Write My Paper Button

WhatsApp Widget

Write My Paper

Freelance Writing

Hi Nick, the technically difficulties are the reason I am having to create another question to get this data and information over to you. Chapter 3 is the area for editing and reconstructing. Samp

Hi Nick, the technically difficulties are the reason I am having to create another question to get this data and information over to you. 

Chapter 3 is the area for editing and reconstructing. 

Sampling strategy and recruitment strategy are distinct concepts in research, and they pertain to different stages of the research process. Let’s explore the differences between them:

Sampling Strategy:

Definition: The sampling strategy refers to the plan or approach used to select a subset of individuals, elements, or entities from a larger population for inclusion in the study.
Purpose: It determines how representative the selected sample is of the entire population and influences the generalizability of study findings.
Key Considerations: Random sampling, stratified sampling, convenience sampling, and purposeful sampling are examples of different sampling strategies.

Recruitment Strategy:

Definition: The recruitment strategy involves the methods and techniques employed to attract, enroll, and engage participants in the study. It is about reaching out to and convincing potential participants to join the research.
Purpose: It ensures that the chosen sample is accessible, willing to participate, and meets the criteria set by the study.
Key Considerations: Advertising, outreach, personal contact, and incentives are elements of a recruitment strategy.

Which Comes First:

In the research process, the sampling strategy typically comes before the recruitment strategy.
Researchers first decide on the most appropriate sampling strategy based on the research question, objectives, and the nature of the population.
Once the sampling strategy is determined, researchers then develop a recruitment strategy to implement the plan for selecting and convincing participants to be part of the study.


Here are some tips to help you justify a sample size of 12-15 participants:

Research Design and Approach:

Clearly explain the nature of narrative inquiry and how it is characterized by in-depth exploration of individual experiences.
Emphasize that narrative inquiry focuses on the richness and depth of individual stories rather than aiming for large, representative samples.

Purposeful Sampling:

Justify the use of purposeful sampling, where participants are selected based on specific criteria relevant to the research question.
Highlight that the goal is to include participants who can provide in-depth and meaningful narratives related to the research focus.

Saturation Point:

Discuss the concept of data saturation, where additional participants may not contribute significantly to the understanding of the phenomenon.
Explain how a sample size of 12-15 is deemed sufficient to achieve data saturation in narrative inquiry.

Complexity of Narratives:

Acknowledge that analyzing and interpreting narrative data is time-consuming due to the complexity of individual stories.
Argue that a smaller sample size allows for a thorough and detailed analysis of each participant’s narrative.

Resource Constraints:

Address any practical constraints, such as time and resources, that may limit the ability to work with a larger sample size.
Justify the decision to focus on a smaller sample as a pragmatic approach to conducting a comprehensive narrative inquiry.

Contextual Relevance:

Emphasize that the research question and objectives guide the sample size determination, ensuring that the chosen size is appropriate for addressing the specific research focus.

Comparative Analysis:

If applicable, discuss how the goal is to conduct a detailed comparative analysis of the narratives, which can be achieved effectively with a smaller sample.

Previous Studies:

Reference existing literature and similar studies that have successfully employed comparable sample sizes in narrative inquiry.
Show consistency with established practices in the field.

By addressing these points, you can provide a comprehensive and justified rationale for the chosen sample size in their narrative inquiry study.


Structure of the Ethical Consideration section

1. Principle of Respect for Persons:

Explanation: This principle emphasizes the importance of respecting individuals’ autonomy and protecting those with diminished autonomy. It involves obtaining informed consent, ensuring voluntary participation, and safeguarding the rights and welfare of participants.
Application in the Study:

Informed Consent: Detail the process of obtaining informed consent, including how participants were informed about the study’s purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, confidentiality, and their right to withdraw.
Protection of Vulnerable Populations: Describe how any vulnerable groups or individuals were protected and what measures were taken to ensure their well-being and autonomy.
Confidentiality and Anonymity: Explain how participant confidentiality and anonymity were maintained throughout the study, detailing data handling and storage procedures.

2. Principle of Beneficence:

Explanation: This principle focuses on maximizing benefits and minimizing harm to participants. It involves ensuring that the research is conducted with the participants’ well-being as a priority.
Application in the Study:

Risk Assessment and Mitigation: Describe how potential risks to participants were identified and minimized. Discuss any measures taken to mitigate physical, psychological, or emotional risks.
Benefit to Participants: Explain the potential benefits participants might derive from the study, such as contributing to knowledge or receiving interventions, if applicable.
Monitoring and Adverse Events: Detail any procedures in place to monitor participants’ well-being during and after the study, including steps taken in case of adverse events.

