See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281981185

Does Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?: A Review of Qualitative

Interviews in is Research

Article  in  Journal of Computer Information Systems · September 2013

DOI: 10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

CITATIONS READS

939 24,711

4 authors:

Bryan Marshall Peter Cardon

Georgia College University of Southern California
24 PUBLICATIONS   1,280 CITATIONS    73 PUBLICATIONS   2,010 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Amit Poddar Renee J. Fontenot

Salisbury University Georgia College
25 PUBLICATIONS   1,760 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   1,519 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Does Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?: A Review of Qualitative Interviews in is Research View project

Best Practices in Diversity at Business Schools View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Peter Cardon on 04 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Computer Information Systems

ISSN: 0887-4417 (Print) 2380-2057 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucis20

Does Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?:

A Review of Qualitative Interviews in is Research

Bryan Marshall, Peter Cardon, Amit Poddar & Renee Fontenot

To cite this article: Bryan Marshall, Peter Cardon, Amit Poddar & Renee Fontenot (2013) Does
Sample Size Matter in Qualitative Research?: A Review of Qualitative Interviews in is Research,
Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54:1, 11-22, DOI: 10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

Published online: 10 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 355

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ucis20

Download by: [USC University of Southern California] Date: 07 December 2016, At: 16:50
 DOES SAMPLE SIZE MATTER IN
QUALITATIVE RESEARCH?: A REVIEW OF
QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS IN IS RESEARCH
BRYAN MARSHALL PETER CARDON
Georgia College & University of
State University Southern California
United States United States
ABSTRACT
This study examines 83 IS qualitative studies in leading IS
journals for the following purposes: (a) identifying the extent to
which IS qualitative studies employ best practices of justifying
sample size; (b) identifying optimal ranges of interviews for
various types of qualitative research; and (c) identifying the extent
to which cultural factors (such as journal of publication, number
of authors, world region) impact sample size of interviews. Little
or no rigor for justifying sample size was shown for virtually
all of the IS studies in this dataset. Furthermore, the number
of interviews conducted for qualitative studies is correlated
with cultural factors, implying the subjective nature of sample
size in qualitative IS studies. Recommendations are provided
for minimally acceptable practices of justifying sample size of
interviews in qualitative IS studies.
KEYWORDS: qualitative methodology, qualitative inter-
views, data saturation, sample size
INTRODUCTION
Other than selecting a research topic and appropriate research
design, no other research task is more fundamental to creating
credible research than obtaining an adequate sample. Ensuring
that there is enough data is a precursor to credible analysis and
reporting. Yet, rarely if ever do qualitative researchers justify
the sample sizes of qualitative interviews. Furthermore, leading
qualitative research methodologists provide few concrete
guidelines for estimating sample size.
In this study, we explore how well researchers have justified
their sample sizes for qualitative interviews in leading IS journals.
We began the study with the hope of establishing evidence-based
guidelines for researchers who intend to use qualitative interviews
in their research. Furthermore, our hope was that these guidelines
would lead to publishable and impactful IS research. In the
Findings and Discussion sections of the paper, we demonstrate
the poor compliance with basic procedures for rigor in sample
size. We conclude with guidelines for standard practices related to
justifying sample size that should be employed in all qualitative-
interview-based studies. We also discuss what we consider a crisis
of rigor related to sample sizes in qualitative IS research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Abundant qualitative research exists in the IS field, including
a variety of reviews and recommendations tailored specifically
to the use of qualitative methodology in the IS field [1, 9, 16,
17, 18, 19, 26, 40]. There have even been conferences devoted
Fall 2013 Journal of Computer Information Systems
AMIT PODDAR RENEE FONTENOT
Georgia College & Georgia College &
State University State University
United States United States
to qualitative IS research (i.e., the Qualitative Research in IT
conference in New Zealand) and WebPages sponsored by IS
academic organizations that supply qualitative methodological
resources on their websites (i.e., the Association of Information
System’s linked webpage http://www.qual.auckland.ac.nz/). Yet,
like many disciplines, scant attention is paid to estimating sample
size for qualitative interviews. In part, this may be due to the fact
that qualitative research emerges from a paradigm of emergent
design with a hesitation to estimate sample size at the often fluid
and undefined initial stages of research. In this literature review,
we focus first on theoretical arguments for estimating sample
size. Then, we discuss applied or practical reasons for estimating
sample size. Finally, we discuss best practices in justifying sample
size and data saturation.
The concept data saturation (developed originally for
grounded theory studies but applicable to all qualitative research
that employs interviews as the primary data source) “entails
bringing new participants continually into the study until the data
set is complete, as indicated by data replication or redundancy.
In other words, saturation is reached when the researcher gathers
data to the point of diminishing returns, when nothing new is
being added” [2, 22]. Thus, estimating adequate sample size is
directly related to the concept of saturation.
However, data saturation is an elusive concept and standard
in qualitative research since few concrete guidelines exist. As
Morse [23] stated, “Saturation is the key to excellent qualitative
work . . . [but] there are no published guidelines or tests of ade-
quacy for estimating the sample size required to reach satur-
ation.” Furthermore, many qualitative methodologists recognize
the sloppy fashion by which sample size is described in qualita-
tive studies. Onwuegbuzie and Leech [29] stated, “Many
qualitative researchers seemingly select the size of their samples
in an arbitrary fashion” (pp. 115-116). Charmaz [4] further
stated:
Often, researchers invoke the criterion of saturation to
justify small samples — very small samples with thin data.
Such justifications diminish the credibility of grounded
theory. . . . Claims of saturation often reflect rationalization
more than reason, and these claims raise questions.
What stands as a category? Is it conceptual? Is it useful?
Developed by whose criteria? All these questions add up
to the big question: What stands as adequate research?
(p. 528)
Most qualitative methodologists openly recognize the lack
of standards for sample size. At the same time, some qualitative
methodologists are not troubled by the lack of guidelines, even
11
considering the vague nature of sample size guidelines as a
reflection of the qualitative orientation to research. This orientation
is not only theoretical but also psychologically fitting for people
with more tolerance for ambiguity. For example, in the Sample
Size section of his work on qualitative research methodology,
Patton [31] explains,
Qualitative inquiry is rife with ambiguities. There are
purposeful strategies instead of methodological rules.
There are inquiry approaches instead of statistical formulas.
Qualitative inquiry seems to work best for people with a
high tolerance for ambiguity. . . . Nowhere is this ambiguity
clearer than in the matter of sample size. . . . There are no
rules for sample size in qualitative inquiry. Sample size
depends on what you want to know, the purpose of the
inquiry, what’s at stake, what will be useful, what will have
credibility, and what can be done with available time and
resources. (pp. 242-243)
While qualitative methodologists are unlikely to agree on
exact sample sizes needed for qualitative studies, they generally
agree that a number of factors can affect the number of interviews
needed to achieve saturation. In addition to the nature and scope
of the researcher, some other factors that can influence sample
size needed to reach saturation include quality of interviews,
number of interviews per participant, sampling procedures, and
researcher experience [21, 24, 31, 32, 34, 35].
Estimating and justifying sample size of interviews has
more than theoretical significance. Fundamentally, qualitative
researchers face a number of unique challenges when proposing,
conducting, and getting their research published. Fundamentally,
there is still strong resistance among many scholars to qualitative
research. Although the standing of qualitative work has improved
over the past few decades, qualitative work is still viewed as
less rigorous research by many non-qualitative researchers
[8]. Furthermore, many qualitative research techniques are
misunderstood by non-qualitative researchers. This leads to
a variety of political problems, including difficulty in getting
qualitative proposals approved and getting qualitative work
published. Many scholars also believe that qualitative research is
more time consuming and mentally challenging. Therefore, it can
be a high-resource, high-risk, high-time commitment research
activity in an academic environment that is often driven by short-
term productivity demands. For these many reasons, it is essential
that qualitative researchers identify ways of most efficiently
accomplishing their research objectives. Getting the right amount
of data through interviews can accomplish this objective.
Politically, qualitative researchers are generally in a minority
position. Doctoral committees and editorial review boards
typically contain a majority of quantitative-oriented researchers.
Therefore, qualitative researchers need to mold research de-
sign, analysis, and reporting to get political support. Many
reviews of qualitative research proposals are conducted with
scholars with little or no knowledge of proper qualitative
procedures. In some cases, antagonism towards qualitative work
exists [5, 25, 30].
Regarding the many political and resource constraints facing
qualitative researchers, Patton [31] stated: “Sampling to the point
of redundancy is an ideal, one that works best for basic research,
unlimited timelines, and unconstrained resources. The solution is
judgment and negotiation. I recommend that qualitative sampling
designs specify minimum samples based on expected reasonable
12 Journal of Computer Information Systems
coverage of the phenomenon given the purpose of the study and
stakeholder interests.” (p. 246) Patton [31] further stated:
At the beginning, for planning and budgetary purposes,
one specifies a minimum expected sample size and builds
rationale for that minimum, as well as criteria that would
alert the research to inadequacies in the original sampling
approach and/or size. In the end, sample size adequacy, like
all aspects of research, is subject to peer review, consensual
validation, and judgment. (p. 246)
Many qualitative methodologists claim the time and mentally
exhaustive nature of qualitative work compared to other forms of
research. Yin [45] stated regarding case study research:
In actuality, the demands of a case study on your intellect,
ego, and emotions are far greater than those of any other
research method. This is because the data collection
procedures are not routinized. . . . During data collection,
only a more experienced investigator will be able to take
advantage of unexpected opportunities rather than being
trapped by them — and also will exercise sufficient care
against potentially biased procedures. (p. 68)
Guest, Bunce, and Johnson [15] further emphasized the need for
numerical targets for sample sizes of interviews:
Our experience, however, tells us that it is precisely a general,
numerical guideline that is most needed, particularly in the
applied research sector. Individuals designing research —
lay and experts alike — need to know how many interviews
they should budget for and write into their protocol, before
they enter the field. This article is in response to this need,
and we hope it provides an evidence-based foundation on
which subsequent researchers can expand. (p. 60)
We have cited a number of scholars who describe the
importance of estimating and justifying sample size based on
practical reasons. We would add that we consider the lack of more
concrete guidelines acts as a barrier to many scholars in considering
qualitative research. When Yin [45] states that “procedures are
not routinized . . . [and that] only a more experienced investigator
will be able to take advantage of unexpected opportunities rather
than being trapped by them” (p. 68), this deters scholars who,
despite interest in qualitative techniques, prefer some routine
and less ambiguity. Furthermore, when Patton [31] states that
“qualitative inquiry seems to work best for people with a high
tolerance for ambiguity . . . [and that] nowhere is this ambiguity
clearer than in the matter of sample size” (pp. 242-243), he may
be unintentionally excluding a large set of scholars who are
sympathetic to qualitative research but who need more structured
guidelines for rigor, including for estimating sample size. These
barriers to entry for researchers with tighter expectations of rigor
are a practical problem for all qualitative researchers because
by inadvertently discouraging other scholars from participating
in qualitative research, the minority position of qualitative
researchers is perpetuated, thus perpetuating the political and
consensus-gaining activities that qualitative researchers must
engage in more so than quantitative researchers.
In this section, we describe three methods that can be used
to justify sample size of interviews in qualitative research.
The first and second are external justifications — they depend
Fall 2013
on other scholars. The first method is to cite recommendations
by qualitative methodologists. The second method is to act on
precedent by citing sample sizes used in studies with similar
research problems and designs [38]. The final and third method
is internal justification. It involves statistical demonstration of
saturation within a dataset.
Some qualitative research methodologists present general
guidelines for sample size of interviews [36]. These guidelines
vary from methodologist to methodologist and sometimes the
same methodologist has provided different ranges at different
points in time; however, there is substantial overlap in the various
recommended ranges. For example, in grounded theory studies,
Creswell [6] recommends at least 20 to 30 interviewees. Denzin
and Lincoln [8] recommend 30 to 50 interviews. Morse [24]
recommends 20 to 30 interviewees with 2 to 3 interviews per
person. In 1994, she had recommended 30 to 50 interviews and/
or observations. For phenomenological studies, ranges include
approximately 6 [7], 6-8 [20], and 6-10 [24]. Case studies are
among the most difficult types of qualitative research to classify.
Yin [44] recommends at least six sources of evidence. Creswell [6]
recommends no more than 4 or 5 cases. He further recommends
3 to 5 interviewees per case study. One problem is that when
qualitative methodologists do in fact present number ranges for
appropriate sample size, they fail to explain any rationale [29].
The second method of defending sample size is by precedent.
Onwuegbuzie & Leech [29] stated, “We recommend that before
deciding on an appropriate sample size, qualitative researchers
