Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article 1: TenHouten W. D., (2017). Site sampling and snowball sampling--methodology for accessing hard-to-reach populations. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology, 134, 58–61.

Abstract: After reviewing limitations of residential and ‘reputational’ samples of hard-to-reach populations, an alternative methodology is described. An initial sample is obtained through “site sampling”, involving finding respondents in eight settings based on the three criteria commercial/residential, inside/outside, and day/night. Once this zero-stage sampling is carried out, single- or multi-criterion snowball sampling in all eight sites can be carried out.

Journal Article 2: Torrance, H. (2016). Experimenting with qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23, 69–76.

Abstract: Qualitative inquiry largely stands outside the current policy focus on experimental results--the “what works” agenda. Yet thinking and doing things differently--another form of experiment--could be more prominent in critical qualitative inquiry. The article will look at the ways in which qualitative inquiry is currently positioned in policy debate and reflect on whether or not a different form of “experimentalism” could generate a different form of knowledge about what “might work.”

Journal Article 3: Correa, F. P. (2013). The evaluation of qualitative research. A reflection from a justice perspective. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 209–218.

Abstract: Due to the diversity of research options, as well as the lack of consensus regarding criteria for research quality, an evaluative process is needed that can take into account the different characteristics of diverse research options and their specific contributions. Therefore, it is essential to carry out the evaluation of qualitative research in a pluralistic setting. The author’s observation is that research needs to be understood as a political concern within the domain of justice. This means that it is necessary to move forward with the construction of a more democratic setting so that differences between scientists and scientific communities can be dealt with, and the right of researchers to promote and develop different paradigms and research options can therefore be guaranteed, as well as facilitating dialogue and mutual learning between researchers and different paradigms. Its construction will imply discussions, tensions, and agreements that go beyond the epistemological and theoretical sphere into a political and moral one.