&2/#?+63>+>3@/$/:9<>&2/#?+63>+>3@/$/:9<>
(96?7/ ?7,/< 9A&9<>3-6/
)97+83=7+8.%89A,+66%+7:638181+1381+<138+63D/.)97+83=7+8.%89A,+66%+7:638181+1381+<138+63D/.
"9:?6+>398=38963=>3-$/=/+<-2"9:?6+>398=38963=>3-$/=/+<-2
*/>?<+2)99.6/C
/A/B3-9%>+>/'83@/<=3>C+38+7:?=
B7A99.6/C1>--/.?
/1+89-5+<.
/A/B3-9%>+>/'83@/<=3>C+38+7:?=
7/69-587=?/.?
9669A>23=+8.+..3>398+6A9<5=+>2>>:=8=?A9<5=89@+/.?>;<
"+<>90>2/.?-+>398+6==/==7/8>@+6?+>398+8.$/=/+<-297798=/8./<+8.%/B?+63>C
97798=!>2/<%9-3+6+8./2+@39<+6%-3/8-/=97798=#?+8>3>+>3@/#?+63>+>3@/97:+<+>3@/+8.
3=>9<3-+6/>29.96913/=97798=+8.>2/$+-/+8.>283-3>C97798=
$/-977/8./."3>+>398$/-977/8./."3>+>398
)99.6/C*9-5+<.)97+83=7+8.%89A,+66%+7:638181+1381+<138+63D/.
"9:?6+>398=38963=>3-$/=/+<-2
&2/#?+63>+>3@/$/:9<>
2>>:=.939<1
&23=9A&9<>3-6/3=,<9?12>>9C9?09<0<//+8.9:/8+--/==,C>2/&2/#?+63>+>3@/$/:9<>+> %')9<5=>2+=
,//8+--/:>/.09<38-6?=39838&2/#?+63>+>3@/$/:9<>,C+8+?>29<3D/.+.7383=><+>9<90 %')9<5=9<79</
3809<7+>398:6/+=/-98>+->8=?A9<5=89@+/.?
)97+83=7+8.%89A,+66%+7:638181+1381+<138+63D/."9:?6+>398=38)97+83=7+8.%89A,+66%+7:638181+1381+<138+63D/."9:?6+>398=38
963=>3-$/=/+<-2963=>3-$/=/+<-2
,=><+->,=><+->
)97+83=>+8.0/7383=>;?+63>+>3@/</=/+<-2/<=-98>38?/>93./8>30C</=/+<-27/>29.=+8.>/-283;?/=>2+>
2+<8/==>2/:9A/<90=9-3+68/>A9<5381+8.:/<=98+6-988/->398=A236//81+1381A3>27+<138+63D/.
:9:?6+>398=+8C2+@/09?8.>2+>>2/?=/90=89A,+66=+7:6381+669A=38-</+=/.+--/==>938.3@3.?+6=
+8.1<9?:=>2+>7+C9>2/<A3=/</7+3838+--/==3,6/&2/:?<:9=/90>23=+<>3-6/3=>9.3=-?==>2/?=/90
=89A,+66=+7:6381>/-283;?/=A3>238A97+83=>+8.0/7383=></=/+<-2&2/+?>29<=900/<-<3>3-+6
</H/->398=90>2/?=/90>23==+7:6381>/-283;?/+=+>996>2+>+669A=</=/+<-2/<=+--/==>9F23../8G+8.
