The question in the hallways of social sciences and humanities in the world of doctoral research is like a haunting question: how many participants do I need? Whereas quantitative researchers resort to power analysis and statistical formulas, qualitative researchers tend to be in a gray zone. A sample size in a qualitative study needs to be justified; it cannot be justified by a casual guess.
Moving Beyond the Numbers
Quantitative research believes in breadth and generalizability. By comparison, qualitative research puts more emphasis on depth and context. Apologizing about small samples is a classic error among doctoral students and attempting to explain the use of such a small sample. A qualitative sample should not be regarded as a failed quantitative one. Rather, you have to put your sample size in the context of information power.
Qualitative inquiry is aimed at giving a multi-layered insight on a phenomenon. On the one hand, you are interviewing five CEOs, or on the other hand, you are following a year of a community, but in any case, your justification should be able to trace back to your research questions. A small, purposive sample is frequently a better scientifically sound choice than a large, shallow sample, when you want to investigate a highly specific, rare experience.
The Gold Standard: Information Overload
Saturation is the most popular reason in justification of sample size in qualitative research. The point of saturation means that researchers can no longer acquire new information that will lead to new insights or the identification of new themes. It is where your conceptual categories have become complete and “dense” enough.
Nevertheless, contemporary dissertation committees or journal reviewers no longer accept claims that the saturation was attained. You must explain the procedure. How did you realise saturation? Was it a constant comparative procedure? You give a clear audit trail by recording the date when your codes ceased their development. This openness is a characteristic of good that we are keen on when we are on our Scientific and Technical editing sessions in Mars Publications.
The Concept of Information Power
Instead of saturation researchers Malterud, Siersma, and Guassora presented the concept of Information power as a more flexible alternative concept. They propose that there are five important items that should be considered to determine the size of a sample:
- Study Aim: A broad study aim demands more participants; a narrow study demands less.
- Sample Specificity: When your sample participants are very relevant to the study, then you would need a smaller number of them.
- Established Theory: When using an existing theory, you do not need as much data compared to the one developed brand-new.
- Quality of the dialogue: Powerful and thorough interviews are better than short and stuttering conversations.
- Analysis Strategy: In-depth case study will need less participants as compared to cross-case thematic analysis.
With such considerations, a doctoral student can have the ability to present a complex argument that will please even the most critical examiner.
The Pitfalls of Justification of Samples
The pitfall of convenience sampling is taken by many students without even recognising the limitations. When you pick ten individuals because they are the only ones that replied to your email, that is not a scientific reason but a logistical one.
The other fallacy is the Magic Number syndrome. Students are using a well known scholar who once said (15-30) interviews are sufficient without thinking whether it is appropriate to their study. Critics seek a tailor-made argument. They would want to know that your sample size has been selected as it was the most appropriate in answering your particular research question.
The Process of Scientific and Technical Editing
After justifying your sample size, it is critical that you be able to justify that argument in a way that makes sense. It is at this juncture that Scientific and Technical editing is absolutely necessary. A professional editor makes sure that you are not using jargon or passive voice to hide your justification.
In doctoral writing, the word clarity is equivalent to authority. An editor assists you in cleaning up your methodology section to make sure that it is logical and smooth to the extent of data collection to analysis. At Mars Publications, our editors work on perfecting these technicalities and your defense of your sample size is brought to bear under harsh academic examination.
Collaborate with Mars Publications Now
The journey to becoming a doctorate student and a published scholar is a technical challenge. At Mars Publications, you will receive the professional advice that you can make it to the finish line.
- Methodological Consulting: You have a bulletproof reason to justify your method of research.
- Complete scientific and technical editing: We have refined your writing to make sure that your brilliance is not forgotten in translation
- Peer Review Ready: This is the simulated rigorous feedback of journal reviewers to prepare your manuscript before submission.
- Formatting and Compliance: We will make sure that all the citations and margins are academic in your university or target journal.
Your study has the ability to transform your profession. Make sure it receives the platform it merits.