@Sabine, thank you for that very helpful insight. I was a bit puzzled because my university teaches the following as possibilities of sampling methods in qualitative research: single case study sampling, multiple case study sampling, theoretical sampling, and material sampling. That's a classification that does not make any sense to me and which seems to mix research designs (e.g. case studies) with actual sampling methods (e.g. theoretical). What you point out, though, is eminently clear!

Regarding SAMPLING 5, the purpose to show the preliminary results to the CEO is to reach a consensus as to the meaning of the categories proposed by the research team -- since the goal is to understand the dynamics of the theme park as they are experienced by the community, and not by the researchers, who are outsiders; thus we are trying to gather the more "emic" point of view of the executive team, and I guess in that regard that might also be the same kind of sampling as 1, in which we reach out to these particular individuals because of their privileged knowledge of the community.

Thanks a million, I really appreciate it!

Sampling, by definition, includes choosing participants that may be a source of data. It is part of the collecting data phase (iterative as that may be). Thus, example 5 is not sampling, unless you treat the information gathered as data to be analyzed (perhaps changing also the focus of the research question). In fact, it is part of the analysis phase. It may be the base for a second study, wherein it may serve as data and thus be an instance of sampling (vicariously?). The important lesson here is that whether an action constitutes sampling does not depend on what you do but rather what is it done/used for. The nature/identity of the action is determined by its purpose. This is a pragmatic approach to sampling and food for thought. Good luck.

Sampling 1, 4, 5 are not sampling. Sampling is identifying the right participants for your student. I think you used purposive sampling since this had to do with a theme park customers. I would call 'Samplin 1' project initiation meeting while your 'Sampling 4' was a non-participant observation

Dear @Jacob and @Oluwafemi, thank you both for kindly giving your feedback! :) @Jacob, I was proposing that SAMPLING 5 might be a type of sampling in the sense that somebody with an emic point of view has to validate the categories/explanations externally constructed by the researchers. Is that possible? @Oluwafemi, I was also unsure about #1 and #4. I interpret #1 in the following way: We choose the CEO and managers because of their symbolic importance in the context of the theme park; they may not be statistically representative, but we're still picking them over others due to their privileged position in the context of the park; that's also the same explanation that I'd put forth regarding #5. As for #4, I'm not as sure -- because, really, the researcher is just registering whatever comes to him; in that sense, he's not really selecting any participants, although that might just be a consequence of "convenience sampling." I'm not sure. What do you think?

i would say it is not a sampling because you are showing the data to them to come to a consensus. I agree you look at them as participants because being a group of people, but as you look for consensus from them, it makes them more researchers rather part of sampling.

Also, in sampling one, from what you describing, one can assume you would ask them for their views on the problems, which in itself is data for your research, and that makes it sampling.

You must distinguish sampling from collecting data. Sampling is best viewed as part of the data collection process but not vice versa. As I noted previously, an action can become sampling after the fact, once someone decides to treat the information generated as data. But in the end, I am sorry to say this, but what you call it makes little difference. Call it what you want, but be clear regarding what you mean. That is what is really important.

In research, "sampling" does have a specific meaning regardless of the way it is carried out (sampling method) and it means to select the units that will be under study, even in qualitative studies. For your research, what is that unit and how will you make the selections? In qual research, it is purposive sampling (as opposed to random samplng).

"...creating new methods in qualitative research" is fine but it shouldn't lead to a free-for-all or it would mean anyone can do anythng they want as long as they justify it. Research does have and has to maintian certain protools.

The methods used are good data collection process. However I donot think any are sampling, just steps in the process, What is the resaon that you called them and wish to call them : samplng?

1-4 are instances of sampling; but as Sabine counsel's, 5 is not, because here, you are doing analysis.

Sampling is about bringing together entities from which you might collect data.

Yes, if those "entities" are the units under study and the data collected is (not just might) for /re the issue under study. There should be more surety when planning / carrying out a research project, since reserach and reserach methods are not "anything goes" even in qualitative research.

Of course, research methods can't just be "..anything goes."; rather, they must be relevant to your research purpose; and yes, there has to be surety, but fulfilling this aspect needn't mean the constraint of a pre-determined research plan---i.e. a Grounded Theory study.

you have pretty much got the answers already from the above contributors.

alternately you can visit my latest book chapter on Asian perspectives of Ethnography.

Dewan M. (2018) Understanding Ethnography: An ‘Exotic’ Ethnographer’s Perspective. In: Mura P., Khoo-Lattimore C. (eds) Asian Qualitative Research in Tourism. Perspectives on Asian Tourism. Springer, Singapore.

you can also read The SAGE handbook of qualitative research by authors:Norman K Denzin; Yvonna S Lincoln. to have an in-depth perspective.

you can also read DOING ETHNOGRAPHY BY GIAMPIETRO GOBO. SAGE.

you can also visit

Philip Adams My response re anything goes refferredt to methodon this comment: "...creating new methods in qualitative research"

As I said, that "...is fine but it shouldn't lead to a free-for-all or it would mean anyone can do anythng they want as long as they justify it. Research does have and has to maintian certain protools."

@Jacob’s answer seems to resonate with me; in the end, the label is not nearly as important as the process itself. @Mary-Helen, if the steps I indicate are not instances of sampling but merely data collection, then what would the sampling be in the research that I describe? @Philip brings up an interesting point: It is my understanding that the PARK is what’s being studied here; it is the park that has been intentionally selected out of a population of other parks, so my feeling is that the sampling ends there. However, that leaves us with the question of what the other steps are – am I still doing “sampling” when I decide who to talk to within the park, or is that merely “data collection” as @Mary-Helen seems to point out? @Mayukh, thanks for the reading recommendations, I’ll be sure to check them out! :)

Assuming other parks are irrelevant, and you are studying attendance at THIS park, the actual unit of study are the attendees. How you select them is your samplng. For your no1, "We set up a meeting with the CEO and several managers (let’s call this SAMPLING 1)," I assume you are collecting preliminary information, no info is given. For this research, what do the managers and CEO have to do, with attendance/non attendance? -- why I said, probably preliminarey info. Why would these be units / sampling, since they are not the ones being studied? Same for 5.

As for 3, 4 , I supose you can call this "samplng;" however, followinfg customers and eavesdropping raises questions of ethics and participants' rights regarding consent, which is primary in research. Number 2 raises the question of what is the connection between popular/nonpopular rides and the study question of decreasing attendance? (2 is not sampling)

Sampling is very specifically, the selection of the unit under study. If you are studying decreasing attendance at a theme park, reasonabley the units for study are the attendants/customers at the park. Why not just ask them? with qual and/or quant methods. The samplng is how you decide to select the study participants. Keep in mind that by selecting those at the park, you will probably not find satisfactory/true info on decreasing attendance-- You are asking those STILL there/ still attending. There has to be a way for you to sample those who have stopped attending and learn why they have stopped coming.

Last, (and not to beat a dead horse) , research, whether qualitative or quantitative, has certian protocols that should be followed and adhered to even when there is room for some creativity. That is why it is called a scientific process and sampling is part of that, as protocol.