عنوان مقاله [English]
Sampling is one of the practical items of methodology in urban planning researches during recent decades that because of its significant role in improving the quality and credit of researches, analyses of design procedure, applying and reporting based on logics of sampling theory, seems to be essential. This research concerns with the articles based on sampling where have been published in Journal of Research and Urban Planning 2015 as the sample, with quality method. Here, the methods of sampling of this report have been evaluated analytically. The results show great considerable errors in reporting the methodology of the sampling in most of the articles. For example, in the ten studied articles regarding the methods of explaining, the sampling criterions (100% not reported), sampling methods (55% not reported and 45 % incomplete reports, incorrect or unclear), determining the statistics society (45% not reported 30% incomplete or unclear), determining the ways of access to samples (70% not reported 5% incomplete or unclear), seems not to be trustworthy. On the other hand, the only index which could be almost acceptable is reporting the numbers of samples (%80 exact and complete and %20 incomplete and unclear). In general, the method of reporting the procedure of sampling in these articles seems to be incomplete and unclear (in %50 of cases), incomplete and incorrect (in %10 of cases), and incomplete, incorrect, and unclear (in %40 of cases). Therefore, none of them includes a complete, clear, and correct report (in all indexes at the same time) of the method of sampling. Therefor lacking of a clear scientific pattern in reporting the sampling method based on rules and assumptions of the sampling theory in the studied researches, could influence the scientific quality (i.e. validity, reliability and generalizability) of them. This problem requires a serious attention of science member’s society in fields of urban planning to methodology of sampling in teaching process, searching, analyzing and publishing scientific researches.
The main important sections of any recent researches is widely believed to be the methodology, quality of the report and the style of writing. These are the main important and gist of any recent research in urban planning studies as well. The aforementioned factors, provide the required information for the repetition, the structure, ability to be examined, generalization and other characteristics of the study. Only by thorough consideration of the mentioned factors, a reliable outcome would be eventually obtained. Therefore, one can evaluate the reliability of the study by inspecting the sampling method and the reporting style. Sampling is one of the many stages of urban planning studies and methodologies. The sampling method has huge importance in analysis and performing the given plans in a study. It must be considered any lack of precision and ambiguity can severely rule out the scientific reliability of the study. Hence, the presented article aims to analyze and evaluate the sampling methods in urban planning surveys.
The presented study is of the qualitative research in terms of the identity and research approach. Data are gathered from the available references and citation from the resources. The analysis method is descriptive-analytical and based on the content analysis of the resources. The goal society of the research is the quantitative researches based on the urban planning surveys which they have used sampling methods at any level. To simplify the study the 36 and 36 issues of the 1398 edition of “Journal of Urban Planning” including 10 eligible articles are selected to be analyzed (Table 1). The number of variables, theoretical definition of the statistical population, the number of statistical populations, frame sampling population size and the method of accessing the samples are analyzed according the deductions given in their report.
Table 1: Sources of survey articles based on quantitative sampling published in the Journal of Research and Urban Planning in the first half of the year 2019
Ghorbanpour et al (2019)
Heidarzadeh & Behzadfar (2019)
Arzaghi et al (2019)
Haghpanah et al (2019)
Zarin kaviyani et al (2019)
shamsoddini & nasibi (2019
PourAhmad et al (2019)
Miralaei et al (2019)
Badiee et al (2019)
Moradian et al (2019)
It is found that there is a severe lack of precision and meticulousness in methodology of sampling reports in most of the inspected articles. That is, in terms of explanation and reporting the measures of sampling frameworks: 100% not reported, sampling: 40% not reported and 60% uncompleted and ambiguous reports, accessing the sample members: 80% nor reported, defining the number of populations: 40% not reported and 30% ambiguous report are seen. The only acceptable reported measure in the articles was the number of samples: 80% exact and complete and 20 ambiguous or uncompleted. The style of reporting and sampling process are uncompleted in 50% of the articles. Meaning the all or few of the inspected measures are not reported or explained superficially. 10% of articles have wrong or misleading reporting style, meaning, having not mentioning some of the measure, others- for example sampling type, are reported in a wrong way and what is reported have conflicts with the actual outcomes of the study. Moreover, 40% of the articles have all the mentioned sampling methodology issues together. Sampling methodology is not mentioned in some of them at all and others in a very ambiguous way. In some of the articles, a different sampling methodology rather than the actual method used in the articles are presented. Therefore, 100% of the articles have methodology and sampling issues and none of them can be regarded as a complete and correct report in all aspects.
Table 2: Summary of the results of the evaluation of the sampling method report in the studied articles
Sampling method and access method to sample members
Number of samples
Incomplete or ambiguous or incorrect report
Complete and correct (exact) report
To sum up, the results indicate the extreme lack of a pure and systematic scientific modeling in the field of sampling method and reporting based on theoretical principles and rules of sampling techniques. The results has severely damaged the reliability of the studies and it cannot be said whether the results and conclusions made in the studies are correct or false and not even how much correct or how much false. Also, there exists numerous and significant weaknesses and inadequacies in sampling method and its reporting style in urban planning researches. Such conclusions are based on quantitative survey in terms of compatibility with the principles and characteristics of the scientific research method, such as reproducibility, validity, reliability and generalizability, which their quality and scientific validity are somehow overshadowed by them. The reason of this problem is largely due to the lack of full knowledge of the theoretical principles and rules of sampling theory. Moreover, the characteristics of the scientific research method or neglect of it during the research can also be reasons for this problem. This problem points out the necessity for serious attention and examination of the scientific community members in the field of urban planning to the existence of accuracy in choosing and planning sampling methods and to the morality and scientific explicitness in compiling and reporting it in the processes related to education, research, evaluation and publication of scientific research in line with scientific monitoring in this field.