Qualitative Social Work

http://qsw.sagepub.com/

Sampling 'Hard to Reach' Populations in Qualitative Research: The Case of Incarcerated Youth
Laura S. Abrams Qualitative Social Work published online 30 June 2010 DOI: 10.1177/1473325010367821 The online version of this article can be found at: http://qsw.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/06/29/1473325010367821

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Qualitative Social Work can be found at: Email Alerts: http://qsw.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://qsw.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Qualitative Social Work OnlineFirst, published on June 30, 2010 as doi:10.1177/1473325010367821

Qualitative Social Work

! The Author(s) 2010 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav, Vol. 0(0): 115 www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/1473325010367821

ARTICLE

Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research

The Case of Incarcerated Youth
Laura S. Abrams University of California, USA

ABSTRACT
Sampling is an integral component of all research designs. Several qualitative research texts offer practical guides on how to theorize, recruit, and retain a sample to fulfill the aims of a given study. However, there is far less published discussion among qualitative researchers about sampling hard to reach populations such as transient youth and young adults, homeless people, IV drug users, sex workers, and incarcerated, institutionalized, or cognitively impaired individuals. In this article, the author presents an overview of qualitative sampling, including its underlying assumptions, major methodological traditions, common characteristics, and standards of assessment. Next, the article identifies several challenges related to sampling hard to reach populations that are of particular relevance for qualitative research. Drawing on an example of a longitudinal qualitative study of incarcerated youth, these challenges are then discussed in relation to the assessment of quality in qualitative research.

KEY WORDS:
human subjects qualitative methods sampling social work research

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

2 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

Sampling is a cornerstone of research integrity in all forms of social science. Whether quantitative or qualitative, grant proposals and methods sections in journal articles are routinely evaluated by reviewers at least partially on the basis of their proposed or implemented sampling strategies. For qualitative research projects more specifically, several textbooks have offered practical roadmaps on how to define, recruit, and retain a sample to fulfill the overall goals of a given study (cf. Marshall and Rossman, 1999; Miles and Huberman, 1994; Padgett, 1998). These texts have defined the major types of qualitative sampling, offered pragmatic information about sample recruitment and retention, and attended to the role of the researcher and use of self in recruiting potential gatekeepers and participants and the ethical boundaries involved in these interactions. However, there is far less discussion among qualitative scholars about sampling hard to reach populations such as transient youth and young adults, homeless people, IV drug users, sex workers, and incarcerated, institutionalized and cognitively impaired individuals. Given social workers prominent interest in these populations, a more robust conversation about the practical and theoretical constraints involved in sampling hard to reach populations is needed. This article attempts to begin this dialogue. First, I present an overview of qualitative sampling, including its underlying assumptions, major methodological traditions, common characteristics, and standards of assessment pertaining to qualitative sampling. Next, I identify several challenges related to recruiting and sampling hard to reach populations in qualitative research studies. These concepts and challenges are then illustrated through an example of a longitudinal qualitative study of incarcerated youth. Drawing on this case example, the article culminates with a discussion of sampling hard to reach populations as in relation to the assessment of quality in qualitative research.

QUALITATIVE SAMPLING: ASSUMPTIONS AND COMMON CHARACTERISTICS

Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies have different underlying assumptions, leading to major differences in sampling goals and strategies. On a basic level, qualitative sampling is not typically intended to be representative in the sense of seeking to approximate known population parameters. This is the case for a number of reasons. As Marshall (1996) explained, random sampling assumes that population parameters are normally distributed. But in qualitative studies, researchers usually have no basis to assume a normal distribution of the experiences, interactions, or settings that are of interest to them. Moreover, random sampling assumes that one person is as good as the next as a data point so long as they contribute to representing the larger population. Qualitative researchers, on the other hand, recognize that some informants are better are situated to provide key insight and understandings than others.

