Understanding Sampling Techniques and Determining Sample Size in Qualitative Research. A Novice Guide

This review aimed to answer the question of how many interviews are enough for one qualitative research? The question ‘how many interviews are enough for one qualitative research is persistently controversial among qualitative researchers in social science. For this frequently occurring question especially among novice practitioners, the majority of scholars are opted to say no universally guiding rule to decide on a required number of sample for qualitative research rather ‘it depends’. But, this also raises another insight among researchers urging them to look for different things, i.e., on what circumstance would be making a decision about the required number of respondents depend? Though we lack one guideline dictating researchers how to decide on the number of sample size, the majority of researchers agree on one reasonable answer this is ‘it depends’. Indeed, in our work, we endeavor to identify, on what it depends? We also attempted to figure out or indicate the commonly referred range of sample size in qualitative research. Generally when we sum up our review work, the decision on “How many” is depended on several factors among which the following are some; the focus of the research, the type of research question, available resource and time, institutional committee requirements, the judgments of epistemic community in which a researcher is located, the nature of the selected group, the domain of inquiry, the experience of the researcher with qualitative research, and so on. Specific to number 20-60 is the most frequently observed range of sample size in qualitative research which of course is determined by the aforementioned factors.

ABSTRACTIn his detailed response to our paper on sample size in qualitative research, Norman Blaikie raises important issues concerning conceptual definitions and taxonomy. In particular, he points out the problems associated with a loose, generic application of adjectives such as ‘qualitative’ or ‘inductive’. We endorse this concern, though we suggest that in some specific contexts a broad categorization may be more appropriate than a more nuanced distinction – provided that it is clear in which sense the terms are employed. However, other concepts, such as saturation, do not lend themselves to generic use, and require a more detailed conceptualization. Blaikie’s analysis also makes it clear that meaningful discussion of sample size in qualitative research cannot occur with reference to an undifferentiated conception of the nature of qualitative research; clear distinctions need to be made within this approach in terms of methodology, ontological and epistemological assumptions and broader research paradigms.

Qualitative and Mixed Methods Research in Cross-Cultural Psychology

Qualitative and mixed methods research in trials

Chapter 1: World Views, Paradigms, and the Practice of Social Science Research Case 1. Quantitative Research Case 2. Qualitative Research Thinking about the Foundations and Practice of Research What This Book Is and Is Not About. What Warrants Our Attention? The Traditional Canon Alternative Paradigms New Techniques or New Paradigms? Chapter 2: History and Context of Paradigm Development Positivism: A Response to Metaphysical and Magical Explanations Critical Theory: A Response to Inequities in Society Interpretivism: A Response to the Excesses of Scientific Social Science The Special Cases of Postmodernism and Feminism Chapter 3: Foundational Issues: Postpositivist and Critical Perspectives Social Science Research: The View from the Postpositivist Paradigm Social Science Research: The View from the Critical Theory Paradigm Chapter 4: History and Foundations of Interpretivist Research (1) Nature of Reality. (2) Purpose of Research. (3) Acceptable Methodology/Data. (4) The Meaning of Data (5) Relationship of Research to Practice. The Implications of an Interpretivist Approach What Sorts of Research are Worthwhile? Examples of Interpretive Research Chapter 5: Frameworks for Qualitative Research Postpositivist Research Moments of Qualitative Research Some General Frameworks for Qualitative Research Chapter 6: General Guidelines for Qualitative Research Guidelines for Qualitative Research Situated or Contextual Understanding, Not Truth, is the Purpose of Research Accept Multiple Sources of Influence Take A Foundational Rather Than Technique Perspective Practice Recursive (Iterative ) and Emergent Data Collection and Analysis Use Multiple Sources of Data Think of Research as a Reflective Process The Researcher is the Primary Tool for Data Collection and Analysis An Emphasis on Participatory versus Nonparticipatory Research. Adopt an Open Approach Deal With Bias Directly Select Natural Contexts for Research Research Should be Holistic, Not Atomistic Research Involves More Than Induction and Deduction: Analogical Reasoning, Abduction, and Family Resemblances Alternatives to Postpositivist Criteria for Believability: Validity and Reliability Alternative Approaches to Validity and Reliability: Triangulation and More Conclusions? Aren't They Generalizations? Chapter 7: Methods of Qualitative Research Case 1: Action Research on a Pediatric Surgical Ward Established Qualitative Research Methods Ethnography Case Studies: Another Form of Qualitative Observation Interview Research Historigraphy Historiography: The Research Methods of History Innovative Methods Participatory Qualitative Research Emancipatory Research Critical Emancipatory Action Research Chapter 8: Approaches to Data Analysis and Intepretation The Purpose of Research General Theory Objective Description Hermeneutic (Verstehen) Understanding Story telling/Narrative Data Analysis Families Eyeballing the Data Connoisseurship: A Global Perspective Hermeneutics as a Data Analysis Method Grounded Theory Analytic Induction A Final Topic: The Ethics of Research Chapter 9: 21st Century Social Science: Peering into the Future Will the Cacophony Continue? Why Can't Social Science Converge on The Answer? Competition Linearity Dialog as an Alternative to Competition Three Approaches to Knowing in Greek Thought Plato Aristotle The Humanities Choices 20th Century Social Science Made Suppose We Chose Badly Two Theories That May Help Us Build 21st Century Social Science Poetic Logic Chaos and Complexity Theory: Another Route to a Nonlinea Social Science

