Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/brill/ipa-and-science-a-response-to-jonathan-smith-jlJGXGm6Q0
References (3)
-
Packer M. J. Addison R. B.
Grounded interpretive research: An investigation of physician socialization -
Willig C. Stainton-Rogers W.
Interpretive phenomenological analysis -
Davidson L.
Phenomenology and contemporary clinical practice
- Publisher
- Brill
- Copyright
- © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
- ISSN
- 0047-2662
- eISSN
- 1569-1624
- DOI
- 10.1163/156916211X599762
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Abstract This article is a response to Jonathan Smith’s attempted rebuttal to the accusations I had made that Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis’s (IPA’s) methodical procedures did not meet generally accepted scientific criteria. Each of Smith’s defenses was carefully examined and found to be lacking. IPA’s claim to have roots in contemporary phenomenological philosophy was found to be seriously deficient and its claim that it has a basis in hermeneutics was superficial. IPA’s hesitation to proclaim fixed methods makes the possibility of replication of IPA studies impossible and thus it makes the fulfillment of an important scientific criterion impossible. Its claim that its findings are subjective fails to meet the important scientific criterion of objectivity or even intersubjectivity. Consequently, the claims that I made in my original article were basically sustained and repeated.
Journal
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2011
Keywords: phenomenology; phenomenological psychological method; scientific criteria