how to make sampling procedure in qualitative research

Chapter 5. Sampling

Introduction.

Most Americans will experience unemployment at some point in their lives. Sarah Damaske ( 2021 ) was interested in learning about how men and women experience unemployment differently. To answer this question, she interviewed unemployed people. After conducting a “pilot study” with twenty interviewees, she realized she was also interested in finding out how working-class and middle-class persons experienced unemployment differently. She found one hundred persons through local unemployment offices. She purposefully selected a roughly equal number of men and women and working-class and middle-class persons for the study. This would allow her to make the kinds of comparisons she was interested in. She further refined her selection of persons to interview:

I decided that I needed to be able to focus my attention on gender and class; therefore, I interviewed only people born between 1962 and 1987 (ages 28–52, the prime working and child-rearing years), those who worked full-time before their job loss, those who experienced an involuntary job loss during the past year, and those who did not lose a job for cause (e.g., were not fired because of their behavior at work). ( 244 )

The people she ultimately interviewed compose her sample. They represent (“sample”) the larger population of the involuntarily unemployed. This “theoretically informed stratified sampling design” allowed Damaske “to achieve relatively equal distribution of participation across gender and class,” but it came with some limitations. For one, the unemployment centers were located in primarily White areas of the country, so there were very few persons of color interviewed. Qualitative researchers must make these kinds of decisions all the time—who to include and who not to include. There is never an absolutely correct decision, as the choice is linked to the particular research question posed by the particular researcher, although some sampling choices are more compelling than others. In this case, Damaske made the choice to foreground both gender and class rather than compare all middle-class men and women or women of color from different class positions or just talk to White men. She leaves the door open for other researchers to sample differently. Because science is a collective enterprise, it is most likely someone will be inspired to conduct a similar study as Damaske’s but with an entirely different sample.

This chapter is all about sampling. After you have developed a research question and have a general idea of how you will collect data (observations or interviews), how do you go about actually finding people and sites to study? Although there is no “correct number” of people to interview, the sample should follow the research question and research design. You might remember studying sampling in a quantitative research course. Sampling is important here too, but it works a bit differently. Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research involves nonprobability sampling. This chapter explains why this is so and what qualities instead make a good sample for qualitative research.

Quick Terms Refresher

• The population is the entire group that you want to draw conclusions about.
• The sample is the specific group of individuals that you will collect data from.
• Sampling frame is the actual list of individuals that the sample will be drawn from. Ideally, it should include the entire target population (and nobody who is not part of that population).
• Sample size is how many individuals (or units) are included in your sample.

The “Who” of Your Research Study

After you have turned your general research interest into an actual research question and identified an approach you want to take to answer that question, you will need to specify the people you will be interviewing or observing. In most qualitative research, the objects of your study will indeed be people. In some cases, however, your objects might be content left by people (e.g., diaries, yearbooks, photographs) or documents (official or unofficial) or even institutions (e.g., schools, medical centers) and locations (e.g., nation-states, cities). Chances are, whatever “people, places, or things” are the objects of your study, you will not really be able to talk to, observe, or follow every single individual/object of the entire population of interest. You will need to create a sample of the population . Sampling in qualitative research has different purposes and goals than sampling in quantitative research. Sampling in both allows you to say something of interest about a population without having to include the entire population in your sample.

We begin this chapter with the case of a population of interest composed of actual people. After we have a better understanding of populations and samples that involve real people, we’ll discuss sampling in other types of qualitative research, such as archival research, content analysis, and case studies. We’ll then move to a larger discussion about the difference between sampling in qualitative research generally versus quantitative research, then we’ll move on to the idea of “theoretical” generalizability, and finally, we’ll conclude with some practical tips on the correct “number” to include in one’s sample.

Sampling People

To help think through samples, let’s imagine we want to know more about “vaccine hesitancy.” We’ve all lived through 2020 and 2021, and we know that a sizable number of people in the United States (and elsewhere) were slow to accept vaccines, even when these were freely available. By some accounts, about one-third of Americans initially refused vaccination. Why is this so? Well, as I write this in the summer of 2021, we know that some people actively refused the vaccination, thinking it was harmful or part of a government plot. Others were simply lazy or dismissed the necessity. And still others were worried about harmful side effects. The general population of interest here (all adult Americans who were not vaccinated by August 2021) may be as many as eighty million people. We clearly cannot talk to all of them. So we will have to narrow the number to something manageable. How can we do this?

First, we have to think about our actual research question and the form of research we are conducting. I am going to begin with a quantitative research question. Quantitative research questions tend to be simpler to visualize, at least when we are first starting out doing social science research. So let us say we want to know what percentage of each kind of resistance is out there and how race or class or gender affects vaccine hesitancy. Again, we don’t have the ability to talk to everyone. But harnessing what we know about normal probability distributions (see quantitative methods for more on this), we can find this out through a sample that represents the general population. We can’t really address these particular questions if we only talk to White women who go to college with us. And if you are really trying to generalize the specific findings of your sample to the larger population, you will have to employ probability sampling , a sampling technique where a researcher sets a selection of a few criteria and chooses members of a population randomly. Why randomly? If truly random, all the members have an equal opportunity to be a part of the sample, and thus we avoid the problem of having only our friends and neighbors (who may be very different from other people in the population) in the study. Mathematically, there is going to be a certain number that will be large enough to allow us to generalize our particular findings from our sample population to the population at large. It might surprise you how small that number can be. Election polls of no more than one thousand people are routinely used to predict actual election outcomes of millions of people. Below that number, however, you will not be able to make generalizations. Talking to five people at random is simply not enough people to predict a presidential election.

In order to answer quantitative research questions of causality, one must employ probability sampling. Quantitative researchers try to generalize their findings to a larger population. Samples are designed with that in mind. 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 definition, not everyone has an equal opportunity to be included in the sample. The researcher might select White women they go to college with to provide insight into racial and gender dynamics at play. Whatever is found by doing so will not be generalizable to everyone who has not been vaccinated, or even all White women who have not been vaccinated, or even all White women who have not been vaccinated who are in this particular college. That is not the point of qualitative research at all. This is a really important distinction, so I will repeat in bold: Qualitative researchers are not trying to statistically generalize specific findings to a larger population . They have not failed when their sample cannot be generalized, as that is not the point at all.

In the previous paragraph, I said it would be perfectly acceptable for a qualitative researcher to interview five White women with whom she goes to college about their vaccine hesitancy “to provide insight into racial and gender dynamics at play.” The key word here is “insight.” Rather than use a sample as a stand-in for the general population, as quantitative researchers do, the qualitative researcher uses the sample to gain insight into a process or phenomenon. The qualitative researcher is not going to be content with simply asking each of the women to state her reason for not being vaccinated and then draw conclusions that, because one in five of these women were concerned about their health, one in five of all people were also concerned about their health. That would be, frankly, a very poor study indeed. Rather, the qualitative researcher might sit down with each of the women and conduct a lengthy interview about what the vaccine means to her, why she is hesitant, how she manages her hesitancy (how she explains it to her friends), what she thinks about others who are unvaccinated, what she thinks of those who have been vaccinated, and what she knows or thinks she knows about COVID-19. The researcher might include specific interview questions about the college context, about their status as White women, about the political beliefs they hold about racism in the US, and about how their own political affiliations may or may not provide narrative scripts about “protective whiteness.” There are many interesting things to ask and learn about and many things to discover. Where a quantitative researcher begins with clear parameters to set their population and guide their sample selection process, the qualitative researcher is discovering new parameters, making it impossible to engage in probability sampling.

Looking at it this way, sampling for qualitative researchers needs to be more strategic. More theoretically informed. What persons can be interviewed or observed that would provide maximum insight into what is still unknown? In other words, qualitative researchers think through what cases they could learn the most from, and those are the cases selected to study: “What would be ‘bias’ in statistical sampling, and therefore a weakness, becomes intended focus in qualitative sampling, and therefore a strength. The logic and power of purposeful sampling like in selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry, thus the term purposeful sampling” ( Patton 2002:230 ; emphases in the original).

Before selecting your sample, though, it is important to clearly identify the general population of interest. You need to know this before you can determine the sample. In our example case, it is “adult Americans who have not yet been vaccinated.” Depending on the specific qualitative research question, however, it might be “adult Americans who have been vaccinated for political reasons” or even “college students who have not been vaccinated.” What insights are you seeking? Do you want to know how politics is affecting vaccination? Or do you want to understand how people manage being an outlier in a particular setting (unvaccinated where vaccinations are heavily encouraged if not required)? More clearly stated, your population should align with your research question . Think back to the opening story about Damaske’s work studying the unemployed. She drew her sample narrowly to address the particular questions she was interested in pursuing. Knowing your questions or, at a minimum, why you are interested in the topic will allow you to draw the best sample possible to achieve insight.

Once you have your population in mind, how do you go about getting people to agree to be in your sample? In qualitative research, it is permissible to find people by convenience. Just ask for people who fit your sample criteria and see who shows up. Or reach out to friends and colleagues and see if they know anyone that fits. Don’t let the name convenience sampling mislead you; this is not exactly “easy,” and it is certainly a valid form of sampling in qualitative research. The more unknowns you have about what you will find, the more convenience sampling makes sense. If you don’t know how race or class or political affiliation might matter, and your population is unvaccinated college students, you can construct a sample of college students by placing an advertisement in the student paper or posting a flyer on a notice board. Whoever answers is your sample. That is what is meant by a convenience sample. A common variation of convenience sampling is snowball sampling . This is particularly useful if your target population is hard to find. Let’s say you posted a flyer about your study and only two college students responded. You could then ask those two students for referrals. They tell their friends, and those friends tell other friends, and, like a snowball, your sample gets bigger and bigger.

Researcher Note

Gaining Access: When Your Friend Is Your Research Subject

My early experience with qualitative research was rather unique. At that time, I needed to do a project that required me to interview first-generation college students, and my friends, with whom I had been sharing a dorm for two years, just perfectly fell into the sample category. Thus, I just asked them and easily “gained my access” to the research subject; I know them, we are friends, and I am part of them. I am an insider. I also thought, “Well, since I am part of the group, I can easily understand their language and norms, I can capture their honesty, read their nonverbal cues well, will get more information, as they will be more opened to me because they trust me.” All in all, easy access with rich information. But, gosh, I did not realize that my status as an insider came with a price! When structuring the interview questions, I began to realize that rather than focusing on the unique experiences of my friends, I mostly based the questions on my own experiences, assuming we have similar if not the same experiences. I began to struggle with my objectivity and even questioned my role; am I doing this as part of the group or as a researcher? I came to know later that my status as an insider or my “positionality” may impact my research. It not only shapes the process of data collection but might heavily influence my interpretation of the data. I came to realize that although my inside status came with a lot of benefits (especially for access), it could also bring some drawbacks.

—Dede Setiono, PhD student focusing on international development and environmental policy, Oregon State University

The more you know about what you might find, the more strategic you can be. If you wanted to compare how politically conservative and politically liberal college students explained their vaccine hesitancy, for example, you might construct a sample purposively, finding an equal number of both types of students so that you can make those comparisons in your analysis. This is what Damaske ( 2021 ) did. You could still use convenience or snowball sampling as a way of recruitment. Post a flyer at the conservative student club and then ask for referrals from the one student that agrees to be interviewed. As with convenience sampling, there are variations of purposive sampling as well as other names used (e.g., judgment, quota, stratified, criterion, theoretical). Try not to get bogged down in the nomenclature; instead, focus on identifying the general population that matches your research question and then using a sampling method that is most likely to provide insight, given the types of questions you have.

There are all kinds of ways of being strategic with sampling in qualitative research. Here are a few of my favorite techniques for maximizing insight:

• Consider using “extreme” or “deviant” cases. Maybe your college houses a prominent anti-vaxxer who has written about and demonstrated against the college’s policy on vaccines. You could learn a lot from that single case (depending on your research question, of course).
• Consider “intensity”: people and cases and circumstances where your questions are more likely to feature prominently (but not extremely or deviantly). For example, you could compare those who volunteer at local Republican and Democratic election headquarters during an election season in a study on why party matters. Those who volunteer are more likely to have something to say than those who are more apathetic.
• Maximize variation, as with the case of “politically liberal” versus “politically conservative,” or include an array of social locations (young vs. old; Northwest vs. Southeast region). This kind of heterogeneity sampling can capture and describe the central themes that cut across the variations: any common patterns that emerge, even in this wildly mismatched sample, are probably important to note!
• Rather than maximize the variation, you could select a small homogenous sample to describe some particular subgroup in depth. Focus groups are often the best form of data collection for homogeneity sampling.
• Think about which cases are “critical” or politically important—ones that “if it happens here, it would happen anywhere” or a case that is politically sensitive, as with the single “blue” (Democratic) county in a “red” (Republican) state. In both, you are choosing a site that would yield the most information and have the greatest impact on the development of knowledge.
• On the other hand, sometimes you want to select the “typical”—the typical college student, for example. You are trying to not generalize from the typical but illustrate aspects that may be typical of this case or group. When selecting for typicality, be clear with yourself about why the typical matches your research questions (and who might be excluded or marginalized in doing so).
• Finally, it is often a good idea to look for disconfirming cases : if you are at the stage where you have a hypothesis (of sorts), you might select those who do not fit your hypothesis—you will surely learn something important there. They may be “exceptions that prove the rule” or exceptions that force you to alter your findings in order to make sense of these additional cases.

In addition to all these sampling variations, there is the theoretical approach taken by grounded theorists in which the researcher samples comparative people (or events) on the basis of their potential to represent important theoretical constructs. The sample, one can say, is by definition representative of the phenomenon of interest. It accompanies the constant comparative method of analysis. In the words of the funders of Grounded Theory , “Theoretical sampling is sampling on the basis of the emerging concepts, with the aim being to explore the dimensional range or varied conditions along which the properties of the concepts vary” ( Strauss and Corbin 1998:73 ).

When Your Population is Not Composed of People

I think it is easiest for most people to think of populations and samples in terms of people, but sometimes our units of analysis are not actually people. They could be places or institutions. Even so, you might still want to talk to people or observe the actions of people to understand those places or institutions. Or not! In the case of content analyses (see chapter 17), you won’t even have people involved at all but rather documents or films or photographs or news clippings. Everything we have covered about sampling applies to other units of analysis too. Let’s work through some examples.

Case Studies

When constructing a case study, it is helpful to think of your cases as sample populations in the same way that we considered people above. If, for example, you are comparing campus climates for diversity, your overall population may be “four-year college campuses in the US,” and from there you might decide to study three college campuses as your sample. Which three? Will you use purposeful sampling (perhaps [1] selecting three colleges in Oregon that are different sizes or [2] selecting three colleges across the US located in different political cultures or [3] varying the three colleges by racial makeup of the student body)? Or will you select three colleges at random, out of convenience? There are justifiable reasons for all approaches.

As with people, there are different ways of maximizing insight in your sample selection. Think about the following rationales: typical, diverse, extreme, deviant, influential, crucial, or even embodying a particular “pathway” ( Gerring 2008 ). When choosing a case or particular research site, Rubin ( 2021 ) suggests you bear in mind, first, what you are leaving out by selecting this particular case/site; second, what you might be overemphasizing by studying this case/site and not another; and, finally, whether you truly need to worry about either of those things—“that is, what are the sources of bias and how bad are they for what you are trying to do?” ( 89 ).

Once you have selected your cases, you may still want to include interviews with specific people or observations at particular sites within those cases. Then you go through possible sampling approaches all over again to determine which people will be contacted.

Content: Documents, Narrative Accounts, And So On

Although not often discussed as sampling, your selection of documents and other units to use in various content/historical analyses is subject to similar considerations. When you are asking quantitative-type questions (percentages and proportionalities of a general population), you will want to follow probabilistic sampling. For example, I created a random sample of accounts posted on the website studentloanjustice.org to delineate the types of problems people were having with student debt ( Hurst 2007 ). Even though my data was qualitative (narratives of student debt), I was actually asking a quantitative-type research question, so it was important that my sample was representative of the larger population (debtors who posted on the website). On the other hand, when you are asking qualitative-type questions, the selection process should be very different. In that case, use nonprobabilistic techniques, either convenience (where you are really new to this data and do not have the ability to set comparative criteria or even know what a deviant case would be) or some variant of purposive sampling. Let’s say you were interested in the visual representation of women in media published in the 1950s. You could select a national magazine like Time for a “typical” representation (and for its convenience, as all issues are freely available on the web and easy to search). Or you could compare one magazine known for its feminist content versus one antifeminist. The point is, sample selection is important even when you are not interviewing or observing people.

Goals of Qualitative Sampling versus Goals of Quantitative Sampling

We have already discussed some of the differences in the goals of quantitative and qualitative sampling above, but it is worth further discussion. The quantitative researcher seeks a sample that is representative of the population of interest so that they may properly generalize the results (e.g., if 80 percent of first-gen students in the sample were concerned with costs of college, then we can say there is a strong likelihood that 80 percent of first-gen students nationally are concerned with costs of college). The qualitative researcher does not seek to generalize in this way . They may want a representative sample because they are interested in typical responses or behaviors of the population of interest, but they may very well not want a representative sample at all. They might want an “extreme” or deviant case to highlight what could go wrong with a particular situation, or maybe they want to examine just one case as a way of understanding what elements might be of interest in further research. When thinking of your sample, you will have to know why you are selecting the units, and this relates back to your research question or sets of questions. It has nothing to do with having a representative sample to generalize results. You may be tempted—or it may be suggested to you by a quantitatively minded member of your committee—to create as large and representative a sample as you possibly can to earn credibility from quantitative researchers. Ignore this temptation or suggestion. The only thing you should be considering is what sample will best bring insight into the questions guiding your research. This has implications for the number of people (or units) in your study as well, which is the topic of the next section.

What is the Correct “Number” to Sample?

Because we are not trying to create a generalizable representative sample, the guidelines for the “number” of people to interview or news stories to code are also a bit more nebulous. There are some brilliant insightful studies out there with an n of 1 (meaning one person or one account used as the entire set of data). This is particularly so in the case of autoethnography, a variation of ethnographic research that uses the researcher’s own subject position and experiences as the basis of data collection and analysis. But it is true for all forms of qualitative research. There are no hard-and-fast rules here. The number to include is what is relevant and insightful to your particular study.

That said, humans do not thrive well under such ambiguity, and there are a few helpful suggestions that can be made. First, many qualitative researchers talk about “saturation” as the end point for data collection. You stop adding participants when you are no longer getting any new information (or so very little that the cost of adding another interview subject or spending another day in the field exceeds any likely benefits to the research). The term saturation was first used here by Glaser and Strauss ( 1967 ), the founders of Grounded Theory. Here is their explanation: “The criterion for judging when to stop sampling the different groups pertinent to a category is the category’s theoretical saturation . Saturation means that no additional data are being found whereby the sociologist can develop properties of the category. As he [or she] sees similar instances over and over again, the researcher becomes empirically confident that a category is saturated. [They go] out of [their] way to look for groups that stretch diversity of data as far as possible, just to make certain that saturation is based on the widest possible range of data on the category” ( 61 ).

It makes sense that the term was developed by grounded theorists, since this approach is rather more open-ended than other approaches used by qualitative researchers. With so much left open, having a guideline of “stop collecting data when you don’t find anything new” is reasonable. However, saturation can’t help much when first setting out your sample. How do you know how many people to contact to interview? What number will you put down in your institutional review board (IRB) protocol (see chapter 8)? You may guess how many people or units it will take to reach saturation, but there really is no way to know in advance. The best you can do is think about your population and your questions and look at what others have done with similar populations and questions.

Here are some suggestions to use as a starting point: For phenomenological studies, try to interview at least ten people for each major category or group of people . If you are comparing male-identified, female-identified, and gender-neutral college students in a study on gender regimes in social clubs, that means you might want to design a sample of thirty students, ten from each group. This is the minimum suggested number. Damaske’s ( 2021 ) sample of one hundred allows room for up to twenty-five participants in each of four “buckets” (e.g., working-class*female, working-class*male, middle-class*female, middle-class*male). If there is more than one comparative group (e.g., you are comparing students attending three different colleges, and you are comparing White and Black students in each), you can sometimes reduce the number for each group in your sample to five for, in this case, thirty total students. But that is really a bare minimum you will want to go. A lot of people will not trust you with only “five” cases in a bucket. Lareau ( 2021:24 ) advises a minimum of seven or nine for each bucket (or “cell,” in her words). The point is to think about what your analyses might look like and how comfortable you will be with a certain number of persons fitting each category.

Because qualitative research takes so much time and effort, it is rare for a beginning researcher to include more than thirty to fifty people or units in the study. You may not be able to conduct all the comparisons you might want simply because you cannot manage a larger sample. In that case, the limits of who you can reach or what you can include may influence you to rethink an original overcomplicated research design. Rather than include students from every racial group on a campus, for example, you might want to sample strategically, thinking about the most contrast (insightful), possibly excluding majority-race (White) students entirely, and simply using previous literature to fill in gaps in our understanding. For example, one of my former students was interested in discovering how race and class worked at a predominantly White institution (PWI). Due to time constraints, she simplified her study from an original sample frame of middle-class and working-class domestic Black and international African students (four buckets) to a sample frame of domestic Black and international African students (two buckets), allowing the complexities of class to come through individual accounts rather than from part of the sample frame. She wisely decided not to include White students in the sample, as her focus was on how minoritized students navigated the PWI. She was able to successfully complete her project and develop insights from the data with fewer than twenty interviewees. [1]

But what if you had unlimited time and resources? Would it always be better to interview more people or include more accounts, documents, and units of analysis? No! Your sample size should reflect your research question and the goals you have set yourself. Larger numbers can sometimes work against your goals. If, for example, you want to help bring out individual stories of success against the odds, adding more people to the analysis can end up drowning out those individual stories. Sometimes, the perfect size really is one (or three, or five). It really depends on what you are trying to discover and achieve in your study. Furthermore, studies of one hundred or more (people, documents, accounts, etc.) can sometimes be mistaken for quantitative research. Inevitably, the large sample size will push the researcher into simplifying the data numerically. And readers will begin to expect generalizability from such a large sample.

To summarize, “There are no rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample size depends on what you want to know, the purpose of the inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have credibility, and what can be done with available time and resources” ( Patton 2002:244 ).

How did you find/construct a sample?

Since qualitative researchers work with comparatively small sample sizes, getting your sample right is rather important. Yet it is also difficult to accomplish. For instance, a key question you need to ask yourself is whether you want a homogeneous or heterogeneous sample. In other words, do you want to include people in your study who are by and large the same, or do you want to have diversity in your sample?

For many years, I have studied the experiences of students who were the first in their families to attend university. There is a rather large number of sampling decisions I need to consider before starting the study. (1) Should I only talk to first-in-family students, or should I have a comparison group of students who are not first-in-family? (2) Do I need to strive for a gender distribution that matches undergraduate enrollment patterns? (3) Should I include participants that reflect diversity in gender identity and sexuality? (4) How about racial diversity? First-in-family status is strongly related to some ethnic or racial identity. (5) And how about areas of study?

As you can see, if I wanted to accommodate all these differences and get enough study participants in each category, I would quickly end up with a sample size of hundreds, which is not feasible in most qualitative research. In the end, for me, the most important decision was to maximize the voices of first-in-family students, which meant that I only included them in my sample. As for the other categories, I figured it was going to be hard enough to find first-in-family students, so I started recruiting with an open mind and an understanding that I may have to accept a lack of gender, sexuality, or racial diversity and then not be able to say anything about these issues. But I would definitely be able to speak about the experiences of being first-in-family.

—Wolfgang Lehmann, author of “Habitus Transformation and Hidden Injuries”

Examples of “Sample” Sections in Journal Articles

Think about some of the studies you have read in college, especially those with rich stories and accounts about people’s lives. Do you know how the people were selected to be the focus of those stories? If the account was published by an academic press (e.g., University of California Press or Princeton University Press) or in an academic journal, chances are that the author included a description of their sample selection. You can usually find these in a methodological appendix (book) or a section on “research methods” (article).

Here are two examples from recent books and one example from a recent article:

Example 1 . In It’s Not like I’m Poor: How Working Families Make Ends Meet in a Post-welfare World , the research team employed a mixed methods approach to understand how parents use the earned income tax credit, a refundable tax credit designed to provide relief for low- to moderate-income working people ( Halpern-Meekin et al. 2015 ). At the end of their book, their first appendix is “Introduction to Boston and the Research Project.” After describing the context of the study, they include the following description of their sample selection:

In June 2007, we drew 120 names at random from the roughly 332 surveys we gathered between February and April. Within each racial and ethnic group, we aimed for one-third married couples with children and two-thirds unmarried parents. We sent each of these families a letter informing them of the opportunity to participate in the in-depth portion of our study and then began calling the home and cell phone numbers they provided us on the surveys and knocking on the doors of the addresses they provided.…In the end, we interviewed 115 of the 120 families originally selected for the in-depth interview sample (the remaining five families declined to participate). ( 22 )

Was their sample selection based on convenience or purpose? Why do you think it was important for them to tell you that five families declined to be interviewed? There is actually a trick here, as the names were pulled randomly from a survey whose sample design was probabilistic. Why is this important to know? What can we say about the representativeness or the uniqueness of whatever findings are reported here?

Example 2 . In When Diversity Drops , Park ( 2013 ) examines the impact of decreasing campus diversity on the lives of college students. She does this through a case study of one student club, the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship (IVCF), at one university (“California University,” a pseudonym). Here is her description:

I supplemented participant observation with individual in-depth interviews with sixty IVCF associates, including thirty-four current students, eight former and current staff members, eleven alumni, and seven regional or national staff members. The racial/ethnic breakdown was twenty-five Asian Americans (41.6 percent), one Armenian (1.6 percent), twelve people who were black (20.0 percent), eight Latino/as (13.3 percent), three South Asian Americans (5.0 percent), and eleven people who were white (18.3 percent). Twenty-nine were men, and thirty-one were women. Looking back, I note that the higher number of Asian Americans reflected both the group’s racial/ethnic composition and my relative ease about approaching them for interviews. ( 156 )

How can you tell this is a convenience sample? What else do you note about the sample selection from this description?

Example 3. The last example is taken from an article published in the journal Research in Higher Education . Published articles tend to be more formal than books, at least when it comes to the presentation of qualitative research. In this article, Lawson ( 2021 ) is seeking to understand why female-identified college students drop out of majors that are dominated by male-identified students (e.g., engineering, computer science, music theory). Here is the entire relevant section of the article:

Method Participants Data were collected as part of a larger study designed to better understand the daily experiences of women in MDMs [male-dominated majors].…Participants included 120 students from a midsize, Midwestern University. This sample included 40 women and 40 men from MDMs—defined as any major where at least 2/3 of students are men at both the university and nationally—and 40 women from GNMs—defined as any may where 40–60% of students are women at both the university and nationally.… Procedure A multi-faceted approach was used to recruit participants; participants were sent targeted emails (obtained based on participants’ reported gender and major listings), campus-wide emails sent through the University’s Communication Center, flyers, and in-class presentations. Recruitment materials stated that the research focused on the daily experiences of college students, including classroom experiences, stressors, positive experiences, departmental contexts, and career aspirations. Interested participants were directed to email the study coordinator to verify eligibility (at least 18 years old, man/woman in MDM or woman in GNM, access to a smartphone). Sixteen interested individuals were not eligible for the study due to the gender/major combination. ( 482ff .)

What method of sample selection was used by Lawson? Why is it important to define “MDM” at the outset? How does this definition relate to sampling? Why were interested participants directed to the study coordinator to verify eligibility?

Final Words

I have found that students often find it difficult to be specific enough when defining and choosing their sample. It might help to think about your sample design and sample recruitment like a cookbook. You want all the details there so that someone else can pick up your study and conduct it as you intended. That person could be yourself, but this analogy might work better if you have someone else in mind. When I am writing down recipes, I often think of my sister and try to convey the details she would need to duplicate the dish. We share a grandmother whose recipes are full of handwritten notes in the margins, in spidery ink, that tell us what bowl to use when or where things could go wrong. Describe your sample clearly, convey the steps required accurately, and then add any other details that will help keep you on track and remind you why you have chosen to limit possible interviewees to those of a certain age or class or location. Imagine actually going out and getting your sample (making your dish). Do you have all the necessary details to get started?

Table 5.1. Sampling Type and Strategies

Further Readings

Fusch, Patricia I., and Lawrence R. Ness. 2015. “Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Report 20(9):1408–1416.

