Interpretive sufficiency of meaning: A philosophically coherent criterion for sample adequacy in hermeneutic phenomenology

Abstract

Saturation has become a widely used criterion for determining sample adequacy in qualitative research, including hermeneutic phenomenology, despite its origins in grounded theory and its association with theoretical and categorical development. This paper explores whether saturation is philosophically compatible with hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry and develops an alternative criterion for judging sample adequacy. Drawing on Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology, Schutz’s lifeworld perspective, and contemporary methodological scholarship, the paper uses a conceptual methodological analysis to explore how different approaches understand what constitutes “enough” in qualitative inquiry. The analysis shows that saturation, information power, and emerging uses of interpretive sufficiency address sample adequacy in different ways, but that none fully articulates adequacy in terms of the interpretive openness and contextuality of hermeneutic phenomenology. In response, the paper develops interpretive sufficiency of meaning, understood as the point at which sustained movement within the hermeneutic circle produces an interpretation sufficiently rich, coherent, contextually grounded, and phenomenologically illuminating to address the research question, without implying that meaning has been exhausted. Five interrelated dimensions—phenomenological depth, interpretive coherence, hermeneutic maturity, contextual resonance, and reflexive transparency—provide a basis for judging whether interpretation has developed sufficiently to support a defensible decision about continuing or concluding data generation. The paper concludes that sample adequacy in hermeneutic phenomenology is better understood through the quality and maturity of interpretation than through the presumed exhaustion of new information. It recommends that researchers, supervisors, examiners, reviewers, and editors consider these five dimensions when evaluating sample adequacy rather than treating saturation as a universal requirement. The framework contributes to qualitative methodological debates by aligning decisions about adequacy more closely with the philosophical commitments of hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry.