Quality & Quantity

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 387–408

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

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 

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