The sample size debate: response to Norman Blaikie

ABSTRACT

In 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.

KEYWORDS:

• Sampling
• sample size
• qualitative research

Notes

1. DeSantis and Ugarriza (2000, p. 369) express concern at the ‘varied and imprecise use of the term theme as it is applied from one qualitative research method to another’. The imprecision they refer to is indeed problematic, but whilst we might expect consistency in the use of ‘theme’ within a particular method, variation in use across different methods may simply reflect underlying differences in such methods.

2. Perhaps more pernicious is where crude terminology or classifications are used in a misleading way. Describing ‘quantitative’ research as positivist, often as a mark of opprobrium, overlooks the fact that such research need not embody all of the classic assumptions of positivism – in particular, its hostility to theoretical entities (Hacking, 1983).

3. We follow Blaikie’s (2018) use of inverted commas to signal reservations as to the use of this term. We would also note, however, that this might well be an occasion where the broad use of the term ‘qualitative’ (or ‘quantitative’) is not out of place.

4. Blaikie and Priest (2017) provide detailed discussion of neo-positive, interpretive and critical realist paradigms, arguing that whilst such paradigms are unavoidable in social research, exclusive loyalty to just one paradigm is unnecessary.