{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018912529550827423, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.75531914893617, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
When attaining the best sample is out of reach: Nonprobability alternatives when engaging in public administration research

ABSTRACT Across all social science disciplines, but in particular public administration, there is a shared concern about the costs of using traditional random samples to generate data, and its impact on researchers’ ability to engage in “quality” research. As a result of these costs, more academics, practitioners, and students are turning to nonprobability sampling methods. However, beyond the notion that these sampling strategies reduce the external validity of findings, individuals engaging in these strategies are doing so in ill-conceived ways due to the lack of attention and examples within mainstream public administration literature that provide researchers with the knowledge on how to best utilize these strategies. As a result, this article seeks to provide public administration practitioners, Master of Public Administration students, and scholars an understanding of and guidance in deciding to utilize three nonprobabilistic methods, convenience sampling, purposive sampling, and sample matching. This article is intended to be used as a supplement to materials and texts already currently being used within methods courses.