J Educ Eval Health Prof.  2020;17:13. 10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.13.

Husserlian phenomenology in Korean nursing research: analysis, problems, and suggestions

• Kim HK
• Jun M
• Rhee S
• Wreen M

• KMID: 2502200
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2020.17.13

Abstract

Purpose
This paper is a critical review of the descriptive phenomenological methodology in Korean nursing research. We propose constructive suggestions for the improvement of descriptive phenomenological methodology in light of Husserl’s phenomenological approaches.
Methods
Using the keywords of ‘phenomenology,’ ‘experience,’ and ‘nursing,’ we identify and analyze 64 Korean empirical phenomenological studies (selected from 282 studies) published in 14 Korean nursing journals from 2005 to 2018. The PubMed and the Korea Citation Index were used to identify the studies.
Results
Our analysis shows that all the reviewed articles used Giorgi’s or Colaizzi’s scientific phenomenological methodology, without critical attention to Husserl’s philosophical phenomenological principles.
Conclusion
The use of scientific phenomenology in nursing research, which originated in North America, has become a global phenomenon, and Korean phenomenological nursing research has faithfully followed this scholarly trend. This paper argues that greater integration of Husserlian phenomenological principles into scientific phenomenological methodology in nursing research, such as participant-centered bracketing and eidetic reduction, is needed to ensure that scientific phenomenology lives up to its promise as a research methodology.

Keyword

Korea; Nursing research; Methodological studies; Qualitative research; Philosophy

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Flowchart of this critical review process.

Reference

References

1. Abalos EE, Rivera RY, Locsin RC, Schoenhofer SO. Husserlian phenomenology and Colaizzi’s method of data analysis: Exemplar in qualitative nursing inquiry using nursing as caring theory. Int J Hum Caring. 2016; 20:19–23. https://doi.org/10.20467/1091-5710.20.1.19.

2. Norlyk A, Harder I. What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological?: an analysis of peer-reviewed empirical nursing studies. Qual Health Res. 2010; 20:420–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732309357435.

3. Colaizzi P. Psychological research as the phenomenologist views it. In : Valle RS, King M, editors. Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology. New York (NY): Oxford University Press;1978. p. 48–71.

4. Giorgi A. The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. J Phenomenol Psychol. 1997; 28:235–260. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916297x00103.

5. McConnell-Henry T, Chapman Y, Francis K. Husserl and Heidegger: exploring the disparity. Int J Nurs Pract. 2009; 15:7–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.01724.x.

6. Crotty M. Phenomenology and nursing research. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone;1996.

7. Paley J. Husserl, phenomenology and nursing. J Adv Nurs. 1997; 26:187–193. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997026187.x.

8. Husserl E. Phenomenology and the crisis of philosophy: philosophy as a rigorous science, and philosophy and the crisis of European man. New York (NY): Harper & Row;1965.

9. Husserl E. Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy: first book: general introduction to a pure phenomenology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers;1982.

10. Husserl E. Phenomenological psychology: lectures, summer semester; 1925. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers;1977.

11. Gong BH. Phenomenology in nursing research. Res Philos Phenomenol. 2004; 23:151–178.

12. Lee NI. Phenomenology and qualitative research methodology. Res Philos Phenomenol. 2005; 24:91–121.

13. Giorgi A. The status of Husserlian phenomenology in caring research. Scand J Caring Sci. 2000; 14:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2000.tb00554.x.

14. Willis DG, Sullivan-Bolyai S, Knafl K, Cohen MZ. Distinguishing features and similarities between descriptive phenomenological and qualitative description research. West J Nurs Res. 2016; 38:1185–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916645499.

15. Bevan MT. A method of phenomenological interviewing. Qual Health Res. 2014; 24:136–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732313519710.

16. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park (CA): Sage Publications;1985.

17. Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in qualitative research. ANS Adv Nurs Sci. 1986; 8:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198604000-00005.

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

19. Tufford L, Newman P. Bracketing in qualitative research. Qual Soc Work. 2012; 11:80–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316.

20. Ahern KJ. Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. Qual Health Res. 1999; 9:407–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973239900900309.

21. Chan ZC, Fung YL, Chien WT. Bracketing in phenomenology: only undertaken in the data collection and analysis process? Qual Rep [Internet]. 2013; [cited 2020 Apr 2];18:1-9. Available from: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR18/chan59.pdf.

22. Englander M. The phenomenological method in qualitative psychology and psychiatry. Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2016; 11:30682. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30682.

23. Groenewald T. A phenomenological research design illustrated. Int J Qual Methods. 2004; 3:42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300104.

24. Giorgi A. Concerning the phenomenological methods of Husserl and Heidegger and their application in psychology. Collection du Cirp. 2007; 1:63–78.

25. Munhall PL. Nursing research: a qualitative perspective. 4th ed. Sudbury (MA): Jones and Bartlett;2007.

26. Cohen MZ, Omery A. Schools of phenomenology: implications for research. In : Morse JM, editor. Critical issues in qualitative research methods. London: Sage Publishing;1994. p. 136–156.

27. Barkway P. Michael Crotty and nursing phenomenology: criticism or critique? Nurs Inq. 2001; 8:191–195. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1320-7881.2001.00104.x.

28. Seidman I. Interviewing as qualitative research: a guide to researchers in education and the social sciences. 3rd ed. New York (NY): Teachers College Press;2006.