should consider identifying a corpus of interpretive studies that
used the same design as in the proposed study (e.g., grounded
theory, ethnography) and wherein the data saturation was
FIGURE 1 — Data Saturation in a Phenomenological Study
Fall 2013 Journal of Computer Information Systems
reached” (p. 118). In this situation, researchers estimate and/or
justify sample size by citing similar studies that claimed data
saturation at certain points.
The third method of justifying sample size is through
statistical demonstration of saturation within a dataset. We’re
aware of few research efforts to identify appropriate sample size
ranges. One exception is the work of Guest, Bunce, and Johnson
[15] regarding the issue of theoretical saturation. Based on their
review of recommendations of qualitative methodologists, they
found that nearly all recommend achieving theoretical saturation,
yet stated the following:
They [qualitative methodologists] did a poor job of
operationalizing the concept of saturation, providing no
description of how saturation might be determined and
no practical guidelines for estimating sample sizes for
purposively sampled interviews. This dearth led us to carry
out another search through the social science and behavioral
science literature to see if, in fact, any generalizable
recommendations exist regarding nonprobabilistic sample
sizes. After reviewing twenty-four research methods books
and seven databases, our suspicions were confirmed; very
little headway has been made in this regard. (p. 60)
Thus, they set out to develop evidence-based guidelines from
their dataset of interviews of sixty women in Nigeria and Ghana
in a phenomenological study of social desirability bias and self-
reported sexual behavior. They followed coding procedures of
Glaser and Strauss [13]. Based on themes developed in their
codebooks, they concluded that of 109 content-driven codes, 80
Note. Based on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson
13
(73%) were identified within the first six interviews transcripts;
100 (92%) were identified within the next six interview transcripts;
the final 8 codes (to reach 100% of all codes) were identified by
completion of the thirtieth interview transcript (see Figure 1). In
terms of thematic code prevalence, they calculated a Cronbach’s
alpha to measure the reliability of code frequency distribution
as the analysis progressed. Generally, .70 is considered an
acceptable measure. They showed that within 12 interviews,
the Cronbach’s alpha was .70; after 18 interviews, .79; after 24
interviews, .85; after 30 interviews, .88; after 36 interviews,
.88; after 42 interviews, .89; after 48 interviews, .90; after 54
interviews, .91; after 60 interviews, .93. They concluded that this
measure was reliable early in the process and improved at ever
decreasing rates. They concluded that most of the data saturation
had occurred by 12 interviews. They state the following about
the questions researchers should ask when planning sample size:
“The question we pose, however, frames the discussion differently
and asks, ‘Given x analyst(s) qualities, y analytic strategy, and z
objectives(s), what is the fewest number of interviews needed to
have a solid understanding of a given phenomenon?’” (p. 77).
Based on our review of literature about justifying sample
size of qualitative interviews, we would hypothesize that several
relationships would emerge when qualitative researchers follow
best practices for justifying sample size, as depicted in Figure 2.
In the figure we have assumed that there is a point where data is
most often saturated — in this case about 30 interviews (a rough
midpoint of suggested ranges for grounded theory methodologists).
This assumption is obviously variable and dependent on the type
and scope of study as well as the skill set of the researcher/s.
The larger point is that we would assume that certain types of
FIGURE 2 — Hypothesized Relationships with Sample Size of Qualitative Interviews
14 Journal of Computer Information Systems
qualitative research (i.e., grounded theory, phenomenology, case
study) would tend to cluster around an optimal range of interviews
for several reasons. First, for theoretical reasons and assuming
that researchers verify data saturation during the coding process
with statistical techniques, we would expect that most studies
would reach theoretical saturation most frequently in roughly
the same range. Generally, to justify data saturation would
require a researcher to conduct several interviews past that point
(to indicate that the dataset was indeed becoming redundant).
Furthermore, we would expect that this range would be influenced
by the recommendations of qualitative methodologists. We would
also expect that study quality to be highest at about the point of
data saturation. In other words, the quality of the study would
increase until data saturation is reached but diminish afterwards.
As illustrated in Figure 1, there are rapidly diminishing returns
once the data is saturated. However, exceeding the point of data
saturation is not necessarily a harmless activity. In fact, gathering
too much data can impair researchers from the deep, rich
analysis of the data that is a hallmark and central to the purpose
of qualitative research [31]. Furthermore, for most researchers,
moving far past the point of saturation would devour limited time
and resources. Therefore, we would expect the quality imperative
to reign in efforts to gather too much data.
METHODS
The primary purposes of our research were the following: (a)
identify the extent to which IS qualitative studies employ best
practices of justifying sample size; (b) identify optimal ranges of
interviews for various types of qualitative research; (c) identify
Fall 2013
the extent to which cultural variables (i.e., journal, author, region) are the primary data source, since it is through this method that
impact sample size of interviews; and (d) identify the relationship the researcher can best access the interpretations that participants
between sample size of interviews and impact of the research. have regarding the actions and events which have or are taking
Thus, we had the following broad research questions: place” (p. 78).
We identified articles that employed interviews as the primary
s$O )3 RESEARCH STUDIES CONFORM TO BEST PRACTICES FOR data source in the following journals: MIS Quarterly, Informa-
justification of sample size? tion Systems Journal, Information Systems Research, Communi-
s(OWMANYQUALITATIVEINTERVIEWSAREENOUGHFORVARIOUS cations of the ACM, and Journal of Management Information
types of qualitative research? Systems. We selected these five journals due to the high quality
s$O CULTURAL VARIABLES IE JOURNAL AUTHOR REGION of the journals and accessibility through our library systems.
influence the sample size of interviews?
We are aware of few efforts to examine qualitative studies as
an evidence-based guide to appropriate sample size in qualita-
tive studies. One example of such an effort is Thomson’s [39]
review of fifty ground theory articles during the 2002-2004
time period. Sample size ranged from 5 to 350 with an aver-
age of 31. By taking the 350-interview study out of the sample,
the average number of interviews was 24. Based on his study,
he made several conclusions: (a) small sample size studies
generally involved more contact time with each interviewee
(longer interviews and/or repeated interviews); (b) theoretical
saturation generally occurs between 10 and 30 interviews; and
(c) once a researcher believes saturation has occurred, he/she
should conduct several additional interviews to test whether
existing themes and categories are sufficient. Based on the
dilemmas of estimating needed interviews beforehand, he stated:
“Thus, it would be wise to anticipate 30 interviews in order to
facilitate pattern, category, and dimension growth and satura-
tion. It is only through the quality of the data that meaningful
and valid results are developed, so it is essential that the re-
searcher ensure that saturation has occurred.”
A study that focused specifically on rigor in the IS field was
