Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal

Sample size for qualitative research

Clive Roland Boddy
Article information:
To cite this document:
Clive Roland Boddy , (2016),"Sample size for qualitative research", Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. -
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QMR-06-2016-0053
Downloaded on: 18 September 2016, At: 11:30 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 83 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Culture, desire and consumer culture in America in the New Age of social media", Qualitative Market Research: An
International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. -
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

(2016),"Co-creating luxury brands in an emerging market: exploring consumer meaning making and value creation",
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 19 Iss 4 pp. -
(2014),"New qualitative research methodologies in management", Management Decision, Vol. 52 Iss 4 pp. 662-674 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-11-2013-0592

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:333301 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Sample Size for Qualitative Research

Introduction

This current article considers the seldom written about but much questioned issue of
sample size in qualitative research. This paper is inspired and informed by the
author’s experiences in commercial marketing research, academic management
research and as an editor for qualitative academic papers. Further, as an author of such
papers and in the role of editor, the views of many reviewers have been read over the
past 31 years in research and these have also inspired this current paper. Reviewers
clearly need guidance in this area and researchers could also benefit from this
discussion as they struggle to design qualitative research in terms of sample size.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

Furthermore, qualitative research has recently come under criticism for its lack of
rigour in terms of there being little or no justifications given for the sample sizes that
are actually used in research (Marshall et al. 2013). Marshall, Cardon, Poddar and
Fontenot considered 81 qualitative studies and concluded that scant attention was paid
to estimating or justifying sample sizes.

The question of what sample size is needed for qualitative research is frequently asked
by individual researchers (Dworkin 2012) but not frequently discussed in the literature
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech 2005). Few studies approach this issue and as much
qualitative research does not involve the making of statistical generalizations, many
qualitative researchers report that sample size is not an issue in qualitative research
(Onwuegbuzie & Leech 2005). However, for reviewers it clearly is an issue as
described below.

Furthermore, the related issue of what sample size is needed for qualitative research
findings to have some validity is also one which many paper reviewers are concerned
about enough for them to mention in their reviews. Reviewers typically nonetheless,
do not definitively answer their own questions regarding what size a sample should
be. Comments from reviewers are usually to do with the sample size (whatever size it
is) being too small and they commonly state that this should be noted in the
limitations sections of an academic research paper. This current paper reviews some
of the sparse literature on this subject, investigates a case study from the physical
sciences and one from management and comes to some tentative conclusions.

The concept of data saturation, which is the point at which no new information or
themes are observed in the data from the completion of additional interviews or cases,
(Guest, Bunce & Johnson 2006) is a useful one in terms of discussing sample size in
qualitative research. This approach implies that a single case study or interview is
never enough because data saturation can only be known after at least two cases (and
usually more) are examined. This idea of sampling until data saturation is reached can
be used as a justification for the use of a particular sample size in any qualitative
research which is guided by this idea.

However, in practical terms, although the idea of saturation is very helpful at the
conceptual level, it provides little guidance for estimating actual sample sizes, prior to
data collection (Guest, Bunce & Johnson 2006). For example, it is difficult to give

1
 cost and timing estimates for research where the sample size has not been pre-
determined. This impracticality may be a reason why the data saturation approach
does not appear to be used in practice, even in academic research.
For example, in a meta-analysis of 560 academic qualitative studies the distribution of
sample sizes used was found to be non-random, with a statistically significant
proportion of studies, presenting sample sizes that were multiples of ten (Mason
2010). This strongly suggests that a pre-meditated approach to sample size
determination was used and this is not wholly congruent with some of the principles
of qualitative research (Mason 2010). Clearly there is confusion and a gap between
theoretical expectations and practice.

This is corroborated by the investigation of 81 qualitative studies mentioned earlier

(Marshall et al. 2013). This investigation found that those qualitative researchers who
used data/theoretical saturation as an indicator that their sample size was sufficiently
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

large did not explain this in sufficient detail, or in a way that was persuasive or
entailed the presentation of any evidence to support the claim for data saturation
(Marshall et al. 2013).

