Introduction
In the city of Southampton, where the students’ lives are active, and the transport system seems not to respond fast enough, our user research project dealt with the intricate dance between these two elements. Our aim: This study aims to reveal the hidden frustrations and unmet needs in the daily trips of students whose usual mobility is frequently at odds with their reality. However, an important barrier was placed before the data could whisper its secrets – sampling. Convenience, with its time-saving and convenient methods, confronted representativeness, which required a much wider range of voices. As such, our research centered on striking a balance between these competing forces, a delicate act that would ultimately determine the quality of our findings.
II. Strategic Sampling Method:
Our rationale was that these channels, which had captive audiences, would give us easy access to a large number of students living around the university, the presumable epicenter of public transport usage. It was irresistible; surveys stuck in notice boards, shared in group chats, and passed through friendly faces promised massive data in a short time. However, after the first wave of responses subsided, we realized that even though the number of voices was high, they portrayed an unfair picture. Although our method was initially appealing, we had unwittingly silenced an important group of students – those living away from the “hallowed” grounds of campus. The analysis of our data proved to be a very enlightening experience; however, we found a rather excessive quantity of walkers, a fact which is hardly surprising given the location of many respondents next to their academic facilities. The result of this biased representation is that easy sampling is always preferred. It is for this reason that Ball (2019) warns against the dangers of convenience sampling, where a researcher prefers readily available respondents.
However, when we looked into the details of our respondents’ demographics, the limitations of our approach became even more stark. Many of them lived within comfortable walking distance from the campus. At the same time, the situation was different from the reality faced by the majority of students who lived far away in the city. Unintentionally, this left some people out of this study and echoed the concerns of Ross and Bibler Zaidi (2019) that with anonymity and selection bias, the findings of a study may be valid. In our case, the convenience’s temptation had unwittingly tilted the pool of voices towards an imperfect perspective of the general student affair.
This was a bitter lesson that convenience is a fragile dance, which is delicate and representativeness at the same time. Our first attempt was productive, but it did not capture the full range of student experience. This left a partial and perhaps misleading picture. It was important for us to prioritize multiple perspectives, going out of our comfort zones of social networks and student accommodations to find the perspectives that might not be as readily accessible (Hindorff et al., 2018). Looking back, adopting stratified sampling methodswould have made the sample more representative since students from different distances would have been considered, leading to a more robust understanding of the public transport experiences.
Moving ahead, we will put ethics first and endeavor to include different perspectives in the conversation. Casting a wider net and ensuring that the needs and challenges of all students, both at a distance and on campus, are addressed will involve collaborating with student organizations and taking advantage of online platforms. In that respect, the new approach conforms to the core concept of HCD, which entails acknowledging what people perceive as problems or needs and developing relevant solutions. However, this journey has been an amazing experience, teaching us the important lesson that convenience may not substitute for representativeness. These will be the guiding principles for any future research that we shall undertake. As we venture in our quest for data, we shall not rely on ease but rather understand that one voice deserves the other.
III. Exploring Alternative Sampling Strategies:
At first, the lure of convenience made us focus on student accommodation and social networking sites. However, as the data started unfolding, the limitations of our sampling approach became apparent. For a deeper appreciation of the diverse student experiences in Southampton, we had to go past the reverberation chambers of our approach and find other means.
The unbiased promise of random sampling, the golden standard of representativeness, is called. The sample that would have been more appropriate was selected at random regardless of people’s locations or social circles, which would have given a statistically robust sample that reflects the true demographics of the student population. Stratified sampling, a compromise between convenience and representativeness, became an attractive option. We could segment the student population by the key variables such as distance to campus and study year so as to achieve proportionate sampling from the different experiences. This would have helped us to capture the finesse of commuting challenges that students living far away face, an aspect that should have been covered in our first findings.
However, collaborating with university resources and student organizations beyond the confines of our network is a better option. Collaborating with campus divisions such as student affairs or relevant students’ societies allowed us to reach out to a more diverse group and carry out well-focused campaigns. This method would not only have broadened the scope of our sample but would have also shed light on the unique problems that students encounter in the various academic communities. Finally, the pervasive existence of online platforms proved to be an effective means for overcoming geographical barriers. We could have significantly extended our reach using social media groups, online forums, and university-specific message boards to contact students in remote regions. However, managing online surveys and ensuring the quality of data wastook work. Nevertheless, the possibility of having a geographically diverse sample without the logistical complications of traditional methods was inevitable. Looking back, our initial trust in convenience gave us a distorted view, silencing the voices of students facing the most pressing transportation issues. Every alternative strategy had its pros and cons, and the best option should have comprised some specific methods that would address our particular research objectives and resources.
Challenges and Biases:
Convenience is tempting but different from representativeness. To overcome these biases in future research, we would:
- Use stratified sampling to give a balanced representation of all the demographics, and be sure to cover all possible experiences as in the usual Cochran’s classic design.
- Get involved with diverse stakeholders, such as student organizations, community centers, etc., to engage those far removed from our networks.
- Combine both surveys and interviews with focus groups in multiple data collection to get a more complete and more meaningful understanding.
- Put ethics first by focusing on informed consent, anonymity, and data protection. Such efforts will create an environment of trust, which will lead to sincere responses and opinions.
Our group project survey turned out to be a furnace from which we learned the complex interplay between convenience and representativeness in participant recruitment. Through recognizing and addressing the challenges and biases, we learned to listen not only to the loudest voices but also to the whispering of the unheard. Thus, our research did not only speak for a selected group but for the entire fabric of the communities we serve.
V. Recommendations for Future Research:
Equipped with lessons learned, we envision further research but with a more refined approach to sampling. Stratified sampling, with diversity and geographic distribution as our compass, will give us a chorus of voices, not just a solo tune. This would bridge the gap through collaboration with student organizations, community centers, and online platforms so as to bring in those missed through the traditional methods. However, convenience, though alluring, should not be the only siren song. Rigorous ethical considerations would guide every step we took. Built on transparency and trust, informed consent would form the cornerstone of recruitment, making sure that participants are not simply subjects but empowered partners in search of knowledge. Anonymity would be a veil, protecting privacy and giving voice without fear (Ponesse, 2017). This careful waltz between convenience and representativeness, ethics, and inclusivity is not something that is only logistics.
References
Ball, H.L., 2019. Conducting online surveys. Journal of human lactation, 35(3), pp.413-417. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334419848734
Hartman, E., Hazlett, C. and Sterbenz, C., 2021. Kpop: A kernel balancing approach for reducing specification assumptions in survey weighting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.08075. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.08075
Harvey, N., 2020. Use of heuristics: Insights from forecasting research. In Judgement and Choice: Perspectives on the Work of Daniel Kahneman (pp. 5-24). Psychology Press. tps://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003059745-2/use-heuristics-insights-forecasting-research-nigel-harvey
Hindorff, L.A., Bonham, V.L., Brody, L.C., Ginoza, M.E., Hutter, C.M., Manolio, T.A. and Green, E.D., 2018. Prioritizing diversity in human genomics research. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), pp.175-185. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.89
Knekta, E., Runyon, C. and Eddy, S., 2019. One size doesn’t fit all: Using factor analysis to gather validity evidence when using surveys in your research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), p.rm1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-04-0064
Larson, R.B., 2019. Controlling social desirability bias. International Journal of Market Research, 61(5), pp.534-547. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318805305
Lines, T., Burdick, C., Dewez, X., Aldridge, E., Neal-Williams, T., Walker, K., Akhlaghi, H., Paul, B. and Taylor, D.M., 2022. Nature and extent of selection bias resulting from convenience sampling in the emergency department. Emergency Medicine Journal, 39(4), pp.325-330. https://emj.bmj.com/content/39/4/325.abstract
Ponesse, J., 2017. The Ties That Blind: The Moral Value (and Disvalue) of Anonymity. https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/csspe/vol1/1/11/
Ross, P.T. and Bibler Zaidi, N.L., 2019. Limited by our limitations. Perspectives on medical education, 8, pp.261-264. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40037-019-00530-x
Townsend, A., Cox, S.M. and Li, L.C., 2010. Qualitative research ethics: enhancing evidence-based practice in physical therapy. Physical therapy, 90(4), pp.615-628. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080388
write