With phenomenological studies on lived experiences, requirements are a select sample of participants who are able to articulate experiential depth and detail as concerns the phenomenon under investigation. It obviously also depends on practical and ethical considerations, participant availability, contract, commitment, chosen methodology, individual interviews, focus groups, integrated mixed methodology etc, and the relationships between researcher and respondants. A single case study may suffice. Six to eight participants could provide sufficient experiential information.

For phenomenological studies, Creswell (1998) recommends 5 – 25 and Morse (1994) suggests at least six. These recommendations can help you to estimate how many participants you will need, but ultimately, the required number of participants should depend on when saturation is reached.

I suggest you to have a panel size of approx 25-30 respondents for in-depth interviews as your study includes similar segments within the population.

Regards,

In general, suggested between 5 and 25 people in most sources, but saturation will be more crucial in conducting the interview.

As indicated by some of the answers above, textbooks may give you some numbers, but they may not be very helpful if you do not grasp the thinking behind those numbers. To state that you ended up doing 17 interviews because some textbook said that it is within the range given in the that book. My advice is therefore that you make an effort to understand the concept of phenomenon better, so that you can focus on the quality of your interviews as a way of gaining the best possible insight into the phenomenon. In line with my interpretation of Steinar Kvale, you need to interview enough people to get a solid answer to your research question, one you can feel confident about and which will stand firm when your peers ask critical questions about your findings. Saturation is not really an issue in phenomenology, so you may want to look elsewhere, like Malterud et al. (2016) concept of Information power.

Smith, Larkin, and Flowers have written an excellent book on IPA. It gives good explanations of the pros and cons of sample size. Saturation does not factor into this method. @

And please note that the second edition of the mentioned book was published in December 2021.

At least 6

Agreed with the responses provided by our friends - between 5 to 25. Some suggested that the bigger number will provide better data and a much precise findings. Again, will be depends on the social environment and how the samples of respondents are selected. All the best for your research!

I agree with the other respondents so far - it depends on what you are trying to achieve. The numbers required varies widely according to your underlying intention and the richness of the data you obtain through each interview.

I did notice that you asked about phenomenology and then commented that you will be doing an Interpretive phenomenology study. At one point there was some debate in the methodology literature about a limit to the number of participants you could actually conduct an Interpretive phenomenology analysis on. The point that was argued was that the interpretive aspect is detailed and demanding and questions are raised if you state that you have done a truly interpretive phenomenological analysis on 30 in-depth interviews. I'm not sure if that debate is still ongoing, it's been a few years since I looked at it specifically.

Best of luck with your study.

The number of responses should be determined by saturation of your interviews. However, various scholars differ a bit on the number and hence depending on the school of thought you want to go with will mean you give a reference or cite the source that suggest the number you should use.

The original phenomenologists, like William James, Edmund Husserl, Gustav Ichheiser, Erving Goffmann, always use an N = 1.

does not matter. The phenomenon does. at least one person to me it a human phenomenon