Cited by 578Qualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsFocus Groups and Qualitative MethodsQualitative Research Methods and Ethics

How Many Interviews Are Enough to Identify Metathemes in Multisited and Cross-cultural Research? Another Perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006) Landmark Study

Hagaman, Ashley K., Wutich, Amber·2017·Field Methods

Abstract

There is much debate over the number of interviews needed to reach data saturation for themes and metathemes in qualitative research. The primary purpose of this study is to determine the number of interviews needed to reach data saturation for metathemes in multisited and cross-cultural research. The analysis is based on a cross-cultural study on water issues conducted with 132 respondents in four different sites. Analysis of the data yielded 240 site-specific themes and nine cross-cultural metathemes. We found that 16 or fewer interviews were enough to identify common themes from sites with relatively homogeneous groups. Yet our research reveals that larger sample sizes—ranging from 20 to 40 interviews—were needed to reach data saturation for metathemes that cut across all sites. Our findings may be helpful in estimating sample sizes for each site in multisited or cross-cultural studies in which metathematic comparisons are part of the research design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1525822x16640447

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hagaman, A. K., & Wutich, A.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Hagaman, Ashley K.
Venue
Field Methods
Published
2016-07-24
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
23-41
ISSN
  • 1064-8631 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-822X
  • 1552-3969
OpenAlex
W2344526152
Cited by
578
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 67 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 103 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 76 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 46 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
71.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Field Methods (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • World Bank Group
  • Arizona State University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Focus Groups and Qualitative Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Keywords
data saturation, sample size, cross-cultural research, qualitative data analysis, water problems, theme identification

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