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Abrams Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research g 3

Similarly, while random sampling tends to discard outliers, qualitative research is often interested in extreme or negative cases for their unique insights (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In sum, probability sampling simply does not fit the goals and assumptions of most qualitative research questions. Within the qualitative research paradigm, there are many variations in sampling procedures, goals, and strategies. Several authors have suggested that purposive sampling (also referred to as judgment sampling) and theoretical sampling are the main categories defining qualitative sampling approaches (Coyne, 1997; Curtis et al., 2000; Marshall, 1996). To clarify, purposive sampling refers to strategies in which the researcher exercises his or her judgment about who will provide the best perspective on the phenomenon of interest, and then intentionally invites those specific perspectives into the study. Theoretical sampling is associated more specifically with grounded theory, in which sampling strategies are developed iteratively based on properties and categories that emerge in the process of data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Although there is some merit to the claim that these approaches are different, the boundaries between them are not entirely clear. For example, some have argued that within the broader rubric of theoretical sampling, a certain degree of judgment or intentionality is almost always applied particularly in the initial stages of sample selection (Curtis et. al., 2000). Similarly, purposive sampling strategies tend to be well thought out ahead of the study, but, akin to theoretical sampling, are also subject to change as the study progresses (Padgett, 1998). Sampling in qualitative research also varies according to paradigmatic and disciplinary traditions. Phenomenological research, for example, tends to involve small samples of carefully and purposively selected individuals who share a common experience, with the goal of generating detailed patterns and relationships of meaning (Moustakas, 1994). Ethnographers tend to use layers of sampling decisions, based on the researchers judgment and knowledge of a culture or setting to achieve a thick description of a culture, community, or social context (Lofland and Lofland, 1995). In case study research, the most pivotal sampling decision is made when the researcher selects the case or set of cases to be studied. Following this decision, a researcher may use any number of strategies including both probability and non-probability sampling about how to study various elements of the case, such as archival documents, people, or events (Yin, 1994). Each tradition carries a set of sampling conventions that are adapted to the particular study topic and population (Creswell, 1998). Within these broader methodological genres, qualitative researchers may use several techniques to achieve their overall sampling goals. Patton (2002) defined many of these strategies, such as maximum variation (i.e. seeking cases that maximize a range of perspectives and differences); homogenous

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

4 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

(i.e. seeking a set of very similar cases); critical case (i.e. identifying a case that can dramatically illustrate a phenomenon) and confirming or disconfirming cases (i.e. examples that lend further support, richness and depth to patterns emerging from data analysis in the case of confirming cases; or alternatively, serve as examples that lend themselves to exploring rival explanations), to name a few. Miles and Huberman (1994) and Marshall and Rossman (1999) have also provided an overview of these techniques and some of their associated strengths and weakness, suggesting overall that thoughtfulness about sampling procedures is critical for the success of any qualitative research project. Qualitative sampling clearly spans a range of research traditions and techniques. However, there are some discernable commonalities across qualitative paradigms. First, qualitative sampling is almost always assumed to be naturalistic, in that it takes place in ordinary settings where people do their lives. Qualitative sampling also conforms to the questions, goals, and purpose of the study in a unified logic (Marshall and Rossman, 1999), with the end goal of achieving theoretical depth (Curtis et al., 2000; Faugier and Sargeant, 1997). Moreover sampling in qualitative studies is typically emergent, meaning that strategies and goals are subject to change based on ongoing reflections, data analysis, and tentative hypotheses that are formed in the course of study (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Similarly, as Lincoln and Guba suggested, qualitative sampling is typically conducted serially, meaning that choices about sampling are based on information collected by previous observations. Finally, qualitative sampling is rarely predetermined or finite in its numerical size, as qualitative researchers often do not know when a study will be theoretically saturated, or when further data collection will stop yielding new theoretical insights (Lincoln and Guba, 1985).

HOW IS QUALITATIVE SAMPLING ASSESSED?

