cases that meet some
predetermined criterion
of importance
Embedded in each strategy is the ability to compare and contrast, to identify similarities and differences in the phenomenon of interest. Nevertheless, some of these strategies (e.g., maximum variation sampling, extreme case sampling, intensity sampling, and purposeful random sampling) are used to identify and expand the range of variation or differences, similar to the use of quantitative measures to describe the variability or dispersion of values for a particular variable or variables, while other strategies (e.g., homogeneous sampling, typical case sampling, criterion sampling, and snowball sampling) are used to narrow the range of variation and focus on similarities. The latter are similar to the use of quantitative central tendency measures (e.g., mean, median, and mode). Moreover, certain strategies, like stratified purposeful sampling or opportunistic or emergent sampling, are designed to achieve both goals. As Patton (2002 , p. 240) explains, “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.”
Despite its wide use, there are numerous challenges in identifying and applying the appropriate purposeful sampling strategy in any study. For instance, the range of variation in a sample from which purposive sample is to be taken is often not really known at the outset of a study. To set as the goal the sampling of information-rich informants that cover the range of variation assumes one knows that range of variation. Consequently, an iterative approach of sampling and re-sampling to draw an appropriate sample is usually recommended to make certain the theoretical saturation occurs ( Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). However, that saturation may be determined a-priori on the basis of an existing theory or conceptual framework, or it may emerge from the data themselves, as in a grounded theory approach ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). Second, there are a not insignificant number in the qualitative methods field who resist or refuse systematic sampling of any kind and reject the limiting nature of such realist, systematic, or positivist approaches. This includes critics of interventions and “bottom up” case studies and critiques. However, even those who equate purposeful sampling with systematic sampling must offer a rationale for selecting study participants that is linked with the aims of the investigation (i.e., why recruit these individuals for this particular study? What qualifies them to address the aims of the study?). While systematic sampling may be associated with a post-positivist tradition of qualitative data collection and analysis, such sampling is not inherently limited to such analyses and the need for such sampling is not inherently limited to post-positivist qualitative approaches ( Patton, 2002 ).
Characteristics of implementation research.
In implementation research, quantitative and qualitative methods often play important roles, either simultaneously or sequentially, for the purpose of answering the same question through convergence of results from different sources, answering related questions in a complementary fashion, using one set of methods to expand or explain the results obtained from use of the other set of methods, using one set of methods to develop questionnaires or conceptual models that inform the use of the other set, and using one set of methods to identify the sample for analysis using the other set of methods ( Palinkas et al., 2011 ). A review of mixed method designs in implementation research conducted by Palinkas and colleagues (2011) revealed seven different sequential and simultaneous structural arrangements, five different functions of mixed methods, and three different ways of linking quantitative and qualitative data together. However, this review did not consider the sampling strategies involved in the types of quantitative and qualitative methods common to implementation research, nor did it consider the consequences of the sampling strategy selected for one method or set of methods on the choice of sampling strategy for the other method or set of methods. For instance, one of the most significant challenges to sampling in sequential mixed method designs lies in the limitations the initial method may place on sampling for the subsequent method. As Morse and Neihaus (2009) observe, when the initial method is qualitative, the sample selected may be too small and lack randomization necessary to fulfill the assumptions for a subsequent quantitative analysis. On the other hand, when the initial method is quantitative, the sample selected may be too large for each individual to be included in qualitative inquiry and lack purposeful selection to reduce the sample size to one more appropriate for qualitative research. The fact that potential participants were recruited and selected at random does not necessarily make them information rich.
A re-examination of the 22 studies and an additional 6 studies published since 2009 revealed that only 5 studies ( Aarons & Palinkas, 2007 ; Bachman et al., 2009 ; Palinkas et al., 2011 ; Palinkas et al., 2012 ; Slade et al., 2003) made a specific reference to purposeful sampling. An additional three studies ( Henke et al., 2008 ; Proctor et al., 2007 ; Swain et al., 2010 ) did not make explicit reference to purposeful sampling but did provide a rationale for sample selection. The remaining 20 studies provided no description of the sampling strategy used to identify participants for qualitative data collection and analysis; however, a rationale could be inferred based on a description of who were recruited and selected for participation. Of the 28 studies, 3 used more than one sampling strategy. Twenty-one of the 28 studies (75%) used some form of criterion sampling. In most instances, the criterion used is related to the individual’s role, either in the research project (i.e., trainer, team leader), or the agency (program director, clinical supervisor, clinician); in other words, criterion of inclusion in a certain category (criterion-i), in contrast to cases that are external to a specific criterion (criterion-e). For instance, in a series of studies based on the National Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Project, participants included semi-structured interviews with consultant trainers and program leaders at each study site ( Brunette et al., 2008 ; Marshall et al., 2008 ; Marty et al., 2007; Rapp et al., 2010 ; Woltmann et al., 2008 ). Six studies used some form of maximum variation sampling to ensure representativeness and diversity of organizations and individual practitioners. Two studies used intensity sampling to make contrasts. Aarons and Palinkas (2007) , for example, purposefully selected 15 child welfare case managers representing those having the most positive and those having the most negative views of SafeCare, an evidence-based prevention intervention, based on results of a web-based quantitative survey asking about the perceived value and usefulness of SafeCare. Kramer and Burns (2008) recruited and interviewed clinicians providing usual care and clinicians who dropped out of a study prior to consent to contrast with clinicians who provided the intervention under investigation. One study ( Hoagwood et al., 2007 ), used a typical case approach to identify participants for a qualitative assessment of the challenges faced in implementing a trauma-focused intervention for youth. One study ( Green & Aarons, 2011 ) used a combined snowball sampling/criterion-i strategy by asking recruited program managers to identify clinicians, administrative support staff, and consumers for project recruitment. County mental directors, agency directors, and program managers were recruited to represent the policy interests of implementation while clinicians, administrative support staff and consumers were recruited to represent the direct practice perspectives of EBP implementation.
Table 2 below provides a description of the use of different purposeful sampling strategies in mixed methods implementation studies. Criterion-i sampling was most frequently used in mixed methods implementation studies that employed a simultaneous design where the qualitative method was secondary to the quantitative method or studies that employed a simultaneous structure where the qualitative and quantitative methods were assigned equal priority. These mixed method designs were used to complement the depth of understanding afforded by the qualitative methods with the breadth of understanding afforded by the quantitative methods (n = 13), to explain or elaborate upon the findings of one set of methods (usually quantitative) with the findings from the other set of methods (n = 10), or to seek convergence through triangulation of results or quantifying qualitative data (n = 8). The process of mixing methods in the large majority (n = 18) of these studies involved embedding the qualitative study within the larger quantitative study. In one study (Goia & Dziadosz, 2008), criterion sampling was used in a simultaneous design where quantitative and qualitative data were merged together in a complementary fashion, and in two studies (Aarons et al., 2012; Zazelli et al., 2008 ), quantitative and qualitative data were connected together, one in sequential design for the purpose of developing a conceptual model ( Zazelli et al., 2008 ), and one in a simultaneous design for the purpose of complementing one another (Aarons et al., 2012). Three of the six studies that used maximum variation sampling used a simultaneous structure with quantitative methods taking priority over qualitative methods and a process of embedding the qualitative methods in a larger quantitative study ( Henke et al., 2008 ; Palinkas et al., 2010; Slade et al., 2008 ). Two of the six studies used maximum variation sampling in a sequential design ( Aarons et al., 2009 ; Zazelli et al., 2008 ) and one in a simultaneous design (Henke et al., 2010) for the purpose of development, and three used it in a simultaneous design for complementarity ( Bachman et al., 2009 ; Henke et al., 2008; Palinkas, Ell, Hansen, Cabassa, & Wells, 2011 ). The two studies relying upon intensity sampling used a simultaneous structure for the purpose of either convergence or expansion, and both studies involved a qualitative study embedded in a larger quantitative study ( Aarons & Palinkas, 2007 ; Kramer & Burns, 2008 ). The single typical case study involved a simultaneous design where the qualitative study was embedded in a larger quantitative study for the purpose of complementarity ( Hoagwood et al., 2007 ). The snowball/maximum variation study involved a sequential design where the qualitative study was merged into the quantitative data for the purpose of convergence and conceptual model development ( Green & Aarons, 2011 ). Although not used in any of the 28 implementation studies examined here, another common sequential sampling strategy is using criteria sampling of the larger quantitative sample to produce a second-stage qualitative sample in a manner similar to maximum variation sampling, except that the former narrows the range of variation while the latter expands the range.
