Patton, M. (1990).

Qualitative evaluation and research methods

(pp. 169-186). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Designing Qualitative Studies

169

PURPOSEFUL SAMPLING
Perhaps nothing better captures the difference between quantitative
and qualitative methods than the different logics that undergird
sampling approaches. Qualitative inquiry typically focuses in depth on
relatively small samples, even single cases (n = 1), selected purposefully.
Quantitative methods typically depend on larger samples selected
randomly. Not only are the techniques for sampling different, but the
very logic of each approach is unique because the purpose of each
strategy is different.
The logic and power of probability sampling depends on selecting a
truly random and statistically representative sample that will permit
confident generalization from the sample to a larger population. The
purpose is generalization.
The logic and power of purposeful sampling lies in selecting in
formation-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 research, thus the term purposeful sampling.
For example, if the purpose of an evaluation is to increase the effectiveness of a program in reaching lower-socioeconomic groups, one
may learn a great deal more by focusing in depth on understanding the
needs, interests, and incentives of a small number of carefully selected
poor families than by gathering standardized information from a large,
statistically representative sample of the whole program. The purpose
of purposeful sampling is to select information-rich cases whose study
will illuminate the questions under study.
There are several different strategies for purposefully selecting
information-rich cases. The logic of each strategy serves a particular
evaluation purpose.
(1) Extreme or deviant case sampling. This approach focuses on cases
that are rich in information because they are unusual or special in
some way. Unusual or special cases may be particularly troublesome or
especially enlightening, such as outstanding successes or notable
failures. If, for example, the evaluation was aimed at gathering data
help a national program reach more clients, one might compare a few
project sites that have long waiting lists with those that have short
waiting lists. If staff morale was an issue, one might study and
compare high-morale programs to low-morale programs.

170

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

The logic of extreme case sampling is that lessons may be learned

about unusual conditions or extreme outcomes that are relevant to
improving more typical programs. Let's suppose that we are interested
in studying a national program with hundreds of local sites. We know
that many programs are operating reasonably well, even quite well, and
that other programs verge on being disasters. We also know that most
programs are doing "okay." This information comes from
knowledgeable sources who have made site visits to enough programs to
have a basic idea about what the variation is. The question is this: How
should programs be sampled for the study? If one wanted to precisely
document the natural variation among programs, a random sample
would be appropriate, preferably a random sample of sufficient size to
be truly representative of and permit generalizations to the total
population of programs. However, some information is already available
on what program variation is like. The question of more immediate
interest may concern extreme cases. With limited resources and limited
time an evaluator might learn more by intensively studying one or more
examples of really poor programs and one or more examples of really
excellent programs. The evaluation focus, then, becomes a question of
understanding under what conditions programs get into trouble and
under what conditions programs exemplify excellence. It is not even
necessary to randomly sample poor programs or excellent programs.
The researchers and intended users involved in the study think through
what cases they could learn the most from and those are the cases that are
selected for study.
In a single program the same strategy may apply. Instead of studying
some representative sample of people in the setting, the evaluator may
focus on studying and understanding selected cases of special interest,
for example, unexpected dropouts or outstanding successes. In many
instances more can be learned from intensively studying extreme or
unusual cases than can be learned from statistical depictions of what the
average case is like. In other evaluations detailed information about
special cases can be used to supplement statistical data about the normal
distribution of participants.
Ethnomethodologists use a form of extreme case sampling when
they do their field experiments. Ethnomethodologists are interested in
everyday experiences of routine living that depend on deeply
understood, shared understandings among people in a setting (see
Chapter 3). One way of exposing these implicit assumptions and norms
on which everyday life is based is to create disturbances that