The issue of standards of assessment for qualitative sampling in the larger social science community and within qualitatively oriented academic circles more specifically warrants consideration in this discussion. Although, as established earlier, qualitative research has its own set of assumptions that guide its sampling logic, qualitative journal articles and research proposals are nevertheless often evaluated on the basis of sample size, representativeness and other key considerations stemming from a quantitative paradigm (Gilgun and Abrams, 2002). Looking more closely within the tradition, several scholars note that the guidelines for the assessment of quality or the strength of qualitative samples are inconsistent at best (Devers, 1999; Gibbs et al., 2007). Nevertheless, a few texts have posed criteria or standards to evaluate qualitative sampling. Miles and Huberman (1994), for example, proposed the following criteria

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Abrams Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research g 5

(emphasis added):
1. The sampling strategy should be relevant to the conceptual framework and questions addressed by the research; 2. The sample should be likely to generate rich information on the type of phenomena which need to be studied; 3. The sample should enhance the generalizeability of the findings (meaning a studys analytic boundaries, not population representation); 4. The sample should produce believable descriptions and explanations; 5. The sample should be ethical; and 6. The sample should be feasible.

Several articles in nursing, medicine and other disciplines have recommended these guidelines as useful assess qualitative research proposals and papers (c.f. Curtis et al., 2000; Devers and Frankel, 2000). However, to date, there are no major published critiques or discussions of these standards. Other scholars have posed assessment criteria that are more in keeping with a grounded theory tradition and theoretical sampling. For example, Glaser (1992) suggested (although not directly proscribed as in the earlier example) that sampling in grounded theory should be achieved by:
1. 2. 3. 4. Starting with a set of observations that meet the particular aims of the study; Seeking full range and variation of developing categories through sampling; Sampling deliberately to test, and elaborate and verify the validity of a category; Developing the relationships and interrelationships between categories through further sample selection; and, 5. Knowing when saturation has occurred.

These guidelines pertain more specifically to grounded theory and theoretical sampling. And although scholars have widely articulated and discussed the logic and methods of theoretical sampling (Charmaz, 2006; Strauss and Corbin, 1998) there is no uniform agreement regarding the assessment of sampling quality for these studies. Further, Lincoln and Guba (1985) and other influential qualitative scholars (Padgett, 1998; Sandelowski, 1995) have encouraged the appraisal of qualitative research though the lens of rigor, meaning the degree to which a qualitative studys findings are authentic and the interpretations credible (Padgett, 1998: 88). As Lincoln and Guba explained, a qualitative studys rigor, or trustworthiness can be assessed by examining the credibility (i.e. the extent to which the findings represent a credible conceptual interpretation), transferability (i.e. how the findings extend beyond the bounds of the project), dependability (i.e. the quality of the integrated process of data collection, data analysis and theory generation) and confirmability (i.e. how well the inquirys findings are supported by the data that is collected). Sampling is implicated, although not directly, in several of these axes, particularly in the arenas of transferability and dependability. However, the

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

6 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

discourse around rigor in the published literature tends to focus more on data analysis and interpretation, rather than directly on sampling per se. Finally, articles published in applied disciplines outside of social work, such as education and psychology, have outlined some general standards of assessment for qualitative research studies in which sampling is one piece of a larger picture. Freeman et al.s (2007) article in The Educational Researcher stated that the reader should be provided with enough detail about the sample to judge whether depth of information and perspective has been achieved. Similarly, an article published in the British Journal of Clinical Psychology suggested that authors must situate their sample, meaning that they should describe the research participants and their life circumstances to aid the reader in judging the range of people and situations to which the findings might be relevant (Elliott et al., 1999: 221). These proposed guidelines are written very generally and are not assumed to conform to any specific qualitative tradition. On the basis of the literature reviewed, it appears that the overall leaning of these assessment rubrics is that sampling matters greatly to the integrity of a qualitative study, and in particular, has a strong relationship to the richness of the data collected and the breadth and scope of the conclusions that are drawn. Moreover, as a major component of a qualitative research design, sampling decisions have a particular bearing on the degree to which the findings are credible (to use Lincoln and Gubas term) and on the boundaries of a studys application to real world problems (Gibbs et al., 2007). It should be noted, however, that very few of the aforementioned texts or articles make specific mention of how these assessment rubrics apply to qualitative research studies that are conducted with hard to reach populations.

HARD TO REACH POPULATIONS

Qualitative social work researchers have great interest in hard to reach populations such as homeless people, transient youth, IV drug users, sex workers, and incarcerated, institutionalized, and cognitively impaired individuals, among others. Researchers typically either recruit hard to reach participants through agencies (cf. Juhlia, 2004; Taylor, 2009), or may use more street-based, snowball sampling approaches (Miles, 2008). Some may even use combinations of these approaches (cf. Miles and Okamoto, 2008; Wahab, 2004). Each of these routes to gaining access to participants carries its own sets of benefits and limitations. For example as Miles (2008) explained, agency-based samples provide easier access, meeting spaces, and a more readily available pool of participants. However, agency-based samples tend to exclude the perspectives of individuals who are not connected with social services agencies, and can present both coercion and confidentiality concerns. Conversely, Miles (2008) suggested that the main strength of a street-based recruitment approach is exposure to the most

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Abrams Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research g 7

at-risk individuals and groups. The major weaknesses involved are the amount of time required to locate, select, and retain participants and increased difficulties in establishing rapport. Once the recruitment site and/or study setting is identified, the process of seeking individual perspectives typically follows. In studying hard to reach populations, a host of circumstances often force researchers to operate with samples of available subjects resulting in strategies that may best be placed in the category of convenience sampling (Faugier and Sargeant, 1997; Gibbs et al., 2007). Convenience sampling, used in both quantitative and qualitative research studies, can be defined as reliance on participants who are readily available and accessible to the researcher. This does not mean that researchers necessarily stop people in shopping malls to gage their opinions (a typical image associated with convenience sampling). Rather, qualitative researchers typically venture out to places where people are likely to have key insight on their chosen topic, and then proceed to recruit and sample available participants within those settings (Padgett, 1998). In these cases, a purely purposeful or theoretical selection process is typically precluded due to several institutional and practical constraints, as described below.
Gatekeepers and Access

Researchers must take time to build connections with gatekeepers who provide access to a given population of interest. But in studies with hard to reach e into to their desired populations, researchers often face difficulties gaining entre settings, and must negotiate various key permissions with agency directors, bureaucracies and sometimes the courts. Once access is granted, institutional structures or rules may limit the selection of individual participants in various and sometimes unforeseen ways. For example, researchers seeking even small samples are often forced to rely on referrals from gatekeepers, rather than their own selection choices. Courts or institutions may not approve recruitment from settings that are considered ideal from the researchers perspective. The upshot of these access issues is that sampling hard to reach populations is often driven by rules and institutional regulations, rather than researchers needs or goals.
Recruitment

Particularly with populations considered to be vulnerable to coercion, many Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) do not permit direct recruitment or snowball sampling. Instead, they often require a researcher to post recruitment fliers, to make group presentations, or to provide information to an agency that then requires potential participants to contact the researchers if they are interested in the study. These indirect recruitment strategies mean that potential participants must take initiative to volunteer for the study by making contact with

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

8 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

researchers, usually by phone. For example, in her qualitative study of transition age youth Taylor (2007: 43) writes: Since young people were recruited through community providers, and, for ethical reasons, participated completely voluntarily, the resulting sample necessarily included only those youth who had at least a limited support network and enough initiative to call a stranger to volunteer for a study. As in this example, issues such as serious mental illness, lack of access to a phone, homelessness, and institutionalization can make purposive or theoretical sampling quite difficult to accomplish.
Screening