Saunders, Benjamin, Julius Sim, Tom Kinstone, Shula Baker, Jackie Waterfield, Bernadette Bartlam, Heather Burroughs, and Clare Jinks. 2018. “Saturation in Qualitative Research: Exploring Its Conceptualization and Operationalization.”  Quality & Quantity  52(4):1893–1907.

• Rubin ( 2021 ) suggests a minimum of twenty interviews (but safer with thirty) for an interview-based study and a minimum of three to six months in the field for ethnographic studies. For a content-based study, she suggests between five hundred and one thousand documents, although some will be “very small” ( 243–244 ). ↵

The process of selecting people or other units of analysis to represent a larger population. In quantitative research, this representation is taken quite literally, as statistically representative.  In qualitative research, in contrast, sample selection is often made based on potential to generate insight about a particular topic or phenomenon.

The actual list of individuals that the sample will be drawn from. Ideally, it should include the entire target population (and nobody who is not part of that population).  Sampling frames can differ from the larger population when specific exclusions are inherent, as in the case of pulling names randomly from voter registration rolls where not everyone is a registered voter.  This difference in frame and population can undercut the generalizability of quantitative results.

The specific group of individuals that you will collect data from.  Contrast population.

The large group of interest to the researcher.  Although it will likely be impossible to design a study that incorporates or reaches all members of the population of interest, this should be clearly defined at the outset of a study so that a reasonable sample of the population can be taken.  For example, if one is studying working-class college students, the sample may include twenty such students attending a particular college, while the population is “working-class college students.”  In quantitative research, clearly defining the general population of interest is a necessary step in generalizing results from a sample.  In qualitative research, defining the population is conceptually important for clarity.

A sampling strategy in which the sample is chosen to represent (numerically) the larger population from which it is drawn by random selection.  Each person in the population has an equal chance of making it into the sample.  This is often done through a lottery or other chance mechanisms (e.g., a random selection of every twelfth name on an alphabetical list of voters).  Also known as random sampling .

The selection of research participants or other data sources based on availability or accessibility, in contrast to purposive sampling .

A sample generated non-randomly by asking participants to help recruit more participants the idea being that a person who fits your sampling criteria probably knows other people with similar criteria.

Broad codes that are assigned to the main issues emerging in the data; identifying themes is often part of initial coding . 

A form of case selection focusing on examples that do not fit the emerging patterns. This allows the researcher to evaluate rival explanations or to define the limitations of their research findings. While disconfirming cases are found (not sought out), researchers should expand their analysis or rethink their theories to include/explain them.

A methodological tradition of inquiry and approach to analyzing qualitative data in which theories emerge from a rigorous and systematic process of induction.  This approach was pioneered by the sociologists Glaser and Strauss (1967).  The elements of theory generated from comparative analysis of data are, first, conceptual categories and their properties and, second, hypotheses or generalized relations among the categories and their properties – “The constant comparing of many groups draws the [researcher’s] attention to their many similarities and differences.  Considering these leads [the researcher] to generate abstract categories and their properties, which, since they emerge from the data, will clearly be important to a theory explaining the kind of behavior under observation.” (36).

The result of probability sampling, in which a sample is chosen to represent (numerically) the larger population from which it is drawn by random selection.  Each person in the population has an equal chance of making it into the random sample.  This is often done through a lottery or other chance mechanisms (e.g., the random selection of every twelfth name on an alphabetical list of voters).  This is typically not required in qualitative research but rather essential for the generalizability of quantitative research.

A form of case selection or purposeful sampling in which cases that are unusual or special in some way are chosen to highlight processes or to illuminate gaps in our knowledge of a phenomenon.   See also extreme case .

The point at which you can conclude data collection because every person you are interviewing, the interaction you are observing, or content you are analyzing merely confirms what you have already noted.  Achieving saturation is often used as the justification for the final sample size.

The accuracy with which results or findings can be transferred to situations or people other than those originally studied.  Qualitative studies generally are unable to use (and are uninterested in) statistical generalizability where the sample population is said to be able to predict or stand in for a larger population of interest.  Instead, qualitative researchers often discuss “theoretical generalizability,” in which the findings of a particular study can shed light on processes and mechanisms that may be at play in other settings.  See also statistical generalization and theoretical generalization .

A term used by IRBs to denote all materials aimed at recruiting participants into a research study (including printed advertisements, scripts, audio or video tapes, or websites).  Copies of this material are required in research protocols submitted to IRB.

Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods Copyright © 2023 by Allison Hurst is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• Account Logins

What We Offer

With a comprehensive suite of qualitative and quantitative capabilities and 55 years of experience in the industry, Sago powers insights through adaptive solutions.

• Recruitment
• Communities
• Methodify® Automated research
• QualBoard® Digital Discussions
• QualMeeting® Digital Interviews
• Global Qualitative
• Global Quantitative
• In-Person Facilities
• Healthcare Solutions
• Research Consulting
• Europe Solutions
• Neuromarketing Tools
• Trial & Jury Consulting

Who We Serve

Form deeper customer connections and make the process of answering your business questions easier. Sago delivers unparalleled access to the audiences you need through adaptive solutions and a consultative approach.

• Consumer Packaged Goods
• Financial Services
• Media Technology
• Medical Device Manufacturing
• Marketing Research

With a 55-year legacy of impact, Sago has proven we have what it takes to be a long-standing industry leader and partner. We continually advance our range of expertise to provide our clients with the highest level of confidence.​

• Global Offices
• Partnerships & Certifications
• News & Media
• Researcher Events

Sago Announces Leadership Transition: Schlesinger Resumes CEO Role

Efficient Qualitative Analysis with Query AI

Innovative Insights Unveiled at Sago Vision ’25 Virtual Event

Drop into your new favorite insights rabbit hole and explore content created by the leading minds in market research.

• Case Studies
• Knowledge Kit

The Deciders, October: 2020 Non-Voters in Swing States

Q&A: Uncovering the Market Research Reality

• Partner with us
• Join our panel

Different Types of Sampling Techniques in Qualitative Research

• Resources , Blog

Key Takeaways:

• 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 sampling technique for your qualitative research.

Qualitative research seeks to understand social phenomena from the perspective of those experiencing them. It involves collecting non-numerical data such as interviews, observations, and written documents to gain insights into human experiences, attitudes, and behaviors. While qualitative research can provide rich and nuanced insights, the accuracy and generalizability of findings depend on the quality of the sampling process. Sampling techniques are a critical component of qualitative research as it involves selecting a group of participants who can provide valuable insights into the research questions.

This article explores different types of sampling techniques in qualitative research. First, we’ll provide a comprehensive overview of four standard sampling techniques in qualitative research. and then compare and contrast these techniques to provide guidance on choosing the most appropriate method for a particular study. Additionally, you’ll find best practices for sampling and learn about ethical considerations researchers need to consider in selecting a sample. Overall, this article aims to help researchers conduct effective and high-quality sampling in qualitative research.

In this Article:

• Purposive Sampling
• Convenience Sampling
• Snowball Sampling
• Theoretical Sampling

Factors to Consider When Choosing a Sampling Technique

Practical approaches to sampling: recommended practices, final thoughts, get expert guidance on your sample needs.

Want expert input on the best sampling technique for your qualitative research project? Book a consultation for trusted advice.

Request a consultation

4 Types of Sampling Techniques and Their Applications

Sampling is a crucial aspect of qualitative research as it determines the representativeness and credibility of the data collected. Several sampling techniques are used in qualitative research, each with strengths and weaknesses. In this section, let’s explore four standard sampling techniques in qualitative research: purposive sampling, convenience sampling, snowball sampling, and theoretical sampling. We’ll break down the definition of each technique, when to use it, and its advantages and disadvantages.

1. Purposive Sampling

Purposive sampling, or judgmental sampling, is a non-probability sampling technique in qualitative research that’s commonly used. In purposive sampling, researchers intentionally select participants with specific characteristics or unique experiences related to the research question. The goal is to identify and recruit participants who can provide rich and diverse data to enhance the research findings.

Purposive sampling is used when researchers seek to identify individuals or groups with particular knowledge, skills, or experiences relevant to the research question. For instance, in a study examining the experiences of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, purposive sampling may be used to recruit participants who have undergone chemotherapy in the past year. Researchers can better understand the phenomenon under investigation by selecting individuals with relevant backgrounds.

Purposive Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

Purposive sampling is a powerful tool for researchers seeking to select participants who can provide valuable insight into their research question. This method is advantageous when studying groups with technical characteristics or experiences where a random selection of participants may yield different results.

One of the main advantages of purposive sampling is the ability to improve the quality and accuracy of data collected by selecting participants most relevant to the research question. This approach also enables researchers to collect data from diverse participants with unique perspectives and experiences related to the research question.

However, researchers should also be aware of potential bias when using purposive sampling. The researcher’s judgment may influence the selection of participants, resulting in a biased sample that does not accurately represent the broader population. Another disadvantage is that purposive sampling may not be representative of the more general population, which limits the generalizability of the findings. To guarantee the accuracy and dependability of data obtained through purposive sampling, researchers must provide a clear and transparent justification of their selection criteria and sampling approach. This entails outlining the specific characteristics or experiences required for participants to be included in the study and explaining the rationale behind these criteria. This level of transparency not only helps readers to evaluate the validity of the findings, but also enhances the replicability of the research.

2. Convenience Sampling  

When time and resources are limited, researchers may opt for convenience sampling as a quick and cost-effective way to recruit participants. In this non-probability sampling technique, participants are selected based on their accessibility and willingness to participate rather than their suitability for the research question. Qualitative research often uses this approach to generate various perspectives and experiences.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, convenience sampling was a valuable method for researchers to collect data quickly and efficiently from participants who were easily accessible and willing to participate. For example, in a study examining the experiences of university students during the pandemic, convenience sampling allowed researchers to recruit students who were available and willing to share their experiences quickly. While the pandemic may be over, convenience sampling during this time highlights its value in urgent situations where time and resources are limited.

Convenience Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

Convenience sampling offers several advantages to researchers, including its ease of implementation and cost-effectiveness. This technique allows researchers to quickly and efficiently recruit participants without spending time and resources identifying and contacting potential participants. Furthermore, convenience sampling can result in a diverse pool of participants, as individuals from various backgrounds and experiences may be more likely to participate.

While convenience sampling has the advantage of being efficient, researchers need to acknowledge its limitations. One of the primary drawbacks of convenience sampling is that it is susceptible to selection bias. Participants who are more easily accessible may not be representative of the broader population, which can limit the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, convenience sampling may lead to issues with the reliability of the results, as it may not be possible to replicate the study using the same sample or a similar one.

To mitigate these limitations, researchers should carefully define the population of interest and ensure the sample is drawn from that population. For instance, if a study is investigating the experiences of individuals with a particular medical condition, researchers can recruit participants from specialized clinics or support groups for that condition. Researchers can also use statistical techniques such as stratified sampling or weighting to adjust for potential biases in the sample.

3. Snowball Sampling

Snowball sampling, also called referral sampling, is a unique approach researchers use to recruit participants in qualitative research. The technique involves identifying a few initial participants who meet the eligibility criteria and asking them to refer others they know who also fit the requirements. The sample size grows as referrals are added, creating a chain-like structure.

Snowball sampling enables researchers to reach out to individuals who may be hard to locate through traditional sampling methods, such as members of marginalized or hidden communities. For instance, in a study examining the experiences of undocumented immigrants, snowball sampling may be used to identify and recruit participants through referrals from other undocumented immigrants.

Snowball Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

Snowball sampling can produce in-depth and detailed data from participants with common characteristics or experiences. Since referrals are made within a network of individuals who share similarities, researchers can gain deep insights into a specific group’s attitudes, behaviors, and perspectives.

4. Theoretical Sampling

Theoretical sampling is a sophisticated and strategic technique that can help researchers develop more in-depth and nuanced theories from their data. Instead of selecting participants based on convenience or accessibility, researchers using theoretical sampling choose participants based on their potential to contribute to the emerging themes and concepts in the data. This approach allows researchers to refine their research question and theory based on the data they collect rather than forcing their data to fit a preconceived idea.

Theoretical sampling is used when researchers conduct grounded theory research and have developed an initial theory or conceptual framework. In a study examining cancer survivors’ experiences, for example, theoretical sampling may be used to identify and recruit participants who can provide new insights into the coping strategies of survivors.

Theoretical Sampling: Strengths and Weaknesses

One of the significant advantages of theoretical sampling is that it allows researchers to refine their research question and theory based on emerging data. This means the research can be highly targeted and focused, leading to a deeper understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Additionally, theoretical sampling can generate rich and in-depth data, as participants are selected based on their potential to provide new insights into the research question.

Participants are selected based on their perceived ability to offer new perspectives on the research question. This means specific perspectives or experiences may be overrepresented in the sample, leading to an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Additionally, theoretical sampling can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, as researchers must continuously analyze the data and recruit new participants.

To mitigate the potential for bias, researchers can take several steps. One way to reduce bias is to use a diverse team of researchers to analyze the data and make participant selection decisions. Having multiple perspectives and backgrounds can help prevent researchers from unconsciously selecting participants who fit their preconceived notions or biases.

Another solution would be to use reflexive sampling. Reflexive sampling involves selecting participants aware of the research process and provides insights into how their biases and experiences may influence their perspectives. By including participants who are reflexive about their subjectivity, researchers can generate more nuanced and self-aware findings.

Choosing the proper sampling technique in qualitative research is one of the most critical decisions a researcher makes when conducting a study. The preferred method can significantly impact the accuracy and reliability of the research results.

For instance, purposive sampling provides a more targeted and specific sample, which helps to answer research questions related to that particular population or phenomenon. However, this approach may also introduce bias by limiting the diversity of the sample.

Conversely, convenience sampling may offer a more diverse sample regarding demographics and backgrounds but may also introduce bias by selecting more willing or available participants.

Snowball sampling may help study hard-to-reach populations, but it can also limit the sample’s diversity as participants are selected based on their connections to existing participants.

Theoretical sampling may offer an opportunity to refine the research question and theory based on emerging data, but it can also be time-consuming and resource-intensive.

Additionally, the choice of sampling technique can impact the generalizability of the research findings. Therefore, it’s crucial to consider the potential impact on the bias, sample diversity, and generalizability when choosing a sampling technique. By doing so, researchers can select the most appropriate method for their research question and ensure the validity and reliability of their findings.

Tips for Selecting Participants

When selecting participants for a qualitative research study, it is crucial to consider the research question and the purpose of the study. In addition, researchers should identify the specific characteristics or criteria they seek in their sample and select participants accordingly.

One helpful tip for selecting participants is to use a pre-screening process to ensure potential participants meet the criteria for inclusion in the study. Another technique is using multiple recruitment methods to ensure the sample is diverse and representative of the studied population.

Ensuring Diversity in Samples

Diversity in the sample is important to ensure the study’s findings apply to a wide range of individuals and situations. One way to ensure diversity is to use stratified sampling, which involves dividing the population into subgroups and selecting participants from each subset. This helps establish that the sample is representative of the larger population.

Maintaining Ethical Considerations

When selecting participants for a qualitative research study, it is essential to ensure ethical considerations are taken into account. Researchers must ensure participants are fully informed about the study and provide their voluntary consent to participate. They must also ensure participants understand their rights and that their confidentiality and privacy will be protected.

A qualitative research study’s success hinges on its sampling technique’s effectiveness. The choice of sampling technique must be guided by the research question, the population being studied, and the purpose of the study. Whether purposive, convenience, snowball, or theoretical sampling, the primary goal is to ensure the validity and reliability of the study’s findings.

By thoughtfully weighing the pros and cons of each sampling technique in qualitative research, researchers can make informed decisions that lead to more reliable and accurate results. In conclusion, carefully selecting a sampling technique is integral to the success of a qualitative research study, and a thorough understanding of the available options can make all the difference in achieving high-quality research outcomes.

If you’re interested in improving your research and sampling methods, Sago offers a variety of solutions. Our qualitative research platforms, such as QualBoard and QualMeeting, can assist you in conducting research studies with precision and efficiency. Our robust global panel and recruitment options help you reach the right people. We also offer qualitative and quantitative research services to meet your research needs. Contact us today to learn more about how we can help improve your research outcomes.

Find the Right Sample for Your Qualitative Research

Trust our team to recruit the participants you need using the appropriate techniques. Book a consultation with our team to get started .

Get in touch

Capturing Qual Insights in Real-Time: Analyzing Debate Responses with QualBoard

Swing Voter Project, October 2024: Pennsylvania

5 Steps for Embracing DEIB in Market Research

Real Insights in Real-Time: A New Era in Qualitative Research with AI

The Deciders, September 2024: Young Male Voters

Swing Voter Project Georgia: September 2024

U.S. Election Emotions and Experiences

Take a deep dive into your favorite market research topics

How can we help support you and your research needs?

BEFORE YOU GO

Have you considered how to harness AI in your research process? Check out our on-demand webinar for everything you need to know

Sampling Techniques for Qualitative Research

• First Online: 27 October 2022

Cite this chapter

• Heather Douglas 4  

4540 Accesses

7 Citations

This chapter explains how to design suitable sampling strategies for qualitative research. The focus of this chapter is purposive (or theoretical) sampling to produce credible and trustworthy explanations of a phenomenon (a specific aspect of society). A specific research question (RQ) guides the methodology (the study design or approach ). It defines the participants, location, and actions to be used to answer the question. 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. In this chapter, a fake example is used to demonstrate how to apply your sampling strategy in a developing country.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research, the role of sampling in mixed methods-research.

Preparation of Qualitative Research

Douglas, H. (2010). Divergent orientations in social entrepreneurship organisations. In K. Hockerts, J. Robinson, & J. Mair (Eds.), Values and opportunities in social entrepreneurship (pp. 71–95). Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Douglas, H., Eti-Tofinga, B., & Singh, G. (2018a). Contextualising social enterprise in Fiji. Social Enterprise Journal, 14 (2), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-05-2017-0032

Article   Google Scholar  

Douglas, H., Eti-Tofinga, B., & Singh, G. (2018b). Hybrid organisations contributing to wellbeing in small Pacific island countries. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 9 (4), 490–514. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-08-2017-0081

Douglas, H., & Borbasi, S. (2009). Parental perspectives on disability: The story of Sam, Anna, and Marcus. Disabilities: Insights from across fields and around the world, 2 , 201–217.

Google Scholar  

Douglas, H. (1999). Community transport in rural Queensland: Using community resources effectively in small communities. Paper presented at the 5th National Rural Health Conference, Adelaide, South Australia, pp. 14–17th March.

Douglas, H. (2006). Action, blastoff, chaos: ABC of successful youth participation. Child, Youth and Environments, 16 (1). Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye

Douglas, H. (2007). Methodological sampling issues for researching new nonprofit organisations. Paper presented at the 52nd International Council for Small Business (ICSB) 13–15 June, Turku, Finland.

