• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Part #3

Part #3






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Part #3 Part #3 Presentation Transcript

    • Example of Phenomenological Inquiry
        • An interpretative phenomenological analysis of delusions in people with Parkinson's disease.
              • Todd, D., Simpson, J., & Murray, C.
        • Purpose: to explore what delusional experiences mean for people with Parkinson’s Disease.
        • Method: Eight participants were interviewed; interpretive phenomenological analysis was used to identify themes within their accounts
        • Four themes emerged:
          • 1. “I got very frightened” – the emotional experience associated with the delusions
          • 2. “Why the hells that happening” – sense of uncertainty and of losing control
          • 3. “I feel like I’m disintegrating” – loss of identity and sense of self
          • 4. “I’ve just tried to make the best of things” – acceptance and adjustment
    • Concerns, Criticisms, Limitations
      • Not appropriate when one is trying to establish the pervasiveness of an attitude or behaviour, or to compare situations in order to predict or control
        • An appropriate question - “What IS X,”
        • Not appropriate – “What CAUSES X”
      • Requires that the researcher becomes a phenomenologist
        • The research must explore his/her own consciousness
        • The researcher needs to be deeply empathic
    • Concerns, Criticisms, Limitations
      • Not an excuse for sloppy research; there is some confusion out there about what constitutes phenomenological research
        • No clear recipe for doing research
        • In some sense it is not a methodology at all but a perspective on what constitutes knowledge in the human sciences.
          • Because of this it demands the research to be flexible and to self-check.
      • Solipsism – “ all one can know is oneself”
        • Researcher is the central point of study (Bentz & Shaprio, 102).
    • Strengths, Advantages & Inspiration
      • No single, so-called correct way of doing research
        • Does not explain but creates understanding among the observed and the observer
        • Adapted to the needs of the individual study
        • Makes public and manageable lived experience
      • More accepting and receptive of its subject matter; careful not to impose order on its subject matter
      • Openly accepts people’s point of view
    • Strengths, Advantages & Inspiration
      • Specifically designed for psychology; developed across basically all disciplinary areas, such as learning, perception, language, cognition, personality and social life.
      • Inspires insight in the researcher as well as the consumers of the research
      • The sample size is usually small, allowing detailed accounts from each participant
    • Individual Reflections
      • In order to reflect on Phenomenology we have included the links to our blogs for this week:
      • Kendra:
      • kendra200129488.wordpress.com
      • Christine:
      • christine556004623.wordpress.com
      • Erica:
      • erica301016876.wordpress.com
    • Discussion Questions
      • There are some people who argue that empathy cannot be learned and is an innate quality. Do you agree or disagree and if so, how does a researcher know if he/she has “enough” empathy to embark in phenomenological inquiry?
      • If all we can know is oneself (solipsism) what do you think the benefits are of researching subjective experiences?
      • What are potential limitations of openly accepting participant’s point of view?
    • Discussion Questions
      • Phenomenology emphasizes description rather then interpretation of the participants experience. Do you think that a description is sufficient to capture the experience or do you think that interpretation is necessary for understanding.
      • Notice the two opposing views on phenomenological research. How can one theory have two opposite views? Why do you think this is?
      • How do you think one’s lifeworld would influence one’s relationships with others? How might a lifeworld promote or hinder positive relationship formation? Do you believe that we all have different lifeworlds?
    • References
      • Todd, D., Simpson, J., & Murray, C. (2010). An interpretative phenomenological analysis of delusions in people with Parkinson's disease. Disability & Rehabilitation , 32 (15), 1291-1299. doi:10.3109/09638280903514705.
      • Wertz, F. (2005). Phenomenological Research Methods for Counseling Psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology , 52 (2), 167-177. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167.
      • Hein, S., & Austin, W. (2001). Empirical and hermeneutic approaches to phenomenological research in psychology: A comparison. Psychological Methods , 6 (1), 3-17. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.6.1.3.
      • Bentz, V. M & Shapiro, J. J. (1998). Mindful inquiry in social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
      • Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28 (2), 235-260.
      • Goulding, C. (1998). Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (9) , 859-873.
      • Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (3) . Article 3. Retrieved July 10, 2010 from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/2_3final/pdf/laverty.pdf
      • Wertz, F. J. (1999). Multiple methods in psychology: Epistemological grounding and the possibility of unity. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 19 (2), 131-166.
      • Burston, D. & Frie, R. (2006). Psychotherapy as a human science. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Duquesne University Press.
      • Wimpenny, P. & Gass, J. (2000). Intervirewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: is there a difference? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(6). Retrieved from EBSCOHost.