7+<138+63D/.:9:?6+>398=8/B+7:6/90>2/?=/90=89A,+66=+7:638138+.9->9<+6</=/+<-2:<94/->
A23-26995=+>>2//B:/<3/8-/=906+-5A97/80+-?6>C38 /A/B3-9E=38=>3>?>398=902312/</.?-+>398
3=:<9@3./.&2/+<>3-6/-98-6?./=A3>2</-977/8./.=><+>/13/=+8.5/C-98=3./<+>398=+,9?>>2/?=/90
=89A,+66=+7:638138A97+83=></=/+<-2
/CA9<.=/CA9<.=
)97+83=>&2/9<C#?+63>+>3@/$/=/+<-2%89A,+66%+7:63813../8+8.+<138+63D/."9:?6+>398=
</+>3@/97798=3-/8=/</+>3@/97798=3-/8=/
&23=A9<53=63-/8=/.?8./<+</+>3@/97798=>><3,?>398 98-977/<-3+6%2+</635/8>/<8+>398+6
3-/8=/
&23=29A>9+<>3-6/3=+@+36+,6/38&2/#?+63>+>3@/$/:9<>2>>:=8=?A9<5=89@+/.?>;<@963==
The Qualitative Report 2016 Volume 21, Number 2, How To Article 3, 321-329
Womanism and Snowball Sampling:
Engaging Marginalized Populations in Holistic Research
Xeturah M. Woodley and Megan Lockard
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA
Womanist and feminist qualitative researchers continue to identify research
methods and techniques that harness the power of social networking and
personal connections while engaging with marginalized populations. Many
have found that the use of snowball sampling allows increased access to
individuals and groups that may otherwise remain inaccessible. The purpose of
this article is to discuss the use of snowball sampling techniques within
womanist and feminist research. The authors offer critical reflections of the use
of this sampling technique as a tool that allows researchers access to “hidden”
and marginalized populations. An example of the use of snowball sampling in a
doctoral research project, which looks at the experiences of Black women
faculty in New Mexico’s institutions of higher education, is provided. The
article concludes with recommended strategies and key considerations about
the use of snowball sampling in womanist research. Keywords: Womanist
Theory, Qualitative Research, Snowball Sampling, Hidden and Marginalized
Populations
There exists a need for research methods that assist researchers in engaging with
marginalized groups in ways that are more natural and holistic for the members of those groups
(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Vaz, 1997). Robert Guthrie (2004) in his book, Even the Rat Was
White: The History of Psychology, provides a review of the historical research in the field of
psychology in which he points to the inherent racial bias that privileged the White male
experience in most of the psychological research. Guthrie’s analysis showed that the White
experience was valued and accepted as the normal standard, thus marginalizing and labeling as
abnormal any experience that did not adhere to White standards. This type of privileging of the
White experience in research is not limited to psychology. Many social justice researchers,
with theoretical groundings in womanist, feminist and critical race traditions, have criticized
“the existing literature for its lack of attention to the needs and issues of populations currently
marginalized in society” due to a failure to recognize the intersection of identity factors such
as race, class, gender, sexual orientation and religion (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013, pp. 69-70).
An Anglocentric approach neglects to take into account the methods that feel most natural to
women, people of color, and other marginalized populations. (Borum, 2005; Denzin, Lincoln,
& Smith, 2008; Solorzano & Yosso, 2002; Taylor, 1998; Vaz 1997). A critique of such limited
research practices has led many scholars to begin inquiries into systemic practices of inequality
and oppression even within the research methods themselves (Lyons & Bike, 2013; Stanley,
2013). And “from these critiques has emerged a greater scholarly focus on investigating the
effects of systematic forms of inequity and oppression, and a concurrent desire to empower
marginalized groups through socially just research practices” (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013, p.
69-70).
Qualitative research methods provide for more opportunities to engage with
marginalized groups in holistic research than do quantitative methods (Denzin, Lincoln, &
Smith, 2008; Lindsay-Dennis, 2011; Miller & Treitel, 1991). Black womanist researchers,
whose research is rooted in Black womanist and feminist praxis, utilize research methods like
“storytelling, narrative, voice, autoethnography, and phenomenology” to enable the creation of
Xeturah Woodley and Megan Lockard 322
“a theoretical and methodological space for traditionally silenced and marginalized groups to
critique social institutions that perpetuate inequality” (Pratt-Clarke, 2012, p. 84). Within the
qualitative toolbox, snowball sampling provides one such way for researchers to study
marginalized populations by harnessing the power of social networking and personal
connections, which allows for the more thorough analysis of individuals and groups that may
otherwise remain inaccessible.
The purpose of this article is to contribute to the existing literature about the use of
snowball sampling in qualitative research studies that seek to understand the experiences of
marginalized groups. The article begins with a review of the history of snowball sampling
followed by a discussion of snowball sampling as it pertains to qualitative research methods.
Next, an example is provided of a particular womanist research study, conducted by one of the
article authors, that employed snowball sampling techniques. Finally, the article concludes with
critical reflections of the use of this sampling technique as a tool to access “hidden” and
marginalized populations.
The History of Snowball Sampling
Traditionally, snowball sampling has been employed as a “solution to overcome
problems of data sampling in the study of hidden populations” (as cited in Faugier & Sargeant,
1997, p. 792). This strategy has been used since 1958 (Coleman). But despite its role in
qualitative research and its continued use, there has been a general lack of description of the
work involved in snowball sampling—a lack that “led to the impression that all that was
required to sample difficult-to-reach populations was to start the ball rolling with one contact,
then sit back and watch the sample pile up” (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997, p. 792). This lack of
explanation and attention additionally led to a general dismissal of the strategy as unscientific
or at the very least problematic. In fact, snowball sampling “has traditionally been sidelined in
social research because it does not adhere to many of the notions underpinning conventional
random methods of data collection” (Dawood, 2008, pp. 36-37). However, more and more
researchers have been detailing their experiences with snowball sampling, demystifying the
strategy and shedding light on both its successes and its shortcomings.
Along with the lack of explicit detail surrounding researchers’ uses of snowball
sampling, there has also been some disagreement regarding how one is to define “snowball
sampling.” Two main definitions of snowball sampling have emerged. In the first, snowball
sampling is a term used to describe the researchers’ attempt to study network structure
(Heckathorn, 2011). In this definition, “individuals in the sample are asked to identify other
individuals, for a fixed number of stages, for the purpose of estimating the number of mutual
relationships or social circles in the population” (Thompson, 2002, p. 183). This version of
snowball sampling is defined by Goodman (1961) as “a rigorous statistical approach to
estimating certain relational features” (Handcock & Gile, 2011, p. 368). In the second and more
current definition, snowball sampling has come to refer to a type of “convenience sampling”
especially in regard to hidden populations, hard to reach populations, and sensitive subjects
(Heckathorn, 2011, p. 357). This definition involves “collecting a sample from a population in
which a standard sampling approach is either impossible or prohibitively expensive, for the
purpose of studying characteristics of individuals in the population” (Handcock & Gile, 2011,
pp. 368-369). We will be discussing snowball sampling in terms of the second definition in
which “a few identified members of a rare population are asked to identify other members of
the population, those so identified are asked to identify others, and so on, for the purpose of
obtaining a nonprobability sample or for constructing a frame from which to sample”
(Thompson, 2002, p. 183).
323 The Qualitative Report 2016
The problem of interpretation seems to be the least of the complications associated with
snowball sampling. Cohen and Arieli (2011) detail the work done by Valdez and Kaplan
(1999) and Moore and Hagedorn (2001) in which the authors point to “representativity [as] the
central limitation” of snowball sampling (p. 428). Not unjustifiably, this strategy has been
criticized for numerous deficiencies, all of which fall under this problem of representativity. In
particular, three main issues surface in the literature pertaining to snowball sampling: selection
bias, diversity of subjects, and validity. In regard to bias, the main complaint is that because
the subjects are hand-chosen by individuals, there can be no “guarantee that the sample will be
representative”; in other words, “because samples are not randomly drawn but are dependent
on subjective choices of the first contact, samples may then tend towards a reflexive bias”
(Dawood, 2008, p. 37). Those subjects who are the first contacts are referred to as the
gatekeepers, also called “go-betweens: those who are in the position to facilitate contact
between the researcher and potential respondents” (Cohen & Arieli, 2011, p. 428). And these
gatekeepers can potentially select respondents based on their own personal biases (Cohen &
Arieli, 2011; Groger, Mayberry, & Straker, 1999).
In the second problem regarding selection and diversity of subjects, we find that
snowball sampling is criticized for being limited to “existing networks” of hidden, hard-to-
reach, or sensitive populations. Therefore, instead of being able to choose from “sizeable
numbers” of respondents “from a diversity of ethnic, class, and geographical backgrounds,”
researchers are forced to sample only “those within particular social milieus” (McCormack,
2014, p. 477). With such limitations concerning subject selection and diversity, it is no wonder
that the generalizability of the results of research using snowball sampling has been called into
question. Furthermore, Baltar and Brunet (2012) regret that “although initial seeds in snowball
sampling are in theory randomly chosen, it is difficult to carry out in practice,” making
researching such populations something of a catch 22—hidden, marginalized, or hard-to-reach
populations are defined by the very aspects that make the study of them non-generalizable and,
to some, invalid (p. 60).
The third problem, that of validity, is another issue that researchers employing snowball
sampling struggle to overcome (Baltar & Brunet, 2012; Cohen & Arieli, 2011). So it is not
without risk that researchers make use of snowball sampling as a way to gain a better
understanding of populations that are not easily accessible. Perhaps, though, it is due to the
unique needs and struggles of hidden, hard-to-reach, and sensitive subject populations that
social justice researchers continue to use snowball sampling as a means of collecting “cultural
knowledge . . . gleaned from anecdotal, observational, experiential, and narrative data” despite
the fact that it “often lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the academy” (Fassinger & Morrow, 2013,
p. 73). In the end, in order to address the needs of those individuals and groups who are
oppressed or marginalized, social justice researchers have a responsibility to consider using
strategies such as snowball sampling because perhaps “biased information is better than none”
(Sydor, 2013, p. 36).
To further the idea that social justice—and in particular womanist, feminist, and
multicultural—researchers must “find ways to frame scientific study in a way that legitimizes
cultural knowledge,” we propose that there is a critical need for the use of strategies such as
snowball sampling in qualitative research despite the above-listed weaknesses (Fassinger &
Morrow, 2013, p. 73). We argue that the womanist, feminist, and multicultural researcher must
strive to recognize “the diversity of experiences of girls/women within formerly colonised and
historically marginalised societies, their struggles, negotiations and resistance to different
forms of patriarchal oppression and domination as well as imperial domination,” and that in
order to do so, we must adopt research strategies that are accepted by and comfortable for the
subjects being studied (Chilisa & Nteane, 2010, p. 618). For whatever its deficiencies, snowball
Xeturah Woodley and Megan Lockard 324
sampling provides womanist, feminist, and multicultural scholars a way to use social
networking to study marginalized populations without further marginalizing them.
Qualitative Research Methods: Holistic Methods for Research
As a whole, qualitative research allows participant voices to be heard in a more holistic
and natural way (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Foster-Williamson, 2002; Sosulski, Buchanan, &
Donnell, 2010; Vaz, 1997). Gynocentric qualitative research methods have had a profound
impact on the research of, for, and about women. The research done by Black Feminist and
Black Womanist researchers like Annette Henry (1992), Lisa Paler Hargrove (1999), Joanne
Banks-Wallace (2000), Queen Foster-Williamson (2002), and Gloria Hajat (2010) have added
to the existing research on Black women’s experiences while strengthening the case for the use
of qualitative research methods when engaging Black women in research. Qualitative research
methods provide three opportunities that quantitative methods do not.