Dubé and Paré’s [9] study of 183 IS case studies in seven IS
journals from 1990 to 1999. They examined the degree to which
these studies met standards of rigor as posited by case study
methodologists. They found that “a large portion of them have
actually ignored the state of the art of case research methods
that have been readily available to them” (p. 599). They found
that semi-structured interviews were the primary data collection
method in 88% of the articles. Only 13% of articles described
the sampling strategy. Fewer than 38% included the number of
interviewees and only 24% described the number of interviews
conducted. “In short, the apparent lack of information about
the sampling strategy in positivist case studies might prohibit
the reader from understanding the limits of the conclusions
that are drawn from such research” (p. 614). They found that
in addition to qualitative interviews, other major data sources
used the case studies were existing documentation (64% of
cases), direct observation (32% of cases), and quantitative surveys
(27% of cases).
We patterned our study primarily on Thomson’s [39] study of
grounded theory articles, yet we wanted to expand our sample to
studies that employed qualitative interviews (not just grounded
theory studies) but restrict the sample to IS studies. While it is
true that many archival documents, observation, and other sources
of data are included in qualitative studies, particularly cases,
qualitative interviews are the primary data source in the vast
majority of IS positivist cases studies, as confirmed by Dubé and
Paré [9]. This is not different for the interpretive approach to case
studies. As Walsh [40] stated, “With respect to interpretive case
studies as an outside observer, it can be argued that interviews
Fall 2013 Journal of Computer Information Systems
Four of the five selected journals are top five IS journals accord-
ing to average rankings on the Association for Information
Systems website, which averages rankings of nine studies of IS
journal quality.
We gathered several pieces of information about the
interviews. After all, “Sampling involves more than just the
number of participants included in the study; sampling is a
process that incorporates the number of participants, the number
of contacts with each participant, and the length of each contact.
It is important for researchers to consider how much contact
will be required in order to reach saturation” [29]. Therefore,
we gathered the number of interviewees, interviews, and length
of interviews. By multiplying the number of interviews with
the length of interviews, we established total contact time. In
cases where authors simply stated a range of interview lengths,
we average the range (e.g., 60 to 90 minutes was average to 75
minutes).
We wanted to examine the impact of rigor of sample size
justification with study quality. We decided to use impact factor
as a rough estimate of study quality. This is by no means a perfect
measure of study quality, but it is a decent measure of how
well accepted a study is. To determine impact we used several
methods. First, we used citations and impact factors developed
by Web of Science®. For each article in the database (available
for all articles in our sample with the exception of Journal of
Management Information Systems), we were able to obtain the
number of articles in journals in the ISI Web of Knowledge index
that cited the article. We calculated five-year impact factors by
calculating the average number of citations during the five years
immediately following publication. Second, we used Google
Scholar to identify the number of citations for each article. For
Google impacts, we calculated average annual citations for all
articles that had been published for at least five years.
FINDINGS
As far as justifying sample size for interviews, there was
little if any defense based on the three best practices for doing
so. First, no studies cited qualitative methodologists for an
appropriate sample size. Several single case studies cited Yin [44]
in defense of using a single case but went no further in describing
why they employed the number of interviews they conducted.
One multiple-case study cited Eisenhardt [10] in the selection
of ten cases; yet, provided no additional detail about reasons for
selecting the number of interviews for each case [3]. Many of the
studies included references to theoretical saturation as described
by Glaser and Strauss [13]. Surprisingly, even when mentioning
the importance of saturation, none of these studies provided a
defense of the size of their sample. As examples, Nissen [28]
stated: “[We conducted] more than 200 [interviews] conducted
over a three-month period. The number, time, and scope of
interviews continue until theoretical saturation is reached” (p.
15
235); yet, they never explained how or when saturation was
achieved. Garud and Kumaraswamy [12] cited Glaser and Strauss
[13] and explained the importance of “iterating between theory
until a stage of theoretical saturation is reached” (p. 15); yet,
similarly never mentioned at what point this was reached in their
study. Watson-Manheim and Bélanger [41] advocated “reaching
theoretical saturation when possible” (p. 271); yet, never discussed
how their sample reached saturation. In short, none of the studies
cited qualitative methodologists in defense of their sample size.
Many of the studies invoked the concept of saturation but never
described a point at which that was expected to or did happen.
For the second method of defending sample size, only one
study out of the 83 studies cited a prior qualitative work as the
basis for sample size when addressing a similar problem. Ryan
and Harrison [33] stated, “Other IT researchers have used a
similar number of interviews to explore complex issues and build
theory” (p. 17) and then cited the work of Niederman, Beise, and
Beranek [27] as a basis for their sample size.
For the third method of defending sample size, none of the
studies cited statistical evidence of saturation. A few studies
made vague statements about reaching saturation near the end of
the interviews. Tallon and Kraemer [37] stated, “We conducted
interviews until we reached theoretical saturation — that is, the
last few interviews did not provide new insights — making the
sample size appropriate for this study” (p. 145). Fort, Larco, and
Bruckman [11] stated, “When themes began arising over and
over in these interviews, we followed up by recruiting partici-
pants who have been involved in particular issues and policies”
(p. 54). Goulielmos [14] stated, “No new concepts were devel-
oped with the completion of data completion” (p. 366). These
types of statements were rare, and in each instance, presented
in one or two sentences with no statistical demonstration of
sample size.
We provide various descriptive statistics that show ranges of
number of interviews for various types of research methodolo-
gies. In Table 1, we group these statistics by the following types
of research studies: grounded theory, single case, multiple case
study, other types of qualitative study, and mixed design (quali-
tative and quantitative) studies. The final two columns show
statistics for the top 25 percentile in impact for articles that
were published in 2005 or before, thus focusing on impacts that
have extended over a minimum of five years. Google top per-
formers refer to average annual citation counts for articles older
than five years. Top performers refer to five-year impact factors
of articles older than five years according to the Social Sciences
Index. Institution region refers to the location of the first author’s
institution and the regions are North America (United States
and Canada), Europe (including Australia and New Zealand), and
Asia. Impact factors are displayed in quartiles since with relatively
small sample sizes, averages are easily skewed by extreme points
in the dataset. Since grounded theory, single case, and multiple
case research designs are the dominant forms of qualitative
research, we report only on those types of research throughout
the remainder of the paper.