Designing Qualitative Studies

171

deviate from the norm. Observing the reactions to someone eating like a
pig in a restaurant and then interviewing people about what they saw
and how they felt would be an example of studying a deviant sample to
illuminate the ordinary.
The Peters and Waterman (1982) best-selling study of "America's
best run companies," In Search of Excellence, exemplifies the logic of
purposeful, extreme group sampling. Their study was based on a sample
of 62 companies "never intended to be perfectly representative of U.S.
industry as a whole ... [but] a list of companies considered to be
innovative and excellent by an informed group of observers of the
business scene" (Peters and Waterman, 1982: 19).
Another excellent example of extreme group sampling is Angela
Browne's (1987) study, When Battered Women Kill. She conducted in-depth
studies of the most extreme cases of domestic violence to elucidate the
phenomenon of battering and abuse. The extreme nature of the cases
presented are what render them so powerful. Browne's book is an
exemplar of qualitative inquiry using purposeful sampling for applied
research.
(2) Intensity sampling. Intensity sampling involves the same logic as
extreme case sampling but with less emphasis on the extremes. An
intensity sample consists of information-rich cases that manifest the
phenomenon of interest intensely (but not extremely). Extreme or
deviant cases may be so unusual as to distort the manifestation of the
phenomenon of interest. Using the logic of intensity sampling, one seeks
excellent or rich examples of the phenomenon of interest, but not
unusual cases.
Heuristic research uses intensity sampling. Heuristic research draws
explicitly on the intense personal experiences of the researcher, for
example, experiences with loneliness or jealousy Coresearchers who
have experienced these phenomena intensely also participate in the
study (see Chapter 3). The heuristic researcher is not typically seeking
pathological or extreme manifestations of loneliness, jealousy, or
whatever phenomenon is of interest. Such extreme cases might not lend
themselves to the reflective process of heuristic inquiry. On the other
hand, if the experience of the heuristic researcher and his or her
coresearchers is quite mild, there won't be much to study. Thus the
researcher seeks a sample of sufficient intensity to elucidate the phenomenon of interest.
The same logic applies in a program evaluation. Extreme successes
or unusual failures may be discredited as being too extreme or un-

172

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

usual for gaining information. Therefore, the evaluator may select cases
that manifest sufficient intensity to illuminate the nature of success or
failure, but not at the extreme.
Intensity sampling involves some prior information and considerable
judgment. The researcher must do some exploratory work to determine
the nature of the variation in the situation under study One can then
sample intense examples of the phenomenon of interest.
(3) Maximum Variation sampling. This strategy for purposeful sampling aims at capturing and describing the central themes or principal
outcomes that cut across a great deal of participant or program
variation. For small samples a great deal of heterogeneity can be a
problem because individual cases are so different from each other. The
maximum variation sampling strategy turns that apparent weakness into
a strength by applying the following logic: Any common patterns that
emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in
capturing the core experiences and central, shared aspects or impacts of
a program.
How does one maximize variation in a small sample? One begins by
identifying diverse characteristics or criteria for constructing the sample.
Suppose a statewide program has project sites spread around the state,
some in rural areas, some in urban areas, and some in suburban areas.
The evaluation lacks sufficient resources to randomly select enough
project sites to generalize across the state. The evaluator can at least be
sure that the geographical variation among sites is represented in the
study.
When selecting a small sample of great diversity, the data collection
and analysis will yield two kinds of findings: (1) high-quality, detailed
descriptions of each case, which are useful for documenting uniqueness,
and (Z) important shared patterns that cut across cases and derive their
significance from having emerged out of heterogeneity.
The same strategy can be used within a single program in selecting
individuals for study. By including in the sample individuals the
evaluator determines have had quite different experiences, it is possible
to more thoroughly describe the variation in the group and to
understand variations in experiences while also investigating core
elements and shared outcomes. The evaluator using a maximum
variation sampling strategy would not be attempting to generalize
findings to all people or all groups but would be looking for information
that elucidates programmatic variation and significant common patterns
within that variation.

