Research That Matters (January 17 - 20, 2008)

Purpose: Sampling is one cornerstone of research integrity across qualitative and quantitative methodologies. In conducting research with transient youths, such as those who are homeless, transitioning out of foster care, or involved in the criminal justice system, achieving a representative and methodologically sound sample is often limited by convenience selection methods, IRB requirements for parental/guardian consent, high rates of attrition, and inability to locate subjects for follow-up reports. In qualitative research, sample selection is guided less by principles of representativeness and random selection than in a quantitative research frame, leaving more room for researchers' judgment and discretion. Qualitative research texts tend to focus on the mechanics of sample selection, (Padgett, 1998; Patton, 2002) but important questions remain about how the sampling process, including known limitations, play out in the analysis and interpretation phases of the study. In this presentation, the author will draw on a four-year, qualitative, longitudinal project that followed incarcerated youth as they reentered the communities to discuss how convenience, purposive, and self-selected small samples influence the meaning making process. Examples will be used to highlight the connections between sampling and interpretation in qualitative research.

Method: The author will draw a four year study in which 29 incarcerated youth from 3 correctional facilities participated in semi-structured, longitudinal interviews over periods ranging from 3-7 months. On average, youth completed 3 interviews over 4.5 months. The goal of the study was to trace incarcerated youths' identity transitions through their confinement in residential correctional facilities and upon their release. Sampling was conducted by convenience methods in all three facilities, where youth volunteered to participate. Parental consent for minors was also obtained. Interviews were triangulated by facility/group observations and also by record reviews for each of the 29 cases.

Results: The results of this qualitative longitudinal study with transient youth found the following in regard to meaning making with a relatively small, non-representative sample: 1) There is much to be learned from each case that is studied, without assuming that the case is representative of any other individual's experience; 2) methodological triangulation in the forms of observation, record reviews, or collateral interviews can strengthen the trustworthiness of the conclusions or interpretations that are reached; 3) it is important to elucidate the limitations of a given sample, even in qualitative studies; and 4) repeated interviews over time, while difficult to achieve with transient youth, are highly relevant for ensuring accuracy of meaning in a young person's experience.

Implications: Qualitative research is often critiqued for involving small and non random samples. Yet a robust discussion of how to make meaning of small, non-representative, and sometimes haphazard samples does not exist in the social work literature. This study provides one of the possibilities and limitations of meaning making with transient, hard to reach youth. The paper adds to and extends a body of literature that has begun to address the importance of various decisions in the qualitative research process.