3.5 Population, Sampling and Sampling Size
3.5.1 Definition of the Study Population and Basis of Selection
The population, being “the group of interest to the researcher, the group to whom the researcher would like to generalize the results of a study” (Fraenkel & Wallen 2015, pp. xxvii & 105), was further defined by the researcher through different levels, moving from the general to the specific. In their analysis of the specification of the study population to which the inquiry is addressed, Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2018) assured that the researcher must make the right decisions, which will affect both the sampling and resources’ selection. In the case of this study, the researcher did not have a lot of options for sampling selection given the fact that the population was already identified by the researcher to acquire certain parameters and characteristics, as will be explained in detail in later sections. Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2018, p. 336) asserted that when “the population is readily identifiable… sampling decisions
do not arise”. The authors argued that researchers in this case must follow criteria by which populations are specified. In this sense, the researcher followed certain criteria to define the population and later the specific sampling of the study.
In other words, based on the study setting and context of UAE higher education defined in previous sections, and based on convenience and suitability, the population of this study is taken into consideration and defined by the researcher based on three different selection criteria.
The first selection criterion suggests the general population of interest to the researcher under this study to be all the CAA-accredited UAE HEIs in major UAE emirates (Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Ajman, Sharjah, Fujairah and Ras Al Khaimah), acquiring or exhibiting some proven type of QA, risk management or ERM implementation and integration in their academic processes. As shown in Table 3.2, the researcher relied on certain parameters for the selected HEIs based on several factors, as listed and discussed in section 3.4 above. The second selection criterion suggests the actual population in those selected universities to be conveniently targeted by the researcher for the study purpose. Based on this criterion, the general population was narrowed down to be all academic administrators and faculty members of the selected HEIs. However, moving towards the third selection criterion, the researcher narrowed his selection based on what knowledge and professional experience the participants could afford to yield data useful to the research questions. This is typical of the specific population of the study, where the general population was further narrowed down and defined by the researcher to be all the faculty members and senior academic administrators in those major selected academic institutions in the different emirates who exhibit some knowledge of or whose works and professions fall under academic effectiveness, QA and/or risk management categories. In this regard, students (both current and graduate), supporting staff, administrators and faculty members whose positions do not entail any of the major concepts of the study mentioned above were all eliminated from being part of the population of the study. This is referred to by the researcher as “the focused population” (Creswell 2014; Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018). Adèr, Mellenbergh and Hand (2008) posited that the focused population should be capable of dispensing of information that helps the researcher meet the purpose of the research and provide answers to its questions. For that reason, this focused population of faculty members and academic administrators was targeted by the researcher for the practical reason that they could provide him with the information and data required to answer the three research questions on the effectiveness of ERM implementation in their respective HEIs.
The UAE CAA reported that “[a]s of November 2020, based on the data provided by CHEDS [Center for Higher Education Data and Statistics], there are 18545 faculty members of various disciplines across HEIs in the UAE” (CAA 2020, p. 23). The reasons for the researcher’s selection of this focused and narrowed population include the following. First, according to the UAE CAA, the specific population’s respective HEIs are known for their accredited programmes in both undergraduate and post-graduate studies, and therefore represent the UAE higher education in a reasonable way since they are ranked as top institutions in each of their respective emirates in the UAE. Secondly, also as per the UAE CAA, the selected population’s institutions sustain a good reputation in the research field and accordingly some of their academics have shown interest in the topic of this study, and a willingness to elaborate on it. Third, since the major question of the study is centred around the perceptions of academic administrators and faculty members in the UAE HEI context, the main population of the study was approached as academic individuals who have the expertise as well as the authority position in at least one of the areas of risk management, QA, corporate governance, performance and academic effectiveness. Furthermore, moving to the third criterion, the participants of the study were selected by the researcher to be in two major groups based on their field of knowledge, as well as the daily tasks they are in charge of at their institution.
The first was mainly senior academic administrators in charge of the academic effectiveness and related department(s) and accreditation processes, as well as risk management and the QA system of the institution, thus representing those whose professional expertise and knowledge would play a major role in determining the findings in relation to the major constructs of the study. Ten (n= 10) administrators were sought by the researcher from each institution to seek their willingness to participate in the study.
The second type of main respondents in this study was resorted to as supportive informants, being the faculty members or instructors in the selected institutions. Likewise, ten (n= 10) faculty members were also sought by the researcher from each institution to seek their willingness to participate in the study.
The researcher first contacted the administrators and faculty members from each of the selected HEIs, whose academic profiles show that their academic knowledge and professional designations entail or touch upon academic QA, risk management and effectiveness, bearing in mind their oversight of the identified ERM or risk management programme (with whom the researcher had spoken to previously) in order to seek their consent for participation in the study. After reaching out to a variety of institutions, through phone calls or emails obtained from their websites, certain participants from the institutions (as identified in Table 3.2) responded positively and showed interest in the study, and therefore were selected for inclusion in the quantitative survey study sample, and later to provide material for the document analysis and participants in the qualitative interviews. These participants were selected based on their academic profile available online or provided by reference made by their colleagues, through phone calls
and email exchanges using numbers and emails available on the universities’ websites. In this sense, the population of this study of ERM and how it is perceived and implemented in the higher education context were both the academic administrators and faculty instructors in major selected representative UAE HEIs. A larger population of academics, both administrators and faculty members, in other targeted UAE HEIs were also considered for better generalisability of the results and for conducting comparisons of the findings.