Designing Qualitative Studies

173

(4) Homogeneous samples. In direct contrast to maximum variation

sampling is the strategy of picking a small homogeneous sample. The
purpose here is to describe some particular subgroup in depth. A
program that has many different kinds of participants may need in-depth
information about a particular subgroup. For example, a parent
education program that involves many different kinds of parents may
focus a qualitative evaluation on the experiences of single-parent female
heads of household because that is a particularly difficult group to reach
and hold in the program.
Focus group interviews are typically based on homogeneous groups.
Focus group interviews involve conducting open-ended interviews with
groups of five to eight people on specially targeted or focused issues.
The use of focus groups in evaluation will be discussed at greater length
in the chapter on interviewing. The point here is that sampling for focus
groups typically involves bringing together people of similar
backgrounds and experiences to participate in a group interview about
major program issues that affect them.
(5) Typical case sampling. In describing a program or its participants
to people not familiar with the program it can be helpful to provide a
qualitative profile of one or more "typical" cases. These cases are
selected with the cooperation of key informants, such as program staff
or knowledgeable participants, who can help identify what is typical. It is
also possible to select typical cases from survey data, a demographic
analysis of averages, or other programmatic data that provide a normal
distribution of characteristics from which to identify "average"
examples. Keep in mind that the purpose of a qualitative profile of one
or more typical cases is to describe and illustrate what is typical to those
unfamiliar with the programnot to make generalized statements about
the experiences of all participants. The sample is illustrative not
definitive.
When entire programs or communities are the unit of analysis, it is
also possible to sample somewhat typical cases. Again, the study of
such typical programs does not, of course, permit generalizations in
any rigorous sense. It does, however, mean that the processes and
effects described for the typical program need not be dismissed as
peculiar to "poor" sites or "excellent" sites. When the typical site
sampling strategy is used, the site is specifically selected because it is
not in any major way atypical, extreme, deviant, or intensely unusual.
This strategy is often appropriate in sampling villages for community
development studies in Third World countries. A study of a typical

174

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

village illuminates key issues that must be considered in any development project aimed at this kind of village.
Decision makers may have made their peace with the fact that there
will always be some poor programs and some excellent programs, but
the programs they really want more information about are those run-ofthe-mill programs that are "hard to get a handle on." It is important,
when using this strategy, to attempt to get broad consensus about which
programs are "typical." If a number of such programs are identified,
only a few can be studied, and there is no other basis for selecting
among them purposefully, then it is possible to randomly select from
among all "typical" programs identified to select those few typical cases
that actually will be included in the study.
(6) Stratified purposeful sampling. It is also clearly possible to combine
a typical case sampling strategy with others, essentially taking a stratified
purposeful sample of above average, average, and below average cases.
This is less than a full maximum variation sample. 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. This strategy differs from stratified random sampling in that the
sample sizes are likely to be too small for generalization or statistical
representativeness.
(7) Critical case sampling. Another strategy for selecting purposeful
samples is to look for critical cases. Critical cases are those that can
make a point quite dramatically or are, for some reason, particularly
important in the scheme of things. A clue to the existence of a critical
case is a statement to the effect that "if it happens there, it will happen
anywhere," or, vice versa, "if it doesn't happen there, it won't happen
anywhere." The focus of the data gathering in this instance is on
understanding what is happening in that critical case. Another clue to
the existence of a critical case is a key informant observation to the
effect that "if that group is having problems, then we can be sure all the
groups are having problems."
Looking for the critical case is particularly important where resources
may limit the evaluation to the study of only a single site. Under such
conditions it makes strategic sense to pick the site that would yield the
most information and have the greatest impact on the development of
knowledge. While studying one or a few critical cases does not
technically permit broad generalizations to all possible cases,

Designing Qualitative Studies

175

logical generalizations can often be made from the weight of evidence

produced in studying a single, critical case.
Physics provides a good example of such a critical case. In
Galileo's study of gravity he wanted to find out if the weight of an
object affected the rate of speed at which it would fall. Rather than
randomly sampling objects of different weights in order to generalize
to all objects in the world, he selected a critical casethe feather. If
in a vacuum, as he demonstrated, a feather fell at the same rate as
some heavier object (a coin), then he could logically generalize from
this one critical case to all objects. His findings were enormously
useful and credible.
There are many comparable critical cases in social science
researchif one is creative in looking for them. For example,
suppose national policymakers want to get local communities
involved in making decisions about how their local program will be
run, but they aren't sure that the communities will understand the
complex regulations governing their involvement. The first critical
case is to evaluate the regulations in a community of well-educated
citizens; if they can't understand the regulations, then less-educated
folks are sure to find the regulations incomprehensible. Or
conversely, one might consider the critical case to be a community
consisting of people with quite low levels of education: "If they can
understand the regulations, anyone can."
Identification of critical cases depends on recognition of the key
dimensions that make for a critical case. A critical case might be
indicated by the financial state of a program; a program with particularly high or particularly low cost-per-client ratios might suggest a
critical case. A critical case might come from a particularly difficult
program location. If the funders of a new program are worried about
recruiting clients or participants into a program, it may make sense to
study the site where resistance to the program is expected to be
greatest to provide the most rigorous test of the possibility of
program recruitment. If the program works in that site, "It could
work anywhere."
World-renowned medical hypnotist Milton H. Erickson became a
critical case in the field of hypnosis. Erickson was so skillful that he
became widely known for "his ability to succeed with 'impossibles'
people who have exhausted the traditional medical, dental, psychotherapeutic, hypnotic and religious avenues for assisting them in their

