Participant selection as a conscious research method: thinking forward and the deliberation of ‘Emergent’ findings

Abstract

Participant selection is one of the most invisible and least critiqued methods in qualitative circles. Researchers do not just collect and analyze neutral data; they decide who matters as data. Each choice repositions inquiry, closing down some opportunities while creating others. After reviewing the selection literature, we present critical vignettes of our selection choices in three separate studies, examining how those choices directed meaning making within and beyond the studies. Our analysis across these vignettes uncovered a constant interface-and often a struggle-between our personal situations and social agendas as qualitative researchers. Four aspects of this Reporting In/Reporting Out tension are discussed: trusting qualitative research, building the story, dealing with powerful others, and accepting unintended consequences. We encourage qualitative researchers to critically think forward their selection choices before and during the research process, to be mindful that selection is a constitutive method of the data collection and analysis process.

University entrance language tests: A matter of justice

“…Although there were no direct professional ties between participants in the same focus group, hierarchic differences did exist, and power issues can make individuals change their views to match group consensus (Reybold, Lammert, & Stribling, 2013). For that reason, each focus group began with the collection of individual opinions in a paperbased questionnaire (Kahneman, 2011).…”

“…In January and February 2014, 24 university staff members (out of 64 invited) each took part in one of six focus groups. The focus groups required information-rich participants (Reybold et al, 2013) who were able to provide knowledgeable insights (Patton, 2002) into the linguistic demands that are made on students at the start of university. Purposeful participant selection (Freeman, 2000) was based on three inclusion criteria: affiliation, position, and experience.…”

The Symbolic Meaning of HIV: Understanding Lecturers’ Ambivalence over Teaching HIV to Dietetic Students

“…They were selected using the maximum variance sampling method as well as purposeful sampling to obtain participants with diverse background and experiences. 25 , 26 There were 2 variabilities considered for selection; university affiliation and areas of specialization. All participants mainly teach in an undergraduate program and have at least 1 year working experience.…”

Guatemalan Ixil Community Teacher Perspectives of Language Revitalization and Mother Tongue-Based Intercultural Bilingual Education

“…Yet within this small sample is a heterogeneous group of individuals with unique experiences. Using purposeful selection, we focused on four information-rich cases selected through purposeful, maximum variation sampling techniques (Reybold, Lammert, & Stribling, 2013). To maximize the variation in this small sample, we identified criteria based on a variety of sources, including knowledge we obtained from being immersed in the research setting as a participant/researcher, relationships with the teachers, reflections with co-researchers, and impressions and statements of others, such as school administrators, and U.S. volunteers.…”