Research in Nursing & Health, 1995, 18, 179-1 83

Focus on Qualitative Methods

Sample Size in Qualitative
Research
Margarete Sandelowski

A common misconceptionabout sampling in qualitative research is that numbers are unimpor-

tant in ensuring the adequacy of a sampling strategy. Yet, simple sizes may be too small to
support claims of having achieved either informational redundancy or theoretical saturation, or
too large to permit the deep, case-orientedanalysis that is the raison-d’etreof qualitative inquiry.
Determining adequate sample size in qualitative research is ultimately a matter of judgment and
experience in evaluating the quality of the information collected against the uses to which it will
be put, the particular research method and purposeful sampling strategy employed, and the
research product intended. 0 1995 John Wiley & Sons. Inc.

A common misconception about sampling in lected enough data. These factors are the subject
qualitative research is that numbers are unimpor- of this article.
tant in ensuring the adequacy of a sampling strat-
egy. The “logic and power” (Patton, 1990,
p. 169) of the various kinds of purposeful sam- NEITHER SMALL NOR LARGE, BUT TOO
pling used in qualitative research lie primarily in SMALL OR TOO LARGE
the quality of information obtained per sampling
unit, as opposed to their number per se. More-
Adequacy of sample size in qualitative research is
over, an aesthetic thrust of sampling in qualita-
relative, a matter of judging a sample neither
tive research is that small is beautiful. Yet, inad-
small nor large per se, but rather too small or too
equate sample sizes can undermine the credibility
large for the intended purposes of sampling and
of research findings. There are no computations
for the intended qualitative product. A sample
or power analyses that can be done in qualitative
size of 10 may be judged adequate for certain
research to determine a priori the minimum num-
kinds of homogeneous or critical case sampling,
ber and kinds of sampling units required, but
too small to achieve maximum variation of a
there are factors, including the aim of sampling
complex phenomenon or to develop theory, or too
and the type of purposeful sampling and research
large for certain kinds of narrative analyses.
method employed, which researchers can consid-
Reported sample sizes are often too small to
er to help them decide whether they have col-
support claims of having achieved either informa-
1 1 am indebted to one of the anonymous reviewers of this tional redundancy (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) or
article for the phrasing “small is beautiful.” theoretical saturation (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

Margarete Sandelowski, PhD, RN, is a professor, Department of Women’s and Children’s

Health, School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
This article is part of the ongoing series, Focus on Qualitative Methods, edited or contributed
by Dr. Sandelowski.
This article was received on September 7, 1994, revised, and acceptedfor publication Novem-
ber 28, 1994.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr. Sandelowski, University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, #7460 Carrington Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7460.

0 1995 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0160-6891/95/020179-05 179