176

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

need, and have not been able to make the changes they desire"
(Grinder et al., 1977: 109). If Milton Erickson couldn't help, no one
could help. He was able to demonstrate that anyone could be hypnotized.
(S) Snowball or chain sampling. This is an approach for locating
information-rich key informants or critical cases. The process begins
?
by asking well-situated people: "Who knows a lot about ____
Who should I talk to?" By asking a number of people who else to talk
with, the snowball gets bigger and bigger as you accumulate new
information-rich cases. In most programs or systems, a few key names
or incidents are mentioned repeatedly. Those people or events recommended as valuable by a number of different informants take on
special importance. The chain of recommended informants will typically diverge initially as many possible sources are recommended, then
converge as a few key names get mentioned over and over.
The Peters and Waterman (1982) study In Search of Excellence began
with snowball sampling, asking a broad group of knowledgeable people
to identify well-run companies. Another excellent and well-known
example was Rosabeth Moss Kanter's (1983) study of innovation
reported in The Change Masters. Her book focused on ten cure case
studies. She began her search for the "best" or "most innovative"
companies by getting the views of corporate experts in human resource fields. Nominations for cases to study snowballed from there
and then converged into a small number of core cases nominated by a
number of different informants.
(9) Criterion sampling. The logic of criterion sampling is to review
and study all cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance. This approach is common in quality assurance efforts. For
example, the expected range of participation in a mental health outpatient program might be 4 to 26 weeks. All cases that exceed 28
weeks are reviewed and studied to find out what is happening and to
make sure the case is being appropriately handled.
Critical incidents can be a source of criterion sampling. For example, all incidents of client abuse in a program may be objects of indepth evaluation in a quality assurance effort. All farmer mental health
clients who commit suicide within three months of release may
constitute a sample for in-depth, qualitative study. In a school setting,
all students who are absent more than half the time may merit the indepth attention of a qualitative case study. The point of criterion
sampling is to be sure to understand cases that are likely to be

Designing Qualitative Studies

177

information-rich because they may reveal major system weaknesses

that become targets of opportunity for program or system improvement.
Criterion sampling can add an important qualitative component to
a management information system or an ongoing program monitoring system. All cases in the data system that exhibit certain predetermined criterion characteristics are routinely identified for in-depth,
qualitative analysis. Criterion sampling also can be applied to identify
cases from quantitative questionnaires or tests for in-depth followup.
(10) Theory-based or operational construct sampling. A more formal basic
research version of criterion sampling is theory-based sampling. The
researcher samples incidents, slices of life, time periods, or people on
the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of
important theoretical constructs. The sample becomes, by definition,
representative of the phenomenon of interest. An ecological psychologist (see Chapter 3) is interested, for example, in studying the interaction between a person and the environment. Instances of such
interaction must be defined based on theoretical premises in order to
study examples that represent the phenomenon of interest.
This differs from the more practical sampling in program evaluation. The evaluator doesn't need a theory-based definition of "program" because the entity to be studied is usually legally or financially
defined. However, to sample social science phenomena that represent
theoretical constructs of interest, one must define the construct to be
sampled, such as person-environmental interactions or instances of
social deviance, identity crisis, creativity, or power interactions in an
organization.
When one is studying people, programs, organizations, or communities, the population of interest can be fairly readily determined.
Constructs do not have as clear a frame of reference; neither does time.
The problem with time sampling is that there are no concrete populations of interest, and we are anyway usually restricted to the limited time
span over which a study is conducted or to the only slightly longer time
span, historically speaking over which the literature on a topic has
accumulated. For sampling operational instances of constructs, there is
also no concrete target population.... Mostly, therefore, we are forced
to select on a purposive basis those particular instances of a construct
that past validity studies, conventional practice, individual intuition,
or consultation with critically minded persons suggest offer the closest

178

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

correspondence to the construct of interest. Alternatively, we can use the

same procedures to select multiple operational representations of each
construct, chosen because they overlap in representing the critical
theoretical components of the construct and because they differ from each
other on irrelevant dimensions. This second form of sampling is called
multiple operationalism, and it depends more heavily on individual
judgment than does the random sampling of persons from a welldesignated, target population. Yet such judgments, while inevitable, are less
well understood than formal sampling methods and are largely ignored by
sampling experts. (Cook et al., 1985: 163-64)

"Operational construct" sampling simply means that one samples

for study real-world examples (i.e., operational examples) of the constructs in which one is interested. Studying a number of such examples
is called "multiple operationalism" (Webb et al., 1966).
(11) Confirming and disconfirming cases. In the early part of qualitative
fieldwork the evaluator is exploringgathering data and beginning to
allow patterns to emerge. Over time the exploratory process gives way
to confirmatory fieldwork. This involves testing ideas, confirming the
importance and meaning of possible patterns, and checking out the
viability of emergent findings with new data and additional cases. This
stage of fieldwork requires considerable rigor and integrity on the part
of the evaluator in looking for and sampling confirming as well as
disconfirming cases.
Confirmatory cases are additional examples that fit already
emergent patterns; these cases confirm and elaborate the findings,
adding richness, depth, and credibility. Disconfirming cases are no less
important at this point. These are the examples that don't fit. They are
a source of rival interpretations as well as a way of placing boundaries
around confirmed findings. They may be "exceptions that prove the
rule" or exceptions that disconfirm and alter what appeared to be
primary patterns.
The source of questions or ideas to be confirmed or disconfirmed
may be from stakeholders or previous scholarly literature rather than
the evaluator's fieldwork. An evaluation may in part serve the purpose
of confirming or disconfirming stakeholder's or scholars' preconceptions, these having been identified during early, conceptual
evaluator-stakeholder design discussions or literature reviews.
Thinking about the challenge of finding confirming and disconfirming cases emphasizes the relationship between sampling and

Designing Qualitative Studies

179

research conclusions. The sample determines what the evaluator will

have something to say aboutthus the importance of sampling carefully and thoughtfully.
(12) Opportunistic sampling. Fieldwork often involves on-the-spot
decisions about sampling to take advantage of new opportunities
during actual data collection. Unlike experimental designs, qualitative
inquiry designs can include new sampling strategies to take advantage
of unforeseen opportunities after fieldwork has begun. Being open to
following wherever the data lead is a primary strength of qualitative
strategies in research. This permits the sample to emerge during
fieldwork.
When observing, it is not possible to capture everything. It is,
therefore, necessary to make decisions about which activities to observe, which people to observe and interview, and what time periods
will be selected to collect data. These decisions cannot all be made in
advance. The purposeful sampling strategies discussed above often
depend on some knowledge of the setting being studied. Opportunistic
sampling takes advantage of whatever unfolds as it unfolds.
(13) Purposeful random sampling. The fact that a small sample size will
be chosen for in-depth qualitative study does not automatically mean
that the sampling strategy should not be random. For many audiences,
random sampling, even of small samples, will substantially increase the
credibility of the results. I recently worked with a program that
annually appears before the state legislature and tells "war stories"
about client successes, sometimes even including a few stories about
failures to provide balance. They decided they wanted to begin
collecting evaluation information. Because they were striving for
individualized outcomes they rejected the notion of basing the
evaluation entirely on a standardized pre-post instrument. They wanted
to collect case histories and do in-depth case studies of clients, but
they had very limited resources and time to devote to such data
collection. In effect, staff at each program site, many of whom serve
200 to 300 families a year, felt that they could only do 10 or 15
detailed, in-depth clinical case histories each year. We systematized the
kind of information that would be going into the case histories at each
program site and then set up a random procedure for selecting those
clients whose case histories would be recorded in depth. Essentially,
this program thereby systematized and randomized their collection
of "war stories." While they cannot generalize to the entire client

180

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

population on the basis of 10 cases from each program site, they will
be able to tell legislators that the stories they are reporting were
randomly selected in advance of knowledge of how the outcomes would appear
and that the information collected was comprehensive. The credibility
of systematic and randomly selected case examples is considerably
greater than the personal, ad hoc selection of cases to report after the
factthat is, after outcomes are known.
It is critical to understand, however, that this is a purposeful random
sample, not a representative random sample. The purpose of a small random
sample is credibility, not representativeness. A small, purposeful random
sample aims to reduce suspicion about why certain cases were selected
for study, but such a sample still does not permit statistical
generalizations.
(14) Sampling politically important cases. Evaluation is inherently and
inevitably political to some extent (see Palumbo, 1987; Patton, 1986,
1987b; Turpin, 1989). A variation of the critical case sampling strategy
involves selecting (or sometimes avoiding) a politically sensitive site or
unit of analysis. For example, a statewide program may have a local
site in the district of a state legislator who is particularly influential. By
studying carefully the program in that district, evaluation data may be
more likely to attract attention and get used. This does not mean that
the evaluator then undertakes to make that site look either good or
bad, depending on the politics of the moment. This is simply an
additional sampling strategy for trying to increase the usefulness and
utilization of information where resources permit the study of only a
limited number of cases.
The same (broadly speaking) political perspective may inform case
sampling in applied or even basic research studies. A political scientist
or historian might select the Watergate or Iran-Contra scandals for
study not only because of the insights they provide about the American system of government but because of the likely attention such a
study would attract. A sociologist's study of a riot or a psychologist's
study of a famous suicide would likely involve some attention during
sampling to the political importance of the case.
(15) Convenience sampling. Finally, there is the strategy of sampling
by convenience: doing what's fast and convenient. This is probably
the most common sampling strategyand the least desirable. Too
often evaluators using qualitative methods think that, because the
sample size they can study is too small to permit generalizations, it
doesn't matter how cases are picked, so they might as well pick ones

Designing Qualitative Studies

181

that are easy to access and inexpensive to study. While convenience and
cost are real considerations, they should be the last factors to be taken into
account after strategically deliberating on how to get the most information of greatest utility from the limited number of cases to be
sampled. Purposeful, strategic sampling can yield crucial information
about critical cases. Convenience sampling is neither purposeful nor strategic.
Information-Rich Cases
Table 5.5 summarizes the 15 purposeful sampling strategies discussed above, plus a 16th approachcombination or mixed purposeful sampling. For example, an extreme group or maximum
heterogeneity approach may yield an initial potential sample size that is
still larger than the study can handle. The final selection, then, may be
made randomlya combination approach. Thus these approaches are
not mutually exclusive. Each approach serves a somewhat different
purpose. Because research and evaluations often serve multiple
purposes, more than one qualitative sampling strategy may be necessary. In long-term fieldwork all of these strategies maybe used at some
point.
These are not the only ways of sampling qualitatively. The underlying principle that is common to all these strategies is selecting
information-rich cases. These are cases from which one can learn a
great deal about matters of importance. They are cases worthy of indepth study.
In the process of developing the research design, the evaluator or
researcher is trying to consider and anticipate the kinds of arguments
that will lend credibility to the study as well as the kinds of arguments
that might be used to attack the findings. Reasons for site selections or
individual case sampling need to be carefully articulated and made
explicit. Moreover, it is important to be open and clear about the
study's limitations, including how any particular purposeful sampling
strategy may lead to distortion in the findingsthat is, to anticipate
criticisms that will be made of a particular sampling strategy.
Having weighed the evidence and considered the alternatives,
evaluators and primary stakeholders make their sampling decisions,
sometimes painfully, but always with the recognition that there are no
perfect designs. The sampling strategy must be selected to fit the
purpose of the study, the resources available, the questions being

182

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

Table 5.5 Sampling Strategies

Table 5.5 (continued)

