling in qualitative research generally versus quantitative research, then we’ll move on to the idea of “theoretical” generalizability, and finally, we’ll conclude with some practical tips on the correct “number” to include in one’s sample.

Sampling People

To help think through samples, let’s imagine we want to know more about “vaccine hesitancy.” We’ve all lived through 2020 and 2021, and we know that a sizable number of people in the United States (and elsewhere) were slow to accept vaccines, even when these were freely available. By some accounts, about one-third of Americans initially refused vaccination. Why is this so? Well, as I write this in the summer of 2021, we know that some people actively refused the vaccination, thinking it was harmful or part of a government plot. Others were simply lazy or dismissed the necessity. And still others were worried about harmful side effects. The general population of interest here (all adult Americans who were not vaccinated by August 2021) may be as many as eighty million people. We clearly cannot talk to all of them. So we will have to narrow the number to something manageable. How can we do this?

First, we have to think about our actual research question and the form of research we are conducting. I am going to begin with a quantitative research question. Quantitative research questions tend to be simpler to visualize, at least when we are first starting out doing social science research. So let us say we want to know what percentage of each kind of resistance is out there and how race or class or gender affects vaccine hesitancy. Again, we don’t have the ability to talk to everyone. But harnessing what we know about normal probability distributions (see quantitative methods for more on this), we can find this out through a sample that represents the general population. We can’t really address these particular questions if we only talk to White women who go to college with us. And if you are really trying to generalize the specific findings of your sample to the larger population, you will have to employ probability sampling , a sampling technique where a researcher sets a selection of a few criteria and chooses members of a population randomly. Why randomly? If truly random, all the members have an equal opportunity to be a part of the sample, and thus we avoid the problem of having only our friends and neighbors (who may be very different from other people in the population) in the study. Mathematically, there is going to be a certain number that will be large enough to allow us to generalize our particular findings from our sample population to the population at large. It might surprise you how small that number can be. Election polls of no more than one thousand people are routinely used to predict actual election outcomes of millions of people. Below that number, however, you will not be able to make generalizations. Talking to five people at random is simply not enough people to predict a presidential election.

In order to answer quantitative research questions of causality, one must employ probability sampling. Quantitative researchers try to generalize their findings to a larger population. Samples are designed with that in mind. Qualitative researchers ask very different questions, though. Qualitative research questions are not about “how many” of a certain group do X (in this case, what percentage of the unvaccinated hesitate for concern about safety rather than reject vaccination on political grounds). Qualitative research employs nonprobability sampling . By definition, not everyone has an equal opportunity to be included in the sample. The researcher might select White women they go to college with to provide insight into racial and gender dynamics at play. Whatever is found by doing so will not be generalizable to everyone who has not been vaccinated, or even all White women who have not been vaccinated, or even all White women who have not been vaccinated who are in this particular college. That is not the point of qualitative research at all. This is a really important distinction, so I will repeat in bold: Qualitative researchers are not trying to statistically generalize specific findings to a larger population . They have not failed when their sample cannot be generalized, as that is not the point at all.

In the previous paragraph, I said it would be perfectly acceptable for a qualitative researcher to interview five White women with whom she goes to college about their vaccine hesitancy “to provide insight into racial and gender dynamics at play.” The key word here is “insight.” Rather than use a sample as a stand-in for the general population, as quantitative researchers do, the qualitative researcher uses the sample to gain insight into a process or phenomenon. The qualitative researcher is not going to be content with simply asking each of the women to state her reason for not being vaccinated and then draw conclusions that, because one in five of these women were concerned about their health, one in five of all people were also concerned about their health. That would be, frankly, a very poor study indeed. Rather, the qualitative researcher might sit down with each of the women and conduct a lengthy interview about what the vaccine means to her, why she is hesitant, how she manages her hesitancy (how she explains it to her friends), what she thinks about others who are unvaccinated, what she thinks of those who have been vaccinated, and what she knows or thinks she knows about COVID-19. The researcher might include specific interview questions about the college context, about their status as White women, about the political beliefs they hold about racism in the US, and about how their own political affiliations may or may not provide narrative scripts about “protective whiteness.” There are many interesting things to ask and learn about and many things to discover. Where a quantitative researcher begins with clear parameters to set their population and guide their sample selection process, the qualitative researcher is discovering new parameters, making it impossible to engage in probability sampling.

Looking at it this way, sampling for qualitative researchers needs to be more strategic. More theoretically informed. What persons can be interviewed or observed that would provide maximum insight into what is still unknown? In other words, qualitative researchers think through what cases they could learn the most from, and those are the cases selected to study: “What would be ‘bias’ in statistical sampling, and therefore a weakness, becomes intended focus in qualitative sampling, and therefore a strength. The logic and power of purposeful sampling like in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling” ( Patton 2002:230 ; emphases in the original).

Before selecting your sample, though, it is important to clearly identify the general population of interest. You need to know this before you can determine the sample. In our example case, it is “adult Americans who have not yet been vaccinated.” Depending on the specific qualitative research question, however, it might be “adult Americans who have been vaccinated for political reasons” or even “college students who have not been vaccinated.” What insights are you seeking? Do you want to know how politics is affecting vaccination? Or do you want to understand how people manage being an outlier in a particular setting (unvaccinated where vaccinations are heavily encouraged if not required)? More clearly stated, your population should align with your research question . Think back to the opening story about Damaske’s work studying the unemployed. She drew her sample narrowly to address the particular questions she was interested in pursuing. Knowing your questions or, at a minimum, why you are interested in the topic will allow you to draw the best sample possible to achieve insight.

Once you have your population in mind, how do you go about getting people to agree to be in your sample? In qualitative research, it is permissible to find people by convenience. Just ask for people who fit your sample criteria and see who shows up. Or reach out to friends and colleagues and see if they know anyone that fits. Don’t let the name convenience sampling mislead you; this is not exactly “easy,” and it is certainly a valid form of sampling in qualitative research. The more unknowns you have about what you will find, the more convenience sampling makes sense. If you don’t know how race or class or political affiliation might matter, and your population is unvaccinated college students, you can construct a sample of college students by placing an advertisement in the student paper or posting a flyer on a notice board. Whoever answers is your sample. That is what is meant by a convenience sample. A common variation of convenience sampling is snowball sampling . This is particularly useful if your target population is hard to find. Let’s say you posted a flyer about your study and only two college students responded. You could then ask those two students for referrals. They tell their friends, and those friends tell other friends, and, like a snowball, your sample gets bigger and bigger.

Researcher Note

Gaining Access: When Your Friend Is Your Research Subject

My early experience with qualitative research was rather unique. At that time, I needed to do a project that required me to interview first-generation college students, and my friends, with whom I had been sharing a dorm for two years, just perfectly fell into the sample category. Thus, I just asked them and easily “gained my access” to the research subject; I know them, we are friends, and I am part of them. I am an insider. I also thought, “Well, since I am part of the group, I can easily understand their language and norms, I can capture their honesty, read their nonverbal cues well, will get more information, as they will be more opened to me because they trust me.” All in all, easy access with rich information. But, gosh, I did not realize that my status as an insider came with a price! When structuring the interview questions, I began to realize that rather than focusing on the unique experiences of my friends, I mostly based the questions on my own experiences, assuming we have similar if not the same experiences. I began to struggle with my objectivity and even questioned my role; am I doing this as part of the group or as a researcher? I came to know later that my status as an insider or my “positionality” may impact my research. It not only shapes the process of data collection but might heavily influence my interpretation of the data. I came to realize that although my inside status came with a lot of benefits (especially for access), it could also bring some drawbacks.

—Dede Setiono, PhD student focusing on international development and environmental policy, Oregon State University

The more you know about what you might find, the more strategic you can be. If you wanted to compare how politically conservative and politically liberal college students explained their vaccine hesitancy, for example, you might construct a sample purposively, finding an equal number of both types of students so that you can make those comparisons in your analysis. This is what Damaske ( 2021 ) did. You could still use convenience or snowball sampling as a way of recruitment. Post a flyer at the conservative student club and then ask for referrals from the one student that agrees to be interviewed. As with convenience sampling, there are variations of purposive sampling as well as other names used (e.g., judgment, quota, stratified, criterion, theoretical). Try not to get bogged down in the nomenclature; instead, focus on identifying the general population that matches your research question and then using a sampling method that is most likely to provide insight, given the types of questions you have.

There are all kinds of ways of being strategic with sampling in qualitative research. Here are a few of my favorite techniques for maximizing insight:

• Consider using “extreme” or “deviant” cases. Maybe your college houses a prominent anti-vaxxer who has written about and demonstrated against the college’s policy on vaccines. You could learn a lot from that single case (depending on your research question, of course).
• Consider “intensity”: people and cases and circumstances where your questions are more likely to feature prominently (but not extremely or deviantly). For example, you could compare those who volunteer at local Republican and Democratic election headquarters during an election season in a study on why party matters. Those who volunteer are more likely to have something to say than those who are more apathetic.
• Maximize variation, as with the case of “politically liberal” versus “politically conservative,” or include an array of social locations (young vs. old; Northwest vs. Southeast region). This kind of heterogeneity sampling can capture and describe the central themes that cut across the variations: any common patterns that emerge, even in this wildly mismatched sample, are probably important to note!
• Rather than maximize the variation, you could select a small homogenous sample to describe some particular subgroup in depth. Focus groups are often the best form of data collection for homogeneity sampling.
• Think about which cases are “critical” or politically important—ones that “if it happens here, it would happen anywhere” or a case that is politically sensitive, as with the single “blue” (Democratic) county in a “red” (Republican) state. In both, you are choosing a site that would yield the most information and have the greatest impact on the development of knowledge.
• On the other hand, sometimes you want to select the “typical”—the typical college student, for example. You are trying to not generalize from the typical but illustrate aspects that may be typical of this case or group. When selecting for typicality, be clear with yourself about why the typical matches your research questions (and who might be excluded or marginalized in doing so).
• Finally, it is often a good idea to look for disconfirming cases : if you are at the stage where you have a hypothesis (of sorts), you might select those who do not fit your hypothesis—you will surely learn something important there. They may be “exceptions that prove the rule” or exceptions that force you to alter your findings in order to make sense of these additional cases.

In addition to all these sampling variations, there is the theoretical approach taken by grounded theorists in which the researcher samples comparative people (or events) on the basis of their potential to represent important theoretical constructs. The sample, one can say, is by definition representative of the phenomenon of interest. It accompanies the constant comparative method of analysis. In the words of the funders of Grounded Theory , “Theoretical sampling is sampling on the basis of the emerging concepts, with the aim being to explore the dimensional range or varied conditions along which the properties of the concepts vary” ( Strauss and Corbin 1998:73 ).

When Your Population is Not Composed of People

I think it is easiest for most people to think of populations and samples in terms of people, but sometimes our units of analysis are not actually people. They could be places or institutions. Even so, you might still want to talk to people or observe the actions of people to understand those places or institutions. Or not! In the case of content analyses (see chapter 17), you won’t even have people involved at all but rather documents or films or photographs or news clippings. Everything we have covered about sampling applies to other units of analysis too. Let’s work through some examples.

Case Studies

When constructing a case study, it is helpful to think of your cases as sample populations in the same way that we considered people above. If, for example, you are comparing campus climates for diversity, your overall population may be “four-year college campuses in the US,” and from there you might decide to study three college campuses as your sample. Which three? Will you use purposeful sampling (perhaps [1] selecting three colleges in Oregon that are different sizes or [2] selecting three colleges across the US located in different political cultures or [3] varying the three colleges by racial makeup of the student body)? Or will you select three colleges at random, out of convenience? There are justifiable reasons for all approaches.

As with people, there are different ways of maximizing insight in your sample selection. Think about the following rationales: typical, diverse, extreme, deviant, influential, crucial, or even embodying a particular “pathway” ( Gerring 2008 ). When choosing a case or particular research site, Rubin ( 2021 ) suggests you bear in mind, first, what you are leaving out by selecting this particular case/site; second, what you might be overemphasizing by studying this case/site and not another; and, finally, whether you truly need to worry about either of those things—“that is, what are the sources of bias and how bad are they for what you are trying to do?” ( 89 ).

Once you have selected your cases, you may still want to include interviews with specific people or observations at particular sites within those cases. Then you go through possible sampling approaches all over again to determine which people will be contacted.

Content: Documents, Narrative Accounts, And So On

Although not often discussed as sampling, your selection of documents and other units to use in various content/historical analyses is subject to similar considerations. When you are asking quantitative-type questions (percentages and proportionalities of a general population), you will want to follow probabilistic sampling. For example, I created a random sample of accounts posted on the website studentloanjustice.org to delineate the types of problems people were having with student debt ( Hurst 2007 ). Even though my data was qualitative (narratives of student debt), I was actually asking a quantitative-type research question, so it was important that my sample was representative of the larger population (debtors who posted on the website). On the other hand, when you are asking qualitative-type questions, the selection process should be very different. In that case, use nonprobabilistic techniques, either convenience (where you are really new to this data and do not have the ability to set comparative criteria or even know what a deviant case would be) or some variant of purposive sampling. Let’s say you were interested in the visual representation of women in media published in the 1950s. You could select a national magazine like Time for a “typical” representation (and for its convenience, as all issues are freely available on the web and easy to search). Or you could compare one magazine known for its feminist content versus one antifeminist. The point is, sample selection is important even when you are not interviewing or observing people.

Goals of Qualitative Sampling versus Goals of Quantitative Sampling

We have already discussed some of the differences in the goals of quantitative and qualitative sampling above, but it is worth further discussion. The quantitative researcher seeks a sample that is representative of the population of interest so that they may properly generalize the results (e.g., if 80 percent of first-gen students in the sample were concerned with costs of college, then we can say there is a strong likelihood that 80 percent of first-gen students nationally are concerned with costs of college). The qualitative researcher does not seek to generalize in this way . They may want a representative sample because they are interested in typical responses or behaviors of the population of interest, but they may very well not want a representative sample at all. They might want an “extreme” or deviant case to highlight what could go wrong with a particular situation, or maybe they want to examine just one case as a way of understanding what elements might be of interest in further research. When thinking of your sample, you will have to know why you are selecting the units, and this relates back to your research question or sets of questions. It has nothing to do with having a representative sample to generalize results. You may be tempted—or it may be suggested to you by a quantitatively minded member of your committee—to create as large and representative a sample as you possibly can to earn credibility from quantitative researchers. Ignore this temptation or suggestion. The only thing you should be considering is what sample will best bring insight into the questions guiding your research. This has implications for the number of people (or units) in your study as well, which is the topic of the next section.

What is the Correct “Number” to Sample?

Because we are not trying to create a generalizable representative sample, the guidelines for the “number” of people to interview or news stories to code are also a bit more nebulous. There are some brilliant insightful studies out there with an n of 1 (meaning one person or one account used as the entire set of data). This is particularly so in the case of autoethnography, a variation of ethnographic research that uses the researcher’s own subject position and experiences as the basis of data collection and analysis. But it is true for all forms of qualitative research. There are no hard-and-fast rules here. The number to include is what is relevant and insightful to your particular study.

That said, humans do not thrive well under such ambiguity, and there are a few helpful suggestions that can be made. First, many qualitative researchers talk about “saturation” as the end point for data collection. You stop adding participants when you are no longer getting any new information (or so very little that the cost of adding another interview subject or spending another day in the field exceeds any likely benefits to the research). The term saturation was first used here by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ), the founders of Grounded Theory. Here is their explanation: “The criterion for judging when to stop sampling the different groups pertinent to a category is the category’s theoretical saturation . Saturation means that no additional data are being found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category. As he [or she] sees similar instances over and over again, the researcher becomes empirically confident that a category is saturated. [They go] out of [their] way to look for groups that stretch diversity of data as far as possible, just to make certain that saturation is based on the widest possible range of data on the category” ( 61 ).

It makes sense that the term was developed by grounded theorists, since this approach is rather more open-ended than other approaches used by qualitative researchers. With so much left open, having a guideline of “stop collecting data when you don’t find anything new” is reasonable. However, saturation can’t help much when first setting out your sample. How do you know how many people to contact to interview? What number will you put down in your institutional review board (IRB) protocol (see chapter 8)? You may guess how many people or units it will take to reach saturation, but there really is no way to know in advance. The best you can do is think about your population and your questions and look at what others have done with similar populations and questions.

Here are some suggestions to use as a starting point: For phenomenological studies, try to interview at least ten people for each major category or group of people . If you are comparing male-identified, female-identified, and gender-neutral college students in a study on gender regimes in social clubs, that means you might want to design a sample of thirty students, ten from each group. This is the minimum suggested number. Damaske’s ( 2021 ) sample of one hundred allows room for up to twenty-five participants in each of four “buckets” (e.g., working-class*female, working-class*male, middle-class*female, middle-class*male). If there is more than one comparative group (e.g., you are comparing students attending three different colleges, and you are comparing White and Black students in each), you can sometimes reduce the number for each group in your sample to five for, in this case, thirty total students. But that is really a bare minimum you will want to go. A lot of people will not trust you with only “five” cases in a bucket. Lareau ( 2021:24 ) advises a minimum of seven or nine for each bucket (or “cell,” in her words). The point is to think about what your analyses might look like and how comfortable you will be with a certain number of persons fitting each category.

Because qualitative research takes so much time and effort, it is rare for a beginning researcher to include more than thirty to fifty people or units in the study. You may not be able to conduct all the comparisons you might want simply because you cannot manage a larger sample. In that case, the limits of who you can reach or what you can include may influence you to rethink an original overcomplicated research design. Rather than include students from every racial group on a campus, for example, you might want to sample strategically, thinking about the most contrast (insightful), possibly excluding majority-race (White) students entirely, and simply using previous literature to fill in gaps in our understanding. For example, one of my former students was interested in discovering how race and class worked at a predominantly White institution (PWI). Due to time constraints, she simplified her study from an original sample frame of middle-class and working-class domestic Black and international African students (four buckets) to a sample frame of domestic Black and international African students (two buckets), allowing the complexities of class to come through individual accounts rather than from part of the sample frame. She wisely decided not to include White students in the sample, as her focus was on how minoritized students navigated the PWI. She was able to successfully complete her project and develop insights from the data with fewer than twenty interviewees. [1]

But what if you had unlimited time and resources? Would it always be better to interview more people or include more accounts, documents, and units of analysis? No! Your sample size should reflect your research question and the goals you have set yourself. Larger numbers can sometimes work against your goals. If, for example, you want to help bring out individual stories of success against the odds, adding more people to the analysis can end up drowning out those individual stories. Sometimes, the perfect size really is one (or three, or five). It really depends on what you are trying to discover and achieve in your study. Furthermore, studies of one hundred or more (people, documents, accounts, etc.) can sometimes be mistaken for quantitative research. Inevitably, the large sample size will push the researcher into simplifying the data numerically. And readers will begin to expect generalizability from such a large sample.

To summarize, “There are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample size depends on what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have credibility, and what can be done with available time and resources” ( Patton 2002:244 ).

How did you find/construct a sample?

Since qualitative researchers work with comparatively small sample sizes, getting your sample right is rather important. Yet it is also difficult to accomplish. For instance, a key question you need to ask yourself is whether you want a homogeneous or heterogeneous sample. In other words, do you want to include people in your study who are by and large the same, or do you want to have diversity in your sample?

For many years, I have studied the experiences of students who were the first in their families to attend university. There is a rather large number of sampling decisions I need to consider before starting the study. (1) Should I only talk to first-in-family students, or should I have a comparison group of students who are not first-in-family? (2) Do I need to strive for a gender distribution that matches undergraduate enrollment patterns? (3) Should I include participants that reflect diversity in gender identity and sexuality? (4) How about racial diversity? First-in-family status is strongly related to some ethnic or racial identity. (5) And how about areas of study?

As you can see, if I wanted to accommodate all these differences and get enough study participants in each category, I would quickly end up with a sample size of hundreds, which is not feasible in most qualitative research. In the end, for me, the most important decision was to maximize the voices of first-in-family students, which meant that I only included them in my sample. As for the other categories, I figured it was going to be hard enough to find first-in-family students, so I started recruiting with an open mind and an understanding that I may have to accept a lack of gender, sexuality, or racial diversity and then not be able to say anything about these issues. But I would definitely be able to speak about the experiences of being first-in-family.

—Wolfgang Lehmann, author of “Habitus Transformation and Hidden Injuries”

Examples of “Sample” Sections in Journal Articles

Think about some of the studies you have read in college, especially those with rich stories and accounts about people’s lives. Do you know how the people were selected to be the focus of those stories? If the account was published by an academic press (e.g., University of California Press or Princeton University Press) or in an academic journal, chances are that the author included a description of their sample selection. You can usually find these in a methodological appendix (book) or a section on “research methods” (article).

Here are two examples from recent books and one example from a recent article:

Example 1 . In It’s Not like I’m Poor: How Working Families Make Ends Meet in a Post-welfare World , the research team employed a mixed methods approach to understand how parents use the earned income tax credit, a refundable tax credit designed to provide relief for low- to moderate-income working people ( Halpern-Meekin et al. 2015 ). At the end of their book, their first appendix is “Introduction to Boston and the Research Project.” After describing the context of the study, they include the following description of their sample selection:

In June 2007, we drew 120 names at random from the roughly 332 surveys we gathered between February and April. Within each racial and ethnic group, we aimed for one-third married couples with children and two-thirds unmarried parents. We sent each of these families a letter informing them of the opportunity to participate in the in-depth portion of our study and then began calling the home and cell phone numbers they provided us on the surveys and knocking on the doors of the addresses they provided.…In the end, we interviewed 115 of the 120 families originally selected for the in-depth interview sample (the remaining five families declined to participate). ( 22 )

Was their sample selection based on convenience or purpose? Why do you think it was important for them to tell you that five families declined to be interviewed? There is actually a trick here, as the names were pulled randomly from a survey whose sample design was probabilistic. Why is this important to know? What can we say about the representativeness or the uniqueness of whatever findings are reported here?

Example 2 . In When Diversity Drops , Park ( 2013 ) examines the impact of decreasing campus diversity on the lives of college students. She does this through a case study of one student club, the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), at one university (“California University,” a pseudonym). Here is her description:

I supplemented participant observation with individual in-depth interviews with sixty IVCF associates, including thirty-four current students, eight former and current staff members, eleven alumni, and seven regional or national staff members. The racial/ethnic breakdown was twenty-five Asian Americans (41.6 percent), one Armenian (1.6 percent), twelve people who were black (20.0 percent), eight Latino/as (13.3 percent), three South Asian Americans (5.0 percent), and eleven people who were white (18.3 percent). Twenty-nine were men, and thirty-one were women. Looking back, I note that the higher number of Asian Americans reflected both the group’s racial/ethnic composition and my relative ease about approaching them for interviews. ( 156 )

How can you tell this is a convenience sample? What else do you note about the sample selection from this description?

Example 3. The last example is taken from an article published in the journal Research in Higher Education . Published articles tend to be more formal than books, at least when it comes to the presentation of qualitative research. In this article, Lawson ( 2021 ) is seeking to understand why female-identified college students drop out of majors that are dominated by male-identified students (e.g., engineering, computer science, music theory). Here is the entire relevant section of the article:

Method Participants Data were collected as part of a larger study designed to better understand the daily experiences of women in MDMs [male-dominated majors].…Participants included 120 students from a midsize, Midwestern University. This sample included 40 women and 40 men from MDMs—defined as any major where at least 2/3 of students are men at both the university and nationally—and 40 women from GNMs—defined as any may where 40–60% of students are women at both the university and nationally.… Procedure A multi-faceted approach was used to recruit participants; participants were sent targeted emails (obtained based on participants’ reported gender and major listings), campus-wide emails sent through the University’s Communication Center, flyers, and in-class presentations. Recruitment materials stated that the research focused on the daily experiences of college students, including classroom experiences, stressors, positive experiences, departmental contexts, and career aspirations. Interested participants were directed to email the study coordinator to verify eligibility (at least 18 years old, man/woman in MDM or woman in GNM, access to a smartphone). Sixteen interested individuals were not eligible for the study due to the gender/major combination. ( 482ff .)

What method of sample selection was used by Lawson? Why is it important to define “MDM” at the outset? How does this definition relate to sampling? Why were interested participants directed to the study coordinator to verify eligibility?

Final Words

I have found that students often find it difficult to be specific enough when defining and choosing their sample. It might help to think about your sample design and sample recruitment like a cookbook. You want all the details there so that someone else can pick up your study and conduct it as you intended. That person could be yourself, but this analogy might work better if you have someone else in mind. When I am writing down recipes, I often think of my sister and try to convey the details she would need to duplicate the dish. We share a grandmother whose recipes are full of handwritten notes in the margins, in spidery ink, that tell us what bowl to use when or where things could go wrong. Describe your sample clearly, convey the steps required accurately, and then add any other details that will help keep you on track and remind you why you have chosen to limit possible interviewees to those of a certain age or class or location. Imagine actually going out and getting your sample (making your dish). Do you have all the necessary details to get started?

Table 5.1. Sampling Type and Strategies

Further Readings

Fusch, Patricia I., and Lawrence R. Ness. 2015. “Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Report 20(9):1408–1416.

Saunders, Benjamin, Julius Sim, Tom Kinstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. 2018. “Saturation in Qualitative Research: Exploring Its Conceptualization and Operationalization.”  Quality & Quantity  52(4):1893–1907.

• Rubin ( 2021 ) suggests a minimum of twenty interviews (but safer with thirty) for an interview-based study and a minimum of three to six months in the field for ethnographic studies. For a content-based study, she suggests between five hundred and one thousand documents, although some will be “very small” ( 243–244 ). ↵

The process of selecting people or other units of analysis to represent a larger population. In quantitative research, this representation is taken quite literally, as statistically representative.  In qualitative research, in contrast, sample selection is often made based on potential to generate insight about a particular topic or phenomenon.

The actual list of individuals that the sample will be drawn from. Ideally, it should include the entire target population (and nobody who is not part of that population).  Sampling frames can differ from the larger population when specific exclusions are inherent, as in the case of pulling names randomly from voter registration rolls where not everyone is a registered voter.  This difference in frame and population can undercut the generalizability of quantitative results.

The specific group of individuals that you will collect data from.  Contrast population.

