|
|
Re: "Representative sampling?"
Posted:
Nov 3, 2000 12:28 PM
|
|
Chris.Chambers@sci.monash.edu.au wrote:
>
> In article <hie30tsnuaqcr5nc1kb4ei83e1eadsovq3@4ax.com>,
> wpilib@pitt.edu wrote:
> > On Thu, 02 Nov 2000 17:44:08 GMT, Ross J. Micheals
> > <dnxthx@my-deja.com> 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.
|
|
