RES 724 Week 3 Sampling and Access Example

Finding the Right Participants: Purposeful Sampling and Access for a Study of Successors

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

RES/724: Qualitative Methods and Design

Week 3 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The learner, the firms, the successors and the planned study are composites written for a model paper.

Weeks 1 and 2 chose interpretative phenomenological analysis and wrote questions on successors' sense-making in Iowa family manufacturers with a founder still on site. This paper decides who will take part, how many and how the composite Des Moines banker will reach them.

Defining the Population

The population is successors who lead family-owned manufacturing firms in Iowa. Inclusion criteria: the participant is a child or child-in-law of the founder; holds the top leadership role, such as president or CEO; has held it for one to five years; leads a manufacturer owned mainly by the family with at least 20 employees; and has a founding parent who remains involved through an office, a board role or regular presence. Exclusion criteria: firms that bank with the learner's bank; successors the learner knows personally; and firms in active sale negotiations, where participation could create legal or business risk.

Choosing a Sampling Strategy

Palinkas et al. (2015) reviewed purposeful sampling strategies, from those emphasizing similarity, such as criterion and homogeneous sampling, to those emphasizing variation, such as maximum variation sampling, and argued that the choice should follow the study's aims and the analysis planned. IPA examines a particular experience in depth across people who share it, so homogeneous criterion sampling fits: participants meet the same criteria, which makes their accounts comparable while preserving individual differences.

The banker considered maximum variation sampling across industries and states, which would show the range of succession experiences, but that would dilute the shared experience IPA seeks. She will, however, seek some variation within the criteria, such as sons and daughters and firms of different sizes, and will describe the sample in detail so readers can judge its range.

How Many Participants?

Malterud et al. (2016) proposed information power as a guide to sample size in interview studies: the more information the sample holds relevant to the study, the fewer participants are needed. Five dimensions shape it: a narrow aim, a sample with highly specific experience, use of established theory, strong interview dialogue and in-depth analysis of individual cases each reduce the number needed.

Applied here: the aim is narrow, a specific transition in a specific setting; the sample is highly specific, successors meeting five criteria; the study draws on succession and family business theory; the banker's knowledge of manufacturing should support strong dialogue; and IPA analyzes each case in depth. All five point toward a small sample. The plan is eight to ten successors, each interviewed twice, within the range typically used in doctoral IPA studies.

Ten people interviewed twice in depth can tell more about this experience than fifty people interviewed once.

Why Not Saturation Alone?

Saturation, the point at which new interviews add no new themes, is often used to judge sample size, but in IPA the goal is depth in each case rather than an exhaustive list of themes. The banker will still note when later interviews mostly confirm earlier themes, but she will justify the sample through information power and will not add participants solely to chase saturation.

Recruitment Routes

Patton (2015) emphasizes that purposeful sampling depends on finding information-rich cases and that researchers should describe exactly how cases were located. Three routes will be used:

The state university's family business center, which runs peer groups for successors, will share a study invitation with members who meet the criteria.

A statewide manufacturers' association will include a short notice in its newsletter.

Each participant will be asked whether they know other successors who meet the criteria, a limited snowball step capped at two referrals per participant to avoid a sample of one social circle.

Gatekeepers and Their Influence

The family business center's director and the association's staff are gatekeepers. Their choices about whom to invite could tilt the sample toward successors who are active, connected and doing well. To reduce this, the invitation will go to all members meeting the criteria rather than to people the gatekeepers select, and the banker will ask how many invitations were sent. She will also note in her findings which participants came through each route.

Screening Potential Participants

Interested successors will complete a short screening call covering each inclusion criterion: relationship to the founder, role and start date, ownership, size and the founder's current involvement. The call will also explain the time commitment, two interviews of about 90 minutes each, and confirm that the firm does not bank with the learner's employer. Screening notes will be kept separately from interview data. If more eligible successors volunteer than needed, the banker will select to include both sons and daughters and a range of firm sizes, recording her reasons.

The Invitation

The invitation will be short and plain: who the researcher is, that the study is doctoral research unrelated to any bank, what participation involves, how identities will be protected and that the successor may stop at any time. It will avoid language that frames succession as a problem, describing the study instead as an effort to understand what leading a family manufacturer in the early years is like. A draft will be reviewed by the family business center's director for tone.

Power and the Banker's Role

Successors may feel pressure to participate or to present their firms favorably to a banker. Excluding her own bank's clients reduces direct pressure, but the banker is known in the state's business community. The invitation will state that participation has no connection to any bank and that the study is part of doctoral research. Interviews will not discuss financing.

Consent and Confidentiality

Iowa's family manufacturing community is small. A participant described as "the daughter who took over a trailer manufacturer in a town of 3,000" could be identified. Pseudonyms will replace names; industries will be described in general terms, such as "metal fabrication"; town sizes will be given as ranges; and distinctive stories will be altered in detail without changing their meaning, with participants' agreement. Consent forms will explain these steps and the limits of confidentiality.

Interviewing Twice

Each successor will be interviewed twice, about a month apart. The first interview invites the successor's account of taking over; the second returns to moments the successor raised and explores how their understanding has developed. Two interviews deepen each case, which IPA's case-by-case analysis rewards, and give participants time to reflect between conversations.

If Recruitment Falls Short

If fewer than eight eligible successors agree within three months, the banker will extend the criteria to neighboring states with similar manufacturing sectors, Nebraska and Minnesota, documenting the change. She will not relax the core criteria, such as the founder's continued involvement, since they define the experience under study.

Conclusion

Homogeneous criterion sampling of eight to ten Iowa successors, justified by information power and recruited through two organizations and limited referrals, fits IPA and the research questions. Exclusion criteria, open invitations, careful disguise of identifying details and a fallback plan address power, gatekeeper influence and confidentiality. Week 4 will develop the interview approach.

References

Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753-1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444

Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42(5), 533-544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage.