Rigour in phenomenological research: reflections of a novice nurse researcher

Transcription

1 Nurse Researcher Rigour in phenomenological research: reflections of a novice nurse researcher Cite this article as: Pereira H (2012) Rigour in phenomenological research: reflections of a novice nurse researcher. Nurse Researcher. 19, 3, Accepted: March Correspondence to Helder Rocha Pereira hpereira@uac.pt Helder Rocha Pereira RN, MEd, PhD is an assistant professor at the Ponta Delgada Nursing School, Nursing Research and Development Unit, University of the Azores, Ponta Delgada, Azores, Portugal Peer review This article has been subject to double-blind review and has been checked using antiplagiarism software Author guidelines Abstract Aim This paper is intended to explore conflicts and doubts that novice researchers face when using phenomenological research methods, especially with regard to methodological rigour. Background There is an increasing interest in different qualitative approaches. The best way to evaluate the quality of qualitative studies has been debated intensively. The great theoretical and methodological diversity of qualitative approaches suggests that a single set of criteria may not be appropriate for all types of research. Review methods This is a methodological paper that discusses a personal experience of addressing rigour in a phenomenological study, supported by literature on the topic. Discussion Generic qualitative criteria may not be the most adequate to ensure rigour in phenomenological research. The different poles of discussion about Introduction Relevance and rigour are pillars that support the research process. Researchers should address daily concerns inherent to human life and open themselves up to critical assessment from peers to ensure clarity and precision, which in turn allow public scrutiny (Pollio et al 1997). As Morse et al (2002) noted: Without rigor, research is worthless, becomes fiction, and loses its utility. This paper draws from my personal experiences as a novice researcher and doctoral student, and reflects some of my concerns and doubts related to the topic of rigour. the best way to ensure validity of phenomenological research puzzle novice nurse researchers. Conclusion Focusing on integrative validity that addresses experiential and methodological concerns ensures that researchers will respect the philosophical assumptions underlying a method and allows them to recognise study soundness in the findings and the research process. Implications for research/practice Phenomenological research must demonstrate methodological congruence and provide meaningful results about lived experiences in a balanced way. Novice researchers need support to understand the articulation between philosophical and methodological foundations that guide the methods they use. Keywords Phenomenological research, rigour, validity, quality, qualitative research, novice researchers experience, During the past few years, while attending conferences, courses and international doctoral students meetings, I have often had the opportunity to debate methodological issues with other researchers starting their phenomenological research. I have found that no matter what their origins and academic experiences, we shared many uncertainties, such as how to apply phenomenological methods, problems with gaps and contradictions in the literature regarding phenomenological analysis, validation of participants interpretations, and ways of collecting data. Some felt lost among the apparent 16 April 2012 Volume 19 Number 3 RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER NR April Pereira222.indd 16 17/04/ :52

2 Phenomenology contradictory information in the literature. Others were tempted to follow a kind of methodological fundamentalism that lacks necessary criticism. In this paper, my aim is to share my journey, and to present and discuss some ongoing debates about quality in qualitative research in general and quality in phenomenological research in particular. Early stages You cannot forget in your research proposals how rigour is going to be addressed. These cautionary words still resonate with me. My supervisors said them during the early stages of my doctoral studies. At the time, this counsel appeared wise and simple. As I started to prepare my research proposal, I picked up some of the many nursing research books, read the chapters related to trustworthiness in qualitative studies, and chose some procedures and techniques that needed to be used to achieve credibility, dependability, confirmability, transferability, and thus, trustworthiness (Polit and Tatano Beck 2006, 2008, Mackey 2007, Streubert Speziale 2007, Given and Saumure 2008). In the first phase of studying research published in this area, I commonly found two or three paragraphs identifying the techniques used to attain the proposed criteria. Searching When I started to expand my reading in earnest, I became aware of the huge debate about the definition of a good qualitative study. Validity, trustworthiness or goodness? Criteria, standards or guidelines? Evaluation or appraisal? I encountered different notions of these concepts and how they should influence research. Through my reading, I identified two ideas: first, qualitative studies must have legitimation that is being able to demonstrate the legitimacy of knowledge and thus related to rigour (Koch 1996) which is related to validity (Koch 1996, Pollio et al 1997, Caelli 2001, Morse et al 2002); and second, there is no consensus about the best way or even how to achieve legitimation (Koch 1996, Whittemore et al 2001, Guba and Lincoln 2005, Mackey 2007, Polit and Tatano Beck 2008, Armour et al 2009, Ryan-Nicholls and Will 2009, Murphy and Yielder 2010). In fact, contradictory approaches exist. There are various issues that can cause doubt, including criteria for rigour in qualitative research. As the researcher addresses validity and reliability, criteria undergo several transformations: they are championed, translated, exiled, redeemed, and surpassed (Emden and Sandelowski 1998). Leininger (1994) stated that the six criteria she identified credibility, confirmability, meaning-in-context, recurrent patterning, saturation and transferability can be used with all qualitative methods, even with those that have a different focus. Some authors also argue that there should be (or could be) an overarching framework that incorporates rigour, subjectivity and creativity in the scientific process (Whittemore et al 2001), or that researchers should define quality principal markers such as worthy topic, sincerity, credibility and significant contribution that can be used to provide a common language for qualitative practices (Tracy 2011). Other authors claim that reliability and validity remain pertinent in qualitative research, arguing that the introduction of alternative criteria and parallel terminology undermine rigour and diminish qualitative research (Morse et al 2002, Lewis and Ritchie 2003, Anderson 2010). As this debate continues to evolve, one idea is emerging: the great theoretical and methodological diversity of qualitative approaches suggests that a sole set of criteria may not be appropriate for all types of research (de Witt and Ploeg 2006). Yet other authors defend approaches that abolish all criteria because they believe that the quality of qualitative research should be assessed according to the individual conclusions of individual studies (Rolfe 2006, Miller 2008, Armour et al 2009). These types of debates are part of qualitative research. But since the problem seems to be related to the diversity of approaches, we can overcome these different perspectives by addressing factors inherent to these qualitative approaches. Again, a study must be valid (or trustworthy), but what is validity? How can it be achieved? These thoughts led me to the central question: will the validity of a phenomenological study be better ensured if the researcher scrupulously follows a set of pre-established criteria and techniques or if the researcher applies an experiential approach? The answer to this question did not come easily to me. I found myself wrapped in an internal debate: should I rigidly apply a series of procedures and pre-established criteria to analyse data or should I allow myself to approach the same data in a more creative and flexible manner? To answer this question, I searched the literature and found differing and even polarising views on what is needed to ensure validity. For example, I came across methods promoting highly structured, step-by-step methods that focused on procedures and techniques as ways to ensure validity. Janesick (2003) called such approaches methodolatry or idolatry of method, when the researcher s focus RCN Publishing / NURSE RESEARCHER April 2012 Volume 19 Number 3 17 NR April Pereira222.indd 17 17/04/ :52

3 Nurse Researcher is a preoccupation with selecting and defending methods to the exclusion of the actual substance of the story being told. While these pre-set procedures give novice researchers a degree of confidence, in the work undertaken, such methods (pre-set checklists, labelling, aggregating, collapsing) can be quite cold and rigid for authors whose ultimate concern is to achieve or enhance their understanding and whose view is that methods should guide, not limit or restrict (Munhall 2007). Van Manen (1990) wrote: The method of phenomenology and hermeneutics is that there is no method. Thus, with respect to philosophical assumptions, should research be method-driven or data-driven? Retrospectively, I can now identify the difficulty in articulating the philosophical and methodological principles underlying methods. Doing so has enabled me to understand whether or not the validity and rigour of a given methodology are ensured. In phenomenological research, whether it follows a descriptive or interpretative approach, the researcher may find similarities, such as a focus on the lived experience or the way data is collected. However, I found that fundamental aspects such as the importance of context in interpretation, the role of a researcher s understanding during analysis or the aim of using reflexivity sent the researcher s methods in different directions. Hours of anguish surely could have been avoided. When it came to criteria for phenomenological research, again I encountered more polarised views. Should we use the same generic qualitative criteria for all qualitative research? Should we use renamed and redefined criteria such as those proposed by de Witt and Ploeg (2006) as follows: Balanced integration, related to the articulation of philosophic principles with respect to the topic, the method and the participants voices. Openness of the study to scrutiny. Concreteness of issues related to context. Resonance or the effect on the reader. Actualisation the future effects of the research findings? The researcher can also add challenging criteria such as those proposed by Munhall (1994): Readability. Resonance. Reasonableness. Representativeness. Recognition. Raised consciousness. Relevance. Revelations. Responsibility. The Phenomenological nodding. The most crucial criterion is the phenomenological nodding that occurs the instant people read or hear the presentation of results. Will this criterion be fulfilled? And how about validity? References Anderson C (2010) Presenting and evaluating qualitative research. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 74, 8, 141. Armour M, Rivaux SL, Bell H (2009) Using context to build rigor: application to two hermeneutic phenomenological studies. Qualitative Social Work. 8, 1, Burns N, Grove S (2005) The Practice of Nursing Research. Conduct, Critique, and Utilization. Fifth edition. WB Saunders, Philadelphia PA. Caelli K (2001) Engaging with phenomenology: is it more of a challenge than it needs to be? Qualitative Health Research. 11, 2, de Witt L, Ploeg J (2006) Critical appraisal of rigour in interpretive phenomenological nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 55, 2, Emden C, Sandelowski M (1998) The good, the bad and the relative, part one: conceptions of goodness in qualitative research. International Journal of Nursing Practice. 4, 4, Given LM, Saumure K (2008) Trustworthiness. In Given LM (Ed) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA. Guba E, Lincoln Y (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (Eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Fourth edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA. Janesick V (2003) The choreography of qualitative research design. Minuets, improvisations and crystallization. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (Eds) Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. Second edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA. Koch T (1996) Implementation of a hermeneutic inquiry in nursing: philosophy, rigour and representation. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 24, 1, Leininger M (1994) Evaluation criteria and critique of qualitative research studies. In Morse J (Ed) Critical Issues In Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA. Lewis J, Ritchie J (2003) Generalising from qualitative research. In Ritchie J, Lewis J (Eds) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide For Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London. Mackey MC (2007) Evaluation of qualitative research. In: Munhall P (Ed) Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. Fourth edition. Jones & Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, April 2012 Volume 19 Number 3 RCN PUBLISHING / NURSE RESEARCHER NR April Pereira222.indd 18 17/04/ :52

4 Phenomenology Is validity a matter to be considered by researchers or by readers? These questions made me anxious. I was confused and disorientated. But thinking more deeply about these issues led me to the next stage of my journey. Achieving commitment In phenomenological research, rigour should be addressed in an integrative way using an approach that balances methodological and experiential concerns (Pollio et al 1997). I find that the focus on integrative validity is useful and appropriate, because it ensures that a method s assumptions are respected and because it allows knowledge to be generated and academic recognition to be realised. However, as difficulties arise in making rigour explicit, the resulting lack of clarity hinders rather than enhances the positioning of nursing in science (Morse et al 2002). As Pollio et al (1997) noted: Well-executed qualitative procedures that do not generate meaningful results are techniques without soul. Brilliant interpretation may have value, but one needs to be convinced of the evidence serving to ground such findings in lived experience the process and the outcome must be addressed in a balanced way (Pollio et al 1997, Burns and Grove 2005, Armour et al 2009). Conclusion On the basis of ongoing debates and integration of different perspectives, I believe that the excessive polarisation of discussions in nursing research, despite being intellectually stimulating, often results in confusion and makes the evaluation of the quality of studies more difficult for researchers, clinicians, publishers and funding agencies. Thus, to be judged valid, a phenomenological study must take into consideration methodological congruence (rigorous and appropriate procedures) and experiential concerns that provide insight in terms of plausibility and illumination about a specific phenomenon. Considering that nursing research is bonded to nursing practice, renewed attention should be given to readability. Researchers should present findings in a way that allows nurses to judge the findings transferability and adequacy with regard to their unique caregiving situations. Online archive For related information, visit our online archive of more than 6,000 articles and search using the keywords Conflict of interest None declared Funding statement This study was supported, in part, by the Communications, Technology and Science Department, Government of the Azores Miller P (2008) Validity. In Given LM (Ed) The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M et al (2002) Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 1, 2, Munhall PL (1994) Revisioning Phenomenology: Nursing and Health Science Research. National League for Nursing Press, New York NY. Munhall PL (2007) A phenomenological method. In Munhall P (Ed) Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective. Fourth edition. Jones Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury. Murphy FJ, Yielder J (2010) Establishing rigour in qualitative radiography research. Radiography. 16, 1, Polit DF, Tatano Beck C (2006) Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal, and Utilization. Sixth edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia PA. Polit DF, Tatano Beck C (2008) Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence For Nursing Practice. Eighth edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia PA. Pollio HR, Henley TB, Thompson CB (1997) The Phenomenology of Everyday Life: Empirical Investigations of Human Experience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rolfe G (2006) Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: quality and the idea of qualitative research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 53, 3, Ryan-Nicholls KD, Will CI (2009) Rigour in qualitative research: mechanisms for control. Nurse Researcher. 16, 3, Streubert Speziale HJ (2007) Designing data generation and management strategies. In Streubert Speziale HJ, Carpenter DR (Eds) Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing The Humanistic Imperative. Fourth edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia PA. Tracy SJ (2011) Qualitative quality: eight big-tent criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry. 16, 10, Van Manen M (1990) Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. State University of New York Press, New York NY. Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL (2001) Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research. 11, 4, RCN Publishing / NURSE RESEARCHER April 2012 Volume 19 Number 3 19 NR April Pereira222.indd 19 17/04/ :52

5 Copyright of Nurse Researcher is the property of RCN Publishing Company and its content may not be copied or ed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or articles for individual use.