The large group of interest to the researcher.  Although it will likely be impossible to design a study that incorporates or reaches all members of the population of interest, this should be clearly defined at the outset of a study so that a reasonable sample of the population can be taken.  For example, if one is studying working-class college students, the sample may include twenty such students attending a particular college, while the population is “working-class college students.”  In quantitative research, clearly defining the general population of interest is a necessary step in generalizing results from a sample.  In qualitative research, defining the population is conceptually important for clarity.

A sampling strategy in which the sample is chosen to represent (numerically) the larger population from which it is drawn by random selection.  Each person in the population has an equal chance of making it into the sample.  This is often done through a lottery or other chance mechanisms (e.g., a random selection of every twelfth name on an alphabetical list of voters).  Also known as random sampling .

The selection of research participants or other data sources based on availability or accessibility, in contrast to purposive sampling .

A sample generated non-randomly by asking participants to help recruit more participants the idea being that a person who fits your sampling criteria probably knows other people with similar criteria.

Broad codes that are assigned to the main issues emerging in the data; identifying themes is often part of initial coding . 

A form of case selection focusing on examples that do not fit the emerging patterns. This allows the researcher to evaluate rival explanations or to define the limitations of their research findings. While disconfirming cases are found (not sought out), researchers should expand their analysis or rethink their theories to include/explain them.

A methodological tradition of inquiry and approach to analyzing qualitative data in which theories emerge from a rigorous and systematic process of induction.  This approach was pioneered by the sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967).  The elements of theory generated from comparative analysis of data are, first, conceptual categories and their properties and, second, hypotheses or generalized relations among the categories and their properties – “The constant comparing of many groups draws the [researcher’s] attention to their many similarities and differences.  Considering these leads [the researcher] to generate abstract categories and their properties, which, since they emerge from the data, will clearly be important to a theory explaining the kind of behavior under observation.” (36).

The result of probability sampling, in which a sample is chosen to represent (numerically) the larger population from which it is drawn by random selection.  Each person in the population has an equal chance of making it into the random sample.  This is often done through a lottery or other chance mechanisms (e.g., the random selection of every twelfth name on an alphabetical list of voters).  This is typically not required in qualitative research but rather essential for the generalizability of quantitative research.

A form of case selection or purposeful sampling in which cases that are unusual or special in some way are chosen to highlight processes or to illuminate gaps in our knowledge of a phenomenon.   See also extreme case .

The point at which you can conclude data collection because every person you are interviewing, the interaction you are observing, or content you are analyzing merely confirms what you have already noted.  Achieving saturation is often used as the justification for the final sample size.

The accuracy with which results or findings can be transferred to situations or people other than those originally studied.  Qualitative studies generally are unable to use (and are uninterested in) statistical generalizability where the sample population is said to be able to predict or stand in for a larger population of interest.  Instead, qualitative researchers often discuss “theoretical generalizability,” in which the findings of a particular study can shed light on processes and mechanisms that may be at play in other settings.  See also statistical generalization and theoretical generalization .

A term used by IRBs to denote all materials aimed at recruiting participants into a research study (including printed advertisements, scripts, audio or video tapes, or websites).  Copies of this material are required in research protocols submitted to IRB.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

What We Offer

With a comprehensive suite of qualitative and quantitative capabilities and 55 years of experience in the industry, Sago powers insights through adaptive solutions.

• Recruitment
• Communities
• Methodify® Automated research
• QualBoard® Digital Discussions
• QualMeeting® Digital Interviews
• Global Qualitative
• Global Quantitative
• In-Person Facilities
• Research Consulting
• Europe Solutions
• Neuromarketing Tools
• Trial & Jury Consulting

Who We Serve

Form deeper customer connections and make the process of answering your business questions easier. Sago delivers unparalleled access to the audiences you need through adaptive solutions and a consultative approach.

• Consumer Packaged Goods
• Financial Services
• Media Technology
• Medical Device Manufacturing
• Marketing Research

With a 55-year legacy of impact, Sago has proven we have what it takes to be a long-standing industry leader and partner. We continually advance our range of expertise to provide our clients with the highest level of confidence.​

• Global Offices
• Partnerships & Certifications
• News & Media
• Researcher Events

Sago Announces Launch of Sago Health to Elevate Healthcare Research

Sago Launches AI Video Summaries on QualBoard to Streamline Data Synthesis

Sago Executive Chairman Steve Schlesinger to Receive Quirk’s Lifetime Achievement Award

Drop into your new favorite insights rabbit hole and explore content created by the leading minds in market research.

• Case Studies
• Knowledge Kit

Enhancing Respondent Engagement: Best Practices for Modern Quant & Qual Design

Hottest Trends in Market Research Revealed

Get in touch

• Account Logins

Different Types of Sampling Techniques in Qualitative Research

• Resources , Blog

Key Takeaways:

• Sampling techniques in qualitative research include purposive, convenience, snowball, and theoretical sampling.
• Choosing the right sampling technique significantly impacts the accuracy and reliability of the research results.
• It’s crucial to consider the potential impact on the bias, sample diversity, and generalizability when choosing a sampling technique for your qualitative research.

Qualitative research seeks to understand social phenomena from the perspective of those experiencing them. It involves collecting non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and written documents to gain insights into human experiences, attitudes, and behaviors. While qualitative research can provide rich and nuanced insights, the accuracy and generalizability of findings depend on the quality of the sampling process. Sampling techniques are a critical component of qualitative research as it involves selecting a group of participants who can provide valuable insights into the research questions.

This article explores different types of sampling techniques in qualitative research. First, we’ll provide a comprehensive overview of four standard sampling techniques in qualitative research. and then compare and contrast these techniques to provide guidance on choosing the most appropriate method for a particular study. Additionally, you’ll find best practices for sampling and learn about ethical considerations researchers need to consider in selecting a sample. Overall, this article aims to help researchers conduct effective and high-quality sampling in qualitative research.

In this Article:

• Purposive Sampling
• Convenience Sampling
• Snowball Sampling
• Theoretical Sampling

Factors to Consider When Choosing a Sampling Technique

Practical approaches to sampling: recommended practices, final thoughts, get expert guidance on your sample needs.

Want expert input on the best sampling technique for your qualitative research project? Book a consultation for trusted advice.

Request a consultation

4 Types of Sampling Techniques and Their Applications

Sampling is a crucial aspect of qualitative research as it determines the representativeness and credibility of the data collected. Several sampling techniques are used in qualitative research, each with strengths and weaknesses. In this section, let’s explore four standard sampling techniques in qualitative research: purposive sampling, convenience sampling, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling. We’ll break down the definition of each technique, when to use it, and its advantages and disadvantages.

1. Purposive Sampling

Purposive sampling, or judgmental sampling, is a non-probability sampling technique in qualitative research that’s commonly used. In purposive sampling, researchers intentionally select participants with specific characteristics or unique experiences related to the research question. The goal is to identify and recruit participants who can provide rich and diverse data to enhance the research findings.

Purposive sampling is used when researchers seek to identify individuals or groups with particular knowledge, skills, or experiences relevant to the research question. For instance, in a study examining the experiences of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, purposive sampling may be used to recruit participants who have undergone chemotherapy in the past year. Researchers can better understand the phenomenon under investigation by selecting individuals with relevant backgrounds.

Purposive Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

Purposive sampling is a powerful tool for researchers seeking to select participants who can provide valuable insight into their research question. This method is advantageous when studying groups with technical characteristics or experiences where a random selection of participants may yield different results.

One of the main advantages of purposive sampling is the ability to improve the quality and accuracy of data collected by selecting participants most relevant to the research question. This approach also enables researchers to collect data from diverse participants with unique perspectives and experiences related to the research question.

However, researchers should also be aware of potential bias when using purposive sampling. The researcher’s judgment may influence the selection of participants, resulting in a biased sample that does not accurately represent the broader population. Another disadvantage is that purposive sampling may not be representative of the more general population, which limits the generalizability of the findings. To guarantee the accuracy and dependability of data obtained through purposive sampling, researchers must provide a clear and transparent justification of their selection criteria and sampling approach. This entails outlining the specific characteristics or experiences required for participants to be included in the study and explaining the rationale behind these criteria. This level of transparency not only helps readers to evaluate the validity of the findings, but also enhances the replicability of the research.

2. Convenience Sampling  

When time and resources are limited, researchers may opt for convenience sampling as a quick and cost-effective way to recruit participants. In this non-probability sampling technique, participants are selected based on their accessibility and willingness to participate rather than their suitability for the research question. Qualitative research often uses this approach to generate various perspectives and experiences.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, convenience sampling was a valuable method for researchers to collect data quickly and efficiently from participants who were easily accessible and willing to participate. For example, in a study examining the experiences of university students during the pandemic, convenience sampling allowed researchers to recruit students who were available and willing to share their experiences quickly. While the pandemic may be over, convenience sampling during this time highlights its value in urgent situations where time and resources are limited.

Convenience Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

Convenience sampling offers several advantages to researchers, including its ease of implementation and cost-effectiveness. This technique allows researchers to quickly and efficiently recruit participants without spending time and resources identifying and contacting potential participants. Furthermore, convenience sampling can result in a diverse pool of participants, as individuals from various backgrounds and experiences may be more likely to participate.

While convenience sampling has the advantage of being efficient, researchers need to acknowledge its limitations. One of the primary drawbacks of convenience sampling is that it is susceptible to selection bias. Participants who are more easily accessible may not be representative of the broader population, which can limit the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, convenience sampling may lead to issues with the reliability of the results, as it may not be possible to replicate the study using the same sample or a similar one.

To mitigate these limitations, researchers should carefully define the population of interest and ensure the sample is drawn from that population. For instance, if a study is investigating the experiences of individuals with a particular medical condition, researchers can recruit participants from specialized clinics or support groups for that condition. Researchers can also use statistical techniques such as stratified sampling or weighting to adjust for potential biases in the sample.

3. Snowball Sampling

Snowball sampling, also called referral sampling, is a unique approach researchers use to recruit participants in qualitative research. The technique involves identifying a few initial participants who meet the eligibility criteria and asking them to refer others they know who also fit the requirements. The sample size grows as referrals are added, creating a chain-like structure.

Snowball sampling enables researchers to reach out to individuals who may be hard to locate through traditional sampling methods, such as members of marginalized or hidden communities. For instance, in a study examining the experiences of undocumented immigrants, snowball sampling may be used to identify and recruit participants through referrals from other undocumented immigrants.

Snowball Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

Snowball sampling can produce in-depth and detailed data from participants with common characteristics or experiences. Since referrals are made within a network of individuals who share similarities, researchers can gain deep insights into a specific group’s attitudes, behaviors, and perspectives.

4. Theoretical Sampling

Theoretical sampling is a sophisticated and strategic technique that can help researchers develop more in-depth and nuanced theories from their data. Instead of selecting participants based on convenience or accessibility, researchers using theoretical sampling choose participants based on their potential to contribute to the emerging themes and concepts in the data. This approach allows researchers to refine their research question and theory based on the data they collect rather than forcing their data to fit a preconceived idea.

Theoretical sampling is used when researchers conduct grounded theory research and have developed an initial theory or conceptual framework. In a study examining cancer survivors’ experiences, for example, theoretical sampling may be used to identify and recruit participants who can provide new insights into the coping strategies of survivors.

Theoretical Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

One of the significant advantages of theoretical sampling is that it allows researchers to refine their research question and theory based on emerging data. This means the research can be highly targeted and focused, leading to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Additionally, theoretical sampling can generate rich and in-depth data, as participants are selected based on their potential to provide new insights into the research question.

Participants are selected based on their perceived ability to offer new perspectives on the research question. This means specific perspectives or experiences may be overrepresented in the sample, leading to an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Additionally, theoretical sampling can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, as researchers must continuously analyze the data and recruit new participants.

To mitigate the potential for bias, researchers can take several steps. One way to reduce bias is to use a diverse team of researchers to analyze the data and make participant selection decisions. Having multiple perspectives and backgrounds can help prevent researchers from unconsciously selecting participants who fit their preconceived notions or biases.

Another solution would be to use reflexive sampling. Reflexive sampling involves selecting participants aware of the research process and provides insights into how their biases and experiences may influence their perspectives. By including participants who are reflexive about their subjectivity, researchers can generate more nuanced and self-aware findings.

Choosing the proper sampling technique in qualitative research is one of the most critical decisions a researcher makes when conducting a study. The preferred method can significantly impact the accuracy and reliability of the research results.

For instance, purposive sampling provides a more targeted and specific sample, which helps to answer research questions related to that particular population or phenomenon. However, this approach may also introduce bias by limiting the diversity of the sample.

Conversely, convenience sampling may offer a more diverse sample regarding demographics and backgrounds but may also introduce bias by selecting more willing or available participants.

Snowball sampling may help study hard-to-reach populations, but it can also limit the sample’s diversity as participants are selected based on their connections to existing participants.

Theoretical sampling may offer an opportunity to refine the research question and theory based on emerging data, but it can also be time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Additionally, the choice of sampling technique can impact the generalizability of the research findings. Therefore, it’s crucial to consider the potential impact on the bias, sample diversity, and generalizability when choosing a sampling technique. By doing so, researchers can select the most appropriate method for their research question and ensure the validity and reliability of their findings.

Tips for Selecting Participants

When selecting participants for a qualitative research study, it is crucial to consider the research question and the purpose of the study. In addition, researchers should identify the specific characteristics or criteria they seek in their sample and select participants accordingly.

One helpful tip for selecting participants is to use a pre-screening process to ensure potential participants meet the criteria for inclusion in the study. Another technique is using multiple recruitment methods to ensure the sample is diverse and representative of the studied population.

Ensuring Diversity in Samples

Diversity in the sample is important to ensure the study’s findings apply to a wide range of individuals and situations. One way to ensure diversity is to use stratified sampling, which involves dividing the population into subgroups and selecting participants from each subset. This helps establish that the sample is representative of the larger population.

Maintaining Ethical Considerations

When selecting participants for a qualitative research study, it is essential to ensure ethical considerations are taken into account. Researchers must ensure participants are fully informed about the study and provide their voluntary consent to participate. They must also ensure participants understand their rights and that their confidentiality and privacy will be protected.

A qualitative research study’s success hinges on its sampling technique’s effectiveness. The choice of sampling technique must be guided by the research question, the population being studied, and the purpose of the study. Whether purposive, convenience, snowball, or theoretical sampling, the primary goal is to ensure the validity and reliability of the study’s findings.

By thoughtfully weighing the pros and cons of each sampling technique in qualitative research, researchers can make informed decisions that lead to more reliable and accurate results. In conclusion, carefully selecting a sampling technique is integral to the success of a qualitative research study, and a thorough understanding of the available options can make all the difference in achieving high-quality research outcomes.

If you’re interested in improving your research and sampling methods, Sago offers a variety of solutions. Our qualitative research platforms, such as QualBoard and QualMeeting, can assist you in conducting research studies with precision and efficiency. Our robust global panel and recruitment options help you reach the right people. We also offer qualitative and quantitative research services to meet your research needs. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help improve your research outcomes.

Find the Right Sample for Your Qualitative Research

Trust our team to recruit the participants you need using the appropriate techniques. Book a consultation with our team to get started .

The Swing Voters Project, May 2024: Georgia

Women’s Health: Addressing the Elephant in the Room

Guide: Respondent Engagement Playbook

The Hidden Truths of Women’s Health Revealed

Report: Perceptions of Women’s Health

A New Generation Is Born: Meet Gen C

OnDemand: Breaking the Silence on Women’s Health: From Perception to Truth

The Swing Voter Project Pennsylvania: April 2024

Revolutionizing Healthcare Research: A Q&A With Industry Experts

The Deciders April 2024: Michigan Voters in Union Households

Take a deep dive into your favorite market research topics

How can we help support you and your research needs?

BEFORE YOU GO

Have you considered how to harness AI in your research process? Check out our on-demand webinar for everything you need to know

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Methodology
• Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques, & Examples

Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques, & Examples

Published on 3 May 2022 by Shona McCombes . Revised on 10 October 2022.

When you conduct research about a group of people, it’s rarely possible to collect data from every person in that group. Instead, you select a sample. The sample is the group of individuals who will actually participate in the research.

To draw valid conclusions from your results, you have to carefully decide how you will select a sample that is representative of the group as a whole. There are two types of sampling methods:

• Probability sampling involves random selection, allowing you to make strong statistical inferences about the whole group. It minimises the risk of selection bias .
• Non-probability sampling involves non-random selection based on convenience or other criteria, allowing you to easily collect data.

You should clearly explain how you selected your sample in the methodology section of your paper or thesis.

Table of contents

Population vs sample, probability sampling methods, non-probability sampling methods, frequently asked questions about sampling.

First, you need to understand the difference between a population and a sample , and identify the target population of your research.

• The population is the entire group that you want to draw conclusions about.
• The sample is the specific group of individuals that you will collect data from.

The population can be defined in terms of geographical location, age, income, and many other characteristics.

It is important to carefully define your target population according to the purpose and practicalities of your project.

If the population is very large, demographically mixed, and geographically dispersed, it might be difficult to gain access to a representative sample.

Sampling frame

The sampling frame is the actual list of individuals that the sample will be drawn from. Ideally, it should include the entire target population (and nobody who is not part of that population).

You are doing research on working conditions at Company X. Your population is all 1,000 employees of the company. Your sampling frame is the company’s HR database, which lists the names and contact details of every employee.

Sample size

The number of individuals you should include in your sample depends on various factors, including the size and variability of the population and your research design. There are different sample size calculators and formulas depending on what you want to achieve with statistical analysis .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

Probability sampling means that every member of the population has a chance of being selected. It is mainly used in quantitative research . If you want to produce results that are representative of the whole population, probability sampling techniques are the most valid choice.

There are four main types of probability sample.

1. Simple random sampling

In a simple random sample , every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. Your sampling frame should include the whole population.

To conduct this type of sampling, you can use tools like random number generators or other techniques that are based entirely on chance.

You want to select a simple random sample of 100 employees of Company X. You assign a number to every employee in the company database from 1 to 1000, and use a random number generator to select 100 numbers.

2. Systematic sampling

Systematic sampling is similar to simple random sampling, but it is usually slightly easier to conduct. Every member of the population is listed with a number, but instead of randomly generating numbers, individuals are chosen at regular intervals.

All employees of the company are listed in alphabetical order. From the first 10 numbers, you randomly select a starting point: number 6. From number 6 onwards, every 10th person on the list is selected (6, 16, 26, 36, and so on), and you end up with a sample of 100 people.

If you use this technique, it is important to make sure that there is no hidden pattern in the list that might skew the sample. For example, if the HR database groups employees by team, and team members are listed in order of seniority, there is a risk that your interval might skip over people in junior roles, resulting in a sample that is skewed towards senior employees.

3. Stratified sampling

Stratified sampling involves dividing the population into subpopulations that may differ in important ways. It allows you draw more precise conclusions by ensuring that every subgroup is properly represented in the sample.

To use this sampling method, you divide the population into subgroups (called strata) based on the relevant characteristic (e.g., gender, age range, income bracket, job role).

Based on the overall proportions of the population, you calculate how many people should be sampled from each subgroup. Then you use random or systematic sampling to select a sample from each subgroup.

The company has 800 female employees and 200 male employees. You want to ensure that the sample reflects the gender balance of the company, so you sort the population into two strata based on gender. Then you use random sampling on each group, selecting 80 women and 20 men, which gives you a representative sample of 100 people.

4. Cluster sampling

Cluster sampling also involves dividing the population into subgroups, but each subgroup should have similar characteristics to the whole sample. Instead of sampling individuals from each subgroup, you randomly select entire subgroups.

If it is practically possible, you might include every individual from each sampled cluster. If the clusters themselves are large, you can also sample individuals from within each cluster using one of the techniques above. This is called multistage sampling .

This method is good for dealing with large and dispersed populations, but there is more risk of error in the sample, as there could be substantial differences between clusters. It’s difficult to guarantee that the sampled clusters are really representative of the whole population.

The company has offices in 10 cities across the country (all with roughly the same number of employees in similar roles). You don’t have the capacity to travel to every office to collect your data, so you use random sampling to select 3 offices – these are your clusters.

In a non-probability sample , individuals are selected based on non-random criteria, and not every individual has a chance of being included.

This type of sample is easier and cheaper to access, but it has a higher risk of sampling bias . That means the inferences you can make about the population are weaker than with probability samples, and your conclusions may be more limited. If you use a non-probability sample, you should still aim to make it as representative of the population as possible.

Non-probability sampling techniques are often used in exploratory and qualitative research . In these types of research, the aim is not to test a hypothesis about a broad population, but to develop an initial understanding of a small or under-researched population.

1. Convenience sampling

A convenience sample simply includes the individuals who happen to be most accessible to the researcher.

This is an easy and inexpensive way to gather initial data, but there is no way to tell if the sample is representative of the population, so it can’t produce generalisable results.

You are researching opinions about student support services in your university, so after each of your classes, you ask your fellow students to complete a survey on the topic. This is a convenient way to gather data, but as you only surveyed students taking the same classes as you at the same level, the sample is not representative of all the students at your university.

2. Voluntary response sampling

Similar to a convenience sample, a voluntary response sample is mainly based on ease of access. Instead of the researcher choosing participants and directly contacting them, people volunteer themselves (e.g., by responding to a public online survey).

Voluntary response samples are always at least somewhat biased, as some people will inherently be more likely to volunteer than others.

You send out the survey to all students at your university and many students decide to complete it. This can certainly give you some insight into the topic, but the people who responded are more likely to be those who have strong opinions about the student support services, so you can’t be sure that their opinions are representative of all students.

3. Purposive sampling

Purposive sampling , also known as judgement sampling, involves the researcher using their expertise to select a sample that is most useful to the purposes of the research.

It is often used in qualitative research , where the researcher wants to gain detailed knowledge about a specific phenomenon rather than make statistical inferences, or where the population is very small and specific. An effective purposive sample must have clear criteria and rationale for inclusion.

You want to know more about the opinions and experiences of students with a disability at your university, so you purposely select a number of students with different support needs in order to gather a varied range of data on their experiences with student services.

4. Snowball sampling

If the population is hard to access, snowball sampling can be used to recruit participants via other participants. The number of people you have access to ‘snowballs’ as you get in contact with more people.

You are researching experiences of homelessness in your city. Since there is no list of all homeless people in the city, probability sampling isn’t possible. You meet one person who agrees to participate in the research, and she puts you in contact with other homeless people she knows in the area.

A sample is a subset of individuals from a larger population. Sampling means selecting the group that you will actually collect data from in your research.

For example, if you are researching the opinions of students in your university, you could survey a sample of 100 students.

Statistical sampling allows you to test a hypothesis about the characteristics of a population. There are various sampling methods you can use to ensure that your sample is representative of the population as a whole.

Samples are used to make inferences about populations . Samples are easier to collect data from because they are practical, cost-effective, convenient, and manageable.

Probability sampling means that every member of the target population has a known chance of being included in the sample.

Probability sampling methods include simple random sampling , systematic sampling , stratified sampling , and cluster sampling .

In non-probability sampling , the sample is selected based on non-random criteria, and not every member of the population has a chance of being included.

Common non-probability sampling methods include convenience sampling , voluntary response sampling, purposive sampling , snowball sampling , and quota sampling .

Sampling bias occurs when some members of a population are systematically more likely to be selected in a sample than others.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

McCombes, S. (2022, October 10). Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques, & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 27 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/research-methods/sampling/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is quantitative research | definition & methods, a quick guide to experimental design | 5 steps & examples, controlled experiments | methods & examples of control.

English Editing Research Services

Qualitative Research Sampling Methods: Pros and Cons to Help You Choose

Your choice of sampling strategy can deeply impact your research findings, especially in qualitative studies, where every person counts.

There’s so much written on methods that it can sometimes feel overwhelming when you’re first discovering what’s out there. Even if you’re well into your research career, you may find yourself sticking with the same methodology again and again.

Many researchers focus on quantitative methodology. But they can greatly benefit from knowing qualitative methodology for use in mixed-methods studies and to better understand other studies.

This article aims to help you dive into the most widely recognized qualitative sampling strategies shortly and objectively.

What you ’ ll learn in this post

• All the most common types of qualitative research sampling methods.

• When to use each method.

• Pros and cons of each method.

• Specific examples of these qualitative sampling methods in use.

• Where to get your research both critiqued and edited, be it qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods.

Your first step in choosing a qualitative sampling strategy

So, where do you start when you know you need to do more than grab students walking by your office? One of the first and most important decisions you must make about your sampling strategy is defining a clear sampling frame .

The cases you choose for your sample need to cover the various issues and variables you want to explore in your research. A fundamental aspect of your sample is that it should always contain the cases most likely to provide you with the richest data (Gray, 2004).

Owing to time and expense, qualitative research often works with small samples of people, cases, or phenomena in particular contexts. Therefore, unlike in quantitative research, samples tend to be more purposive (using your judgment) than they are random (Flick, 2009). This post will cover those main purposive sampling strategies.

It’s also important to keep in mind that qualitative samples are sometimes predetermined ­– what’s known as a priori determination, and other times follow more flexible determination (Flick, 2009).

So this article is organized based on those two parameters: a priori and more flexible determination.

And take note that in certain strategies it’s possible to start with a predetermined sample and end up extending it, or even varying it, for a valid reason.

Qualitative research is much more flexible than quantitative research. You iterate, you run another round, you seek saturation.

OK? Let’s see what’s on the qualitative menu. Hope you find something tasty.

A priori determination

Comprehensive sampling.

Comprehensive (or total population) sampling is a strategy that examines every case or instance of a given population that has specific characteristics (e.g., attributes, traits, experience, knowledge) you’re interested in for your study (Gray, 2004).

This sampling strategy is somewhat unusual because it’s often hard to sample the entire population of interest.

When to use it

It’s ideal for studies that focus on a specific organization or people with such specific characteristics that it’s possible to contact the whole population that has them (Gray, 2004).

Basically, two aspects are key to using this method

• population size being somewhat small
• having uncommon characteristics

One example would be studying perceptions about leadership within a small company (e.g., 10–30 people), where your sample could easily be every employee within the company.

• Ideal for further analyzing, differentiating, and perhaps testing (Flick, 2009).
• It might facilitate confidence in the validity of the results of research that use this method because it covers every case in a given population.
• Reduced risk of missing valuable insights.
• Only applicable to very specific studies because it requires the targeted population to be small and have uncommon characteristics.
• Very limited potential for generalizability.

