Representativeness of Qualitative Surveys

Sergey Belanovskiy
{"title":"Representativeness of Qualitative Surveys","authors":"Sergey Belanovskiy","doi":"10.19181/inter.2023.15.1.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author challenges the widely held belief that qualitative surveys (in-depth interviews and focus groups) will never be considered as a representative study. The origins of this erroneous, according to the author, point of view is an incorrect transfer of criteria for the representativeness of quantitative studies to qualitative ones. The article formulates a mathematical statement the task of determining a representative sample of qualitative surveys. The article provides the solution of the task taking into account relevant constraints. It is shown that under certain conditions representative sample of qualitatively study may be 15–40 respondents, which corresponds to research practice based on empirical criteria for sufficiency.","PeriodicalId":81563,"journal":{"name":"Inter-Nord","volume":"20 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inter-Nord","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19181/inter.2023.15.1.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The author challenges the widely held belief that qualitative surveys (in-depth interviews and focus groups) will never be considered as a representative study. The origins of this erroneous, according to the author, point of view is an incorrect transfer of criteria for the representativeness of quantitative studies to qualitative ones. The article formulates a mathematical statement the task of determining a representative sample of qualitative surveys. The article provides the solution of the task taking into account relevant constraints. It is shown that under certain conditions representative sample of qualitatively study may be 15–40 respondents, which corresponds to research practice based on empirical criteria for sufficiency.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
定性调查的代表性
作者挑战了人们普遍认为的定性调查(深度访谈和焦点小组)永远不会被视为具有代表性的研究。根据作者的观点,这种错误的根源是将定量研究的代表性标准错误地转移到定性研究的代表性标准。本文对定性调查中确定代表性样本的任务提出了一个数学表述。本文给出了考虑相关约束条件的任务解决方案。结果表明,在一定条件下,定性研究的代表性样本可能是15-40名受访者,这符合基于经验充分性标准的研究实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Online Focus-Groups: Methodical Reflection Experimental Art-Based Formats as the Creative Practices of Teaching Sociology Therapeutic Discourse of Psychologists in the Context of Crisis: Normalization of Non-Action Quality Textbooks for Quality Research (Not)New Questions in New Contexts (Methodological and Ethical Problems in the Studies of Refugees From Ukraine)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1