Sampling Richness and Qualitative Integrity: Challenges for Research With Families
| Author | Elizabeth Sharp,Abbie Goldberg,Ralph LaRossa,Anisa Zvonkovic,Kevin Roy |
| Published date | 01 February 2015 |
| Date | 01 February 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12147 |
K R University of Maryland College Park
A Z Virginia Tech*
A G Clark University**
E S Texas Tech University***
R LR Georgia State University****
Sampling Richness and Qualitative Integrity:
Challenges for Research With Families
Sampling is one of the most difcult and con-
tentious aspects of qualitative research design.
There are few guidelines for sampling decisions
or for understanding saturation in qualitative
family research. The authors frame the prob-
lematic of data quality in the selection of units
of analysis and observation and consider how
to enhance sample richness. They outline con-
siderations for data quantity and sample size as
well as case- and variable-based approaches.
With multiple examples from recent and clas-
sic studies to illustrate the consequences of
sampling decisions, they explore links between
Department of Family Science, 1142 SPH Building, School
of Public Health, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20782 (kroy@umd.edu).
*Department of Human Development, VirginiaTech, 366A
Wallace Hall, Blacksburg,VA 24061.
**Department of Psychology, Clark University,Worchester,
MA 01610-1477.
***Department of Human Development and Family Studies,
Texas TechUniversity, P.O.Box 41230, Lubbock, TX
79409-1230.
****Department of Sociology, Georgia State University,
Atlanta, GA 30303-5020.
Key Words: ethnography, grounded theory, qualitative
researc h.
saturation and validity. Finally, they encourage
researchers to craft a coherent statement on
qualitative integrity to demonstrate how their
sampling decisions are rooted in epistemology,
theory, and richness and quality of data.
Sampling is one of the most difcult and con-
tentious aspects of qualitative research design
(Small, 2009). In family research, qualitative
methods can be attuned to a nuanced understand-
ing of processes in families, to the construction
of meaning-making for family members, and to
exploration of family life in diverse contexts
(Daly, 2007; Ganong & Coleman, 2013). But
the basic merit of qualitative family research is
often judged in the scholarly community sim-
ply with reference to the question “How large
is the N?”—with the assumption that a small
number of cases can doom a study to irrelevancy
(LaRossa, Goldberg, Roy, Sharp, & Zvonkovic,
2014).
The problems of judging the merit of qual-
itative research on the basis of sample size
highlight larger concerns with how qualitative
research is understood and used in the eld of
family science because sampling is a decision
not only about sample size but also about the
integrity of the project’s goals, composition and
depth of data, and t with theory. Researchers
Journal of Marriage and Family 77 (February 2015): 243–260 243
DOI:10.1111/jomf.12147
244 Journal of Marriage and Family
in many other disciplines, such as nursing and
public health, have addressed the complications
of sampling in qualitative research (e.g., Sande-
lowski, 1995; Trotter, 2012). To our knowledge,
there are no contemporary extended discussions
of sampling for qualitative family research,
although the importance of these issues was
identied in the 2012 Journal of Marriage and
Familyspecial section “Exchange on Qualitative
Research” (see Lareau, 2012; LaRossa, 2012a,
2012b; Matthews, 2012; and Roy, 2012).
We rst frame the problem of quality in the
selection of units of analysis and observation
in the study of families and consider the chal-
lenges to enhancing the richness of samples
in qualitative family research. Second, we out-
line considerations for the quantity of family
units, or the size of a sample, as well as case-
and variable-based approaches. Furthermore, we
consider the importance of saturation as a goal of
qualitative family research. Finally, we encour-
age researchers to craft a coherent statement on
qualitative integrity to demonstrate how their
sampling decisions are rooted in epistemology,
theory, and richness and quality of data.
Throughout this article, we cite examples to
illustrate the conditions and consequences of
sampling decisions, and we present a hypothet-
ical study to model some of the challenges in
sampling and saturation in qualitative family
research. We do not argue about the worth of
a qualitative approach; neither do we compare
qualitative methods with quantitative methods.
We recognize that different scholars take differ-
ent views on the “truth” derived from qualitative
methods, if there is one or any. Our intent is
to address an audience of both qualitative and
quantitative researchers, including those who
use or who review the use of multiple method-
ological approaches.
D Q S U
O A
A distinction between the units of observation
and the units of analysis has been made in
the methodological literature, and in qualitative
family research such distinctions are important
as well. Sedgwick (2014) explained the differ-
ence this way:
The unit of observation, sometimes referred to as
the unit of measurement, is dened . . . as the
“who”or“what”forwhichdataare...collected.
The unit of analysis is dened . . . as the “who”
or “what” for which information is analyzed and
conclusions are made.
Thus, for example, in a study that relied on
individual interviews with family members to
assess the nature and scope of supportive inter-
actions within the families, the unit of observa-
tion would be the individual members who were
interviewed, whereas the unit of analysis would
be the supportive interactions referred to in the
interviewees’ narratives.
Ruano, Bruce, and McDermott (1969)
pointed out that a goal of family research is to
nd a way to closely relate units of observation
and units of analyses. When these units are
incongruent, researchers may make invalid
conclusions. For example, if researchers want
to study family interaction by drawing on data
from individuals, the t seems to be loose at best.
To provide a richer sample, we might suggest
three other options: interviews with two, three,
or four family members simultaneously (i.e.,
couple or joint interviews, also known as family
group interviews); ethnographic observations of
family members interacting in public or private;
or archival studies of family correspondence
(e.g., back-and-forth letters). In these designs,
the unit of observation and the unit of analysis
are more in sync.
Sampling Richness
With appropriate decisions about units of obser-
vation and analysis, researchers can improve
the quality of data, enhancing richness and
depth. As individuals change in relationships
over time, we could study dyadic or triadic
relationships as clustered units in marital or
cohabiting couples or parents and children
(McCall & Simmons, 1991; Ruano et al., 1969;
Sedgwick, 2014; Sprey, 2013). Families are not
conned to households or conjugal relation-
ships, so units of analysis also may be dened as
networks instead of individuals within families.
Hansen’s (2004) research on four care networks
used observations and interviews to show how
parents, friends, and extended kin combine to
form supportive interrelationships to monitor
and nurture children. Similarly, networks of
families stretch across national boundaries,
and family ethnographers have examined how
these networks change over time in relation to
new policies, needs of sending communities,
To continue reading
Request your trial