180 RESEARCH IN NURSING 8 HEALTH
Impatience, an a priori commitment to what will
be seen, or a disinclination to see any more may
incline researchers to stop sampling prematurely.
Seeing nothing new in newly sampled units or
feeling comfortable that a theoretical category
has been saturated are functions involving the
recognition of what is there and what can be
made out of the data already collected, and then
deciding whether it is sufficient to create an in-
tended product. These functions are acquired
through experience. For example, I have noticed
in my own development and that of students with
whom I have worked that beginning qualitative
researchers often require more sampling units
than more experienced researchers to “see” and
to “make.” One expert qualitative researcher (P.
Stern, personal communication, 1989) intimated
that we often have all the data we will need in the
very first pieces of data we collect, but that we do
not (or cannot) know that until we collect more.
Ultimately, information can be deemed redundant
or theoretical lines deemed saturated-only for
now (Morse, 1989).
Conversely, sample sizes may be too large to
support claims to having completed detailed an-
alyses of data, especially the microanalysis de-
manded by certain kinds of narrative and obser-
vational studies. Even in qualitative projects
aimed at explicating regularities across pieces of
data, a high premium is still placed on discerning
the particularities or idiosyncrasies presented by
each piece of data. While qualitative studies may
involve what are considered large sample sizes
(over 50), qualitative analysis is generically
about maximizing understanding of the one in all
of its diversity; it is case-oriented, not variable-
oriented (Ragin & Becker, 1989). Any sample
size interfering with the case-oriented thrust of
qualitative work can, accordingly, be judged too
large.
ISSUES IN PURPOSEFUL SAMPLING
One of the major differences between qualitative
and quantitative research approaches is that qual-
itative approaches typically involve purposeful
sampling, while quantitative approaches usually
involve probability sampling (Kuzel, 1992; Mor-
se, 1986, 1989; Patton, 1990). Patton (1990) de-
scribed 14 different types of purposeful sam-
pling, involving the selection for in-depth study
of typical, atypical, or, in some way, exemplary
“information-rich cases” (p. 169). Researchers in
both domains of inquiry often have to resort to
sampling they know is less than ideal for their
purposes, but qualitative researchers value the
deep understanding permitted by information-
rich cases and quantitative researchers value the
generalizations to larger populations permitted by
random and statistically representative samples.
Although a sample of one will never be sufficient
to permit generalization of findings to popula-
tions, it may be sufficient to permit the valuable
kind of generalizations that can be made from
and about cases, variously referred to as id-
iographic, holographic, naturalistic, or analytic
generalizations (Firestone, 1993; Lincoln &
Guba, 1985; Ragin & Becker, 1992; Simons,
1980; Stake & Trumbull, 1982).
In qualitative research, events, incidents, and
experiences, not people per se, are typically the
objects of purposeful sampling (Miles & Huber-
man, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1990). People, in
addition to sites, artifacts, documents, and even
data that have already been collected are sampled
for the information they are likely to yield about a
particular phenomenon. Sample size in qualita-
tive research may refer to numbers of persons,
but also to numbers of interviews and observa-
tions conducted or numbers of events sampled.
People are certainly central in all kinds of inquiry
approaches in the health sciences, but they enter
qualitative studies primarily by virtue of having
direct and personal knowledge of some event
(e.g., illness, pregnancy, life transition) that they
are able and willing to communicate to others and
only secondarily by virtue of demographic char-
acteristics (e.g., age, race, sex).
People Versus Purpose
When qualitative researchers decide to seek
people out because of their age or sex or race, it
is because they consider them good sources of
information that will advance them toward an an-
alytic goal and not because they wish to general-
ize to other persons of similar age, sex, or race.
That is, a demographic variable, such as sex,
becomes an analytic variable; persons of one or
the other sex are selected for a study because, by
virtue of their sex, they can provide certain kinds
of information. Accordingly, only as many per-
sons of a particular sex are included in a study as
is necessary to obtain that information. There is
no mandate to have equivalent numbers of wom-
en or men or numbers of persons of each sex in
the proportions in which they appear in a certain
population.
Sampling on the basis of demographic charac-
teristics presents something of a problem in
achieving both informational and size adequacy
 SAMPLE SIZE / SANDELOWSKI
in qualitative studies. There is currently a strong
impulse (and federal mandate) to eliminate gen-
der, race/ethnicity, and class bias in research by
including members of minority or traditionally
disempowered groups typically underrepresented
in research, and by including women and men
typically underrepresented in certain domains of
research, such as men in family studies and wom-
en in studies of heart disease. Trost (1986) de-
scribed a “statistically nonrepresentative strati-
fied” sampling strategy whereby researchers can
select persons varying in demographic charac-
teristics to achieve representative coverage and
inclusion. That is, while the sample is statis-
tically nonrepresentative, it is informationally
representative in that data will be obtained from
persons who can stand for other persons with
similar characteristics. In her illustration involv-
ing a study of families with teenagers, five sets of
naturally and artificially dichotomized variables
(one or two-parent family, one or two or more
children, housed in an apartment or home, with a
high or low income, and with a male or female
teenager) were combined to yield 32 kinds of
families to be sampled. A similar kind of sam-
pling plan can be used to ensure inclusion of
females and males, and persons varying in social
class, race, cultural affiliation, religion, or other
dimension.
Although this kind of sampling accommodates
a new, laudable, and necessary moral conscious-
ness concerning underrepresented and, therefore,
often misrepresented groups by partially accom-
modating the logic of probability sampling, it
may wholly contravene the logic of purposeful
sampling. Strictly speaking, sampling for varia-