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics of Included Studies

Grounded Multiple Google Top Top
Theory Single Case Case Other Mixed All Performers Performers
Time Period n % n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
1980s 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 18% 1 6% 3 4% 0 0% 0 0%
1990-1994 0 0% 2 6% 0 0% 1 6% 0 0% 3 4% 1 8% 0 0%
1995-1999 3 15% 4 12% 3 13% 1 6% 2 11% 9 11% 4 33% 1 13%
2000-2004 8 40% 12 35% 9 39% 6 35% 7 39% 31 37% 7 58% 7 88%
2005-2009 9 45% 16 47% 11 48% 6 35% 8 44% 37 45% 0 — 0 —
Journal
CACM 4 20% 2 6% 1 4% 7 41% 3 17% 13 16% 0 0% 1 13%
ISJ 2 10% 11 32% 7 30% 2 12% 6 33% 22 27% 0 0% 0 0%
ISR 3 15% 1 3% 4 17% 0 0% 1 6% 6 7% 2 17% 3 38%
JMIS 8 40% 16 47% 5 22% 3 18% 5 28% 26 31% 5 42% 0 0%
MISQ 3 15% 4 12% 6 26% 5 29% 3 17% 16 19% 5 42% 4 50%
Institution Region
USA/CA 14 70% 17 50% 14 61% 13 76% 8 44% 49 59% 9 75% 6 75%
Europe 5 25% 13 38% 6 26% 4 24% 7 39% 26 31% 2 17% 1 13%
Asia 1 5% 4 12% 3 13% 0 0% 3 17% 8 10% 1 8% 1 13%
Number of Authors
1 5 25% 6 18% 4 17% 6 35% 6 33% 17 20% 2 17% 1 13%
2 11 55% 16 47% 14 61% 4 24% 6 33% 39 47% 8 67% 6 75%
3 or more 4 20% 12 35% 5 22% 7 41% 6 33% 27 33% 2 17% 1 13%
Impact Factor
Minimum 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0
Quartile 1 6.8 6.5 5.0 3.0 3.5 4.5 10.5 26.8
Quartile 2 17.5 9.0 16.0 5.0 5.0 9.0 27.0 28.5
Quartile 3 27.5 24.5 20.0 11.0 8.5 18.5 29.5 30.3
Maximum 48.0 48.0 30.0 28.0 27.0 48.0 48.0 48.0
Total 20 34 23 17 18 83 12 8

16 Journal of Computer Information Systems Fall 2013

 In Table 2, we present the number of interviews per study
broken down by journal, institution region, and number of
authors. Generally speaking, some journals contained articles
with far more interviews per study. For example, 50% of articles
in MIS Quarterly contained more than 40 interviews, compared
to 34% in Journal of Management Information Systems, 23%
in Information Systems Journal, 17% in Information Systems
Research, and 15% in Communications of the ACM. On the other
hand, some journals contained articles with far fewer interviews.
In Communications of the ACM and Information Systems
Journal, 69% of the articles contained 30 or fewer interviews,
compared to 66% in Information Systems Research, 56% in
Journal of Management Information Systems, and 38% in MIS
Quarterly. European and Asian authors were far more likely to
include fewer interviews in their studies with 77% of European
authors including fewer than 30 interviews, compared to 71%
for Asian authors, and 50% for American authors. Studies that
included more authors similarly contained fewer interviews. In
approximately 76% of studies authored by three or more authors
there were fewer than 30 interviews compared to 52% and 47%

TABLE 2. Number of Interviews per Study by Journal, Region, and Authors

Under 10 11 to 20 21 to 30 31 to 40 41 to 50 51 to 100 over 100
Journal n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
CACM 2 15% 0 0% 7 54% 2 15% 0 0% 2 15% 0 0%
ISJ 5 23% 7 32% 3 14% 2 9% 4 18% 0 0% 1 5%
ISR 0 0% 2 33% 2 33% 1 17% 0 0% 1 17% 0 0%
JMIS 3 13% 7 30% 3 13% 2 9% 3 13% 4 17% 1 4%
MISQ 1 6% 3 19% 2 13% 2 13% 2 13% 5 31% 1 6%
Institution Region
USA/CA 4 8% 10 20% 11 22% 8 16% 3 6% 11 22% 2 4%
Europe 6 27% 8 36% 3 14% 0 0% 3 14% 1 5% 1 5%
Asia 1 14% 1 14% 3 43% 0 0% 2 29% 0 0% 0 0%
Number of Authors
1 1 6% 6 35% 1 6% 3 18% 3 18% 2 12% 1 6%
2 5 13% 5 13% 10 26% 3 8% 5 13% 8 21% 2 5%
3+ 5 20% 8 32% 6 24% 3 12% 1 4% 2 8% 0 0%
Note. Percentages are in rows.

