• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
(Division of Research Techniques, London School of Economics and Political
Science)
Random Sampling and Quota Sampling
In the sampling of human populations the selection of the final sample units is usually carriedout by one of two methods: random sampling or quota sampling: Of the former there are manyvariants, ranging from pure random selection (by random numbers or the lottery method) tomore or less systematic selection from some complete record of the population. Area sampling,predominantly used in the United States, is a form of random sampling. Whatever the detailsof the sampling designs or frames employed, one characteristic is-or should be-common toall random sampling. The selection of the sample units is carried out by some impersonal(strictly determined) method and is uninfluenced by human choice. That is to say, the inter-viewers are not allowed any freedom in deciding which members of the population shall beincluded in the sample. This independence of selection from human judgment is a prerequisitefor ensuring that every member of the population shall have a known chance of being includedin the sample-which is what we mean by randomness.Quota sampling differs from random sampling in several minor ways, but the fundalnentdldifference is that, once the general breakdown of the sample is decided (e.g., how many men andwomen, how many people in each age-group it is to include) and the quota assignments allocatedto eacb interviewer, the choice of the
actual
sample units to fit into this framework is left to theinterviewer.Much discussion has centred around the merits of the two techniques. Some experts believethe quota method to be so unreliable and prone to bias as to be almost worthless; others think that,although not as accurate as random sampling, quota sampling can be used safely on some typesof inquiry; while some believe that, if careful instructions are given and if sufficient constraintsare imposed on the freedom of the interviewer, quota sampling can be made highly reliable,
and
that the heavy extra cost of random sampling does not result in a sufficient increase in accuracyto be worth while. In general, academic statisticians have criticized the method for its theoreticalweakness, while market research workers have defended it for its cheapness and ease of practicalapplication.This issue is not by any means the most important problem in survey methodology, nor evenperhaps in the more narrow field of sampling. Yet the fact is that the controversy has continued-most fiercely in the United States-for many years, largely unaided by any experimentalevidence, and that the argument is still conducted mainly on the basis of prejudice and untestedassumptions. There is no clear-cut answer to the problem, in the sense that either method couldbe shown to be preferable in all circumstances. There are some types of survey on which nobodywould suggest using a quota sample, while there are others on which random sampling may beimpracticable. Still, there remains a large field on which either method
could
bs used, andresearch is required to throw factual light on the merits of both techniques.
It
therefore seemedworth while to embark on a programme of reasearch into quota sampling, in the hope that theresults will be of value and interest both to statisticians generally and to market research practitioners.The present report represents the first, preliminary, stage in the research. It consists of threeparts. The remainder of the present part is devoted to an examination of the usual cases forand against quota sampling, followed by a statement of the general aims of this research programme.The second and major part is a description of current quota sampling practice in this country.
 
41
2
MOSER-QUO~U
[Part
111,
ampling
The final part then attempts to suggest which are the aspects of quota sampling on which theresearch should concentrate.
The Usual Case Against Quota Sampling
The selection of the final sample units by the quota method is usually criticized on the followinggrounds
:
(a)The use of random selection-implying that the probability of inclusion of populationunits in the sample is known-makes it possible to attach standard errors to the sample estimates.Quota sampling does not meet the basic requirement of randomness, and
it
is thus not legitimate,from a theoretical viewpoint, to calculate standard errors for quota sample results.
(6)
Quota samplers invariably attempt, as one of their controls, an economic or social break-down of the sample. Two objections can be made against this type of control. In the first place,it is inevitably based on a hazardous statistical foundation. There are no official or other reallyreliable figures of social or economic classes. In the second place, these controls are inevitablydefined
in
vague terms. The interviewer uses his or her judgment in deciding to which "class"the respondent belongs, so that there is room for bias.
(c)
Bias may be introduced because,
within
the quotas, interviewers may not secure a repre-sentative sample of respondents. For instance, although the required number of working-classpersons is included in the sample, interviewers may have chosen people towards the upper levelsof the working class. Or, again, the top age-group of
65
and over may be filled by persons of
65
and 66, so that the very old people are under-xepresented. Similarly, the sample might under-represent housewives with outside jobs or with very large families. In all such cases a biasedsample would result.These are hypothetical examples of what is the crucial problem of quota sampling.Giventhat all the quotas are correctly and honestly filled-i.e., that every sample unit is in the cell towhich it properly belongs-is the spread within the cells such that an unbiased sample emerges?
In
other words, can human choice do what is expected of random selection?The extreme form of the unrepresentativeness argument is that, even if the quota sample iscorrect on the controls
and
most of the uncontrolled variables as well, it may still be unrepre-sentative with regard to the variable under study.
(d)
Bias inay arise through the peculiarity of the interview situation. In so far as people areinterviewed in the streets or in their offices or factories, biased information may be obtained.
(e)
Objection is sometimes made to quota sampling, not merely because the interviewer hastoo much freedom
in
choosing respondents, but because the method allows altogether too littleoffice control of the fieldstaff. It is more difficult to check on the honesty of interviewers in thecase of quota than in that of random sampling; and the former method probably offers moretemptations to the unscrupulous interviewer. For instance, investigators may place respondentsin the cells where cases are needed or difficult to find, rather than in those to which they reallybelong. This may apply particularly with vague controls, such as "social class".
The Usual Case for Quota Sampling
We now turn to the arguments usually put forward in favour of this method. Some of thepoints here are answers to the above criticisms, rather than positive advantages:
(a)
Two points are often made in reply to the first criticism above. Firstly, it is justifiablyargued that random samples as se!ected and as achieved are two different things. In practice,some of the original sample is not obtained on account
of
refusals and non-contacts. In fact,random sampling is not free from bias, and the standard errors are attached to what may, in fact,be a biased final sample. Secondly, it is argued that sampling errors are
0:
comparatively smallimportance as against the very considerable and intractable non-sampling errors which arisein the collection of the data. Consequently, to criticize quota sampling on the grounds thatsampling errors cannot be calculated is to concentrate on a relatively minor issue. (The mainpoint of that criticism still .stands, namely that in quota sampling, owing to the absence of thecondition of randomness, one does not know the accuracy of any particular sample.)
 
(b)
The main argunient for quota sanlpiing is that it is very cheap. This cheapness is duelargely to the much lower travelling costs and to the lack of call-backs. It is difficult to obtainaccurate figures, bul it is probable that the averagc random interview in this country costs abouttwice as much as a qrota one.
(c)
Quota sampling is much easier from an administrative viewpoint. There is no need togo through the tedious stage of drawing the sample; no problems of non-contacts, call-backs,or substitute lists;no
apparent
problem of refusals; no need, unless this is specially required,to do much evening interviewing or to send field-workers to out-of-the-way areas. Responsibilityfor the sample is largely transferred to the individual interviewer, and the office burden is con-sequently lightened. Interviewers with experience of random and quota sampling usually preferthe more elastic, less controlled and less tiring quota method.
(d)
If the field-work on a survey has to be completed within a very short time-say, one day-quota sampling may be the only feasible method.
(e)
In partial answer to criticism
(b)
above, it is said that only a very few and extremely broadsocial groups are used, and that disagreement about the class of a respondent would be rare.
(f)
Quota samplers generally believe that instructions to and constraints on interviewers aresufficient to guard against the main dangers of bias outlined in
(c)
above, but they mostly agreethat this is a matter of belief rather than fact.
(g)
Finally, it is worth pointing out that quota sampling is independent of the existence oflists. As long as good lists-suitable for sampling individuals and households-are available,
la
the case in this country, this is not a point of substance. But if, for instance, the NationalRegister were to be withdrawn or to lose its present accuracy, there would then remain only thealternatives of either using one of the other, and less satisfactory, lists; of using area sampling;or of using quota sampling-if this technique has been shown to be of any reliability. (It isworth noting that the National Register is not in fact available to market research organizationsfor sampling purposes. For national list samples market research bodies would have to dependlargely on the Electoral Roll or the Rating List.)
(h)
Quota sampling is also defended on the grounds that, although the sample may be biasedwith regard to certain characteristics, it may be quite satisfactory for others.The main arguments against and for quota sampling have been listed. All of them are tosome extent controversial. We are entering on this research with open minds, hoping that atthe end at least some of the pros and cons may cease to be matters of conjecture.
The General
Aims
of
the Research
Our main aim is to find out what types of bias, if any, are inherent in the method of quota sampling,and to what extent these biases can
be
eliminated altogether or brought under control by carefultraining or by the introduction of further constraints on the freedom of the interviewers inselecting the sample. In other words, we should like to know not merely how accurate quotasampling is, but also how accurate it can
be
made by the use of various refinements.In the long run we should like to accumulate data to indicate when particular biases, if theyare found to be uncontrollable, are important, and when they can safely be ignored. It is oftensaid that quota sampling is quite good enough for some purposes. We want, if possible, to givethis statement greater precision.In short, this research is aimed more at the future than at the present. We felt very strongly,however, that any actual experimentation should be preceded by a study of present-day quotasampling practice. Only in this way can one decide which are the critical aspects of the methodneeding experimental investigation. Four leading market research organizations in this country--B.B.C. Audience Research, British Institute of Public Opinion, British Market Research Bureauand Research Services, Ltd.-were asked a number of questions regarding their sampling pro-cedures and have given us every possible co-operation.In addition to discussion with theirsampling experts, it has been possible to talk to the field supervisors about actual field practice.We are most grateful for the help given us by the organizations. The information received issummarized and discussed in Part I1 below. It is desirable to retain anonymity, and particularsquoted will not be identified with any one organization by name. (The letters
A,
B,
C
and
D
are used-not, incidentally, in the above order of organizations.)
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...