对现象学共性丰富织锦的庆祝

IF 0.8 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Qualitative Research Journal Pub Date : 2023-04-04 DOI:10.1108/qrj-01-2023-0015
Emma L. Turley
{"title":"对现象学共性丰富织锦的庆祝","authors":"Emma L. Turley","doi":"10.1108/qrj-01-2023-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposePhenomenology has a long tradition as a qualitative research method in the social and health sciences. The application of phenomenological methods to understand lived experiences and subjectivities offers researchers a rich tapestry of methodological approaches, often however, the availability of these methods to researchers is tempered as a result of inflexible ideas regarding their use. This article aims to highlight the uniting features between approaches.Design/methodology/approachThe paper begins by offering a brief overview of the two traditions within phenomenology, the descriptive and interpretive approaches and traces the development of each one. It then presents an overview of the commonalities shared by both approaches in with particular reference to the philosophical and methodological cohesion between them.FindingsFrequently, the literature fails to focus on how these methodologies can be used together, and instead foregrounds the ontological and methodological differences between them. While an overview of some of the more vociferous debates within phenomenology are included and acknowledged, the paper calls for a focus on the shared goals of the phenomenological project.Originality/valueThis article aims to illustrate that, while recognising differences, the two phenomenological traditions have more in common that unites them, and argues that once this is applied pragmatically, a multiplicity of phenomenological traditions are available to researchers.","PeriodicalId":47040,"journal":{"name":"Qualitative Research Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A celebration of the rich tapestry of phenomenology's commonalities\",\"authors\":\"Emma L. Turley\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/qrj-01-2023-0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposePhenomenology has a long tradition as a qualitative research method in the social and health sciences. The application of phenomenological methods to understand lived experiences and subjectivities offers researchers a rich tapestry of methodological approaches, often however, the availability of these methods to researchers is tempered as a result of inflexible ideas regarding their use. This article aims to highlight the uniting features between approaches.Design/methodology/approachThe paper begins by offering a brief overview of the two traditions within phenomenology, the descriptive and interpretive approaches and traces the development of each one. It then presents an overview of the commonalities shared by both approaches in with particular reference to the philosophical and methodological cohesion between them.FindingsFrequently, the literature fails to focus on how these methodologies can be used together, and instead foregrounds the ontological and methodological differences between them. While an overview of some of the more vociferous debates within phenomenology are included and acknowledged, the paper calls for a focus on the shared goals of the phenomenological project.Originality/valueThis article aims to illustrate that, while recognising differences, the two phenomenological traditions have more in common that unites them, and argues that once this is applied pragmatically, a multiplicity of phenomenological traditions are available to researchers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47040,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Qualitative Research Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Qualitative Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-01-2023-0015\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Qualitative Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qrj-01-2023-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的现象学作为社会科学和健康科学的一种定性研究方法,有着悠久的传统。现象学方法在理解生活经验和主观方面的应用为研究人员提供了丰富的方法论方法,然而,这些方法对研究人员的可用性往往由于对其使用的不灵活想法而受到限制。本文旨在强调方法之间的统一特征。设计/方法论/方法本文首先简要概述了现象学中的两种传统,即描述性和解释性方法,并追溯了每种方法的发展。然后,它概述了两种方法的共同点,特别是它们之间的哲学和方法衔接。发现文献往往没有关注如何将这些方法论结合起来使用,而是强调了它们之间的本体论和方法论差异。虽然对现象学中一些更激烈的争论进行了概述并得到了承认,但本文呼吁关注现象学项目的共同目标。原创性/价值本文旨在说明,在认识到差异的同时,这两种现象学传统有更多的共同点,将它们联系在一起,并认为一旦务实地应用这一点,研究人员就可以获得多种现象学传统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A celebration of the rich tapestry of phenomenology's commonalities
PurposePhenomenology has a long tradition as a qualitative research method in the social and health sciences. The application of phenomenological methods to understand lived experiences and subjectivities offers researchers a rich tapestry of methodological approaches, often however, the availability of these methods to researchers is tempered as a result of inflexible ideas regarding their use. This article aims to highlight the uniting features between approaches.Design/methodology/approachThe paper begins by offering a brief overview of the two traditions within phenomenology, the descriptive and interpretive approaches and traces the development of each one. It then presents an overview of the commonalities shared by both approaches in with particular reference to the philosophical and methodological cohesion between them.FindingsFrequently, the literature fails to focus on how these methodologies can be used together, and instead foregrounds the ontological and methodological differences between them. While an overview of some of the more vociferous debates within phenomenology are included and acknowledged, the paper calls for a focus on the shared goals of the phenomenological project.Originality/valueThis article aims to illustrate that, while recognising differences, the two phenomenological traditions have more in common that unites them, and argues that once this is applied pragmatically, a multiplicity of phenomenological traditions are available to researchers.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Qualitative Research Journal
Qualitative Research Journal SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: Qualitative Research Journal (QRJ) is an international journal devoted to the communication of the theory and practice of qualitative research in the human sciences. It is interdisciplinary and eclectic, covering all methodologies that can be described as qualitative. It offers an international forum for researchers and practitioners to advance knowledge and promote good qualitative research practices. QRJ deals comprehensively with the collection, analysis and presentation of qualitative data in the human sciences as well as theoretical and conceptual inquiry.
期刊最新文献
Home–school interactions relating to students with disability: a document analysis of Australian policy and guidelines Entrepreneurial mindset strategies in times of crisis: a qualitative study on street food vendors Métissage – somewhere between hope and happening The door opens inward: meeting Linda Tuhiwai Smith Relationships with horses and humans: Smith’s legacy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1