Screening hard to reach individuals for the appropriateness of their individual perspective also raises a set of logistical and ethical barriers that may compromise the integrity of sample selection. For example, IRBs tend to require the researchers to implement standard phone screening consent scripts that may be confusing or alienating for potential participants.1 Screening scripts also can pose ethical concerns in cases when they include potentially reportable issues such as criminal activity, suicidal ideation, or child abuse. Striving to avoid these ethical dilemmas, researchers may not ask potential participants the types of questions that probe the participants backgrounds and perspectives in great depth. Moreover, screening scripts are typically required to be delivered in a standard manner. This limits the flexibility that may be needed to fully consider a participants perspective, such as, for example, when a research is seeking a negative case, or perhaps embarking on a new phase of theoretical sampling.
Parental or Legal Guardian Consent

In conducting research with youth or individuals who are not legally able to provide their own consent for other reasons, IRBs and institutional regulations typically require researchers to obtain parent or legal guardian consent. This requirement typically limits the pool of eligible participants because, for example, many transient youth have limited contact with their parents or legal guardians, and depending on the study topic, youth may not want to participate if their parents need to know about the study. The researchers themselves may not even have access to the parents in a routine way, forcing them to expend a great deal of energy just to reach the parents, let alone secure their consent.
Transience

Perhaps the most major barrier to retaining a sample of hard to reach individuals, particularly in longitudinal qualitative studies, is transience. Even when researchers have received access to a primary study site and IRB approval, retaining a sample becomes quite challenging with populations who are not securely housed, unlikely to have reliable phone service, and who are not typically reachable by common communication channels (such as email or postal mail).

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Abrams Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research g 9

Thus, qualitative researchers must utilize creative strategies to retain transient participants in their studies that are often expensive and time consuming (Taylor, 2009). Facing limited resources and the practicalities of completing a study, those who actually complete a longitudinal study tend to be the most stable among their hard to reach group.
Case Example: Incarcerated Youth Study

A case example of a longitudinal qualitative study that I (as the Principal Investigator) conducted in juvenile correctional institutions can help to illuminate some of the issues raised in this discussion. This study, conducted over the course of four years sought to understand the culture of correctional residential treatment institutions, youths responses to treatment messages and correctional practices within these facilities, and their community reentry process. The data collection methods included observation, longitudinal in-depth individual interviews with individual cases, and record reviews. Although the primary unit of observation was the correctional settings, the study of individual cases through interviews and record reviews provided critical information from which to understand the youths experiences within these institutional settings (cf. Abrams and Hyun, 2009; Abrams, 2006; Abrams et al., 2005). To select the study sites, I started with one facility, and then chose the next two facilities both strategically and sequentially. In regard to strategic considerations, the settings were intentionally varied in order to challenge and refine evolving conclusions and theories. As such, the three institutions selected were distinct based on size, type of offender served, length of stay, and therapeutic programming and philosophy (for a more thorough description, see Abrams and Hyun, 2009). I also considered practical and logistical matters such as travel time, willingness of the institutions supervisors to participate in the project, and the feasibility of approval by the counties and courts governing the institutions. Thus, a blend of theoretical and practical considerations drove the selection of study sites. Among the many youth who we (referring to myself and graduate student researchers) observed during the course of the study, we recruited a subset of offenders from each correctional institution to participate in a series of in-depth interviews and record reviews. The approved recruitment protocol stipulated that we make presentations to small groups of youth (510 at a time) about the study, its purpose, the specific data collections procedures, and the voluntary nature of the study. At the conclusion of the presentations, we then offered the youth the opportunity to ask questions about the study, and then to put their name down on a list to reflect their interest. Most of the youth, but not all, indicated their willingness to participate in the study during these sessions. However, per our confidentiality agreements with the IRB and the correctional facilities, we were not permitted to collect any identifying information (such as, for example, age,