Draper, H., Wilson, S., Flanagan, S., & Ives, J. (2009). Offering payments, reimbursement and incentives to patients and family doctors to encourage participation in research. Family Practice, 26 (3), 231–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmp011

Puamua, P. Q. (1999). Understanding Fijian under-achievement: An integrated perspective. Directions, 21 (2), 100–112.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

The University of Queensland, The Royal Society of Queensland, Activation Australia, Brisbane, Australia

Heather Douglas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heather Douglas .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Centre for Family and Child Studies, Research Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates

M. Rezaul Islam

Department of Development Studies, University of Dhaka, Dhaka, Bangladesh

Niaz Ahmed Khan

Department of Social Work, School of Humanities, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Rajendra Baikady

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Douglas, H. (2022). Sampling Techniques for Qualitative Research. In: Islam, M.R., Khan, N.A., Baikady, R. (eds) Principles of Social Research Methodology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_29

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5441-2_29

Published : 27 October 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-19-5219-7

Online ISBN : 978-981-19-5441-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

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

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Qualitative Sampling Methods

Affiliation.

• 1 14742 School of Nursing, University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA.
• PMID: 32813616
• DOI: 10.1177/0890334420949218

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 and cons of each. Sample size and data saturation are discussed.

Keywords: breastfeeding; qualitative methods; sampling; sampling methods.

• Evaluation Studies as Topic*
• Research Design / standards
• Sample Size*

An official website of the United States government

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Design: Selection of Data Collection Methods

Elise paradis , phd, bridget o'brien , phd, laura nimmon , phd, glen bandiera , md, maria athina (tina) martimianakis , phd.

• Author information
• Copyright and License information

Elise Paradis, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, and a Scientist, Wilson Centre; Bridget C. O'Brien, PhD, is Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco; Laura Nimmon, PhD, is a Scientist, Centre for Health Education Scholarship, and Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada; Glen Bandiera, MD, is Chief of Emergency Medicine, St. Michael's Hospital, Associate Dean, Postgraduate Medical Education, and Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; and Maria Athina (Tina) Martimianakis, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, and a Scientist, Wilson Centre.

Corresponding author: Elise Paradis, PhD, University of Toronto, Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy and Department of Anesthesia, Faculty of Medicine, 144 College Street, Toronto, ON M5S 3M2 Canada, 416.946.7022, [email protected]

Editor's Note: The online version of this article contains resources for further reading and a table of strengths and limitations of qualitative data collection methods.

The Challenge

Imagine that residents in your program have been less than complimentary about interprofessional rounds (IPRs). The program director asks you to determine what residents are learning about in collaboration with other health professionals during IPRs. If you construct a survey asking Likert-type questions such as “How much are you learning?” you likely will not gather the information you need to answer this question. You understand that qualitative data deal with words rather than numbers and could provide the needed answers. How do you collect “good” words? Should you use open-ended questions in a survey format? Should you conduct interviews, focus groups, or conduct direct observation? What should you consider when making these decisions?

Introduction

Qualitative research is often employed when there is a problem and no clear solutions exist, as in the case above that elicits the following questions: Why are residents complaining about rounds? How could we make rounds better? In this context, collecting “good” information or words (qualitative data) is intended to produce information that helps you to answer your research questions, capture the phenomenon of interest, and account for context and the rich texture of the human experience. You may also aim to challenge previous thinking and invite further inquiry.

Coherence or alignment between all aspects of the research project is essential. In this Rip Out we focus on data collection, but in qualitative research, the entire project must be considered. 1 , 2 Careful design of the data collection phase requires the following: deciding who will do what, where, when, and how at the different stages of the research process; acknowledging the role of the researcher as an instrument of data collection; and carefully considering the context studied and the participants and informants involved in the research.

Types of Data Collection Methods

Data collection methods are important, because how the information collected is used and what explanations it can generate are determined by the methodology and analytical approach applied by the researcher. 1 , 2 Five key data collection methods are presented here, with their strengths and limitations described in the online supplemental material.

Questions added to surveys to obtain qualitative data typically are open-ended with a free-text format. Surveys are ideal for documenting perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge within a clear, predetermined sample of individuals. “Good” open-ended questions should be specific enough to yield coherent responses across respondents, yet broad enough to invite a spectrum of answers. Examples for this scenario include: What is the function of IPRs? What is the educational value of IPRs, according to residents? Qualitative survey data can be analyzed using a range of techniques.

Interviews are used to gather information from individuals 1-on-1, using a series of predetermined questions or a set of interest areas. Interviews are often recorded and transcribed. They can be structured or unstructured; they can either follow a tightly written script that mimics a survey or be inspired by a loose set of questions that invite interviewees to express themselves more freely. Interviewers need to actively listen and question, probe, and prompt further to collect richer data. Interviews are ideal when used to document participants' accounts, perceptions of, or stories about attitudes toward and responses to certain situations or phenomena. Interview data are often used to generate themes , theories , and models . Many research questions that can be answered with surveys can also be answered through interviews, but interviews will generally yield richer, more in-depth data than surveys. Interviews do, however, require more time and resources to conduct and analyze. Importantly, because interviewers are the instruments of data collection, interviewers should be trained to collect comparable data. The number of interviews required depends on the research question and the overarching methodology used. Examples of these questions include: How do residents experience IPRs? What do residents' stories about IPRs tell us about interprofessional care hierarchies?

Focus groups are used to gather information in a group setting, either through predetermined interview questions that the moderator asks of participants in turn or through a script to stimulate group conversations. Ideally, they are used when the sum of a group of people's experiences may offer more than a single individual's experiences in understanding social phenomena. Focus groups also allow researchers to capture participants' reactions to the comments and perspectives shared by other participants, and are thus a way to capture similarities and differences in viewpoints. The number of focus groups required will vary based on the questions asked and the number of different stakeholders involved, such as residents, nurses, social workers, pharmacists, and patients. The optimal number of participants per focus group, to generate rich discussion while enabling all members to speak, is 8 to 10 people. 3 Examples of questions include: How would residents, nurses, and pharmacists redesign or improve IPRs to maximize engagement, participation, and use of time? How do suggestions compare across professional groups?

Observations are used to gather information in situ using the senses: vision, hearing, touch, and smell. Observations allow us to investigate and document what people do —their everyday behavior—and to try to understand why they do it, rather than focus on their own perceptions or recollections. Observations are ideal when used to document, explore, and understand, as they occur, activities, actions, relationships, culture, or taken-for-granted ways of doing things. As with the previous methods, the number of observations required will depend on the research question and overarching research approach used. Examples of research questions include: How do residents use their time during IPRs? How do they relate to other health care providers? What kind of language and body language are used to describe patients and their families during IPRs?

Textual or content analysis is ideal when used to investigate changes in official, institutional, or organizational views on a specific topic or area to document the context of certain practices or to investigate the experiences and perspectives of a group of individuals who have, for example, engaged in written reflection. Textual analysis can be used as the main method in a research project or to contextualize findings from another method. The choice and number of documents has to be guided by the research question, but can include newspaper or research articles, governmental reports, organization policies and protocols, letters, records, films, photographs, art, meeting notes, or checklists. The development of a coding grid or scheme for analysis will be guided by the research question and will be iteratively applied to selected documents. Examples of research questions include: How do our local policies and protocols for IPRs reflect or contrast with the broader discourses of interprofessional collaboration? What are the perceived successful features of IPRs in the literature? What are the key features of residents' reflections on their interprofessional experiences during IPRs?

How You Can Start TODAY

Review medical education journals to find qualitative research in your area of interest and focus on the methods used as well as the findings.

When you have chosen a method, read several different sources on it.

From your readings, identify potential colleagues with expertise in your choice of qualitative method as well as others in your discipline who would like to learn more and organize potential working groups to discuss challenges that arise in your work.

What You Can Do LONG TERM

Either locally or nationally, build a community of like-minded scholars to expand your qualitative expertise.

Use a range of methods to develop a broad program of qualitative research.

Supplementary Material

• 1. Teherani A, Martimianakis T, Stenfors-Hayes T, Wadhwa A, Varpio L. Choosing a qualitative research approach. J Grad Med Educ . 2015; 7 4: 669– 670. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 2. Wright S, O'Brien BC, Nimmon L, Law M, Mylopoulos M. Research design considerations. J Grad Med Educ . 2016; 8 1: 97– 98. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• 3. Stalmeijer RE, McNaughton N, Van Mook WN. Using focus groups in medical education research: AMEE Guide No. 91. Med Teach . 2014; 36 11: 923– 939. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

• View on publisher site
• PDF (109.9 KB)
• Collections

Similar articles

Cited by other articles, links to ncbi databases.

• Download .nbib .nbib
• Format: AMA APA MLA NLM

Add to Collections

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Online First
• “That’s not how abortions happen”: a qualitative study exploring how young adults navigate abortion misinformation in the post-Roe era
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6076-0728 Jennifer N John 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0009-0002-3846-5527 Allie Westley 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7490-5801 Paul D Blumenthal 3 ,
• Lee M Sanders 4
• 1 Program in Human Biology , Stanford University , Stanford , California , USA
• 2 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health , Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford , California , USA
• 3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology , Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford , California , USA
• 4 Departments of Pediatrics and Health Policy , Stanford University School of Medicine , Stanford , California , USA
• Correspondence to Jennifer N John; jennifernj{at}alumni.stanford.edu

Background Misinformation about abortion is widespread and was exacerbated by the overturn of Roe v Wade . Young adults are among those facing the most direct impacts of new abortion restrictions and are more likely to access health information from online sources, where misinformation is prevalent. We explored how young adults perceive and evaluate abortion-related information in a time of heightened abortion restrictions.

Methods We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 young adults (aged 18–24 years, 56% assigned female at birth), recruited across 17 US states (44% living in states with restrictive abortion policies), between June and September 2022. We derived themes from the interviews using reflexive thematic analysis.

Results While many participants were aware of and had personally encountered abortion misinformation, their susceptibility to false claims varied substantially based on their previous knowledge of abortion and exposure to anti-abortion rhetoric. Participants tended to reject some common myths regarding the medical risks of abortion (eg, association with breast cancer), while expressing a wider range of views regarding its impacts on fertility and mental health. When presented with contradictory sources of abortion information, most participants were unable to confidently reject the misleading source. Knowledge gaps left participants vulnerable to misinformation, while prior scepticism of anti-abortion rhetoric protected participants against misinformation.