The idea underlying data saturation as a guide to sample size is the idea that once
saturation is reached then the results must be capable of some degree of
generalization. Generalization is traditionally seen as a central aim of science, as a
process of theory formulation for further applications (Mayring 2007). However, as
Mayring notes, the concept of generalization has been criticised, for example, because
of the context specificity of all scientific findings.

Discussion

Despite the apparent limitations of samples which involve a single case or single
research participant as discussed above, it has nevertheless been noted that individual
(single sample) case studies can provide reliable indications for the directions in
which future research can go. Individual cases can also provide a new, deep and
nuanced understanding of previously unexplored phenomena. Furthermore, qualitative
researchers have noted that often a researcher can (unknowingly) have all the data
they need from their first piece of data collection (Sandelowski 1995). It is also
argued that case studies have been undervalued in terms of their ability to generate
theoretical generalisations (Tsang 2014). This is demonstrated below from the
discussion of two examples, one from the physical sciences and one from
management research.

Firstly, in medicine it has been noted that findings from single case studies can have
findings which can be generalised from, and implications which are global in
importance. The discovery of penicillin is a case in point. Alexander Fleming noticed
an accidental case where mould was growing as a contaminant on the jelly in one of
his culture plates (like Petri dishes). The mould appeared to have an inhibitory effect
on the surrounding growth of bacteria. He called the mould Penicillin notatum
(AmericanChemicalSociety 1999). Publishing his findings in 1929 in the British
Journal of Experimental Pathology, he wrote that the broth from the mould had
marked inhibitory, bactericidal and bacteriolytic properties to many of the more
common pathogenic bacteria (Fleming 1929). His work was taken up by Howard

2
 Flory and Ernst Chain at Oxford University who developed Penicillin as a medicine,
with the eventual help of US drug companies.
Penicillin was so apparently successful and generally applicable that it did not initially
undergo full randomized trails prior to use in humans. Nonetheless the development
of Penicillin is noted as being one of the greatest breakthroughs in modern medicine
(AmericanChemicalSociety 1999).

In management research the longitudinal examination of an individual CEO who was

highly psychopathic is also a plausible example of such a single case approach being
ground breaking and informative (Boddy 2015). This is particularly so because
corporate psychopaths appear to have a common modus operandi and to be relatively
stable personalities over time (Boddy et al. 2015) (just as penicillin has stable
properties). The study of one corporate psychopath CEO, it was compellingly argued,
can therefore inform how other psychopathic CEO’s will be likely to behave.
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

More theoretically, the research philosophy or paradigm adopted and discussions of

an appropriate sample size are related (Onwuegbuzie & Leech 2005; Boddy 2005b).
Some researchers associate size considerations with an approach to science based on
positivism, which is an approach to scientific inquiry which many qualitative
researchers reject (Lincoln & Guba 2000). However, it should be noted that some
researchers do use a qualitative element of research to set the parameters for a further,
positivist quantification. This usually means that they apply a positivist approach to
qualitative research (Boddy 2005a; Boddy 2005b) and under this approach a criticism
of sample size because of smallness may well be justified. This is because the
qualitative sample size has to be representative of the population under consideration
as a breadth of inquiry is anticipated.

This is the approach recommended (p. 25-28) by qualitative market researchers who
suggest that researchers draw up a grid (such as sex by brand usage) to make sure that
each segment of the population is covered by the research (Gordon & Langmaid
1990). Academic researchers also suggest this grid or matrix type approach to
qualitative sample size determination (Stake 2000).

Commentators suggest that qualitative sample sizes of 10 may be adequate for

sampling among a homogenous population (Sandelowski 1995). Others state that
qualitative sample sizes of 20-30 are typically (p.56) conducted by researchers to
establish data saturation using a grounded theory approach to qualitative inquiry
(Creswell 1998). However no evidence is presented as the basis for this latter sample
size claim. Marshall and colleagues refer to a sample size of 20 as being small for a
grounded theory type approach to qualitative research and to 40 being a large sample
size for the same type of study. This gives a range of what sample size they would
consider appropriate and later in the same paper they recommend a range of 20-30
interviews for grounded research and 15 to 30 interviews for case studies.

