Polit and Hungler (1999) define a sample as a section of a population. During the process of conducting research, it is impractical for the researcher to study the whole targeted population, especially for an in-depth qualitative study. For example, this study explores the administration of the CSG in Mthonjaneni Local Municipality, which requires responses from administrators, primary caregivers and ward committee members. It would be virtually impossible to study every single person that fits the population criteria because this would constitute a very large number of people. According to Gerrish and Lacey (2010) a sample is a subset of a target population, normally defined by the sampling process. In other words, a sample is a subset of the population being studied. A sample therefore represents the larger population and is used to make interpretations about that population. A sample is largely used in order to collect information regarding the population without studying the entire population (Littwin, 2002). The sample in this study was selected from Mthonjaneni Local Municipality using the above population criteria. Different methods were used to select samples which are demonstrated in the following section.
4.7.1 Sampling Method
Latham (2007) defines the sample method as taking a representative selection of the population and using the data collected from the selected participants as research information. Burns and Grove (2008) state that sampling is a method of choosing a group of people, events or behaviour with which to conduct a study. Lawrence, Botan, and Kreps (2000) define a sample as a subgroup of a population. Polit and Hungler (1999) confirm that
62
during the process of sampling, a section that represents the entire population is selected. It is a process of obtaining or accessing the population by enhancing only a part of it. In general, sampling is categorised into two overall methods, being the probability sampling method and the non-probability sampling method. In the probability sampling method every unit of the population has an equal chance of inclusion in the sample (Lawrence et al., 2000). On the other hand, non-probability sampling units for the sample are selected deliberately by the researcher. This is also known as purposive or judgmental sampling (Latham, 2007).
The non-probability sampling method was used in this study. Coyne (1997) describes non- probability, or purposeful sampling, as a method where the researcher purposefully selects the participants to include based on the needs of the study, and every person who meets the criteria is asked to be a participant. The underlying principle for choosing this sampling method in this study is that the researcher aimed to gain knowledge from: the caregivers of the children receiving the CSG as they were able to provide information based on their experience and perceptions regarding the CSG; public administrators of SASSA who provided the practical information regarding the application of the public administration process at the local level; as well as the ward committee members who shared their perceptions and realities that exist in this local municipality as they interact with the beneficiaries.
To identify eligible participants for each category, different sampling techniques were used.
To identify the beneficiaries a snowballing sampling technique was used, which is also known as a chain referral. This technique is used in cases where the population of interest cannot be identified other than by someone who already knows a certain person who has the necessary experience or characteristics to be included (MacNealy, 1999). In this technique participants or informants contact has already been made use their social networks to refer the researcher to other people who could potentially participate in or contribute to the study (Henry, 1990). The adoption of SASSA as an agency to administer social grants was done in order to enable all South Africans in any province to be able to apply for the grant anywhere in the country. The number of beneficiaries in the local office of Mthonjaneni Local Municipality is not specific to the area. In addition people in this area do not easily disclose to anyone that their children receive the CSG. The reluctance of people to openly disclose that they receive the CSG meant that the snowballing technique became a useful method for
63
the researcher because once one person was identified then it was likely that they knew another person who received the CSG and so on.
To identify the public administrators at SASSA and the ward committee members, quota sampling was used. This sampling technique is largely based on access, convenience, and visible relevant characteristics. This technique was selected in this instance because it was easier to identify the administrators since they are collected in one place, namely the SASSA office, and are well-known in terms of their occupations and the work that they do in the SASSA office in the area, as compared to beneficiaries of the CSG in Mthonjaneni Local Municipality. The same can be said for the ward committee members as they are also well-known in terms of their occupations and roles in the area.
4.7.2 Sample Size
Holloway and Wheeler (2002) state that sample size does not impact the position or quality of the study, and they also note that there are no procedures in creating a sample size in qualitative research. Qualitative researchers do not usually know the quantity of people in the research beforehand; the sample size and type may alter during research. Sampling goes on until a target has been reached, for example, until more information has been generated (Holloway, 1997). Babbie (2007) defines this as data saturation, where a researcher is in that stage of the process of data collection when there is no new or relevant information surfacing from the study being conducted. Researchers therefore consider saturation as the stage at which no more data need to be collected.
The targeted number of participants for this study was 45, including the following: 30 primary caregivers of the CGS beneficiaries; 10 SASSA administrators; and 5 ward committee members. However, during the process of the data collection the researcher reached a saturation level with the primary caregivers, where no new information was emerging from the study. The researcher also discovered that only 8 administrators in SASSA at Mthonjaneni Local Municipality actually deal with the administration of the social grants, and because of the lack of availability of the ward committee members the researcher was only able to interview 3 ward committee members. Overall the total number of participants was 39 made up of: 28 primary caregivers; 8 grant administrators; and 3 ward committee members.
64