tion in race, class, gender, or other such back-
ground or person-related characteristics ought to
be done in qualitative studies when they are
deemed analytically important and where the fail-
ure to sample for such variation would impede
understanding or invalidate findings (Cannon,
Higginbotham, Leung, 1988). Deciding a priori
that a sample will include a certain number or
percentage of individuals in various demographic
groups may meet federal and other mandates for
inclusion of traditionally excluded persons, but it
may also result in a sample with a kind of varia-
tion that has little analytic significance or detracts
from analysis goals (Morse, 1989). More impor-
tantly, such a sample may be too small ade-
quately to address the analytic importance of
such factors as gender or race, or, alternatively,
too large to favor the deep analysis that qualita-
tive projects mandate.
One way to resolve this dilemma is to design
181
studies in which a phenomenon is investigated in
one group at a time (either simultaneously or se-
quentially). The design for such studies will in-
clude more than one purposeful sampling strate-
gy: for example, homogeneous and maximum
variation sampling, where person-related homo-
geneity is maintained while variation in the target
phenomenon is sought. After a series of such
studies has been completed, a larger synthesis of
findings can be undertaken in which the re-
searcher can more adequately address the ques-
tion of whether and how a variable such as gen-
der is important in understanding a phenomenon.
SAMPLE SIZE IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF
PURPOSEFUL SAMPLING
Different kinds of purposeful sampling require
different minimum sample sizes. For example, in
deviant case sampling, where the intention is to
understand a very unusual or atypical manifesta-
tion of some phenomenon, one case may be suffi-
cient. Yet, even a sample of one requires within-
case sampling (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The
researcher must decide which of the varieties of
data concerning the case to sample to explicate its
atypicality. This is especially evident in cases in-
volving aggregates of one, such as a family, com-
munity, or organization. Even when an individual
is the focal one, the researcher must sample from
the wealth of data obtainable from and about that
individual. In short, any one case offers a variety
of data that must be sampled in sufficient quantity
to make the case.
Maximum variation is one of the most fre-
quently employed kinds of purposeful sampling
in qualitative nursing research and typically re-
quires the largest minimum sample size of any of
the purposeful sampling strategies. As in any
kind of sampling, the more variability there is
within the confines of a qualitative project, the
more numbers of sampling units the researcher
will require to reach informational redundancy or
theoretical saturation. Researchers wanting maxi-
mum variation in their sample must decide what
kind(s) of variation they want to maximize and
when to maximize each kind. One kind of varia-
tion already described is demographic variation,
where variation is sought on generally people-
related characteristics.
A second kind of variation is phenomenal vari-
ation, or variation on the target phenomenon un-
der study. For example, the target phenomenon in
a study of couples who have obtained positive
fetal diagnoses is diagnosis, which varies on such
182 RESEARCH IN NURSING B HEALTH
dimensions as type and time of diagnosis, and the
instrumentation used to make it. Like the deci-
sion to seek demographic variation, the decision
to seek phenomenal variation is often made a
priori in order to have representative coverage of
variables likely to be important in understanding
how diverse factors configure a whole. This kind
of sampling is also referred to as selective or
criterion sampling, where sampling decisions are
made going into a study on “reasonable”
grounds, rather than on analytic grounds after
some data have already been collected (Glaser,
1978, p. 37; Schatzman & Strauss, 1973).
A third kind of variation is theoretical variation,
or variation on a theoretical construct that is asso-
ciated with theoretical sampling, or the sampling
on analytic grounds characteristic of grounded
theory studies. A theoretical sampling strategy is
employed to fully elaborate and validate theoreti-
cally derived variations discerned in the data. Ini-
tial sampling for phenomenal variation permits
these theoretical variations to be identified. A
program of research employing grounded theory
typically begins with a selective or criterion sam-
pling strategy aimed at phenomenal variation and
then proceeds to theoretical sampling (San-
delowski, Holditch-Davis, & Hams, 1992).
Researchers control the number of sampling
units required to achieve informational redundan-
cy or theoretical saturation by deciding which
category of variation to maximize and minimize.
This decision is a matter of fitting the sampling
strategy to the purpose of and method chosen for
a particular study and appraising the resources
(including number of investigators and financial
support) available to conduct the study. For ex-
ample, purposeful sampling for demographic ho-
mogeneity and selected phenomenal variation is a
way a researcher working alone with limited re-
sources can reduce the minimum number of sam-
pling units required within the confines of a single
research project, but still produce credible and
analytically and/or clinically significant findings.
SAMPLE SIZES FOR DIFFERENT
QUALITATIVE METHODS
Just as different purposeful sampling strategies
require different minimum sample sizes, different
qualitative methods require different minimum
sample sizes. Morse ( 1994) has recommended
that phenomenologies directed toward discerning
the essence of experiences include about six par-
ticipants, ethnographies and grounded theory
studies, about 30 to 50 interviews and/or obser-
vations, and qualitative ethological studies, about
100 to 200 units of observation.
Additional considerations in matching sample
size to method are within-method diversity and
the multiple uses of a method. Phenomenology
offers a good illustration of how within-method
diversity and the particular use to which a method
is put can alter the requirements for sample size.
In a phenomenological case study, one case can
be sufficient to show something about an experi-
ence that a researcher deems significant for spe-
cial display (e.g., Wertz, 1983). One case will
not be sufficient, however, if the researcher’s in-
tention is to describe invariant or essential fea-
tures of an experience. For example, a phenome-
nological study, as interpreted by Van Kaam
(1959), will likely require 10 to 50 descriptions
of a target experience in order to discern its nec-
essary and sufficient constituents. When phe-
nomenological techniques are used in the service
of a goal other than to produce a phenomenology,
such as generating items for an instrument, at
least 25 descriptions of an experience will likely
be required.
SAMPLE SIZES IN COMBINED
QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE
STUDIES
Studies combining qualitative and quantitative
approaches involve additional considerations in
determining sufficient sample size. Indeed, so-
called methodologically triangulated studies pre-
sent researchers with many dilemmas (beyond
the scope of this article), the resolution of which
depend on the researcher’s stance concerning the
compatibility of the philosophies and practices of
qualitative and quantitative inquiry.
With respect to sampling, the logics of proba-
bility and purposeful sampling are arguably suffi-
ciently irreconcilable in most cases to preclude
using the same subjects for both quantitative and
qualitative purposes (Morse, 1991). Subjects se-
lected for the purposes of statistical represen-
tativeness may not fulfill the informational needs
of the study, while participants selected for infor-
mation purposes do not meet the requirement of
statistical representativeness. Accordingly,
whether primarily quantitative or qualitative, or
whether designed for purposes of completeness
or confirmation (Breitmayer, Ayres, & Knafl,
1993), such combination studies would require
two samples drawn simultaneously or sequen-
tially according to the two logics of sampling.
 SAMPLE SIZE I SANDELOWSKI
Yet, it can also be argued that among persons
chosen according to the logic of probability sam-
pling, there will likely be articulate informants
whose selection for the qualitative portion of a
combined study can be justified as purposeful.
The purposeful sample would have to be expanded
only if the data obtainable from the participants
already sampled was deemed informationally in-
sufficient. Similarly, no additional sampling may
be necessary in studies where further information
obtainable from standardized instruments is de-
sired about a purposefully drawn sample. The
caveat here is that the researcher use the data
from these instruments for purposes of fuller de-
scription, rather than to draw statistical inferences.
CONCLUSION
Determining an adequate sample size in qualita-
tive research is ultimately a matter of judgment
and experience in evaluating the quality of the
information collected against the uses to which it
will be put, the particular research method and
sampling strategy employed, and the research
product intended. Numbers have a place in ensur-
ing that a sample is fully adequate to support
particular qualitative enterprises. A good princi-
ple to follow is: An adequate sample size in qual-
itative research is one that permits-by virtue of
not being too large-the deep, case-oriented
analysis that is a hallmark of all qualitative inqui-
ry, and that results in-by virtue of not being too
small-a new and richly textured understanding
of experience.
REFERENCES
Breitmayer, B. J., Ayres, L., & Knafl, K. A. (1993).
Triangulation in qualitative research: Evaluation of
completeness and confirmation purposes. Image:
Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25, 237-243.
Cannon, L. W., Higginbotham, E., & Leung, M. L.
(1988). Race and class bias in qualitative research
on women. Gender & Society, 2 , 449-462.
Firestonc, W. A. (1993). Alternative arguments for
generalizing from data as applied to qualitative re-
search. Educational Researcher, 22, 16-23,
Glaser, B. G. ( 1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances
in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press.
Kuzel, A. J. (1992). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In
B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualita-
tive research (pp. 31-44). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
183
Lincoln, Y. S . , & Cuba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic
inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative
data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, J. M. (1986). Quantitative and qualitative re-
search: Issues in sampling. In P. L. Chinn (Ed.),
Nursing research methodology: Issues and imple-
mentation (pp. 181-193). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
Morse, J. M. (1989). Strategies for sampling. In J. M.
Morse (Ed.), Qualitative nursing research: A con-
temporary dialogue (pp. 1 17- I3 I). Rockville, MD:
Aspen.
Morse, J. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-
quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing
Research. 40. 120-123.
Morse, J. M. (1994). Designing funded qualitative re-
search. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 220-235).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and re-
search methods (2nd ed). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1989). How the micro-
computer is changing our analytic habits. In G.
Blank, J. L. McCartney, & E. Brent (Eds.), New
technology in society: Practical applications in re-
search and work (pp. 47-55). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Ragin, C. C., & Becker, H. S. (1992). Whar is a case?
Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sandelowski, M., Holditch-Davis, D., & Harris, B.
G. (1992). Using qualitative and quantitative meth-
ods: The transition to parenthood of infertile
couples. In J. F. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel
(Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research
(pp. 301-322). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Schatzman, L., & Strauss, A. (1973). Field research:
Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Simons, H. (Ed.). (1980). Towards a science of the
singular: Essays about case study in educational
research and evaluation. Norwich: University of East
Anglia, Center for Applied Research in Education.
Stake, R. E., & Trumbull, D. J. (1982). Naturalistic
generalizations. Review Journal of Philosophy and
Social Science, 7 , 1-12.
Strauss, A,, & Corbin, J. (199). Basics of qualitative
research: Grounded theory procedures and tech-
niques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Trost, J. E. (1986). Statistically nonrepresentative
stratified sampling: A sampling technique for quali-
tative studies. Qualitative Sociology, 9, 54-57.
Van Kaam, A. L. (1959). Phenomenal analysis: Exem-
plified by a study of the experience of “really feeling
understood.” Journal of Individual Psychology, 15,
66-72.
Wertz, F. J. (1983). From everyday to psychological
description: Analyzing the moments of a qualitative
data analysis. Journal of Phenomenological Psy-
chology, 14, 197-241.