The guidance as per the following papers and link (see some more recommended publications in the discussions) may further help:

• Gentles, S. J., Charles, C., Ploeg, J. and McKibbon, K. A. (2015) Sampling in qualitative research: Insights from an overview of the methods literature, The Qualitative Report, 20, 11, pp. 1772-.
• Groenewald, T. (2004) A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3, 1, pp. 1-26.
• Guest, G., Bunce, A. and Johnson, L. (2006) How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability, Field Methods, 18, 1, pp. 59-82.
• Morse, J. M. (2000) Editorial: Determining Sample Size, Qualitative Health Research, 10, 1, pp. 2-5.
• Moser, A. and Korstjens, I. (2018) Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection and analysis, European journal of general practice, 24, 1, pp. 9-18.
• Sim, J., Saunders, B., Waterfield, J. and Kingstone, T. (2018) Can sample size in qualitative research be determined a priori?, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21, 5, pp. 619-634.
• How do you determine the cut off point for sample size in phenomenology?: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-do-you-determine-the-cut-off-point-for-sample-size-in-phenomenology

Hi Hamid, the numbers vary. You must justify the number and be prepared to defend it. I always asked my dissertation students, "How did you arrive at xx participants?" If they picked it out of the air, they were required to go back and find a number that can be validated with current phenomenological scholarly literature and the foundational literature. Van Manen is where you begin.

Article But Is It Phenomenology?

You will find a WIDE range of participants regarding phenomenological sample sizes. If you are conducting a dissertation, please check with your advisor. It is important to remember that quality is more important than quantity in phenomenology. As such a smaller number of participants is needed in order to truly delve deeply into investigating the phenomenon as experienced by the participants. A rich, thick description of the experience is needed and often needs more than one interview, which is another consideration to ponder. A final point is that oftentimes a single researcher would recruit fewer participants than a research team conducting a larger-scale study.

Here, you can find some recommendations on sample size (references are at the end of the post) and I have also included some websites to review:

1. greater than 6 (Morse, 1994)

2. 6-10 “interviewing each person many times” (Morse, 2000. p. 4)

3. up to 15 (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2014)

4. 5-25 (Polkinghorne, 1989)

Article A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-do-you-determine-the-cut-off-point-for-sample-size-in-phenomenology

https://omniamedsso.om-systems.net/sso/check_site_login/site_id/12/login_type/2/ip_hash/c90923a3cc2753353a9cf031ed193a8f

References

Morse, J. M. (1994). Critical issues in qualitative research methods. SAGE.

Morse, J. (2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3-5.

Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J. A. (2014). A practical guide to using interpretive

phenomenological analysis in qualitative psychology. Psychological Journal,

20(1), 7-14.

Polkinghorne, D. E. (1989). Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle &

S. Halling (Eds.), Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology:

Exploring the breadth of human experience (pp. 41–60). Plenum Press.

8-15. Since 1965.

In the case of phenomenology where the researcher is interested in the lived experiences of individuals, who experience the same phenomenon, the sample size may be only a few participants who can provide an in-depth view of their experience. The sample size, may thus, range from 1 to 10 participants (Stark & Trinidad, 2007). The best practice, however, is to go for saturation.

Starks, H., & Trinidad, S. B. (2007). “Choose your Method: A Comparison of Phenomenology, Discourse Analysis, and Grounded Theory”. Qualitative Health Research, 17(10), 1372-1380.