Sample size for qualitative research

By C. Boddy. 2016

654 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Purpose Qualitative researchers have been criticised for not justifying sample size decisions in their research. This short paper addresses the issue of which sample sizes are appropriate and valid within different approaches to qualitative research. Design/methodology/approach The sparse literature on sample sizes in qualitative research is reviewed and discussed. This examination is informed by the personal experience of the author in terms of assessing, as an editor, reviewer comments as they relate to sample size in qualitative research. Also, the discussion is informed by the author’s own experience of undertaking commercial and academic qualitative research over the last 31 years. Findings In qualitative research, the determination of sample size is contextual and partially dependent upon the scientific paradigm under which investigation is taking place. For example, qualitative research which is oriented towards positivism, will require larger samples than in-depth qualitative research does, so that a representative picture of the whole population under review can be gained. Nonetheless, the paper also concludes that sample sizes involving one single case can be highly informative and meaningful as demonstrated in examples from management and medical research. Unique examples of research using a single sample or case but involving new areas or findings that are potentially highly relevant, can be worthy of publication. Theoretical saturation can also be useful as a guide in designing qualitative research, with practical research illustrating that samples of 12 may be cases where data saturation occurs among a relatively homogeneous population. Practical implications Sample sizes as low as one can be justified. Researchers and reviewers may find the discussion in this paper to be a useful guide to determining and critiquing sample size in qualitative research. Originality/value Sample size in qualitative research is always mentioned by reviewers of qualitative papers but discussion tends to be simplistic and relatively uninformed. The current paper draws attention to how sample sizes, at both ends of the size continuum, can be justified by researchers. This will also aid reviewers in their making of comments about the appropriateness of sample sizes in qualitative research.

Subfields: Education, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/52ba952759d6aac72f778144c3d3224d2a680e41

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

1. Victor Tiberius
2. M. Breier
3. Sascha Kraus
4. Alessandro Zardini
5. Johanna Gast
6. Thomas Clauss

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Victor Tiberius
2. M. Breier
3. Sascha Kraus
4. Alessandro Zardini
5. Johanna Gast
6. Thomas Clauss

Citations in the corpus

• From “It Has Stopped Our Lives” to “Spending More Time Together Has Strengthened Bonds”: The Varied Experiences of Australian Families During COVID-19 (2020, background): “Critical realist approaches also assume that studies with large samples provide a representative picture of the population under study, especially for descriptive qualitative analyses (Sandelowski, 2000; Boddy, 2016).”
• The economics of COVID-19: initial empirical evidence on how family firms in five European countries cope with the corona crisis (2020, methodology): “As is common in qualitative research, the data analysis started directly after each interview until saturation was reached after 27 interviews, i.e. further data collection did not generate new insights (Boddy, 2016; Eisenhardt, 1989; Guest et al., 2006; Morse et al., 2002).”