Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports a critical review of published nursing research for expressions of rigour in interpretive phenomenology, and a new framework of rigour specific to this methodology is proposed. BACKGROUND: The rigour of interpretive phenomenology is an important nursing research methods issue that has direct implications for the legitimacy of nursing science. The use of a generic set of qualitative criteria of rigour for interpretive phenomenological studies is problematic because it is philosophically inconsistent with the methodology and creates obstacles to full expression of rigour in such studies. METHODS: A critical review was conducted of the published theoretical interpretive phenomenological nursing literature from 1994 to 2004 and the expressions of rigour in this literature identified. We used three sources to inform the derivation of a proposed framework of expressions of rigour for interpretive phenomenology: the phenomenological scholar van Manen, the theoretical interpretive phenomenological nursing literature, and Madison's criteria of rigour for hermeneutic phenomenology. FINDINGS: The nursing literature reveals a broad range of criteria for judging the rigour of interpretive phenomenological research. The proposed framework for evaluating rigour in this kind of research contains the following five expressions: balanced integration, openness, concreteness, resonance, and actualization. Balanced integration refers to the intertwining of philosophical concepts in the study methods and findings and a balance between the voices of study participants and the philosophical explanation. Openness is related to a systematic, explicit process of accounting for the multiple decisions made throughout the study process. Concreteness relates to usefulness for practice of study findings. Resonance encompasses the experiential or felt effect of reading study findings upon the reader. Finally, actualization refers to the future realization of the resonance of study findings. CONCLUSION: Adoption of this or similar frameworks of expressions of rigour could help to preserve the integrity and legitimacy of interpretive phenomenological nursing research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.546 | 0.768 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".