27.10.2014 Views

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

Russel-Research-Method-in-Anthropology

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Sampl<strong>in</strong>g 153<br />

116. If the first random number between 1 and 3 is 3, go to column 3. If the<br />

first random number between 1 and 96 is 43, count down 43 l<strong>in</strong>es. Decide if<br />

the list<strong>in</strong>g is eligible. It may be a blank l<strong>in</strong>e or a bus<strong>in</strong>ess. That’s why you<br />

generate 400 sets of numbers to get 200 good list<strong>in</strong>gs.<br />

Telephone books don’t actually make good sampl<strong>in</strong>g frames—too many<br />

people have unlisted numbers (which is why we have random digit dial<strong>in</strong>g—<br />

see chapter 10). But s<strong>in</strong>ce everyone knows what a phone book looks like, it<br />

makes a good example for learn<strong>in</strong>g how to sample big, unnumbered lists of<br />

th<strong>in</strong>gs, like the list of Catholic priests <strong>in</strong> Paraguay or the list of orthopedic<br />

surgeons <strong>in</strong> California.<br />

Stratified Sampl<strong>in</strong>g<br />

Stratified random sampl<strong>in</strong>g ensures that key subpopulations are <strong>in</strong>cluded<br />

<strong>in</strong> your sample. You divide a population (a sampl<strong>in</strong>g frame) <strong>in</strong>to subpopulations<br />

(subframes), based on key <strong>in</strong>dependent variables and then take a random<br />

(unbiased), sample from each of those subpopulations. You might divide the<br />

population <strong>in</strong>to men and women, or <strong>in</strong>to rural and urban subframes—or <strong>in</strong>to<br />

key age groups (18–34, 35–49, etc.) or key <strong>in</strong>come groups. As the ma<strong>in</strong> sampl<strong>in</strong>g<br />

frame gets divided by key <strong>in</strong>dependent variables, the subframes presumably<br />

get more and more homogeneous with regard to the key dependent variable<br />

<strong>in</strong> the study.<br />

In 1996, for example, representative samples of adult voters <strong>in</strong> the United<br />

States were asked the follow<strong>in</strong>g question:<br />

Which comes closest to your position? Abortion should be . . .<br />

Legal <strong>in</strong> Legal <strong>in</strong> Illegal <strong>in</strong> Illegal <strong>in</strong><br />

all cases most cases most cases all cases<br />

Across all voters, 60% said that abortion should be legal <strong>in</strong> all (25%) or<br />

most (35%) cases and only 36% said it should be illegal <strong>in</strong> all (12%) or most<br />

(24%) cases. (The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 4% had no op<strong>in</strong>ion.)<br />

These facts hide some important differences across religious, ethnic, gender,<br />

political, and age groups. Among Catholic voters, 59% said that abortion<br />

should be legal <strong>in</strong> all (22%) or most (37%) cases; among Jewish voters, 91%<br />

said that abortion should be legal <strong>in</strong> all (51%) or most (40%) cases. Among<br />

registered Democrats, 72% favored legal abortion <strong>in</strong> all or most cases; among<br />

registered Republicans, 45% took that position (Ladd and Bowman 1997:44–<br />

46). Sampl<strong>in</strong>g from smaller chunks (by age, gender, and so on) ensures not

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!