Conclusions In this diverse national sample, young adults demonstrated a range of perceptions of abortion misinformation and approaches to identify it. These results lay the groundwork for future observational and experimental research in public health communication.

• abortion, induced
• qualitative research
• health education
• Patient Education as Topic
• sex education

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Data are not publicly available to protect participant privacy. Data are available upon request to the study’s corresponding author.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsrh-2024-202498

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

False claims exaggerating the risks of abortion are a prominent feature of anti-abortion advocacy, with substantial implications for reproductive health access and policy.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Abortion misinformation impedes young adults’ ability to navigate an increasingly complicated abortion information environment, filling a notable gap in the limited literature on this topic.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

Health education and media literacy interventions can build resilience to misinformation by filling knowledge gaps and expanding awareness of anti-abortion rhetoric.

Introduction

Abortion misinformation is increasingly recognised as a public health threat, exacerbating the negative impacts of the United States (US) Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization on maternal morbidity and mortality. 1 Since the 1970s, the anti-abortion movement has justified policy restrictions by propagating fabricated medical risks of abortion, such as its unsupported associations with breast cancer and depression. 2 These myths influence the beliefs of women seeking abortions, clinicians and the general public. 3–5 Abortion misinformation is disseminated by crisis pregnancy centres (CPCs), religious organisations that oppose abortion and host websites with misleading claims that frequently appear in search engine results for abortion. 6 7 Women also encounter misinformation through state-mandated counselling, which requires abortion providers in impacted states to tell patients inaccurate information about abortion. 8 Misinformation proliferated on social media immediately following the Dobbs decision. 9

Abortion misinformation could inhibit access to care, 10 enable restrictive policies 2 and perpetuate stigmas, which are associated with psychological and physical health harms. 11 These impacts are particularly concerning following the Dobbs decision. People seeking abortion have faced felony charges for abortion-related online activity. 12 After the Dobbs decision, physicians in abortion-restricted settings expressed a reluctance to give patients information about abortion due to legal threats. 13 These barriers could lead to delays in accessing care, leaving patients with limited or no options for abortion and compounding the barriers presented by a newly restrictive legal landscape. Notably, between April and August 2022, the number of abortions performed by clinicians in states with severe abortion restrictions or bans decreased by 95%. 14

Young adults are particularly impacted by new abortion restrictions and are distinctly vulnerable to misinformation due to their information-seeking behaviours. Compared with older adults, young adults seeking abortion are more likely to rely on someone else, face financial challenges and delay care due to knowledge gaps. 15 Parental involvement laws further impede access. 15 Young adults mainly obtain abortion information online 16 and are more likely to trust health information on TikTok and to believe misinformation about birth control than any other age group. 17 18

Little is known about how young adults assess the reliability of abortion information in an increasingly complicated abortion information environment. Through in-depth qualitative interviews, this study aimed to explore how young adults perceive and evaluate abortion misinformation and identify factors that influence young adults’ susceptibility to this misinformation.

Participant sample and recruitment

This study recruited young adults who were between the ages of 18–25 years, resided in the US, spoke English and could participate in a verbal interview. Participants were recruited through Facebook and Instagram advertisements (Menlo Park, CA, USA), using a well-validated approach used in prior studies on young adult health. 19 The advertisements linked to a Qualtrics screening survey (Seattle, WA, USA). Multiple screening survey responses associated with the same internet protocol address or location were excluded due to potential inauthenticity. Participants were selected from the responses to include similar numbers of participants across two dimensions: sex assigned at birth and state abortion policies. States were classified as “abortion friendly” or “abortion hostile” based on whether they were predicted to ban abortion following the overturn of Roe v Wade as of 3 June 2022. 20

Data collection

Remote video-enabled interviews were conducted between 24 June 2022 and 24 September 2022 on Zoom (San Jose, CA, USA). Interviews lasted an average of 57 (range 37–90) minutes and included audio with or without video, depending on the participant’s preference. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted by JNJ, a female undergraduate student with training in qualitative techniques. At the beginning of the interview, participants were given unlimited time to read an informed consent document, ask questions and summarise the document to demonstrate their understanding of the study. A waiver of documentation of consent was granted by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board since the study involved no more than minimal risk and did not include procedures that would require written consent outside of research settings.

The interview guide was constructed iteratively by members of the study team, who had expertise in paediatrics, family planning and health communication. The interview guide focused on three topics, which were determined through a literature review to identify gaps in previous research on abortion misinformation and the most prevalent abortion myths: sources of information, abortion knowledge and a practice scenario. Probes to elicit responses were listed under each theme. The study team conducted pilot testing of the interview guide, which informed revisions to the guide that better aligned the phrasing of questions with the topics of interest. The interview guide was further revised during data collection to improve elicitation of meaningful responses from participants and in response to rapidly changing national policies during the data collection period. For example, greater emphasis was placed on medication abortion following the Dobbs decision. In the practice scenario, participants were shown two websites with information about medication abortion: one website from a CPC containing misinformation 21 and one from an abortion clinic with reliable information. 22 Reliability of the sources was evaluated based on the clinical knowledge of study staff and professional guidelines. We chose the websites based on the presence of common abortion myths (or controverting facts), brevity, and representativeness of sources that young adults may encounter when searching for abortion information. Participants were asked to comment on the reliability of the webpages. A 10-question demographic survey was administered. A US$25 gift card was provided as compensation. Sex assigned at birth was chosen rather than gender as an indication of a participant’s potential to become pregnant.

Ethical considerations

Participants were not asked about personal reproductive health experiences unless this information was volunteered. In the practice scenario, the webpages were provided as Google Drive files so that website domains would not be stored in search histories. Efforts were made to provide participants with accurate information about abortion after the conclusion of the interview to reduce the risk of perpetuating misinformation. The study protocol was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (IRB-64149).

Data analysis

We applied reflexive thematic analysis (TA) to derive themes from the interviews, following the six-phase process of TA. 23 This approach was preferred given its flexibility and ability to surface patterns of shared meaning in qualitative interviews. 23 First, we familiarised ourselves with the data by transcribing the interviews verbatim (completed by JNJ) and composing analytical memos that reflected on meanings and patterns; we continued to compose memos to develop codes and reflect on themes through all six phases. 24 Second, we systematically coded the data in multiple passes using codes developed both inductively, by identifying features of the data, and deductively, based on previous literature on abortion misinformation. Coding was conducted in NVivo version 1.7.1 (NVivo, 2020). Two independent researchers (JNJ, AW), both of whom received training in qualitative analysis from an experienced qualitative researcher, coded all transcripts. The first coding pass consisted of descriptive, literal codes; the second pass included interpreted codes. JNJ and AW reconciled coding discrepancies through a series of conversations, moderated by a third researcher (LMS). Third, we generated themes using tools including tables and mind maps and by collating coded data extracts. Fourth, we reviewed and refined themes, collapsing some and expanding others. Fifth, we organised collated data into narratives and named the themes. Sixth and finally, we prepared a written description of the themes. With respect to the reflexive component of reflexive TA, our analytical process positioned the researchers as active agents in interpreting the data, with subjective values and perspectives that are a resource for knowledge production. 23

Patient and public involvement

Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

The screening survey received 148 responses between 23 May 2022 and 9 September 2022, of which 71 were complete and met eligibility criteria. Fifty respondents were contacted to schedule an interview based on the desired distribution of sex assigned at birth and state abortion policies. Interviews were scheduled with 32 respondents. Five of these respondents were no-shows; two were deemed to be ineligible after the interview was scheduled ( figure 1 ).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Study recruitment diagram.

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 25 interview participants. Mean age was 21.7 (SD 1.9) years, most were female (56%), nearly half were Black or Hispanic (44%), about a quarter spoke languages other than or in addition to English at home (24%), and nearly half (44%) lived in a state with restrictive abortion policies.

• View inline

Participant characteristics

The most commonly reported sources of reliable reproductive health information were the internet (80%), medical professionals (32%), social media (24%) and school health resources (24%) ( table 2 ). Participants also described learning about reproductive health from friends, romantic partners or acquaintances (16%), research articles (16%), family (4%), news articles (4%) and books (4%).

Reproductive health information sources

Thematic analysis of interview transcripts yielded four themes: (1) varied perceptions of medical risks; (2) sociocultural influences on mental health; (3) distrust towards ideologically motivated rhetoric; and (4) difficulty in reconciling conflicting sources. The following sections present participant perceptions under each theme, including representative quotations ( table 3 ).

Additional participant quotations illustrating each theme

Varied perceptions of medical risks

While participants generally saw abortion as safe, they had mixed perceptions of the impact of abortion on fertility. A White man from New York asserted that abortion could lead to infertility, a claim he said he likely heard online: “the procedure, it just messes with the eggs”. A Black woman from Georgia who had recently self-managed a medication abortion worried that it compromised her fertility, a claim she had heard about from elders in her community: “I want to have kids in the future. So I just hope I was not risking it all … I just hope it’s not true and the stories are just stories”. Most participants had never heard about an association between abortion and breast cancer, and none endorsed it.

Sociocultural influences on mental health

While some participants suggested that abortion could cause depression, anxiety and psychological trauma, most attributed these impacts to sociocultural factors, rather than factors inherent to abortion. An agender White and Hispanic individual from Virginia noted: “if you think you’re committing murder, that would weigh heavy on your psyche”. A Mexican-American woman from California who recently underwent an abortion reported struggling with guilt: “I always felt like I had to be responsible for someone else in my family. … I feel like I needed to have a kid because it was just, like, a responsibility”. Online, she found articles that corroborated her experience. Participants also commonly cited positive emotions, such as relief, joy and a sense of freedom.

