Sampling and Choosing Cases in Qualitative Research: A Realist Approach

By N. Emmel. 2013

730 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b8c34e376ef0fd1ab167850e62e649ca7f90d85a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations (2016, background): “They are not intended to provide detailed guidance on how to conduct a realist evaluation; for this, we would suggest that interested readers access summary articles or publications on methods [1, 19, 20, 22, 23].”
Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori? (2018, background): “a particular theme is considered to be important or relevant may change as data accumulate during a study (Emmel, 2013; Hammersley, 2015; Kerr, Nixon, & Wild, 2010).”
Realist review (2021, methodology): “Drawing on the work of Emmel (2013), Booth et al. (2018, p. 149) outline four important principles in a realist literature search.”
Enhancing the sample diversity of snowball samples: Recommendations from a research project on anti-dam movements in Southeast Asia (2018, neutral): “Similarly, qualitative research textbooks often lack substantive discussion of snowball sampling (e.g., [8, 14–19]).”
Energy poverty and social relations: A capabilities approach (2019, methodology): “In the realist methodological tradition [42,49], we see this as the beginning of a more substantive effort to craft a systemic understanding”
Supporting thinking on sample sizes for thematic analyses: a quantitative tool (2015, background): “Quantitative and qualitative researchers have warned how reviewers and readers can be dazzled by ‘the allure of the number n’ (Emmel, 2013, p. 146) and an apparently precise power calculation (Bacchetti, 2002).”