When it comes to sampling in mixed-methods studies, there are different elements needing to be considered before deciding on the strategy. Teddlie and Tashakkori (2009) argue that the following concerns need to be addressed when making this decision:
1) Derive logically the research questions or hypotheses being investigated/tested
2) Be faithful to the assumptions on which the sampling strategies are based 3) Generate qualitative and quantitative data in order to answer the research
questions
4) Enable clear inference to be drawn from both the numerical and qualitative data
5) Abide by ethical principles 6) Be practicable and efficient
7) Enable generalizability of the results
8) Be reported in a level of detail that will enable other researchers to understand it and perhaps use it in the future
54 In this research, I have chosen to use theoretical sampling, which Glaser and Strauss (1967) define as:
the process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges. This process of data collection is controlled by the emerging theory, whether substantive or formal. The initial decisions for
theoretical collection of data are based only on a general sociological perspective and on a general subject or problem area…The initial decisions are not based on a preconceived theoretical framework. (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 45)
To use this sampling technique, the researcher needs to answer two questions: 1) which groups are selected, and 2) how and why they are selected (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). As briefly mentioned in the research design, the PGT students who were enrolled on a one-year master’s course at the University of Warwick in the UK in the academic year 2014-2015 were selected to be the target sample.
Firstly, as an international student who studied on a one-year master’s course in the UK and had the experience of working in multicultural groups, I myself as the researcher had a personal insight on how students generally navigate through this one-year course. Also, this group of students were the only group whose entire progress I would be able to monitor and observe within the scope and timeline of my doctoral study. Secondly, based on the previous Warwick Academic Statistics Yearbooks (2010-2014), this group of students are the most diverse cohort on campus. This source is an official document published online, available to all employees of the university. In addition, group work is frequently used in teaching, so multicultural group work played a significant role in the academic life of this group of students.
Table 3-03 presents the student numbers for the year previous to data collection as included in Warwick Academic Statistics Yearbook (2014-2015).
Table 3-03: Ratio of overseas master’s students in three faculties
All Master’s
degree students
Overseas
(Non-EU) students Ratio
Faculty of Arts 206 66 3.12:1
Faculty of Science and Medicine 2274 1199 1.89:1
Faculty of Social Science 4530 2249 2.01:1
55 The three faculties presented in the table were how the data was originally organised in the statistics yearbook. This categorisation continues to be used in this research in order to keep the statistics reported in the present study as close to the original data as possible. These are not selected according to the three faculties, but all three faculties include the entire population of masters students.
The category of overseas students in the Warwick Statistics Yearbook 2014-2015
refers to non-EU international students (students that come from outside the European Union). EU students are currently categorised as home students along with UK students, as their tuition fees are the same.
However, in my research, I treat non-UK students from the EU as international students along with students from outside the EU. I use “international students” to refer to all non-UK students, and “home students” to refer only to UK nationals. So the number of international students in the PGT population is actually larger than the number of “overseas” students shown in Table 3.03 and thus the ratio of international students to all master’s students is higher than the numbers indicated in the table above for overseas students.
In order to provide more precise information about the student population at this university, I contacted the Strategic Planning & Analytics Office at the University of Warwick for further information about the statistics. However, the office uses different criteria for categorising students, and the numbers of students in one specific academic year are represented slightly differently in other sources. Table 4 is generated from another record, Academic Statistics Online, 2014 edition. The total number of PGT students was recorded as 7229, of which 3228 were home students and 4001 were international students. The largest international student cohorts of PGT students are from China (1153), EU & Switzerland & Norway (836), India (258) and Nigeria (220).
56 Table 3-04: PGT student numbers by world region (Academic Statistics Online, 2014)
Region PGT student numbers
Africa 334
Associated States of Russia 99
Caribbean 16
East Asia 1469
EU & Switzerland & Norway 836
Europe - UK 3228
Latin America 93
Mid East / North Africa 196
North America 181
ROW Australia and New Zealand 20
Russia 81
South Asia 368
South East Asia 232
Turkey 52
Others 22
Based on the student population information, Questionnaire Term 1 was distributed to all PGT students of academic year 2014-2015. Subsequently, 286 valid responses were received. As explained in the last section, Interviews I with students were aiming at further exploring students’ first experience of group work at this HEI, and the protocol for interviews was developed from the answers to the constructs in Questionnaire Term 1. The participants in this questionnaire were therefore natural to be chosen as the target group for interviewing, and 35 students were interviewed for this step.
The purpose of running Questionnaire Term 3 was to establish a comparison with the answer from the first questionnaire in regards to possible changes in attitudes students might have had during the course of their study. Therefore, it only made sense to continuing surveying the participants who already took part in the first questionnaire. In all, 116 valid answers were collected from this questionnaire.
57 Interviews II with students would serve a major role in this project, as the students would be re-introduced to their own answers to the questionnaires and be invited to comment on their answers. Only students who took part in the previous three steps would be most appropriate to be interviewed. Also, only students who had more multicultural group work after the first interviews were invited for further interviews to discuss their continuing experience. Table 3-05 is a summary of all the participants in the entire data collection. The table shows there were significantly more female participants than male participants in this study. However, it is not clear whether this gender imbalance was inadvertently caused in the data collection process or it is actually reflecting the student population, as there was no statistical data on gender from any valid source for this cohort of students.
Table 3-05: Participant demographics by data collection method
Method Number of
Participants
Number of Nationality
Gender
Questionnaire Term 1 286 66 114 Male; 170 Female; 2 Unknown
Interviews I with students 35 14 4 Male; 31 Female
Questionnaire Term 3 126 43 43 Male; 71 Female; 2 Unknown
Interviews II with students 22 9 2 Male; 20 Female