Chris.Chambers@sci.monash.edu.au wrote: > > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > email@example.com wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 17:44:08 GMT, Ross J. Micheals > > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > > > Is there a statistical definition of "representative sampling?" > > > > No. It is more broadly *logical* than statistical. My notion right > > this minute is, it is most clearly defined by its negation. That is, > > if you avoid the traps of all potential non-representative-ness, > > then you may have representative samples. > > Surely the defining property of "representative sampling" is that it be > entirely random. Wouldn't any non-representative mistake violate some > notion of randomness? >
Since it's not a technical term, it doesn't have a technical definition. The problem is that the "random" in random sample refers to the process that generated the sample whereas, as I hear it used in common parlance, the "representative" in representative sample seems to refer to the specific sample that was obtained as a result of the (possibly nonprobabilistic) sampling procedure.