Discusses the dangers of drawing inferences from small samples of data, such as is typically done in qualitative research projects. The problem of ensuring representativeness is discussed: the dangers of convenience samples and the value of purposive sampling. Four ‘rules of thumb’ are proposed for inferences that may be safely drawn from small samples (30 or less), when one is satisfied that they are representative.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlythB., & RobsonS.. (1981) Resolving the hard/soft dilemma. MRS Conference.
2.
CalderB.J. (1977) Focus groups and the nature of qualitative marketing research.Journal of Marketing Research, 14, August, pp. 353–364.
3.
CollinsP.. (2000) The Bear Pit.London: Allen & Unwin.
4.
CreswellJ.W. (1994) Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
EhrenbergA.S.C. (1970) Models of fact: examples from marketing.Management Science, 16, March, pp. 435–445.
6.
EhrenbergA.S.C., & KennedyR.. (2001) There is no brand segmentation.Marketing Research, 13, 1, pp. 4–7.
7.
ErdemT., & KeaneM.P. (1996) Decision-making under uncertainty: capturing dynamic brand choice processes in turbulent consumer goods markets.Marketing Science, 15, 1, pp. 1–20.
8.
EverittB.S. (1998) The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
FornellC.. (1995) The quality of economic output: empirical generalizations about its distribution and relationship to market share.Marketing Science, 14, 3/2, pp. G203–G211.
10.
GoodhardtG.J., EhrenbergA.S.C., & ChatfieldC.. (1984) The Dirichlet: a comprehensive model of buying behaviour.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 147, 5, pp. 621–655.
