This paper focuses on the question of sampling (or selection of cases) in qualitative research. Although the literature includes some very useful discussions of qualitative sampling strategies, the question of sampling often seems to receive less attention in methodological discussion than questions of how data is collected or is analyzed. Decisions about sampling are likely to be important in many qualitative studies (although it may not be an issue in some research). There are varying accounts of the principles applicable to sampling or case selection. Those who espouse ‘theoretical sampling’, based on a ‘grounded theory’ approach, are in some ways opposed to those who promote forms of ‘purposive sampling’ suitable for research informed by an existing body of social theory. Diversity also results from the many different methods for drawing purposive samples which are applicable to qualitative research. We explore the value of a framework suggested by Miles and Huberman [Miles, M., Huberman,, A., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage, London.], to evaluate the sampling strategies employed in three examples of research by the authors. Our examples comprise three studies which respectively involve selection of: ‘healing places’; rural places which incorporated national anti-malarial policies; young male interviewees, identified as either chronically ill or disabled. The examples are used to show how in these three studies the (sometimes conflicting) requirements of the different criteria were resolved, as well as the potential and constraints placed on the research by the selection decisions which were made. We also consider how far the criteria Miles and Huberman suggest seem helpful for planning ‘sample’ selection in qualitative research.

Written by a long-time authority on focus group, presents a brief history of focus group application up to, and including, information on the variety of current uses across many disciplines. Great section on the uses of focus groups in combination with other methods with a full compare/contrast discussion. Finally, goes into the specifics on ‘how to’ plan and conduct effective group data collection. My own preference (Morgan, 1996) is for a more inclusive approach that broadly defines focus groups as a research technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the researcher. In essence, it is the researcher's interest that provides the focus, whereas the data themselves come from the group interaction. One reason for favoring an inclusive approach is that the exclusive approaches do not really exclude very much. Other than focus groups, the primary categories of group interviews in the existing typologies are things that are manifestly different from focus groups. On the one hand, there are nominal groups and Delphi groups (Stewart & Shamdasani, 1990), which do not involve actual group interaction. On the other hand, there is the observation of naturally occurring groups, which typically do not involve the researcher in determining the topic of discussion. Thus, little is gained by excluding these categories of data collection because they already fall outside the broad definition of focus groups offered here. Among the more specific criteria that could be used to distinguish focus groups from other types of group interviews, both Frey and Fontana (1989) and Khan and Manderson (1992) assert that focus groups are more formal. In particular, they argue that focus groups are likely to involve inviting participants to the discussion and they also stress the distinctive role of the moderator. Although there is no doubt that group interviews vary along a continuum from more formally structured interaction to more informal gatherings, I do not believe it is possible to draw a line between formal and informal group interviews in a way that defines some as focus groups and others as something else. Instead, I find it more useful to think that the degree of formal structure in a focus group is a decision that the research makes according to the specific purposes of the research project. In particular, the use of either a more formal or a less formal approach will depend on the researcher's goals, the nature of the research setting, and the likely reaction of the participants to the research topic. Among the other criteria that have been offered as distinguishing features of focus groups are their size and the use of specialized facilities for the interview (McQuarrie, 1996). Again, however, these supposedly exclusive criteria are mostly a matter of degree. Who is to say when a group is too large or too small to be called a focus group or when a setting is too casual to qualify? Rather than generate pointless debates about what is or is not a focus group, I prefer to treat focus groups as a "broad umbrella" or "big tent" that can include many different variations. Of course, this approach requires researchers to make choices about doing focus groups one way rather than another. Fortunately, this need to make explicit decisions about data collection strategies is a familiar concern to social scientists, and it comes under the heading of "research design." As social scientists have gained increasing experience with focus groups, we also have produced insights into the situations in which different research designs are either more or less likely to be effective (e.g., Krueger, 1993; Morgan, 1992.a, 1995).

Knight and Cavusgil’s Journal of International Business Studies Decade Award-winning article offers numerous contributions to international business research. As one example, it advances cross-disciplinary conversation about entrepreneurial internationalization. A critical review of their study reveals, however, that certain findings require reinterpretation. This commentary does so, discussing the resultant implications and the question of when it is (in)appropriate to use the term “born global”. Parts of Knight and Cavusgil are then used as a foundation to identify research questions at the level of the firm. Finally, points from Cavusgil and Knight’s retrospective are used to argue that we need greater understanding of the individual(s) that are central to the firm’s internationalization behavior. Suggestions for research are made by drawing on concepts and theory from the entrepreneurship, innovation and psychology literatures.

Discusses issues, types, and calculations for inter-rater reliability. Seventeen measures of association for observer reliability (interobserver agreement) are reviewed and computational formulas are given in a common notational system. An empirical comparison of 10 of these measures is made over a range of potential reliability check results.

Over the years, various observers of health geography have sought to ‘divide’ the sub-discipline mainly along theoretical lines or to argue for a broadening of its theoretical base. Paralleling the growing theoretical pluralism within health geography has been a growing methodological pluralism. As in other parts of human geography, health geographers have embraced historical research, quantitative and qualitative methods, and computer mapping and geographic information science (GIS). Analyzing recent contributions by health geographers, the question I seek to answer is whether the growing theoretical and methodological pluralism has paradoxically led to increasing divisions in the topics of study based mainly, but not solely, on what methods are employed in the research. While there are topical overlaps (e.g. quantitative and qualitative studies of particular vulnerable groups), it is less obvious as to how research using one methodology is informing research using the other methodology.

"Practical, accessible, careful and interesting, this...revised volume brings the subject up-to-date and explains, in bite sized chunks, the "how's" and "why's" of modern day geographical study...[It] brings together physical and human approaches again in a new synthesis." - Danny Dorling, Professor of Geography, University of Oxford Key Methods in Geography is the perfect introductory companion, providing an overview of qualitative and quantitative methods for human and physical geography.

This volume provides concise and accessible guidance on how to conduct qualitative research in human geography. It gives particular emphasis to examples drawn from social/cultural geography, perhaps the most vibrant area of inquiry in human geography over the past decade

This methods paper contributes to the recent proliferation of methodological innovation aimed at nurturing research encounters and exchanges that facilitate in-depth insights into people's everyday practices and routine place encounters. By drawing on the experiences of an interpretive study seeking to situate people's green space wellbeing practices within their daily lives, we suggest value in using personalised maps – produced using participant accelerometer (physical activity) and Global Positioning System (GPS) data – alongside in-depth and mobile ‘go-along’ qualitative interview approaches. After introducing the study and the methods adopted, the paper discusses three opportunities offered by this mixed method approach to contribute a more nuanced, contextualised understanding of participants' green space experiences. These include: (a) the benefits of engaging participants in the interpretation of their own practices; (b) the value of using maps to provide a visual aid to discussion about the importance of participants' routine, often pre-reflective practices; and (c) the production of a layered appreciation of participants' local green and blue space wellbeing experiences. Used in combination, such methods have the potential to provide a more comprehensive picture of how current green space experiences, be they infrequent and meaningful, or more routine and habitual, are shaped by everyday individual agency, life circumstances and past place experiences.

Introduces a framework for developing sampling designs in mixed methods research. Discusses sample frames, recommended sample sizes, a typology for classification of strategies, guidance for sampling decisions, and issues related to how sampling decisions impact generalization.

Practical guide to study design with good attention to taxonomy of research approaches by purpose and sampling issues.