Opportunity sampling
participants chosen due to proximity
Random sampling
participants chosen randomly
Systematic sampling
participants chosen in an orderly way (such as every nth participant)
Quota sampling
proportions in the sample and the target population are the same
Volunteer sampling
participants put themselves forward by approaching the researcher, rather than the other way around
Snowball sampling
initial group of participants recruit people they know to expand the sample, and they do the same (creating a snowball effect)
Strengths of opportunity sampling
Easy and quick (comparatively)
Weaknesses of opportunity sampling
Not likely to be representative (as drawn from a small section of population) and researcher bias (they choose the participants)
Strength of random sampling
Unbiased
Weaknesses of random sampling
Time consuming (requires access to the entire population) and could be unrepresentative
Strength of systematic sampling
Unbiased
Weaknesses (three) of systematic sampling
Not truly random, system may introduce a bias, and not guaranteed to be representative
Strengths of quota sampling
Very representative and allows for analysis of differences
Weaknesses (four) of quota sampling
Rarely truly representative, time consuming, can build in bias, hard to fill all subcategories exactly the same
Stratified sampling
every sub-category is guaranteed to feature in the study
Strength of volunteer sampling
may access a variety of people you normally wouldn’t have access to
Weaknesses (three) of volunteer sampling
motivation may influence behaviour, volunteers may have unrepresentative characters, may introduce a bias
Strengths (five) of snowball sampling
cheap, simple, cost effective, allows researcher to reach populations that are difficult to sample, and requires little planning and fewer workforce
Weakn