3. Principle of Justice:

Explanation: This principle revolves around fairness and the equitable distribution of research burdens and benefits. It ensures that participants are selected fairly and that the benefits of the research are shared equitably.
Application in the Study:

Fair Participant Selection: Describe the criteria used for participant selection, ensuring fairness and transparency in recruitment.
Equitable Treatment: Discuss how participants were treated fairly throughout the study, avoiding any forms of discrimination or exploitation.
Benefit-Sharing: Explain how the benefits of the research will be shared or disseminated, whether through publications, feedback to participants, or contributions to the broader community or field.


Member checking and transcript verification are two methods used in qualitative research to enhance the trustworthiness of data and findings, but they differ in their approaches:

Member Checking:

Definition: Member checking involves sharing research findings, interpretations, or excerpts of data with participants to validate, confirm, or clarify the accuracy and authenticity of the researcher’s interpretations.
Process: Researchers engage participants by presenting them with summaries, themes, or interpretations derived from their interviews or observations. Participants are asked to review, confirm, or provide feedback on whether these findings align with their experiences or perspectives.
Purpose: The goal of member checking is to ensure that participants recognize and agree with the researcher’s interpretations, enhancing the credibility and trustworthiness of the study’s findings.
Benefits: It allows participants to contribute their viewpoints, correct any misinterpretations, or offer additional insights, thereby enriching the depth and accuracy of the data analysis.
Limitations: Member checking might not always guarantee complete agreement or alignment between researcher interpretations and participant perspectives. Additionally, it might not be feasible in cases where participants cannot be easily reached or where relationships between researchers and participants have changed.

Transcript Verification:

Definition: Transcript verification involves confirming the accuracy and reliability of the transcribed data by providing participants with their own transcripts to review for accuracy.
Process: Researchers share transcripts of interviews or interactions with participants, allowing them to review the transcripts for accuracy, correct any errors, or offer clarifications regarding their statements or experiences.
Purpose: The primary aim of transcript verification is to ensure that the transcribed data faithfully represents what participants actually said or experienced during the interviews or interactions.
Benefits: This process enhances the dependability and accuracy of the data by minimizing transcription errors and ensuring fidelity to participants’ actual words or expressions.
Limitations: Challenges may arise if participants don’t remember specific details or if there are discrepancies between participants’ recollections and the transcribed content. Additionally, it may be time-consuming to involve participants in reviewing all transcripts.

Both member checking and transcript verification contribute to the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative data by allowing participants to provide feedback or validation on the research process or findings, albeit in slightly different ways—member checking focuses on interpretations and themes, while transcript verification ensures accuracy in transcribed content.


How to structure and what to write in the Trustworthiness section. 

1. Credibility:

Definition: Credibility refers to the confidence in the truth and authenticity of the data and findings. It assesses the believability of the study’s interpretations.
Establishment and Strategies:

Utilizing multiple data sources (triangulation) to corroborate findings.
Member checking: involving participants in validating or clarifying interpretations.
Maintaining a reflexive journal to document researcher biases and decisions, ensuring transparency.
Constant comparative analysis to ensure consistency and coherence in data interpretation.
Addressing researcher subjectivity through peer debriefing or peer review of findings.
Strategies to minimize threats: Being transparent about biases, maintaining clear documentation of the research process, and inviting critical feedback from peers or participants to validate interpretations.

2. Transferability (Applicability or External Validity):

Definition: Transferability assesses the extent to which findings can be applied or transferred to other contexts or populations.
Establishment and Strategies:

Providing thick descriptions of the research context, participants, and data collection methods.
Conducting an audit trail that details decisions made during the research process.
Using purposive sampling to ensure representation of diverse perspectives.
Considering negative case analysis to enrich the understanding of variability.
Strategies to minimize threats: Offering detailed contextual information, ensuring diverse participant selection, and describing the limitations or constraints on transferability clearly.

3. Dependability (Reliability):

Definition: Dependability refers to the consistency and stability of the study’s findings over time and in various conditions.
Establishment and Strategies:

Engaging in an audit trail or maintaining an analytical log to document data collection and analysis procedures.
Employing peer debriefing or an external auditor to review the research process and decisions made.
Triangulating data sources or methods to cross-verify findings.
Encouraging transparency in methodology and decision-making processes.
Strategies to minimize threats: Ensuring consistency in data collection and analysis procedures, maintaining thorough documentation, and inviting external perspectives for review.

4. Confirmability:

Definition: Confirmability evaluates the objectivity or neutrality of the researcher’s interpretations and ensures that findings are rooted in the data.
Establishment and Strategies:

Maintaining an audit trail or detailed record of decisions and interpretations.
Using reflexivity to acknowledge and manage biases.
Conducting peer review or debriefing to validate interpretations.
Encouraging multiple researchers to independently analyze data and compare interpretations.
Strategies to minimize threats: Ensuring transparency in the decision-making process, acknowledging and addressing biases, and seeking external validation or review to confirm interpretations.

Hi Nick, the technically difficulties are the reason I am having to create another question to get this data and information over to you. Chapter 3 is the area for editing and reconstructing. Samp
Scroll to top