Purposeful sampling strategies and mixed method designs in implementation research
Sampling strategy | Structure | Design | Function |
---|---|---|---|
Single stage sampling (n = 22) | |||
Criterion (n = 18) | Simultaneous (n = 17) Sequential (n = 6) | Merged (n = 9) Connected (n = 9) Embedded (n = 14) | Convergence (n = 6) Complementarity (n = 12) Expansion (n = 10) Development (n = 3) Sampling (n = 4) |
Maximum variation (n = 4) | Simultaneous (n = 3) Sequential (n = 1) | Merged (n = 1) Connected (n = 1) Embedded (n = 2) | Convergence (n = 1) Complementarity (n = 2) Expansion (n = 1) Development (n = 2) |
Intensity (n = 1) | Simultaneous Sequential | Merged Connected Embedded | Convergence Complementarity Expansion Development |
Typical case Study (n = 1) | Simultaneous | Embedded | Complementarity |
Multistage sampling (n = 4) | |||
Criterion/maximum variation (n = 2) | Simultaneous Sequential | Embedded Connected | Complementarity Development |
Criterion/intensity (n = 1) | Simultaneous | Embedded | Convergence Complementarity Expansion |
Criterion/snowball (n = 1) | Sequential | Connected | Convergence Development |
Criterion-i sampling as a purposeful sampling strategy shares many characteristics with random probability sampling, despite having different aims and different procedures for identifying and selecting potential participants. In both instances, study participants are drawn from agencies, organizations or systems involved in the implementation process. Individuals are selected based on the assumption that they possess knowledge and experience with the phenomenon of interest (i.e., the implementation of an EBP) and thus will be able to provide information that is both detailed (depth) and generalizable (breadth). Participants for a qualitative study, usually service providers, consumers, agency directors, or state policy-makers, are drawn from the larger sample of participants in the quantitative study. They are selected from the larger sample because they meet the same criteria, in this case, playing a specific role in the organization and/or implementation process. To some extent, they are assumed to be “representative” of that role, although implementation studies rarely explain the rationale for selecting only some and not all of the available role representatives (i.e., recruiting 15 providers from an agency for semi-structured interviews out of an available sample of 25 providers). From the perspective of qualitative methodology, participants who meet or exceed a specific criterion or criteria possess intimate (or, at the very least, greater) knowledge of the phenomenon of interest by virtue of their experience, making them information-rich cases.
However, criterion sampling may not be the most appropriate strategy for implementation research because by attempting to capture both breadth and depth of understanding, it may actually be inadequate to the task of accomplishing either. Although qualitative methods are often contrasted with quantitative methods on the basis of depth versus breadth, they actually require elements of both in order to provide a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon of interest. Ideally, the goal of achieving theoretical saturation by providing as much detail as possible involves selection of individuals or cases that can ensure all aspects of that phenomenon are included in the examination and that any one aspect is thoroughly examined. This goal, therefore, requires an approach that sequentially or simultaneously expands and narrows the field of view, respectively. By selecting only individuals who meet a specific criterion defined on the basis of their role in the implementation process or who have a specific experience (e.g., engaged only in an implementation defined as successful or only in one defined as unsuccessful), one may fail to capture the experiences or activities of other groups playing other roles in the process. For instance, a focus only on practitioners may fail to capture the insights, experiences, and activities of consumers, family members, agency directors, administrative staff, or state policy leaders in the implementation process, thus limiting the breadth of understanding of that process. On the other hand, selecting participants on the basis of whether they were a practitioner, consumer, director, staff, or any of the above, may fail to identify those with the greatest experience or most knowledgeable or most able to communicate what they know and/or have experienced, thus limiting the depth of understanding of the implementation process.
To address the potential limitations of criterion sampling, other purposeful sampling strategies should be considered and possibly adopted in implementation research ( Figure 1 ). For instance, strategies placing greater emphasis on breadth and variation such as maximum variation, extreme case, confirming and disconfirming case sampling are better suited for an examination of differences, while strategies placing greater emphasis on depth and similarity such as homogeneous, snowball, and typical case sampling are better suited for an examination of commonalities or similarities, even though both types of sampling strategies include a focus on both differences and similarities. Alternatives to criterion sampling may be more appropriate to the specific functions of mixed methods, however. For instance, using qualitative methods for the purpose of complementarity may require that a sampling strategy emphasize similarity if it is to achieve depth of understanding or explore and develop hypotheses that complement a quantitative probability sampling strategy achieving breadth of understanding and testing hypotheses ( Kemper et al., 2003 ). Similarly, mixed methods that address related questions for the purpose of expanding or explaining results or developing new measures or conceptual models may require a purposeful sampling strategy aiming for similarity that complements probability sampling aiming for variation or dispersion. A narrowly focused purposeful sampling strategy for qualitative analysis that “complements” a broader focused probability sample for quantitative analysis may help to achieve a balance between increasing inference quality/trustworthiness (internal validity) and generalizability/transferability (external validity). A single method that focuses only on a broad view may decrease internal validity at the expense of external validity ( Kemper et al., 2003 ). On the other hand, the aim of convergence (answering the same question with either method) may suggest use of a purposeful sampling strategy that aims for breadth that parallels the quantitative probability sampling strategy.
Purposeful and Random Sampling Strategies for Mixed Method Implementation Studies
Furthermore, the specific nature of implementation research suggests that a multistage purposeful sampling strategy be used. Three different multistage sampling strategies are illustrated in Figure 1 below. Several qualitative methodologists recommend sampling for variation (breadth) before sampling for commonalities (depth) ( Glaser, 1978 ; Bernard, 2002 ) (Multistage I). Also known as a “funnel approach”, this strategy is often recommended when conducting semi-structured interviews ( Spradley, 1979 ) or focus groups ( Morgan, 1997 ). This approach begins with a broad view of the topic and then proceeds to narrow down the conversation to very specific components of the topic. However, as noted earlier, the lack of a clear understanding of the nature of the range may require an iterative approach where each stage of data analysis helps to determine subsequent means of data collection and analysis ( Denzen, 1978 ; Patton, 2001) (Multistage II). Similarly, multistage purposeful sampling designs like opportunistic or emergent sampling, allow the option of adding to a sample to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities after data collection has been initiated (Patton, 2001, p. 240) (Multistage III). Multistage I models generally involve two stages, while a Multistage II model requires a minimum of 3 stages, alternating from sampling for variation to sampling for similarity. A Multistage III model begins with sampling for variation and ends with sampling for similarity, but may involve one or more intervening stages of sampling for variation or similarity as the need or opportunity arises.
Multistage purposeful sampling is also consistent with the use of hybrid designs to simultaneously examine intervention effectiveness and implementation. An extension of the concept of “practical clinical trials” ( Tunis, Stryer & Clancey, 2003 ), effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs provide benefits such as more rapid translational gains in clinical intervention uptake, more effective implementation strategies, and more useful information for researchers and decision makers ( Curran et al., 2012 ). Such designs may give equal priority to the testing of clinical treatments and implementation strategies (Hybrid Type 2) or give priority to the testing of treatment effectiveness (Hybrid Type 1) or implementation strategy (Hybrid Type 3). Curran and colleagues (2012) suggest that evaluation of the intervention’s effectiveness will require or involve use of quantitative measures while evaluation of the implementation process will require or involve use of mixed methods. When conducting a Hybrid Type 1 design (conducting a process evaluation of implementation in the context of a clinical effectiveness trial), the qualitative data could be used to inform the findings of the effectiveness trial. Thus, an effectiveness trial that finds substantial variation might purposefully select participants using a broader strategy like sampling for disconfirming cases to account for the variation. For instance, group randomized trials require knowledge of the contexts and circumstances similar and different across sites to account for inevitable site differences in interventions and assist local implementations of an intervention ( Bloom & Michalopoulos, 2013 ; Raudenbush & Liu, 2000 ). Alternatively, a narrow strategy may be used to account for the lack of variation. In either instance, the choice of a purposeful sampling strategy is determined by the outcomes of the quantitative analysis that is based on a probability sampling strategy. In Hybrid Type 2 and Type 3 designs where the implementation process is given equal or greater priority than the effectiveness trial, the purposeful sampling strategy must be first and foremost consistent with the aims of the implementation study, which may be to understand variation, central tendencies, or both. In all three instances, the sampling strategy employed for the implementation study may vary based on the priority assigned to that study relative to the effectiveness trial. For instance, purposeful sampling for a Hybrid Type 1 design may give higher priority to variation and comparison to understand the parameters of implementation processes or context as a contribution to an understanding of effectiveness outcomes (i.e., using qualitative data to expand upon or explain the results of the effectiveness trial), In effect, these process measures could be seen as modifiers of innovation/EBP outcome. In contrast, purposeful sampling for a Hybrid Type 3 design may give higher priority to similarity and depth to understand the core features of successful outcomes only.