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

10 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

type of crime, family background) about those who excluded themselves from the study. Further, once youth indicated their willingness to participate, we did not have meeting space or the time allotted in the program schedule to conduct indepth individual screenings. Rather, we collected the names of interested youth and proceeded to secure the necessary consents. Regardless of the youths incarcerated status, both the IRB and the courts required us to obtain parent/guardian consent for minors wishing to participate in the study. This process limited about half of our pool of potential participants, as parents were either unreachable, the youth did not want their parents to know about the study, or more rarely, the parents declined their childs participation. As such, we had easier access to youths who had already reached the age of 18 or whose parents visited the facilities on a routine basis. In all, 29 youths across the three institutions participated in a series of interviews over periods ranging from three to seven months (including varying periods of time when they exited the facilities and returned home). In the course of the study, we also faced attrition threats, largely due to the transient nature of the population and our lack of control over the settings. For example, we lost potential participants (i.e. those whose consents were in progress) when their release dates were changed without warning, or when they were arbitrarily transferred to another facility. Moreover, as we interviewed the youth after their release, we lost touch with 9 of the 29 youth due to transience, re-incarceration, or lack of interest in completing the study once they were no longer in secure confinement.

DISCUSSION
The sampling strategy used to select the study sites can best be described as purposive, with some theoretical consideration involved. This is because researcher judgment drove the selection of sites that were considered optimal to observe and investigate the phenomenon of interest. The selection of sites was also theoretically based in that we selected the institutions based on the observations and analyses conducted during the course of the study. In the selection of specific study participants, however, our sampling strategy can best be categorized as convenience sampling. The researchers essentially opened the study to any of the youth at the facility who were interested in taking part in the research and whose parents consented to their participation. Based on literature reviewed in this article, it appears that the sampling strategies used in this study had strengths and weaknesses from which they can be assessed from within a qualitative paradigm. First, as seems to cut across nearly all assessment rubrics for qualitative sampling, the study sample was highly relevant to the research questions and aims, likely to generate rich information, and was ethical and feasible.

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Abrams Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research g 11

Moreover, the selection of settings was accomplished in an emergent manner that fits with the general goals of developing theory and concepts inductively, testing assumptions with repeated observations, and leaving room for flexibility and reflexivity in the research process. In addition, length of time in the field (in this case, the study took place over four years), or prolonged engagement enhanced the trustworthiness of the study by ensuring that the meaning and understandings of the participants lived experiences were not made in haste or without depth of information (Padgett, 1998). Overall the study sample produced a wealth of information that was highly sufficient to understand youths experiences in correctional facilities, examine variations in these experiences, and consider key differences between settings and individual cases. It is also important to consider the weaknesses of the sampling strategies that were used. In this case, the interview and record review data from the 29 individual cases provided very rich material used in several publications. Yet sample selection for this hard to reach population was constrained by many factors outlined earlier in this paper, including institutional structure (rules of access), parental consent requirements, recruitment and screening protocols, and transience. As such, the sampling strategy for this component of the project was not ideally theoretically nor purposive in the truest meaning of these terms. Although not at all uncommon for a study with institutionalized and hard to reach populations (Gibbs et al., 2007), the method of selecting these participants does have a bearing on the study as a whole. For example, we were not allowed to collect information on individuals who did not participate due to self-exclusion or practical limitations (such as parental consent). As such, it is uncertain whose voice was not excluded from in this study, or if we achieved a maximum variation of perspectives. Moreover, the sampling strategy for the selection of individual cases also rendered us unable to pursue more specific sampling goals, such to find confirming and disconfirming cases in the patterns that were emerging (Patton, 2002). This means that the depth or breadth of information gathered from these individual cases is quite difficult to assess. Overall, practical considerations, rather than theoretical ones, drove the sampling strategy for the individual cases that were involved in this study. So how might qualitative researchers contend with the limitations involved in sampling hard to reach populations? First, it seems of vital importance that sampling strategies, procedures, and their limitations are described fully and acknowledged in a written proposal or final product. In preparing methods sections, for example, researchers should be transparent about their decisions, and also provide information on whose perspectives may have been excluded based on sampling constraints. All too often these details are left out of articles and supplanted by numbers only or demographic information, which mirrors a quantitative model, yet tells the reader little about the dimensions and

