Themes, variables, and the limits to calculating sample size in qualitative research: a response to Fugard and Potts

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 685-686

  Emmel, Nick ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84942982669     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645579.2015.1005457     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. H.Blumer, (1956). Sociological analysis and the ‘variable’. American Sociological Review, 21, 683–690.10.2307/2088418
2. D.Byrne, (2002). Interpreting quantitative data. London: Sage.
3. D.Byrne, (2012). UK sociology and quantitative methods: Are we as weak as they think? Or are they barking up the wrong tree? Sociology, 46, 13–24.10.1177/0038038511419178
4. DSM 5. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association.
5. J.J.Francis,, M.Johnston,, C.Robertson,, L.Glidewell,, V.Entwistle,, M.P.Eccles,, & J.M.Grimshaw, (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology & Health, 25, 1229–1245.
6. G.Guest,, A.Bunce,, & L.Johnson, (2006). How many interviews are enough?: An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18, 59–82.10.1177/1525822X05279903