RESEARCH METHOD COHEN ok

178 NATURALISTIC AND ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH
to investigate how expectations and morale are
related to disruptive behaviour. In this case the
sampling emerges as the research proceeds and
the theory emerges; this is theoretical sampling,
the ‘royal way for qualitative studies’ (Flick 2004:
151). Schatzman and Strauss (1973: 38 ff.) suggest
that sampling within theoretical sampling may
change according to time, place, individuals and
events.
The above procedure accords with Glaser and
Strauss’s (1967) view that sampling involves
continuously gathering data until practical factors
(boundaries) put an end to data collection, or
until no amendments have to be made to the
theory in light of further data – their stage of
‘theoretical saturation’ – where the theory fits the
data even when new data are gathered. Theoretical
saturation is described by Glaser and Strauss
(1967: 61) as being reached when ‘no additional
data are being found whereby the sociologist can
develop properties of the category’. That said, the
researcher has to be cautious to avoid premature
cessation of data collection; it would be too easy to
close off research with limited data, when, in fact,
further sampling and data collection might lead to
areformulationofthetheory.
An extension of theoretical sampling is ‘analytic
induction’, a process advanced by Znaniecki
(1934). Here the researcher starts with a theory
(that may have emerged from the data, as in
grounded theory) and then deliberately proceeds
to look for deviant or discrepant cases, to provide
a robust defence of the theory. This accords with
Popper’s notion of a rigorous scientific theory
having to stand up to falsifiability tests. In analytic
induction, the researcher deliberately seeks data
which potentially could falsify the theory, thereby
giving strength to the final theory.
We are suggesting here that, in qualitative
research, sampling cannot always be decided in
advance on a ‘once and for all’ basis. It may have
to continue through the stages of data collection,
analysis and reporting. This reflects the circular
process of qualitative research, in which data
collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting
and sampling do not necessarily have to proceed
in a linear fashion; the process is recursive and
iterative. Sampling is not decided a priori–in
advance – but may be decided, amended, added to,
increased and extended as the research progresses.
Stage 4: Finding a role and managing entry into the
context
This involves matters of access and permission,
establishing a reason for being there, developing
aroleandapersona,identifyingthegatekeepers
who facilitate entry and access to the group being
investigated (see LeCompte and Preissle 1993: 100
and 111). The issue here is complex, for the
researcher will be both a member of the group
and yet studying that group, so it is a delicate
matter to negotiate a role that will enable the
investigator to be both participant and observer.
LeCompte and Preissle (1993: 112) comment that
the most important elements in securing access
are the willingness of researchers to be flexible
and their sensitivity to nuances of behaviour and
response in the participants. As De Laine (2000:
41) remarks: ‘demonstrated ability to get on with
people in the setting and a willingness to share
experience in ongoing activities are important
criteria of access’.
Wolff (2004: 195–6) suggests that there are
two fundamental questions to be addressed in
considering access and entry into the field:
How can researchers succeed in making
contact and securing cooperation from
informants
How can researchers position themselves in
the field so as to secure the necessary time,
space and social relations to be able to carry
out the research
Flick (1998: 57) summarizes Wolff’s (2004) work
in identifying several issues in entering institutions
for the purpose of conducting research:
Research is always an intrusion and intervention
into a social system, and, so, disrupts the
system to be studied, such that the system
reacts, often defensively.
There is a ‘mutual opacity’ between the social
system under study and the research project,