I easily and successfully defended my prospectus a year ago, for a dissertation based on in-depth interviews. I never gave a #, but my committee would reasonably expect at least 30, based on the cases in working with. im guessing.
Now I'm well on my way to fleshing out the dissertation chapters, and they are all much more theoretical. My advisor is fine with this, but I suspect this has more to do with the fact that he's totally MIA and has barely read a thing I've written. Nevertheless, he seems to approve of my work and I haven't hidden the direction it's going. (Though I haven't been direct about it either)
Most of my committee are also qual researchers interested in theory, so I dont suspect they'd have a problem with it either. I did not propose statistical analysis of cases, but inductive theory generation from talking to people. Obviously I need to check in with my committte directly, but I'm waiting a few weeks until I have some solid article drafts to back up my case.
The thing is that I'm terrified that my committee will be up in arms because I went a totally different direction methodologically. I'm literally having nightmares. I feel lazy and incompetent that I didn't do the interviews I said I would. I have the contacts, but don't have the time/energy to follow through with everyone. I'm realizing that I had the ambitions for several dissertations. Yet I do have solid article drafts for a theory-based dissertation that makes some use of the interviews I have conducted (about 10).
Anyone been here? I'm looking to understand what constitutes a successful theory-based dissertation as well as how to navigate massive changes in methodology with my committee.