When I wrote this response, I had not realised that you were a professor; I hope I have not over stepped the mark. I realise that you will be familiar with all this, but as I had written it, I went on to submit it. This is the response that I wrote before I realised your seniority:
Do you mean the sample size or the fitness of the sample? I see what you mean about the 'weight' of the story borne out by the sample.
I think you need to make sure that your research stands up to the checks appropriate to qualitative research as opposed to those for quantitative research.
I saw the quantitative terms (stated first) as parallel to the qualitative (stated second); I wrote this a long time ago :
Guba and Lincoln's parallel criteria for trustworthiness:
Internal validity - Credibility
External validity - Transferability
Reliability - Dependability
Objectivity - Confirmability
Authenticity – not a parallel criterion, but I used it to assess my outcomes.
My refs:
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1985.
Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1989.
There are a lot of papers describing this - but this one is recent:
Cypress, B. S. (2017). Rigor or reliability and validity in qualitative research: Perspectives, strategies, reconceptualization, and recommendations. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 36(4), 253-263.
The author discusses 'transferability, dependability, confirmability, and credibility', referenced to Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Nat Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
So, I think you need to make sure that your qualitative research stands up to being trustworthy, but the quality of your sample is an important part of this process. Does this help?