Dietetics, Nutrition and Biological Sciences
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/23
Browse
2 results
Search Results
Item The sample size debate: Response to Norman Blaikie(Informa UK Limited, 2018-03-27) Sim, Julius; Saunders, Benjamin; Waterfield, Jackie; Kingstone, TomIn 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.Item Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori?(Informa UK Limited, 2018-03-27) Sim, Julius; Saunders, Benjamin; Waterfield, Jackie; Kingstone, TomThere has been considerable recent interest in methods of determining sample size for qualitative research a priori, rather than through an adaptive approach such as saturation. Extending previous literature in this area, we identify four distinct approaches to determining sample size in this way: rules of thumb, conceptual models, numerical guidelines derived from empirical studies, and statistical formulae. Through critical discussion of these approaches, we argue that each embodies one or more questionable philosophical or methodological assumptions, namely: a nave realist ontology; a focus on themes as enumerable 'instances', rather than in more conceptual terms; an incompatibility with an inductive approach to analysis; inappropriate statistical assumptions in the use of formulae; and an unwarranted assumption of generality across qualitative methods. We conclude that, whilst meeting certain practical demands, determining qualitative sample size a priori is an inherently problematic approach, especially in more interpretive models of qualitative research.