比较的理论抽样

Q3 Business, Management and Accounting
A. Adebayo, B. Ackers
{"title":"比较的理论抽样","authors":"A. Adebayo, B. Ackers","doi":"10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2434","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Sampling has historically been one of the major challenges of the comparative research approach. These sampling challenges primarily result from the way researchers select the cases/samples for the study. In this regard, researchers have to a large extent tended to employ non-probability convenience and purposive sampling techniques. Even though it may be argued that these sampling approaches need not be theory driven as samples tend to evolve in the process of research, more often than not, these sampling methods, especially in comparative research designs, while skewing research attention towards over-researched countries and cases, wealthy nations and incomparable cases, also introduce an element of bias into sampling and therefore into research findings. Thus, this paper argues for a move away from the simplicity of purposive and convenience sampling, to one of the more robust forms of theoretical sampling, in order to improve the research rigour associated with the comparative methodological approach. This paper accordingly postulates this may be achieved by engaging in some form of theoretical sampling. In this regard, this paper describes a two-phase method for generating comparative samples from theories, involving six distinct steps.","PeriodicalId":38532,"journal":{"name":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sampling Theoretically for Comparison\",\"authors\":\"A. Adebayo, B. Ackers\",\"doi\":\"10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2434\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Sampling has historically been one of the major challenges of the comparative research approach. These sampling challenges primarily result from the way researchers select the cases/samples for the study. In this regard, researchers have to a large extent tended to employ non-probability convenience and purposive sampling techniques. Even though it may be argued that these sampling approaches need not be theory driven as samples tend to evolve in the process of research, more often than not, these sampling methods, especially in comparative research designs, while skewing research attention towards over-researched countries and cases, wealthy nations and incomparable cases, also introduce an element of bias into sampling and therefore into research findings. Thus, this paper argues for a move away from the simplicity of purposive and convenience sampling, to one of the more robust forms of theoretical sampling, in order to improve the research rigour associated with the comparative methodological approach. This paper accordingly postulates this may be achieved by engaging in some form of theoretical sampling. In this regard, this paper describes a two-phase method for generating comparative samples from theories, involving six distinct steps.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2434\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Business, Management and Accounting\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34190/EJBRM.19.1.2434","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Business, Management and Accounting","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

从历史上看,抽样一直是比较研究方法的主要挑战之一。这些抽样挑战主要源于研究人员为研究选择病例/样本的方式。在这方面,研究人员在很大程度上倾向于使用非概率便利性和有目的的抽样技术。尽管可能有人认为,这些抽样方法不需要理论驱动,因为样本往往在研究过程中演变,但这些抽样方法,尤其是在比较研究设计中,往往会将研究注意力转向研究过度的国家和案例、富裕国家和不可比的案例,还将偏倚因素引入抽样,从而引入研究结果。因此,本文主张从目的性和便利性抽样的简单性转向更稳健的理论抽样形式之一,以提高与比较方法论方法相关的研究严谨性。因此,本文假设这可以通过某种形式的理论抽样来实现。在这方面,本文描述了一种从理论中生成比较样本的两阶段方法,包括六个不同的步骤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sampling Theoretically for Comparison
Sampling has historically been one of the major challenges of the comparative research approach. These sampling challenges primarily result from the way researchers select the cases/samples for the study. In this regard, researchers have to a large extent tended to employ non-probability convenience and purposive sampling techniques. Even though it may be argued that these sampling approaches need not be theory driven as samples tend to evolve in the process of research, more often than not, these sampling methods, especially in comparative research designs, while skewing research attention towards over-researched countries and cases, wealthy nations and incomparable cases, also introduce an element of bias into sampling and therefore into research findings. Thus, this paper argues for a move away from the simplicity of purposive and convenience sampling, to one of the more robust forms of theoretical sampling, in order to improve the research rigour associated with the comparative methodological approach. This paper accordingly postulates this may be achieved by engaging in some form of theoretical sampling. In this regard, this paper describes a two-phase method for generating comparative samples from theories, involving six distinct steps.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods Business, Management and Accounting-Business and International Management
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊介绍: The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods (EJBRM) provides perspectives on topics relevant to research methods applied in the field of business and management. Through its publication the journal contributes to the development of theory and practice. The journal accepts academically robust papers that contribute to the area of research methods applied in business and management research. Papers submitted to the journal are double-blind reviewed by members of the reviewer committee or other suitably qualified readers. The Editor reserves the right to reject papers that, in the view of the editorial board, are either of insufficient quality, or are not relevant enough to the subject area. The editor is happy to discuss contributions before submission. The journal publishes work in the categories described below. Research Papers: These may be qualitative or quantitative, empirical or theoretical in nature and can discuss completed research findings or work in progress. Case Studies: Case studies are welcomed illustrating business and management research methods in practise. View Points: View points are less academically rigorous articles usually in areas of controversy which will fuel some interesting debate. Conference Reports and Book Reviews: Anyone who attends a conference or reads a book that they feel contributes to the area of Business Research Methods is encouraged to submit a review for publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信