Is the Participants: description of the study population and sampling methods is clear and appropriate?
Sampling of participants took on a mixed approach. Initial sampling was conducted using snowball sampling in which the workers who the author knew within the company felt out and talked to their coworkers on their experiences of ageism and psychosocial wellbeing in the workplace. After this, purposeful sampling was conducted during the interview process in order to vet which participants were informed enough and had faced significant workplace ageism that their contributions to the study would be meaningful and representative of the company and respective age groups. The demographics of the participants ranged in age from 19 years old (two years of schooling is typically required for these specific unionized trades after graduation of high school, some get in earlier) to 74 years old (retirement age is typically around 63 years old). The gender of the study was exclusively male due to the lack of female workers in these companies and their reluctance to participate. The occupation of these workers were all blue-collar, which included workers ranging in experience in the trades of electrical work, plumbing, piping, and laborers for a gas company. All were manual laborers by trade and no office staff was included. Participants ranged in race, the dominant race of participants were caucasian and African American. The sample size from the workplaces was a total of 15 participants. This was after some other workers were excluded from participation. Inclusion criteria consisted of being a manual laborer in one of the two companies chosen, falling in the age range of 19-74 years of age as an active worker, having experienced workplace bullying or hazing due solely to age, having experienced adverse health effects due to this harrassment, willingness to openly talk about their experience, experiencing quality of work suffering in relation to these incidents, and optional, but a bonus was having considered leaving the company or having transferred from another workplace where they did leave due to ageism. Exclusion criteria stated no retirees were accepted for the study, no workers who had not experienced ageism or did not find it to be a considerable factor for them psychosocially, emotionally, or mentally (no controls), no participants had a personal relationship with the researcher, and some participants were excused based on how seriously they took the study after the initial interview. Participants were met in person for one consultatory and informative interview on the study and one interview discussing questions they had and the researchers questions, and all were given information of how data would be utilized and recorded as well as their anonymity. Due to these factors they faced no reasonable amount of risk. Participants were told that confidentiality may not be totally guaranteed due to the fact of the snowballing sampling that occurred in the companies so workers not participating in the study may know about it. They were asked to complete an informed consent form that was signed by them and the author of the study. Information was kept confidential as only viewed by the author of this study in which data was kept in a password protected device and all data was anonymously given by participants. No federal funding was received for this study so IRB approval was not necessary, though the study did follow the IRB guidelines in practice. CITI training was performed and acquired by the author of this study prior to its completion so they were well informed of the ethics of this type of qualitative research. Participants had the ability to leave the study at any time with an assurance that their answers and given data would not be utilized if they were uncomfortable at any given point.