Finally, multistage sampling strategies may be more consistent with innovations in experimental designs representing alternatives to the classic randomized controlled trial in community-based settings that have greater feasibility, acceptability, and external validity. While RCT designs provide the highest level of evidence, “in many clinical and community settings, and especially in studies with underserved populations and low resource settings, randomization may not be feasible or acceptable” ( Glasgow, et al., 2005 , p. 554). Randomized trials are also “relatively poor in assessing the benefit from complex public health or medical interventions that account for individual preferences for or against certain interventions, differential adherence or attrition, or varying dosage or tailoring of an intervention to individual needs” ( Brown et al., 2009 , p. 2). Several alternatives to the randomized design have been proposed, such as “interrupted time series,” “multiple baseline across settings” or “regression-discontinuity” designs. Optimal designs represent one such alternative to the classic RCT and are addressed in detail by Duan and colleagues (this issue) . Like purposeful sampling, optimal designs are intended to capture information-rich cases, usually identified as individuals most likely to benefit from the experimental intervention. The goal here is not to identify the typical or average patient, but patients who represent one end of the variation in an extreme case, intensity sampling, or criterion sampling strategy. Hence, a sampling strategy that begins by sampling for variation at the first stage and then sampling for homogeneity within a specific parameter of that variation (i.e., one end or the other of the distribution) at the second stage would seem the best approach for identifying an “optimal” sample for the clinical trial.
Another alternative to the classic RCT are the adaptive designs proposed by Brown and colleagues ( Brown et al, 2006 ; Brown et al., 2008 ; Brown et al., 2009 ). Adaptive designs are a sequence of trials that draw on the results of existing studies to determine the next stage of evaluation research. They use cumulative knowledge of current treatment successes or failures to change qualities of the ongoing trial. An adaptive intervention modifies what an individual subject (or community for a group-based trial) receives in response to his or her preferences or initial responses to an intervention. Consistent with multistage sampling in qualitative research, the design is somewhat iterative in nature in the sense that information gained from analysis of data collected at the first stage influences the nature of the data collected, and the way they are collected, at subsequent stages ( Denzen, 1978 ). Furthermore, many of these adaptive designs may benefit from a multistage purposeful sampling strategy at early phases of the clinical trial to identify the range of variation and core characteristics of study participants. This information can then be used for the purposes of identifying optimal dose of treatment, limiting sample size, randomizing participants into different enrollment procedures, determining who should be eligible for random assignment (as in the optimal design) to maximize treatment adherence and minimize dropout, or identifying incentives and motives that may be used to encourage participation in the trial itself.
Alternatives to the classic RCT design may also be desirable in studies that adopt a community-based participatory research framework ( Minkler & Wallerstein, 2003 ), considered to be an important tool on conducting implementation research ( Palinkas & Soydan, 2012 ). Such frameworks suggest that identification and recruitment of potential study participants will place greater emphasis on the priorities and “local knowledge” of community partners than on the need to sample for variation or uniformity. In this instance, the first stage of sampling may approximate the strategy of sampling politically important cases ( Patton, 2002 ) at the first stage, followed by other sampling strategies intended to maximize variations in stakeholder opinions or experience.
On the basis of this review, the following recommendations are offered for the use of purposeful sampling in mixed method implementation research. First, many mixed methods studies in health services research and implementation science do not clearly identify or provide a rationale for the sampling procedure for either quantitative or qualitative components of the study ( Wisdom et al., 2011 ), so a primary recommendation is for researchers to clearly describe their sampling strategies and provide the rationale for the strategy.
Second, use of a single stage strategy for purposeful sampling for qualitative portions of a mixed methods implementation study should adhere to the same general principles that govern all forms of sampling, qualitative or quantitative. Kemper and colleagues (2003) identify seven such principles: 1) the sampling strategy should stem logically from the conceptual framework as well as the research questions being addressed by the study; 2) the sample should be able to generate a thorough database on the type of phenomenon under study; 3) the sample should at least allow the possibility of drawing clear inferences and credible explanations from the data; 4) the sampling strategy must be ethical; 5) the sampling plan should be feasible; 6) the sampling plan should allow the researcher to transfer/generalize the conclusions of the study to other settings or populations; and 7) the sampling scheme should be as efficient as practical.
Third, the field of implementation research is at a stage itself where qualitative methods are intended primarily to explore the barriers and facilitators of EBP implementation and to develop new conceptual models of implementation process and outcomes. This is especially important in state implementation research, where fiscal necessities are driving policy reforms for which knowledge about EBP implementation barriers and facilitators are urgently needed. Thus a multistage strategy for purposeful sampling should begin first with a broader view with an emphasis on variation or dispersion and move to a narrow view with an emphasis on similarity or central tendencies. Such a strategy is necessary for the task of finding the optimal balance between internal and external validity.
Fourth, if we assume that probability sampling will be the preferred strategy for the quantitative components of most implementation research, the selection of a single or multistage purposeful sampling strategy should be based, in part, on how it relates to the probability sample, either for the purpose of answering the same question (in which case a strategy emphasizing variation and dispersion is preferred) or the for answering related questions (in which case, a strategy emphasizing similarity and central tendencies is preferred).
Fifth, it should be kept in mind that all sampling procedures, whether purposeful or probability, are designed to capture elements of both similarity and differences, of both centrality and dispersion, because both elements are essential to the task of generating new knowledge through the processes of comparison and contrast. Selecting a strategy that gives emphasis to one does not mean that it cannot be used for the other. Having said that, our analysis has assumed at least some degree of concordance between breadth of understanding associated with quantitative probability sampling and purposeful sampling strategies that emphasize variation on the one hand, and between the depth of understanding and purposeful sampling strategies that emphasize similarity on the other hand. While there may be some merit to that assumption, depth of understanding requires both an understanding of variation and common elements.
Finally, it should also be kept in mind that quantitative data can be generated from a purposeful sampling strategy and qualitative data can be generated from a probability sampling strategy. Each set of data is suited to a specific objective and each must adhere to a specific set of assumptions and requirements. Nevertheless, the promise of mixed methods, like the promise of implementation science, lies in its ability to move beyond the confines of existing methodological approaches and develop innovative solutions to important and complex problems. For states engaged in EBP implementation, the need for these solutions is urgent.
Multistage Purposeful Sampling Strategies
This study was funded through a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (P30-MH090322: K. Hoagwood, PI).
We’re here to help
Find guidance on Author Services
Open access
Data collection, acknowledgements, disclosure statement.
In the course of our supervisory work over the years, we have noticed that qualitative research tends to evoke a lot of questions and worries, so-called frequently asked questions (FAQs). This series of four articles intends to provide novice researchers with practical guidance for conducting high-quality qualitative research in primary care. By ‘novice’ we mean Master’s students and junior researchers, as well as experienced quantitative researchers who are engaging in qualitative research for the first time. This series addresses their questions and provides researchers, readers, reviewers and editors with references to criteria and tools for judging the quality of qualitative research papers. The second article focused on context, research questions and designs, and referred to publications for further reading. This third article addresses FAQs about sampling, data collection and analysis. The data collection plan needs to be broadly defined and open at first, and become flexible during data collection. Sampling strategies should be chosen in such a way that they yield rich information and are consistent with the methodological approach used. Data saturation determines sample size and will be different for each study. The most commonly used data collection methods are participant observation, face-to-face in-depth interviews and focus group discussions. Analyses in ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and content analysis studies yield different narrative findings: a detailed description of a culture, the essence of the lived experience, a theory, and a descriptive summary, respectively. The fourth and final article will focus on trustworthiness and publishing qualitative research.
Key points on sampling, data collection and analysis
The data collection plan needs to be broadly defined and open during data collection.
Sampling strategies should be chosen in such a way that they yield rich information and are consistent with the methodological approach used.
Data saturation determines sample size and is different for each study.
The most commonly used data collection methods are participant observation, face-to-face in-depth interviews and focus group discussions.
Analyses of ethnographic, phenomenological, grounded theory, and content analysis studies yield different narrative findings: a detailed description of a culture, the essence of the lived experience, a theory or a descriptive summary, respectively.
This article is the third paper in a series of four articles aiming to provide practical guidance to qualitative research. In an introductory paper, we have described the objective, nature and outline of the Series [ Citation 1 ]. Part 2 of the series focused on context, research questions and design of qualitative research [ Citation 2 ]. In this paper, Part 3, we address frequently asked questions (FAQs) about sampling, data collection and analysis.
Box 1. Sampling strategies in qualitative research. Based on Polit & Beck [ Citation 3 ].
Some practicalities: a critical first step is to select settings and situations where you have access to potential participants. Subsequently, the best strategy to apply is to recruit participants who can provide the richest information. Such participants have to be knowledgeable on the phenomenon and can articulate and reflect, and are motivated to communicate at length and in depth with you. Finally, you should review the sampling plan regularly and adapt when necessary.
Sampling is the process of selecting or searching for situations, context and/or participants who provide rich data of the phenomenon of interest [ Citation 3 ]. In qualitative research, you sample deliberately, not at random. The most commonly used deliberate sampling strategies are purposive sampling, criterion sampling, theoretical sampling, convenience sampling and snowball sampling. Occasionally, the ‘maximum variation,’ ‘typical cases’ and ‘confirming and disconfirming’ sampling strategies are used. Key informants need to be carefully chosen. Key informants hold special and expert knowledge about the phenomenon to be studied and are willing to share information and insights with you as the researcher [ Citation 3 ]. They also help to gain access to participants, especially when groups are studied. In addition, as researcher, you can validate your ideas and perceptions with those of the key informants.
The ‘big three’ approaches of ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory use different types of sampling.
