Medical Education Research Network

Sample size in qualitative research

Sample size in qualitative research

I am regularly asked by research students: what is an appropriate sample size for a qualitative research study?

The answer is: it depends


There is no exact way of determining sample size in qualitative research, nor a ‘right’ answer in the same way a power calculation may yield a sample size in quantitative research. According to Morse (2000, p.3) sample size depends on consideration of a number of factors including:

“the quality of data, the scope of the study, the nature of the topic, the amount of useful information obtained from each participant, the number of interviews per participant, the use of shadowed data, and the qualitative method and study design used.”

Morse makes the following observations: a study that is broad in scope may require greater number of participants than one that is narrower in focus. A phenomenon that is more difficult to grasp and is below the surface would require more participants. The quality of the data in terms of richness, experiences and relatedness to the research questions is important to consider – the more usable data you have the less participants are needed.

For me there are two key dimensions that need to be considered when thinking about sample size. One dimension is breadth versus depth: so that a phenomenological study that has repeat engagement with participants and an in-depth immersive element would require less participants than say a grounded theory study with single data collection points per participant. So this links with study design as outlined by Morse above. Another important dimension is pragmatic. Is this study part of an Honours, Masters or PhD thesis where size and scope are to some extent imposed? Is the study funded? Is it single site or multi-site? Are there multiple data sources and methods of data collection? How many years will you invest in this study? What is adequate for answering the research question?

What might be becoming apparent here is that often you cannot estimate the number of participants needed in advance of the study – yet a range needs to be specified when applying to ethics. The decision of how many participants within that range then falls down to a consideration of all the factors explained above. That’s why talking to someone with experience in qualitative research and looking at different sampling strategies in your research field and your methodological choice are so important.

The elephant in the room not yet touched upon is that god-term ‘saturation’. How many articles have you read that claim saturation as the defense for their sample size? I know I’ve made that claim in at least one of my published articles (cringe). What does it mean – that no themes ‘emerge’ (another pet-hate – last I checked data analysis was a very active interpretive process? but I digress) from the data. Saturation is used as a ‘marker for sampling adequacy’ (O’Reilly and Parker 2013). Can you achieve saturation in qualitative research? Perhaps the next person you sample would have a very different experience? Perhaps a different lens or deeper analysis could identify other understandings and meanings related to the experience? In their paper O’Reilly and Parker (2013) critique the concept of saturation in qualitative research. They claim that theoretical saturation in grounded theory research is epistemologically robust:

“In grounded theory the notion of saturation does not refer to the point at which no new ideas emerge, but rather means that categories are fully accounted for, the variability between them are explained and the relationships between them are tested and validated and thus a theory can emerge (Green and Thorogood, 2004).” Cited in (O’Reilly and Parker 2013, p. 3)

The problem is when such a meaningful, situated term is removed from its context and applied in other qualitative research unquestioningly and lacking in transparency. This can be a problem with the use of many terms in qualitative research e.g. thematic analysis was done. One of the things I find very liberating about qualitative research is the lack of rules and protocols (or straitjackets if you will). But to do it justice then a rigorous understanding of philosophical frameworks, embedded traditions and accepted practices is needed and more importantly the ability to defend what you do in a transparent and academically robust way. I realise that the uncertainty around what you can and can’t do in qualitative research can be quite daunting for new researchers but it is also what makes qualitative research interesting, creative and fun!



Morse, J. M. (2000). Determining Sample Size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3-5.

O’Reilly, M., & Parker, N. (2013). ‘Unsatisfactory Saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 13(2), 190-197.

12 thoughts on “Sample size in qualitative research

  1. Alexander Essien Timothy

    i find this quite enlightening. I’m new to qualitative research and my first article has just been rejected -rightly – for weak methodology and not being grounded in theory.And since I don’t exactly know what is wrong with my methodology and therefore how to remedy it, I had begun to wonder whether I needed to enlarge my sample size. But now I know that wasn’t the problem. If you won’t mind I’m going to make copies of this article and share with others experimenting with qualitative research. Thank you, Alex

  2. Usman

    very insightful. I’ve used a thematic analysis in my study and I agree to your point about having protocols. I used Johnny Saldana coding manual for guidance on protocols. However, when it comes to practicality, approach changes from theory and different types of codes start overlapping. A question: Can you suggest any other books or sources which can provide guidance on protocols? Thanks

  3. Alice

    Thank you for the information you have been sharing on sample size in qualitative research. I am working on a study which I intend to work with 10 women each will be interviewed 5 times over a period of 6 months. Is this strong enough a sample for an ethnographic study?

    1. Rola Ajjawi Post author

      Hi Alice
      To some extent it depends on your research questions and the quality of the data. I would say that for ethnography you need longitudinal and in depth immersion which repeat interviews would provide, so 10 participants with repeat interviews may well result in conceptual saturation. With ethnography you typically have observation and can have document analysis – so adding in these data collection sources will further increase the size of the data and if all these components are done well then that will lead to a good sample size. The other thing to think about is whether this is for a degree and to think about how this fits in the scope of the degree and the requirements of your discipline.

  4. Seyyedeh Zohreh Mirdeilami

    Dear Msr. Rola Ajjawi
    I am going to select correct sample size. I have about 5000 stakeholder in a larg scale. but i can’t interview with all of them. I want to know how Saturation or Grounded theory is usefull for me? How dose it calculate?
    Best regards

  5. George Bonomali

    This is great information!!!
    I am busy trying to think about whether my dissertation should take quantitative or qualitative method. I am struggling. I want to sample staff in a biomedical research organization i.e Medical doctors, nurses, laboratory technicians, pharmacy technicians, Total number of these is 120 in an employee base of 340. My college advises that for a qualitative study the number should not go beyond 10, yet I find the study would not be representative enough. At the same time I want to do the qualitative study. If I go beyond 10 I may find myself doing a quantitative study which I do not want. Please advise

  6. Pingback: wordpress o'reilly

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>