FIGURE 3. Number of Interviews Based on Number of Authors

Fall 2013 Journal of Computer Information Systems 17

in double-authored and single-authored studies, respectively. We containing fewer than 20 interviews) or large samples sizes (30%
depict this author relationship in Figure 3 to show that whereas containing more than 40 interviews). The majority (57%) of
there is little pattern to the number of interviews in single-authored multiple case studies contains 20 to 50 interviews; however, there
and double-authored studies, those studies with three or more is major variability.
authors tend to crest around twenty interviews and gradually fall In Table 4, we present the number of cases in multiple case
to around fifty interviews with quite uncommon cases of studies studies. Generally, most of these studies contain just 2 or 3 cases
with more than fifty interviews. (43%) or 8 or more cases (43%). Few studies contain between 4
In Table 3, we present the number of interviewees, interviews, and 7 cases (13%). This pattern is similar to grounded theory and
and contact time (in total hours per study) for grounded theory, single case designs in that sample sizes tend to cluster around
single case, multiple case, Google top performers, and top small or large sample sizes. And surprisingly, this is counter to
performers. The differential between minimums and maximums the recommendations of some qualitative methodologists, such
is extremely large. For example, in terms of total
contact time the differential ranges on order of 17
TABLE 3. Interviewees, Interviews, and Contact Time by Research Design
to 40 times. Even when limiting analysis of the
middle fifty percentile, the range for grounded Grounded Single Multiple Google Top Top
theory, single case, and multiple case studies is on Theory Case Case Performers Performers
an order of 3 to 4.5 times: grounded theory ranges
Interviewees
from 16 to 70 contact hours for interviews; single
Minimum 6 4 10 7 12
case ranges from 10 to 46 hours; and multiple case
Quartile 1 15 13 22 19 20
ranges from 21 to 69 contact hours. Ranges tighten
Quartile 2 27 24 39 29 24
for those studies with highest impacts: Google top
Quartile 3 59 43 45 68 40
performers range from 31 to 71 contact hours and
Maximum 200 200 74 105 105
Social Science Index top performers range from 23
to 39 contact hours. Interviews
In Figure 4, we depict trends for sample size Minimum 6 4 10 7 12
of interviews for grounded theory, single case, and Quartile 1 17 13 22 19 20
multiple case studies. The trend line for grounded Quartile 2 29 23 40 29 24
theory studies is particularly surprising since there Quartile 3 59 45 49 68 40
are more concrete suggestions for grounded theory Maximum 200 200 74 127 127
studies in terms of sample size (generally ranging Contact Time (hrs)
in the 20 to 40 range). The IS grounded theory Minimum 5.5 4.0 6.0 5.5 12.0
studies we examined tended to be on either side of Quartile 1 15.8 10.0 21.2 31.2 23.0
this range with 35% of these studies containing less Quartile 2 37.3 28.0 38.8 39.0 37.3
than 20 interviews and 40% containing more than Quartile 3 70.0 46.0 68.8 71.0 38.8
40 interviews. Similarly, single case studies exhibit Maximum 222.3 222.3 100.5 222.3 222.3
a similar trend with either small sample sizes (45%

FIGURE 4. Interviews per Study by Research Design

18 Journal of Computer Information Systems Fall 2013

 TABLE 4. as Creswell, who recommend not exceeding five or six cases in
Number of Cases in Multiple Case Research Designs multiple case designs.
Finally, in Figures 5 and 6 we show scatter plots with trend
n %
lines with the relationships between number of interviews and
Min # Cases 2 average annual Google Scholar citations for articles that were
Average Number of Cases 7 published five or more years ago. We present these figures
Median Number of Cases 5 cautiously due to the small sample sizes. Nonetheless, we find
Max # Cases 34 it interesting that there are trends showing maximum impact
# Cases per Study around 25-30 interviews for grounded theory studies and 15-25
2 7 30.4% interviews for single case studies.
3 3 13.0%
4 1 4.3% DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5 2 8.7%
6 0 0.0% Without justification of sample size, the implication is that
7 0 0.0% sample size is arbitrary and thus inconsequential. In the studies
8 2 8.7% we examined, there is no apparent effort to justify sample size
9 2 8.7% by citing the recommendations of qualitative methodologists,
10 or more 6 26.1% acting on the precedent of other studies with similar designs
and research problems, or by demonstrating statistically that the

FIGURE 5.
Number of
Interviews
and Google
Scholar Annual
Citations for
Grounded
Theory Studies

FIGURE 6.
Number of
Interviews
and Google
Scholar Annual
Citations for
Single Case
Studies

Fall 2013 Journal of Computer Information Systems 19

dataset collected had become saturated. Rather, IS researchers
made superficial references to data saturation or altogether
omitted justification for sample size. Since justifying sample
size is evidence that the dataset is sufficient to address research
problems, this indicates an indifference to rigor that would be
unacceptable in quantitative research and should likewise be
unacceptable in qualitative research.
We anticipated that we would be able to provide evidence-
based guidelines for the number of interviews needed for
various types of research designs. Ultimately, we showed the
extreme variation in sample size in all research designs. Rather
than clustering in a mid-range of ideal number of interviews,
grounded theory and single case studies tended to have many
studies with small sample sizes and many studies with large
sample sizes. Furthermore, there were few studies in suggested
ranges (mid-ranges) by qualitative methodologists. For studies
with small sample sizes (for example, grounded theory studies
of 20 or fewer interviews) and without justification of sample
size, it would be easy to question whether theoretical saturation
had been reached. For studies with large sample sizes (for
example, grounded theory studies of 40 or more interviews),
it would be easy to question whether the researchers had been
able to devote sufficient attention to analyzing and reporting
in-depth, rich content with such a voluminous dataset.
As far as the cultural influence (values and norms of groups
and institutions), it is evident that culture does play a role. Some
journals tend to publish articles with much larger sample sizes
(such as MISQ), some regions (based on institution of first author)
likewise include more interviews (such as North America), and
larger groups of researchers (three or more) tend to conduct
fewer interviews. The fact that there is such variation highlights
the subjective nature of determining sample size. Given this
variation, the need for evidence-based guidelines for sample size
of interviews is further needed.
We consider the lack of rigor in justifying sample size a
major crisis to qualitative IS researchers. At a minimum level,
we recommend that IS researchers use each of the three best
practices for justifying sample size. The most critical best prac-
tice is statistical demonstration of data saturation since this
provides internal support for the value of the dataset and the
analysis and reporting built on the dataset. We consider the
second most important best practice that of citing other similar
studies that have adopted similar designs with similar research
problems.
There are many benefits to adopting these best practices.
First, they add to the credibility of the research. Second, they
have the potential of saving significant amounts of time. Since
each interview creates enormous time commitments (such as
establishing relationships of trust, transcribing, coding), focusing
on getting the right amount of data can save hundreds of hours.
Third, we believe that adopting more rigorous standards of
qualitative research would enhance the reputation of qualitative
research generally and even make this type of research more
appealing to quantitative researchers.
None of the three best practices described in this article are
new nor are they controversial among most qualitative researchers
— yet, few if any IS qualitative researchers are employing them.
As we reviewed the many qualitative articles for this study, we
concluded that there is a heavy emphasis on process in methods
sections. Qualitative researchers carefully detailed all of the many
steps they took in the data collection and analysis process. This
process-heavy orientation in terms of methods omits the results-
20 Journal of Computer Information Systems
oriented justification for sample size. After all, the best and most
rigorous justification for sample size of interviews does not
emerge from the steps a researcher takes in collecting the data
(process-driven), it emerges with statistical demonstration of
redundancy in codes (results-driven).
Although there are major limitations in each study in terms
of justifying sample size, we do think that we can infer some
collective wisdom from the studies that provide guidelines for
qualitative IS studies. We recommend the following:
Grounded theory qualitative studies should generally include
between 20 and 30 interviews. We based this recommendation
on several pieces of information from the study. Assuming that
top performers are articles that are most highly respected, we
think that the minimum number of articles, based on precedent,
should be the minimum standard in the majority of top per-
formers (in this case, we view this majority as the Quartile 1
figure as displayed in Table 3 for top performers and Google
top performers). At the same time, qualitative researchers
should assume that too many interviews can be counterproduc-
tive. As a result, we think the maximum should be where addi-
tional interviews fail to produce substantial new insight. We see
no evidence that studies over 30 interviews yielded significantly
more impact. For example, Figure 5 shows that the average
number of annual Google citations essentially reached a plateau
around 30 interviews. We also think exceeding 30 interviews
generally defies the wisdom when multiple authors work toge-
ther. When three or more authors work together, they view
saturation as occurring with 30 or fewer interviews in the vast
majority (76%) of studies (see Figure 4). We particularly cau-
tion against grounded theory studies of over 40 interviews.
The collective judgment in our study seems to indicate this as
well since 60 percent of all grounded theory studies contained
fewer than 40 interviews (see Figure 4). We expect further
refinement to our recommended range in years to come as IS
researchers report the techniques they use to reach data satur-
ation (as outlined in the prior recommendation).
Single case studies should generally contain 15 to 30
interviews. The extreme variation in practices for single case
studies makes a recommendation challenging. What is clear is
that 69 percent of all qualitative IS studies sampled for this study
employed fewer than 30 interviews. We think it would be rare that
additional interviews would be a wise time investment. Further,
of top Google performers, the highest average impacts fell in the
15 to 30 interview range (see Figure 5).
Qualitative researchers should examine the expectations
of their intended journal outlets based on history and culture.
It appears that some journals may have expectations for higher
numbers of interviews. For example, qualitative studies in MIS
Quarterly have far higher numbers of qualitative interviews per
study. Furthermore, it appears that American researchers tend to
conduct more interviews. We do not know a reason for this. Aside
from the theoretical and statistical elements of justifying sample
size, qualitative researchers should recognize these apparent
cultural judgments of data saturation and adjust their sample sizes
accordingly.
Replication studies should further examine the impacts of
culture and study design. We think this study shows clearly that
culture and study design affect judgments about data saturation.
Future studies that specifically addressed to what extent, how, and
why cultural factors affect judgments of data saturation would
be particularly helpful. We also think future studies are needed
to examine ideal ranges of qualitative interviews, particularly in
Fall 2013
multiple case studies. We recommend expanding the inclusion
of other top IS journals for such studies, including Association
of Information Systems, Journal of Information Technology,
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, European Journal of
Information Systems, and Journal of AIS.
SUMMARY
In this paper, we have addressed the problem of estimating
and justifying sample size of qualitative interviews. By examining
83 IS qualitative studies in leading IS journals, we have shown
that there is little rigor in justifying sample size. Furthermore,
the number of interviews conducted for qualitative studies is
correlated with cultural factors (such as journal of publication,
number of authors, world region), implying the subjective nature
of sample size in qualitative IS studies. We intended to develop
evidence-based guidelines for estimating sample size. However,
the vast range of sample sizes for all research designs makes
this problematic, which further supports that following rigorous
methods of justifying sample size of interviews in qualitative
studies is needed. Indeed, for qualitative IS research to gain wider
acceptance relative to quantitative research, rigor in sample size
determination is critical.
Based on our examination of qualitative interviews in IS
studies, we make the following recommendations: (a) grounded
theory qualitative studies should generally include between 20
and 30 interviews; (b) single case studies should generally contain
15 to 30 interviews; (c) qualitative researchers should examine
the expectations of their intended journal outlets based on history
and culture; and (d) replication studies should further examine the
impacts of culture and study design.
REFERENCES
[1] Amin M., & Mabe M. “Impact factors: Use and abuse,”
Perspectives in Publishing, (1), 2000, 1-6.
[2] Bowen, G. A. “Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation
concept: A research note,” Qualitative Research, (8:1), 2008,
137-152.
[3] Chan S. C. H., & Ngai E. W. T. “A qualitative study of
information technology adoption: How ten organizations
adopted Web-based training,” Information Systems Journal,
(17:3), 2007, 289-315.
[4] Charmaz, K. “Grounded theory for the 21st century:
Applications for advancing social justice studies,” In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research 3rd edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA,
2005, 507-535.
[5] Cheek, J. “The practice and politics of funded qualitative
research,” In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research 3rd ed, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, 2005, 387-409.
[6] Creswell, J. W. Qualitative inquiry & research design:
Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, 2007.
[7] Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. Handbook Of Qualitative
Research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994.
[8] Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln Y. S. “The discipline and practice of
qualitative research,” In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005, 1-32.
[9] Dubé, L., & Paré, E. “Rigor in information systems
Fall 2013 Journal of Computer Information Systems
positivist case research: Current practices, trends, and
recommendations,” MIS Quarterly (27:4), 2003, 597-635.
[10] Eisenhardt, K. M. “Building theories from case study
research,” Academy of Management Review, (14:4), 1989,
532-550.
[11] Forte, A., Larco V., & Bruckman, A. “Decentralization in
Wikipedia governance,” Journal of Management Information
Systems (26:1), 2009, 49-72.
[12] Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. “Vicious and virtuous
circles in the management of knowledge: The case of Infosys
Technologies,” MIS Quarterly (29:1), 2005, 9-33.
[13] Glaser, B. G., & Strauss A. L. The Discovery of Grounded
Theory. Aldine, New York, NY, 1967.
[14] Goulielmos, M. “Systems development approach: tran-
scending methodology,” Information Systems Journal,
(14:4), 2004, 363-386.
[15] Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. “How many interviews
are enough? An experiment with data saturation and
variability,” Field Methods, (18), 2006, 59-82.
[16] Havelka, D., & Merhout, J. W. “Toward a theory of
information technology professional competence,” Journal
of Computer Information Systems, (50:2), 2009, 106-116.
[17] Huang, E. Y., & Lin, S. W. “Do knowledge workers use e-
mail wisely,” Journal of Computer Information Systems,
(50:1), 2009, 65-73.
[18] Kaplan, B., & Duchon, D. “Combining qualitative and
quantitative methods in information systems research: A
case study,” MIS Quarterly, (12:4), 1988, 571-586.
[19] Kaplan, B., & Maxwell, J. A. “Qualitative research
methods for evaluating computer information systems,”
In J. G. Anderson & C. E. Aydin (Eds.), Evaluating the
organizational impact of healthcare information systems
(2nd ed.), Springer, New York, NY, 2006, 30-55.
[20] Kuzel, A. J. “Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry,” In BF
Crabtrree and WL Miller (Eds.) Doing Qualitative Research
(2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1999, 33-45.
[21] Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba E. G. Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage,
Beverly Hills, CA, 1985.
[22] Miles M. B., & Huberman A. M. Qualitative Data Analysis
(2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994.
[23] Morse, J. M. “The significance of saturation,” Qualitative
Health Research, (5), 1995, 147-149.
[24] Morse, J. M. “Determining sample size,” Qualitative Health
Research, (10:1), 2000, 3-5.
[25] Morse, J. M. “Myth #53: Qualitative research is cheap,”
Qualitative Health Research, (12:10), 2002, 1307-1308.
[26] Myers, M. D. “Qualitative research in information systems,”
MIS Quarterly, (21:2), 1997, 241-242.
[27] Niederman, F., Beise, C., & Beranek, P. “Issues and concern
about computer-supported meetings: The facilitator’s
perspective,” MIS Quarterly, (20:1), 1996, 1-22.
[28] Nissen, M. E. “Dynamic knowledge patterns to inform
design: A field study of knowledge stocks and flows in an
extreme organization,” Journal of Management Information
Systems, (22:3), 2005, 225-263.
[29] Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. “A call for qualitative
power analyses,” Quality & Quantity, (41), 2007, 105-121.
[30] Parahoo, K. “Square pegs in round holes: Reviewing
qualitative research proposals,” Journal of Clinical Nursing,
(12), 2003, 155-157.
[31] Patton, M. Q. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2002.
21
[32] Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. “Writing: A method of
inquiry,” In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage
Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.), Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, 2005, 959-978.
[33] Ryan, S. D., & Harrison, D. A. “Considering social subsystem
costs and benefits in information technology investment
decisions: A view from the field on anticipated payoffs,”
Journal of Management Information Systems, (16:4), 2000,
11-40.
[34] Sandelowski, M. “Sample size in qualitative research,”
Research in Nursing and Health, (18), 1995, 179-183.
[35] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. Basics of Qualitative Research:
Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques, Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA, 1990.
[36] Subramanian, G. H., & Peslak, A. R. “User perception
differences in enterprise resource planning implementations,”
Journal of Computer Information Systems, (50:3), 2010,
130-138.
[37] Tallon, P. P., & Kraemer K. L. “Fact or fiction? A sensemaking
perspective on the reality behind executives’ perceptions of
22 Journal of Computer Information Systems
View publication stats
IT business value,” Journal of Management Information
Systems, (24:1), 2007, 13-54.
[38] Tan, W., Cater-Steel, A., & Toleman, M. “Implementing
IT service management: A case study focusing on critical
success factors,” Journal of Computer Information Systems,
(50:2), 2009, 1-12.
[39] Thomson, S. B. “Grounded theory — sample size and
validity, “ Retrieved January 29, 2010, at http://www.buseco.
monash.edu.au/research/studentdocs/mgt.pdf, 2002.
[40] Walsham, G. “Interpretive case studies in IS research: Nature
and method,” European Journal of Information Systems, (4),
1995, 74-81.
[41] Watson-Manheim, M. B., & Bélanger, F. “Communication
media repertoires: Dealing with the multiplicity of media
choices,” MIS Quarterly, (31:2), 2007, 267-293.
[42] Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (2nd ed.),
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, 1994.
[43] Yin, R. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.).
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2009.
Fall 2013