Interpretive phenomenological methodologists in nursing: A critical analysis and comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenomenology is one of the most popular qualitative research methodologies used in nursing research. Although interpretive phenomenology is often a logical choice to address the concerns of nursing, the vast number of methods of phenomenology means choosing an appropriate method can be daunting, especially for novice researchers. It is critical that nurse researchers select a phenomenological method that fits the research problem and the skill and world view of the researcher; doing so will result in a research experience that resonates with and excites the researcher. The interpretive phenomenological methodologies of Benner, Munhall, and Conroy each offer unique methods of phenomenological inquiry. However, to date, we are not aware of any literature that explores and compares the methodological approaches of these nurses. In this paper, the origins and influence of phenomenology as both a philosophy and methodology on nurse researchers will be explored, followed by a critical analysis and comparison of these three nurses. By highlighting the distinctive differences and attributes of each method, this paper provides an analysis and comparison of the approaches of these prominent nurses. In doing so, we aim to aid the researcher in their methodological selection, thereby resulting in a successful and rewarding research endeavor.
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 | 0.150 | 0.144 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".