1/ To all those advocating saturation as *the* criterion for determining qual "sample" size (instead of Gender & Society's positivist qual 35 int minimum) please note that saturation has been critiqued for bloody decades as realist/positivist & not working for all qual. Here's
2/ Ian Dey in 1999 - yep over 20 years ago! - describing saturation as an "unfortunate metaphor": books.emeraldinsight.com/page/detail/gr…
3/ Here's me & @ginnybraun critiquing the use of saturation as information redundancy in thematic analysis research - arguing that saturation only makes sense in positivist/realist forms of TA. For our reflexive approach it simply doesn't work: tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
4/ Before anyone asks what do I do instead - check out Malterud et al.'s critique of the saturation concept and their alternative - information power (this is not without criticism but it is way less problematic than saturation): journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
5/ Purlease acknowledge in advocating for saturation you are taking a position, one relying on particular theoretical assumptions. Qual researchers must get better at recognising & owning their positionality!! I'm fed up of positioned takes on qual being presented as definitive!
6/ Some other examples of critiques of saturation - there are LOADS beyond this - a fab paper which "challenge[s] the unquestioned acceptance of the concept of saturation & consider[s] its plausibility and transferability across all qualitative approaches" journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14…
7/ This is a fab paper by Low which argues saturation is "a logical fallacy, as there are always new theoretic insights as long as data continue to be collected" - tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
8/ A really interesting critical discussion of differemt approaches to determining "sample" size in qual - tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