The main aim of this article is to discuss the factors a researcher should take into account when selecting the appropriate research design or method (i.e. qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods). The article also discusses sample size determination and sampling procedures in qualitative and quantitative research. Further, the paper has provided an examination of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. The study used online desk research to collect data from online public access scholarly databases such as Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Academia, and many more freely accessible electronic books in research methods. Search terms that were used included, among many, the following: qualitative research, quantitative research, mixed-methods, qualitative and quantitative data collection, qualitative and quantitative data analysis; descriptive and inferential statistics. A wealth of relevant and timely scholarly literature was downloaded, read, and used to write this paper, and draw the conclusion provided. Keywords: Qualitative Research; Quantitative Research; Mixed-Methods Research; Qualitative Data Collection Techniques; Quantitative Data Collection Techniques; Qualitative Data Analysis Techniques; Quantitative Analysis Techniques; Descriptive Statistics; Inferential Statistics. DOI: 10.7176/JMCR/87-06 Publication date: November 30 th 2022

Data saturation is the most commonly employed concept for estimating sample sizes in qualitative research. Over the past 20 years, scholars using both empirical research and mathematical/statistical models have made significant contributions to the question: How many qualitative interviews are enough? This body of work has advanced the evidence base for sample size estimation in qualitative inquiry during the design phase of a study, prior to data collection, but it does not provide qualitative researchers with a simple and reliable way to determine the adequacy of sample sizes during and/or after data collection. Using the principle of saturation as a foundation, we describe and validate a simple-to-apply method for assessing and reporting on saturation in the context of inductive thematic analyses. Following a review of the empirical research on data saturation and sample size estimation in qualitative research, we propose an alternative way to evaluate saturation that overcomes the shortcomings and challenges associated with existing methods identified in our review. Our approach includes three primary elements in its calculation and assessment: Base Size, Run Length, and New Information Threshold. We additionally propose a more flexible approach to reporting saturation. To validate our method, we use a bootstrapping technique on three existing thematically coded qualitative datasets generated from in-depth interviews. Results from this analysis indicate the method we propose to assess and report on saturation is feasible and congruent with findings from earlier studies.

This study explored the reasons and lived experiences of 20 Filipino teacher respondents in the school year 2023-2024. The qualitative method through phenomenological research was adopted. It is the method of discovering and structuring the meaning of human incidents through interviews with people involved in the real-life experience (Creswell, 2007; Polit & Beck, 2012). Patton (2002) describes that determining sample size in qualitative research does not follow one rule. There is no one rule related to sample size when using a qualitative research design. The respondents expressed heart-warming and overwhelming insights into their acculturation in the USA and Southeast Asian countries. Homesickness was the only negative thought, but it was easily overcome due to the availability of social media, which established the communication link with family members. Teaching abroad served as the turning point as their personal and professional “inputs” were outweighed by the “outputs” in terms of financial benefits, perks, and other work-life balance initiatives by schools abroad. Hence, the Department of Education should improve the economic conditions of teachers to avoid the exodus of a greater number of trained teachers in the service years ahead.

