Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Reliability and validity are two areas where the criteria of logical empiricism appear to be imposed upon phenomenology as a research method. Cross-paradigmatic communication can result in difficulties because the same words may have different meanings. It cannot be assumed that reliability and validity have the same meaning in logical empiricism and phenomenology. Even among the three mostfrequently used phenomenological methods in nursing research, lack of consensus exists regarding the issues of reliability and validity. In order to help clarify reliability and validityfrom the phenomenological perspective, Colaizzi, Giorgi, and Van Kaam 's methodologies are compared and contrasted regarding their stance on these issues. Lincoln and Guba 'four major criteriafor rigor in qualitative inquiry, truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality may offer phenomenologists an appropriate alternative to logical positivists' terminology.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Colaizzi, P. (1978). Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In R. Valle & M. Kings (Eds.), Existential phenomenological alternative for psychology (pp. 48-71). New York: Oxford University Press.

Giorgi, A. (1985). Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Giorgi, A. (1988). Validity and reliability from a phenomenological perspective. In W. Baker , L. Mos , H. Rappard , & H. Stain (Eds.), Recent trends in theoretical psychology (pp. 167-176). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Giorgi, A. (1989). Some theoretical and practical issues regarding the psychological and phenomenological method. Saybrook Review, 7, 71-85.

Husserl, E. (1970). Logical investigations, (2 vols.) (J. N. Findley, Trans.). New York: Humanities Press.

Lincoln, Y , & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

Van Kaam, A. (1966). Existentialfoundations of psychology. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

Barritt, L. , Beekman, A. J. , Bleeker, H. , & Mulderij, K. (1983). A handbookforphenomenological research in education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Cohen, M. Z. , & Knafl, K. (1993). Evaluating qualitative research. In P. Munhall & C. Boyd (Eds.), Nursing research: A qualitative perspective (2nd ed., pp. 476-492). New York: National League for Nursing.

10.

Cohen, M. Z. , & Ornery, A. (1993). Schools of phenomenology: Implications for research. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

11.

Cohen, M. Z. , & Sarter, B. (1992). Love and work: Oncology nurses' view of the meaning of their work. Oncology Nursing Forum, 19(10), 1481-1486.

12.

Giorgi, A. , Fischer, W. , & Von Eckartsberg, R. (Eds.). (1971). Duquesne studies in phenomenological psychology: Volume I. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press.

13.

Lincoln, Y , & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

14.

van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience. London, Ontario: Althouse.

15.

Lincoln, Y. , & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage.

Reliability and Validity Issues in Phenomenological Research

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References