![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The debate on determining sample size in qualitative research is confounded by four fundamental methodological issues: the exclusive focus on theme analysis; the diverse and imprecise use of ‘qualitative’; a reliance on only two logics of inquiry, induction and deduction, and the occasional confusion of abduction with induction; and a general lack of recognition of the importance of differences in ontological assumptions. Embedded in these issues is an unwarranted acceptance of limited associations between certain assumptions, logics, forms of data, and methods of data collection/generation and analysis. What is required is a reformulation of the problem and its discussion with reference to ontological assumptions and logics of inquiry.
Notes
1. For reasons that will be elaborated later, ‘qualitative’ is enclosed in inverted commas throughout the article to indicate that its taken-for-granted and, at the same time, diverse use is a contributor to the lack of clarity in this debate, as well as in other methodological discussions.
2. It is always amusing to come across references to the numerical coding of open-ended question as being ‘qualitative’, sometimes with claims that inserting such questions in a precoded questionnaire or interview schedule constitutes the use of mixed methods. What seems not to be recognised is that such questions are used with ontological assumptions that are bound to be different from what lies behind, say, research based on in-depth interviews. All social science data start out as words and only become ‘quantitative’ by a coding process (see Blaikie, Citation2010, p. 213; Halfpenny, Citation1996, p. 5; Turner, Citation1994, p. 195). After the analysis has been completed, the numerical tokens have to be translated back into words. This process makes a nonsense of the division of social research into the reified categories of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’.