The effective use of either qualitative or quantitative design depends on the nature of the research and is critical to achieving the desired objective. The paper analyzes and criticizes the sampling design used in investigating whether residential confinement of young offenders significantly reduced recidivism during and after the treatment program (Abrams, 2005).
Sampling method
The researcher used no scientific approach in selecting the respective facilities for study and the participants from each region. In choosing the sampling method, the researcher used the purposive way to consider the confinement facilities under which to conduct the study. The researchers choose only two confinement facilities; Wildwood house and Cottage Grove since they were close to their institution than any other facilities. Further, the facilities corporation also backed the reason for their selection.
Further, from the target population, the purposive method was used to select a few samples and the criteria for respondent qualification were to have a remaining 3 to 6 months in confinement. Further, for the participants to offer any information, they were first to create a consent between the caregivers and the researchers. Wildwood house had a capacity of 75 which became the target population. While in Cottage Grove it had a size of 12 young offenders. The research had a total of 19 respondents from the two sites. 12 respondents were from the Wildwood while the rest were residents of Cottage Grove. The study used personal participation to identify the themes under observation, and repeated interpersonal interviews across different time range in the facility. Lastly, the researcher used cross-sectional data from the interviewer's previous records in the facility.
Effect of the sampling method on the result
No scientific method was used in selecting the two sites used in the study. A technique such as stratified sampling could have been used to eliminate biases in the selection of the confinement facilities. In this case, the purposive determination of only two facilities that are in the same region increases the chances of obtaining more biased results. The unscientific sampling method jeopardizes the reliability of the data to be generalized to the entire population. Further, considering the high number of young offenders in the United States interviewing only 19 respondents is relatively low and may not represent the diversity in the entire population. In my opinion, from the findings of the qualitative research in these two sampling method used, it is evident that the two sites contain diverse samples. The study used no hypothesis to help achieve the primary objective. Instead, the researchers used an inductive approach to gathering information from the interviewers.
Limitation of the study
The major weakness of the programs was in the selection of sites that were close to each other. The method used may have resulted in biased results that were not consistent with other young confinement facilities in the U.S. The facilities under study were not homogeneous; each facility had different rules and regulations that were to be followed by their respective residents. The selection of two sites in one region did not consider the diversity that may exist in various young offenders confinement facilities in the U.S. Further, the use of inductive approach in data collection may have led to an inconsistency of results among different respondents. Further, failure by some of the selected respondent to complete the survey might have significantly impacted the results obtained. According to the researcher majority of the respondent did not have a chance to finish the research program. Some of the limitations included the removal of the participants from the facility without notice. The removal created a gap for the researchers to observe the aftercare life of the participants. Another limitation was that the remaining group underwent trial in court and was later transferred from the confinement facilities without notice rendering the information gathering process incomplete.
The data may lack consistency due to the existence of incomplete cases among the selected respondents. The data used was from a few respondents make it less reliable to be generalized to the whole U.S. population. Further, the use of only two sites may give different result considering the numbers and diversity of various confinement facilities in the U.S. Thus, the data was not sufficient to be generalized to the whole population. In my opinion, both the sampling method and qualitative approach used in the study may lead to biases in the result obtained.
Recommendations to improve sampling method
In future, the study should rely more on quantitative design and only use the qualitative method to complete and cross-check the consistency of the result obtained. Rather than using a purposive method, the stratified sampling method should have been used since a sample frame could be obtained and a more representative number of facilities used according to their distribution in various States in the country (Bender, 2014). Moreover, to improve the reliability of the data obtained, the caregivers in the confinement and other officials in the justice department need to be involved in the study. Since only a few participants completed the ethnographic interviews in the case study, there is need to use a larger sample to cater for those who may fail to fill. Further, I would restructure the target population to include those individuals who have recently finished a six month period through the programs rather than relying on the confined offenders so as to get a better insight of the effectiveness of the program.
References
Abrams, L. S. (2005). Listening to Juvenile Offenders: Can Residential Treatment Prevent Recidivism? Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 23(1), 61-85. doi:10.1007/s10560-005-0029-2
Bender, S. (2014). Book Review: Conducting research: Social and behaviour methods. Research on Social Work Practice, 25(2), 297-299. doi:10.1177/1049731514544898
