Sampling

Maxwell (2012: 87) and Thompson (2012: 1-4) argue that deciding the elements of a sample, such as where will the research be conducted, who will the researcher include and what are the criteria that determine the targeted population, is crucial in the creation of a study. In most cases, the sample size chosen is subject to considerations of the researcher, and is usually related to the purpose of the study (Sekaran and Bougie, 2011:

122

265). Sayre (2001) corroborates that besides the purpose of the study, the practicality and the reliability of the chosen case, as well as the available time and resources are some of the main considerations for sampling.

Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2007) indicate that qualitative studies, which have been found to largely permit the inquiry of simply a few selected cases or even just one case, may be limited in terms of breadth, but have unrestrained depth, attention to context and more detail, hence improving the depth of the study. With this in mind, qualitative research designs usually adopt purposeful sampling to limit the “trade-off between breadth and depth” (Patton, 2002: 227), and employ this tactic as a “strategic and purposeful selection of information-rich cases” (Patton, 2002: 231). Therefore, the choice of a single selected context, as in the present study, was admissible considering that the researcher endeavoured to give more attention to detail and context in the process of inquiry and to provide a depth which would not be achievable through quantitative research (Patton, 2002). As such, purposive sampling was chosen for this research in favour of probability sampling, as the former can encompass relevant and extensive inclusion and exclusion criteria with the aim of capturing the most meaningful information (Daniel, 2012: 87-88; Patton, 2002).

Purposive sampling, or purposeful sampling, was an integral component of the study’s design, as it is typical of qualitative research, depending as it does on “informational, not statistical, considerations (...); its purpose is to maximise information, not facilitate generalisation” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985: 202). Lincoln and Guba (1985) further explain that generalisations can be achieved by maximising information collection, since purposeful sampling can allow for variance in the selection of the sample. Furthermore, “information–rich sources for in–depth data collection” can be identified with purposeful sampling (Patton, 1990:231). For the present study, the researcher’s intention was to maximise the breadth of viewpoints and focus on specific topics, as the researcher aimed to obtain descriptions, categorisation, and refinement of the issues regarding the SE process and QA procedures existent within the university. Therefore, purposive sampling seemed appropriate, as the ultimate sample was chosen based on the considerations of the researcher. Specifically, the purposive sampling procedure adopted for this study considered the following: limited number of interviewers, as the researcher solely conducted the interviews; financial restrictions; geographic restrictions as the study was

123

to be done outside the UK, that is, in the KSA; and some degree of limited access to the respondents.

In addition, the researcher further identified inclusion and exclusion criteria based on the purpose of the research (Daniel 2012: 88). Denscombe (2005: 15) states that purposive sampling is applied to situations in which the researcher is familiar to the possible participants, events and locations, and thus deliberately makes the sampling choices based on the relevant criteria and on who could provide valuable data. Thus, the inclusion criteria were based on the candidate’s role and involvement in QA, SE and accreditation. Only women were considered for the final thesis, as the research focused on the women’s section of the university, thus the women that could participate in the study had to be employed in the women’s section of KAU, and had to have experience with QA and SE procedures within the KAU. In addition, the researcher endeavoured to establish the knowledge, authority, and experience of the candidate on topical issues regarding self- evaluation process and quality assurance. Also very important was that the researcher assessed the willingness of the candidate to commit to debriefing interviews in the long term as the interviews were conducted over several meetings. The researcher conveniently chose to include Senior Leaders besides the Academic Staff and Support staff in the sample, having satisfactorily met aforesaid criteria and that they are the first line for applying policies, plans, or projects, and the introduction of QA in the context of Saudi Higher Education.

The researcher started by developing a list of individuals who could be categorised as possible interview candidates, considering the structure of the university and documentary evidence, which proved efficient in providing vital leads to particular interview candidates. The researcher then used the identified interviewees to suggest other possible candidates; specifically, the researcher identified the Senior Leader (SL), Dean of the Faculty, Heads of Academic Departments, Registrar, Administrative and Managerial workers related to QA, SE and accreditation, Academic Staff Members (ASM), Support Staff (SS) Librarians, and Technicians. The researcher also relied on the recommendations from the Dean of the Faculty, Heads of Academic Departments, Registrar, Administrative and Managerial workers related to AQA on the suggestions for other possible candidates. Table 6, below, shows the statistics and distribution of interviewees.

124

Table 6: Interview Statistics

Staff Category No. of interviewees in Case Study

Senior Leaders 11

Academic Staff 21

Support staff 10

Total 42

A total of forty-two interviews were conducted with female participants, based on the research conducted and not indicative of any statistical elements. Initially, the researcher decided on twenty-one interviews, yet decided to double the amount after the coding process was initiated and several issues seemed to be insufficiently discussed.

3.4.1. Access to the Women’s Section

First of all, in order to have access to the schools that make up the faculties, the researcher needed to apply to KAU for research permission. Having obtained official permission, the researcher considered that it would be easy to negotiate access to the sections with the principals, as contact with various people from the field-site had already been established. This network allowed the researcher to reach potential research participants. With this in mind, Silverman (2000) argues that access may benefit the researcher in providing appropriate and relevant data. The researcher considered especially valuable the contact made with one member who was the head of the Centre for Teaching & Learning Development (CTLD) in the women’s section of KAU, although the researcher made important contacts with other faculty members to help obtain access to the section. However, the researcher was cautious about networking as, even though she is employed at KAU and the research is funded by KAU, the researcher does not have an administrative role in the university.

Furthermore, Smith (2004) emphasises that the development of trust with interviewees is an important and difficult issue, especially where the persons concerned have not met before, as the failure to develop confidence may lead interviewees to resort to saying

125

what they think the researcher wants to know. Therefore, access is the main criterion to determine the study’s organisation, and it was of utmost importance for the researcher to gain the trust of the research participants. To achieve this, the researcher was open about the details and purpose of the research, and attempted to remain neutral at all times. This approach aided the researcher in building relationships of trust with the participants and also created grounds for reciprocity, as the majority of participants felt comfortable enough to answer sensitive questions.