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

12 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

quality of the sample (Gibbs et al., 2007). Qualitative scholars should also include information on barriers encountered in their sampling procedures and how they dealt with these obstacles along the way. This transparency can help to educate others about the qualitative research process. Moreover, qualitative researchers should critically analyze their own sampling strategies not on the basis of number of participants or population representation, but rather on assessment anchors that exist within a qualitative paradigm. Although qualitative scholars have not established any true consensus about even the need for this type of assessment (Gibbs et al., 2007), a sampling strategy should at baseline conform to the conventions of the chosen research tradition. For example, authors who purport to be using some iteration of grounded theory should assess how well they achieved a theoretical sample in their study. All too often in proposals and journal articles, the congruence between proposed methodology and sampling technique is lacking. As researchers studying hard to reach populations will inevitably encounter some barriers to achieving their desired sample, it is important to fold in other methods or procedures to counterbalance these limitations. For example, using additional methods of data collection or gathering a range of perspectives (i.e. triangulation) can provide additional evidence to enhance both the breadth and depth of the study findings (Padgett, 1998). The strategy of prolonged engagement in the field helps the researcher to understand the range of perspectives involved in the study, as well as the extent to which those perspectives were captured by the sampling methods that were used. Providing detail is again quite useful for reviewers, students, and practitioners to assess the range of perspectives that were gathered in the course of the study. In addition to critically appraising our own strategies and responding to the given limitations, it is important to simultaneously work to eliminate some of the external limitations and constraints described in this article. For example, the presence of qualitative researchers and/or researchers who are highly informed about qualitative research on University and other institutional IRB review boards can make a difference in how decisions, requirements, and stipulations are made concerning qualitative proposals and projects. Similarly, qualitative researchers must continue to educate gatekeepers and institutions about qualitative research, including the pivotal role of recruitment and sampling in research integrity. Raising awareness about researchers needs in regard to sample selection can eventually help to lift some of the external barriers to achieving our desired strategies.

CONCLUSION
Qualitative researchers have historically been placed on the defensive in regard to methodology, particularly in academic disciplines including social work

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Abrams Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research g 13

with a more visible and dominant quantitative tradition. Sampling plays a role in these tensions. Purely quantitative researchers criticize low sample sizes and lack of generalizability in qualitative research, even when these terms are not applicable in a qualitative paradigm. Yet as qualitative research gains more prominence within social work and other applied disciplines, it is vitally important that we as qualitative researchers engage in conversation, within a qualitative framework, about the constraints imposed by settings, gatekeepers, IRBs, and the participants themselves when conducting research with hard to reach populations. A more visible conversation about how we assess the quality or rigor of qualitative research has recently evolved in professional and academic circles across several applied academic disciplines (Elliot et al., 1999; Gibbs et al., 2007; Freeman et al., 2007). Optimally qualitative researchers themselves should play a major role in these discussions and the assessment standards that are used in the scientific playing field. But in addition, frank dialogue about how sampling is actually accomplished with hard to reach populations including both constraints and opportunity will advance our own critical thinking about qualitative methods and help to guide the next generation of scholars in the field.
Note

See for example the screening script format at the University of California, Los Angeles: http://www.oprs.ucla.edu/human/forms/screening.

