Advertisement

Quality & Quantity

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 387–408 | Cite as

Beyond the existence proof: ontological conditions, epistemological implications, and in-depth interview research

  • Samuel R. Lucas
Open Access
Article

Abstract

In-depth interviewing is a promising method. Alas, traditional in-depth interview sample designs prohibit generalizing. Yet, after acknowledging this limitation, in-depth interview studies generalize anyway. Generalization appears unavoidable; thus, sample design must be grounded in plausible ontological and epistemological assumptions that enable generalization. Many in-depth interviewers reject such designs. The paper demonstrates that traditional sampling for in-depth interview studies is indefensible given plausible ontological conditions, and engages the epistemological claims that purportedly justify traditional sampling. The paper finds that the promise of in-depth interviewing will go unrealized unless interviewers adopt ontologically plausible sample designs. Otherwise, in-depth interviewing can only provide existence proofs, at best.

Keywords

Ontology Epistemology In-depth interviewing Sampling Probability sampling Non-probability sampling Snowball sampling Purposive sampling Theoretical sampling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Aimée Dechter and H. Sorayya Carr for helpful conversations. All errors and omissions are the fault of the author.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

References

  1. Anderson B.A., Silver B.D., Abramson P.R.: The effects of the race of the interviewer on race-related attitudes of black respondents in SRC/CPS National Elections Studies. Public Opin. Q. 52, 289–324 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg S.: Snowball sampling-I. In: Kotz, S., Read, C.B., Balakrishnan, N., Vidakovic, B. (eds) Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, pp. 7817–7821. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2006)Google Scholar
  3. Boas F.: The limitations of the comparative method of anthropology. Science 4, 901–908 (1896)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunson R.K.: Beyond stop rates: using qualitative methods to examine racially biased policing. In: Rice, S.K., White, M.D. (eds) Race, Ethnicity, and Policing, pp. 221–238. New York University Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  5. Byrne M.: Sampling for qualitative research. AORN J. 73, 494–498 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell D.T., Stanley J.C.: Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (1963)Google Scholar
  7. Das A., Laumann E.: How to get valid answers from survey questions: what we learned asking about sexual behavior and the measurement of sexuality. In: Walford, G., Tucker, E., Viswanathan, M. (eds) The Sage Handbook of Measurement, pp. 9–26. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2010)Google Scholar
  8. Desrosières A.: The Politics of Large Numbers: A History of Statistical Reasoning, translated by Camille Naish. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (2004)Google Scholar
  9. Eland-Goossensen M.A., Van De Goor L.A.M., Vollemans E.C., Hendriks V.M., Garretsen H.F.L.: Snowball sampling applied to opiate addicts outside the treatment system. Addict. Res. 5, 317–330 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feynman, R.P.: Cargo cult science. In: Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman: Adventures of a Curious Character, pp. 308–317. Bantam, New York (1985)Google Scholar
  11. Goel S., Salganik M.J.: Assessing respondent-driven sampling. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. USA. 107, 6743–6747 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gomm R., Hammersley M., Foster P.: Case Study Methods: Key Issues, Key Texts. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA (2000)Google Scholar
  13. Kanouse D.E., Berry S.H., Duan N., Lever J., Carson S., Perlman J.F., Levitan B.: Drawing a probability sample of female street prostitutes in Los Angeles County. J. Sex Res. 36, 45–51 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kokoska S., Nevison C.: Statistical Tables and Formulae. Springer, New York (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kruskal W., Mosteller F.: Representative sampling, IV: the history of the concept in statistics, 1895–1939. Int. Stat. Rev. 48, 169–195 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G.: The only generalization is: there is no generalization. In: Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., Foster, P. (eds.) Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts, pp. 27–44. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA [(1979) 2000]Google Scholar
  17. Lucas S.R.: Theorizing Discrimination in an Era of Contested Prejudice: Discrimination in the United States, vol. 1. Temple University Press, Philadelphia (2008)Google Scholar
  18. Manski C.F.: Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1995)Google Scholar
  19. Marshall M.N.: Sampling for qualitative research. Family Pract. 13, 522–526 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Merriam S.B.: What can you tell from an n of 1? Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. PAACE J. Lifelong Learn. 4, 51–60 (1995)Google Scholar
  21. Montemurro B., McClure B.: Changing gender norms for alcohol consumption: social drinking and lowered inhibitions at bachelorette parties. Sex Roles 52, 279–288 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mullen A.L.: Degrees of Inequality: Culture, Class, and Gender in American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore (2010)Google Scholar
  23. Neter J., Wasserman W., Kutner M.H.: Applied Linear Regression Models, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  24. Oberfield Z.W.: Rule following and discretion at government’s frontlines: continuity and change during organization socialization. J. Public Admin. Res. Theory 20, 735–755 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Brien E.: The Racial Middle: Latinos and Asian Americans Living Beyond the Racial Divide. New York University Press, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  26. Orrange R.M.: Individualism, family values, and the professional middle class: in-depth interviews with advanced law and MBA students. Sociol. Q. 44, 451–480 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Price S.D.: Infrared astronomy on the Midcourse Space Experiment. Space Sci. Rev. 74, 81–87 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ragin C.C.: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rossi P.H., Wright J.D., Fisher G.A., Willis G.: The urban homeless: estimating composition and size. Science 235(4794), 1336–1341 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Salganik M.J., Heckathorn D.D.: Sampling and estimation in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Sociol. Methodol. 34, 193–239 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schuman H., Rieger C.: Historical analogies, generational effects, and attitudes toward war. Am. Sociol. Rev. 57, 315–326 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Small M.L.: ‘How many cases do I need?’ On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography 10, 5–38 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Suchman L., Jordan B.: Interactional troubles in face-to-face survey interviews. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 85, 232–241 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wald A.: Sequential method of sampling for deciding between two courses of action. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 40, 277–306 (1945)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wright K., Copestake J.: Impact assessment of microfinance using qualitative data: communicating between social scientists and practitioners using the QUIP. J. Int. Dev. 16, 355–367 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wrigley B.J.: Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling? A qualitative study of how women view the glass ceiling in public relations and communications management. J. Public Relat. Res. 14, 27–55 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yin R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Newbury Park, CA (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of California-BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations