Snowball Sampling vs Random Sampling in Research

Counterintelligence issues within the U.S.
Research Design and Methods Section
There is no standard ethical framework in counterintelligence, which presents a problem because of the risk of subjective or questionable morality seeping into counterintelligence activities (Valentine 2016). To understand the problem, this research design is qualitative because the subject is exploratory in nature. The aim of the research is to explore by way of comparative case study analysis the counterintelligence program under James Jesus Angleton, including the literature of the past and present. Scholarly articles, Senate reports, memoirs, independent research, biographies, and analysis will serve as the sources of information. Data will be analyzed using content analysis, with themes drawn from the literature and arranged and organized to give a clearer understanding of how ethics might be better utilized to guide the integration of the counterintelligence enterprise with the private sector in the 21st century. Concepts of ethics will be operationalized by defining them in accordance with accepted scholarly practices. Potential biases will be addressed by bracketing them out at the beginning, as recommended by Johnston, Wallis, Oprescu, and Gray (2017). The case study analysis will focus on three areas in particular, 1) the use of counterintelligence in Operation CHAOS under counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton; 2) the use of counterintelligence in the Phoenix Program, and 3) the use of counterintelligence by the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN).
The purpose for this approach can best be understood in the light of Erikson’s model of human development, which enables psychologists to understand the adult by examining the age-related conflicts that must be overcome before the child can proceed successfully to later stages of development (Shriner and Shriner 2014). By examining the early stages of counterintelligence under Angleton, one may gain insight in understanding the policies and issues of counterintelligence today by examining the early days of the counterintelligence program as it grew through its infancy, childhood and adolescence stages of the post-war/Cold War era (Valentine 2016, 10). This study will explore how conflicts of interests and relationships and a lack of ethical standards led to problems in counterintelligence. The comparative case study approach is a robust one because it allows for triangulation of research. The appropriate model for this approach is that of George and Bennett (2004), which uses a structured-focused research design.
Research methods for obtaining data are important because they determine the kind of data that is collected. For instance, a survey can supply quantitative data using a 5 point Likert scale that allows the research to statistically analyze the results and test for correlation or describe the averages and so on. A focus group method can allow a researcher to obtain qualitative data that focuses on common themes and concepts found among the responses of the various participants in the focus group when a question is put out for group discussion. Experiments allow a researcher to test a hypothesis and look at specific variables and how they relate. Interviews allow a researcher to obtain in-depth data from a single participant by asking questions that can lead to more questions and more answers and so on. Each method is helpful depending on what the researcher is attempting to do, and so they all have their place in meaningful research (Walliman 2017). The difference between quantitative and qualitative research is that the former is typically conducted to test a hypothesis whereas the latter is typically conducted to develop a hypothesis. This study is exploratory and is therefore not aiming to test a hypothesis but rather to compare findings from three different case examples of counterintelligence activities.
The comparative case study approach relies heavily upon secondary data analysis—i.e., data that has already been compiled. For this study, three works in particular will serve as the starting point: Unkefer’s (2013) memoir of working with the FBN, 90 Church; Morley’s (2017) biography of Angleton, The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton; and Valentine’s (2016) collection of research on the Phoenix Program as well as the FBN. Analysis of these works will then be followed up and complemented by analysis of relevant archival data, gathered by using snowball sampling—i.e., reviewing sources identified in the original data and using those sources to gather additional sources and so on. Secondary data analysis is typically used in literature reviews and systematic reviews to provide a foundation for further research or to compile past information from decades of previous research into one research article, and it can be of equal importance in case study analysis (Walliman 2017). It can be used for either qualitative or quantitative research, and the data can be interpreted in terms of quality and characteristics of the archival data or in terms of statistics. It can also be used by researchers who do not have time to conduct an experiment or field work on their own so they use data from previously conducted studies and incorporate it into their own study. For the purposes of this study, secondary data will be compiled thematically with a view towards evaluating counterintelligence case examples from the standpoint of ethics and outcomes to determine how ethics might best be applied to bolster counterintelligence for the future.
The ethical perspectives from which these counterintelligence cases will be assessed will be 1) virtue ethics, 2) duty ethics, 3) utilitarianism, and 4) ethical egoism. These are the four main relevant ethical systems typically utilized in ethics discourse to discuss actions and their morality in today’s world (Pojman and Feiser 2012). As Pojman and Fieser (2012) note, “moral principles concern standards of behavior; roughly speaking, they involve not what is but what ought to be” (3). The goal of this study is to identify what the ethical framework ought to be for the counterintelligence community going forward.
This method is conducted by creating a set of parameters for the searching of a database. The search will have to have inclusion and exclusion parameters so as to determine what data will be included in the study and what data will be excluded and this should be explained in the write-up. The data is then obtained from the database and analyzed accordingly. The advantages of secondary data analysis and archival studies are that it is a good way to review what information is available in either published or unpublished form (Walliman 2017). It allows data to be aggregated to one source and examined and that information presented for others in a systematic or at least logical and orderly way.
