Sampling

According to Patton (2002) purposeful sampling is an appropriate qualitative research strategy from which a great deal can be discovered. However, different purposive sampling strategies were utilized to select participants “by virtue of characteristics thought by the researcher to be likely to have some bearing on their perceptions and experiences” (Barbour, 2008 p.52). An overview of the sampling strategies is presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3 Purposeful sampling strategy used in the study

Purposeful Sampling Strategy

Documents Criterion sampling

Organizational-level key informants Stakeholder sampling Snowball

Community-level key informants Criterion sampling Adolescent focus groups Maximum variation

Snowball Adolescent semi-structured

interviews

Maximum variation Theoretical sampling

3.4.2.1 Sampling Documentary Sources

Textual documents were used in this research and include legislative, policy, organization and donor reports, and research reports pertaining to the legal and policy context and the programmatic context in Grenada. Documents were obtained directly from a wide range of stakeholders related to ASRH contacted during fieldwork and from Internet searches using the keyword Grenada and specific SRH issues or conventions (e.g. Grenada and abortion, Grenada and Convention on the Rights of the Child). A total of 24 documents were gathered for review. However, a cursory reading of available documents and verbal summary provided by stakeholders of other documents indicated that 21 documentary sources were relevant to the study based on criterion sampling (Patton, 2002) which was set out prior to data gathering (Table 3-2). However, only 19 documentary sources were available for full review. See Appendix B for a list of the documentary sources. Some documents were excluded from

review because copies were unavailable, while others were literature review articles on ASRH in general.

3.4.2.2 Sampling Key Informants

Table 3-3 shows that stakeholder sampling was used among organizational-level key informants and criterion sampling was used among community-level key informants to primarily address research questions 1a and 1b (Table 3-1).

Organizational-Level Key Informants

Six organizational-level key informants were identified using stakeholder sampling.

According to Given (2008 p.697), stakeholder sampling involves “identifying the major stakeholders who are involved in designing, giving, receiving, or administering the program or service being evaluated, and who might otherwise be affected by it.” A list of the major stakeholders was created based on my knowledge of the Grenada health system (section 3.6.5). Other stakeholders were identified by attending workshops and fora related to the research topic, introductory meetings with stakeholders and during interviews with other key informants (i.e. snowball sampling). However, two of the originally identified programs related to HIV/AIDS were no longer in existence during the fieldwork, as were some identified by key informants; this, I attributed to the fluid nature of programs in Grenada. Nonetheless, the flexible nature of qualitative research made it possible to adjust the sample based on the realities of the field to best answer the research questions.

Community-Level key Informants

In the rural and urban communities a total of 13 community-level key informants represented diverse occupational backgrounds participated in two mixed-sex focus groups.

Participants were identified using criterion sampling, which Patton (2002) describes as selecting cases that meet some predetermined criterion of importance (Table 3-2). It is noteworthy that initially, interviews were planned with two community-key informants in each of the participating communities. Instead, focus groups were utilized after obtaining ethical clearance for the change from interviews to focus groups. This was a better method to obtain a range of perspectives in a short amount of time (Hennink, 2007), because of the inclusion of a larger number of community participants.

In Table 3-2 above, although the inclusion criteria refer to the most knowledgeable person, in only one organization was there more than one person who dealt with ASRH. In this case, the person-in-charge made the decision as to who was interviewed.

3.4.2.3 Samplings Adolescents

Although researchers have conducted focus groups with children and adolescents (Heary and Hennessy, 2002; Charlesworth and Rodwell, 1997; Darbyshire et al., 2005) it can be argued that older adolescents have a better sense of self and are more capable of understanding and articulating their current and past experiences compared to younger adolescents. Therefore, the purposive sampling strategies described below were used to target vulnerable subgroups of older adolescents representing rural and urban communities in Grenada. There was scope for older adolescents to reflect on their experiences and views of early adolescence. However, it is possible that information was lost due to memory recall and limited interaction with younger adolescents.

Adolescent Focus Group Participants

Thirty-three adolescents participated in 11 single-sexed and geographically-bounded focus groups to include: rural/urban male, rural/urban female, out-of-school boys, and pregnant or adolescent mothers. With the exception of female adolescents in the urban community where one focus group was conducted, two focus groups were conducted with each subgroup of adolescents. To recruit information-rich cases of adolescents, maximum variation and snowball sampling were used. Maximum variation allowed for the identification and inclusion of adolescents who have different experiences or perspectives in relation to the topic (Patton, 2002; Given, 2008). According to Patton, the patterns that emerge due to the differences in individual cases as a result of maximum variation highlight “the core experiences and central, shared dimensions of a setting or phenomenon” (Patton, 2002 p.235). Maximum variation was therefore utilized as a means of thoroughly describing and understanding the variations of experiences and perspectives in the group, while examining common themes (Patton, 2002).

Additionally, snowball sampling (Patton, 2002) was used to identify adolescents who were friends of participants. This method was particularly useful during the recruitment of males in the rural community, a group that were difficult to recruit using maximum variation. Hennink (2007) posits that for conducting focus groups on sensitive topics in international settings, it is

practical to recruit at least two persons per group who are acquaintances or members of existing networks. Therefore, considering the research topic and that in communities the majority of residents are at least acquainted, snowball sampling helped to ensure that at least two people in the community focus groups were friends. The purposeful sampling strategies utilized helped to obtain some balance of homogeneity and heterogeneity (Patton, 2002;

Kitzinger, 1994) in the study.

Adolescent Interview Participants

Semi-structured interviews with adolescents addressed research questions 2a, 2b and 3a (Table 3-1). Adolescent interview participants consisted of: (1) adolescents who did not participate in focus groups identified using maximum variation sampling; and (2) adolescents who had participated in focus groups identified using a form of theoretical sampling. A total of 15 semi-structured interviews were conducted among adolescents.

Maximum variation was used to ensure that interviews were conducted with adolescents who had a range of experiences (Patton, 2002). Using the demographic information collected in the recruitment checklist, for example, some participants were selected who reported being sexually active and not seeking help, or reported not being sexually active and seeking help. In contrast, theoretical sampling was used to identify participants who represented particular incidents highlighting concepts in the conceptual framework or new concepts. For example, seeking instrumental or informational support, or seeking help from a counsellor. Barbour (2008) argues that she does not find differentiating between purposive and theoretical sampling particularly useful. However, differentiating between the terms in this research was useful because theoretical sampling referred to sampling that occurred after the research was underway. Nonetheless, theoretical sampling used in this study is not as rigorous as that used in grounded theory to encourage saturation (Glaser and Strauss, 1967). To identify focus group participants to potentially participate in the semi-structured interviews, preliminary analysis of emergent and important themes were identified by listening to the focus group audio-recordings, reviewing focus group notes and debriefing meetings with co-moderators.

Figure 3-2 Breakdown of Sampling