Type

Purpose

A. Random probability sampling

Representativeness: Sample size a

function of population size and desired
confidence level.
Permits generalization from sample to
the population it represents.
Increases confidence in making generalizations to particular subgroups or
areas.
Selects information-rich cases for indepth study. Size and specific cases
depend on study purpose.
Learning from highly unusual manifestations of the phenomenon of interest,
such as outstanding successes/ notable
failures, top of the class/ dropouts, exotic
events, crises.
Information-rich cases that manifest the
phenomenon intensely, but not
extremely, such as good students/ poor
students, above average/below average.
Documents unique or diverse variations
that have emerged in adapting to different conditions. Identifies important
common patterns that cut across
variations.
Focuses, reduces variation, simplifies
analysis, facilitates group interviewing.
Illustrates or highlights what is typical,
normal, average.
Illustrates characteristics of particular
subgroups of interest; facilitates comparisons.
Permits logical generalization and maximum application of information to other
cases because if it's true of this one case
it's likely to be true of all other cases.
Identifies cases of interest from people
who know people who know people who
know what cases are information rich,
that is, good examples for study, good
interview subjects.

l. simple random sample

2. stratified random and cluster
samples
B. Purposeful sampling
l. extreme or deviant case sampling

2. intensity sampling

3. maximum variation samplingpurposefully picking a wide

range of variation on dimensions
of interest
4. homogeneous sampling
5. typical case sampling
6. stratified purposeful sampling
7. critical case sampling

8. snowball or chain sampling

Designing Qualitative Studies

Type

183
Purpose

9. criterion sampling

Picking all cases that meet some criterion,

such as all children abused in a treatment
facility. Quality assurance.
10. theory-based or operational
Finding manifestations of a theoretical
construct sampling
construct of interest so as to elaborate
and examine the construct.
11. confirming and disconfirming
Elaborating and deepening initial
cases
analysis, seeking exceptions, testing
variation.
12. opportunistic sampling
Following new leads during fieldwork,
taking advantage of the unexpected,
flexibility.
13. random purposeful sampling
Adds credibility to sample when poten(still small sample size)
tial purposeful sample is larger than one
can handle. Reduces judgment within a
purposeful category. (Not for generalizations or representativeness.)
14. sampling politically important
Attracts attention to the study (or avoids
cases
attracting undesired attention by
purposefully eliminating from the sample
politically sensitive cases).
15. convenience sampling
Saves time, money, and effort. Poorest
rationale; lowest credibility. Yields
information-poor cases.
16. combination or mixed purposeful Triangulation, flexibility, meets multiple
sampling
interests and needs.

asked, and the constraints being faced. This holds true for sampling strategy
as well as sample size.
SAMPLE SIZE
Qualitative inquiry is rife with ambiguities. There are purposeful
strategies instead of methodological rules. There are inquiry approaches instead of statistical formulas. Qualitative inquiry seems to
work best for people with a high tolerance for ambiguity. (And we're
still only discussing design. It gets worse when we get to analysis.)

184

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

Nowhere is this ambiguity clearer than in the matter of sample size.

I get letters. I get calls. "Is 10 a large enough sample to achieve
maximum variation?"
"I started out to interview 20 people for 2 hours each, but I've lost
2 people. Is 18 large enough, or do I have to find 2 more?"
"I want to study just one organization, but interview 20 people in
the organization. Is my sample size 1 or 20 or both?"
My universal, certain, and confident reply to these questions is this:
"it depends."
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.
Earlier in this chapter, I discussed the trade-off between breadth
and depth. With the same fixed resources and limited time, a researcher could study a specific set of experiences for a larger number
of people (seeking breadth) or a more open range of experiences for a
smaller number of people (seeking depth). In-depth information from
a small number of people can be very valuable, especially if the cases
are information-rich. Less depth from a larger number of people can
be especially helpful in exploring a phenomenon and trying to
document diversity or understand variation. I repeat, the size of the
sample depends on what you want to find out, why you want to find it
out, how the findings will be used, and what resources (including time)
you have for the study.
To understand the problem of small samples in qualitative inquiry,
it's necessary to place these small samples in the context of probability
sampling. A qualitative inquiry sample only seems small in comparison
with the sample size needed for representativeness when the purpose
is generalizing from a sample to the population of which it is a part.
Suppose there are 100 people in a program to be evaluated. It would
be necessary to randomly sample 80 of those people (80%) to make a
generalization at the 95% confidence level. If there are 500 people in
the program, 217 people must be sampled (43%) for the same level of
confidence. If there are 1,000 people, 278 people must be sampled
(28%); and if there are 5,000 people in the population of interest, 357
must be sampled (7%) to achieve a 95% confidence level in the
generalization of findings. At the other extreme, if there are only 50
people in the program, 44 must be randomly sampled (88%) to achieve

Designing Qualitative Studies

185

a 95% level of confidence. (See Fitzgibbon and Morris, 1987: 163, for
a table on determining sample size from a given population.)
The logic of purposeful sampling is quite different from the logic
of probability sampling. The problem is, however, that the utility and
credibility of small purposeful samples are often judged on the basis of
the logic, purpose, and recommended sample sizes of probability
sampling. What should happen is that purposeful samples be judged on
the basis of the purpose and rationale of each study and the sampling
strategy used to achieve the study's purpose. The sample, like all other
aspects of qualitative inquiry, must be judged in contextthe same
principle that undergirds analysis and presentation of qualitative data.
Random probability samples cannot accomplish what in-depth,
purposeful samples accomplish, and vice versa.
Piaget contributed a major breakthrough to our understanding of
how children think by observing his own two children at length and in
great depth. Freud established the field of psychoanalysis based on
fewer than ten client cases. Bandler and Grinder (1975a, 1975b)
founded neurolinguistic programming (NLP) by studying three renowned and highly effective therapists: Milton Erickson, Fritz Perls,
and Virginia Satin Peters and Waterman (1982) formulated their widely
followed eight principles for organizational excellence by studying 62
companies, a very small sample of the thousands of companies one
might study.
The validity, meaningfulness, and insights generated from qualitative
inquiry have more to do with the information-richness of the cases selected
and the observational/analytical capabilities of the researcher than with
sample size.
This issue of sample size is a lot like the problem students have
when they are assigned an essay to write.
Student: "How long does the paper have to be?"
Instructor: "Long enough to cover the assignment."
Student: "But how many pages?"
Instructor: "Enough pages to do justice to the subjectno more, no less."

Lincoln and Guba (1985: 202) recommend sample selection

to the point of redundancy ... In purposeful sampling the size of the
sample is determined by informational considerations. If the purpose

186

QUALITATIVE DESIGNS AND DATA COLLECTION

is to maximize information, the sampling is terminated when no new

information is forthcoming from new sampled units; thus redundancy
is the primary criterion. (emphasis in the original)

This strategy leaves the question of sample size open.

There remains, however, the practical problems of how to negotiate
an evaluation budget or how to get a dissertation committee to
approve a design if you don't have some idea of sample size. Sampling
to the point of redundancy is an ideal, one that works best for basic
research, unlimited time lines, and unconstrained resources.
The solution is judgment and negotiation. I recommended that
qualitative sampling designs specify minimum samples based on expected reasonable coverage of the phenomenon given the purpose of
the study and stakeholder interests. One may add to the sample as
fieldwork unfolds. One may change the sample if information emerges
that indicates the value of a change. The design should be understood
to be flexible and emergent. Yet, at the beginning, for planning and
budgetary purposes, one specifies a minimum expected sample size
and builds a rationale for that minimum, as well as criteria that would
alert the researcher to inadequacies in the original sampling approach
and/or size.
In the end, sample size adequacy, like all aspects of research, is subject
to peer review, consensual validation, and judgment. What is crucial is
that the sampling procedures and decisions be fully described,
explained, and justified so that information users and peer reviewers
have the appropriate context for judging the sample. The researcher or
evaluator is absolutely obligated to discuss how the sample affected
the findings, the strengths and weaknesses of the sampling procedures,
and any other design decisions that are relevant for interpreting and
understanding the reported results. Exercising care not to
overgeneralize from purposeful samples, while maximizing to the full
the advantages of in-depth, purposeful sampling, will do much to
alleviate concerns about small sample size.