The purpose of this focused issue is to advance understanding of qualitative research methods in the international business context. Debates on qualitative research methods in the key international business (IB) journals have been rare. There has been no focused issue on this topic previously, either in mir or in other journals in the field, making this a 'special' issue. During the process of editing a recent handbook on qualitative research methods (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004), we realized that while this collection covered many topics, often for the first time in the IB field, there were many others still outstanding. There was thus scope for continuing a dialogue about qualitative methods in the IB research community. The challenge of making qualitative research count in the quantitative world of IB remains. Qualitative research is difficult to define, since the term encompasses many different research traditions, research strategies and methods for data collection and analysis (Prasad 2005). A typical definition is that everything non-numerical is qualitative research (Marschan-Piekkari/Welch 2004, p. 19). However, even this very simplistic definition soon breaks down, since research strategies which are typically considered to be qualitative, such as case studies, can combine numerical with non-numerical data (Hurmerinta-Peltomaki/Nummela 2004). There is also no clear divide between qualitative and quantitative research in terms of research traditions, with much qualitative research in management and IB sharing the positivist assumptions of quantitative research (Prasad/Prasad 2002). This focused issue is not about reporting the empirical findings of IB studies applying qualitative methods; rather it is about the process of undertaking qualitative research in the IB field. Of course, there is a large volume of literature on qualitative research methods already. However, we would argue that the IB context warrants special treatment. As the authors of this focused issue discuss, the distinctiveness of the field stems from its multiple linguistic and cultural settings; organizational complexity; and its intellectual roots in post-War academic institutions in the USA. These issues receive little treatment in general texts on qualitative methodology. There has been some methodological debate in previous issues of mir. Earlier articles in mircan be grouped into three categories: first, reviews of existing methodological practices in IB publications (e.g., Cavusgil/Das 1997, Nasif et al. 1991); second, proposals for new quantitative techniques (e.g., the use of key informants in cross-cultural studies, as proposed by Lenartowicz and Roth 2004 and a linguistic-based measure of cultural distance as developed by West and Graham 2004); and third, calls for new methodological approaches (Boddewyn/Iyer 1999). The absence of qualitative research methods in this debate perhaps reflects the limited amount of empirical qualitative research published in this journal. A recent analysis of mir issues between 1990 and 1999 revealed that only 5 percent of articles published in this period used qualitative methods (Welch/Welch 2004). This focused issue is therefore a response to those, such as Boddewyn and Iyer (1999) in this journal, who have called for alternatives to surveys and secondary data analysis. This focused issue attracted 39 submissions from more than 15 countries. Given that there have been limited outlets for methodological articles in IB, this is a considerable number. It perhaps suggests a level of interest to which IB journals have not responded to date. Of the total number of submissions, 11 were selected for review. On the basis of reviewers' comments, six of these papers were ultimately rejected. The final five papers underwent two and, in some cases, up to four rounds of revisions. In selecting the articles, we used the following criteria: appropriateness of the topic for the focused issue; demonstrated knowledge of IB and methodological literature; quality of argument; originality and innovativeness of the contribution to IB methodology; organization and clarity of the paper; and potential application to research practice in IB. …

Hak T. Data collection in qualitative research. Huisarts Wet 2004;47(11):502-8. This article discusses the main methods of data collection in qualitative research. Ways of achieving appropriate levels of validity and reliabilityand of avoiding selection bias are discussed. Because qualitative research is characterised by an iteration between data collection and analysis, it is quite common that multiple types of data collection are used in a single research project, each of which plays a role in a specific phase of the research project. Unfortunately, the most common research design published in medical journals is the ‘cross-sectional qualitative survey’, in which conclusions are based on data from one-off unstructured or semi-structured interviews with a limited number of individuals (usually patients), selected in a more or less unsystematic manner (‘convenience sample’). This design is rather problematic. Data collection through focus groups is also a popular method used in medical and health services research. It is often invalid in terms of the research objective and question. The best qualitative research consists of consecutive parts. Each of these is steered by a research objective and a question that is dependent on the results of the preceding parts. In each part, a method of data collection is chosen that is appropriate for that part's particular research objective and question.

