3.5 Population, Sampling and Sampling Size
3.5.2 Sampling Selection Technique
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.
was rather made conveniently based on their availability and rate of responsiveness, as well as due to the qualities that their groups possess. Therefore, since only certain respondents out of the targeted group of participants completed the survey questionnaires, this resulted in a sampling technique that is often described in research as being “purposive”.
Convenience sampling is defined as a non-probability type of sampling technique applicable for both qualitative and quantitative studies that require or include descriptive statistical analysis, as is the case with this study. More specifically, convenience sampling is a sampling approach used in research when it is “difficult (sometimes even impossible) to select either random or a systematic non-random sample” (Fraenkel &
Wallen 2015, p. 98). Moreover, convenience sampling:
or, as it is sometimes called, accidental or opportunity sampling, involves choosing the nearest individuals to serve as respondents and continuing that process until the required sample size has been obtained of those who happen to be available and accessible at the time (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018, p. 218).
Figure 3.5 – Convenience Sampling Method – Adopted from Fraenkel and Wallen (2015, p. 100)
In fact, from the early stages of the study, the researcher concluded that random sampling was the best choice for his sampling selection based on the nature of the questions and objectives set in the Introduction chapter. However, there are multiple reasons that contributed to the researcher’s choice of selecting the convenience and purposive sampling techniques. In addition to the aforementioned definition of convenience sampling, which in itself provides some rationale for the researcher’s choice, he opted for this kind of sampling to benefit from the ease of availability of respondents as a determining factor of the researcher’s choice, where individual respondents’ participation was obtained based on their convenience and availability (Creswell 2014). Realistically speaking, given the special nature of the study topic, setting and context, the researcher found it impossible to reach out to an ideally representative sampling from all purposively selected groups of participants at the selected UAE HEIs. As stated earlier, representativeness in this study does not come in numbers but rather based on the criteria of selection.
The choice of the participants for sampling was not done randomly, but rather purposively and conveniently of the respondents who have the knowledge and who were ready and willing to answer the questionnaires and interview questions.
With the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was indeed impossible to reach out physically to any major academic institution for participation approval. All communication and requests were made by the researcher through online and electronic means, and in some cases, approvals for the survey or interviews took almost a year. Therefore, the researcher’s adoption of the convenience sampling method was driven by the fact that it was the only possible sampling technique since the researcher intended to use “naturally formed groups” from similar or identical other groups applicable to the general population (Creswell 2014, p. 168). Here is an explanation of what this means to this study. As introduced in the previous section, the researcher based his selection of one hundred and forty (n= 140) participants for this study from the general and focused population, to be naturally identified on the basis of their relevant job responsibilities, classification, knowledge of ERM and risk management, and other related area of expertise. In other words, ten (n= 10) administrators and likewise ten (n= 10) faculty members were approached by the researcher from each institution to seek their willingness to participate in the study.
Both groups were drawn from selected public (or federal) and private universities in the UAE. In this sense, “since populations also vary considerably in their accessibility… researchers usually draw a sample from the population to be studied; rarely do they attempt to contact every member” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018, p. 336). In general, and based on the literature, as well as the pilot study and introductory informal interviews conducted by the researcher, all universities in the UAE share similar or even identical populations of diverse and multinational academic faculty members; the differences are mostly in the numbers. They also share relatively similar ERM and risk management programmes applied in their corporate governance system. In summary, the researcher opted for convenience sampling in this study because it caters for the selection of participants based on their availability, knowledge of the research topic, ease of access, suitability for the study research questions, and/or their willingness to participate in the study (Johnson & Christensen 2014).
However, the sample for the qualitative interviews was clearly purposive, another non-probability sampling technique, which was adopted by the researcher to help obtain data from the major respondents.
Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2018, p. 219) defined purposive sampling as the non-probability sampling technique mostly used in qualitative research, whereby “in many cases purposive sampling is used in order to access ‘knowledgeable people’, i.e., those who have in-depth knowledge about particular issues, maybe by virtue of their professional role, power, access to networks, expertise or experience”. The researcher averted convenience sampling in this phase of the study in order to make the “best judgement”
by selecting those interviewees who would provide sufficient and useful information on the sub-research
questions (RQ2 and RQ3). Fraenkel and Wallen (2015, p. 99) emphasised the fact that “Purposive sampling is different from convenience sampling in that researchers do not simply study whoever is available but rather use their judgment to select a sample that they believe, based on prior information, will provide the data they need”. Additionally, part of the justification of the use of this sampling technique for the interviews is that a very specific group of respondents had to be “chosen to be able to help the explanation and elaboration of the quantitative data” (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018, p. 45).
In the case of this research, the researcher purposively approached five interviewees from the selected universities based on their professional experience and knowledge about the subject of ERM. The researcher chose the interviewees not only to help provide explanation of the quantitative data, but also to inform it in some phases of the study since parts of the survey questions were intended to answer questions similar to the interviews.
However, speaking of the limitations of each of the above-mentioned sampling techniques, research scholars have already defined some major issues. Educational research has identified two major setbacks with the convenience technique of sampling. One is that related to the justifiability of site selection.
Convenience sampling often lacks the justification for that kind of selection, where the resulting data are often isolated from the particular site context (Walford 2001). Additionally, the “opportunity to participate is not equal for all qualified individuals in the target population and study results are not necessarily generalizable to the population” (Etikan, Abubakar & Alkassim 2016, p. 4). Another disadvantage of convenience sampling is the fact that it gives room for respondents’ biased participation (Christensen & Johnson 2014). Fraenkel and Wallen (2015, p. 99) supported this fact by stating that convenience sampling “has a major disadvantage in that the sample will quite likely be biased”. This disadvantage will be referred to as one of the limitations of the study. In other words, it gives room for respondents’ bias and subjectivity when sharing their data and information, a research-related risk that the researcher aimed to mitigate by using certain validity and reliability checks mentioned in detail in a later section of this study. Two ways of mitigating this risk is that the researcher firstly included all the demographic details and characteristics of the sample chosen, and secondly the researcher “replicated”
the same study by repeating the questionnaire and interviews with similar samples from the different universities to increase the generalisability of the results and decrease the likelihood of their one-time occurrence (Fraenkel & Wallen 2015, p. 99). With purposive sampling, there is also the possibility of the error of judgment and bias since the researcher is relying on the judgement and statement of the participants selected. “The major disadvantage of purposive sampling is that the researcher’s judgment may be in error – he or she may not be correct in estimating the representativeness of a sample or their
expertise regarding the information needed” (Fraenkel & Wallen 2015, p. 99).