In ethnography, the main strategy is purposive sampling of a variety of key informants, who are most knowledgeable about a culture and are able and willing to act as representatives in revealing and interpreting the culture. For example, an ethnographic study on the cultural influences of communication in maternity care will recruit key informants from among a variety of parents-to-be, midwives and obstetricians in midwifery care practices and hospitals.
Phenomenology uses criterion sampling, in which participants meet predefined criteria. The most prominent criterion is the participant’s experience with the phenomenon under study. The researchers look for participants who have shared an experience, but vary in characteristics and in their individual experiences. For example, a phenomenological study on the lived experiences of pregnant women with psychosocial support from primary care midwives will recruit pregnant women varying in age, parity and educational level in primary midwifery practices.
Grounded theory usually starts with purposive sampling and later uses theoretical sampling to select participants who can best contribute to the developing theory. As theory construction takes place concurrently with data collection and analyses, the theoretical sampling of new participants also occurs along with the emerging theoretical concepts. For example, one grounded theory study tested several theoretical constructs to build a theory on autonomy in diabetes patients [ Citation 4 ]. In developing the theory, the researchers started by purposefully sampling participants with diabetes differing in age, onset of diabetes and social roles, for example, employees, housewives, and retired people. After the first analysis, researchers continued with theoretically sampling, for example, participants who differed in the treatment they received, with different degrees of care dependency, and participants who receive care from a general practitioner (GP), at a hospital or from a specialist nurse, etc.
In addition to the ‘big three’ approaches, content analysis is frequently applied in primary care research, and very often uses purposive, convenience, or snowball sampling. For instance, a study on peoples’ choice of a hospital for elective orthopaedic surgery used snowball sampling [ Citation 5 ]. One elderly person in the private network of one researcher personally approached potential respondents in her social network by means of personal invitations (including letters). In turn, respondents were asked to pass on the invitation to other eligible candidates.
Sampling is also dependent on the characteristics of the setting, e.g., access, time, vulnerability of participants, and different types of stakeholders. The setting, where sampling is carried out, is described in detail to provide thick description of the context, thereby, enabling the reader to make a transferability judgement (see Part 3: transferability). Sampling also affects the data analysis, where you continue decision-making about whom or what situations to sample next. This is based on what you consider as still missing to get the necessary information for rich findings (see Part 1: emergent design). Another point of attention is the sampling of ‘invisible groups’ or vulnerable people. Sampling of these participants would require applying multiple sampling strategies, and more time calculated in the project planning stage for sampling and recruitment [ Citation 6 ].
A guiding principle in qualitative research is to sample only until data saturation has been achieved. Data saturation means the collection of qualitative data to the point where a sense of closure is attained because new data yield redundant information [ Citation 3 ].
Data saturation is reached when no new analytical information arises anymore, and the study provides maximum information on the phenomenon. In quantitative research, by contrast, the sample size is determined by a power calculation. The usually small sample size in qualitative research depends on the information richness of the data, the variety of participants (or other units), the broadness of the research question and the phenomenon, the data collection method (e.g., individual or group interviews) and the type of sampling strategy. Mostly, you and your research team will jointly decide when data saturation has been reached, and hence whether the sampling can be ended and the sample size is sufficient. The most important criterion is the availability of enough in-depth data showing the patterns, categories and variety of the phenomenon under study. You review the analysis, findings, and the quality of the participant quotes you have collected, and then decide whether sampling might be ended because of data saturation. In many cases, you will choose to carry out two or three more observations or interviews or an additional focus group discussion to confirm that data saturation has been reached.
When designing a qualitative sampling plan, we (the authors) work with estimates. We estimate that ethnographic research should require 25–50 interviews and observations, including about four-to-six focus group discussions, while phenomenological studies require fewer than 10 interviews, grounded theory studies 20–30 interviews and content analysis 15–20 interviews or three-to-four focus group discussions. However, these numbers are very tentative and should be very carefully considered before using them. Furthermore, qualitative designs do not always mean small sample numbers. Bigger sample sizes might occur, for example, in content analysis, employing rapid qualitative approaches, and in large or longitudinal qualitative studies.
Box 2. Qualitative data collection methods.
What is important is to immerse yourself in the research setting, to enable you to study it from the inside. There are four types of researcher involvement in observations, and in your qualitative study, you may apply all four. In the first type, as ‘complete participant’, you become part of the setting and play an insider role, just as you do in your own work setting. This role might be appropriate when studying persons who are difficult to access. The second type is ‘active participation’. You have gained access to a particular setting and observed the group under study. You can move around at will and can observe in detail and depth and in different situations. The third role is ‘moderate participation’. You do not actually work in the setting you wish to study but are located there as a researcher. You might adopt this role when you are not affiliated to the care setting you wish to study. The fourth role is that of the ‘complete observer’, in which you merely observe (bystander role) and do not participate in the setting at all. However, you cannot perform any observations without access to the care setting. Such access might be easily obtained when you collect data by observations in your own primary care setting. In some cases, you might observe other care settings, which are relevant to primary care, for instance observing the discharge procedure for vulnerable elderly people from hospital to primary care.
Box 3. Further reading on interviews and focus group discussion.
Box 4. Qualitative data analysis.
Interviews involve interactions between the interviewer(s) and the respondent(s) based on interview questions. Individual, or face-to-face, interviews should be distinguished from focus group discussions. The interview questions are written down in an interview guide [ Citation 7 ] for individual interviews or a questioning route [ Citation 8 ] for focus group discussions, with questions focusing on the phenomenon under study. The sequence of the questions is pre-determined. In individual interviews, the sequence depends on the respondents and how the interviews unfold. During the interview, as the conversation evolves, you go back and forth through the sequence of questions. It should be a dialogue, not a strict question–answer interview. In a focus group discussion, the sequence is intended to facilitate the interaction between the participants, and you might adapt the sequence depending on how their discussion evolves. Working with an interview guide or questioning route enables you to collect information on specific topics from all participants. You are in control in the sense that you give direction to the interview, while the participants are in control of their answers. However, you need to be open-minded to recognize that some relevant topics for participants may not have been covered in your interview guide or questioning route, and need to be added. During the data collection process, you develop the interview guide or questioning route further and revise it based on the analysis.
Box 5. Further reading on qualitative analysis.
A face-to-face interview is an individual interview, that is, a conversation between participant and interviewer. Interviews can focus on past or present situations, and on personal issues. Most qualitative studies start with open interviews to get a broad ‘picture’ of what is going on. You should not provide a great deal of guidance and avoid influencing the answers to fit ‘your’ point of view, as you want to obtain the participant’s own experiences, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings. You should encourage the participants to speak freely. As the interview evolves, your subsequent major and subordinate questions become more focused. A face-to-face or individual interview might last between 30 and 90 min.
Most interviews are semi-structured [ Citation 3 ]. To prepare an interview guide to enhance that a set of topics will be covered by every participant, you might use a framework for constructing a semi-structured interview guide [ Citation 10 ]: (1) identify the prerequisites to use a semi-structured interview and evaluate if a semi-structured interview is the appropriate data collection method; (2) retrieve and utilize previous knowledge to gain a comprehensive and adequate understanding of the phenomenon under study; (3) formulate a preliminary interview guide by operationalizing the previous knowledge; (4) pilot-test the preliminary interview guide to confirm the coverage and relevance of the content and to identify the need for reformulation of questions; (5) complete the interview guide to collect rich data with a clear and logical guide.
The first few minutes of an interview are decisive. The participant wants to feel at ease before sharing his or her experiences. In a semi-structured interview, you would start with open questions related to the topic, which invite the participant to talk freely. The questions aim to encourage participants to tell their personal experiences, including feelings and emotions and often focus on a particular experience or specific events. As you want to get as much detail as possible, you also ask follow-up questions or encourage telling more details by using probes and prompts or keeping a short period of silence [ Citation 6 ]. You first ask what and why questions and then how questions.
You need to be prepared for handling problems you might encounter, such as gaining access, dealing with multiple formal and informal gatekeepers, negotiating space and privacy for recording data, socially desirable answers from participants, reluctance of participants to tell their story, deciding on the appropriate role (emotional involvement), and exiting from fieldwork prematurely.
A focus group discussion is a way to gather together people to discuss a specific topic of interest. The people participating in the focus group discussion share certain characteristics, e.g., professional background, or share similar experiences, e.g., having diabetes. You use their interaction to collect the information you need on a particular topic. To what depth of information the discussion goes depends on the extent to which focus group participants can stimulate each other in discussing and sharing their views and experiences. Focus group participants respond to you and to each other. Focus group discussions are often used to explore patients’ experiences of their condition and interactions with health professionals, to evaluate programmes and treatment, to gain an understanding of health professionals’ roles and identities, to examine the perception of professional education, or to obtain perspectives on primary care issues. A focus group discussion usually lasts 90–120 mins.