The limitations of this method are that it is not generally going to provide any new insight on a subject or advance a research issue. It is generally used for building a case for future research or to show where the focus in the past has been or why studies on a subject so far have been inadequate (Walliman 2017). Since the aim of this study is exploratory in nature and intends to focus the issue of the application of ethics in counterintelligence, this limitation is not seen as negative.
Purposive sampling will also be used in conjunction with snowball sampling to obtain data. Purposive sampling is acceptable for qualitative research because in qualitative research one is exploring a problem rather than attempting to test a hypothesis (Marshall 1996). Qualitative research is about collecting data so as to formulate a hypothesis, whereas quantitative research is about already having a hypothesis and obtaining a random sample that is representative of the population and testing that hypothesis with the sample. Generally, in quantitative studies, the researcher wants to have a randomized sample and if the test is experimental a controlled trial might be conducted. However, purposive sampling can be used depending on what the aim of the study is: if the study is looking at a narrower population, such as how particular intelligence agents applied a system of ethics in their counterintelligence work, purposive sampling within a particular agency would make sense even if the study is quantitative (Walliman 2017). Thus, there is no one size fits all model for what kind of sampling process should be conducted: it all depends on the design of the study and the data collection methodology being used (Lang and Altman 2016). In a qualitative study, one might conduct a focus group or interview or case study, all of which will likely use a purposive sampling approach because it gives the researcher a better focus on people who represent the population and a chance to understand in more detail what this population is like based on interviews with people from that population. Then that data can be taken to develop a hypothesis, which can then be tested quantitatively with, for instance, a survey of the wider population using a random sample approach to test for statistical significance of the null hypothesis (Marshall 1996).
The qualitative researcher gains more direct insight into a specific population through purposive sampling. What is given up by not using random sampling is access to a wider population. The trade-off is worth it though because in order to understand one group, it requires narrow up-close examination and exploration (Walliman 2017). If the field is opened up at random, the researcher will not have the same opportunity to study up close a single group or population, but may have one participant from this group and another from that group, which makes the data less reliable and can impair the validity of the findings because the approach is not focused.
Purposive sampling can work well with quantitative researchers, depending on the nature of the study, but in general quantitative research will focus on testing a hypothesis with the wider population and using a randomized sample from a population instead of their own judgment (Palinkas et al. 2015). The key to quantitative research is to be as objective as possible and to remove as much subjective bias as possible, whereas in qualitative research it is accepted that the researcher is going to be personally involved in making judgments and that the work will have a higher degree of subjectivity. This does present a limitation in terms of randomization. However, the characteristics of the study are such that randomization with regard to data collection is not of primary importance, since no theory or hypothesis is being tested.
Circumstances under which a qualitative researcher might decide to use random sampling instead of purpose sampling might be one in which the researcher already has a hypothesis formed and wants to explore whether the hypothesis can be significantly applied among the general wider population. So in that case the researcher might conduct random sampling to obtain a small pool of participants for a focus group or for interviews or for questionnaires. This happens when companies want to test a new product: they may randomly select participants from a specific population for a focus group; but they will likely be conducting a mixed-methods approach and collecting both qualitative and quantitative data (Wisdom and Creswell 2013). Random sampling can be used when the researcher is wanting to create a reliable and valid data set and may be interested in triangulation of sources (Creswell and Creswell 2018).
In conclusion, this research study uses the comparative case study analysis approach. The purpose of this method is to explore by way of comparative case study analysis the counterintelligence program under James Jesus Angleton, including the literature of the past and present. The goal of the research is to identify what the ethical framework ought to be for the counterintelligence community going forward. The data will be analyzed using content analysis and organized thematically. The framework by which the data will be analyzed will be the ethical frameworks of virtue ethics, duty ethics, utilitarianism, and ethical egoism. Sampling methods will be purposive and snowball.
Bibliography
Creswell, J. and J. Creswell, J. (2018). Research design. SAGE.
George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. 2004. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. MIT Press.
Johnston, C. M., Wallis, M., Oprescu, F. I., & Gray, M. 2017. “Methodological Considerations Related to Nurse Researchers Using Their Own Experience of a Phenomenon Within Phenomenology.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 73 (3): 574-584.
Lang, T. and D. Altman, D. 2016. “Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature: The SAMPL Guidelines.” Medical Writing 25: 31-36.
Marshall, M. N. 1996. “Sampling for Qualitative Research.” Family Practice 13 (6): 522-526.
Morley, Jefferson. 2017. The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton. St. Martin's Press.
Palinkas, L. A., S. M. Horwitz, C. A. Green, J. P. Wisdom, N. Duan, and K. Hoagwood,
2015. “Purposeful Sampling for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis in Mixed Method Implementation Research.” Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research 42 (5): 533-544.
Pojman, L. and J. Fieser. 2012. Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Cengage.
Shriner, B and M. Shriner. 2014. Essentials of Lifespan Development: A Topical Perspective. Bridgepoint Education: San Diego, CA.
Unkefer, Dean. 2013. 90 Church. New York: Virgin.
Valentine, Doug. 2016. CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World. Atlanta: Clarity Press.
Walliman, N. 2017. Research Methods: The Basics. Routledge.
Wisdom, J., and J. Creswell, J. W. 2013. Mixed methods: integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis while studying patient-centered medical home models. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.