Address correspondence to Diane S. Young, Social Work and Criminal Justice Program, University of Washington–Tacoma, 1900 Commerce Street, Box 358425, Tacoma, WA 98402; e-mail: youngd4@uw.edu.
Search for other works by this author on: Erin A Casey Erin A Casey Search for other works by this author on:Social Work Research, Volume 43, Issue 1, March 2019, Pages 53–58, https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svy026
01 October 2018 01 March 2017 Revision received: 22 June 2017 07 July 2017 01 October 2018Diane S Young, Erin A Casey, An Examination of the Sufficiency of Small Qualitative Samples, Social Work Research, Volume 43, Issue 1, March 2019, Pages 53–58, https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svy026
Navbar Search Filter Mobile Enter search term Search Navbar Search Filter Enter search term SearchQualitative researchers often must make decisions about anticipated sample sizes in advance of data collection. Estimates are typically required for human subjects review committees, grant applications, and resource planning purposes. Once a study is underway or completed, researchers must evaluate whether the sample has been robust enough to address the research aims. The challenge is to find a sample that will produce thorough and meaningful findings while minimizing unnecessary burden on participants and expenditure of scarce resources such as time and research dollars. Currently, little guidance is available regarding what minimum sample size is needed to adequately identify the themes and codes in an area of inquiry. In addition, the issue of sample sizes needed to reach theme and code saturation across different qualitative methodologies or data analysis approaches is understudied.
Although researchers often cite having achieved saturation as a reason to conclude sampling, details regarding how saturation was determined are not provided for the most part ( Bowen, 2008; Francis et al., 2010). Gentles, Charles, Ploeg, and McKibbon (2015) conducted an overview of the literature from influential authors within the traditions of grounded theory, phenomenology, and case study, and they noted the lack of clarity relative to sample size and saturation. Guetterman (2015) looked at the most-cited empirical articles in the fields of education and health sciences from 2008 through 2012 within five qualitative research approaches to assess specific samples sizes and the rationale for sample sizes. Sample size across the 51 studies varied widely, and most articles did not include a discussion of saturation or the adequacy of the sample.