First, qualitative methods allow participant life stories to be told in their own voices
and on their own terms, thus creating spaces for marginalized voices to be heard (Adams, 2009;
Araujo, 2006; Foster-Williamson, 2002; Maynes, Pierce, & Laslett, 2008; Perkins, 2004). bell
hooks (1993), in her book Sisters of the Yam, writes about the healing power that comes from
a Black woman’s ability to name and to speak her own truth: “Their healing power can be felt
in black women’s lives if we dare to look at ourselves, our lives, our experiences and then,
without shame, courageously name what we see” (p. 30). The use of qualitative research
methods provided the participants in this study the venue to speak about their experiences as
Black Women academics in ways that quantitative research methods would not provide.
Although the research Sosulski, Buchanan, and Donnell (2010) focused on in the life histories
of Black women with severe mental illnesses, they articulated well the reason for using
qualitative methods in the holistic understanding Black women’s experiences. “Life history
methods and feminist narrative analysis techniques,” they write, “can be used to reach beyond
pathologized conceptions of identity . . . These interpretive methods help to holistically
describe the study participants’ experiences–both beneficial and harmful–and identify the
strategies they use to pursue their goals and enhance their lives” (Sosulski, Buchanan, &
Donnell, 2010, p. 30).
Second, Lincoln and Guba (1985) contend that “qualitative methods come more easily
to hand when the instrument is a human being” by arguing that “normal human activities:
looking, listening, speaking, reading, and the like” mean that humans “tend, therefore, toward
interviewing, observing, mining available documents and records” (p. 199). Likewise, Heath
(2006) argued that qualitative research grounded in Womanist Theory “embodies the art of
participatory witnessing (Black women telling their stories)” (p.160). Qualitative techniques
like semi-structured interviewing “introduce the opportunity to collect rich data textured by the
respondents’ own interpretations of their experiences and the social circumstances in which
their story has unfolded” (Sosulski et al., 2010, p. 37). Semi-structured interviews provided an
opportunity to listen to the stories of these women and, thus, “learn new ways of being moral
and political in the social world” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 20).
Third, the use of qualitative methods is consistent with a Womanist research framework
and a critical theoretical framework, which takes “a stance toward the nature of reality
(ontology), how the researcher knows what she or he knows (epistemology), the role of values
in the research (axiology), the language of research (rhetoric), and the methods used in the
process (methodology)” (Creswell, 2007, p. 16). According to Coker, Hsin-Hsin, and
Kashubeck-West (2009), “researchers should use culturally sensitive research methods: for
example, qualitative methods such as interviews, participant observations, and narrative
methods when working with African American women (Tillman, 2006; Vaz, 1997)” (p. 162).
325 The Qualitative Report 2016
Finally, the methods used in the selection of research participants is also important
when doing research with African American women and other hidden populations. This is
where snowball sampling becomes an ideal method for womanist, feminist, and multicultural
researchers. Womanist, feminist, and multicultural researchers use snowball sampling as a
means to “partake in the dynamics of natural and organic social networks” as they identify
participants for their studies (Noy, 2008, p. 329). Snowball sampling becomes an important
tool in accessing those populations that may be hidden or hard to access due to discrimination
or other forms of invalidation from the larger society (Browne, 2005; Sadler, Lee, Lim, &
Fullerton, 2010).
Snowball Sampling in a Recent Womanist Research Study
One such hidden population is Black women faculty located in the State of New
Mexico. Dr. Xeturah Woodley, co-author of this article, conducted a qualitative research study
that sought to understand the experiences of Black women educators in New Mexico’s higher
education. At the time of the study, African Americans accounted for 1.9% of the total
population in New Mexico (citation needed). It was anticipated that the numbers of Black
women educators in higher education institutions would be small based on the overall
population demographics of Blacks in New Mexico as well as the historically small numbers
of Black faculty in higher education in general.
For the study, the Black women faculty that would be eligible to participate had to meet
the following requirements:
1. Participants had to self-identify as Black or African American women.
2. Participants had to currently work as a full-time or part-time faculty
members at a New Mexico institution of higher education.