Bearing in mind their North American background, such a recommended range would
certainly be smaller in number at both ends of the spectrum for e.g. UK qualitative
researchers. US qualitative researchers tend to adopt larger sample sizes than other
qualitative researchers (Marshall et al. 2013).

3
 In terms of the upper limits to sample size, Sandelowski is one of the few
commentators on sample size in qualitative research to note that a sample can be too
large. A sample which is very large does not permit the deep, case-oriented analysis
that is the raison-d'etre of qualitative inquiry (Sandelowski 1995) at least in
constructivist or in-depth approaches to scientific research. In terms of how large is
too large few have ventured an opinion. Sandelowski suggests that 50 interviews is a
large sample for a qualitative study. Boddy mentions once being asked, as a
commercial marketing researcher to conduct 1,000 in-depth interviews by a US
positivist researcher (Boddy 2005b; Boddy 2005a). Upon learning that, given
resources available, this would take over a year and cost about US$1m the US
researcher re-evaluated what was meant by “in-depth”. However, such a sample size
would undoubtedly be “too large” because the sheer volume of data would inhibit
meaningful, timely, qualitative analysis. This current author’s view is that any
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

qualitative sample size over 30 (per market/geography) becomes too unwieldy to

administer and analyse.

Therefore in a single market/country or relatively homogeneous population, any

qualitative sample size at or over 12 focus groups or more than 30 in-depth interviews
could be considered large and would require justification. Corresponding with this
viewpoint, in one of the few studies investigating actual theoretical saturation the
authors found data saturation starting to become evident at 6 in-depth interviews and
definitely evident at 12 in-depth interviews among a sample of women in two
countries (Guest, Bunce & Johnson 2006). This suggests that multiples of 12 in-depth
interviews may be more appropriate than the multiples of 10 commonly found in a
meta-analysis (Mason 2010) of qualitative research in practice.

In a review of sample sizes in qualitative studies in the information systems discipline

the authors note that (North) American studies tend to have larger sample sizes than
those from other countries (Marshall et al. 2013). They state that they cannot account
for this difference. However, in a discussion of the different, US versus UK,
approaches to qualitative research using focus group discussions (UK)/focus group
interviews (US), the author notes that US researchers tend to implicitly follow a
positivist epistemology (Boddy 2005a; Boddy 2005b). This logically results in their
favouring larger sample sizes. Contrariwise, for UK researchers the concern is more
about gathering in-depth information rather than quasi-measurement and so smaller
sample sizes are intuitively more appealing.

In making a justification for an adopted sample size, qualitative researchers should

make reference to the scope of the study and nature of the topic (Morse 2000), the
contact time to be spent on each individual research participant (respondent)
(Marshall et al. 2013) and the homogeneity of the population under consideration
(Trotter 2012). In practical terms attempts should be made to make sure that the
sample is as representative of the population as possible (Bock & Sergeant 2002)
albeit that it may be a very tightly defined or unusual population.

4
 Conclusions

Qualitative research often concerns developing a depth of understanding rather than a

breadth, particularly when undertaken under a non-positivist paradigm such as that
involving depth psychology or a constructivist approach to research. As such we must
conclude that in these cases a single case study involving a single research participant
can be of importance and can generate great insight. This logically means that the
smallest acceptable sample size in these types of qualitative research is a sample of
one. In many cases therefore the observation that many reviewers would be tempted
to make, that such a sample is too small or cannot be generalised from, is not a valid
criticism particularly if the researcher has justified the sample size. One case can
produce an in-depth understanding that furthers knowledge as in the case of a
psychopathic CEO. Furthermore, as the example of the discovery of Penicillin
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

demonstrates, a single case can also have findings which do validly apply across
many areas.

Exceptions to this guide to sample size may be may be where the qualitative research
is being undertaken under a positivist approach to research, for example, with a view
to developing a quantitative measurement instrument such as a questionnaire. In this
example it would be useful to have a more representative understanding of likely
incidence rates so that questions can be prioritised in terms of inclusion in any
questionnaire or other instrument. This would necessitate sampling a greater number
of respondents and in general, at least one representative of each segment of the
population under consideration in the wider research, should be sampled in the
qualitative research.

Thus the issue of what constitutes an appropriate sample size in qualitative research is
only really answerable within the context and scientific paradigm of the research
being conducted. In constructivist or in-depth qualitative research a single example
can be highly instructive.

