A Pragmatic Definition of the Concept of Theoretical Saturation

ABSTRACT

In this article I critically discuss the concept of theoretic saturation, first presented by Glaser and Strauss in their classic book The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Over my almost two-decade career of using, researching, and publishing on qualitative methods, I have lost count of the number of qualitative researchers that have defined saturation as an instance where “no new information” emerges from data analysis. I argue that such a definition is problematic. It provides no didactic guidance on how researchers can determine such a point, and it is a logical fallacy, as there are always new theoretic insights as long as data continue to be collected. Finally, much new work on saturation focuses on how many interviews are required to reach it rather than developing definitions of what it is. In response I present what I argue is a more cogent and pragmatic definition of theoretic saturation.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jacqueline Low

Jacqueline Low is a professor of sociology at the University of New Brunswick. Her areas of expertise are qualitative methodology; symbolic interactionist theory; the sociology of health, illness, and the body; and deviant behavior and social problems. Among her most significant publications are “Structure, Agency, and Social Reality in Blumerian Symbolic Interactionism: The Influence of Georg Simmel,” Symbolic Interaction, 2008, 31(3):325–343; The Chicago School Diaspora: Epistemology and Substance (authored with G. Bowden), Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2013; and “Unstructured and Semi-Structured Interviews in Health Research,” in Researching Health: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods (3rd ed., M. Saks and J. Allsop, eds.), London: Sage, in press.