You might use guidelines for developing a questioning route [ Citation 9 ]: (1) brainstorm about possible topics you want to cover; (2) sequence the questioning: arrange general questions first, and then, more specific questions, and ask positive questions before negative questions; (3) phrase the questions: use open-ended questions, ask participants to think back and reflect on their personal experiences, avoid asking ‘why’ questions, keep questions simple and make your questions sound conversational, be careful about giving examples; (4) estimate the time for each question and consider: the complexity of the question, the category of the question, level of participant’s expertise, the size of the focus group discussion, and the amount of discussion you want related to the question; (5) obtain feedback from others (peers); (6) revise the questions based on the feedback; and (7) test the questions by doing a mock focus group discussion. All questions need to provide an answer to the phenomenon under study.
You need to be prepared to manage difficulties as they arise, for example, dominant participants during the discussion, little or no interaction and discussion between participants, participants who have difficulties sharing their real feelings about sensitive topics with others, and participants who behave differently when they are observed.
The purpose of the focus group discussion determines the composition. Smaller groups might be more suitable for complex (and sometimes controversial) topics. Also, smaller focus groups give the participants more time to voice their views and provide more detailed information, while participants in larger focus groups might generate greater variety of information. In composing a smaller or larger focus group, you need to ensure that the participants are likely to have different viewpoints that stimulate the discussion. For example, if you want to discuss the management of obesity in a primary care district, you might want to have a group composed of professionals who work with these patients but also have a variety of backgrounds, e.g. GPs, community nurses, practice nurses in general practice, school nurses, midwives or dieticians.
Focus groups generally consist of 6–12 participants. Careful time management is important, since you have to determine how much time you want to devote to answering each question, and how much time is available for each individual participant. For example, if you have planned a focus group discussion lasting 90 min. with eight participants, you might need 15 min. for the introduction and the concluding summary. This means you have 75 min. for asking questions, and if you have four questions, this allows a total of 18 min. of speaking time for each question. If all eight respondents participate in the discussion, this boils down to about two minutes of speaking time per respondent per question.
New media are increasingly used for collecting qualitative data, for example, through online observations, online interviews and focus group discussions, and in analysis of online sources. Data can be collected synchronously or asynchronously, with text messaging, video conferences, video calls or immersive virtual worlds or games, etcetera. Qualitative research moves from ‘virtual’ to ‘digital’. Virtual means those approaches that import traditional data collection methods into the online environment and digital means those approaches take advantage of the unique characteristics and capabilities of the Internet for research [ Citation 10 ]. New media can also be applied. See Box 3 for further reading on interview and focus group discussion.
You cannot wait with the analysis, because an iterative approach and emerging design are at the heart of qualitative research. This involves a process whereby you move back and forth between sampling, data collection and data analysis to accumulate rich data and interesting findings. The principle is that what emerges from data analysis will shape subsequent sampling decisions. Immediately after the very first observation, interview or focus group discussion, you have to start the analysis and prepare your field notes.
First, transcripts of audiotaped interviews and focus group discussions and your field notes constitute your major data sources. Trained and well-instructed transcribers preferably make transcripts. Usually, e.g., in ethnography, phenomenology, grounded theory, and content analysis, data are transcribed verbatim, which means that recordings are fully typed out, and the transcripts are accurate and reflect the interview or focus group discussion experience. Most important aspects of transcribing are the focus on the participants’ words, transcribing all parts of the audiotape, and carefully revisiting the tape and rereading the transcript. In conversation analysis non-verbal actions such as coughing, the lengths of pausing and emphasizing, tone of voice need to be described in detail using a formal transcription system (best known are G. Jefferson’s symbols).
To facilitate analysis, it is essential that you ensure and check that transcripts are accurate and reflect the totality of the interview, including pauses, punctuation and non-verbal data. To be able to make sense of qualitative data, you need to immerse yourself in the data and ‘live’ the data. In this process of incubation, you search the transcripts for meaning and essential patterns, and you try to collect legitimate and insightful findings. You familiarize yourself with the data by reading and rereading transcripts carefully and conscientiously, in search for deeper understanding.
Ethnography, phenomenology, and grounded theory each have different analytical approaches, and you should be aware that each of these approaches has different schools of thought, which may also have integrated the analytical methods from other schools ( Box 4 ). When you opt for a particular approach, it is best to use a handbook describing its analytical methods, as it is better to use one approach consistently than to ‘mix up’ different schools.
In general, qualitative analysis begins with organizing data. Large amounts of data need to be stored in smaller and manageable units, which can be retrieved and reviewed easily. To obtain a sense of the whole, analysis starts with reading and rereading the data, looking at themes, emotions and the unexpected, taking into account the overall picture. You immerse yourself in the data. The most widely used procedure is to develop an inductive coding scheme based on actual data [ Citation 11 ]. This is a process of open coding, creating categories and abstraction. In most cases, you do not start with a predefined coding scheme. You describe what is going on in the data. You ask yourself, what is this? What does it stand for? What else is like this? What is this distinct from? Based on this close examination of what emerges from the data you make as many labels as needed. Then, you make a coding sheet, in which you collect the labels and, based on your interpretation, cluster them in preliminary categories. The next step is to order similar or dissimilar categories into broader higher order categories. Each category is named using content-characteristic words. Then, you use abstraction by formulating a general description of the phenomenon under study: subcategories with similar events and information are grouped together as categories and categories are grouped as main categories. During the analysis process, you identify ‘missing analytical information’ and you continue data collection. You reread, recode, re-analyse and re-collect data until your findings provide breadth and depth.
Throughout the qualitative study, you reflect on what you see or do not see in the data. It is common to write ‘analytic memos’ [ Citation 3 ], write-ups or mini-analyses about what you think you are learning during the course of your study, from designing to publishing. They can be a few sentences or pages, whatever is needed to reflect upon: open codes, categories, concepts, and patterns that might be emerging in the data. Memos can contain summaries of major findings and comments and reflections on particular aspects.
In ethnography, analysis begins from the moment that the researcher sets foot in the field. The analysis involves continually looking for patterns in the behaviours and thoughts of the participants in everyday life, in order to obtain an understanding of the culture under study. When comparing one pattern with another and analysing many patterns simultaneously, you may use maps, flow charts, organizational charts and matrices to illustrate the comparisons graphically. The outcome of an ethnographic study is a narrative description of a culture.
In phenomenology, analysis aims to describe and interpret the meaning of an experience, often by identifying essential subordinate and major themes. You search for common themes featuring within an interview and across interviews, sometimes involving the study participants or other experts in the analysis process. The outcome of a phenomenological study is a detailed description of themes that capture the essential meaning of a ‘lived’ experience.
Grounded theory generates a theory that explains how a basic social problem that emerged from the data is processed in a social setting. Grounded theory uses the ‘constant comparison’ method, which involves comparing elements that are present in one data source (e.g., an interview) with elements in another source, to identify commonalities. The steps in the analysis are known as open, axial and selective coding. Throughout the analysis, you document your ideas about the data in methodological and theoretical memos. The outcome of a grounded theory study is a theory.
Descriptive generic qualitative research is defined as research designed to produce a low inference description of a phenomenon [ Citation 12 ]. Although Sandelowski maintains that all research involves interpretation, she has also suggested that qualitative description attempts to minimize inferences made in order to remain ‘closer’ to the original data [ Citation 12 ]. Descriptive generic qualitative research often applies content analysis. Descriptive content analysis studies are not based on a specific qualitative tradition and are varied in their methods of analysis. The analysis of the content aims to identify themes, and patterns within and among these themes. An inductive content analysis [ Citation 11 ] involves breaking down the data into smaller units, coding and naming the units according to the content they present, and grouping the coded material based on shared concepts. They can be represented by clustering in treelike diagrams. A deductive content analysis [ Citation 11 ] uses a theory, theoretical framework or conceptual model to analyse the data by operationalizing them in a coding matrix. An inductive content analysis might use several techniques from grounded theory, such as open and axial coding and constant comparison. However, note that your findings are merely a summary of categories, not a grounded theory.
Analysis software can support you to manage your data, for example by helping to store, annotate and retrieve texts, to locate words, phrases and segments of data, to name and label, to sort and organize, to identify data units, to prepare diagrams and to extract quotes. Still, as a researcher you would do the analytical work by looking at what is in the data, and making decisions about assigning codes, and identifying categories, concepts and patterns. The computer assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS) website provides support to make informed choices between analytical software and courses: http://www.surrey.ac.uk/sociology/research/researchcentres/caqdas/support/choosing . See Box 5 for further reading on qualitative analysis.
The next and final article in this series, Part 4, will focus on trustworthiness and publishing qualitative research [ Citation 13 ].
The authors thank the following junior researchers who have been participating for the last few years in the so-called ‘Think tank on qualitative research’ project, a collaborative project between Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Maastricht University, for their pertinent questions: Erica Baarends, Jerome van Dongen, Jolanda Friesen-Storms, Steffy Lenzen, Ankie Hoefnagels, Barbara Piskur, Claudia van Putten-Gamel, Wilma Savelberg, Steffy Stans, and Anita Stevens. The authors are grateful to Isabel van Helmond, Joyce Molenaar and Darcy Ummels for proofreading our manuscripts and providing valuable feedback from the ‘novice perspective’.
