Sample sizes must be ascertained in qualitative studies like in quantitative studies but not by the same means. The prevailing concept for sample size in qualitative studies is "saturation." Saturation is closely tied to a specific methodology, and the term is inconsistently applied. We propose the concept "information power" to guide adequate sample size for qualitative studies. Information power indicates that the more information the sample holds, relevant for the actual study, the lower amount of participants is needed. We suggest that the size of a sample with sufficient information power depends on (a) the aim of the study, (b) sample specificity, (c) use of established theory, (d) quality of dialogue, and (e) analysis strategy. We present a model where these elements of information and their relevant dimensions are related to information power. Application of this model in the planning and during data collection of a qualitative study is discussed.

Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power

Global health burden and needs of transgender populations: a review

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines sampling as "the act, process, or technique of selecting a representative part of a population for the purpose of determining parameters or characteristics of the whole population." This popular understanding, however, differs from some of the understandings held by researchers and scholars in the qualitative research domain. Influential qualitative methods authorities from diverse backgrounds have contributed to these latter understandings, and there is much natural variation in the sampling-related ideas they present. The existence of even subtle inconsistencies, ambiguities, or incomplete descriptions in the methods literature regarding certain sampling-related issues can be problematic for students and researchers seeking to develop a coherent understanding of sampling that is applicable to their research situation. This problem can be exacerbated by the fact that these individuals often lack the time to search, retrieve, and review the qualitative methods literature systematically and exhaustively to develop comprehensive and balanced knowledge of the available methods guidance. Even seasoned qualitative researchers, who are usually expertly versed in the methods of their chosen research approach or tradition, may come to prefer and become most intimately familiar with the ideas of a subset of methods authors within that tradition. Thus, they may not be comprehensively familiar with the full range of opinions across authors (including any inconsistencies among them) within their tradition regarding a specific methods issue --something that can only be revealed through systematic comparison. Systematic comparison in turn depends on systematic selection of the literature to be compared. Systematically searching and selecting the methods literature, however, is generally more burdensome than it is for the empirical findings literature. This is because a greater proportion of the methods literature is found in books and edited book chapters, which take substantially more time and effort to identify, retrieve, and scan for relevant content compared to journal articles. To fill the need for rigorous synthesis of the guidance on sampling in qualitative research, we conducted a systematic methods overview--our term for a defined approach to reviewing the methods literature from diverse sources, described here. This review method involved a rigorous and transparent, yet purposeful, approach to searching the methods literature aimed at selecting and reviewing the most influential publications--ones that students and researchers from multiple jurisdictions are most likely to encounter among the available writings that address sampling. We chose the literature of grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study because these are popular approaches or traditions used in many health-related disciplines, and are also sufficiently different to allow instructive comparisons to be made within each of the sampling topics addressed below. Our findings are organized under eight distinct topic sections corresponding to the major domains of sampling identified in the review process. In each section, we summarize how the topic is characterized in the literature reviewed, present a comparative analysis of differences among the three research traditions, and finally offer comments representing our analysis of the clarity, consistency and comprehensiveness of the available guidance from the authors reviewed on that topic and potential areas in which more clarity could be provided. Importantly, it is neither our aim nor our intention to convey personal opinions or recommendations about how to do sampling in this review. By unifying the findings and discussion within topic sections, we aim to make it convenient for readers to locate content for any single sampling topic in one place. The Three Research Traditions Reviewed Each of the three traditions whose methods literatures were reviewed is characterized by its unique approach to data collection and analysis, which in turn underlies important variation in researchers' approaches and attention to sampling. …

/pdf/sampling-in-qualitative-research-insights-from-an-overview-1tf0s8rdp1.pdf

Sampling in Qualitative Research: Insights from an Overview of the Methods Literature

This article evaluates the job quality of work in the remote gig economy. Such work consists of the remote provision of a wide variety of digital services mediated by online labour platforms. Focusing on workers in Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, the article draws on semi-structured interviews in six countries (N = 107) and a cross-regional survey (N = 679) to detail the manner in which remote gig work is shaped by platform-based algorithmic control. Despite varying country contexts and types of work, we show that algorithmic control is central to the operation of online labour platforms. Algorithmic management techniques tend to offer workers high levels of flexibility, autonomy, task variety and complexity. However, these mechanisms of control can also result in low pay, social isolation, working unsocial and irregular hours, overwork, sleep deprivation and exhaustion.

/pdf/good-gig-bad-gig-autonomy-and-algorithmic-control-in-the-3v2ih5tuvy.pdf

Good Gig, Bad Gig: Autonomy and Algorithmic Control in the Global Gig Economy:

‘Intersectional stigma’ is a concept that has emerged to characterize the convergence of multiple stigmatized identities within a person or group, and to address their joint effects on health and wellbeing. While enquiry into the intersections of race, class, and gender serves as the historical and theoretical basis for intersectional stigma, there is little consensus on how best to characterize and analyze intersectional stigma, or on how to design interventions to address this complex phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to highlight existing intersectional stigma literature, identify gaps in our methods for studying and addressing intersectional stigma, provide examples illustrating promising analytical approaches, and elucidate priorities for future health research. Evidence from the existing scientific literature, as well as the examples presented here, suggest that people in diverse settings experience intersecting forms of stigma that influence their mental and physical health and corresponding health behaviors. As different stigmas are often correlated and interrelated, the health impact of intersectional stigma is complex, generating a broad range of vulnerabilities and risks. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches are required to reduce the significant knowledge gaps that remain in our understanding of intersectional stigma, shared identity, and their effects on health. Stigmatized identities, while often analyzed in isolation, do not exist in a vacuum. Intersecting forms of stigma are a common reality, yet they remain poorly understood. The development of instruments and methods to better characterize the mechanisms and effects of intersectional stigma in relation to various health conditions around the globe is vital. Only then will healthcare providers, public health officials, and advocates be able to design health interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of shared identity, while reducing the burden of stigma.

/pdf/challenges-and-opportunities-in-examining-and-addressing-1d3two60wx.pdf

Challenges and opportunities in examining and addressing intersectional stigma and health

การวจยเชงคณภาพ เปนเครองมอสำคญอยางหนงสำหรบทำความเขาใจสงคมและพฤตกรรมมนษย การวจยแบบการสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล กเปนหนงในหลายระเบยบวธการวจยเชงคณภาพทกำลงไดรบความสนใจ และเปนทนยมเพมสงขนเรอยๆ จากนกวชาการ และนกวจยในสาขาสงคมศาสตร และศาสตรอนๆ เชน พฤตกรรมศาสตร สงคมวทยา สาธารณสขศาสตร พยาบาลศาสตร จตวทยาสงคม ศกษาศาสตร รฐศาสตร และสารสนเทศศกษา ดงนน หนงสอเรอง “ConstructingGrounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” หรอ “การสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล:แนวทางการปฏบตผานการวเคราะหเชงคณภาพ” จะชวยใหผอานมความรความเขาใจถงพฒนาการของปฏบตการวจยแบบสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล ตลอดจนแนวทาง และกระบวนการปฏบตการวจยอยางเปนระบบ จงเปนหนงสอทควรคาแกการอานโดยเฉพาะนกวจยรนใหม เพอเปนแนวทางในการนำความรความเขาใจไประยกตในงานวจยของตน อกทงนกวจยผเชยวชาญสามารถอานเพอขยายมโนทศนดานวจยใหกวางขวางขน

ชวิตรา ตันติมาลา

Papers

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis