Epidemiología molecular de los aislamientos de A baumannii

Before identifying which sampling method was selected, it is important to discuss the rationale behind the sampling process considered within this study.

As is consistent with a mixed method pragmatic researcher (Creswell, 2009), the sampling methods considered and eventually selected have fluctuated throughout the initial stages of developing the research framework. The initial proposed method involved carrying out interviews with key stakeholders within the ETS and are listed in section 3.5.2. This data would have consisted of both qualitative (interviews) and quantitative (questionnaires) with interviews being the dominant source of information. Pilot interviews were carried out with members of the judiciary, barristers, solicitors and academics.

Although the data was interesting and it helped shape the research framework, the information produced would not have answered the research questions and met the aim of the study. As a result, the research methodology was refined to use ET’s as the foundations of the design framework. Participants of specific tribunal cases would complete a questionnaire that not only collected essential quantifiable data, but also provided an insight into what was going to be discussed during the interview. As also discussed in section 3.6.3.2, justice would be used as a measurement of the tribunal effectiveness and the overall research framework looked as follows:

To select appropriate ET cases, the researcher through discussions and reading guidance literature, adopted an initial population derived from the six ET regions in Great Britain:

1. North East and West 2. Midlands

3. Wales and South West 4. Central London

5. Greater London 6. Scotland

To gain a broad representation of various outcomes that can arise from a tribunal judgment, each case would have been selected from the following:

1. North East and West - Case dismissed

2. Midlands - Compensation awarded

3. Wales and South West - Case dismissed

4. Central London - Reinstatement/re-engagement

5. Greater London - Remedy left to parties

6. Scotland - Case dismissed

The philosophy behind analysing different tribunal outcomes as well as areas

is that a broader sample would be used. Two other ‘sampling criteria’ that

were taken into consideration were:

1. Both the claimant and respondent had to have legal representation 2. Tribunal claims had to have been submitted in the last two years

Having legal representation would impact on the answers provided, in terms of the experience that the participants had, therefore it was important to develop a sample population that could provide comments without an area of difference that could have influenced their answers. As discussed previously, it is essential that when participants in research are asked to discuss historic events, the surveys are carried out relatively close to the event to ensure total recall and avoid any misconceptions developed over time.

To gain access to case details, a subscription was taken through a company named Court Serve which provided ET information such as

jurisdictions, tribunal hearing centre location and the dates when the case was heard. Visits were also made to the administration head office of the ETS at Bury St Edmunds. Through the information gained via Court Serve and Bury St Edmunds, lists of potential cases were identified and noted. A laborious process of obtaining names and addresses based on the case details was undertaken which enabled the researcher to directly contact the parties involved in the research. The following details outline the number of participants contacted with those who took part in the study:

Table 3.8 - Participants involved in the study

Number of parties contacted Number took part in the study

110 39

A number of those contacted thoughtfully replied but declined to take part in the study. In order to complement the qualitative interviews, questionnaires were distributed and completed by those taking part in the semi-structured interviews. However, as the initial number of questionnaires totalled sixteen, this was felt to be too low a number to provide valid data within a mixed method research strategy (Teddlie and Tashakori, 2009). The engagement of participants was particularly difficult, and through the process of generating participation in the semi-structured interviews, sending unsolicited letters asking individuals to complete the questionnaire would be an even more difficult challenge and very unreliable. Therefore, individuals who had observed tribunal cases were asked to complete the questionnaire once the case had concluded. This method generated a vast wealth of interesting data that would not have been collected through the sample from the qualitative approach.

The range of sampling techniques has utilised initially a purposive sampling process whereby a specific set of tribunal cases were identified so a consistent sample had been selected. As the research process continued, and with the difficulty in engaging participants, the characteristics of a

‘convenience sample’ were deployed to ensure a number of cases were

generated. Although a ‘convenience sample’ framework was utilised, other

methods had resulted in the researcher widening the participant criteria, as the initial criteria were proved through pilot studies irrelevant to the study and were deemed to have little impact upon the validity of the case.