Phenomenology is one of the most popular qualitative research methodologies used in nursing research. Although interpretive phenomenology is often a logical choice to address the concerns of nursing, the vast number of methods of phenomenology means choosing an appropriate method can be daunting, especially for novice researchers. It is critical that nurse researchers select a phenomenological method that fits the research problem and the skill and world view of the researcher; doing so will result in a research experience that resonates (...) with and excites the researcher. The interpretive phenomenological methodologies of Benner, Munhall, and Conroy each offer unique methods of phenomenological inquiry. However, to date, we are not aware of any literature that explores and compares the methodological approaches of these nurses. In this paper, the origins and influence of phenomenology as both a philosophy and methodology on nurse researchers will be explored, followed by a critical analysis and comparison of these three nurses. By highlighting the distinctive differences and attributes of each method, this paper provides an analysis and comparison of the approaches of these prominent nurses. In doing so, we aim to aid the researcher in their methodological selection, thereby resulting in a successful and rewarding research endeavor. (shrink)

Phenomenology as Qualitative Research: A Critical Analysis of Meaning Attribution has attracted the attention of Max van Manen, who has published a highly critical review article. Anyone reading this article, but unfamiliar with the book, will get a distorted view of what it is about, whom it is addressed to, what it tries to achieve, and how it goes about presenting its arguments. Not mildly distorted, in need of the odd correction here and there, but systematically misrepresented. One problem is (...) that van Manen appears to have an idée fixe which prevents him from recognizing that the book is not about a certain philosophical tradition (known as “phenomenology”), but about a particular type of qualitative research (also known, unfortunately and confusingly, as “phenomenology”). A second idée fixe disposes him to misread an earlier article of mine and (much more seriously) three works by Heidegger. My aim in this article is to describe these two idées fixes, and exhibit their consequences. In doing so, I will examine what van Manen has to say on four crucial topics: meaning, lived experience, empathy, and Heidegger's analysis of boredom in The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics. (shrink)

Amedeo Giorgi has published a review article devoted to Phenomenology as Qualitative Research: A Critical Analysis of Meaning Attribution. However, anyone reading this article, but unfamiliar with the book, will get a distorted view of what it is about, whom it is addressed to, what it seeks to achieve and how it goes about presenting its arguments. Not mildly distorted, in need of the odd correction here and there, but systematically misrepresented. The article is a study in misreading. Giorgi misreads (...) the book's mise en scène; he misreads its narrative arc; he misreads individual arguments; he misreads short, simple passages; he misreads the philosophy of the science literature; he misreads his own data; he misreads the title; he misreads the blurb; he misreads the acknowledgements. In addition, there are serious failures of scholarship (ironically, he demonstrates how unacquainted he is with the relevant literature at the very moment he is accusing me of being ill‐informed). In this reply, I provide several examples of these errors, but my primary aim is to understand why Giorgi's misreading is as ubiquitous as it is. To this end, I explain his mistakes by reference to the hermetic epistemology within which he is confined. (shrink)

The quality of phenomenological research in nursing has been a subject of long‐standing debate and critique, but conversation took a particularly contentious turn following publication of John Paley's 2017 Phenomenology as Qualitative Research (Routledge), which elicited strong reactions. Faculty in nursing doctoral programs now face a challenge: in light of current controversies, what can we teach that is appropriately labeled phenomenological, and is there a way to present philosophical concepts that might equip students to avoid the most egregious mistakes of (...) the past? In this article, I suggest that ordinary clinical nursing practice is an inherently phenomenological enterprise, and creative bedside insights belong at the center of our teaching, as they embody an everyday phenomenology which exemplifies core elements of the phenomenological method. Instead of following ever‐more‐precisely elaborated instructional manuals, I propose, our students should begin their studies of phenomenology by returning attention to the way creative insight emerges during routine care. Bedside insights have been rendered invisible by our discipline's valuing of technical proceduralism over artistry in research and by the turn to evidence‐based practice in clinical work, but they are a valuable pathway to learning and should be part of our response to the current crisis. (shrink)