Quantitative Research Methodology and Universality (Not Yet Universality?)

A Survey of a Variety of Explanations of Random Sampling and Sample Size in Books on Research Methodology and Statistics for Research by Thai Academics

Abstract

In this research investigation, the researcher examined the differences and the variety of explanations of random sampling and sample size in books on research methodology and statistics for research in six issues. These issues were (1) the meaning of “sampling”; (2) the appropriateness of simple random sampling by drawing lots with replacement and without replacement; (3) the necessity of having a list of the population for a systematic sampling; (4) the number of steps of multistage sampling; (5) the similarities and differences between accidental sampling and convenient sampling; and (6) the determination of the sample size with the consideration of the population size. This research is document research. The population consisted of 324 books on research methodology and statistics for research in Thailand from four libraries.
The findings showed that most researcher examined 1) "Sampling" meant random sampling with probability and non-probability sampling (43.52%) 2) appropriateness of simple random sampling by drawing lots with replacement and without replacement can be used with consideration (53.33%) 3) systematic random sampling can be used; although, researchers did not have a list of population (86.08%) 4) the multistage sampling, there should be at least two steps (75.44%) 5) accidental and convenient sampling were the same (56.9%) and 6) most academicians often determined the sample size by fixed percentages of population size (60.98%).
As the findings, the differences of each issue reflected an effort to have universality of quantitative research methodology in random sampling and the determination of the sample size. Until the present time, universality has not been completely reached. However, the writer strongly agreed with the effort to have the universality. Probably, it might not be the strict universality as natural sciences are.