Judgmental and Snowball Sampling

There is no single list that contains the demographic information required on all enterprises that operate within the tourism system. Sector-specific commercial directories (e.g., Dawson’s Hotel Guide, RACV Attractions Guide) did not contain information on the revenue and number of personnel of the organisations listed. The few industry specific mailing lists available were those of trade magazine subscription lists, which were not suitable to the purposes of this study. Apart from their limitations that were highlighted during the exploratory study (see earlier notes), they were only available for mail surveys, as the lists were only useable through a mailing house. However, in the proposed study, the length of the instrument, commercial sensitivity of some of the information sought, and perception-based nature of some of the questions led to a preference for a personal interview technique. Because of the small sample size consisting select organisations, it was crucial to create a rapport with the respondent and to obtain as high a response rate as possible to protect the integrity of the study. Another objective was to avoid multiple respondents from the same organisation by ensuring that all respondents were personally identified before they participated in the survey. As a result, it was decided to adopt a combination of judgmental and snowball sampling techniques.

There is some disagreement among the marketing research texts as to the proper definition of the judgmental sampling technique (also referred to as judgment sampling or purposive sampling). Malhotra (1996, p. 366) defines it as ‘a form of convenience sampling in which the population elements are purposely selected based on the judgment of the researcher’. Kinnear and Taylor (1996, p. 412) propose that judgmental samples are selected ‘on the basis of what some expert thinks those particular units or elements will contribute to answering the particular research

question at hand’. According to Dillon, Madden and Firtle (1993, p. 229), judgmental samples involve ‘selecting certain respondents for participation in the study presumably because they are representative of the population of interest and/or meet the specific needs of the research study’. A snowball design is defined as a form of judgmental sampling that involves either ‘first locating the respondents who have the necessary qualifications to be included in the sample and then using these respondents as informants to identify still others … who belong to the target population’ (Dillon et al. 1993, p. 230), or initially selecting a group of respondents at random and then asking them ‘to identify others who belong to the target population of interest’ (Malhotra 1996, p. 369). Zikmund (1994, p. 370) confirms that in snowball sampling ‘initial respondents are selected by probability methods’, which contradicts the earlier definition of snowball sampling as a form of judgmental sampling, which is clearly a non-probability sampling technique. There is also some evidence that if the population could be classified as rare and certain procedures for listing its members are followed strictly, the snowball sample can be treated as a probability sample (see, for example, Kalton and Anderson 1996; Biernacki and Waldorf 1981; and Rothbart, Fine, and Sudman 1982).

The investigator has formal qualifications in hotel management and worked in the hospitality and tourism industries between 1965 and 1991 in various executive positions, and as a senior consultant. His formal industry accreditations include a Certified Hotel Administrator (CHA) designation from the Educational Institute of the American Hotel and Motel Association, full membership of the Hotel and Catering International Management Association, and Fellowships from the Australian Institute of Hospitality Management and the Catering Institute of Australia. He immigrated to Australia in 1969, which meant the bulk of his experience was gained in this country. In addition, he has lectured in various hospitality and tourism management subjects in tertiary institutions and conducted short courses for industry executives since 1991. It is assumed that he qualifies as an expert in the industry. His personal judgment in the selection of the sample was pivotal, although not the only factor.

Jobson’s Yearbook of Australian Companies 1997-98 and Australia’s Top 500

Companies 1997-98 were consulted to obtain the initial list of tourism enterprises.

were 19 tourism companies in Australia’s Top 500, eight of which were also listed in

Jobson’s. Together, the two publications revealed 41 relevant enterprises. Four

organisations were discarded as they were investment enterprises and were not involved in the operations of their properties. Three others were discarded on the basis that their operations were confined to offshore. The final list yielded 34 enterprises. Use of these two publications as the sole sampling frame in other tourism research that has focused on large tourism enterprises is not new (see, for example, Athiyaman and Robertson 1995). However, although useful as a starting point, the list derived from these two publications is unrepresentative of the tourism system in Australia. Jobson’s includes only the publicly listed companies, which effectively leaves out some of the largest tourism and hospitality organisations. Similarly, the revenue-based listing of the Top 500 does not extend to hospitality and tourism organisations that are large within their sector but not large enough to qualify for inclusion in this publication. In addition, non-profit industry organisations such as the industry support organisations, which play a crucial role in fulfilling the research needs of the industry, attractions (especially those that are nature-based and operated on a non-profit basis), and event management enterprises with considerable revenues and influence which do not qualify because of their structure, were not found in either of the publications but were too important for the purposes of the research to be overlooked.

Therefore, the investigator’s judgment was complemented by that of 10 industry executives who are close personal contacts of the investigator, to compile a list of a further 70 organisations to add to the initial list of 34 enterprises. The resulting database consisted of an initial judgmental sample of 104 organisations representing, as closely as possible, the leading entities in 11 sectors of tourism (the sector classification of the initial sample is detailed in the Appendix).

After compiling the initial sample, the investigator personally contacted each organisation by telephone and obtained the name and the title of the person in charge of marketing research or, in the absence of such a position, the name and the title of the person in charge of marketing operations. A letter was forwarded to the person identified, giving the survey details and giving notification of a request for an appointment for a personal interview. Seventeen organisations responded by telephone or fax to nominate a different person to the one initially identified. The

database was altered accordingly.