Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis reveals varied sampling strategies impact interview numbers in qualitative research, suggesting adaptive approaches.
Qualitative researchers face an enduring question: How many interviews do I need? While a variety of guidelines exist, there is limited consensus over which specific factors should determine the number of interviews required. We examined the determination of interview sample sizes in 562 qualitative studies across six high-impact management and organizational journals over a decade. Our findings reveal considerable variance in interview numbers, yet limited information is often provided on the criteria used to determine them. To promote clearer alignment between sample sizes and methodology, we examined studies with detailed descriptions of their interview sampling. We identified specific “sampling moves” used to determine the number of interviews, categorized into three types—opening, focusing, and closing sampling moves—that researchers use to establish confidence in the sample and support theoretical insights. By implication, our study refutes the notion of a “magic” interview number. Instead, sampling moves are heuristic tools that qualitative researchers can thoughtfully adapt to their analytical aims when determining appropriate sample sizes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elmholdt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: