Sampling and Recruitment

4.4.1 Sampling

The sampling method I used to select participants for my research was targeted sampling. Targeted sampling is supportive of my research design, which favours the detailed understanding of housing policy, specifically Right of Return in Regent Park in phases 1 and 2. As a result, it made sense to only target those individuals who were involved in or

impacted by the redevelopment process and Right of Return. The specialized focus made it difficult to find participants that were knowledgeable about Right of Return processes and outcomes. As a result, I chose to rely on key informants because the information required for my research was highly specific and in certain parts very technical. Key informants, defined by Marshall as “Key informants, as a result of their personal skills, or position within a society, are able to provide more information and a deeper insight into what is going on around them” (1996, p.92 ). This deeper insight Marshall mentions, came from informants being formally involved in the redevelopment, being informally involved, or living in the community and being active in it during redevelopment. Payne and Payne (2004) believe the key informant method is beneficial because a relatively small number of interviews, like the twelve interviews I have conducted, can yield detail and knowledgeable responses to aid research.

Specialized information and narrow criteria really limited the number of key informants I was able to recruit for my study. Despite this, I was able to speak with twelve participants reflecting a variety of key informants who were either involved in the

redevelopment or were a part of the community. The sampling method I used is also known as the stakeholder sampling method (Palys and Atchison, 2014). Palys (2008) mentions that

Particularly useful in the context of evaluation research and policy analysis, this strategy involves identifying who the major stakeholders are who are involved in designing, giving, receiving, or administering the programme or service being evaluated, and who might otherwise be affected by it. (p.1)

The sample is essentially purposeful and targeted (Palys and Atchison, 2014). The key informants I recruited can be categorized into three different groups. This was intentionally

designed to help give a diversity of insights and expert knowledge. Relying solely on the opinions of one group would privilege their views on redevelopment and Right of Return, thus creating a weakness in my research. It was essential to gain a view that was outside of the political and administrative sides of redevelopment.

The first group of key informants were representative of the institutions involved in the formulation and implementation of the Regent Park Revitalization Plan, hereby known as the Legislator/Administrator group. These key informants embodied the political elements of both development and revitalization. This group also consisted of members from key municipal institutions relating to TCH and the City of Toronto. The two institutions which were heavily involved in revitalization and tenant mobility services (responsible for

relocation and Right of Return) were the City of Toronto, and the PHA TCH. Furthermore, this group was responsible for the formulation and implementation of Right of Return. The second group was composed of three housing experts who were not formally involved with the redevelopment project, hereby known as Housing Researchers. The housing researchers group provided a perspective that is outside of the political and administrative sides of redevelopment. The third group were involved in the private sector such as members who were involved in the community during redevelopment, hereby known as Private Sector group. Last, I was able to speak with a Community Leader who has a very involved and prominent role in the community hereby known as Community Leader.

Table 1: Key Informant Guide

Sample Code Key informant Group American Housing Policy Analyst AHR

Researchers/Advocates Canadian Housing Researcher CHR

Housing Advocate HA

Community Legal Services CLS Private Sector involvement Private Sector Consultant PC1

Executive Assistant to Deputy Mayor McConnell EA

Local Government/PHA Government Worker: Social Housing GWSH

Local Government Planner LGP1 Toronto Community Housing Staff Member TCHA Toronto Community Housing Staff Member TCHJ Toronto Community Housing Staff Member TCHS

Regent Park Community Member CLE1 Community Leader

4.4.2 Recruitment

With the help of my advisor, Dr. Laura Johnson, I was able to set up a meeting with the TCH. This meeting allowed me to make contact with a staff member who was

responsible for relocation, as well as facilitating return for residents. Furthermore, I was able to interview two more members of the TCH by initiating a dialogue via email and face to face meetings. The second portion of my recruitment process required that I find key

informants outside of TCH. This was largely done by preliminary research via the internet. I then proceeded to recruit key informants by cold calling, or sending informational emails with an introduction and outline of my research.

Through this recruitment method I was able to find key actors within the community such as city officials, others who worked in the housing sector, housing policy experts, and academics in the community. In addition, I relied on snowball sampling methods in order to help me gain contact with other key stakeholders involved in the Regent Park Revitalization Plan. This snowball sampling was supplementary to my web research and used towards gaining information in order to recruit others. Palys and Atchison (2014) define snowball

sampling as a purposeful sampling technique which involves recruiting research participants from the social networks of those who have been initially interviewed. At the end of my interviews, I would ask the interview participant if they knew anyone who I might contact for a potential interview. However, snowball sampling is often seen as problematic because it may over represent certain attitudes and beliefs thus hurting the validity of the research. Given the fact that the knowledge and criteria of key informants were so specialized, I felt that tapping into the networks of these key informants allowed access to people I would not otherwise have been able to, and these participants were valuable to my research. Patton (1990) suggests that, “This is an approach for locating information-rich key informants or critical cases” (p. 176). Despite the criticism of snowball recruitment, which states that a reliance on the social networks of key informants replicates and over represents the opinions of likeminded individuals, I made a conscientious effort to find people with varied a roles in the redevelopment process.