SNOWBALL SAMPLING

The term snowball or chain sampling is a technique used for the identification of research subjects “…which involves asking people who have already been interviewed to identify other people they know they fit the selection criteria (Ritchie, Lewis and Ellam, 2003:94).” The research increases the size of the sample through the already identified sample members. Vogt (1999) says in snowball sampling, a sample member gives the researcher the name of another subject and this new subject also identifies yet another subject and as this process continues the sample size will be expanding.

107

Snowball sampling, therefore, relies primarily on the process of referrals (Usadolo, 2010; Hancock, Ockleford and Windridge, 2007; Aldridge and Levine, 2001; O‟Leary, 2005) in which after collecting data from a few identified individuals, the researcher takes advantage of existing relations between these people and other group members from whom more data is collected. If properly conducted, snowball sampling can lead to the identification of a sizeable number of research participants from whom substantial data for a study can be collected.

What is of significance in snowball sampling is to make sure that those research participants who are identified through “network” sampling (Frey et.al., 2000: 133), should as a matter of principle be selected on the basis of having the same experiences or characteristics with the previously identified group. According to Berg (1988), snowball sampling is based on the assumption that a „bond‟ or „link‟ exists between the initial sample and others in the same target population. It is important that the investigator should be able to take advantage of community members‟ contacts in order to create a sample in research. The researcher should under these circumstances be able to explain adequately to the initially sampled individuals the relevant and basic attributes each new member of the sample must possess so that those that have the much needed and relevant data for the study will be included in the sample. On the basis of this data, the inquirer will be able to come up with a data discussion and analysis which leads to valid conclusions.

Aldridge and Levine (2001:80) cited in Usadolo (2010) say the conditions that justify the adoption of snowball sampling in research are as a result of situations where:

 No sampling frame exists;

 Cases are rare and geographically widely distributed;  Cases are likely to know each other;

 Individuals are willing to supply information about each other.

Other researchers (Faugier and Sargeant, 1997; Thompson, 1997; Vogt, 1999; Hancock, Ockleford and Windridge, 2007) are of the view that snowballing or chain sampling is a strategy used in research situations in which the researcher‟s target population is constituted by „hidden‟ or concealed subjects who cannot be identified or located easily. Such subjects include people with those conditions or characteristics which are generally ostracised by society, for instance,

108

criminals, commercial sex workers, drug users and victims of domestic violence. Because people are likely to have contacts with those that they have something in common, researchers would take advantage of the social attributes of already identified sample members in order to be assisted to find members of the same ilk.

The above mentioned conditions which influence the choice of snowballing as a sampling strategy do not apply wholesale in research but the context of study determines the reasons why a researcher adopts the process of referral in order to come up with a sizeable number of subjects from which data can be gathered. In the present study, the researcher‟s use of snowball sampling was not as a result of the existence of any stigma on the part of the research participants but in some cases there was no clear identifiable sampling frame.

Snowball sampling was used in this research in order to select native speakers of Kalanga, Tonga and Shangani who came to attend civil court proceedings either as complainants or accused persons. The initial sample consisted of those accused persons and complainants the researcher observed as they communicated through interpreters in the courts. This original sample would then refer the researcher to the other people they knew have been involved in similar circumstances. In other words, the people identified in the courts as either complainants or accused persons were expected to refer the researcher to other native speakers of the languages in question who have been in a courtroom situation and participated in civil court proceedings in the same capacities. The researcher took advantage of the fact that the bigger part of the research context was constituted by rural settings where people generally live communally and they tend to know each other and are in most cases aware of the goings-on in the lives of their fellow villagers. Under such a situation, building a sample size through referrals became relatively easy. In addition, snowball sampling was used to select research participants from other community members in order to get their views regarding the issue of linguistic rights in courtroom interaction. After identifying a few native speakers of Kalanga, Shangani and Tonga the researcher took advantage of the social links these people had with fellow members of their communities in order to select those people who fitted the same criterion. This was done in line with Aldridge and Levine (2001) who purport that snowball sampling is appropriate in contexts where targeted research subjects are likely to know each other.

109

Furthermore, courtroom interpreters were selected using snowball sampling. The researcher identified those interpreters who were on duty during courtroom sessions and then made them the initial sample members. The inquirer then took advantage of networks between courtroom interpreters as members of the same profession who knew each other as colleagues in order to get access to more interpreters thereby enlarging the sample size. Through referrals, the researcher was even able to get access to other court interpreters who were on leave but stayed within the same locality with their colleagues who were on duty.