Determining an appropriate sample size is a marker of the quality of qualitative research. However, there is currently no consensus on how to achieve the size of such a sample. There are no clear methods and rules to guide researchers in achieving an appropriate sample size. In most qualitative investigations, determining the sample size is a matter of judgment, with the researcher following different landmarks to assess whether or not his or her own study sample is appropriate. This article aims to identify the main parameters that influence the researcher's decision to determine the appropriate sample size in qualitative research.

Determining appropriate sample sizes in qualitative research has traditionally relied on data saturation, lacking predetermined mathematical formulas. Initial efforts by Tullis and Wood introduced basic calculation methods for user experience research, while Yocco proposed preliminary equations for interview-based studies. Balboni further developed these concepts, introducing complexity factors in sample size determination. Building on these foundations, the Benneh-Mensah (BM) Formula integrates study complexity parameters, researcher expertise levels, and statistical confidence intervals into a comprehensive calculation method. Statistical analysis demonstrates strong correlation (r=0.998) between BM Formula and traditional approaches, with no significant differences in moderate to complex studies (t=1.632, p=0.178). The formula provides systematic sample size reductions based on researcher expertise, ranging from 74.8% for advanced researchers to 80.3% for experts. Key findings validate its effectiveness across diverse research contexts, from healthcare to cross-cultural studies. The BM Formula offers a mathematically robust alternative to traditional saturation approaches, enabling precise sample size determination before data collection. Researchers are recommended to implement this formula with appropriate parameter documentation and continuous monitoring of saturation indicators.

IntroductionAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience a higher burden of cervical cancer than non-Indigenous women in Australia. Cervical cancer is preventable partly through human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination; in Australia,...

This research aims to demonstrate how the Indonesian migrants in Melbourne construct their Indonesian identity based on the theoretical perspective of George Herbert Mead, Erving Goffman, and Fredrik Barth. To collect the data the researcher used the qualitative research method composed of participant observation and in-depth interviews. The quota sampling and the snowball sampling were carried out to select the key informants, that is, the Indonesian migrants who come from various socio-cultural backgrounds, most of them being Malay Indonesians who have lived in Australia for a long time. The results of the research indicate that the Indonesian identity in Melbourne is composed of several categories, each of which having its respective boundary. Thus, ethnic identity is dynamic and fluid to fit a particular situation. Some of the subjects performed impression management and passing in their interaction with others. Key words : Ethnic boundary, ethnic category, impression management, passing

Review question/objective The objective of this systematic review is to provide a narrative summary synthesis of the quality of existing Husserlian phenomenological research studies in the health sciences. As a methodological systematic review, only studies that focus on adult patients’ experiences of preventive, screening, diagnosis, treatment or rehabilitation interventions/procedures will be considered to serve as a paradigm “case” of the use of the Husserlian phenomenological approach within the broad field of health. The review question is: What is the quality of existing Husserlian phenomenological research studies in the health sciences? The motivation for this systematic review is not to fault authors of existing Husserlian phenomenological research, but to explore the problems encountered in existing research literature, if any, and to provide guidance to authors for future health research guided by this specific philosophical perspective. In order to avoid repetition, the term ‘Husserlian phenomenological approach’ as used in the text refers to the approach described by Edmund Husserl in English translations of his own published work; or as described in English language commentaries by internationally recognized scholars; or from Husserlian phenomenological scholars including the structured framework presented by Spiegelberg. Each time the ‘content of Husserlian phenomenological research studies’ is used in the text it should be understood to mean ‘content of Husserlian phenomenological research studies as reflected in the stated philosophical perspective, research methodology, data collection methods, data analysis methods, presentation and interpretation of the results, and the conclusions’. Definition of terms: 1. Husserlian phenomenological research studies refers to primary qualitative research studies that are explicitly grounded in the work of Husserl reflected in explicit statements or descriptions by the authors. 2. Quality refers to the extent to which there is congruence between the Husserlian phenomenological approach and the content of Husserlian phenomenological research studies. These stipulative definitions are intended to preclude the need to cite the scientific literature as there is no need to demonstrate their ‘validity’ or ‘acceptability’ by the communities of scholars. TRUNCATED AT 350 WORDS.