In positivist qualitative research a representative sample is arguably needed, involving

representatives of each of the sub-segments of the total population to be researched.
Researchers and reviewers may take these arguments into consideration when
respectively deciding what sample sizes to use and in deciding whether to criticise the
sample size used in any qualitative research that is being evaluated.

5
 References

AmericanChemicalSociety 1999, The Discovery and Development of Penicillin 1928-

1945, The Alexander Fleming Laboratory Museum, London.

Bock, T. & Sergeant, J. 2002, 'Small sample market research', International Journal
of Market Research, vol. 44, no. 2, p. 235.

Boddy, C. R. 2005a, 'Groups in focus: The distinctive difference between focus group
discussions and focus group interviews', Australasian Journal of Market and
Social Research, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 29 - 38.

Boddy, C. R. 2005b, 'A rose by any other name may smell as sweet but "group
Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

discussion" is not another name for a "focus group" nor should it be.'
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 248 -
255.

Boddy, C. R. 2015, 'Psychopathic Leadership. A Case Study of a Corporate

Psychopath CEO', Journal of Business Ethics, vol. On-line first, pp. 1-16.

Boddy, C. R., Miles, D., Sanyal, C. & Hartog , M. 2015, 'Extreme Managers, Extreme
Workplaces: Capitalism, Organisations and Corporate Psychopaths',
Organization, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 530 - 551.

Creswell, J. W. 1998, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. Choosing Among

Five Traditions, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California.

Dworkin, S. 2012, 'Sample Size Policy for Qualitative Studies Using In-Depth
Interviews', Archives of Sexual Behavior, vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 1319-1320.

Fleming, A. 1929, 'On the antibacterial action of cultures of a penicillium, with

special reference to their use in the isolation of B. influenzae', British journal
of experimental pathology, vol. 10, no. 3, p. 226.

Gordon, W. & Langmaid, R. 1990, Qualitative Market Research. A Practitioner's and

Buyer's Guide, Gower, Aldershot, UK.

Guest, G., Bunce, A. & Johnson, L. 2006, 'How many interviews are enough? An
experiment with data saturation and variability', Field methods, vol. 18, no. 1,
pp. 59-82.

Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. 2000, 'Paradigm controversies, contradictions and

emerging influences', in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (eds.), Handbook of
qualitative research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, pp. 163 - 188.

Marshall, B., Cardon, P., Poddar, A. & Fontenot, R. 2013, 'Does sample size matter in
qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research',
Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 11-22.

6
 Mason, M. 2010, 'Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative
interviews', in Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social
Research.

Mayring, P. 2007, 'On generalization in qualitatively oriented research', in Forum

Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research.

Morse, J. M. 2000, 'Determining sample size', Qualitative health research, vol. 10,
no. 1, pp. 3-5.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. 2005, 'The role of sampling in qualitative

research', Academic Exchange Quarterly, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 280.

Sandelowski, M. 1995, 'Sample size in qualitative research', Research in nursing &

Downloaded by Cornell University Library At 11:30 18 September 2016 (PT)

health, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 179-183.

Stake, R. E. 2000, 'Case Studies', in N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (eds.), Handbook

of qualitative research, Sage, London, pp. 425 - 454.

Trotter, R. T. 2012, 'Qualitative research sample design and sample size: Resolving
and unresolved issues and inferential imperatives', Preventive medicine, vol.
55, no. 5, pp. 398-400.

Tsang, E. W. K. 2014, 'Generalizing from Research Findings: The Merits of Case

Studies', International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 16, no. 4, pp.
369-383.

Author Biography

Clive Boddy is Professor of Leadership and Organisation Behaviour at Middlesex

University where he was previously Associate Professor of Marketing. He is also co-
chief examiner for the Diploma of the Market Research Society. Prior to academia
Clive ran marketing research companies in Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea and the
UK in the 1980’s and 90’s. His current research concerns workplace ethical outcomes
under corporate psychopaths and toxic leaders. He is a Fellow of the Market Research
Society, the Australian Institute of Management, the Chartered Institute of Marketing
and the Association for Tertiary Education Management.