What have sampling and data collection got to do with good qualitative research?
Open accessAbstract
Objective To highlight the importance of sampling and data collection processes in qualitative interview studies, and to discuss the contribution of these processes to determining the strength of the evidence generated and thereby to decisions for public health practice and policy.Approach This discussion is informed by a hierarchy-of-evidence-for-practice model. The paper provides succinct guidelines for key sampling and data collection considerations in qualitative research involving interview studies. The importance of allowing time for immersion in a given community to become familiar with the context and population is discussed, as well as the practical constraints that sometimes operate against this stage. The role of theory in guiding sample selection is discussed both in terms of identifying likely sources of rich data and in understanding the issues emerging from the data. It is noted that sampling further assists in confirming the developing evidence and also illuminates data that does not seem to fit. The importance of reporting sampling and data collection processes is highlighted clearly to enable others to assess both the strength of the evidence and the broader applications of the findings.Conclusion Sampling and data collection processes are critical to determining the quality of a study and the generalisability of the findings. We argue that these processes should operate within the parameters of the research goal, be guided by emerging theoretical considerations, cover a range of relevant participant perspectives, and be clearly outlined in research reports with an explanation of any research limitations.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The sample size was determined by the concept of theoretical saturation when iterative review of the data showed sufficient repetition and depth of COM-B and inductive themes.
“The sample size was determined by the concept of theoretical saturation when iterative review of the data showed sufficient repetition and depth of COM-B and inductive themes [28].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Polanyi, M. (1997) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-7506-9718-7.50010-x · Cited by 12,410 · see citing works
Gabbay, J., & May, A. L. (2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7473.1013 · Cited by 986 · see citing works
The Body, Identity, and Self: Adapting To Impairment
Charmaz, K. C. (1995) · Sociological Quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00459.x · Cited by 912 · see citing works
Generating best evidence from qualitative research: the role of data analysis
Green, J. B., Willis, K. F., Hughes, E., Small, R. E., Welch, N., Gibbs, L. F., & Daly, J. (2007) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00141.x · Cited by 878 · see citing works
Self-citationA hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research
Daly, J., Willis, K., Small, R., Green, J., Welch, N., Kealy, M., & Hughes, E. (2007) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.014 · Cited by 545 · see citing works
Self-citationTuckett, A. G. (2004) · Nurse Researcher · doi:10.7748/nr2004.07.12.1.47.c5930 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Galloway, R., Dusch, E., Elder, L. K., Achadi, E. L., Grajeda, R., Hurtado, E., Favin, M., Kanani, S., Marsaban, J., Méda, N., et al. (2002) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00185-x · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Kaiser Permanente's experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study
Scott, J. T., Rundall, T. G., Vogt, T. M., & Hsu, J. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38638.497477.68 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
Social networks in a ‘discredited’ neighbourhood
Warr, D. J. (2005) · Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1177/1440783305057081 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Prostitution: On Whores, Hustlers, and Johns
Weitzer, R., Elias, J. E., Bullough, V. L., et al. (2000) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2654452 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Booth, T., & Booth, W. (1994) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)90139-2 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
The essential role of social theory in qualitative public health research
Willis, K. F., Daly, J., Kealy, M., Small, R. E., Koutroulis, G., Green, J. B., Gibbs, L. F., & Thomas, S. L. (2007) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00115.x · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citationHysterectomy: a case study of one woman's experience
Fleming, V. E. M. (2003) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.0309-2402.2003.02847.x · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Dilemmas in publishing qualitative public health research
Daly, J., & Lumley, J. M. (2007) · Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00047.x · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationAssessing qualitative research in health - a hierarchy of evidence-for-practice
Holt, L., Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., et al. (2005) · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Tuckett A. Qualitative research sampling: the very real complexities. Nurse Res. 2004;12(1):47-61.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kallio, H., Pietilä, A., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.13031 · Cited by 4,295 · see citing works
Egerton, T., Nelligan, R. K., Setchell, J., Atkins, L., & Bennell, K. L. (2018) · BMC Rheumatology · doi:10.1186/s41927-018-0037-4 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Servant Leadership and Employee Engagement: A Qualitative Study
Canavesi, A., & Minelli, E. (2022) · Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal · doi:10.1007/s10672-021-09389-9 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gibbs, L., Kealy, M., Willis, K., Green, J., Welch, N., & Daly, J.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- La Trobe University (AU)
- University of Tasmania (AU)
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Gibbs, Lisa
- Venue
- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 540-544
- ISSN
- 1326-0200 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2049653115
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 19.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UTAS Research Repository (acceptedVersion)
- eCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) (submittedVersion)
- Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
- Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- data collection, research interviews, evidence hierarchy, community immersion, generalizability, research limitations, public health policy
- MeSH terms
- Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Public Health, Sampling Studies, Models, Statistical, Qualitative Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