Practical example: Gerhard (as cited in Flick, 2009, p. 117) used this strategy to study the careers of patients with chronic renal failure. The sample was a complete collection of all patients with predetermined characteristics (male, married, age 30­–50 years, at the start of treatment at five hospitals in the UK).

Note that for this particular study, sampling was limited to several criteria: a specific sex, disease, marital status, age, region, and a limited period.

These predetermined characteristics were what allowed the researchers to achieve a comprehensive (total population) sample.

Extreme/deviant sampling

Extreme/deviant sampling is intentionally selecting extremes and trying to identify the factors that affect them (Gray, 2004).

It’s usually used to focus on special or uncommon cases such as noteworthy successes or failures. For instance, if you’re conducting a study about a reform program, you can include particularly successful examples and/or cases of big failures – these are two extremes, which is where the “extreme/deviant” name comes from (Flick, 2009).

It’s ideal for studying special/unusual cases in a particular context.

• Allows you to collect focused information on a very particular phenomenon.
• It’s sometimes regarded as producing the “purest” form of insight into a particular phenomenon.
• Lets you collect insights from two very distinct perspectives, which will help you get an understanding of the phenomena as a whole.
• The danger of mistakenly generalizing from extreme cases.
• Selection bias

Practical example: Perhaps one of the most widely recognized studies that used this sampling method was Waterman and Peters’ In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies , published in 1982.

The researchers chose 62 companies based on their outstanding (extreme) success in terms of innovation and excellence (see Peters & Waterman [2004]).

Intensity sampling

Intensity sampling fundamentally involves the same logic as extreme/deviant case sampling, but it has less emphasis on the extremes.

Cases chosen for an intensity sample should be information-rich, manifesting the phenomenon intensely but not extremely; therefore capturing more typical cases compared with those at the extremes (Patton, 2002; Gray, 2004; Benoot, Hannes & Bilsen, 2016).

Patton (2002) argues that ideally, you should use this when you already have prior information about the variation of the subject you want to study. Some exploratory research might be needed depending on what you are researching.

• Great for heuristic research/inquiry (Patton, 2002).
• By choosing intensive cases that aren’t extreme/deviant, you can avoid the distortion that extreme cases sometimes bring (Patton, 2002).
• Involves some prior information and considerable judgment. The researcher must do some exploratory work to grasp the nature of the variation of the specific situation he is researching about (Patton, 2002)
• It requires an extended knowledge of the phenomena being studied to not mix cases that have sufficient intensity with the ones at the extremes (Patton, 2002).

Practical example: Researching above average/below average students would be a time to use this sampling method. This is because they experience the educational system intensely but aren’t extreme cases.

Maximum variation sampling

The maximum variation sampling strategy aims at capturing and describing a wide range of variations and that cut across what you want to research (Patton, 2002; Gray, 2004). How can you proceed to guarantee that you capture a high level of variation?

You can start by setting specific characteristics where you’ll look for variation that the literature (or you) identify as relevant for the phenomenon you’re researching. These may be education level, ethnicity, age, or socioeconomic status.

For small samples, having too much heterogeneity can be a problem because each case may be very different from the other.

But according to Patton (2002), this method might turn that weakness into a strength.

It does so by applying this logic: any common pattern that emerges from this kind of sample is of particular interest and value in capturing the core experiences and central, shared dimensions of a setting or phenomenon.

When to use it: Whenever you want to explore the variation of perceptions/practices concerning a broad phenomenon.

• Allows the researcher to capture all variations of a phenomenon (Patton, 2002; Schreier, 2018).
• Finds detailed insights about each variation (Patton, 2002; Schreier, 2018).
• In small samples, sometimes cases are so different from one another that no common patterns emerge (Patton, 2002).

Practical example: Ziebland et al. (2004) was about how the internet affects patients’ experiences with cancer. It used a maximum variation sample to maximize the variety of insights.

The researchers purposively looked for people that differed in: type of cancer they had, stage of cancer, age, and sex.

Homogenous sampling

The homogenous sampling strategy can be seen as the exact opposite of maximum variation sampling because it seeks homogenous groups of people, settings, or contexts to be studied in-depth.

With this kind of sample, using focus group interviewing might prove extremely productive (Gray, 2004).

Use it if your research aims to specifically focus on a group with shared characteristics.

• Produces highly detailed insights regarding a specific group (Patton, 2002).
• Highly compatible with focus group interviews (Patton, 2002).
• Can simplify the analysis (Patton, 2002).
• Doesn’t let the researcher capture much variation (Patton, 2002).

Practical example: Nestbitt et al. (2012) was a study about Canadian adolescent mothers’ perceptions of influences on breastfeeding decisions. The researchers purposefully collected 16 homogenous cases of adolescent mothers (15­–19 years) that lived in the Durham region and had children up to 12 months old.

Other criteria included speaking English fluently and breastfeeding their infant at least once.

The aim of the researchers by using this method was to produce an in-depth look at this very specific group.

Theory-based sampling

Theory-based sampling is basically a more formal type of criterion sampling, it’s more conceptually oriented, and the cases are chosen on the basis that they represent a theoretical construct (Patton, 2002; Gray, 2004).

The researcher samples incidents, periods of someone’s life, time periods, or people based on the potential manifestation or representation of important theoretical constructs.

Use this one when you want to study a pre-existing theory-derived concept that is of interest to your research.

• Elaborating on previous theoretical and established concepts can facilitate the analysis.
• Working on established theoretical concepts allows you to contribute new insights for an established theory.
• The odds of finding out something entirely “new” are somewhat limited.
• It might be harder to determine the population of interest because it’s hard to find people, programs, organizations, or communities of interest to a specific theoretical construct. This is unlike what happens when sampling based on determined people’s characteristics (Patton, 2002).

Practical example: Buckhold (as cited in Patton [2002, p. 238]) researched people who met specific theory-derived criteria for being “resilient.” She aimed to analyze the resilience of women who were victims of abuse and were able to survive.

Stratified purposive sampling

In stratified purposive sampling, decisions about the sample’s composition are made before data collection .

Schreier (2018) notes that it can be done in four steps:

• Deciding which factors are known or likely to cause variation in the phenomenon of interest.
• Selecting from two to a maximum of four factors for constructing a sampling guide.
• Combining the factors of choice in a cross-table, though when picking more than two factors, it might be impossible to conduct sampling for all factor combinations.
• Deciding on how many units for each cell/or factor combination.

Use this method when you want to explore known factors that influence the phenomenon of your interest.

These might be hypothesized in theory while having no empirical data supporting them. You can also purpose a factor and by including it on your sampling you might grasp its importance regarding the phenomena you’re researching.

• Allows you to focus on several known factors that of interest for your research (Schreier, 2018).
• Predetermining the composition of your sample might facilitate finding the cases/people/groups to research.
• Sticking to the predetermined composition might have trouble with new factors discovered from your first cases that are left unresearched.
• Finding the cases with the factors that are of most interest for your research might be challenging.

Practical example: Palacic (2017) examined entrepreneurial leadership and business performance in “gazelles” and “MICE” (business/market terms to describe a type of company). The sample was purposively constituted to contain cases from both types of companies that were involved in three major industrial sectors – manufacturing, sales, and services.

More flexible determination

Theoretical sampling.

Theoretical sampling was developed in the context of grounded theory methodology.

Fundamentally, it’s a process of data collection that aims to generate theory. It takes place in a constant interrelation between data collection and data analysis, and it’s guided by the concepts and/or theory emerging from the research process (Gray, 2004; Flick, 2009).

The sample is usually composed of heterogeneous cases that allow comparison of different instantiations (Schreier, 2018).

You can use this when you’re aiming to generate a new theory about a certain phenomenon.

• May bring more innovation to your research (Schreier, 2018).
• Your sample is more flexible compared with many other methods because there are no “static” criteria for your sample’s population.
• Not ideal for inexperienced researchers because generating a new theory is very challenging.
• Very time-consuming and complex.

Practical example: Glaser and Strauss (as cited in Flick, 2009, pp. 118–119) famously used this method to research awareness of dying in hospitals.

The researchers chose to conduct participant observation in different hospitals to develop a new theory about the way dying in a hospital is organized as a social process.

They built their sample through a step-by-step process while in direct contact with the field. First they studied awareness of dying in conditions that minimized patient awareness (e.g., comatose). Then they moved to situations where staff’s and patients’ awareness was high and death often was quick (e.g., intensive care). Then to situations where staff expectations of terminality were high, but dying tended to be slow (e.g., cancer). And ultimately to situations where death was unforeseen and rapid (e.g., emergency services).

Snowball sampling

Snowball sampling (or, chain referral sampling) is a method widely used in qualitative sociological research (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Gray, 2004; Flick, 2009; Heckathorn, 2011). It’s used a lot because it’s effective at getting numbers. It’s premised on the idea that people know people similar to themselves.

Snowballing especially useful for studying hard-to-reach populations. Snowball sampling has been most applicable in studies where the focus relies on a sensitive issue, something that might be a private matter that requires knowing insiders so you can locate, contact, and receive consent from the true target population (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Heckathorn, 2011).

The researcher forms a study sample through referrals made among people who are acquainted with others who have the characteristics of interest for the research. It begins through a convenience sample of someone of a hard-to-reach population.

After successfully interviewing/communicating with this person, the researcher will ask them to introduce other people with the same characteristics. After acquiring contacts, the research proceeds in the same way (Heckathorn, 2011).

As hard-to-reach groups are, well, hard to reach, snowball sampling is effective when you need an inroad and cannot easily recruit and sample.

• Ideal for studying hard-to-reach groups (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981; Gray, 2004; Flick, 2009; Heckathorn, 2011).
• Able to produce highly detailed insights regarding a specific group through the sampling of, in principle, information-rich cases (Patton, 2002).
• If the researcher is studying a topic that involves moral, legal, or socially sensitive issues (e.g., prostitution, drug addiction) and does not know anyone from this group, it might be hard to start the first “chain” that bring in more recruits.
• Very limited generalization potential.

Practical example: Cloud and Granfield (1994) used snowball sampling to study drug and alcohol addicts who beat their addictions without resorting to a treatment.

Using the snowballing method was fundamental to the authors because they were researching a widely distributed population (unlike those who participate in self-help groups or in treatment), and because the participants did not wish to expose their past as former drug addicts (i.e., sensitive issue).

Convenience sampling

Convenience sampling is a strategy that involves simply choosing cases in a way that is fast and convenient.

It’s probably the most common sampling strategy and, according to Patton (2002), the least desirable because it can’t be regarded as purposeful or strategic.

Many researchers choose this method thinking that their sample size is too small to generalize anyway, so they might as well pick cases that are easy to access and inexpensive to study (Patton, 2002).

This is a very common strategy among master’s students ­– asking fellow students to be part of the sample of their dissertation. That’s convenience sampling (Schreier, 2018). Also notable is that online surveying makes convenience sampling even simpler, beyond geographic limitations.

When you have few resources (mainly time and money) for your qualitative research, this is the go-to method. This is why so many studies are conducted on university students – they’re literally all over the place, whether you’re a student or researcher. As students, they’re also easier to incentivize with small compensation and they often are in the same boat.

• Saves time, money, and effort (Patton, 2002).
• Might be optimal for unfinanced and strictly timed qualitative research (often in master’s theses and in many doctoral dissertations).
• Something of a “bad reputation” (Schreier, 2018).
• Lowest credibility (Patton, 2002).
• Might yield information-poor cases (Patton, 2002).

Practical example: Augusto and Simões (2017) used a convenience sampling strategy to capture perceptions and prevention strategies on Facebook surveillance.

As the original fieldwork was part of a master’s dissertation, convenience sampling was chosen because of the main author’s limited time and resources. This is in no way to discredit the study and findings – it was simply the most feasible way to get the research done.

Confirming and disconfirming cases

Confirming and disconfirming cases is frequently a second-stage sampling strategy.

Cases are chosen on the premise that they can confirm or disconfirm emerging patterns from the first stage of sampling (Gray, 2004).

After an exploratory process, one might consider testing ideas, confirming the importance and/or meaning of eventual patterns, and ultimately the viability of the findings through collecting new data and/or sampling additional cases (Patton, 2002).

As the name indicates, generally, it’s ideal for testing emergent findings from your data.

• Strengthens emergent findings.
• Allows you to identify possible “exceptions that prove the rule” or exceptions that might disconfirm a finding (Patton, 2002).
• Usually requires a “first stage” of sampling.
• While definitely useful, one can certainly make an argument about quantitative research being better able to test certain findings.

Practical example: If you were researching students’ motives for applying for college, and on the first interviews you found out the interviewees’ main reason for pursuing their education was to avoid having a routine day-job, this might be a good sampling method to use. The findings, however, would have to carefully look at trends and check for outliers.

So, how’s your research going?

Here’s hoping you find the right qualitative sampling method(s) that work for you. Putting this together was a lesson for me as well.

And when you’re ready for a professional edit or scientific review, check out Edanz’s author-guidance services , which have been leading the way since 1995. Good luck with your research!

This is a guest post from Adam Goulston, PsyD, MBA, MS, MISD, ELS. Adam runs science marketing firm Scize and has worked an in-house Senior Language Editor, as well as a manuscript editor, with Edanz.

Augusto, F. R., & Simões, M. J. (2017). To see and be seen, to know and be known : Perceptions and prevention strategies on Facebook surveillance. Social Science Information , 56 (4), 596–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018417734974

Benoot, C., Hannes, K., & Bilsen, J. (2016). The use of purposeful sampling in a qualitative evidence synthesis : A worked example on sexual adjustment to a cancer trajectory. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16 (21), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0114-6

Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10 (2), 141–163.

Cloud, W., & Granfield, R. (1994). Terminating Addiction Naturally : Post-Addict Identity and the Avoidance of Treatment Terminating Addiction Naturally : Post-Addict Identity and the Avoidance of Treatment. Clinical Sociology Review , 12 (1), 159–174.

Flick, U. (2009). An Introduction To Qualitative Research . SAGE Publications (4th ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/978-1-84787-323-1

Gray, D. E. (2004). Doing Research in the Real World . London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Heckathorn, D. D. (2011). Comment: snowball versus respondent-driven sampling, 355–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2011.01244.x

Nesbitt, S. A., Campbell, K. A., Jack, S. M., Robinson, H., Piehl, K., & Bogdan, J. C. (2012). Canadian adolescent mothers’ perceptions of influences on breastfeeding decisions: a qualitative descriptive study, 1–14.

Palacic, R. (2017). The phenomenon of entrepreneurial leadership in gazelles and mice : a qualitative study from Bosnia and Herzegovina. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development , 13 (2/3).

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. (2004). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America’s Best-Run Companies . New York: First Harper Business Essentials.

Schreier, M. (2018). Sampling and Generalization In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Collection (pp. 84­­­–98). London, Sage Publications, Inc.

Ziebland, S., Chapple, A., Dumelow, C., Evans, J., Prinjha, S., & Rozmovits, L. (2004). Information in practice study: How the internet affects patients’ experience of cancer: A qualitative study. The BMJ, 328 (7434).

Sampling Methods & Strategies 101

Everything you need to know (including examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Kerryn Warren (PhD) | January 2023

If you’re new to research, sooner or later you’re bound to wander into the intimidating world of sampling methods and strategies. If you find yourself on this page, chances are you’re feeling a little overwhelmed or confused. Fear not – in this post we’ll unpack sampling in straightforward language , along with loads of examples .

Overview: Sampling Methods & Strategies

• What is sampling in a research context?
• The two overarching approaches

Simple random sampling

Stratified random sampling, cluster sampling, systematic sampling, purposive sampling, convenience sampling, snowball sampling.

• How to choose the right sampling method

What (exactly) is sampling?

At the simplest level, sampling (within a research context) is the process of selecting a subset of participants from a larger group . For example, if your research involved assessing US consumers’ perceptions about a particular brand of laundry detergent, you wouldn’t be able to collect data from every single person that uses laundry detergent (good luck with that!) – but you could potentially collect data from a smaller subset of this group.

In technical terms, the larger group is referred to as the population , and the subset (the group you’ll actually engage with in your research) is called the sample . Put another way, you can look at the population as a full cake and the sample as a single slice of that cake. In an ideal world, you’d want your sample to be perfectly representative of the population, as that would allow you to generalise your findings to the entire population. In other words, you’d want to cut a perfect cross-sectional slice of cake, such that the slice reflects every layer of the cake in perfect proportion.

Achieving a truly representative sample is, unfortunately, a little trickier than slicing a cake, as there are many practical challenges and obstacles to achieving this in a real-world setting. Thankfully though, you don’t always need to have a perfectly representative sample – it all depends on the specific research aims of each study – so don’t stress yourself out about that just yet!

With the concept of sampling broadly defined, let’s look at the different approaches to sampling to get a better understanding of what it all looks like in practice.

The two overarching sampling approaches

At the highest level, there are two approaches to sampling: probability sampling and non-probability sampling . Within each of these, there are a variety of sampling methods , which we’ll explore a little later.

Probability sampling involves selecting participants (or any unit of interest) on a statistically random basis , which is why it’s also called “random sampling”. In other words, the selection of each individual participant is based on a pre-determined process (not the discretion of the researcher). As a result, this approach achieves a random sample.

Probability-based sampling methods are most commonly used in quantitative research , especially when it’s important to achieve a representative sample that allows the researcher to generalise their findings.

Non-probability sampling , on the other hand, refers to sampling methods in which the selection of participants is not statistically random . In other words, the selection of individual participants is based on the discretion and judgment of the researcher, rather than on a pre-determined process.

Non-probability sampling methods are commonly used in qualitative research , where the richness and depth of the data are more important than the generalisability of the findings.

If that all sounds a little too conceptual and fluffy, don’t worry. Let’s take a look at some actual sampling methods to make it more tangible.

Need a helping hand?

Probability-based sampling methods

First, we’ll look at four common probability-based (random) sampling methods:

Importantly, this is not a comprehensive list of all the probability sampling methods – these are just four of the most common ones. So, if you’re interested in adopting a probability-based sampling approach, be sure to explore all the options.

Simple random sampling involves selecting participants in a completely random fashion , where each participant has an equal chance of being selected. Basically, this sampling method is the equivalent of pulling names out of a hat , except that you can do it digitally. For example, if you had a list of 500 people, you could use a random number generator to draw a list of 50 numbers (each number, reflecting a participant) and then use that dataset as your sample.

Thanks to its simplicity, simple random sampling is easy to implement , and as a consequence, is typically quite cheap and efficient . Given that the selection process is completely random, the results can be generalised fairly reliably. However, this also means it can hide the impact of large subgroups within the data, which can result in minority subgroups having little representation in the results – if any at all. To address this, one needs to take a slightly different approach, which we’ll look at next.

Stratified random sampling is similar to simple random sampling, but it kicks things up a notch. As the name suggests, stratified sampling involves selecting participants randomly , but from within certain pre-defined subgroups (i.e., strata) that share a common trait . For example, you might divide the population into strata based on gender, ethnicity, age range or level of education, and then select randomly from each group.

The benefit of this sampling method is that it gives you more control over the impact of large subgroups (strata) within the population. For example, if a population comprises 80% males and 20% females, you may want to “balance” this skew out by selecting a random sample from an equal number of males and females. This would, of course, reduce the representativeness of the sample, but it would allow you to identify differences between subgroups. So, depending on your research aims, the stratified approach could work well.

Next on the list is cluster sampling. As the name suggests, this sampling method involves sampling from naturally occurring, mutually exclusive clusters within a population – for example, area codes within a city or cities within a country. Once the clusters are defined, a set of clusters are randomly selected and then a set of participants are randomly selected from each cluster.

Now, you’re probably wondering, “how is cluster sampling different from stratified random sampling?”. Well, let’s look at the previous example where each cluster reflects an area code in a given city.

With cluster sampling, you would collect data from clusters of participants in a handful of area codes (let’s say 5 neighbourhoods). Conversely, with stratified random sampling, you would need to collect data from all over the city (i.e., many more neighbourhoods). You’d still achieve the same sample size either way (let’s say 200 people, for example), but with stratified sampling, you’d need to do a lot more running around, as participants would be scattered across a vast geographic area. As a result, cluster sampling is often the more practical and economical option.

If that all sounds a little mind-bending, you can use the following general rule of thumb. If a population is relatively homogeneous , cluster sampling will often be adequate. Conversely, if a population is quite heterogeneous (i.e., diverse), stratified sampling will generally be more appropriate.

The last probability sampling method we’ll look at is systematic sampling. This method simply involves selecting participants at a set interval , starting from a random point .

For example, if you have a list of students that reflects the population of a university, you could systematically sample that population by selecting participants at an interval of 8 . In other words, you would randomly select a starting point – let’s say student number 40 – followed by student 48, 56, 64, etc.

What’s important with systematic sampling is that the population list you select from needs to be randomly ordered . If there are underlying patterns in the list (for example, if the list is ordered by gender, IQ, age, etc.), this will result in a non-random sample, which would defeat the purpose of adopting this sampling method. Of course, you could safeguard against this by “shuffling” your population list using a random number generator or similar tool.

Non-probability-based sampling methods

Right, now that we’ve looked at a few probability-based sampling methods, let’s look at three non-probability methods :

Again, this is not an exhaustive list of all possible sampling methods, so be sure to explore further if you’re interested in adopting a non-probability sampling approach.

First up, we’ve got purposive sampling – also known as judgment , selective or subjective sampling. Again, the name provides some clues, as this method involves the researcher selecting participants using his or her own judgement , based on the purpose of the study (i.e., the research aims).

For example, suppose your research aims were to understand the perceptions of hyper-loyal customers of a particular retail store. In that case, you could use your judgement to engage with frequent shoppers, as well as rare or occasional shoppers, to understand what judgements drive the two behavioural extremes .

Purposive sampling is often used in studies where the aim is to gather information from a small population (especially rare or hard-to-find populations), as it allows the researcher to target specific individuals who have unique knowledge or experience . Naturally, this sampling method is quite prone to researcher bias and judgement error, and it’s unlikely to produce generalisable results, so it’s best suited to studies where the aim is to go deep rather than broad .

Next up, we have convenience sampling. As the name suggests, with this method, participants are selected based on their availability or accessibility . In other words, the sample is selected based on how convenient it is for the researcher to access it, as opposed to using a defined and objective process.

Naturally, convenience sampling provides a quick and easy way to gather data, as the sample is selected based on the individuals who are readily available or willing to participate. This makes it an attractive option if you’re particularly tight on resources and/or time. However, as you’d expect, this sampling method is unlikely to produce a representative sample and will of course be vulnerable to researcher bias , so it’s important to approach it with caution.

Last but not least, we have the snowball sampling method. This method relies on referrals from initial participants to recruit additional participants. In other words, the initial subjects form the first (small) snowball and each additional subject recruited through referral is added to the snowball, making it larger as it rolls along .

Snowball sampling is often used in research contexts where it’s difficult to identify and access a particular population. For example, people with a rare medical condition or members of an exclusive group. It can also be useful in cases where the research topic is sensitive or taboo and people are unlikely to open up unless they’re referred by someone they trust.

Simply put, snowball sampling is ideal for research that involves reaching hard-to-access populations . But, keep in mind that, once again, it’s a sampling method that’s highly prone to researcher bias and is unlikely to produce a representative sample. So, make sure that it aligns with your research aims and questions before adopting this method.

How to choose a sampling method

Now that we’ve looked at a few popular sampling methods (both probability and non-probability based), the obvious question is, “ how do I choose the right sampling method for my study?”. When selecting a sampling method for your research project, you’ll need to consider two important factors: your research aims and your resources .

As with all research design and methodology choices, your sampling approach needs to be guided by and aligned with your research aims, objectives and research questions – in other words, your golden thread. Specifically, you need to consider whether your research aims are primarily concerned with producing generalisable findings (in which case, you’ll likely opt for a probability-based sampling method) or with achieving rich , deep insights (in which case, a non-probability-based approach could be more practical). Typically, quantitative studies lean toward the former, while qualitative studies aim for the latter, so be sure to consider your broader methodology as well.

The second factor you need to consider is your resources and, more generally, the practical constraints at play. If, for example, you have easy, free access to a large sample at your workplace or university and a healthy budget to help you attract participants, that will open up multiple options in terms of sampling methods. Conversely, if you’re cash-strapped, short on time and don’t have unfettered access to your population of interest, you may be restricted to convenience or referral-based methods.

In short, be ready for trade-offs – you won’t always be able to utilise the “perfect” sampling method for your study, and that’s okay. Much like all the other methodological choices you’ll make as part of your study, you’ll often need to compromise and accept practical trade-offs when it comes to sampling. Don’t let this get you down though – as long as your sampling choice is well explained and justified, and the limitations of your approach are clearly articulated, you’ll be on the right track.

Let’s recap…

In this post, we’ve covered the basics of sampling within the context of a typical research project.

• Sampling refers to the process of defining a subgroup (sample) from the larger group of interest (population).
• The two overarching approaches to sampling are probability sampling (random) and non-probability sampling .
• Common probability-based sampling methods include simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, cluster sampling and systematic sampling.
• Common non-probability-based sampling methods include purposive sampling, convenience sampling and snowball sampling.
• When choosing a sampling method, you need to consider your research aims , objectives and questions, as well as your resources and other practical constraints .

If you’d like to see an example of a sampling strategy in action, be sure to check out our research methodology chapter sample .

Last but not least, if you need hands-on help with your sampling (or any other aspect of your research), take a look at our 1-on-1 coaching service , where we guide you through each step of the research process, at your own pace.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

Excellent and helpful. Best site to get a full understanding of Research methodology. I’m nolonger as “clueless “..😉

Excellent and helpful for junior researcher!

Grad Coach tutorials are excellent – I recommend them to everyone doing research. I will be working with a sample of imprisoned women and now have a much clearer idea concerning sampling. Thank you to all at Grad Coach for generously sharing your expertise with students.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

7.2 Sampling in Qualitative Research

Learning objectives.

• Define nonprobability sampling, and describe instances in which a researcher might choose a nonprobability sampling technique.
• Describe the different types of nonprobability samples.

Qualitative researchers typically make sampling choices that enable them to deepen understanding of whatever phenomenon it is that they are studying. In this section we’ll examine the strategies that qualitative researchers typically employ when sampling as well as the various types of samples that qualitative researchers are most likely to use in their work.

Nonprobability Sampling

Nonprobability sampling Sampling techniques for which a person’s likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown. refers to sampling techniques for which a person’s (or event’s or researcher’s focus’s) likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown. Because we don’t know the likelihood of selection, we don’t know with nonprobability samples whether a sample represents a larger population or not. But that’s OK, because representing the population is not the goal with nonprobability samples. That said, the fact that nonprobability samples do not represent a larger population does not mean that they are drawn arbitrarily or without any specific purpose in mind (once again, that would mean committing one of the errors of informal inquiry discussed in Chapter 1 "Introduction" ). In the following subsection, “Types of Nonprobability Samples,” we’ll take a closer look at the process of selecting research elements The individual unit that is the focus of a researcher’s investigation; possible elements in social science include people, documents, organizations, groups, beliefs, or behaviors. when drawing a nonprobability sample. But first, let’s consider why a researcher might choose to use a nonprobability sample.

So when are nonprobability samples ideal? One instance might be when we’re designing a research project. For example, if we’re conducting survey research, we may want to administer our survey to a few people who seem to resemble the folks we’re interested in studying in order to help work out kinks in the survey. We might also use a nonprobability sample at the early stages of a research project, if we’re conducting a pilot study or some exploratory research. This can be a quick way to gather some initial data and help us get some idea of the lay of the land before conducting a more extensive study. From these examples, we can see that nonprobability samples can be useful for setting up, framing, or beginning research. But it isn’t just early stage research that relies on and benefits from nonprobability sampling techniques.

Researchers also use nonprobability samples in full-blown research projects. These projects are usually qualitative in nature, where the researcher’s goal is in-depth, idiographic understanding rather than more general, nomothetic understanding. Evaluation researchers whose aim is to describe some very specific small group might use nonprobability sampling techniques, for example. Researchers interested in contributing to our theoretical understanding of some phenomenon might also collect data from nonprobability samples. Maren Klawiter (1999) Klawiter, M. (1999). Racing for the cure, walking women, and toxic touring: Mapping cultures of action within the Bay Area terrain of breast cancer. Social Problems, 46 , 104–126. relied on a nonprobability sample for her study of the role that culture plays in shaping social change. Klawiter conducted participant observation in three very different breast cancer organizations to understand “the bodily dimensions of cultural production and collective action.” Her intensive study of these three organizations allowed Klawiter to deeply understand each organization’s “culture of action” and, subsequently, to critique and contribute to broader theories of social change and social movement organization. Thus researchers interested in contributing to social theories, by either expanding on them, modifying them, or poking holes in their propositions, may use nonprobability sampling techniques to seek out cases that seem anomalous in order to understand how theories can be improved.

In sum, there are a number and variety of instances in which the use of nonprobability samples makes sense. We’ll examine several specific types of nonprobability samples in the next subsection.

Types of Nonprobability Samples

There are several types of nonprobability samples that researchers use. These include purposive samples, snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples. While the latter two strategies may be used by quantitative researchers from time to time, they are more typically employed in qualitative research, and because they are both nonprobability methods, we include them in this section of the chapter.

To draw a purposive sample A nonprobability sample type for which a researcher seeks out particular study elements that meet specific criteria that the researcher has identified. , a researcher begins with specific perspectives in mind that he or she wishes to examine and then seeks out research participants who cover that full range of perspectives. For example, if you are studying students’ satisfaction with their living quarters on campus, you’ll want to be sure to include students who stay in each of the different types or locations of on-campus housing in your study. If you only include students from 1 of 10 dorms on campus, you may miss important details about the experiences of students who live in the 9 dorms you didn’t include in your study. In my own interviews of young people about their workplace sexual harassment experiences, I and my coauthors used a purposive sampling strategy; we used participants’ prior responses on a survey to ensure that we included both men and women in the interviews and that we included participants who’d had a range of harassment experiences, from relatively minor experiences to much more severe harassment.

While purposive sampling is often used when one’s goal is to include participants who represent a broad range of perspectives, purposive sampling may also be used when a researcher wishes to include only people who meet very narrow or specific criteria. For example, in their study of Japanese women’s perceptions of intimate partner violence, Miyoko Nagae and Barbara L. Dancy (2010) Nagae, M., & Dancy, B. L. (2010). Japanese women’s perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25 , 753–766. limited their study only to participants who had experienced intimate partner violence themselves, were at least 18 years old, had been married and living with their spouse at the time that the violence occurred, were heterosexual, and were willing to be interviewed. In this case, the researchers’ goal was to find participants who had had very specific experiences rather than finding those who had had quite diverse experiences, as in the preceding example. In both cases, the researchers involved shared the goal of understanding the topic at hand in as much depth as possible.

Qualitative researchers sometimes rely on snowball sampling A nonprobability sample type for which a researcher recruits study participants by asking prior participants to refer others. techniques to identify study participants. In this case, a researcher might know of one or two people she’d like to include in her study but then relies on those initial participants to help identify additional study participants. Thus the researcher’s sample builds and becomes larger as the study continues, much as a snowball builds and becomes larger as it rolls through the snow.

Snowball sampling is an especially useful strategy when a researcher wishes to study some stigmatized group or behavior. For example, a researcher who wanted to study how people with genital herpes cope with their medical condition would be unlikely to find many participants by posting a call for interviewees in the newspaper or making an announcement about the study at some large social gathering. Instead, the researcher might know someone with the condition, interview that person, and then be referred by the first interviewee to another potential subject. Having a previous participant vouch for the trustworthiness of the researcher may help new potential participants feel more comfortable about being included in the study.

Snowball sampling is sometimes referred to as chain referral sampling. One research participant refers another, and that person refers another, and that person refers another—thus a chain of potential participants is identified. In addition to using this sampling strategy for potentially stigmatized populations, it is also a useful strategy to use when the researcher’s group of interest is likely to be difficult to find, not only because of some stigma associated with the group, but also because the group may be relatively rare. This was the case for Steven M. Kogan and colleagues (Kogan, Wejnert, Chen, Brody, & Slater, 2011) Kogan, S. M., Wejnert, C., Chen, Y., Brody, G. H., & Slater, L. M. (2011). Respondent-driven sampling with hard-to-reach emerging adults: An introduction and case study with rural African Americans. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26 , 30–60. who wished to study the sexual behaviors of non-college-bound African American young adults who lived in high-poverty rural areas. The researchers first relied on their own networks to identify study participants, but because members of the study’s target population were not easy to find, access to the networks of initial study participants was very important for identifying additional participants. Initial participants were given coupons to pass on to others they knew who qualified for the study. Participants were given an added incentive for referring eligible study participants; they received not only $50.00 for participating in the study but also $20.00 for each person they recruited who also participated in the study. Using this strategy, Kogan and colleagues succeeded in recruiting 292 study participants.

Quota sampling A nonprobability sample type for which a researcher identifies subgroups within a population of interest and then selects some predetermined number of elements from within each subgroup. is another nonprobability sampling strategy. This type of sampling is actually employed by both qualitative and quantitative researchers, but because it is a nonprobability method, we’ll discuss it in this section. When conducting quota sampling, a researcher identifies categories that are important to the study and for which there is likely to be some variation. Subgroups are created based on each category and the researcher decides how many people (or documents or whatever element happens to be the focus of the research) to include from each subgroup and collects data from that number for each subgroup.

Let’s go back to the example we considered previously of student satisfaction with on-campus housing. Perhaps there are two types of housing on your campus: apartments that include full kitchens and dorm rooms where residents do not cook for themselves but eat in a dorm cafeteria. As a researcher, you might wish to understand how satisfaction varies across these two types of housing arrangements. Perhaps you have the time and resources to interview 20 campus residents, so you decide to interview 10 from each housing type. It is possible as well that your review of literature on the topic suggests that campus housing experiences vary by gender. If that is that case, perhaps you’ll decide on four important subgroups: men who live in apartments, women who live in apartments, men who live in dorm rooms, and women who live in dorm rooms. Your quota sample would include five people from each subgroup.

In 1936, up-and-coming pollster George Gallup made history when he successfully predicted the outcome of the presidential election using quota sampling methods. The leading polling entity at the time, The Literary Digest , predicted that Alfred Landon would beat Franklin Roosevelt in the presidential election by a landslide. When Gallup’s prediction that Roosevelt would win, turned out to be correct, “the Gallup Poll was suddenly on the map” (Van Allen, 2011). Van Allen, S. (2011). Gallup corporate history. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/corporate/1357/Corporate-History.aspx#2 Gallup successfully predicted subsequent elections based on quota samples, but in 1948, Gallup incorrectly predicted that Dewey would beat Truman in the US presidential election. For more information about the 1948 election and other historically significant dates related to measurement, see the PBS timeline of “The first measured century” at http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/e1948election.htm . Among other problems, the fact that Gallup’s quota categories did not represent those who actually voted (Neuman, 2007) Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. underscores the point that one should avoid attempting to make statistical generalizations from data collected using quota sampling methods. If you are interested in the history of polling, I recommend a recent book: Fried, A. (2011). Pathways to polling: Crisis, cooperation, and the making of public opinion professions . New York, NY: Routledge. While quota sampling offers the strength of helping the researcher account for potentially relevant variation across study elements, it would be a mistake to think of this strategy as yielding statistically representative findings.

Finally, convenience sampling A nonprobability sample type for which a researcher gathers data from the elements that happen to be convenient; also referred to as haphazard sampling. is another nonprobability sampling strategy that is employed by both qualitative and quantitative researchers. To draw a convenience sample, a researcher simply collects data from those people or other relevant elements to which he or she has most convenient access. This method, also sometimes referred to as haphazard sampling, is most useful in exploratory research. It is also often used by journalists who need quick and easy access to people from their population of interest. If you’ve ever seen brief interviews of people on the street on the news, you’ve probably seen a haphazard sample being interviewed. While convenience samples offer one major benefit—convenience—we should be cautious about generalizing from research that relies on convenience samples.

Table 7.1 Types of Nonprobability Samples

Key Takeaways

• Nonprobability samples might be used when researchers are conducting exploratory research, by evaluation researchers, or by researchers whose aim is to make some theoretical contribution.
• There are several types of nonprobability samples including purposive samples, snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples.
• Imagine you are about to conduct a study of people’s use of the public parks in your hometown. Explain how you could employ each of the nonprobability sampling techniques described previously to recruit a sample for your study.
• Of the four nonprobability sample types described, which seems strongest to you? Which seems weakest? Explain.

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

10.2 Sampling in qualitative research

Learning objectives.

• Define nonprobability sampling, and describe instances in which a researcher might choose a nonprobability sampling technique
• Describe the different types of nonprobability samples

Qualitative researchers typically make sampling choices that enable them to achieve a deep understanding of whatever phenomenon it is that they are studying. In this section, we’ll examine the techniques that qualitative researchers typically employ when sampling as well as the various types of samples that qualitative researchers are most likely to use in their work.

Nonprobability sampling

Nonprobability sampling refers to sampling techniques for which a person’s likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown. Because we don’t know the likelihood of selection, we don’t know with nonprobability samples whether a sample is truly representative of a larger population. But that’s okay. Generalizing to a larger population is not the goal with nonprobability samples or qualitative research. That said, the fact that nonprobability samples do not represent a larger population does not mean that they are drawn arbitrarily or without any specific purpose in mind (that would mean committing one of the errors of informal inquiry discussed in Chapter 1). We’ll take a closer look at the process of selecting research elements when drawing a nonprobability sample. But first, let’s consider why a researcher might choose to use a nonprobability sample.

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

Types of nonprobability samples

There are several types of nonprobability samples that researchers use. These include purposive samples, snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples. While the latter two strategies may be used by quantitative researchers from time to time, they are more typically employed in qualitative research, and because they are both nonprobability methods, we include them in this section of the chapter.

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

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

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

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

In 1936, up-and-coming pollster George Gallup made history when he successfully predicted the outcome of the presidential election using quota sampling methods. The leading polling entity at the time, The Literary Digest, predicted that Alfred Landon would beat Franklin Roosevelt in the presidential election by a landslide, but Gallup’s polling disagreed. Gallup successfully predicted Roosevelt’s win and subsequent elections based on quota samples, but in 1948, Gallup incorrectly predicted that Dewey would beat Truman in the US presidential election.  [1] Among other problems, the fact that Gallup’s quota categories did not represent those who actually voted (Neuman, 2007)  [2] underscores the point that one should avoid attempting to make statistical generalizations from data collected using quota sampling methods.  [3] While quota sampling offers the strength of helping the researcher account for potentially relevant variation across study elements, it would be a mistake to think of this strategy as yielding statistically representative findings. For that, you need probability sampling, which we will discuss in the next section.

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

Snowball sampling is sometimes referred to as chain referral sampling. One research participant refers another, and that person refers another, and that person refers another—thus a chain of potential participants is identified. In addition to using this sampling strategy for potentially stigmatized populations, it is also a useful strategy to use when the researcher’s group of interest is likely to be difficult to find, not only because of some stigma associated with the group, but also because the group may be relatively rare. This was the case for Steven Kogan and colleagues (Kogan, Wejnert, Chen, Brody, & Slater, 2011)  [4] who wished to study the sexual behaviors of non-college-bound African American young adults who lived in high-poverty rural areas. The researchers first relied on their own networks to identify study participants, but because members of the study’s target population were not easy to find, access to the networks of initial study participants was very important for identifying additional participants. Initial participants were given coupons to pass on to others they knew who qualified for the study. Participants were given an added incentive for referring eligible study participants; they received $50 for participating in the study and an additional $20 for each person they recruited who also participated in the study. Using this strategy, Kogan and colleagues succeeded in recruiting 292 study participants.

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

Key Takeaways

• Nonprobability samples might be used when researchers are conducting qualitative (or idiographic) research, exploratory research, student projects, or pilot studies.
• There are several types of nonprobability samples including purposive samples, snowball samples, quota samples, and convenience samples.
• Convenience sample- researcher gathers data from whatever cases happen to be convenient
• Nonprobability sampling- sampling techniques for which a person’s likelihood of being selected for membership in the sample is unknown
• Purposive sample- when a researcher seeks out participants with specific characteristics
• Quota sample- when a researcher selects cases from within several different subgroups
• Snowball sample- when a researcher relies on participant referrals to recruit new participants

Image attributions

business by helpsg CC-0

network by geralt CC-0

• For more information about the 1948 election and other historically significant dates related to measurement, see the PBS timeline of “The first measured century” at http://www.pbs.org/fmc/timeline/e1948election.htm. ↵
• Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. ↵
• If you are interested in the history of polling, I recommend reading Fried, A. (2011). Pathways to polling: Crisis, cooperation, and the making of public opinion professions . New York, NY: Routledge. ↵
• Kogan, S. M., Wejnert, C., Chen, Y., Brody, G. H., & Slater, L. M. (2011). Respondent-driven sampling with hard-to-reach emerging adults: An introduction and case study with rural African Americans. Journal of Adolescent Research , 26 , 30–60. ↵

Scientific Inquiry in Social Work Copyright © 2018 by Matthew DeCarlo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

• Privacy Policy

Home » Sampling Methods – Types, Techniques and Examples

Sampling Methods – Types, Techniques and Examples

Table of Contents

Sampling refers to the process of selecting a subset of data from a larger population or dataset in order to analyze or make inferences about the whole population.

In other words, sampling involves taking a representative sample of data from a larger group or dataset in order to gain insights or draw conclusions about the entire group.

Sampling Methods

Sampling methods refer to the techniques used to select a subset of individuals or units from a larger population for the purpose of conducting statistical analysis or research.

Sampling is an essential part of the Research because it allows researchers to draw conclusions about a population without having to collect data from every member of that population, which can be time-consuming, expensive, or even impossible.

Types of Sampling Methods

Sampling can be broadly categorized into two main categories:

Probability Sampling

This type of sampling is based on the principles of random selection, and it involves selecting samples in a way that every member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample.. Probability sampling is commonly used in scientific research and statistical analysis, as it provides a representative sample that can be generalized to the larger population.

Type of Probability Sampling :

• Simple Random Sampling: In this method, every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected for the sample. This can be done using a random number generator or by drawing names out of a hat, for example.
• Systematic Sampling: In this method, the population is first divided into a list or sequence, and then every nth member is selected for the sample. For example, if every 10th person is selected from a list of 100 people, the sample would include 10 people.
• Stratified Sampling: In this method, the population is divided into subgroups or strata based on certain characteristics, and then a random sample is taken from each stratum. This is often used to ensure that the sample is representative of the population as a whole.
• Cluster Sampling: In this method, the population is divided into clusters or groups, and then a random sample of clusters is selected. Then, all members of the selected clusters are included in the sample.
• Multi-Stage Sampling : This method combines two or more sampling techniques. For example, a researcher may use stratified sampling to select clusters, and then use simple random sampling to select members within each cluster.

Non-probability Sampling

This type of sampling does not rely on random selection, and it involves selecting samples in a way that does not give every member of the population an equal chance of being included in the sample. Non-probability sampling is often used in qualitative research, where the aim is not to generalize findings to a larger population, but to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular phenomenon or group. Non-probability sampling methods can be quicker and more cost-effective than probability sampling methods, but they may also be subject to bias and may not be representative of the larger population.

Types of Non-probability Sampling :

• Convenience Sampling: In this method, participants are chosen based on their availability or willingness to participate. This method is easy and convenient but may not be representative of the population.
• Purposive Sampling: In this method, participants are selected based on specific criteria, such as their expertise or knowledge on a particular topic. This method is often used in qualitative research, but may not be representative of the population.
• Snowball Sampling: In this method, participants are recruited through referrals from other participants. This method is often used when the population is hard to reach, but may not be representative of the population.
• Quota Sampling: In this method, a predetermined number of participants are selected based on specific criteria, such as age or gender. This method is often used in market research, but may not be representative of the population.
• Volunteer Sampling: In this method, participants volunteer to participate in the study. This method is often used in research where participants are motivated by personal interest or altruism, but may not be representative of the population.

Applications of Sampling Methods

Applications of Sampling Methods from different fields:

• Psychology : Sampling methods are used in psychology research to study various aspects of human behavior and mental processes. For example, researchers may use stratified sampling to select a sample of participants that is representative of the population based on factors such as age, gender, and ethnicity. Random sampling may also be used to select participants for experimental studies.
• Sociology : Sampling methods are commonly used in sociological research to study social phenomena and relationships between individuals and groups. For example, researchers may use cluster sampling to select a sample of neighborhoods to study the effects of economic inequality on health outcomes. Stratified sampling may also be used to select a sample of participants that is representative of the population based on factors such as income, education, and occupation.
• Social sciences: Sampling methods are commonly used in social sciences to study human behavior and attitudes. For example, researchers may use stratified sampling to select a sample of participants that is representative of the population based on factors such as age, gender, and income.
• Marketing : Sampling methods are used in marketing research to collect data on consumer preferences, behavior, and attitudes. For example, researchers may use random sampling to select a sample of consumers to participate in a survey about a new product.
• Healthcare : Sampling methods are used in healthcare research to study the prevalence of diseases and risk factors, and to evaluate interventions. For example, researchers may use cluster sampling to select a sample of health clinics to participate in a study of the effectiveness of a new treatment.
• Environmental science: Sampling methods are used in environmental science to collect data on environmental variables such as water quality, air pollution, and soil composition. For example, researchers may use systematic sampling to collect soil samples at regular intervals across a field.
• Education : Sampling methods are used in education research to study student learning and achievement. For example, researchers may use stratified sampling to select a sample of schools that is representative of the population based on factors such as demographics and academic performance.

Examples of Sampling Methods

Probability Sampling Methods Examples:

• Simple random sampling Example : A researcher randomly selects participants from the population using a random number generator or drawing names from a hat.
• Stratified random sampling Example : A researcher divides the population into subgroups (strata) based on a characteristic of interest (e.g. age or income) and then randomly selects participants from each subgroup.
• Systematic sampling Example : A researcher selects participants at regular intervals from a list of the population.

Non-probability Sampling Methods Examples:

• Convenience sampling Example: A researcher selects participants who are conveniently available, such as students in a particular class or visitors to a shopping mall.
• Purposive sampling Example : A researcher selects participants who meet specific criteria, such as individuals who have been diagnosed with a particular medical condition.
• Snowball sampling Example : A researcher selects participants who are referred to them by other participants, such as friends or acquaintances.

How to Conduct Sampling Methods

some general steps to conduct sampling methods:

• Define the population: Identify the population of interest and clearly define its boundaries.
• Choose the sampling method: Select an appropriate sampling method based on the research question, characteristics of the population, and available resources.
• Determine the sample size: Determine the desired sample size based on statistical considerations such as margin of error, confidence level, or power analysis.
• Create a sampling frame: Develop a list of all individuals or elements in the population from which the sample will be drawn. The sampling frame should be comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date.
• Select the sample: Use the chosen sampling method to select the sample from the sampling frame. The sample should be selected randomly, or if using a non-random method, every effort should be made to minimize bias and ensure that the sample is representative of the population.
• Collect data: Once the sample has been selected, collect data from each member of the sample using appropriate research methods (e.g., surveys, interviews, observations).
• Analyze the data: Analyze the data collected from the sample to draw conclusions about the population of interest.

When to use Sampling Methods

Sampling methods are used in research when it is not feasible or practical to study the entire population of interest. Sampling allows researchers to study a smaller group of individuals, known as a sample, and use the findings from the sample to make inferences about the larger population.

Sampling methods are particularly useful when:

• The population of interest is too large to study in its entirety.
• The cost and time required to study the entire population are prohibitive.
• The population is geographically dispersed or difficult to access.
• The research question requires specialized or hard-to-find individuals.
• The data collected is quantitative and statistical analyses are used to draw conclusions.

Purpose of Sampling Methods

The main purpose of sampling methods in research is to obtain a representative sample of individuals or elements from a larger population of interest, in order to make inferences about the population as a whole. By studying a smaller group of individuals, known as a sample, researchers can gather information about the population that would be difficult or impossible to obtain from studying the entire population.

Sampling methods allow researchers to:

• Study a smaller, more manageable group of individuals, which is typically less time-consuming and less expensive than studying the entire population.
• Reduce the potential for data collection errors and improve the accuracy of the results by minimizing sampling bias.
• Make inferences about the larger population with a certain degree of confidence, using statistical analyses of the data collected from the sample.
• Improve the generalizability and external validity of the findings by ensuring that the sample is representative of the population of interest.

Characteristics of Sampling Methods

Here are some characteristics of sampling methods:

• Randomness : Probability sampling methods are based on random selection, meaning that every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected. This helps to minimize bias and ensure that the sample is representative of the population.
• Representativeness : The goal of sampling is to obtain a sample that is representative of the larger population of interest. This means that the sample should reflect the characteristics of the population in terms of key demographic, behavioral, or other relevant variables.
• Size : The size of the sample should be large enough to provide sufficient statistical power for the research question at hand. The sample size should also be appropriate for the chosen sampling method and the level of precision desired.
• Efficiency : Sampling methods should be efficient in terms of time, cost, and resources required. The method chosen should be feasible given the available resources and time constraints.
• Bias : Sampling methods should aim to minimize bias and ensure that the sample is representative of the population of interest. Bias can be introduced through non-random selection or non-response, and can affect the validity and generalizability of the findings.
• Precision : Sampling methods should be precise in terms of providing estimates of the population parameters of interest. Precision is influenced by sample size, sampling method, and level of variability in the population.
• Validity : The validity of the sampling method is important for ensuring that the results obtained from the sample are accurate and can be generalized to the population of interest. Validity can be affected by sampling method, sample size, and the representativeness of the sample.

Advantages of Sampling Methods

Sampling methods have several advantages, including:

• Cost-Effective : Sampling methods are often much cheaper and less time-consuming than studying an entire population. By studying only a small subset of the population, researchers can gather valuable data without incurring the costs associated with studying the entire population.
• Convenience : Sampling methods are often more convenient than studying an entire population. For example, if a researcher wants to study the eating habits of people in a city, it would be very difficult and time-consuming to study every single person in the city. By using sampling methods, the researcher can obtain data from a smaller subset of people, making the study more feasible.
• Accuracy: When done correctly, sampling methods can be very accurate. By using appropriate sampling techniques, researchers can obtain a sample that is representative of the entire population. This allows them to make accurate generalizations about the population as a whole based on the data collected from the sample.
• Time-Saving: Sampling methods can save a lot of time compared to studying the entire population. By studying a smaller sample, researchers can collect data much more quickly than they could if they studied every single person in the population.
• Less Bias : Sampling methods can reduce bias in a study. If a researcher were to study the entire population, it would be very difficult to eliminate all sources of bias. However, by using appropriate sampling techniques, researchers can reduce bias and obtain a sample that is more representative of the entire population.

Limitations of Sampling Methods

• Sampling Error : Sampling error is the difference between the sample statistic and the population parameter. It is the result of selecting a sample rather than the entire population. The larger the sample, the lower the sampling error. However, no matter how large the sample size, there will always be some degree of sampling error.
• Selection Bias: Selection bias occurs when the sample is not representative of the population. This can happen if the sample is not selected randomly or if some groups are underrepresented in the sample. Selection bias can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the population.
• Non-response Bias : Non-response bias occurs when some members of the sample do not respond to the survey or study. This can result in a biased sample if the non-respondents differ from the respondents in important ways.
• Time and Cost : While sampling can be cost-effective, it can still be expensive and time-consuming to select a sample that is representative of the population. Depending on the sampling method used, it may take a long time to obtain a sample that is large enough and representative enough to be useful.
• Limited Information : Sampling can only provide information about the variables that are measured. It may not provide information about other variables that are relevant to the research question but were not measured.
• Generalization : The extent to which the findings from a sample can be generalized to the population depends on the representativeness of the sample. If the sample is not representative of the population, it may not be possible to generalize the findings to the population as a whole.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Probability Sampling – Methods, Types and...

Quota Sampling – Types, Methods and Examples

Simple Random Sampling – Types, Method and...

Convenience Sampling – Method, Types and Examples

Purposive Sampling – Methods, Types and Examples

Systematic Sampling – Types, Method and Examples

6 Qualitative data examples for thorough market researchers

Types of qualitative data in market research, 6 qualitative data examples, get nuanced insights from qualitative market research.

There are plenty of ways to gather consumer insights for fresh campaigns and better products, but qualitative research is up there with the best sources of insight.

This guide is packed with examples of how to turn qualitative data into actionable insights, to spark your creativity and sharpen your research strategy. You’ll see how qualitative data, especially through surveys, opens doors to deeper understanding by inviting consumers to share their experiences and thoughts freely, in their own words — and how qualitative data can transform your brand.

Before we dig into some examples of how qualitative data can empower your teams to make focused, confident and quick decisions on anything from product to marketing, let’s go back to basics. We can categorize qualitative data into roughly three categories: binary, nominal and ordinal data. Here’s how each of them is used in qualitative data analysis.

Binary data

Binary data represents a choice between two distinct options, like ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In market research, this type of qualitative data is useful for filtering responses or making clear distinctions in consumer preferences.

Binary data in qualitative research is great for straightforward insights, but has its limits. Here’s a quick guide on when to use it and when to opt for qualitative data that is more detailed:

Binary data is great for:

• Quick Yes/No questions : like “Have you used our app? Yes or No.”
• Initial screening : to quickly sort participants for further studies.
• Clear-cut answers : absolute factors, such as ownership or usage.

Avoid binary data for:

• Understanding motivations : it lacks the depth to explore why behind actions.
• Measuring intensity : can’t show how much someone likes or uses something.
• Detail needed for product development : misses the nuanced feedback necessary for innovations.

Nominal data

Nominal data categorizes responses without implying any order. For example, when survey respondents choose their favorite brand from a list, the data collected is nominal, offering insights into brand preferences among different demographics.

Some other examples of qualitative data that can be qualified as nominal are asking participants to name their primary information source about products in categories like social media, friends, or online reviews. Or in focus groups, discussing brand perceptions could classify brands into categories such as luxury, budget-friendly, or eco-conscious, based on participant descriptions.

Nominal data is great for:

• Categorizing responses : such as types of consumer complaints (product quality, customer service, delivery issues).
• Identifying preferences : like favorite product categories (beverages, electronics, apparel).
• Segmentation : grouping participants based on attributes (first-time buyers, loyal customers).

Nominal data is not for:

• Measuring quantities : it can’t quantify how much more one category is preferred over another.
• Ordering or ranking responses : it doesn’t indicate which category is higher or lower in any hierarchy.
• Detailed behavioral analysis : While it can group behaviors, it doesn’t delve into the frequency or intensity of those behaviors.

Ordinal data

Ordinal data introduces a sense of order, ranking preferences or satisfaction levels. In qualitative analysis, it’s particularly useful for understanding how consumers prioritize features or products, giving researchers a clearer picture of market trends.

Other examples of qualitative data analyses that use ordinal data, are for instance a study on consumer preferences for coffee flavors, participants might rank flavors in order of preference, providing insights into flavor trends. You can also get ordinal data from focus groups on things like customer satisfaction surveys or app usability, by asking users to rate their ease of use or happiness on an ordinal scale.

Ordinal data is great for:

• Ranking preferences : asking participants to rank product features from most to least important.
• Measuring satisfaction levels : using scales like “very satisfied,” “satisfied,” “neutral,” “dissatisfied,” “very dissatisfied.”
• Assessing Agreement : with statements on a scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”

Ordinal data is not for:

• Quantifying differences : it doesn’t show how much more one rank is preferred over another, just the order.
• Precise measurements : can’t specify the exact degree of satisfaction or agreement, only relative positions.

This mix of qualitative and quantitative data will give you a well-rounded view of participant attitudes and preferences.

The things you can do with qualitative data are endless. But this article shouldn’t turn into a work of literature, so we’ll highlight six ways to collect qualitative data and give you examples of how to use these qualitative research methods to get actionable results.

How to get qual insights with Attest

You can get to the heart of what your target customers think, with reliable qualitative insights from Attest Video Responses

1. Highlighting brand loyalty drivers with open-ended surveys and questionnaires

Open-ended surveys and questionnaires are great at finding out what makes customers choose and stick with a brand. Here’s why this qualitative data analysis tool is so good for gathering qualitative data on things like brand loyalty and customer experience:

Straight from the source

Open-ended survey responses show the actual thoughts and feelings of your target audience in their own words, while still giving you structure in your data analysis.

Understanding ‘why’

Numbers can show us how many customers are loyal; open-ended survey responses explain why they are. You can also easily add thematic analysis to the mix by counting certain keywords or phrases.

Guiding decisions

The insights from these surveys can help a brand decide where to focus its efforts, from making sure their marketing highlights what customers love most to improving parts of their product.

Surveys are one of the most versatile and efficient qualitative data collection methods out there. We want to bring the power of qualitative data analysis to every business and make it easy to gather qualitative data from the people who matter most to your brand. Check out our survey templates to hit the ground running. And you’re not limited to textual data as your only data source — we also enable you to gather video responses to get additional context from non verbal cues and more.

2. Trend identification with observation notes

Observation notes are a powerful qualitative data analysis tool for spotting trends as they naturally unfold in real-world settings. Here’s why they’re particularly valuable insights and effective for identifying new trends:

Real behavior

Observing people directly shows us how they actually interact with products or services, not just how they say they do. This can highlight emerging trends in consumer behavior or preferences before people can even put into words what they are doing and why.

Immediate insights

By watching how people engage with different products, we can quickly spot patterns or changes in behavior. This immediate feedback is invaluable for catching trends as they start.

Context matters

Observations give you context. You can see not just what people do, but where and how they do it. This context can be key to understanding why a trend is taking off.

Unprompted reactions

Since people don’t know they’re being observed for these purposes, their actions are genuine. This leads to authentic insights about what’s really catching on.

3. Understanding consumer sentiments through semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews for qualitative data analysis are an effective method for data analysts to get a deep understanding of consumer sentiments. It provides a structured yet flexible approach to gather in-depth insights. Here’s why they’re particularly useful for this type of research question:

Personal connection

These interviews create a space for a real conversation, allowing consumers to share their feelings, experiences, and opinions about a brand or product in a more personal setting.

Flexibility

The format lets the interviewer explore interesting points that come up during the conversation, diving deeper into unexpected areas of discussion. This flexibility uncovers richer insights than strictly structured interviews.

Depth of understanding

By engaging in detailed discussions, brands can understand not just what consumers think but why they think that way and what stations their train of thought passes by.

Structure and surprise

Semi-structured interviews can be tailored to explore specific areas of interest while still allowing for new insights to emerge.

4. Using focus groups for informing market entry strategies

Using a focus group to inform market entry strategies provides a dynamic way to discover your potential customers’ needs, preferences, and perceptions before launching a product or entering a new market. Here’s how focus groups can be particularly effective for this kind of research goal:

Real conversations

Focus groups allow for real-time, interactive discussions, giving you a front-row seat to hear what your potential customers think and feel about your product or service idea.

Diverse Perspectives

By bringing together people from various backgrounds, a focus group can offer a wide range of views and insights, highlighting different consumer needs and contextual information that you might miss out on in a survey.

Spotting opportunities and challenges

The dynamic nature of focus groups can help uncover unique market opportunities or potential challenges that might not be evident through other research methods, like cultural nuances.

Testing ideas

A focus group is a great way to test and compare reactions to different market entry strategies, from pricing models to distribution channels, providing clear direction on what approach might work best.

5. Case studies to gain a nuanced understanding of consumers on a broad level

Case studies in qualitative research zoom in on specific stories from customers or groups using a product or service, great for gaining a nuanced understanding of consumers at a broad level. Here’s why case studies are a particularly effective qualitative data analysis tool for this type of research goal:

In-depth analysis

Case studies can provide a 360-degree look at the consumer experience, from initial awareness to post-purchase feelings.

This depth of insight reveals not just what consumers do, but why they do it, uncovering motivations, influences, and decision-making processes.

Longitudinal insight

Case studies can track changes in consumer behavior or satisfaction over time, offering a dynamic view of how perceptions evolve.

This longitudinal perspective is crucial for giving context to the lifecycle of consumer engagement with a brand.

Storytelling power

The narrative nature of case studies — when done right — makes them powerful tools for communicating complex consumer insights in an accessible and engaging way, which can be especially useful for internal strategy discussions or external marketing communications.

6. Driving product development with diary studies

Diary studies are a unique qualitative research method that involves participants recording their thoughts, experiences, or behaviors over a period of time, related to using a product or service. This qualitative data analysis method is especially valuable for driving product development for several reasons:

Real-time insights

Diary studies capture real-time user experiences and feedback as they interact with a product in their daily lives.

This ongoing documentation provides a raw, unfiltered view of how a product fits into the user’s routine, highlighting usability issues or unmet needs that might not be captured in a one-time survey or interview.

Realistic user journey mapping

By analyzing diary entries, you can map out the entire user journey, identifying critical touch points where users feel delighted, frustrated, or indifferent.

This then enables you to implement targeted improvements and innovations at the moments that matter most.

Identifying patterns

Over the course of a diary study, patterns in behavior, preferences, and challenges can emerge, which is great for thematic analysis.

It can guide product developers to prioritize features or fixes that will have the most significant impact on user satisfaction, which is especially great if they don’t know what areas to focus on first.

Qualitative research brings your consumers’ voices directly to your strategy table. The examples we’ve explored show how qualitative data analysis methods like surveys, interviews, and case studies illuminate the ‘why’ behind consumer choices, guiding more informed decisions. Using these insights means crafting products and messages that resonate deeply, ensuring your brand not only meets but exceeds consumer expectations.

Customer Research Manager 

Related articles

Making it personal – using tech to build connections with consumers | diageo, panel discussion – future-proofing your brand with consumer insights, attest product release: multi-market | attest’s alyssa stringer, subscribe to our newsletter.

Fill in your email and we’ll drop fresh insights and events info into your inbox each week.

* I agree to receive communications from Attest. Privacy Policy .

You're now subscribed to our mailing list to receive exciting news, reports, and other updates!

CRO Platform

Test your insights. Run experiments. Win. Or learn. And then win.

eCommerce Customer Analytics Platform

Acquisition matters. But retention matters more. Understand, monitor & nurture the best customers.

• Case Studies
• Ebooks, Tools, Templates
• Digital Marketing Glossary
• eCommerce Growth Stories
• eCommerce Growth Show
• Help & Technical Documentation

CRO Guide   >  Chapter 3.1

Qualitative Research: Definition, Methodology, Limitation & Examples

Qualitative research is a method focused on understanding human behavior and experiences through non-numerical data. Examples of qualitative research include:

• One-on-one interviews,
• Focus groups, Ethnographic research,
• Case studies,
• Record keeping,
• Qualitative observations

In this article, we’ll provide tips and tricks on how to use qualitative research to better understand your audience through real world examples and improve your ROI. We’ll also learn the difference between qualitative and quantitative data.

Table of Contents

Marketers often seek to understand their customers deeply. Qualitative research methods such as face-to-face interviews, focus groups, and qualitative observations can provide valuable insights into your products, your market, and your customers’ opinions and motivations. Understanding these nuances can significantly enhance marketing strategies and overall customer satisfaction.

What is Qualitative Research

Qualitative research is a market research method that focuses on obtaining data through open-ended and conversational communication. This method focuses on the “why” rather than the “what” people think about you. Thus, qualitative research seeks to uncover the underlying motivations, attitudes, and beliefs that drive people’s actions. 

Let’s say you have an online shop catering to a general audience. You do a demographic analysis and you find out that most of your customers are male. Naturally, you will want to find out why women are not buying from you. And that’s what qualitative research will help you find out.

In the case of your online shop, qualitative research would involve reaching out to female non-customers through methods such as in-depth interviews or focus groups. These interactions provide a platform for women to express their thoughts, feelings, and concerns regarding your products or brand. Through qualitative analysis, you can uncover valuable insights into factors such as product preferences, user experience, brand perception, and barriers to purchase.

Types of Qualitative Research Methods

Qualitative research methods are designed in a manner that helps reveal the behavior and perception of a target audience regarding a particular topic.

The most frequently used qualitative analysis methods are one-on-one interviews, focus groups, ethnographic research, case study research, record keeping, and qualitative observation.

1. One-on-one interviews

Conducting one-on-one interviews is one of the most common qualitative research methods. One of the advantages of this method is that it provides a great opportunity to gather precise data about what people think and their motivations.

Spending time talking to customers not only helps marketers understand who their clients are, but also helps with customer care: clients love hearing from brands. This strengthens the relationship between a brand and its clients and paves the way for customer testimonials.

• A company might conduct interviews to understand why a product failed to meet sales expectations.
• A researcher might use interviews to gather personal stories about experiences with healthcare.

These interviews can be performed face-to-face or on the phone and usually last between half an hour to over two hours. 

When a one-on-one interview is conducted face-to-face, it also gives the marketer the opportunity to read the body language of the respondent and match the responses.

2. Focus groups

Focus groups gather a small number of people to discuss and provide feedback on a particular subject. The ideal size of a focus group is usually between five and eight participants. The size of focus groups should reflect the participants’ familiarity with the topic. For less important topics or when participants have little experience, a group of 10 can be effective. For more critical topics or when participants are more knowledgeable, a smaller group of five to six is preferable for deeper discussions.

The main goal of a focus group is to find answers to the “why”, “what”, and “how” questions. This method is highly effective in exploring people’s feelings and ideas in a social setting, where group dynamics can bring out insights that might not emerge in one-on-one situations.

• A focus group could be used to test reactions to a new product concept.
• Marketers might use focus groups to see how different demographic groups react to an advertising campaign.

One advantage that focus groups have is that the marketer doesn’t necessarily have to interact with the group in person. Nowadays focus groups can be sent as online qualitative surveys on various devices.

Focus groups are an expensive option compared to the other qualitative research methods, which is why they are typically used to explain complex processes.

3. Ethnographic research

Ethnographic research is the most in-depth observational method that studies individuals in their naturally occurring environment.

This method aims at understanding the cultures, challenges, motivations, and settings that occur.

• A study of workplace culture within a tech startup.
• Observational research in a remote village to understand local traditions.

Ethnographic research requires the marketer to adapt to the target audiences’ environments (a different organization, a different city, or even a remote location), which is why geographical constraints can be an issue while collecting data.

This type of research can last from a few days to a few years. It’s challenging and time-consuming and solely depends on the expertise of the marketer to be able to analyze, observe, and infer the data.

4. Case study research

The case study method has grown into a valuable qualitative research method. This type of research method is usually used in education or social sciences. It involves a comprehensive examination of a single instance or event, providing detailed insights into complex issues in real-life contexts.  

• Analyzing a single school’s innovative teaching method.
• A detailed study of a patient’s medical treatment over several years.

Case study research may seem difficult to operate, but it’s actually one of the simplest ways of conducting research as it involves a deep dive and thorough understanding of the data collection methods and inferring the data.

5. Record keeping

Record keeping is similar to going to the library: you go over books or any other reference material to collect relevant data. This method uses already existing reliable documents and similar sources of information as a data source.

• Historical research using old newspapers and letters.
• A study on policy changes over the years by examining government records.

This method is useful for constructing a historical context around a research topic or verifying other findings with documented evidence.

6. Qualitative observation

Qualitative observation is a method that uses subjective methodologies to gather systematic information or data. This method deals with the five major sensory organs and their functioning, sight, smell, touch, taste, and hearing.

• Sight : Observing the way customers visually interact with product displays in a store to understand their browsing behaviors and preferences.
• Smell : Noting reactions of consumers to different scents in a fragrance shop to study the impact of olfactory elements on product preference.
• Touch : Watching how individuals interact with different materials in a clothing store to assess the importance of texture in fabric selection.
• Taste : Evaluating reactions of participants in a taste test to identify flavor profiles that appeal to different demographic groups.
• Hearing : Documenting responses to changes in background music within a retail environment to determine its effect on shopping behavior and mood.

Below we are also providing real-life examples of qualitative research that demonstrate practical applications across various contexts:

Qualitative Research Real World Examples

Let’s explore some examples of how qualitative research can be applied in different contexts.

1. Online grocery shop with a predominantly male audience

Method used: one-on-one interviews.

Let’s go back to one of the previous examples. You have an online grocery shop. By nature, it addresses a general audience, but after you do a demographic analysis you find out that most of your customers are male.

One good method to determine why women are not buying from you is to hold one-on-one interviews with potential customers in the category.

Interviewing a sample of potential female customers should reveal why they don’t find your store appealing. The reasons could range from not stocking enough products for women to perhaps the store’s emphasis on heavy-duty tools and automotive products, for example. These insights can guide adjustments in inventory and marketing strategies.

2. Software company launching a new product

Method used: focus groups.

Focus groups are great for establishing product-market fit.

Let’s assume you are a software company that wants to launch a new product and you hold a focus group with 12 people. Although getting their feedback regarding users’ experience with the product is a good thing, this sample is too small to define how the entire market will react to your product.

So what you can do instead is holding multiple focus groups in 20 different geographic regions. Each region should be hosting a group of 12 for each market segment; you can even segment your audience based on age. This would be a better way to establish credibility in the feedback you receive.

3. Alan Pushkin’s “God’s Choice: The Total World of a Fundamentalist Christian School”

Method used: ethnographic research.

Moving from a fictional example to a real-life one, let’s analyze Alan Peshkin’s 1986 book “God’s Choice: The Total World of a Fundamentalist Christian School”.

Peshkin studied the culture of Bethany Baptist Academy by interviewing the students, parents, teachers, and members of the community alike, and spending eighteen months observing them to provide a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of Christian schooling as an alternative to public education.

The study highlights the school’s unified purpose, rigorous academic environment, and strong community support while also pointing out its lack of cultural diversity and openness to differing viewpoints. These insights are crucial for understanding how such educational settings operate and what they offer to students.

Even after discovering all this, Peshkin still presented the school in a positive light and stated that public schools have much to learn from such schools.

Peshkin’s in-depth research represents a qualitative study that uses observations and unstructured interviews, without any assumptions or hypotheses. He utilizes descriptive or non-quantifiable data on Bethany Baptist Academy specifically, without attempting to generalize the findings to other Christian schools.

4. Understanding buyers’ trends

Method used: record keeping.

Another way marketers can use quality research is to understand buyers’ trends. To do this, marketers need to look at historical data for both their company and their industry and identify where buyers are purchasing items in higher volumes.

For example, electronics distributors know that the holiday season is a peak market for sales while life insurance agents find that spring and summer wedding months are good seasons for targeting new clients.

5. Determining products/services missing from the market

Conducting your own research isn’t always necessary. If there are significant breakthroughs in your industry, you can use industry data and adapt it to your marketing needs.

The influx of hacking and hijacking of cloud-based information has made Internet security a topic of many industry reports lately. A software company could use these reports to better understand the problems its clients are facing.

As a result, the company can provide solutions prospects already know they need.

Real-time Customer Lifetime Value (CLV) Benchmark Report

See where your business stands compared to 1,000+ e-stores in different industries.

Qualitative Research Approaches

Once the marketer has decided that their research questions will provide data that is qualitative in nature, the next step is to choose the appropriate qualitative approach.

The approach chosen will take into account the purpose of the research, the role of the researcher, the data collected, the method of data analysis , and how the results will be presented. The most common approaches include:

• Narrative : This method focuses on individual life stories to understand personal experiences and journeys. It examines how people structure their stories and the themes within them to explore human existence. For example, a narrative study might look at cancer survivors to understand their resilience and coping strategies.
• Phenomenology : attempts to understand or explain life experiences or phenomena; It aims to reveal the depth of human consciousness and perception, such as by studying the daily lives of those with chronic illnesses.
• Grounded theory : investigates the process, action, or interaction with the goal of developing a theory “grounded” in observations and empirical data. 
• Ethnography : describes and interprets an ethnic, cultural, or social group;
• Case study : examines episodic events in a definable framework, develops in-depth analyses of single or multiple cases, and generally explains “how”. An example might be studying a community health program to evaluate its success and impact.

How to Analyze Qualitative Data

Analyzing qualitative data involves interpreting non-numerical data to uncover patterns, themes, and deeper insights. This process is typically more subjective and requires a systematic approach to ensure reliability and validity. 

1. Data Collection

Ensure that your data collection methods (e.g., interviews, focus groups, observations) are well-documented and comprehensive. This step is crucial because the quality and depth of the data collected will significantly influence the analysis.

2. Data Preparation

Once collected, the data needs to be organized. Transcribe audio and video recordings, and gather all notes and documents. Ensure that all data is anonymized to protect participant confidentiality where necessary.

3. Familiarization

Immerse yourself in the data by reading through the materials multiple times. This helps you get a general sense of the information and begin identifying patterns or recurring themes.

Develop a coding system to tag data with labels that summarize and account for each piece of information. Codes can be words, phrases, or acronyms that represent how these segments relate to your research questions.

• Descriptive Coding : Summarize the primary topic of the data.
• In Vivo Coding : Use language and terms used by the participants themselves.
• Process Coding : Use gerunds (“-ing” words) to label the processes at play.
• Emotion Coding : Identify and record the emotions conveyed or experienced.

5. Thematic Development

Group codes into themes that represent larger patterns in the data. These themes should relate directly to the research questions and form a coherent narrative about the findings.

6. Interpreting the Data

Interpret the data by constructing a logical narrative. This involves piecing together the themes to explain larger insights about the data. Link the results back to your research objectives and existing literature to bolster your interpretations.

7. Validation

Check the reliability and validity of your findings by reviewing if the interpretations are supported by the data. This may involve revisiting the data multiple times or discussing the findings with colleagues or participants for validation.

8. Reporting

Finally, present the findings in a clear and organized manner. Use direct quotes and detailed descriptions to illustrate the themes and insights. The report should communicate the narrative you’ve built from your data, clearly linking your findings to your research questions.

Limitations of qualitative research

The disadvantages of qualitative research are quite unique. The techniques of the data collector and their own unique observations can alter the information in subtle ways. That being said, these are the qualitative research’s limitations:

1. It’s a time-consuming process

The main drawback of qualitative study is that the process is time-consuming. Another problem is that the interpretations are limited. Personal experience and knowledge influence observations and conclusions.

Thus, qualitative research might take several weeks or months. Also, since this process delves into personal interaction for data collection, discussions often tend to deviate from the main issue to be studied.

2. You can’t verify the results of qualitative research

Because qualitative research is open-ended, participants have more control over the content of the data collected. So the marketer is not able to verify the results objectively against the scenarios stated by the respondents. For example, in a focus group discussing a new product, participants might express their feelings about the design and functionality. However, these opinions are influenced by individual tastes and experiences, making it difficult to ascertain a universally applicable conclusion from these discussions.

3. It’s a labor-intensive approach

Qualitative research requires a labor-intensive analysis process such as categorization, recording, etc. Similarly, qualitative research requires well-experienced marketers to obtain the needed data from a group of respondents.

4. It’s difficult to investigate causality

Qualitative research requires thoughtful planning to ensure the obtained results are accurate. There is no way to analyze qualitative data mathematically. This type of research is based more on opinion and judgment rather than results. Because all qualitative studies are unique they are difficult to replicate.

5. Qualitative research is not statistically representative

Because qualitative research is a perspective-based method of research, the responses given are not measured.

Comparisons can be made and this can lead toward duplication, but for the most part, quantitative data is required for circumstances that need statistical representation and that is not part of the qualitative research process.

While doing a qualitative study, it’s important to cross-reference the data obtained with the quantitative data. By continuously surveying prospects and customers marketers can build a stronger database of useful information.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Research

Image source

Quantitative and qualitative research are two distinct methodologies used in the field of market research, each offering unique insights and approaches to understanding consumer behavior and preferences.

As we already defined, qualitative analysis seeks to explore the deeper meanings, perceptions, and motivations behind human behavior through non-numerical data. On the other hand, quantitative research focuses on collecting and analyzing numerical data to identify patterns, trends, and statistical relationships.  

Let’s explore their key differences: 

Nature of Data:

• Quantitative research : Involves numerical data that can be measured and analyzed statistically.
• Qualitative research : Focuses on non-numerical data, such as words, images, and observations, to capture subjective experiences and meanings.

Research Questions:

• Quantitative research : Typically addresses questions related to “how many,” “how much,” or “to what extent,” aiming to quantify relationships and patterns.
• Qualitative research: Explores questions related to “why” and “how,” aiming to understand the underlying motivations, beliefs, and perceptions of individuals.

Data Collection Methods:

• Quantitative research : Relies on structured surveys, experiments, or observations with predefined variables and measures.
• Qualitative research : Utilizes open-ended interviews, focus groups, participant observations, and textual analysis to gather rich, contextually nuanced data.

Analysis Techniques:

• Quantitative research: Involves statistical analysis to identify correlations, associations, or differences between variables.
• Qualitative research: Employs thematic analysis, coding, and interpretation to uncover patterns, themes, and insights within qualitative data.

Do Conversion Rate Optimization the Right way.

Explore helps you make the most out of your CRO efforts through advanced A/B testing, surveys, advanced segmentation and optimised customer journeys.

If you haven’t subscribed yet to our newsletter, now is your chance!

Like what you’re reading?

Join the informed ecommerce crowd.

We will never bug you with irrelevant info.

By clicking the Button, you confirm that you agree with our Terms and Conditions .

Continue your Conversion Rate Optimization Journey

• Last modified: January 3, 2023
• Conversion Rate Optimization , User Research

Valentin Radu

We’re a team of people that want to empower marketers around the world to create marketing campaigns that matter to consumers in a smart way. Meet us at the intersection of creativity, integrity, and development, and let us show you how to optimize your marketing.

Our Software

• > Book a Demo
• > Partner Program
• > Affiliate Program
• Blog Sitemap
• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy & Security
• Cookies Policy
• REVEAL Terms and Conditions

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research

Lawrence a. palinkas.

1 School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0411

Sarah M. Horwitz

2 Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, New York University, New York, NY

Carla A. Green

3 Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR

Jennifer P. Wisdom

4 George Washington University, Washington DC

Naihua Duan

5 New York State Neuropsychiatric Institute and Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY

Kimberly Hoagwood

Purposeful sampling is widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases related to the phenomenon of interest. Although there are several different purposeful sampling strategies, criterion sampling appears to be used most commonly in implementation research. However, combining sampling strategies may be more appropriate to the aims of implementation research and more consistent with recent developments in quantitative methods. This paper reviews the principles and practice of purposeful sampling in implementation research, summarizes types and categories of purposeful sampling strategies and provides a set of recommendations for use of single strategy or multistage strategy designs, particularly for state implementation research.

Recently there have been several calls for the use of mixed method designs in implementation research ( Proctor et al., 2009 ; Landsverk et al., 2012 ; Palinkas et al. 2011 ; Aarons et al., 2012). This has been precipitated by the realization that the challenges of implementing evidence-based and other innovative practices, treatments, interventions and programs are sufficiently complex that a single methodological approach is often inadequate. This is particularly true of efforts to implement evidence-based practices (EBPs) in statewide systems where relationships among key stakeholders extend both vertically (from state to local organizations) and horizontally (between organizations located in different parts of a state). As in other areas of research, mixed method designs are viewed as preferable in implementation research because they provide a better understanding of research issues than either qualitative or quantitative approaches alone ( Palinkas et al., 2011 ). In such designs, qualitative methods are used to explore and obtain depth of understanding as to the reasons for success or failure to implement evidence-based practice or to identify strategies for facilitating implementation while quantitative methods are used to test and confirm hypotheses based on an existing conceptual model and obtain breadth of understanding of predictors of successful implementation ( Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2003 ).

Sampling strategies for quantitative methods used in mixed methods designs in implementation research are generally well-established and based on probability theory. In contrast, sampling strategies for qualitative methods in implementation studies are less explicit and often less evident. Although the samples for qualitative inquiry are generally assumed to be selected purposefully to yield cases that are “information rich” (Patton, 2001), there are no clear guidelines for conducting purposeful sampling in mixed methods implementation studies, particularly when studies have more than one specific objective. Moreover, it is not entirely clear what forms of purposeful sampling are most appropriate for the challenges of using both quantitative and qualitative methods in the mixed methods designs used in implementation research. Such a consideration requires a determination of the objectives of each methodology and the potential impact of selecting one strategy to achieve one objective on the selection of other strategies to achieve additional objectives.

In this paper, we present different approaches to the use of purposeful sampling strategies in implementation research. We begin with a review of the principles and practice of purposeful sampling in implementation research, a summary of the types and categories of purposeful sampling strategies, and a set of recommendations for matching the appropriate single strategy or multistage strategy to study aims and quantitative method designs.

Principles of Purposeful Sampling

Purposeful sampling is a technique widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources ( Patton, 2002 ). This involves identifying and selecting individuals or groups of individuals that are especially knowledgeable about or experienced with a phenomenon of interest ( Cresswell & Plano Clark, 2011 ). In addition to knowledge and experience, Bernard (2002) and Spradley (1979) note the importance of availability and willingness to participate, and the ability to communicate experiences and opinions in an articulate, expressive, and reflective manner. In contrast, probabilistic or random sampling is used to ensure the generalizability of findings by minimizing the potential for bias in selection and to control for the potential influence of known and unknown confounders.

As Morse and Niehaus (2009) observe, whether the methodology employed is quantitative or qualitative, sampling methods are intended to maximize efficiency and validity. Nevertheless, sampling must be consistent with the aims and assumptions inherent in the use of either method. Qualitative methods are, for the most part, intended to achieve depth of understanding while quantitative methods are intended to achieve breadth of understanding ( Patton, 2002 ). Qualitative methods place primary emphasis on saturation (i.e., obtaining a comprehensive understanding by continuing to sample until no new substantive information is acquired) ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). Quantitative methods place primary emphasis on generalizability (i.e., ensuring that the knowledge gained is representative of the population from which the sample was drawn). Each methodology, in turn, has different expectations and standards for determining the number of participants required to achieve its aims. Quantitative methods rely on established formulae for avoiding Type I and Type II errors, while qualitative methods often rely on precedents for determining number of participants based on type of analysis proposed (e.g., 3-6 participants interviewed multiple times in a phenomenological study versus 20-30 participants interviewed once or twice in a grounded theory study), level of detail required, and emphasis of homogeneity (requiring smaller samples) versus heterogeneity (requiring larger samples) ( Guest, Bunce & Johnson., 2006 ; Morse & Niehaus, 2009 ; Padgett, 2008 ).

Types of purposeful sampling designs

There exist numerous purposeful sampling designs. Examples include the selection of extreme or deviant (outlier) cases for the purpose of learning from an unusual manifestations of phenomena of interest; the selection of cases with maximum variation for the purpose of documenting unique or diverse variations that have emerged in adapting to different conditions, and to identify important common patterns that cut across variations; and the selection of homogeneous cases for the purpose of reducing variation, simplifying analysis, and facilitating group interviewing. A list of some of these strategies and examples of their use in implementation research is provided in Table 1 .

Purposeful sampling strategies in implementation research

Embedded in each strategy is the ability to compare and contrast, to identify similarities and differences in the phenomenon of interest. Nevertheless, some of these strategies (e.g., maximum variation sampling, extreme case sampling, intensity sampling, and purposeful random sampling) are used to identify and expand the range of variation or differences, similar to the use of quantitative measures to describe the variability or dispersion of values for a particular variable or variables, while other strategies (e.g., homogeneous sampling, typical case sampling, criterion sampling, and snowball sampling) are used to narrow the range of variation and focus on similarities. The latter are similar to the use of quantitative central tendency measures (e.g., mean, median, and mode). Moreover, certain strategies, like stratified purposeful sampling or opportunistic or emergent sampling, are designed to achieve both goals. As Patton (2002 , p. 240) explains, “the purpose of a stratified purposeful sample is to capture major variations rather than to identify a common core, although the latter may also emerge in the analysis. Each of the strata would constitute a fairly homogeneous sample.”

Challenges to use of purposeful sampling

Despite its wide use, there are numerous challenges in identifying and applying the appropriate purposeful sampling strategy in any study. For instance, the range of variation in a sample from which purposive sample is to be taken is often not really known at the outset of a study. To set as the goal the sampling of information-rich informants that cover the range of variation assumes one knows that range of variation. Consequently, an iterative approach of sampling and re-sampling to draw an appropriate sample is usually recommended to make certain the theoretical saturation occurs ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). However, that saturation may be determined a-priori on the basis of an existing theory or conceptual framework, or it may emerge from the data themselves, as in a grounded theory approach ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). Second, there are a not insignificant number in the qualitative methods field who resist or refuse systematic sampling of any kind and reject the limiting nature of such realist, systematic, or positivist approaches. This includes critics of interventions and “bottom up” case studies and critiques. However, even those who equate purposeful sampling with systematic sampling must offer a rationale for selecting study participants that is linked with the aims of the investigation (i.e., why recruit these individuals for this particular study? What qualifies them to address the aims of the study?). While systematic sampling may be associated with a post-positivist tradition of qualitative data collection and analysis, such sampling is not inherently limited to such analyses and the need for such sampling is not inherently limited to post-positivist qualitative approaches ( Patton, 2002 ).

Purposeful Sampling in Implementation Research

Characteristics of implementation research.

In implementation research, quantitative and qualitative methods often play important roles, either simultaneously or sequentially, for the purpose of answering the same question through convergence of results from different sources, answering related questions in a complementary fashion, using one set of methods to expand or explain the results obtained from use of the other set of methods, using one set of methods to develop questionnaires or conceptual models that inform the use of the other set, and using one set of methods to identify the sample for analysis using the other set of methods ( Palinkas et al., 2011 ). A review of mixed method designs in implementation research conducted by Palinkas and colleagues (2011) revealed seven different sequential and simultaneous structural arrangements, five different functions of mixed methods, and three different ways of linking quantitative and qualitative data together. However, this review did not consider the sampling strategies involved in the types of quantitative and qualitative methods common to implementation research, nor did it consider the consequences of the sampling strategy selected for one method or set of methods on the choice of sampling strategy for the other method or set of methods. For instance, one of the most significant challenges to sampling in sequential mixed method designs lies in the limitations the initial method may place on sampling for the subsequent method. As Morse and Neihaus (2009) observe, when the initial method is qualitative, the sample selected may be too small and lack randomization necessary to fulfill the assumptions for a subsequent quantitative analysis. On the other hand, when the initial method is quantitative, the sample selected may be too large for each individual to be included in qualitative inquiry and lack purposeful selection to reduce the sample size to one more appropriate for qualitative research. The fact that potential participants were recruited and selected at random does not necessarily make them information rich.

A re-examination of the 22 studies and an additional 6 studies published since 2009 revealed that only 5 studies ( Aarons & Palinkas, 2007 ; Bachman et al., 2009 ; Palinkas et al., 2011 ; Palinkas et al., 2012 ; Slade et al., 2003) made a specific reference to purposeful sampling. An additional three studies ( Henke et al., 2008 ; Proctor et al., 2007 ; Swain et al., 2010 ) did not make explicit reference to purposeful sampling but did provide a rationale for sample selection. The remaining 20 studies provided no description of the sampling strategy used to identify participants for qualitative data collection and analysis; however, a rationale could be inferred based on a description of who were recruited and selected for participation. Of the 28 studies, 3 used more than one sampling strategy. Twenty-one of the 28 studies (75%) used some form of criterion sampling. In most instances, the criterion used is related to the individual’s role, either in the research project (i.e., trainer, team leader), or the agency (program director, clinical supervisor, clinician); in other words, criterion of inclusion in a certain category (criterion-i), in contrast to cases that are external to a specific criterion (criterion-e). For instance, in a series of studies based on the National Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Project, participants included semi-structured interviews with consultant trainers and program leaders at each study site ( Brunette et al., 2008 ; Marshall et al., 2008 ; Marty et al., 2007; Rapp et al., 2010 ; Woltmann et al., 2008 ). Six studies used some form of maximum variation sampling to ensure representativeness and diversity of organizations and individual practitioners. Two studies used intensity sampling to make contrasts. Aarons and Palinkas (2007) , for example, purposefully selected 15 child welfare case managers representing those having the most positive and those having the most negative views of SafeCare, an evidence-based prevention intervention, based on results of a web-based quantitative survey asking about the perceived value and usefulness of SafeCare. Kramer and Burns (2008) recruited and interviewed clinicians providing usual care and clinicians who dropped out of a study prior to consent to contrast with clinicians who provided the intervention under investigation. One study ( Hoagwood et al., 2007 ), used a typical case approach to identify participants for a qualitative assessment of the challenges faced in implementing a trauma-focused intervention for youth. One study ( Green & Aarons, 2011 ) used a combined snowball sampling/criterion-i strategy by asking recruited program managers to identify clinicians, administrative support staff, and consumers for project recruitment. County mental directors, agency directors, and program managers were recruited to represent the policy interests of implementation while clinicians, administrative support staff and consumers were recruited to represent the direct practice perspectives of EBP implementation.

Table 2 below provides a description of the use of different purposeful sampling strategies in mixed methods implementation studies. Criterion-i sampling was most frequently used in mixed methods implementation studies that employed a simultaneous design where the qualitative method was secondary to the quantitative method or studies that employed a simultaneous structure where the qualitative and quantitative methods were assigned equal priority. These mixed method designs were used to complement the depth of understanding afforded by the qualitative methods with the breadth of understanding afforded by the quantitative methods (n = 13), to explain or elaborate upon the findings of one set of methods (usually quantitative) with the findings from the other set of methods (n = 10), or to seek convergence through triangulation of results or quantifying qualitative data (n = 8). The process of mixing methods in the large majority (n = 18) of these studies involved embedding the qualitative study within the larger quantitative study. In one study (Goia & Dziadosz, 2008), criterion sampling was used in a simultaneous design where quantitative and qualitative data were merged together in a complementary fashion, and in two studies (Aarons et al., 2012; Zazelli et al., 2008 ), quantitative and qualitative data were connected together, one in sequential design for the purpose of developing a conceptual model ( Zazelli et al., 2008 ), and one in a simultaneous design for the purpose of complementing one another (Aarons et al., 2012). Three of the six studies that used maximum variation sampling used a simultaneous structure with quantitative methods taking priority over qualitative methods and a process of embedding the qualitative methods in a larger quantitative study ( Henke et al., 2008 ; Palinkas et al., 2010; Slade et al., 2008 ). Two of the six studies used maximum variation sampling in a sequential design ( Aarons et al., 2009 ; Zazelli et al., 2008 ) and one in a simultaneous design (Henke et al., 2010) for the purpose of development, and three used it in a simultaneous design for complementarity ( Bachman et al., 2009 ; Henke et al., 2008; Palinkas, Ell, Hansen, Cabassa, & Wells, 2011 ). The two studies relying upon intensity sampling used a simultaneous structure for the purpose of either convergence or expansion, and both studies involved a qualitative study embedded in a larger quantitative study ( Aarons & Palinkas, 2007 ; Kramer & Burns, 2008 ). The single typical case study involved a simultaneous design where the qualitative study was embedded in a larger quantitative study for the purpose of complementarity ( Hoagwood et al., 2007 ). The snowball/maximum variation study involved a sequential design where the qualitative study was merged into the quantitative data for the purpose of convergence and conceptual model development ( Green & Aarons, 2011 ). Although not used in any of the 28 implementation studies examined here, another common sequential sampling strategy is using criteria sampling of the larger quantitative sample to produce a second-stage qualitative sample in a manner similar to maximum variation sampling, except that the former narrows the range of variation while the latter expands the range.

Purposeful sampling strategies and mixed method designs in implementation research

Criterion-i sampling as a purposeful sampling strategy shares many characteristics with random probability sampling, despite having different aims and different procedures for identifying and selecting potential participants. In both instances, study participants are drawn from agencies, organizations or systems involved in the implementation process. Individuals are selected based on the assumption that they possess knowledge and experience with the phenomenon of interest (i.e., the implementation of an EBP) and thus will be able to provide information that is both detailed (depth) and generalizable (breadth). Participants for a qualitative study, usually service providers, consumers, agency directors, or state policy-makers, are drawn from the larger sample of participants in the quantitative study. They are selected from the larger sample because they meet the same criteria, in this case, playing a specific role in the organization and/or implementation process. To some extent, they are assumed to be “representative” of that role, although implementation studies rarely explain the rationale for selecting only some and not all of the available role representatives (i.e., recruiting 15 providers from an agency for semi-structured interviews out of an available sample of 25 providers). From the perspective of qualitative methodology, participants who meet or exceed a specific criterion or criteria possess intimate (or, at the very least, greater) knowledge of the phenomenon of interest by virtue of their experience, making them information-rich cases.

However, criterion sampling may not be the most appropriate strategy for implementation research because by attempting to capture both breadth and depth of understanding, it may actually be inadequate to the task of accomplishing either. Although qualitative methods are often contrasted with quantitative methods on the basis of depth versus breadth, they actually require elements of both in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Ideally, the goal of achieving theoretical saturation by providing as much detail as possible involves selection of individuals or cases that can ensure all aspects of that phenomenon are included in the examination and that any one aspect is thoroughly examined. This goal, therefore, requires an approach that sequentially or simultaneously expands and narrows the field of view, respectively. By selecting only individuals who meet a specific criterion defined on the basis of their role in the implementation process or who have a specific experience (e.g., engaged only in an implementation defined as successful or only in one defined as unsuccessful), one may fail to capture the experiences or activities of other groups playing other roles in the process. For instance, a focus only on practitioners may fail to capture the insights, experiences, and activities of consumers, family members, agency directors, administrative staff, or state policy leaders in the implementation process, thus limiting the breadth of understanding of that process. On the other hand, selecting participants on the basis of whether they were a practitioner, consumer, director, staff, or any of the above, may fail to identify those with the greatest experience or most knowledgeable or most able to communicate what they know and/or have experienced, thus limiting the depth of understanding of the implementation process.

To address the potential limitations of criterion sampling, other purposeful sampling strategies should be considered and possibly adopted in implementation research ( Figure 1 ). For instance, strategies placing greater emphasis on breadth and variation such as maximum variation, extreme case, confirming and disconfirming case sampling are better suited for an examination of differences, while strategies placing greater emphasis on depth and similarity such as homogeneous, snowball, and typical case sampling are better suited for an examination of commonalities or similarities, even though both types of sampling strategies include a focus on both differences and similarities. Alternatives to criterion sampling may be more appropriate to the specific functions of mixed methods, however. For instance, using qualitative methods for the purpose of complementarity may require that a sampling strategy emphasize similarity if it is to achieve depth of understanding or explore and develop hypotheses that complement a quantitative probability sampling strategy achieving breadth of understanding and testing hypotheses ( Kemper et al., 2003 ). Similarly, mixed methods that address related questions for the purpose of expanding or explaining results or developing new measures or conceptual models may require a purposeful sampling strategy aiming for similarity that complements probability sampling aiming for variation or dispersion. A narrowly focused purposeful sampling strategy for qualitative analysis that “complements” a broader focused probability sample for quantitative analysis may help to achieve a balance between increasing inference quality/trustworthiness (internal validity) and generalizability/transferability (external validity). A single method that focuses only on a broad view may decrease internal validity at the expense of external validity ( Kemper et al., 2003 ). On the other hand, the aim of convergence (answering the same question with either method) may suggest use of a purposeful sampling strategy that aims for breadth that parallels the quantitative probability sampling strategy.

Purposeful and Random Sampling Strategies for Mixed Method Implementation Studies

• (1) Priority and sequencing of Qualitative (QUAL) and Quantitative (QUAN) can be reversed.
• (2) Refers to emphasis of sampling strategy.

Furthermore, the specific nature of implementation research suggests that a multistage purposeful sampling strategy be used. Three different multistage sampling strategies are illustrated in Figure 1 below. Several qualitative methodologists recommend sampling for variation (breadth) before sampling for commonalities (depth) ( Glaser, 1978 ; Bernard, 2002 ) (Multistage I). Also known as a “funnel approach”, this strategy is often recommended when conducting semi-structured interviews ( Spradley, 1979 ) or focus groups ( Morgan, 1997 ). This approach begins with a broad view of the topic and then proceeds to narrow down the conversation to very specific components of the topic. However, as noted earlier, the lack of a clear understanding of the nature of the range may require an iterative approach where each stage of data analysis helps to determine subsequent means of data collection and analysis ( Denzen, 1978 ; Patton, 2001) (Multistage II). Similarly, multistage purposeful sampling designs like opportunistic or emergent sampling, allow the option of adding to a sample to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities after data collection has been initiated (Patton, 2001, p. 240) (Multistage III). Multistage I models generally involve two stages, while a Multistage II model requires a minimum of 3 stages, alternating from sampling for variation to sampling for similarity. A Multistage III model begins with sampling for variation and ends with sampling for similarity, but may involve one or more intervening stages of sampling for variation or similarity as the need or opportunity arises.

Multistage purposeful sampling is also consistent with the use of hybrid designs to simultaneously examine intervention effectiveness and implementation. An extension of the concept of “practical clinical trials” ( Tunis, Stryer & Clancey, 2003 ), effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs provide benefits such as more rapid translational gains in clinical intervention uptake, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for researchers and decision makers ( Curran et al., 2012 ). Such designs may give equal priority to the testing of clinical treatments and implementation strategies (Hybrid Type 2) or give priority to the testing of treatment effectiveness (Hybrid Type 1) or implementation strategy (Hybrid Type 3). Curran and colleagues (2012) suggest that evaluation of the intervention’s effectiveness will require or involve use of quantitative measures while evaluation of the implementation process will require or involve use of mixed methods. When conducting a Hybrid Type 1 design (conducting a process evaluation of implementation in the context of a clinical effectiveness trial), the qualitative data could be used to inform the findings of the effectiveness trial. Thus, an effectiveness trial that finds substantial variation might purposefully select participants using a broader strategy like sampling for disconfirming cases to account for the variation. For instance, group randomized trials require knowledge of the contexts and circumstances similar and different across sites to account for inevitable site differences in interventions and assist local implementations of an intervention ( Bloom & Michalopoulos, 2013 ; Raudenbush & Liu, 2000 ). Alternatively, a narrow strategy may be used to account for the lack of variation. In either instance, the choice of a purposeful sampling strategy is determined by the outcomes of the quantitative analysis that is based on a probability sampling strategy. In Hybrid Type 2 and Type 3 designs where the implementation process is given equal or greater priority than the effectiveness trial, the purposeful sampling strategy must be first and foremost consistent with the aims of the implementation study, which may be to understand variation, central tendencies, or both. In all three instances, the sampling strategy employed for the implementation study may vary based on the priority assigned to that study relative to the effectiveness trial. For instance, purposeful sampling for a Hybrid Type 1 design may give higher priority to variation and comparison to understand the parameters of implementation processes or context as a contribution to an understanding of effectiveness outcomes (i.e., using qualitative data to expand upon or explain the results of the effectiveness trial), In effect, these process measures could be seen as modifiers of innovation/EBP outcome. In contrast, purposeful sampling for a Hybrid Type 3 design may give higher priority to similarity and depth to understand the core features of successful outcomes only.

Finally, multistage sampling strategies may be more consistent with innovations in experimental designs representing alternatives to the classic randomized controlled trial in community-based settings that have greater feasibility, acceptability, and external validity. While RCT designs provide the highest level of evidence, “in many clinical and community settings, and especially in studies with underserved populations and low resource settings, randomization may not be feasible or acceptable” ( Glasgow, et al., 2005 , p. 554). Randomized trials are also “relatively poor in assessing the benefit from complex public health or medical interventions that account for individual preferences for or against certain interventions, differential adherence or attrition, or varying dosage or tailoring of an intervention to individual needs” ( Brown et al., 2009 , p. 2). Several alternatives to the randomized design have been proposed, such as “interrupted time series,” “multiple baseline across settings” or “regression-discontinuity” designs. Optimal designs represent one such alternative to the classic RCT and are addressed in detail by Duan and colleagues (this issue) . Like purposeful sampling, optimal designs are intended to capture information-rich cases, usually identified as individuals most likely to benefit from the experimental intervention. The goal here is not to identify the typical or average patient, but patients who represent one end of the variation in an extreme case, intensity sampling, or criterion sampling strategy. Hence, a sampling strategy that begins by sampling for variation at the first stage and then sampling for homogeneity within a specific parameter of that variation (i.e., one end or the other of the distribution) at the second stage would seem the best approach for identifying an “optimal” sample for the clinical trial.

Another alternative to the classic RCT are the adaptive designs proposed by Brown and colleagues ( Brown et al, 2006 ; Brown et al., 2008 ; Brown et al., 2009 ). Adaptive designs are a sequence of trials that draw on the results of existing studies to determine the next stage of evaluation research. They use cumulative knowledge of current treatment successes or failures to change qualities of the ongoing trial. An adaptive intervention modifies what an individual subject (or community for a group-based trial) receives in response to his or her preferences or initial responses to an intervention. Consistent with multistage sampling in qualitative research, the design is somewhat iterative in nature in the sense that information gained from analysis of data collected at the first stage influences the nature of the data collected, and the way they are collected, at subsequent stages ( Denzen, 1978 ). Furthermore, many of these adaptive designs may benefit from a multistage purposeful sampling strategy at early phases of the clinical trial to identify the range of variation and core characteristics of study participants. This information can then be used for the purposes of identifying optimal dose of treatment, limiting sample size, randomizing participants into different enrollment procedures, determining who should be eligible for random assignment (as in the optimal design) to maximize treatment adherence and minimize dropout, or identifying incentives and motives that may be used to encourage participation in the trial itself.

Alternatives to the classic RCT design may also be desirable in studies that adopt a community-based participatory research framework ( Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003 ), considered to be an important tool on conducting implementation research ( Palinkas & Soydan, 2012 ). Such frameworks suggest that identification and recruitment of potential study participants will place greater emphasis on the priorities and “local knowledge” of community partners than on the need to sample for variation or uniformity. In this instance, the first stage of sampling may approximate the strategy of sampling politically important cases ( Patton, 2002 ) at the first stage, followed by other sampling strategies intended to maximize variations in stakeholder opinions or experience.

On the basis of this review, the following recommendations are offered for the use of purposeful sampling in mixed method implementation research. First, many mixed methods studies in health services research and implementation science do not clearly identify or provide a rationale for the sampling procedure for either quantitative or qualitative components of the study ( Wisdom et al., 2011 ), so a primary recommendation is for researchers to clearly describe their sampling strategies and provide the rationale for the strategy.

Second, use of a single stage strategy for purposeful sampling for qualitative portions of a mixed methods implementation study should adhere to the same general principles that govern all forms of sampling, qualitative or quantitative. Kemper and colleagues (2003) identify seven such principles: 1) the sampling strategy should stem logically from the conceptual framework as well as the research questions being addressed by the study; 2) the sample should be able to generate a thorough database on the type of phenomenon under study; 3) the sample should at least allow the possibility of drawing clear inferences and credible explanations from the data; 4) the sampling strategy must be ethical; 5) the sampling plan should be feasible; 6) the sampling plan should allow the researcher to transfer/generalize the conclusions of the study to other settings or populations; and 7) the sampling scheme should be as efficient as practical.

Third, the field of implementation research is at a stage itself where qualitative methods are intended primarily to explore the barriers and facilitators of EBP implementation and to develop new conceptual models of implementation process and outcomes. This is especially important in state implementation research, where fiscal necessities are driving policy reforms for which knowledge about EBP implementation barriers and facilitators are urgently needed. Thus a multistage strategy for purposeful sampling should begin first with a broader view with an emphasis on variation or dispersion and move to a narrow view with an emphasis on similarity or central tendencies. Such a strategy is necessary for the task of finding the optimal balance between internal and external validity.

Fourth, if we assume that probability sampling will be the preferred strategy for the quantitative components of most implementation research, the selection of a single or multistage purposeful sampling strategy should be based, in part, on how it relates to the probability sample, either for the purpose of answering the same question (in which case a strategy emphasizing variation and dispersion is preferred) or the for answering related questions (in which case, a strategy emphasizing similarity and central tendencies is preferred).

Fifth, it should be kept in mind that all sampling procedures, whether purposeful or probability, are designed to capture elements of both similarity and differences, of both centrality and dispersion, because both elements are essential to the task of generating new knowledge through the processes of comparison and contrast. Selecting a strategy that gives emphasis to one does not mean that it cannot be used for the other. Having said that, our analysis has assumed at least some degree of concordance between breadth of understanding associated with quantitative probability sampling and purposeful sampling strategies that emphasize variation on the one hand, and between the depth of understanding and purposeful sampling strategies that emphasize similarity on the other hand. While there may be some merit to that assumption, depth of understanding requires both an understanding of variation and common elements.

Finally, it should also be kept in mind that quantitative data can be generated from a purposeful sampling strategy and qualitative data can be generated from a probability sampling strategy. Each set of data is suited to a specific objective and each must adhere to a specific set of assumptions and requirements. Nevertheless, the promise of mixed methods, like the promise of implementation science, lies in its ability to move beyond the confines of existing methodological approaches and develop innovative solutions to important and complex problems. For states engaged in EBP implementation, the need for these solutions is urgent.

Multistage Purposeful Sampling Strategies

Acknowledgments

This study was funded through a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (P30-MH090322: K. Hoagwood, PI).

• Open access
• Published: 28 May 2024

Current status of electronic health literacy among pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their perceptions of online health information: a mixed-methods study

• Jingqi Xu 1   na1 ,
• Yujia Chen 1   na1 ,
• Jing Zhao 1   na1 ,
• Jiarun Wang 1 ,
• Jianfei Chen 1 ,
• Xinlong Pan 1 ,
• Wei Zhang 1 ,
• Jin Zheng 2 ,
• Zhijie Zou 1 ,
• Xiaoli Chen 1 &
• Yingzi Zhang 3  

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth volume  24 , Article number:  392 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

Metrics details

Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus often rely on internet-based health information for managing their condition. This study aims to investigate the present state of electronic health literacy among women with gestational diabetes mellitus, analyze the influencing factors, and explore their experiences regarding accessing, comprehending, evaluating, and applying online health information pertinent to gestational diabetes mellitus.

A sequential explanatory mixed methods research design was adopted in this study. Initially, 235 women with gestational diabetes mellitus participated in a cross-sectional survey. The research tools included general information and the Chinese version of the electronic Health Literacy Scale (eHEALS). Descriptive analyses were conducted to describe the characteristics of the sample, and multiple linear regression analyses were used to explore the factors influencing electronic health literacy among women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Secondly, 11 women with gestational diabetes mellitus joined semi-structured in-depth interviews to obtain their perceptions about online health information. The data were analyzed using inductive content analysis to develop themes.

The median score of eHEALS in the Chinese version among 235 women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus was 29 (interquartile range [IQR], 26 to 32). Factors influencing electronic health literacy among these women included accessing health information from medical professionals (β = 0.137, p  = 0.029) and utilizing health information from applications (β = 0.159, p  = 0.013). From the qualitative phase of the study, four thematic categories emerged: reasons and basis for accessing health information from the Internet; address barriers to accessing and applying online health information; desires for a higher level of online health information services; outcomes of accessing and applying online health information.

The electronic health literacy of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus remains suboptimal and warrants improvement. The sources of access to health information affect electronic health literacy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Moreover, women facing gestational diabetes encounter numerous impediments when attempting to access health-related information online, underscoring the necessity for enhanced online health information services to meet their needs.

Peer Review reports

Gestational diabetes mellitus is a metabolic disorder occurring during pregnancy [ 1 ], primarily resulting from insulin resistance and the progressive dysfunction of pancreatic β-cell [ 2 ]. Symptoms of gestational diabetes mellitus often manifest insidiously, making detection challenging. Diagnosis typically occurs through the oral glucose tolerance test administered between the 24th and 28th weeks of gestation [ 3 ]. Although there have been some advancements in monitoring the fetal health of women with gestational diabetes [ 4 , 5 ], gestational diabetes mellitus remains one of the most important causes of adverse perinatal outcomes [ 6 , 7 ], which may also have a negative impact on maternal mental health [ 8 ]. To mitigate these adverse effects, a collaborative multidisciplinary approach is typically employed, with lifestyle and behavioral management serving as the preferred method of intervention [ 9 ]. Lifestyle and behavioral management strategies for gestational diabetes mellitus encompass a diverse array of medical knowledge, spanning medical nutrition therapy, physical activity recommendations, weight management strategies, and more [ 10 ]. Therefore, to effectively manage gestational diabetes mellitus, women typically require access to extensive health information regarding lifestyle and behavioral management strategies.

In recent years, with the development of information and communication technologies, electronic resources have been increasingly used in healthcare. The Internet, in particular, has emerged as a popular platform for accessing health information among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus [ 11 ]. However, despite the convenience afforded by the Internet for accessing health information, it is essential to acknowledge the challenges associated with online health information and services. These challenges include content duplication, the presence of unregulated information sources, inadequate quality control measures, and difficulty in verifying the credibility of information sources [ 12 ]. Therefore, for women managing gestational diabetes mellitus, discerning the most reliable and credible health information from the vast array of online resources is paramount.

According to Norman and Skinner, the ability of individuals to access reliable and credible health information from electronic resources hinges on their electronic health literacy, an extension of traditional health literacy within the digital realm [ 13 ]. Unlike traditional health literacy, which primarily emphasizes individual access to and understanding of health information [ 14 ], electronic health literacy focuses on the individual comprehensive ability to access, understand, and assess health information from electronic resources, and apply health information available online to address health issues or make health-related decisions [ 15 ]. Evidence suggests that individual electronic health literacy is positively associated with one’s health behaviors and health outcomes, including a higher level of medication adherence, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life, as well as adopting adaptive health behaviors [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Therefore, to enhance the health behaviors and outcomes of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus, a thorough understanding of their electronic health literacy is indispensable.

Most of the existing studies on electronic health literacy focus on adolescents, college students, and the elderly [ 20 , 21 , 22 ]. In recent years, a few researchers have explored electronic health literacy in people with chronic diseases and their caregivers, including cancer patients and their caregivers [ 23 , 24 ], individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus, and those diagnosed with diabetes [ 25 ]. To the best of our knowledge, there is relatively limited research on the electronic health literacy of pregnant women, and currently, no studies have investigated the electronic health literacy of women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Through a review of studies on electronic health literacy in other populations, it was found that demographic characteristics, pregnancy-related features, and sources of health information acquisition may influence the electronic health literacy of women with gestational diabetes mellitus, including factors such as age, education level, employment status, household income, residential location, gestational age, number of pregnancies, and online health information searching [ 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ]. In addition, research on electronic health literacy is primarily quantitative, while comprehensive studies on the experience and needs related to electronic health information remain insufficient. Taking these factors into consideration, this study adopted a mixed-methods approach to investigate electronic health literacy among women with gestational diabetes mellitus. It thoroughly explored the factors that influence electronic health literacy in this population, while also delving into their experiences of accessing, comprehending, evaluating, and applying online health information. Based on the literature review above, before the study began, we hypothesized that demographic characteristics, pregnancy-related factors, and sources of health information acquisition are associated with the electronic health literacy of pregnant women with gestational diabetes.

A sequential explanatory mixed-methods research design was employed to investigate the current status of electronic health literacy and cognition of online health information among women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus. This study is divided into two parts. The first part discusses the current status and influencing factors of electronic health literacy among women with gestational diabetes mellitus through quantitative analysis. In the second part, qualitative research was conducted to explore the perception and cognition of women with gestational diabetes mellitus on online health information.

Quantitative phase—questionnaire survey

Study design and setting.

The quantitative phase is a cross-sectional study conducted through questionnaire surveys. During this phase, we recruited pregnant women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus from the obstetrics department of a tertiary maternity hospital in Wuhan City using a convenience sampling method. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) aged 18 years old and above; (2) diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus according to the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG) criteria; (3) native Chinese speakers or non-native Chinese speakers who could understand Chinese well; (4) no cognitive impairment and normal mental state; (5) signed informed consent. Exclusion criteria included the inability to complete the questionnaire due to poor physical condition.

The sample size for studies on variable influencing factors should be determined according to the requirements of statistical variable analysis, typically recommended to be at least 5 to 10 times the number of variables [ 32 ]. In this study, based on 19 variables (16 independent variables and the 3 dimensions of the electronic health literacy scale), the estimated sample size ranged from 95 to 190. Considering a 20% invalid questionnaire rate, this section ultimately included 235 participants.

Data collection

Data were obtained through a self-completed questionnaire between July 20, 2022 and September 10, 2022. The questionnaire included the collection of independent and dependent variable information. The collection of independent variable information was based on a review of previous studies, covering general data related to demographic characteristics, pregnancy features, and sources of obtaining healthcare information. The instrument for collecting dependent variable information is the Chinese version of the eHEALS.

The eHEALS is the original and most frequently used instrument for investigating electronic health literacy [ 33 ]. It was initially developed by Norman and Skinner in 2006 [ 34 ]. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the original English version of eHEALS is 0.88. The Chinese version of eHEALS was translated by Guo in 2013 [ 35 ]. It consists of 3 dimensions with 8 items, scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The score of each item ranges from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater electronic health literacy. The Chinese version of eHEALS demonstrates good reliability and validity. Regarding reliability, the Cronbach’s α coefficient is 0.913 [ 35 ]. For validity, exploratory factor analysis reveals a KMO coefficient of 0.875 and a significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity with a χ2 value of 544.000 (df = 28); confirmatory factor analysis indicates factor loadings ranging from 0.692 to 0.869 [ 35 ]. In our study, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for eHEALS was 0.937.

Data analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics was employed for statistical analysis. Demographic and pregnancy characteristics of participants were presented using descriptive statistics. Continuous variables were described by means and standard deviations, or medians and interquartile, depending on the normality of the data. Categorical variables were described by frequencies and percentages. To investigate the correlation between general data and e-health literacy among pregnant women, univariate analysis was performed. Due to the non-normal distribution of the data, either the Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis H test was utilized. Subsequently, the general data of women with gestational diabetes mellitus ( p  < 0.05) from the univariate analysis were included as independent variables in a multiple linear regression model, with e-health literacy as the dependent variables, to explore the influencing factors of e-health literacy.

Qualitative phase—in-depth interviews

Study design and sample.

Qualitative data was collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews between September 1, 2022, and October 3, 2022. The sample size was determined based on the saturation principle, which means that sample recruitment continued until no new codes emerged [ 36 ]. Ultimately, a total of 11 participants were enrolled. Among these, four participants took part in both the qualitative and quantitative segments of the study, while the remaining seven exclusively contributed to the qualitative phase.

Before the interviews began, a survey was conducted on the personal basic information and electronic health literacy status of all 11 participants involved in the interviews.

The semi-structured interview instrument comprised 10 questions (Supplementary 1 ). The interview location was a quiet and clean reception room for pregnant women at the obstetrics clinic, which ensured the privacy of the interviews. Two researchers were involved: one recorded environmental information, interviewees’ non-verbal communication, and facial expressions, while the other conducted the interviews with pregnant women. Midway through the study, owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers conducted interviews with pregnant women via online video calls. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim.

The qualitative data from 11 interview transcripts were coded using NVivo 11.0, and analyzed using the inductive content analysis method described by Elo and Kyngäs [ 37 ]. The process of inductive content analysis comprises three phases. Open coding (Phases 1): researchers immersed themselves in the text data, generating numerous notes and headings to capture the content comprehensively. Subsequently, the researchers organized the headings into coding sheets and freely generated categories. Creating categories (Phases 2): the researchers amalgamated akin or disparate categories into higher-order categories for reducing the number of categories. Abstraction (Phases 3): the researchers delineated research topics through the utilization of generalized descriptions, thereby shaping the themes.

Quantitative results

Description of the sample.

The eHEALS score in the Chinese version, obtained from 235 women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus, spanned from 8 to 40, with a median score of 29 (IQR, 26 to 32). The median age of these participants was 31 (IQR, 29 to 34) years and their median gestational age was 34 (IQR, 32 to 36) weeks. All individuals involved in the study identified as Han Chinese. Further demographic and pregnancy characteristics of participants are shown in Table  1 .

Influencing factors of electronic health literacy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus

The results of single factor analysis indicated that educational status ( p  = 0.003), experience of accessing health information from clinicians or nurses ( p  = 0.022), experience of accessing health information from social forums or WeChat official accounts ( p  = 0.018), experience of accessing health information from applications ( p  = 0.016), experience of accessing health information from Internet pages ( p  = 0.046), and satisfaction with health information on the Internet ( p  = 0.002) had a statistically significant difference in electronic health literacy scores of women with gestational diabetes mellitus. The results are shown in Table  1 . Additionally, correlation analysis of gestational weeks and electronic health literacy scores showed that gestational weeks and electronic health literacy were not correlated in women with gestational diabetes mellitus ( p  = 0.346).

In the multiple linear regression analysis, the eHEALS score served as the dependent variable, while the statistically significant factors identified in the univariate analysis were considered independent variables. P  < 0.05 indicates statistical significance. Results showed that women with gestational diabetes mellitus who accessed health information from clinicians or nurses scored higher on the eHEALS than those who did not (β = 0.137, p  = 0.029). Similarly, women with gestational diabetes mellitus who accessed health information from applications demonstrated higher eHEALS scores than those who did not do (β = 0.159, p  = 0.013). These results are shown in Table  2 .

Qualitative findings

A total of 11 women with gestational diabetes mellitus participated in the interviews, designated with identifiers P1 to P11 based on the interview sequence. All interviewees were married and of Han nationality. Their age ranged from 27 to 36 years, with an average age of approximately 31 years. Three participants were in their second trimester, while the remaining were in their third trimester. Notably, only one interviewee, identified as P1, had prior pregnancy experience and already had one child. Furthermore, the ninth participant possessed a medical background and resided in a rural area. Among the participants, five individuals scored 32 points or more on the Chinese version of eHEALS (The score of eHEALS range from 26 to 40). The general information about the participants is presented in Supplementary 2 .

Based on the results of the interviews, a total of 4 themes and 12 sub-themes were identified. Supplementary 3 presents excerpts of selected quotes corresponding to each theme.

Reasons and basis for accessing health information from the internet

This theme revealed why and how women with gestational diabetes mellitus access health information from the Internet. They access information pertaining to maintaining a healthy pregnancy, managing their condition, monitoring fetal growth and development, and ensuring a successful delivery by utilizing Internet searches or subscribing to popular medical science articles disseminated via WeChat official accounts and pregnancy-related applications. The preference for electronic media among women with gestational diabetes mellitus is influenced by factors such as their previous information-seeking habits, recommendations from friends, and insights derived from data analysis. These information-seeking behaviors are motivated by concerns regarding health risks associated with disease exposure and perceived barriers to effective doctor-patient communication.

Reasons for accessing health information from the internet

The majority of interviewees reported actively seeking or passively receiving health information from the Internet. Their motivations included encountering abnormal prenatal examination results, experiencing personal or family physical discomfort, and lacking sufficient knowledge about various medical conditions.

Furthermore, some interviewees highlighted communication barriers between healthcare providers and patients, including distrust of doctors, dissatisfaction with their performance, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, as factors prompting them to resort to the Internet for health information.

Basis for selecting electronic media providing health information

The interviewees utilize diverse electronic media platforms like Baidu, Little Red Book, and Baby Tree for accessing health information. Their choices are frequently influenced by previous preferences, recommendations from acquaintances, and the promotion of big data.

Address barriers to accessing and applying online health information

Many barriers impede women with gestational diabetes mellitus in accessing and applying health information available online, including advertising, inappropriate medical depth of health information, redundant and cluttered health information, conflicting opinions on the same health issue, wide period and content span for health information update, and difficulties in evaluating the quality, sources, and safety of online health information. In response, they adopted strategies to address these barriers, including asking for help, exploring and practicing independently, and assessing the credentials of health information providers.

Barriers abound

During the interviews, women with gestational diabetes mellitus indicated that they encountered many barriers in accessing information. Two interviewees noted excessive hidden advertisements in online health information. Additionally, two interviewees pointed out that the medical depth of the health information available online was inappropriate and they expressed that this health information was insufficient to address their health concerns. Furthermore, three interviewees expressed difficulty in making decisions due to the plethora of conflicting opinions encountered online regarding the same health issue. Two respondents highlighted that the frequency and scope of updates to online health information posed obstacles to their access. Three respondents expressed apprehensions regarding the quality, source, and safety of the information available online.

Respond to barriers

Whenever women with gestational diabetes mellitus encounter difficulties accessing valuable health information online or have doubts about the reliability of the information they find, they tend to seek guidance from individuals with more expertise or experience, such as hospital doctors, online healthcare professionals, and peers who have similar experiences. They said that if they did not know whether health information available online was credible, they would try to practice it personally and judge the truth of health information based on their health changes. In addition, they expressed that they would try to retrieve health information through multiple online sources, compare the information content, and finally trust the highly overlapping parts. Furthermore, they also evaluate the credibility of online health information by assessing the credentials of information providers.

Desires for a higher level of online health information services

Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus often turn to the Internet as a supplementary resource for obtaining health-related information, yet deficiencies persist within current online health information platforms. Their expressed aspirations for enhanced online health services manifest across four key dimensions, as outlined below.

Desires for online transmission media with simple design and easy-to-use search function

Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus express a preference for online health information platforms that prioritize user-friendly design and enhanced searchability. Such features streamline software navigation, thereby facilitating their information retrieval process.

Desires for diversified online transmission forms of health information

Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus expressed a clear preference for online health information dissemination to encompass not only simple textual descriptions but also incorporate videos and images, thereby enhancing the comprehensibility and appeal of the content.

Desires for online information platforms containing real cases and experience sharing

Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus articulated the wish for web-based platforms to feature shared experiences from pregnant women and real-life cases. This inclusion is seen as instrumental in fostering confidence in recovery, accessing credible health information, and gaining deeper insights into pregnancy-related matters.

Desires for online information platforms with strong interactivity and personalized health information push services

Women with gestational diabetes mellitus expressed their desire for the personalized push service of health information provided by the web-based platforms, preferably sending health information according to their pregnancy duration. They also seek increased interaction with medical professionals on web-based platforms to receive more personalized and relevant advice and guidance.

Outcomes of accessing and applying online health information

Women with gestational diabetes mellitus noted that applying and accessing online health information could not only enhance their health literacy but also foster greater awareness of adopting a healthy lifestyle and encourage increased involvement from their spouses. However, they also acknowledged potential adverse effects, such as heightened anxiety stemming from the treatment experiences shared by others.

Popularization of health knowledge

Women with gestational diabetes mellitus point out that accessing online health information has improved their health knowledge and helps them effectively control blood sugar levels.

Emotional feedback

Some women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus remarked that the severity of the condition was often exaggerated on the Internet, leading to heightened anxiety. Furthermore, encountering accounts of successful disease management shared by others sometimes evoked feelings of self-doubt regarding their own ability to manage the condition, consequently causing stress and anxiety. Conversely, one woman with gestational diabetes mellitus expressed that upon encountering individuals facing similar health challenges online, she found solace in the shared experience of others facing similar struggles.

Increased awareness about adapting healthy lifestyles

Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus emphasized that their awareness of adopting healthy lifestyles had been heightened through their exploration of health information accessible on the Internet.

Increased husband’s sense of involvement and experience

Women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus noted that their husbands also have the opportunity to access online health information, thereby enabling them to gain a deeper understanding of the pregnancy experience.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate electronic health literacy among women with gestational diabetes mellitus through a mixed-methods design. Our study indicates that the electronic health literacy of women with gestational diabetes warrants improvement. Additionally, we delved into reasons for seeking health information online, barriers encountered, aspirations for improved online health services, and the impacts of utilizing online health information.

In terms of the influencing factors on electronic health literacy, our results indicated that women with gestational diabetes mellitus who accessed health information from medical personnel scored higher on electronic health literacy compared to those who did not, which was inconsistent with Kim et al.‘s finding that there was no difference in electronic health literacy scores between those with type 2 diabetes who relied on health professionals for health information and those who did not [ 38 ]. One possible explanation for this discrepancy is the variation in disease self-management capabilities. The majority of people with type 2 diabetes surveyed had managed their diabetes for 1–10 years, while participants in our study were diagnosed with gestational diabetes for a maximum of three months. The duration of illness positively correlates with the level of self-management [ 39 ]. This suggests that gestational diabetes patients may have weaker disease self-management abilities compared to type 2 diabetes patients, leading to a greater need for healthcare professionals’ assistance in addressing more health issues and facilitating gestational diabetes women’s understanding and application of online health information [ 40 ]. Additionally, the reason for this outcome in our study may be attributed to inadequate communication between healthcare professionals and patients [ 41 ]. Evidence suggests that individuals turn to the internet for information when their health concerns are not addressed by healthcare providers during consultations [ 41 ]. In the qualitative portion of our study, some patients reported that their issues were not fully resolved after communication with healthcare providers or that new uncertainties arose from these interactions. Consequently, women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus turn to the internet as an additional resource for health information, thereby augmenting their level of electronic health literacy [ 42 ].

The control of blood sugar levels is crucial for women with gestational diabetes mellitus, and continuous blood sugar monitoring, along with maintaining a healthy diet and lifestyle, is key to controlling blood sugar [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. Our research findings indicate that by accessing online health information, women with gestational diabetes mellitus can gain a deeper understanding of information related to blood sugar control, thereby effectively managing their blood sugar levels. Amr Jamal et al. have also noted that patients who engage in online health information queries have a better understanding of diabetes-related knowledge and demonstrate stronger blood sugar management capabilities compared to those who do not [ 47 ]. Therefore, future research should continue to explore the impact of this online health information on blood sugar management among women with gestational diabetes mellitus, thus effectively improving the management and prognosis of the disease.

Studies have demonstrated that precise health guidance aids in both treating gestational diabetes and preventing its development in high-risk pregnant women [ 48 , 49 ]. Although the qualitative results of this study indicate that online health information searches play a role in health guidance, this depends on the quality of the information obtained. Accurate online medical information can assist patients in comprehending their condition and guide them toward suitable treatment options [ 50 ]. However, inaccurate or misleading information can result in confusion and treatment delays [ 51 ]. The results of our qualitative study showed that women with gestational diabetes mellitus were not competent in discerning the quality of health information available online. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the quality of online health information. Presently, several tools have been developed to assess the quality of websites providing health information, including DISCERN, HONcode, and CRAAP [ 52 ]. However, current investigations into the quality of online health information primarily focus on cancer patients [ 53 , 54 , 55 ], with relatively limited research on the quality of online health information for gestational diabetes. Future studies could address this gap to assist gestational diabetes women in better selecting online health information. Additionally, the authority of online health information publishers has a positive impact on the credibility of health information [ 56 ]. Medical professionals have traditionally been the primary source of health information for individuals, being widely regarded as the most authoritative [ 57 ]. In our study, participants expressed a greater willingness to trust online health information published by certified healthcare professionals. These indications suggest the necessity of encouraging healthcare professionals to take responsibility for providing online guidance and support to women with gestational diabetes, thereby facilitating their access to and utilization of high-quality online healthcare information.

In terms of the design of online health platforms, interviewees expressed desires for easy access to health information, receiving personalized push services of health information, and increased interaction with medical personnel through these platforms, aligning with findings by Nijland et al. [ 58 ]. These implied that at the outset of developing online health information platforms, platform designers need to consider how to deliver health information to users in an understandable and accessible manner, as well as how to tailor health information to users’ needs [ 59 ].

Due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, we chose to conduct online video interviews with some participants. Compared to traditional offline interviews, online interviews offer more convenience in terms of time and space, but they also present some challenges [ 60 ]. Firstly, there are issues with internet connectivity, as online video interviews may be affected by network interruptions, thus disrupting the smooth progress of the interviews [ 61 ]. Secondly, online video interviews lack the emotional connection and interpersonal interaction of face-to-face communication, which may affect the richness of the information provided by the interviewees [ 62 ]. Lastly, due to issues with image quality and angles, online video interviews may not accurately capture the facial expressions and body language of the interviewees, thereby impacting the understanding and interpretation of the interview information [ 63 ]. The epidemic has sparked increased interest in video interviews, but video interviews should not be seen solely as expedient measures in response to the pandemic, but rather as an opportunity for long-term methodological advancement. Future research should further optimize the process of online video interviews to facilitate the development of virtual qualitative research methods.

Limitations

Some limitations needed to be reported. Firstly, the quantitative study utilized a self-assessment scale as the research instrument. Participants may have either exaggerated or minimized certain information to obtain more favorable results, potentially introducing reporting bias. Secondly, all participants were sourced from a single hospital, potentially impacting the generalizability of the findings. Lastly, participants who engaged in both quantitative and qualitative phases of the study appeared more prepared at qualitative interviews compared to those solely involved in the qualitative phase. This discrepancy may introduce bias into their responses.

Conclusions

Women with gestational diabetes mellitus have a low level of electronic health literacy and insufficient ability to assess online health information, and the source of health information could influence their electronic health literacy. They often accessed health information from the Internet due to perceived disease threats and blocked doctor-patient communication. Furthermore, they highlighted numerous barriers to accessing electronic health information and expressed a desire for enhanced quality in online information services. It is recommended to enhance doctor-patient communication and encourage medical staff to take on a guiding and supportive role to facilitate access to valuable information. Additionally, the development of assessment tools tailored to online health information suitable for women with gestational diabetes mellitus is proposed. Furthermore, improvements to online health information platforms are suggested to better align with user needs, thereby enhancing the electronic health literacy of women diagnosed with gestational diabetes mellitus.

Data availability

Owing to the confidentiality of the information, the datasets generated and analyzed in this study are not publicly available. Nevertheless, upon reasonable request, they can be made accessible through the corresponding author.

Choudhury AA, Devi Rajeswari V. Gestational diabetes mellitus - A metabolic and reproductive disorder. Biomed Pharmacother. 2021;143:112183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112183 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Plows JF, Stanley JL, Baker PN, Reynolds CM, Vickers MH. The pathophysiology of gestational diabetes Mellitus. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19113342 .

International association of D, pregnancy study groups consensus P, Metzger BE, Gabbe SG, Persson B, Buchanan TA, et al. International association of diabetes and pregnancy study groups recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(3):676–82. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc09-1848 .

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Sirico A, Raffone A, Maruotti GM, Travaglino A, Paciullo C, Diterlizzi A, et al. Third trimester myocardial performance index in fetuses from women with hyperglycemia in pregnancy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Ultraschall Med. 2023;44(2):e99–107. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1499-7265 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Sirico A, Rizzo G, Maruotti GM, Aiello E, Morlando M, Arduini D, et al. Does fetal macrosomia affect umbilical artery doppler velocity waveforms in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes? J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(20):3266–70. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1121479 .

Kariniemi K, Vaarasmaki M, Mannisto T, Mustaniemi S, Kajantie E, Etelainen S, et al. Neonatal outcomes according to different glucose threshold values in gestational diabetes: a register-based study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2024;24(1):271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06473-4 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zhang Q, Lai S, Zhang Y, Ye X, Wu Y, Lin T, et al. Associations of elevated glucose levels at each time point during OGTT with fetal congenital heart diseases: a cohort study of 72,236 births. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):837. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-06152-w .

Ouyang H, Chen B, Abdulrahman A-M, Li L, Wu N. Associations between gestational diabetes and anxiety or depression: a systematic review. J Diabetes Res. 2021;2021(9959779). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9959779 .

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice C. 15. Management of diabetes in pregnancy: standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2022. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(Suppl 1):S232–43. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc22-S015 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Brennan L, Teede H, Skouteris H, Linardon J, Hill B, Moran L. Lifestyle and behavioral management of polycystic ovary syndrome. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(8):836–48. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2016.5792 .

Sayakhot P, Carolan-Olah M. Sources of information on gestational diabetes Mellitus, satisfaction with diagnostic process and information provision. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2016;16(1):287. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-016-1067-9 .

Hou X, Chen J, Zhao W, J C J O H I, Management. Qual Anal Public Med Health Inform Internet. 2014;11(1):38–42.

Google Scholar  

Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHealth literacy: Essential Skills for Consumer Health in a Networked World. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(2):e9. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8.2.e9 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Nutbeam D, Lloyd JE. Understanding and responding to Health Literacy as a Social Determinant of Health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42:159–73. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-090419-102529 .

Campanozzi LL, Gibelli F, Bailo P, Nittari G, Sirignano A, Ricci G. The role of digital literacy in achieving health equity in the third millennium society: a literature review. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1109323. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1109323 .

Filabadi ZR, Estebsari F, Milani AS, Feizi S, Nasiri M. Relationship between electronic health literacy, quality of life, and self-efficacy in Tehran, Iran: a community-based study. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:175. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_63_20 .

Lin CY, Ganji M, Griffiths MD, Bravell ME, Brostrom A, Pakpour AH. Mediated effects of insomnia, psychological distress and medication adherence in the association of eHealth literacy and cardiac events among Iranian older patients with heart failure: a longitudinal study. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2020;19(2):155–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515119873648 .

Mitsutake S, Shibata A, Ishii K, Oka K. Associations of eHealth literacy with Health Behavior among adult internet users. J Med Internet Res. 2016;18(7):e192. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5413 .

Yang SC, Luo YF, Chiang CH. The associations among individual factors, eHealth Literacy, and Health-promoting lifestyles among College Students. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(1):e15. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.5964 .

Cui GH, Li SJ, Yin YT, Chen LJ, Li JQ, Liang FY, et al. The relationship among social capital, eHealth literacy and health behaviours in Chinese elderly people: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-10037-4 .

Giger JT, Barnhart S, Feltner F, Slone M, Lawler MJ, Windsor L, et al. Validating the eHealth literacy scale in rural adolescents. J Rural Health. 2021;37(3):504–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12509 .

Tubaishat A, Habiballah L. eHealth literacy among undergraduate nursing students. Nurse Educ Today. 2016;42:47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.003 .

Hoogland AI, Mansfield J, Lafranchise EA, Bulls HW, Johnstone PA, Jim HSL. eHealth literacy in older adults with cancer. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11(6):1020–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2019.12.015 .

Moore C, Hassett D, Dunne S. Health literacy in cancer caregivers: a systematic review. J Cancer Surviv. 2021;15(6):825–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-020-00975-8 .

Guo SH, Hsing HC, Lin JL, Lee CC. Relationships between Mobile eHealth literacy, diabetes Self-care, and glycemic outcomes in Taiwanese patients with type 2 Diabetes: cross-sectional study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2021;9(2):e18404. https://doi.org/10.2196/18404 .

Xie T, Zhang N, Mao Y, Zhu B. How to predict the electronic health literacy of Chinese primary and secondary school students? Establishment of a model and web nomograms. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1048. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13421-4 .

Alhuwail D, Abdulsalam Y. Assessing Electronic Health Literacy in the state of Kuwait: survey of internet users from an arab state. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(5):e11174. https://doi.org/10.2196/11174 .

Rezakhani Moghaddam H, Ranjbaran S, Babazadeh T. The role of e-health literacy and some cognitive factors in adopting protective behaviors of COVID-19 in Khalkhal residents. Front Public Health. 2022;10:916362. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.916362 .

Rahdar S, Montazeri M, Mirzaee M, Ahmadian L. The relationship between e-health literacy and information technology acceptance, and the willingness to share personal and health information among pregnant women. Int J Med Informatics. 2023;178:105203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2023.105203 .

Korkmaz Aslan G, Kılınç İşleyen E, Kartal A, Koştu N. The relation between eHealth literacy and healthy lifestyle behaviours in pregnant women. Health Promot Int. 2024;39(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae022 .

Demir Y, Dağ E, Özpinar S. The relationship of E-health Literacy with Cyberchondria: a cross-sectional study on pregnant women. J Health Lit. 2024;89–101. https://doi.org/10.22038/jhl.2024.76171.1501 .

Ni P, Chen J, Liu N. The sample size estimation in quantitative nursing research. Chin J Nurs. 2010;45(4):378e80.

Lee J, Lee EH, Chae D. eHealth Literacy Instruments: systematic review of Measurement Properties. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(11):e30644. https://doi.org/10.2196/30644 .

Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. J Med Internet Res. 2006;8(4):e27. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.8.4.e27 .

Guo S, Yu X, Sun Y, Et, Nie D, Li X, Wang L. Adaptation and evaluation of Chinese version of eHEALS and its usage among senior high school students. Chin J Health Educ. 2013;29(2):106–8.

Bradshaw C, Atkinson S, Doody O. Employing a qualitative description approach in health care research. Global Qualitative Nurs Res. 2017;4:2333393617742282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617742282 .

Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing. 2008, 62(1): 107 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x .

Kim KA, Kim YJ, Choi M. Association of electronic health literacy with health-promoting behaviors in patients with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Comput Inf Nurs. 2018;36(9):438–47. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000438 .

Lan X, Lu X, Yi B, Chen X, Jin S. Factors associated with self-management behaviors of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Jpn J Nurs Sci. 2022;19(1):e12450. https://doi.org/10.1111/jjns.12450 .

Wah YYE, Mcgill M, Wong J, Ross GP, Harding A-J, Krass I. Self-management of gestational diabetes among Chinese migrants: a qualitative study. Women Birth. 2019;32(1):e17–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wombi.2018.03.001 .

Li N, Orrange S, Kravitz RL, Bell RA. Reasons for and predictors of patients’ online health information seeking following a medical appointment. Fam Pract. 2014;31(5):550–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmu034 .

Wong DK-K, Cheung M-K. Online health information seeking and eHealth literacy among patients attending a primary care clinic in Hong Kong: a cross-sectional survey. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):e10831. https://doi.org/10.2196/10831 .

Scott EM, Murphy HR, Myers J, Saravanan P, Poston L, Law GR. MAGIC (maternal glucose in pregnancy) understanding the glycemic profile of pregnancy, intensive CGM glucose profiling and its relationship to fetal growth: an observational study protocol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2023;23(1):563. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-023-05824-x .

Tartaglione L, Di Stasio E, Sirico A, Di Leo M, Caputo S, Rizzi A, et al. Continuous glucose monitoring in women with normal OGTT in pregnancy. J Diabetes Res. 2021;2021(9987646). https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/9987646 .

/Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington (DC). 2004.

Le DC, Vu TB, Tran TN, Nguyen TL, Nguyen TB, Nguyen DC, et al. The effectiveness of Lifestyle Changes in Glycemic Control among pregnant women with gestational diabetes Mellitus. Med (Kaunas). 2023;59(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina59091587 .

Jamal A, Khan SA, Alhumud A, Al-Duhyyim A, Alrashed M, Bin Shabr F, et al. Association of Online Health Information-Seeking Behavior and self-care activities among type 2 Diabetic patients in Saudi Arabia. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(8):e196. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4312 .

Lin C-L, Huang L-C, Chang Y-T, Chen R-Y, Yang S-H. Effectiveness of Health Coaching in Diabetes Control and Lifestyle Improvement: a randomized-controlled trial. Nutrients. 2021;13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113878 .

Mohammadian F, Delavar MA, Behmanesh F, Azizi A, Esmaeilzadeh S. The impact of health coaching on the prevention of gestational diabetes in overweight/obese pregnant women: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Womens Health. 2023;23(1):619. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02750-0 .

Li Y, Zhou X, Zhou Y, Mao F, Shen S, Lin Y, et al. Evaluation of the quality and readability of online information about breast cancer in China. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(4):858–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.09.012 .

Hartzband P, Groopman J. Untangling the Web–patients, doctors, and the internet. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(12):1063–6. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp0911938 .

Portillo IA, Johnson CV, Johnson SY. Quality Evaluation of Consumer Health Information Websites Found on Google using DISCERN, CRAAP, and HONcode. Med Ref Serv Q. 2021;40(4):396–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2021.1987799 .

Yang W, Li B, Liu M, Tong D, Zou Y, Li X, et al. Quality evaluation of health information about breast cancer treatment found on WeChat public accounts. Archives Public Health. 2023;81(1):170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-023-01184-2 .

Arif N, Ghezzi P. Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. Breast. 2018;37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.10.004 .

Sobota A, Ozakinci G. The quality and readability of online consumer information about gynecologic cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25(3):537–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/IGC.0000000000000362 .

Sbaffi L, Rowley J. Trust and credibility in web-based Health Information: a review and agenda for Future Research. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(6):e218. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7579 .

Almaazmi MA, Samara KA, Jarai M, Majeed H, Barqawi HJ. The usage and Trustworthiness of Various Health Information Sources in the United Arab Emirates: an Online National Cross-sectional Survey. Healthc (Basel). 2023;11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11050663 .

Nijland N, Van Gemert-Pijnen J, Boer H, Steehouder MF, Seydel ER. Evaluation of internet-based technology for supporting self-care: problems encountered by patients and caregivers when using self-care applications. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10(2):e13. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.957 .

Eysenbach G, Jadad AR. Evidence-based patient choice and consumer health informatics in the internet age. J Med Internet Res. 2001;3(2):E19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3.2.e19 .

Rupert DJ, Poehlman JA, Hayes JJ, Ray SE, Moultrie RR. Virtual Versus In-Person focus groups: comparison of costs, recruitment, and Participant Logistics. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(3):e80. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6980 .

Ullman SE. Conducting virtual interviews with sexual assault survivors and their informal supports during COVID-19 and beyond. J Interpers Violence. 2024;39(7–8). https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231207619 . 1398 – 420.

Irvine A, Drew P, Sainsbury R, ‘Am. I not answering your questions properly?’Clarification, adequacy and responsiveness in semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews. Qualitative Res. 2013;13(1):87–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794112439086 .

Keen S, Lomeli-Rodriguez M, Joffe H. From challenge to opportunity: virtual qualitative research during COVID-19 and Beyond. Int J Qual Methods. 2022;21:16094069221105075. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221105075 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the pregnant women who participated in our study.

The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant number 2021PT073] supported this research.

Author information

Jingqi Xu, Yujia Chen and Jing Zhao are considered as co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

School of Nursing, Wuhan University, No. 115, Donghu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430071, China

Jingqi Xu, Yujia Chen, Jing Zhao, Jiarun Wang, Jianfei Chen, Xinlong Pan, Wei Zhang, Zhijie Zou & Xiaoli Chen

Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, 237 Luoyu Road, Wuhan, Hubei, 430079, China

Magnet Program & Nursing Research Department, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 8200 Brookriver Dr, Dallas, TX, 75247, USA

Yingzi Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JX: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - Original Draft; YC: Methodology, Validation, Writing - Original Draft; JZ: Methodology, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft; JW: Methodology, Validation, Investigation; JC: Investigation, Data Curation; XP: Investigation, Data Curation; WZ: Validation, Data Curation; JZ: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision; ZZ: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision; XC: Conceptualization, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision, Project administration; YZ: Validation, Data Curation.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jin Zheng , Zhijie Zou or Xiaoli Chen .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

The study was conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants provided signed informed consent to participate in the study. Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Medical Ethics Committee of Wuhan University (2021YF0048).

Consent for publication

Participants were notified, at the time of signing their informed consent, that their data (including questionnaire information and audio recordings) would be encoded and utilized for the purpose of drafting and publishing the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Xu, J., Chen, Y., Zhao, J. et al. Current status of electronic health literacy among pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus and their perceptions of online health information: a mixed-methods study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 24 , 392 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06594-w

Download citation

Received : 24 January 2024

Accepted : 20 May 2024

Published : 28 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-024-06594-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Gestational diabetes mellitus
• Electronic health literacy
• Online health information
• Pregnant women

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

ISSN: 1471-2393

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

Is e-business breaking down barriers for Bangladesh’s young female entrepreneurs during the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative study

• Original Paper
• Published: 27 May 2024
• Volume 4 , article number  107 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Md. Fouad Hossain Sarker 1 ,
• Sayed Farrukh Ahmed 2 ,
• Uzma Kawser 1 ,
• Md Sohrab Hossen 3 ,
• Md Obaidullah 1 ,
• Samiha Khan 1 ,
• Md. Khaled Sifullah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7841-6001 1 , 4 &
• Md. Salman Sohel 1 , 5  

14 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

In Bangladesh, where women constitute more than 50% of the population, a disparity in their advancement compared to men persists due to numerous barriers. However, the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic saw a surge in women venturing into e-business as entrepreneurs. This study aims to investigate how e-business contributing to women empowerment in Bangladesh during the Covid-19 pandemic. Employing a qualitative interpretive phenomenological approach and a purposive sample of 30 women engaged in e-commerce, this research illuminates the pivotal role of e-business in empowering women in Bangladesh. Participants involved in e-commerce reported achieving financial independence and autonomy, experiencing a positive transformation in family dynamics, challenging traditional gender norms, and garnering recognition within their communities. E-commerce not only equipped them with technical and financial management skills but also provided access to diverse markets, transcending geographical boundaries, and enhancing their customer outreach throughout Bangladesh. The findings of this study hold significance for policymakers and contribute to the existing literature on women in e-commerce, offering insights into the transformative impact of E-business on women’s empowerment in Bangladesh.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Social Media Adoption, Usage And Impact In Business-To-Business (B2B) Context: A State-Of-The-Art Literature Review

How digital technologies reshape marketing: evidence from a qualitative investigation

The Digital Marketing Toolkit: A Literature Review for the Identification of Digital Marketing Channels and Platforms

Data availability.

The data will be available upon reasonable request.

Afshan G, Shahid S, Tunio MN (2021) Learning experiences of women entrepreneurs amidst COVID-19. Int J Gend Entrep 13(2):162–186. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJGE-09-2020-0153

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahsan H, Afzal H (2022) Is information communication technology and women empowerment helping to alleviate poverty in Pakistan? Liberal Arts Soc Sci Int J (LASSIJ) 6(2):190–215. https://doi.org/10.47264/idea.lassij/6.2.11

Alameeri KA, Alshurideh MT, Al Kurdi B (2021) The effect of Covid-19 pandemic on business systems’ innovation and entrepreneurship and how to cope with it: a theatrical view, pp 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67151-8_16

Book   Google Scholar  

Alhazmi AA, Kaufmann A (2022) Phenomenological qualitative methods applied to the analysis of cross-cultural experience in novel educational social contexts. Front Psychol 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.785134

Allsop DB, Chelladurai JM, Kimball ER, Marks LD, Hendricks JJ (2022) Qualitative methods with Nvivo software: a practical guide for analyzing qualitative data. Psych 4(2):142–159. https://doi.org/10.3390/psych4020013

Balza JS, Cusatis R, McDonnell SM, Basir MA, Flynn KE (2022) Effective questionnaire design: how to use cognitive interviews to refine questionnaire items. J Neonatal-Perinat Med 15(2):345–349. https://doi.org/10.3233/NPM-210848

Banerjee D, Rai M (2020) Social isolation in Covid-19: the impact of loneliness. Int J Social Psychiatry 66(6):525–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020922269

Belitski M, Guenther C, Kritikos AS, Thurik R (2022) Economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on entrepreneurship and small businesses. Small Bus Econ 58(2):593–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00544-y

Boyatzis RE (1998). Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publications, Inc. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1998-08155-000

Crouch M, McKenzie H (2006) The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Soc Sci Inf 45(4):483–499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0539018406069584

Denzin NK (2012) Triangulation 2.0. J Mixed Methods Res 6(2):80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186

DiCicco-Bloom B, Crabtree BF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Med Educ 40(4):314–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02418.x

Eldh AC, Årestedt L, Berterö C (2020) Quotations in qualitative studies: reflections on constituents, custom, and purpose. Int J Qual Methods 19:160940692096926. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920969268

Galindo-Martín M-Á, Castaño-Martínez M-S, Méndez-Picazo M-T (2021) Effects of the pandemic crisis on entrepreneurship and sustainable development. J Bus Res 137:345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.08.053

Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24(2):105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.NEDT.2003.10.001

GSMA (2022) The mobile gender gap report 2022. http://www.gsmaintelligence.com

Hennink M, Kaiser BN (2022) Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: a systematic review of empirical tests. Soc Sci Med 292:114523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

Hossain T (2018) Empowering women through E-business: a study on women entrepreneurs in Dhaka city. Asian Bus Rev 8(3):155–162. https://doi.org/10.18034/abr.v8i3.167

Hossen MS (2020) Patriarchy practice and women’s subordination in the society of Bangladesh: an analytical review. Electr Res J Soc Sci Human 2. http://www.eresearchjournal.com

Hughes KD, Saunders C, Denier N (2022) Lockdowns, pivots & triple shifts: early challenges and opportunities of the COVID-19 pandemic for women entrepreneurs. J Small Bus Entrep 34(5):483–501. https://doi.org/10.1080/08276331.2022.2042657

Jafari-Sadeghi V (2020) The motivational factors of business venturing: opportunity versus necessity? A gendered perspective on European countries. J Bus Res 113:279–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.058

Jaim J (2020) Exist or exit? Women business-owners in Bangladesh during COVID-19. Gend Work Organ 28(S1):209–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12546

Jaim J (2022) Help and hindrance: family roles concerning small businesses of women in Bangladesh during COVID-19 pandemic. South Asian J Bus Stud. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAJBS-08-2021-0329

Kabeer N (1999) Resources, agency, achievements: reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment. Dev Change 30(3):435–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00125

Khursheed A, Khan AA, Mustafa F (2021) Women’s social empowerment and microfinance: a brief review of literature. J Int Women’s Stud 22(5). https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol22/iss5/16/

Knott E, Rao AH, Summers K, Teeger C (2022) Interviews in the social sciences. Nat Rev Method Primers 2(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00150-6

Kumar S, Singh N (2021) Entrepreneurial prospects and challenges for women amidst COVID-19: a case study of Delhi, India. Fulbright Rev Econ Policy 1(2):205–226

Kumari S (2015) An impact of financial decision making of independent women: need for financial inclusive growth of society. Asian J Res Bus Econ Manage 5(11):46. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-7307.2015.00193.0

Liñán F, Jaén I (2022) The Covid-19 pandemic and entrepreneurship: some reflections. Int J Emerg Markets 17(5):1165–1174. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-05-2020-0491

Lungu AE, Bogoslov IA, Stoica EA, Georgescu MR (2021) From decision to survival—shifting the paradigm in entrepreneurship during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainability 13(14):7674. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147674

Mackey A, Petrucka P (2021) Technology as the key to women’s empowerment: a scoping review. BMC Women’s Health 21(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01225-4

Maier S, Nair-Reichert U (2008) Empowering women through ICT-based business initiatives: an overview of best practices in E-commerce/E-retailing projects

Majid MAA, Othman M, Mohamad SF, Lim SAH, Yusof A (2017) Piloting for interviews in qualitative research: operationalization and lessons learnt. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci 7(4). https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i4/2916

Mishra G, Kiran UV (2014) Rural women entrepreneurs: concerns & importance. Int J Sci Res http://www.scribd.com/doc/26661470/Rural-

Mortari L, Valbusa F, Ubbiali M, Bombieri R (2023) The empirical phenomenological method: theoretical foundation and research applications. Soc Sci 12(7):413. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12070413

Moser A, Korstjens I (2017) Series: practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 1: introduction. Eur J General Pract 23(1):271–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2017.1375093

Muhammad S, Ximei K, Haq ZU, Ali I, Beutell N (2022) COVID-19 pandemic, a blessing or a curse for sales? A study of women entrepreneurs from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa community. J Enterp Commun People Places Glob Econ 16(6):967–987. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEC-05-2021-0060

Mustafa F, Khursheed A, Fatima M, Rao M (2021) Exploring the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on women entrepreneurs in Pakistan. Int J Gend Entrep 13(2):187–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijge-09-2020-0149

Nasar A, Akram M, Safdar MR, Akbar MS (2022) A qualitative assessment of entrepreneurship amidst COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Asia Pacific Manag Rev 27(3):182–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmrv.2021.08.001

Obaidullah M, Zubayer AA (2021) Opportunities and threats of E-commerce in social media: perspective of Bangladeshi female seller. Int J Comput Eng Res Trends 2:40–45

Google Scholar  

Parse RR (1990) Parse’s research methodology with an illustration of the lived experience of hope. Nurs Sci Q 3(1):9–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/089431849000300106

Patton MQ (2002) Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry. Qual Soc Work 1(3):261–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325002001003636

Patton MQ (2015) Qualitative research and evaluation methods: theory and practice, 4th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc, p 832

Purnomo BR, Adiguna R, Widodo W, Suyatna H, Nusantoro BP (2021) Entrepreneurial resilience during the Covid-19 pandemic: navigating survival, continuity and growth. J Entrep Emerg Econ 13(4):497–524. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-07-2020-0270

Rahayu NS, Masduki, Ellyanawati ERN (2023) Women entrepreneurs’ struggles during the COVID-19 pandemic and their use of social media. J Innov Entrep 12(1):51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00322-y

Sandelowski M (1995) Qualitative analysis: what it is and how to begin. Res Nurs Health 18:371–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180411

Seth A (2009). Entrepreneurship and E-business development for women. Retrieved from http://books.google.ie/books?id=mrYnAQAAMAAJ&q=Entrepreneurship+and+e-Business+Development+for+Women&dq=Entrepreneurship+and+e-Business+Development+for+Women&hl=&cd=1&source=gbs_api

Shafi M, Liu J, Ren W (2020) Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises operating in Pakistan. Res Glob 2:100018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2020.100018

Shirazi F (2012) Information and communication technology and women empowerment in Iran. Telematic Informatic 29(1):45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2011.02.001

Smith JA, Osborn M (2015) Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. Br J Pain 9(1):41–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/2049463714541642

Sörensson A, Ghannad N (2023) Entrepreneurial opportunities and difficulties under COVID-19 for women entrepreneurs in Asia and Europe. J Entrep Emerg Econ. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEEE-02-2023-0052

Tenny S, Brannan JM, Brannan GD (2023) Qualitative study. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL). PMID: 29262162

The Daily Star (2023) Unemployment problem in Bangladesh: nearly 8 lakh graduates unemployed. Dhaka. https://www.thedailystar.net/business/news/nearly-8-lakh-graduates-unemployed-3453156

The Dhaka Tribune (2020) Country’s women unemployment rate comes down to 6.2%. Dhaka. https://www.dhakatribune.com/business/199293/country-s-women-unemployment-rate-comes-down-to

Tiwari D, Shastri S (2022) Women entrepreneurs during COVID-19 pandemic: does their social capital matter? Continuity Resilience Rev 5(1):36–52. https://doi.org/10.1108/crr-07-2022-0012

Vasilić N, Popović-Pantić S, Semenčenko D (2020) Women entrepreneurship in the time of COVID-19 pandemic. JWEE 3–4:23–40. https://doi.org/10.28934/jwee20.34.pp23-40

Xiao JJ, Chatterjee S, Kim J (2014) Factors associated with financial independence of young adults. Int J Consum Stud 38(4):394–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12106

Yin RK (2011) Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, USA

Yue W, Cowling M (2021) The Covid-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom and subjective well-being: have the self-employed suffered more due to hours and income reductions? Int Small Bus J Res Entrep 39(2):93–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242620986763

Zaman R-U, Islam HB (2022) Bangladesh’s mobile internet usage gender gap widest in 10 LMICs. The Business Standard, Dhaka. https://www.tbsnews.net/bangladesh/bangladeshs-mobile-internet-usage-gender-gap-widest-10-lmics-447786

Zamawe F (2015) The implication of using NVivo software in qualitative data analysis: evidence-based reflections. Malawi Med J 27(1):13. https://doi.org/10.4314/mmj.v27i1.4

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to those who participated in the study for sharing their moving experiences and devoting their time to it so quickly.

The authors didn’t receive any internal or external funding sources.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Development Studies, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, 1216, Bangladesh

Md. Fouad Hossain Sarker, Uzma Kawser, Md Obaidullah, Samiha Khan, Md. Khaled Sifullah & Md. Salman Sohel

Department of Business Administration, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, 1216, Bangladesh

Sayed Farrukh Ahmed

James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University, Dhaka, 1212, Bangladesh

Md Sohrab Hossen

Department of Nutrition and Food Engineering, Daffodil International University, Dhaka, 1216, Bangladesh

Md. Khaled Sifullah

Department of Public Leadership, Management & Governance, East Delta University, Chattogram, 4209, Bangladesh

Md. Salman Sohel

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: M.F.H.S., S.F.A.; Methodology: M.F.H.S., and M.S.H.; Validation: M.F.H.S., S.F.A. and M.S.H.; Formal analysis: S.K., M.K.S., M.S.H.; Investigation: M.O., S.K. and S.F.A.; Resources: S.K. and M.O.; Data curation: U.K., M.S.H. and M.O.; Writing—original draft preparation: S.K., M.S.H., U.K., M.O.; Writing—review and editing: M.F.H.S., S.F.A. and M.K.S.; Visualization: M.O., M.K.S., M.S.H.; Supervision: M.F.H.S., and S.F.A.; Project administration: M.F.H.S., U.K., M.S.H., M.O., and S.K.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md. Khaled Sifullah .

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval.

The study was approved by the Institutional Ethical Review Board, Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Daffodil International University, Dhaka -1216, Bangladesh (Protocol No. Ethics/ Fouad3/2022. The participant’s identity was maintained as anonymous. It is important to note that all of our participants are aged 18 and above. In addition, both verbal and written consent were obtained from all participants

Conflicts of interest

The authors stated no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sarker, M., Ahmed, S., Kawser, U. et al. Is e-business breaking down barriers for Bangladesh’s young female entrepreneurs during the COVID-19 pandemic? A qualitative study. SN Soc Sci 4 , 107 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00911-y

Download citation

Received : 17 January 2024

Accepted : 06 May 2024

Published : 27 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-024-00911-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Entrepreneurs
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research