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations. Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.
Download citation, your download is now in progress and you may close this window.
Register now or learn more
This study investigates the relationship between food literacy and farmer’s intent to produce millets for their subsistence. To do so, we used a structured questionnaire highlighting three aspects of food literacy by drawing data from 100 millet producers from a remote tribal region in the Koraput district of Odisha and employed the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression technique and other regression methods for robustness. The result from the regression methods has revealed that variables associated with food literacy, such as knowledge about the farmland type, farm mechanization, and nutritional uses influence millet production. However, the cultural importance of millet had a significant impact on millet production as millet is culturally associated with tribal culture. Overall findings underscore the effective use of technology that supports the feminization and protection of indigenous millet crops and endorse the implementation of special schemes for the promotion and marketing of millets.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Subscribe and save.
Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Rent this article via DeepDyve
Institutional subscriptions
Source : Primary survey
Source : Created by Author
Source : Author’s creation
The data used for this research will be made available on request.
The Programme is operated through four key components i.e., production, processing, marketing and consumption. The main purpose of this programme is to revive millet and bring it back in the farm of producers to the plate of consumers. Further, the state has introduced a first-ever flagship method of direct incentive to farmers (DBT) to the registered millet growers who ever participated under the OMM programmer. The state is the first ever to introduce ragi (finger millet) ladoo in Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS) programmes to provide better health and nutrition security to the child, pregnant women, and adolescent girls. Thus, the state has now included millet in the Mid-day Meal Scheme (MDM), and the Public Distribution Scheme (PDS). With all these recent developments the state has been declared a “Best Millet Promoting State” and awarded with “Poshak Anaj Awards” by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), Indian Institute of Millet Research (IIMR) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO).
We use the variable CULUSES as endogenous instrumented variable while performing the 2SLS IV regression. Cultural values are embedded within the community in the form of social customs, beliefs, and tradition. Therefore, we consider this variable as endogenous instrumented variable.
Adams WC (2015) Conducting semi-structured interviews. In: Newcomer KE, Hatry HP, Wholey JS (eds) Handbook of practical program evaluation. Wiley, New York, pp 492–505
Chapter Google Scholar
Adeoye-Olatunde OA, Olenik NL (2021) Research and scholarly methods: semi-structured interviews. J Am Coll Clin Pharm 4(10):1358–1367
Article Google Scholar
Agrawal T, Hirons M, Gathorne-Hardy A (2021) Understanding farmers’ cropping decisions and implications for crop diversity conservation: insights from Central India. Curr Res Environ Sustain 3:100068
Agrawal T, Chandrasekhar S, Gandhi I (2015) Short-term migrants in India: characteristics, wages and work transition. Working paper no. 2015–07, April. Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai
Ali S (2019) Why vulnerable tribes, susceptible to illness, malnutrition, have limited healthcare. 7 Sep 2019. Available at: https://www.indiaspend.com/why-vulnerable-tribes-susceptible-to-illness-malnutrition-have-limited-healthcare/
Antony Ceasar S, Maharajan T (2022) The role of millets in attaining United Nation’s sustainable developmental goals. Plants People Planet 4(4):345–349
Bartlet JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC (2001) Determining appropriate sample size in survey research appropriate sample size in survey research. Inf Technol Learn Perform J 19(1):43–50
Google Scholar
Begley A, Paynter E, Butcher LM, Dhaliwal SS (2019) Examining the association between food literacy and food insecurity. Nutrients 11(2):445
Behera M, Dassani P (2021) Health status and healthcare services of scheduled tribes in Odisha: challenges and the way forward. Indian J Hum Dev 15(3):532–546
Berardi GM (1978) Organic and conventional wheat production: examination of energy and economics. Agro-Ecosystems 4(3):367–376
Bergamini NPS, Bala RS, Yenagi N (2013) Minor millets in India: a neglected crop goes mainstream. In: Fanzo D, Hunter T, Borelli F, Mattei (eds) Diversifying food and diets: using agricultural biodiversity to improve nutrition and health, biodiversity. Journal of International, Rome, pp 313–325
Bhatt D, Rasane P, Singh J, Kaur S, Fairos M, Kaur J, Gunjal M, Mahato DK, Mehta C, Avinashe H, Sharma N (2023) Nutritional advantages of barnyard millet and opportunities for its processing as value-added foods. J Food Sci Technol 60(11):2748–2760
Block LG, Grier SA, Childers TL, Davis B, Ebert JE, Kumanyika S, Laczniak RN, Machin JE, Motley CM, Peracchio L, Pettigrew S (2011) From nutrients to nurturance: a conceptual introduction to food wellbeing. J Public Policy Mark 30(1):5–13
Brush SB (1991) A farmer-based approach to conserving crop germplasm. Econ Bot 45(2):153–165
Chand VS, Shukla SR (2003) Biodiversity contests’: indigenously informed and transformed environmental education. Appl Environ Educ Commun/JTL> 2(4):229–236
Chausali N, Saxena J (2021) Conventional versus organic farming: nutrient status. In: Meena VS, Meena SK, Rakshit A, Stanley J, Srinivasarao C (eds) Advances in organic farming. Woodhead Publishing, Sawston, pp 241–254
Cullen T, Hatch J, Martin W, Higgins JW, Sheppard R (2015) Food literacy: definition and framework for action. Can J Diet Pract Res 76(3):140–145
Davis A, Wagner JR (2003) Who knows? On the importance of identifying “experts” when researching local ecological knowledge. Hum Ecol 31(3):463–489
Deaton A, Drèze J (2009) Food and nutrition in India: facts and interpretations. Econ Polit Wkly 44(7):42–65
Dev SM (2012) Small Farmers in India: challenges and opportunities. WP-2012–014. Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai. Available at: http://www.igidr.ac.in/pdf/publication/WP-2012-014.pdf
Downs SM, Kapoor R, Merchant EV, Sullivan T, Singh G, Fanzo J, Ghosh-Jerath S (2022) Leveraging nutrient-rich traditional foods to improve diets among indigenous populations in India: value chain analysis of finger millet and Kionaar leaves. Foods 11(23):3774
Article CAS Google Scholar
Dubey A, Malla MA, Khan F, Chowdhary K, Yadav S, Kumar A, Sharma S, Khare PK, Khan ML (2019) Soil microbiome: a key player for conservation of soil health under changing climate. Biodivers Conserv 28:2405–2429
Evans S (2023) Food as culture: cuisine, food customs, and cultural identity. Published on July 19, 2023. Available at: https://www.slofoodbank.org/food-as-culture/
FAO (2013) The state of food insecurity in the world: the multiple dimensions of food security. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome
FAO (2010) Gender dimensions of agricultural and rural employment: differentiated pathways out of poverty. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/i1638e/i1638e.pdf
Fernandez DR, Vanderjagt DJ, Millson M, Huang YS, Chuang LT, Pastuszyn A, Glew RH (2003) Fatty acid, amino acid and trace mineral composition of Eleusine coracana (Pwana) seeds from northern Nigeria. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 58(3):1–10
Freitas H, Oliveira M, Jenkins M, Popjoy O (1998) The Focus Group, a qualitative research method. J Educ 1(1):1–22
Gallegos D (2016) The nexus between food literacy, food security and disadvantage. In: Food literacy: Key concepts for health and education, pp 134–150
Garikipati S (2008) Agricultural wage work, seasonal migration and the widening gender gap: evidence from a semi-arid region of Andhra Pradesh. Eur J Dev Res 20(4):629–648
Gartaula H, Patel K, Shukla S, Devkota R (2020) Indigenous knowledge of traditional foods and food literacy among youth: Insights from rural Nepal. J Rural Stud 73:77–86
Genovese CR, Jin J, Wasserman L, Yao Z (2012) A comparison of the lasso and marginal regression. J Mach Learn Res 13(1):2107–2143
Ghosh-Jerath S, Kapoor R, Barman S, Singh G, Singh A, Downs S, Fanzo J (2020) Traditional food environment and factors affecting indigenous food consumption in Munda tribal community of Jharkhand. Front Nutr, India, p 357
Govind R (2017) Area under millet cultivation has seen a decline in state. 15 April, 2017. The Hindu
Gowri MU, Shivakumar KM (2020) Millet scenario in India. Econ Aff 65(3):363–370
Gujarati D (2014) Econometrics by example. Bloomsbury Publishing, London
Herawati N, Nisa K, Setiawan E, Nusyirwan N, Tiryono T (2018) Regularized multiple regression methods to deal with severe multicollinearity. Int J Stat Appl 8(4):167–172
Iftikhar S, Amir H, Khadim Z, Bilal K (2015) Farmer’s literacy rate as key driver in food production and food security: an empirical appraisal from Punjab, Pakistan. Eur Online J Nat Soc Sci 4(4):683
Jena D, Mishra S (2020) Growth, instability and decomposition of millets in Odisha: 1960–61 to 2017–18. Odisha economy discussion series, 7
Jena D, Mahapatra B (2023) Exploring the effects of energy consumption on millets and rice yields in Odisha, India. Energy Nexus 12:100253
Kapoor R, Sabharwal M, Ghosh-Jerath S (2024) Co-existence of potentially sustainable indigenous food systems and poor nutritional status in Ho indigenous community, India: an exploratory study. Environ Res Lett 19(6):064033
Kimura AH (2011) Food education as food literacy: privatized and gendered food knowledge in contemporary Japan. Agric Hum Values 28(4):465–482
Krueger RA, Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research, 4th edn. Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks
Lakshmi Kumari P, Sumathi S (2002) Effect of consumption of finger millet on hyperglycemia in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) subjects. Plant Foods Hum Nutr 57(3):205–213
Lunga W, Musarurwa C (2016) Indigenous food security revival strategies at the village level: the gender factor implications. Jàmbá: J Disaster Risk Stud 8(2):1–7
Luo YF, Yang SC, Chiang CH, Lu CM (2018) Development and validation of a food literacy self-report inventory and investigation of the relationships between food literacy and dietary behavior among college students. Taiwan Gong Gong Wei Sheng Za Zhi 37(407):10–6288
Maxwell S, Smith M (1992) Household food security: a conceptual review. Househ Food Secur: Concepts Indic Meas 1:1–72
McGowan L, Caraher M, Raats M, Lavelle F, Hollywood L, McDowell D, Spence M, McCloat A, Mooney A, Dean M (2017) Domestic cooking and food skills: a review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 57(11):2412–2431
Mellor JW (1976) The new economics of growth: a strategy for India and the developing world (pp. xv+-335pp)
Ministry of Commerce and Industry (2022) Centre formulates action plan to promote exports of millets and value-added products of millets. Available at: https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1874937
Mohanty BB, Lenka PK (2016) Neoliberal reforms, agrarian capitalism and peasantry. In: Critical perspectives on agrarian transition: India in the global debate. Routledge, London, pp 164–195
Morgan DL (1988) Focus group as qualitative research. Sage Publications Inc, Newbury Park
Muimba-Kankolongo A (2018) Food crop production by smallholder farmers in Southern Africa: challenges and opportunities for improvement. Academic Press, Cambridge
Nagarajan L, Smale M, Glewwe P (2005) Comparing farm and village-level determinants of millet diversity in marginal environments of India: the context of seed systems. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
Nyumba OT, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N (2018) The use of focus group discussion methodology: Insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 9(1):20–32
Oladeebo JO, Masuku MB (2013) Effect of farmer education and managerial ability on food crop production in Nigeria. J Econ Sustain Dev 4(7):75–82
Oniango R, Allotey J, Malaba SJ (2004) Contribution of indigenous knowledge and practices in food technology to the attainment of food security in Africa. J Food Sci 69(3):CRH87–CRH91
CAS Google Scholar
Palumbo R (2016) Sustainability of wellbeing through literacy. The effects of food literacy on sustainability of wellbeing. Agric Agric Sci Proc 8:99–106
Pandey A, Bolia NB (2023) Millet value chain revolution for sustainability: a proposal for India. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 87:101592
Patel R (2009) Food sovereignty. J Peasant Stud 36(3):663–706
Patel K, Gartaula H, Johnson D, Karthikeyan M (2015) The interplay between household food security and well-being among small-scale farmers in the context of rapid agrarian change in India. Agric Food Sec 4(1):1–16
Patnaik U (1986) The agrarian question and development of capitalism in India. Econ Polit Wkly 21:781–793
Pattanaik J (2019) Livelihood and natural resources: a socio-cultural study of the Paraja tribe of Koraput district, Odisha, India. Available at: https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v9i11/SR201022091834.pdf
Pattnaik I, Lahiri-Dutt K (2020) What determines women’s agricultural participation? A comparative study of landholding households in rural India. J Rural Stud 76:25–39
Perry EA, Thomas H, Samra HR, Edmonstone S, Davidson L, Faulkner A, Petermann L, Manafò E, Kirkpatrick SI (2017) Identifying attributes of food literacy: a scoping review. Public Health Nutr 20(13):2406–2415
Powell LJ, Wittman H (2018) Farm to school in British Columbia: mobilizing food literacy for food sovereignty. Agric Hum Values 35(1):193–206
Prabhakar A (2014) Pragati, Koraput experiences in system of ragi intensification. Available at: http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/countries/india/orissa/InOdisha_Pragati_SCI%20_Ragi14.pdf
Pradhan A, Panda AK, Bhavani RV (2019) Finger millet in tribal farming systems contributes to increased availability of nutritious food at household level: insights from India. Agric Res 8(4):540–547
Pradhan AK, Thomas R, Rout S, Pradhan AK (2022) Magnitude and determinants of mortalities related to COVID-19: Evidence from 94 countries using regression techniques. Fudan J Human Soc Sci 15(4):475–499
Pray CE, Nagarajan L (2009) Pearl millet and sorghum improvement in India, vol 919. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, pp 1–27
Price MJ, Latta A, Spring A, Temmer J, Johnston C, Chicot L, Jumbo J, Leishman M (2022) Agroecology in the North: Centering Indigenous food sovereignty and land stewardship in agriculture “frontiers.” Agric Hum Values 39(4):1191–1206
Ragupathy S, Dhivya S, Patel K, Sritharan A, Sambandan K, Gartaula H, Sathishkumar R, Khadka K, Nirmala BC, Kumari AN, Newmaster SG (2016) DNA record of some traditional small millet landraces in India and Nepal. 3 Biotech 6(2):1–19
Reddy DN, Mishra S (eds) (2010) Agrarian crisis in India. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Rees R, Hinds K, Dickson K, O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J (2012) Communities that cook: a systematic review of the effectiveness and appropriateness of interventions to introduce adults to home cooking: executive summary. J Home Econ Inst Aust 19(3):31–32
Reicks M, Kocher M, Reeder J (2018) Impact of cooking and home food preparation interventions among adults: a systematic review (2011–2016). J Nutr Educ Behav 50(2):148–172
Reyes-García V, Kightley E, Ruiz-Mallén I, Fuentes-Peláez N, Demps K, Huanca T, Martínez-Rodríguez MR (2010) Schooling and local environmental knowledge: do they complement or substitute each other? Int J Educ Dev 30(3):305–313
Shah P, Mehta N, Shah S (2024) Exploring the factors that drive millet consumption: insights from regular and occasional consumers. J Retail Consum Serv 76:103598
Shahvali M (2011) Enriching indigenous knowledge: an alternative paradigm for empowerment. Knowl Manag Dev J 6(3):194–205
Shukla S, Barkman J, Patel K (2017) Weaving indigenous agricultural knowledge with formal education to enhance community food security: school competition as a pedagogical space in rural Anchetty, India. Pedagog Cult Soc 25(1):87–103
Singh G, Kumar J (2016) Diversity and traditional knowledge on some less known edible wild herbaceous plant resource from district Khunti, Jharkhand, India. Int J Bioassays 5(4557):10–21746
Slater J (2013) Is cooking dead? The state of Home Economics Food and Nutrition education in a Canadian province. Int J Consum Stud 37(6):617–624
Sukumaran Sreekala AD, Anbukkani P, Singh A, Dayakar Rao B, Jha GK (2023) Millet production and consumption in India: where do we stand and where do we go? Natl Acad Sci Lett 46(1):65–70
Swain PS, Mohanty BB, Pradhan AK (2023) Untangling the factors influencing finger millet production: evidence from the Indian states. Int Soc Sci J 73(248):359–372
Tartaglia J, Jancey J, Scott JA, Dhaliwal SS, Begley A (2023) Effectiveness of a food literacy and positive feeding practices program for parents of 0 to 5 years olds in Western Australia. Health Prom J Aust 35:263–275
Teng CC, Chih C (2022) Sustainable food literacy: a measure to promote sustainable diet practices. Sustain Prod Consum 30:776–786
The Indian Express (2023) India ranks 111th on Global Hunger Index 2023; ‘erroneous measure of hunger’, says govt. Available at: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ranks-111th-global-hunger-index-2023-erroneous-measure-8980416/
Truman E, Lane D, Elliott C (2017) Defining food literacy: a scoping review. Appetite 116:365–371
Umanath M, Balasubramaniam R, Paramasivam R (2018) Millets’ consumption probability and demand in India: an application of heckman sample selection model. Econ Aff 63(4):1033–1044
Vedamanickam R, Anandan P, Bupesh G, Vasanth S (2020) Study of millet and non-millet diet on diabetics and associated metabolic syndrome. Biomedicine 40(1):55–58
Vidgen HA, Gallegos D (2011) What is food literacy and does it influence what we eat: a study of Australian food experts. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Wang S, Chen Y, Cui Z, Lin L, Zong Y (2024) Diabetes risk analysis based on machine learning LASSO regression model. J Theory Pract Eng Sci 4(01):58–64
Widener P, Karides M (2014) Food system literacy: empowering citizens and consumers beyond farm-to-fork pathways. Food Cult Soc 17(4):665–687
Xiang WN (2023) Encouraging research to be ecopracticological, three topical areas will be featured at the SEPR 2024 conference and in two 2025 special SEPR issues. Socio Ecol Pract Res 5(4):363–369
Yeleliere E, Yeboah T, Antwi-Agyei P, Peprah P (2022) Traditional agroecological knowledge and practices: the drivers and opportunities for adaptation actions in the northern region of Ghana. Reg Sustain 3(4):294–308
Zimmerer KS (1991) Managing diversity in potato and maize fields of the Peruvian Andes. J Ethnobiol 11(1):23–49
Download references
We thank anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and useful suggestions. We also thank Dr Vivek Singh, Dept. of Civil, Structure and Environment Engineering, Trinity College, Dublin and Dr Avinash Ranjan, Dept. of Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT(ISM)Dhanbad for their suggestions on the earlier version of the paper. The usual disclaimer applies.
