Saunders Benjamin, Sim Julius, Kingstone Tom, Baker Shula, Waterfield Jackie, Bartlam Bernadette, Burroughs Heather, Jinks Clare
1Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5BG UK.
2School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh, EH21 6UU UK.
Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893-1907. doi: 10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8. Epub 2017 Sep 14.
Saturation has attained widespread acceptance as a methodological principle in qualitative research. It is commonly taken to indicate that, on the basis of the data that have been collected or analysed hitherto, further data collection and/or analysis are unnecessary. However, there appears to be uncertainty as to how saturation should be conceptualized, and inconsistencies in its use. In this paper, we look to clarify the nature, purposes and uses of saturation, and in doing so add to theoretical debate on the role of saturation across different methodologies. We identify four distinct approaches to saturation, which differ in terms of the extent to which an inductive or a deductive logic is adopted, and the relative emphasis on data collection, data analysis, and theorizing. We explore the purposes saturation might serve in relation to these different approaches, and the implications for how and when saturation will be sought. In examining these issues, we highlight the uncertain logic underlying saturation-as essentially a predictive statement about the unobserved based on the observed, a judgement that, we argue, results in equivocation, and may in part explain the confusion surrounding its use. We conclude that saturation should be operationalized in a way that is consistent with the research question(s), and the theoretical position and analytic framework adopted, but also that there should be some limit to its scope, so as not to risk saturation losing its coherence and potency if its conceptualization and uses are stretched too widely.
饱和度作为定性研究中的一种方法原则已获得广泛认可。通常认为它表明,基于迄今已收集或分析的数据,进一步的数据收集和/或分析是不必要的。然而,对于饱和度应如何概念化似乎存在不确定性,并且在其使用方面也存在不一致之处。在本文中,我们希望阐明饱和度的性质、目的和用途,并借此丰富关于饱和度在不同方法中作用的理论辩论。我们确定了四种不同的饱和度方法,它们在采用归纳或演绎逻辑的程度以及对数据收集、数据分析和理论化的相对重视程度方面存在差异。我们探讨了饱和度在这些不同方法中可能发挥的作用,以及对如何以及何时寻求饱和度的影响。在研究这些问题时,我们强调了饱和度背后不确定的逻辑——本质上是基于已观察到的情况对未观察到的情况的一种预测性陈述,我们认为这种判断会导致模棱两可,并且可能在一定程度上解释了围绕其使用的困惑。我们得出结论,饱和度的操作化方式应与研究问题、所采用的理论立场和分析框架相一致,但同时其范围也应有一定限制,以免如果其概念化和用途扩展得过于宽泛而导致饱和度失去其连贯性和效力。