Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 303

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Saturation controversy in qualitative research: Complexities and underlying assumptions. A literature review

Open access
Sebele-Mpofu, Favourate Y.·2020·Cogent Social Sciences
DOI 10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Judgement of quality in qualitative has been a contested and controversial issue amongst researchers. Contention has always emanated from the subjective nature of qualitative studies, absence of clear guidelines in sampling as well as the lack of generalisability of findings. Numerous avenues have been suggested to improve qualitative research quality and key amongst the suggestions is the concept of saturation. It is viewed as a contemporary measure to alleviate the subjectivity in qualitative research, a yardstick for estimating sample sizes in qualitative research as well as an assurance for rigour and quality. Despite its recognition as a vital tool, it has its own fair share of controversies and contradictions. This research, through a comprehensive and evaluative literature review sought to unpack the saturation puzzle, controversies in definitions and underlying assumptions. The objective was to make a contribution to the contemporary but growing body of knowledge on the saturation conundrum. The study found out that there are various forms of saturation and with varying underlying propositions, therefore in order to meaningfully apply the concept, researchers have to appreciate the forms of saturation, link the appropriate form to their qualitative research design. It is undoubtedly important for research to define fully the form adopted, explicate the steps followed to achieve it and how it was ultimately achieved. In short, narrow the scope of saturation and contextualise it to your research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 303

Metadata

Authors
Sebele-Mpofu, F. Y.
Venue
Cogent Social Sciences
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2331-1886 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/23311886.2020.1838706
OpenAlex
W3094435078
Cited by
303
References
18
FWCI
44.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.