The current research is a part of Doctoral thesis for which the corresponding author has recieved fellowship from the institute. However, our research did not recieve any funding from external sources.
Authors and affiliations.
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology (ISM) Dhanbad, Dhanbad, Jharkhand, India
Partha Sarathi Swain
Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Ashis Kumar Pradhan
School of Economics and Management, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Provash Kumer Sarker
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to Partha Sarathi Swain .
Conflict of interest.
The authors of this manuscript declares no conflict of interest.
Publisher's note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Swain, P.S., Pradhan, A.K. & Sarker, P.K. Assessing the impact of the indigenous farmers' food literacy on millet production: evidence from Eastern India. Socio Ecol Pract Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-024-00201-0
Download citation
Received : 03 April 2024
Revised : 26 August 2024
Accepted : 31 August 2024
Published : 26 September 2024
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42532-024-00201-0
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Sampling techniques in qualitative research include purposive, convenience, snowball, and theoretical sampling. Choosing the right sampling technique significantly impacts the accuracy and reliability of the research results. It's crucial to consider the potential impact on the bias, sample diversity, and generalizability when choosing a ...
Qualitative researchers ask very different questions, though. Qualitative research questions are not about "how many" of a certain group do X (in this case, what percentage of the unvaccinated hesitate for concern about safety rather than reject vaccination on political grounds). Qualitative research employs nonprobability sampling. By ...
This type of sampling, also known as judgement sampling, involves the researcher using their expertise to select a sample that is most useful to the purposes of the research. It is often used in qualitative research, where the researcher wants to gain detailed knowledge about a specific phenomenon rather than make statistical inferences, or ...
A sampling plan is a formal plan specifying a sampling method, a sample size, and procedure for recruiting participants (Box 1) . A qualitative sampling plan describes how many observations, interviews, focus-group discussions or cases are needed to ensure that the findings will contribute rich data.
Answer 1: In qualitative research, samples are selected subjectively according to. the pur pose of the study, whereas in quantitative researc h probability sampling. technique are used to select ...
Any senior researcher, or seasoned mentor, has a practiced response to the 'how many' question. Mine tends to start with a reminder about the different philosophical assumptions undergirding qualitative and quantitative research projects (Staller, 2013). As Abrams (2010) points out, this difference leads to "major differences in sampling ...
Sampling Strategies in Qualitative Research In: The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis By: Tim Rapley Edited by: Uwe Flick Pub. Date: 2013 ... SAGE Research Methods. Page 3 of 21. Sampling Strategies in Qualitative Research. often these two terms are used interchangeably, without reflection on what separates ...
Purposive Sampling. Purposive (or purposeful) sampling is a non-probability technique used to deliberately select the best sources of data to meet the purpose of the study. Purposive sampling is sometimes referred to as theoretical or selective or specific sampling. Theoretical sampling is used in qualitative research when a study is designed ...
Abstract. Qualitative sampling methods differ from quantitative sampling methods. It is important that one understands those differences, as well as, appropriate qualitative sampling techniques. Appropriate sampling choices enhance the rigor of qualitative research studies. These types of sampling strategies are presented, along with the pros ...
Qualitative studies use specific tools and techniques (methods) to sample people, organizations, or whatever is to be examined. The methodology guides the selection of tools and techniques for sampling, data analysis, quality assurance, etc. These all vary according to the purpose and design of the study and the RQ.
The importance of sampling extends to the ability to draw accurate inferences, and it is an integral part of qualitative guidelines across research methods. Sampling considerations are important in quantitative and qualitative research when considering a target population and when drawing a sample that will either allow us to generalize (i.e ...
Non-probability sampling methods are commonly used in qualitative research, where the richness and depth of the data are more important than the generalisability of the findings. If that all sounds a little too conceptual and fluffy, don't worry. Let's take a look at some actual sampling methods to make it more tangible.
Qualitative research is a type of scientific research. In general terms, scientific research consists of an investigation that: • seeks answers to a question. • systematically uses a predefined set of procedures to answer the question. • collects evidence. • produces findings that were not determined in advance.
Considerations of sampling are fundamental to any empirical study. However, in studies based on qualitative research interviews, sampling issues are rarely discussed. Possible reasons include a lack of universal 'rules of thumb' governing sampling considerations and the diversity of approaches to qualitative inquiry.
Qualitative researchers typically make sampling choices that enable them to achieve a deep understanding of whatever phenomenon it is that they are studying. In this section, we'll examine the techniques that qualitative researchers typically employ when sampling as well as the various types of samples that qualitative researchers are most ...
A four-point approach to sampling in qualitative interview-based research is presented and critically discussed in this article, which integrates theory and process for the following: (1) defining a sample universe, by way of specifying inclusion and exclusion criteria for potential participation; (2) deciding upon a sample size, through the ...
Abstract. This paper aims to provide an overview of the use and assessment of qualitative research methods in the health sciences. Qualitative research can be defined as the study of the nature of phenomena and is especially appropriate for answering questions of why something is (not) observed, assessing complex multi-component interventions ...
Go to: In gerontology the most recognized and elaborate discourse about sampling is generally thought to be in quantitative research associated with survey research and medical research. But sampling has long been a central concern in the social and humanistic inquiry, albeit in a different guise suited to the different goals.
We could choose a sampling method based on whether we want to account for sampling bias; a random sampling method is often preferred over a non-random method for this reason. Random sampling examples include: simple, systematic, stratified, and cluster sampling. Non-random sampling methods are liable to bias, and common examples include ...
Abstract. Qualitative sampling methods differ from quantitative sampling methods. It is important that one understands those differences, as well as, appropriate qualitative sampling techniques. Appropriate sampling choices enhance the rigor of qualitative research studies. These types of sampling strategies are presented, along with the pros ...
In qualitative research, only a sample (subset) of a population is selected for any given study.Three of the most common sampling methods are: Purposive sampling Participants are grouped according to preselected criteria relevant to a particular research question; sample sizes often determined by theoretical saturation (new data doesn't bring ...
Sampling, for the purposes of this guide, refers to any process by which members of a population are selected to participate in research. There are many methods for sampling, each with a slightly different purpose. In the box below you can learn more about these common sampling techniques: simple random sampling; stratified sampling; cluster ...
Further information on sample size calculations can be found here - Sage Research Methods provide various resources which can be accessed via your University of Bath login. Information about sampling for survey research can be found here; For further information and guidance on sample size in qualitative research springer and sage journals
The seven steps of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP), as outlined in the Melnyk model (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, Citation 2022), provide a structured framework for systematically implementing EBP in healthcare.These steps cultivating a spirit of inquiry, formulating a focused clinical question, searching for the best evidence, critically appraising it, integrating it with clinical expertise and ...
The sampling procedures and sample characteristics have been described in detail in Ssewanyana et al. . We recruited 125 study participants for this study whose details are further described in Table 1. Purposive sampling techniques were used so as to include a wide range of respondents.
Background Research dissemination is essential to accelerate the translating of evidence into practice. Little is known about dissemination among Chinese public health researchers. This study aimed to explore the understanding and practices of disseminating research findings and to identify barriers and facilitators that influence dissemination activities to non-research audiences. Methods ...
A thematic analysis qualitative study was used. Using purposive sampling, 18 psychiatric nurses were recruited from a mental health center in Chengdu, China. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and audio-recorded. ... The study is conducted in the context of Chinese culture using qualitative research methods, and analyzes the difficulties ...
Principles of Purposeful Sampling. Purposeful sampling is a technique widely used in qualitative research for the identification and selection of information-rich cases for the most effective use of limited resources (Patton, 2002).This involves identifying and selecting individuals or groups of individuals that are especially knowledgeable about or experienced with a phenomenon of interest ...
A sampling plan is a formal plan specifying a sampling method, a sample size, and procedure for recruiting participants (Box 1) [Citation 3]. A qualitative sampling plan describes how many observations, interviews, focus-group discussions or cases are needed to ensure that the findings will contribute rich data.
The interviews of two key informants were also conducted. We have also portrayed the methodological flow chart for a clear understanding of the quantitative and qualitative analysis performed in this research. 4.2 Research methods. Research methods are scientific tools to help answer the research questions of any proposed research.