Both studies used more than one sampling method. Samura (2016) mainly used the purposive sampling technique and the snowball sampling technique. The purposive sampling technique is used in special situations, such as where the researcher desires to impose a judgment in selecting a case for a specific purpose. In this case, Samura (2016, p.138) desired to target and sample participants who were undergraduate students and who self-identified as “Asian” or “Asian American.” She also used the snowball method to select the participants further. Overall, this is a stratified sampling method where a population is divided into subgroups that are further sampled. Similarly, Harris & Harper (2014) used several sampling techniques. For instance, they used snowball sampling by asking participants to self-report their level of concern. They also used simple random sampling by allowing participation from all active undergraduate members of the fraternity. Harris & Harper (2014) used a stratified method to obtain further a racial or ethnic profile of the participants admitted to the study.

Also, both studies recruited participants from an academic setting. Samura (2016) collected data from the West University, and Harris & Harper (2014) sampled participants who were an active undergraduate member of the concealed fraternity. Both studies recruited participants who were Asian Americans. Samura (2016) exclusively included only Asian and Asian Americans, while Harris & Harper (2014) nine Asian Americans, among other races. Both studies invited participants to sample through online strategies, among other call methods. For instance, Harris & Harper (2014) sent a link to about 8000 AB undergraduates, from which they would fill a questionnaire. Like Samura (2016) invited participants through Facebook pages (among other methods), he posted posters concerning the study. Lastly, both studies sampled multiracial populations.


However, both studies’ sampling strategies are different in that Samura (2016) recruits both genders, while Harris & Harper (2014) recruit only men. Also, most participants recruited by Samura (2016) were whites in the United States, while those recruited by Harris & Harper (2014) were mostly multiracial. Harris & Harper (2014) sampled participants using an online interview, which was not used beyond that purpose. On the other hand, Samura (2016) sampled participants through participation in a photo journal, interviews, or both.


Samura’s (2016) profession and individuality influenced her sampling technique. Positionality concerns the influences caused by the researcher’s identity. For instance, given that Samura is an educator focusing on gender identity development for college men, and she has served at the National Center for Institutional Diversity, it is expected that her sampling technique would reveal diversity. As such, Samura (2016) recruited significant numbers of females and males and ensured diversity in age, social class, and race. Also, both Harris and Harper are educators in higher institutions of learning. It would be expected that they will select a population that is proximal to their domain. As such, they have chosen to sample active undergraduate members of the fraternity. They have also dwelled significantly on the minority races, which Harper ascribes (as an African American), teaching subjects such as racial studies, gender, and LGBT issues incorporate.   


Harris, F., & Harper, S. (2014). Beyond bad behaving brothers: productive performances of masculinities among college fraternity men. International Journal Of Qualitative Studies In Education27(6), 703-723.

Samura, M. (2016). Remaking Selves, Repositioning Selves, or Remaking Space: An Examination of Asian American College Students’ Processes of “Belonging”. Journal Of College Student Development57(2), 135-150.