| Summary: | In this article we present the critical analysis of a recent methods overview, authored by McCrae and Purssell, as a means to highlight and address several important ambiguities and misunderstandings associated with terminology commonly used to describe sampling in qualitative research. We share several definitive understandings of sampling-related issues, which have been informed by a rigorous analysis of the methods literature from another earlier methods overview focused more broadly on sampling in qualitative research. Specifically, we address ambiguities and inconsistencies related to what can be sampled in qualitative research (the sampling unit), the concept of theoretical sampling, the term purposeful sampling, the appropriateness of initial sampling in grounded theory, and the need to distinguish between the functions of reporting one’s sampling methods and describing the final participant sample. Finally, we argue that a continued lack of clarity in the language we use to describe what we do erodes the real and perceived quality of qualitative research. We point to the important role of methods overviews both for focusing attention on underdeveloped research methods topics and as a source of solutions to methodological problems.
|
|---|