3. Participants had to be at least 18 years of age and hold a master’s, Ph.D., or
terminal degree in their field.
As she began her research, Woodley was only able to initially identify two (2) Black women
faculty, based on previous interactions, that met the criteria. When she contacted these two
Black women educators about participating in the study, only one agreed to participate. When
Woodley asked if either woman knew of other Black women faculty, they each referred to the
other. Rachel, one of the study participants, spoke to the void of Black women faculty on
campuses by stating, “I think that it’s really difficult because there are so few African American
women in higher education and really no matter what institution you go to” (as cited in
Woodley, 2014, p. 149). The limited numbers of Black women educators in both the full-time
and part-time ranks reinforces the sense of isolation for this hidden population of educator.
Initially, Woodley began announcing the study and asking for referrals at
predominantly Black churches and at meetings of historically Black organizations throughout
the State. However, these community announcement efforts were only able to produce a few
potential participants. While at an appointment with her hairdresser, Woodley shared about the
limited numbers of Black women educators she was able to identify. As she recalls, the
hairdresser asked about the criteria and, after hearing all three, was able to immediately identify
potential participants. Within the Black community, hair salons and barbershops become
“discursive spaces in which the confluence of Black hair care, for and by Black people, and
small talk establish a context for cultural exchange” (Alexander, 2003, p. 105). Within these
spaces, Black hairdressers carry a great deal of cultural capital as they engage with Black
women about their lived experiences. Even within small, isolated Black communities, Black
women’s salons are a gathering place and a central hub of community activity. So it only made
Xeturah Woodley and Megan Lockard 326
sense that one of the most naturalistic locations for identifying participants would be through
a hairdresser within the Black community in New Mexico. Referrals from this one hairdresser
began a snowball of referral that lead to three (3) out of ten (10), or 30%, of the study
participants.
Another significant source of referral was from a Hispanic male colleague, whose
coalition building at one New Mexico institution, proved to be a great resource for identifying
potential participants. During a meeting with a Hispanic male colleague, who worked as a
faculty member at an institution in New Mexico, Woodley shared about her research and asked
if he knew of any Black women educators that fit the participant criteria. Initially, he was able
to provide the name of one potential participant based on a cross-cultural alliance that was build
among a number of marginalized groups at the institution. Based on his description of group
activities, it appeared as though the group served as both a professional and personal support
group that equipped members with tools they needed to combat the systemic racism and
inherent biases they experienced at the institution. Cross-cultural alliance building becomes a
vital part of institutional survival for many faculty of color at many predominantly White
institutions (PWIs; Turner & Myer, 2000). It is through these alliances that many Black women
faculty, and other faculty of color, find instruction on how to navigate racism, sexism and other
systems of oppression at PWIs. These coalitions become vital to not only surviving but also
for retaining within institutions. As the conversation proceeded about the importance of
research that provides an opportunity to hear the stories of non-majoritarian groups, he was
able to recall the names of two other potential participants for the study.
As the above examples illustrate, snowball sampling was a vital part of identifying
Black women educators in New Mexico. By eliciting input from a Black hairstylist, who is the
holder of much cultural capital within the Black community, as well as a cross-cultural activist,
who had build alliances with Black women educators, 15 potential participants were identified.
Ten (10) agreed to participate in the study.
Conclusion
This article has labeled the shortcomings of snowball sampling as selection bias,
diversity of subjects, and validity. However, we feel as Foote Whyte (1982) does in that we
must “recogniz[e] the personal bias and distortion inherent in snowball sampling as a price
which must be paid in order to gain an understanding of these hidden populations and their
particular circumstances” and that “the confidence that develops in a relationship over a period
of time is perhaps the best guarantee of sincerity . . . and should increase the validity of the
data” (as cited in Faugier & Sargeant, 1997, p. 796). Generally, “scientific control trials are not
a feasible alternative and no census-based sampling frame nor any other reliable source is
available to define and randomly sample these populations”; therefore, womanist and social
justice researchers seek to employ methods such as snowball sampling despite their potential
shortcomings (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997, p. 790). In short, snowball sampling “allows for the
sampling of natural interactional units” (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981, p. 141) while
simultaneously “provid[ing] maximum theoretical understanding of a social process” (Faugier
& Sargeant, 1997, p. 791). Without snowball sampling, the research detailed in this article
would not have been possible.
Our research details the process Woodley undertook in order to locate black women
faculty in New Mexico. Snowball sampling was the way in which she was able to gain access
to the subjects in a non-intrusive manner. Thanks to the hairdresser, who acted as an
“Intermediar[y] who introduce[d] the researcher to respondents,” Woodley was able to collect
and analyze the narratives of a hard-to-reach population (Dawood, 2008, p. 36). Any researcher
invested in studying women and people of color are likewise challenged to employ a method
327 The Qualitative Report 2016
of study that takes into account the well-being of the subjects, ensuring that these populations
are comfortable sharing their experiences without the threat of further marginalization. Because
“the focus of qualitative research [is] on contextual meaning and lived experience,” the method
in which subjects are found, contacted, and studied plays a fundamental role in understanding
those lived experiences (McCormack, 2014, p. 475). Therefore, in the light of social justice
research and the efforts of womanist, feminist, and multicultural scholars, snowball sampling
becomes a critical method of inquiry into hidden, hard-to-reach, and sensitive populations.
Moreover, this method’s ability to transcend traditional Anglo-American research methods that
potentially alienate minorities and sensitive groups means that researchers are able to study
delicate “cultures and lived experiences [in order] to produce knowledge that is contextually
relevant, builds relationships, heals the self, the community and the larger socio-cultural
context” (Chilisa & Nteane, 2010, p. 619). We see snowball sampling as a way in which to
provide a more comfortable research environment for subjects precisely because it “directly
addresses the fears and mistrust . . . and increases the likelihood of trusting the researcher by
introduction through a trusted social network” (Cohen & Arieli, 2011, p. 423). This social
network is essential for womanist researchers in gaining access to their subjects while
simultaneously securing their trust.
In addition to providing a comfortable and trusted means of valuing hidden, hard-to-
reach, and sensitive populations, snowball sampling also becomes a method through which
counter narratives can be told. Authors Chilisa and Nteane (2010) urge scholars “to employ
theoretical frameworks that are eclectic and combine theories and techniques from disparate
disciplines and paradigms“ in order to offer new ways of “re-read[ing]” the world (p. 620).
Snowball sampling offers one such way of rereading the world and validating diverse critical
narratives.
References
Alexander, B. K. (2003). Fading, twisting, and weaving: An interpretive ethnography of the
Black barbershop as cultural space. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 105-128.
Baltar, F., & Brunet, I. (2012). Social research 2.0: Virtual snowball sampling method using
Facebook. Internet Research, 22(1), 57-74.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain
referral sampling. Sociological Methods & Research, 10(2), 141-163.
Borum, V. (2005). African American parents’ perceptions of an American deaf community:
Where’s the poetic justice? The Qualitative Report, 10(4), 703-717. Retrieved from
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol10/iss4/4/
Chilisa, B., & Nteane, G. (2010). Resisting dominant discourses: Implications of indigenous,
African feminist theory and methods for gender and education research. Gender and
Education, 22(6), 617-632. doi:10.1080/09540253.2010.519578
Cohen, N., & Arieli, T. (2011). Field research in conflict environments: Methodological
challenges and snowball sampling. Journal of Peace Research, 48, 423-435.
doi:10.1177/0022343311405698
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (3
rd
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Dawood, M. (2008). Sampling rare populations. Nurse Researcher, 15(4), 35-41.
Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S., & Smith, L. T. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of critical and indigenous
methodologies. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Fassinger, R., & Morrow, S. L. (2013). Toward best practices in quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed-method research: A social justice perspective. Journal for Social Action in
Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 69-83.
Xeturah Woodley and Megan Lockard 328
Faugier, J., & Sargeant, M. (1997). Sampling hard to reach populations. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 26, 790-797.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 32, 148-70.
Groger, L, Mayberry, P. S., & Straker, J. K. (1999). What we didn’t learn because of who would
not talk to us. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 829–835.
Guthrie, R. V. (2004). Even the rat was white: A historical view of psychology (2
nd
ed.). New
York, NY: Pearson Education.
Handcock, M. S., & Gile, K. J. (2011). Comment: On the concept of snowball sampling.
Sociological Methodology, 41(1), 367-371.
Heckathorn, D. D. (2011). Comment: Snowball versus respondent-driven sampling. Sociological
Methodology, 41(1), 355-366.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lindsay-Dennis, L. (2011). Black feminist thought and womanism: Paradigms for the guiding
research focused on African American girls. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
35th Annual National Council for Black Studies, The Westin, Cincinnati, OH.
Lyons, H. Z., & Bike, D. H. (2013). The use of multiculturally-competent research methods to
promote social justice in counseling and psychology. Journal for Social Action in
Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 1.
McCormack, M. (2014). Innovative sampling and participant recruitment in sexuality research.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 475–481.
doi:10.1177/0265407514522889
Moore, J. W., & Hagedorn, J. (2001). Female gangs: A focus on research. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Pratt-Clarke, M. (2012). A Black woman’s search for the transdisciplinary applied social justice
model: Encounters with critical race feminism, Black feminism, and Africana studies.
The Journal of Pan African Studies, 5(1), 83-102.
Solorzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an
analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44.
Stanley, L. (Ed.). (2013). Feminist praxis (RLE feminist theory): Research, theory and
epistemology in feminist sociology. New York, NY: Routledge.
Sydor, A. (2013). Conducting research into hidden or hard-to-reach populations. Nurse
Researcher, 20(3), 33-37.
Thompson, S. K. (2002). Sampling (2
nd
ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Valdez, A., & Kaplan, C. D. (1999). Reducing selection bias in the use of focus groups to
investigate hidden populations: The case of Mexican-American gang members from
south Texas. Drugs and Society 14, 209–224.
Vaz, K. M. (1997). Oral narrative research with Black women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Whyte, F. W. (1982). Interviewing in field research. In Robert, G. (Ed.) Research: A sourcebook
and field manual (pp. 111-122). London, UK: Allen and Unwin.
Woodley, X. (2013). Black women's faculty voices in New Mexico: Invisible assets silent no
more. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
(Accession Order No. 3579922).
Author Note
Dr. Xeturah Woodley is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and
Instruction at New Mexico State University, where she teaches instructional design and
technology. Her research, teaching and service weave together Black womanist thought,
critical race theory and social justice praxis as she interrogates the inherent biases that plague
329 The Qualitative Report 2016
American higher education. Dr. Woodley’s research interests include Black womanist thought,
critical pedagogies and social justice issues in higher education. Correspondence regarding this
article can be addressed directly to: Xeturah M. Woodley at, [email protected].
Ms. Megan Lockard is a doctoral student and research assistant in the College of
Education at New Mexico State University. Her research interests include learning
technologies, qualitative research methods and social justice in education. In addition to her
doctoral work, Ms. Lockard is a community college educator and social justice advocate.
Correspondence regarding this article can also be addressed directly to: Megan Lockard at,
Copyright 2016: Xeturah M. Woodley, Megan Lockard, and Nova Southeastern
University.
Article Citation
Woodley, X. M., & Lockard, M. (2016). Womanism and snowball sampling: Engaging
marginalized populations in holistic research. The Qualitative Report, 21(2), 321-329.
Retrieved from http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol21/iss2/9