Distrust towards ideologically motivated rhetoric

Many participants described encountering claims about abortion that they recognised as false based on fear-mongering, exaggeration and political and religious bias. A White nonbinary individual from Texas noted that in her religious community, she often saw “misinformation, like, that, that essentially, like, makes it like a scarier, bigger thing than it is, that makes it seem like it’s this murderous thing”. The term “partial birth” abortion, misleading depictions of fetal development, and other specific types of ideologically motivated misinformation evoked scepticism from participants. Participants who grew up in anti-abortion settings were particularly skilled at identifying biases in abortion-related claims. For example, a White man from Michigan who grew up Christian explained how he perceived false claims about abortion and mental health:

"…they came up with all this, kind of, what I believe to be pseudoscience about abortion and … postpartum or something. … I’ve never actually seen any science based on this. It just seems like something that oh, well, you’re really going to regret it, and it’s going to suck, and you know like they’re just trying to convince you not to get an abortion.”

In the practice scenario of the interview, prior exposure to and distrust towards anti-abortion rhetoric allowed some participants to correctly identify the misleading source. A biracial nonbinary individual who grew up in a Catholic community in the midwest recognised the source as a CPC: “they use terms like center, pregnancy center, that already kind of, like, gets me red flags. … And then they immediately say, like, that the rate of death is significant? … I could immediately tell from, like, the language used”. In contrast, participants expressed trust towards objective sources and medical institutions to provide reliable abortion information.

Difficulty in reconciling conflicting sources

When presented with contradictory webpages, many participants struggled to confidently distinguish between the reliable and unreliable source. Knowledge gaps about abortion left some participants vulnerable to claims that filled these gaps with misinformation. A White woman from Pennsylvania who previously expressed uncertainty about whether abortion decreased fertility explained:

“So the first one was like … it doesn’t lead to cancer, doesn’t lead to infertility, like, you’re basically safe, like, that kind of thing. And then the second one was, like, very the opposite. … I feel like the first one was a trustworthy source, but then I read the second one. Um, and yeah! I don’t know. ‘Cause they’re both saying two different things.”

When asked if he considered the sources to be reliable, a transgender man from Tennessee responded:

“Yes. Before, you know, you catch the contradictions. … I’d want to know if [medication abortion] does affect fertility. And if it does cause an increased risk of cancer, um, I definitely want to sort that information out before taking it. But I feel like it, I don’t know. Now I’m just kind of confused, like if it does cause these issues, or if it doesn’t cause these issues.”

While nearly all participants encountered abortion misinformation, they demonstrated a wide range of abilities to evaluate the credibility of abortion-related claims and sources. Many participants, particularly pro-choice participants who grew up in anti-abortion communities, demonstrated resilience to misleading claims, expressing scepticism towards overtly biased narratives. Still, misconceptions with the potential to inhibit abortion access were present. Participants, especially those with knowledge gaps about abortion, struggled to evaluate conflicting abortion claims. This expanded understanding of young adults’ interactions with the abortion information ecosystem creates opportunities to facilitate abortion decision-making and access.

Contrasting with previous survey studies, 3 misconceptions about the medical risks of abortion, particularly breast cancer, were not prevalent in this sample. The myth that abortion causes infertility was more common, leading to distress for two participants who had abortions. Participants who believed abortion could lead to poor mental health typically ascribed these outcomes to stigma rather than the trauma of terminating a pregnancy. Although prior studies demonstrate that abortion does not affect women’s psychological well-being, 25 participants’ awareness of the burden of stigma may reflect increasing conversations about abortion following the Dobbs decision. This finding suggests that labelling beliefs that do not align with evidence-based guidelines as anti-abortion misinformation can be misleading; future research should carefully consider the terminology used to refer to abortion-related misconceptions.

Online sources are highly used by young adults to learn about abortion, as reported by previous studies. 16 This finding confirms the importance of patient-facing informational websites and online abortion support forums 26 for young adults. Given the growing use of telemedicine for medication abortion, 27 navigating online information about abortion is critical in the post- Roe era. The prominence of social media as an abortion information source indicates a need for platform policies that support access to evidence-based reproductive health content. 28

Knowledge gaps about abortion left participants vulnerable to misinformation. Interventions could build resilience to misinformation by sharing evidence-based information about abortion. Awareness of anti-abortion rhetoric allowed participants to reject misinformation. Technique-based prebunking 29 could inform young adults about the rhetorical strategies underlying abortion misinformation, such as fear-mongering. While participants demonstrated knowledge of media literacy, they did not always implement these skills. As most young adults were aware of the threat of misinformation, they may be interested in learning to protect themselves from it.

Our findings are subject to limitations common to qualitative research. While this sample had similar racial diversity to the population of young adults in the US, Democrats and individuals with pro-choice beliefs were overrepresented. The recruitment approach may have biased the sample towards those who are more informed about abortion. This study largely relied on participants’ recollections of their experiences with abortion misinformation, though the practice exercise contextualised participants’ self-reports. Future studies should utilise larger samples with a greater range of abortion beliefs. Our qualitative approach allowed for an in-depth exploration of individual beliefs and experiences not afforded by other methodologies.

In this sample of young adults across the US, abortion misinformation is a pressing concern and common experience. Although knowledge gaps and misconceptions are common in this population, young adults expressed a commitment to informing themselves about abortion through reliable sources. Future empirical research should consider the following questions generated by our study: What impacts does misinformation have on young adults seeking abortion? How does misinformation interact with access and sociocultural barriers to abortion care? What educational and media literacy interventions can protect young adults from abortion misinformation? Answers to these questions can equip public health, educational and advocacy initiatives to support young adults in navigating a complex abortion information environment through accessible, evidence-based reproductive health information and prebunking interventions.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not applicable.

Ethics approval

This study involves human participants and was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board (IRB-64149). Participants gave informed consent to participate in the study before taking part.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Dr Jennifer Wolf for providing training in qualitative research and supporting this project throughout its development. Dr Anna Altshuler shared invaluable insights about the research questions and study design, particularly social media-based recruitment. Michelle Smith contributed critical assistance with the study logistics. The authors thank the following individuals who generously gave their time to discuss this research: Dr Diana Greene Foster, PhD; Katrina Kimport, PhD; Nancy Berglas, DrPH; Gretchen Sisson, PhD; Lisa Harris, MD PhD; Sarah Cowan, PhD; Klaira Lerma, MPH; James Hamilton, PhD; Jeremy Freese, PhD; Aliya Saperstein, PhD; Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, PhD; and Jeannette V Hernandez. The authors thank the participants who shared their time and perspectives for this project. Findings from this study were previously presented as a poster at the 2023 Society of Family Planning Annual Meeting, with an associated abstract published in Contraception (John JN, Sanders LM, Blumenthal PD. PO37 - “Who knows what is the truth and what isn't?: exploring young adults' experiences with abortion misinformation. Contraceptio n 2023;127:110204).

• Pagoto SL ,
• Horwitz-Willis N
• Littman LL ,
• Negron R , et al
• Coleman-Minahan K ,
• Kavanaugh ML ,
• Bessett D ,
• Littman LL , et al
• Bryant AG ,
• Narasimhan S ,
• Bryant-Comstock K , et al
• Pleasants E ,
• Guendelman S ,
• Weidert K , et al
• Berglas NF ,
• Turok DK , et al
• Sherman J ,
• Marrelli M ,
• Hale SA , et al
• Frohwirth L
• Oberman M ,
• ↵ #WeCount report released October 28, 2022 . Denver, CO Society of Family Planning ; 2022 . 1 – 17 . Available : https://societyfp.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/SFPWeCountReport_AprtoAug2022_ReleaseOct2022-1.pdf [accessed 17 Sep 2024 ]
• Braccia A ,
• Allison BA ,
• Hoopes AJ , et al
• Kearney A ,
• Washington I , et al
• Montero A ,
• Presiado M , et al
• Altshuler AL ,
• Gerns Storey HL ,
• ↵ If Roe v. Wade falls: travel distance for people seeking abortion . Guttmacher Institute , Available : https://states.guttmacher.org/guttmacher/ [Accessed 2 Jun 2022 ].
• ↵ Health risks of the abortion pill [ Colorado Springs Pregnancy Center ]. 2021 . Available : https://cspregnancycenter.com/top-7-health-risks-of-the-abortion-pill/ [Accessed 27 Jul 2022 ].
• Whole Woman’s Health
• Huberman AM ,
• Upadhyay UD ,
• McCulloch CE , et al
• Mena-Meléndez L ,
• Crawford BL , et al
• Aiken ARA ,
• Starling JE ,
• Scott JG , et al
• Martiny C ,
• Roozenbeek J ,
• Berriche M , et al

Contributors JNJ is the guarantor and conceptualised and designed the study, performed the literature review, recruited participants, conducted and transcribed the interviews, coded the interview transcripts, performed the qualitative analysis, and composed the manuscript. AW coded all interview transcripts, participated in key discussions about the qualitative analysis and findings, and provided feedback on the manuscript. PDB provided mentorship throughout the study design and execution, guided the development of the research questions and study design, contributed to the interview protocol, participated in formative discussions during the qualitative analysis, and provided feedback on the manuscript. LMS provided mentorship throughout the study design and execution, guided the development of the research questions and study design, contributed to the interview protocol, participated in formative discussions during the qualitative analysis, facilitated conversations to resolve coding discrepancies, and provided feedback on the manuscript.

Funding JNJ was supported by an undergraduate research student grant from Stanford University. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not an official position of the institution or funder.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF: