Saturation in qualitative research: An evolutionary concept analysis

Abstract

Background and Aim: Qualitative research plays an important role in improving nursing knowledge. Understanding the concept of saturation is essential to conducting rigorous qualitative research that contributes to evidence-based practice. The purpose of this study is to clarify the concept of saturation in qualitative research. Method: Evolutionary concept analysis was performed. A literature search was conducted using a variety of online databases for the years 2005- 2023. In total, 33 articles and books were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify the attributes, antecedents and consequences of saturation. The validity of the data was obtained by examining the analysis process by two independent researchers. Results: Saturation in qualitative research is a context-dependent, subjective process that requires detailed systematic analysis. Saturation is used in four ways in qualitative research: theoretical saturation, data saturation, code or thematic saturation, and meaning saturation. The antecedents of saturation were classified into two categories: study related factors and researcher related factors. The consequences of saturation were identified as: ensuring credibility and quality in qualitative research and time, energy and budget saving. Conclusion: This concept analysis serves to enhance the understanding of the concept of saturation, thereby offering valuable resources for qualitative researchers. By gaining a profound comprehension of saturation and its various types, researchers can ensure the validity of their studies while also optimizing time and resource allocation by avoiding redundant data collection. Future investigation warranted to elucidate how factors associated with reaching saturation impact estimations sample size.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 41

1. 1.

   Alam M.K. A systematic qualitative case study: questions, data collection, NVivo analysis and saturation. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal. 2021;16(1):1-31.

   Not in our library

2. 2.

   Aldiabat K.M., Le Navenec C.L. Data saturation: The mysterious step in grounded theory methodology. The qualitative report. 2018;23(1):245-261.

   Not in our library

3. 3.

   Bawden, D., & Robinson, L. (2020). Information overload: An overview.

   Not in our library

4. 4.

   Bowen G.A. Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: a research note. Qualitative Research. 2008;8(1):137-152.

   Not in our library10.1177/1468794107085301

5. 5.

   Braun V., Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative research in sport, exercise and health. 2021;13(2):201-216.

   Not in our library

6. 6.

   Bryant A., Charmaz K. 2007.

   Not in our library

7. 7.

   Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative research. 2006;6(1):97-113.

   Not in our library

8. 8.

   Caelli K., Ray L., Mill J. Clear as mud’: toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International journal of qualitative methods. 2003;2(2):1-13.

   Not in our library

9. 9.
   What about N? A methodological study of sample-size reporting in focus group studies · 2011

   No notice
10. 10.

    Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. sage.

    Not in our library

11. 11.

    Conlon C., Timonen V., Elliott-O'Dare C., O'Keeffe S., Foley G. Confused about theoretical sampling? Engaging theoretical sampling in diverse grounded theory studies. Qualitative Health Research. 2020;30(6):947-959.

    Not in our library10.1177/1049732319899139

12. 12.

    Creswell J.W., Poth C.N. 2016.

    Not in our library

13. 13.

    Denzin N.K., Lincoln Y.S. 2011.

    Not in our library

14. 14.

    Dey, I. (1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. (No Title).

    Not in our library

15. 15.

    Faulkner S.L., Trotter S.P. Theoretical saturation. The International encyclopedia of communication research methods,. 2017;1-2.

    Not in our library

16. 16.

    Francis J.J., Johnston M., Robertson C., Glidewell L., Entwistle V., Eccles M.P., Grimshaw J.M. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and health. 2010;25(10):1229-1245.

    Not in our library10.1080/08870440903194015

17. 17.

    Fusch P.I., Ness L.R. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The qualitative report. 2015;20(9):1408.

    Not in our library

18. 18.

    Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. 1967;IL.

    Not in our library

19. 19.

    Guest G., Bunce A., Johnson L. How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods. 2006;18(1):59-82.

    Not in our library

20. 20.
    A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research · 2020

    No notice
21. 21.

    Hennink M., Kaiser B.N. Sample sizes for saturation in qualitative research: A systematic review of empirical tests. Social Science & Medicine. 2022;292.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114523

22. 22.

    Hennink M.M., Kaiser B.N., Marconi V.C. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qualitative health research. 2017;27(4):591-608.

    Not in our library10.1177/1049732316665344

23. 23.

    Hennink M.M., Kaiser B.N., Weber M.B. What influences saturation? Estimating sample sizes in focus group research. Qualitative health research. 2019;29(10):1483-1496.

    Not in our library10.1177/1049732318821692

24. 24.

    Kerr C., Nixon A., Wild D. Assessing and demonstrating data saturation in qualitative inquiry supporting patient-reported outcomes research. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research. 2010;10(3):269-281.

    Not in our library10.1586/erp.10.30

25. 25.

    Lee Eden B. 2022;184.

    Not in our library

26. 26.

    Lincoln Y.S., Guba E.G. 1985.

    Not in our library

27. 27.

    Low J. A pragmatic definition of the concept of theoretical saturation. Sociological Focus. 2019;52(2):131-139.

    Not in our library

28. 28.

    Marshall B., Cardon P., Poddar A., Fontenot R. Does sample size matter in qualitative research?: A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of computer information systems. 2013;54(1):11-22.

    Not in our library

29. 29.

    Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: qualitative social research.

    Not in our library

30. 30.

    Morse J.M. Critical analysis of strategies for determining rigor in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative health research. 2015;25(9):1212-1222.

    Not in our library10.1177/1049732315588501

31. 31.

    Morse J.M. 2015;25:587-588.

    Not in our library

32. 32.

    Mwita K. Factors influencing data saturation in qualitative studies. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science. 2022;11(4):414-420.

    Not in our library

33. 33.

    O'reilly M., Parker N. Unsatisfactory Saturation’: a critical exploration of the notion of saturated sample sizes in qualitative research. Qualitative research. 2013;13(2):190-197.

    Not in our library

34. 34.

    Rogers B. Concept development in nursing foundations, techniques and applicationsm. 2000.

    Not in our library

35. 35.

    Rowlands T., Waddell N., McKenna B. Are we there yet? A technique to determine theoretical saturation. Journal of Computer Information Systems. 2016;56(1):40-47.

    Not in our library

36. 36.

    Sandelowski M. Sample size in qualitative research. Research in nursing & health. 1995;18(2):179-183.

    Not in our library10.1002/nur.4770180211

37. 37.
    Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization · 2017

    No notice
38. 38.

    Strauss A., Corbin J. 2014.

    Not in our library

39. 39.

    Thomson S.B. Sample size and grounded theory. Thomson, SB (2010). Grounded Theory-Sample Size. Journal of Administration and Governance. 2010;5(1):45-52.

    Not in our library

40. 40.

    Tofthagen R., Fagerstrøm L.M. Rodgers’ evolutionary concept analysis–a valid method for developing knowledge in nursing science. Scandinavian journal of caring sciences. 2010;24:21-31.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1471-6712.2010.00845.x

Reads

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.