CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 46
3.4. Study Population and Sampling Strategy 47
The study population for this study is persons aged 15-24 who are not in employment, education, or training (NEET) and are enrolled in one or more programmes offered by a youth development organisation. Catalyst is a pilot programme run by a non-profit youth development programme located in Braamfontein, Johannesburg. It is a six-month programme that targets youth aged 18-35, and provides training in enterprise development and personal development to promote youth who are entering employment, training, or education, or establishing enterprises. The programme is structured as a one- week block camp at the beginning, followed by monthly workshop days over the remaining five months of the programme. In the South African context, the highest rates of unemployment in the youth category
are found in the 15-24 year-old cohort (Statistics South Africa, 2015) – hence the use of participants in that age group. Gauteng Province has the highest number of NEET individuals across age groups, including about 660 000 individuals aged 15-24 in 2016 (DHET, 2017). In addition, the rate of NEET youth in the 15-24 age cohort for 2016 reflects more females than males, at 40.4% percent for males with matric and 44.1% for females with matric (DHET, 2017). Thus, it was anticipated that the majority of the recruited participants would be female. Furthermore, the literature indicates that the NEET rate increases for persons whose education level is below matric (Statistics South Africa, 2016). However, the participants were recruited from a programme that only permits the enrolment of persons who have a matric certificate.
3.4.2.
Sampling method and sample
Of these youth, a sample of twelve participants were selected using non-probability purposive sampling. ‘Sampling’ refers to the process of selecting research respondents or other data sources that will be involved in the research (Whittaker, 2009). ‘Non-probability sampling’ refers to a sampling method in which the population size is unknown, and so the odds of selecting a particular individual or element of the population are unknown and unequal (Strydom & Delport, 2013). Non-probability sampling is considered less structured, and relies on the discretion of the researcher in relation to the field of study (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). Non-probability sampling is relevant and useful to qualitative research, in that it allows for the deliberate selection of a sample in which the specific process being explored is most likely to be found; probability sampling does not facilitate this. Nevertheless, while non-probability sampling is not concerned with representativeness, Denzin and Lincoln (2000, p.370) argue that “to study the particular is to study the universal”. This suggests that, to some extent, the intentional selection of a sample allows for the reader to generalise subjectively. Non-probability sampling was useful in this study because the study population, as described by Strydom and Delport (2013), has distinctive characteristics that are unique to the research question and that are unevenly distributed across the general population. For example: age, employment status, and enrolment in a youth development programme are unique to a specific sub-group in the NEET population, thus requiring the use of non- probability sampling.
Similarly, purposive sampling was used, which also drew on the criteria developed in order to select the participants. Purposive sampling is defined as a method that selects participants according to criteria developed by the researcher with reference to characteristics that serve the purpose of the study best (Strydom & Delport, 2013). Purposive sampling is useful in qualitative research, in that the sites of inquiry and the sample can purposefully facilitate understanding of the research problem. The criteria used in this study were that participants were:
Aged 18-25
Enrolled in the Catalyst programme within the previous six months
Not enrolled in training or education (defined as a public or private university or college) Unemployed
Willing to participate
The employment criterion ruled out the majority of the recruited participants, as they were all engaged in some form of income-generating activity, either in formal or informal jobs or in entrepreneurial activities. Moreover, the programme from which the youth were recruited was a pilot study, which limited the study population further. Thus, this criterion was removed. With regard to the ‘enrolment in training and education’ criterion, some of the participants were enrolled in TVET programmes at the time of the interview, but were not in education at the time they were engaged in the Catalyst programme. Given the limited number of participants available, the student opted to include these participants. The use of purposive sampling was thought to be relevant to and appropriate for this research study, as the research focused on the experiences of a very specific sub-group in the NEET population, allowing this sub-group to be purposefully selected.
As highlighted above with regard to the non-probability sample, a key strength of purposive sampling is that it tends to be representative of the larger population (Babbie & Mouton, 2010) – in this case, 15-24- year-old NEET youth in Gauteng. On the other hand, a criticism of purposive sampling is that a slight variation in a population may cause a deviation in the research results (Babbie & Mouton, 2010). For instance, if a sample of unemployed youth who have not participated in a youth development programme were to be used, the results might differ. Nevertheless, given the nature of qualitative research and its emphasis on the subjective perspective, there is a concern about ensuring the generalisability of the findings.
As alluded to above, the total population of 12 youth who were not employed, in education, or in training and were enrolled in the Catalyst programme were selected for this study. The selection of twelve participants was to allow for diversity and richness in the data. The literature highlights that, in qualitative research, the sample size is determined by the nature and purpose of the inquiry, the credibility of the site and the sample, and the resources and time available (Patton, 2002). Moreover, Sarantakos (as cited in De Vos et al., 2011) argues that qualitative research centres on collecting saturated and rich data in a resource-efficient manner. In order to gain access to the participants, the student approached the director of the youth development programme to select 12 unemployed youth, based on criteria such as their willingness to participate, self-reported evidence of job-seeking activities (e.g., internet/media searches and details of handing in curriculum vitae (CVs) at prospective places of
employment), and confirmed participation in the programme. Criteria such as evidence of job-seeking are inherent bi-products of the programme, which seeks to equip youth with job-seeking skills and tools, thus adding legitimacy to the participants’ claims about their experience in seeking employment. The six-month enrolment criterion was included, based on the assumption that the participant would have had sufficient time to learn about and engage in some form of structured job-seeking activity; and the Catalyst programme is six months long. The twelve participants were divided into two groups and allocated to participate in either a focus group or a face-to-face interview. The allocation into these two groups was random. The student arranged the participants’ names in alphabetical order, and selected the first six participants for interviews and the remaining six for the focus group.