Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research

Abstract

Adoption of this or similar frameworks of expressions of rigour could help to preserve the integrity and legitimacy of interpretive phenomenological nursing research.

When a parent has cancer: An examination of the lived experience of adult children living at home

“…It is worth noting that hermeneutic phenomenology recognizes that the researcher comes to the inquiry with pre-existing beliefs, assumptions, prior knowledge, and experiences. Rather than assuming a value-free and detached stance, the researcher makes explicit such knowledge (de Witt & Ploeg, 2006).…”

“…Increasingly, researchers have highlighted the inadequacy of evaluating the quality of qualitative research through standards (i.e., validity, reliability) designed to establish credibility in quantitative research, especially in light of the fact that these two methodologies are grounded in opposite philosophical assumptions (Davies & Dodd, 2002;Fisher, 2006;Meyrick, 2006;Morrow, 2005;Rolfe, 2006;de Witt & Ploeg, 2006). Such practices become even more troublesome when they are applied to hermeneutic phenomenological research (Morrow, 2005;Rolfe, 2006;de Witt & Ploeg, 2006).…”

“…Such practices become even more troublesome when they are applied to hermeneutic phenomenological research (Morrow, 2005;Rolfe, 2006;de Witt & Ploeg, 2006). For example, Meyrick (2006) proposes that a common way to evaluate the strength of qualitative research is to ask participants to re-check themes, transcripts, or interpretations, yet Meyrick argues such a practice removes the researcher from the research process -interpretations may no longer express the voice of the researcher.…”

“…These standards are by no way exhaustive, but rather reflect the work of scholars such as Meyrick (2006), Van Manen (1990, Rolfe (2006), and de Witt and Ploeg (2006).…”

Help-seeking behaviors of South African women after sexual offence victimization : the lived experience.

“…At the time Lincoln and Guba (1985) developed their criteria, they positioned qualitative research in a paradigm they labeled as naturalistic. They have since redefined their position and now posit themselves in the constructivism paradigm (Lincoln & Guba, 2013) For some scholars Lincoln and Guba (1985) positioning their criteria as analogous to conventional criteria has been a point of contention (de Witt & Ploeg, 2005;Manning, 1997, Sparkes, 2001). Tobin and Begley (2004) point to member checks, a component of the trustworthiness criteria of credibility, as one of their points of contention.…”