In qualitative research, the concept of “data saturation” is often cited as a justification for sample size and cessation of data collection. Yet, far too many researchers treat saturation as a magic number — often 12 or 15 interviews — based on citations taken out of context, without deep engagement with the analytical logic behind it.
At Research & Report, we consistently review manuscripts and supervise doctoral work where saturation is misunderstood, misapplied, or misrepresented. This article addresses the critical misconceptions surrounding saturation and offers guidance for applying it rigorously and transparently.
The Myth of the “Saturation Number”
One of the most pervasive issues in qualitative research is the idea that saturation occurs automatically after a certain number of interviews. This is often based on over-citation of Guest et al. (2006), who suggested that thematic saturation can be achieved after 12 interviews. But that finding is context-specific, based on a homogeneous participant group, narrow research scope, and deductive thematic analysis.
Saturation is not a number. It is a function of your research question, design, and the depth and diversity of your data.
Different Types of Saturation — But Rarely Specified
There are multiple types of saturation, and failure to distinguish between them weakens your study’s credibility:
- Code Saturation: No new codes emerge from the data
- Meaning Saturation: No new insights or understandings arise about existing codes
- Theoretical Saturation: In grounded theory, no further elaboration of categories is possible
- Data Saturation: Broad term, often vaguely used, to mean “nothing new is coming up”
Yet many researchers simply write: “We reached saturation after X interviews.” — without stating what kind of saturation they mean, how they evaluated it, or how the sample diversity influenced it.
Common Missteps and Their Consequences
1. Pre-determined Sample Size Passed Off as Saturation
Many studies set their sample size in advance (due to funding or logistics) and retroactively claim they reached saturation. This post hoc reasoning undermines methodological integrity.
2. No Documentation or Evidence
Claims of saturation are rarely supported by field notes, codebooks, or analytic memos showing the point at which no new patterns emerged.
3. Overlooking Heterogeneity
Saturation in a homogeneous sample is not equivalent to saturation in a diverse, intersectional, or multi-site study. If your participants vary significantly, saturation must be assessed within and across subgroups.
4. Ignoring Epistemological Foundations
Different qualitative traditions have different views on saturation. Interpretive and critical paradigms, for instance, often reject saturation as a positivist holdover and instead focus on richness, depth, and dialogic complexity.
5. Stopping Too Soon
Researchers may cease data collection at superficial saturation — when no new topics emerge — but before full conceptual elaboration is achieved. This limits theoretical contribution.
Rethinking Saturation: Toward Rigor and Reflexivity
Saturation should not be a shortcut. It should be a transparent, dynamic, and rigorously assessed process that evolves with the research.
Best practices include:
- Clarifying which type of saturation you are targeting
- Documenting the saturation point with memoing or analytic tracking
- Justifying your sampling logic based on scope, variation, and theory
- Being reflexive about how researcher positionality affects what is considered “new” or “repetitive”
- Linking saturation to analytical adequacy, not just repetition
Final Thought
Saturation is not about “when nothing new is said.” It’s about when deeper insight stops emerging and further data no longer enriches your categories or interpretations. If your saturation claim cannot be demonstrated, contextualized, and defended, it weakens both your methodology and your contribution.
At Research & Report, we help researchers move beyond superficial saturation toward analytic sufficiency, ensuring that your qualitative research stands up to the scrutiny of peer reviewers, doctoral committees, and global journals.
Need expert support in planning sample size, documenting analytic rigor, or defending saturation in your qualitative study?
Explore our qualitative coaching and review services at Research & Report — where credibility meets clarity.