References

Abrams, L. S. (2006) Listening to Offenders: Can Residential Treatment Prevent Recidivism? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 23(1): 6185. Abrams, L. S. and Hyun, A. (2009) Mapping a Process of Negotiated Identity Among Incarcerated Male Juvenile Offenders, Youth and Society 41(1): 2652. Abrams, L. S., Kim, K. and Anderson-Nathe, B. (2005) Paradoxes of Treatment in Juvenile Corrections, Child & Youth Care Forum 34(1): 725. Charmaz, K. (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Coyne, I. T. (1997) Sampling in Qualitative Research Purposeful and Theoretical Sampling: Merging or Clear Boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 62330. Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Curtis, S., Gesler, W., Smith, G. and Washburn, S. (2000) Approaches to Sampling and Case Selection in Qualitative Research: Examples in the Geography of Health, Social Science & Medicine 50: 100014. Devers, K. J. (1999) How Will We Know Good Qualitative Research When We See It? Beginning the Dialogue in Health Services Research, Health Services Research 34(5, pt 2): 115388. Devers, K. J. and Frankel, R. M. (2000) Study Design in Qualitative Research-2: Sampling and Data Collection Strategies, Education for Health 13: 26171.

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

14 g Qualitative Social Work 0(0)

Elliot, R., Fisher, C. T. and Rennie, D. L. (1999) Evolving Guidelines for Publication of Qualitative Research Studies in Psychology and Related Fields, The British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2: 21529. Faugier, J. and Mary, S. (1997) Sampling Hard to Reach Populations, Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 7907. Freeman, M., deMarrais, K., Preissle, J., Roulston, K. and St Pierre, E. A. (2007) Standards of Evidence on Qualitative Research: An Incitement to Discourse, Educational Researcher 36(1): 2532. Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., Willis, K., Green, J., Welch, N. and Dalym, J. (2007) What Have Sampling and Data Collection Got To Do With Good Qualitative Research? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 31(6): 5404. Gilgun, J. and Abrams, L. S. (2002) Commentary on Denzin: The Nature and Usefulness of Qualitative Social Work Research: Some Thoughts and an Invitation to Dialogue, Qualitative Social Work 1(1): 3955. Glaser, B. (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis: Emergence vs. Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. Juhlia, K. (2004) Talking Back to Stigmatized Identities: Negotiation of Culturally Dominant Categorizations in Interviews With Shelter Residents, Qualitative Social Work 3: 25975. Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E. G. (1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Lofland, J. and Lofland, L. H. (1995) Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Marshall, C. and Rossman, G. B. (1999) Designing Qualitative Research, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Marshall, M. N. (1996) Sampling for Qualitative Research, Family Practice 13(6): 5225. Maxwell, J. A. (2005) Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Miles, B.W. (2008) Recruitment in Qualitative Research with Hard-to-Reach Youth: Experiences and Issues Taken from Multiple Studies with Homeless Youth, paper presented at the Society for Social Work Research, Washington, DC, January. Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Miles, B. W. and Okamoto, S. K. (2008) The Social Construction of Deviant Behavior in Homeless and Runaway Youth: Implications for Practice, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 25: 42541. Morse, J. M. and Richards, L. (2002) Read Me First: A Users Guide to Qualitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Moustakas, C. E. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Padgett, D. K. (1998) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research: Challenges and Rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Patton, M. Q. (2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Sandelowski, M. (1995) Sample Size in Qualitative Research, Research in Nursing and Health 18(2): 17983.

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010

Abrams Sampling Hard to Reach Populations in Qualitative Research g 15

Strauss, A. and Juliet, C. (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Taylor, S.A. (2007) Cause I want to do something with myself: Vulnerable Emerging Adults Navigate Transitions to School and Work, PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Taylor, S. A. (2009) Engaging and Retaining Vulnerable Youth in a Short-Term Longitudinal Qualitative Study, Qualitative Social Work 8(3): 391408. Wahab, S. (2004) Tricks of the Trade: What Social Workers Can Learn About Female Sex Workers Through Dialogue, Qualitative Social Work 3: 13960. Yin, R. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Laura S. Abrams is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Welfare at the University of California, Los Angeles. Her research focuses on the culture of treatment institutions for juvenile offenders, the community reentry process, and identity transitions among vulnerable youth. Address: Department of Social Welfare, UCLA School of Public Affairs. 3250 Public Affairs Building, Box 951656, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656, USA. [email: abrams@spa.ucla.edu]

Downloaded from qsw.sagepub.com by Ashlar Trystan on September 20, 2010