Is reflexivity the key to minimising problems of interpretation in phenomenological research?
Intended for healthcare professionals
Reflexivity Previous     Next

Is reflexivity the key to minimising problems of interpretation in phenomenological research?

Marie Clancy Senior lecturer, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK

Aim To discuss and demonstrate the use of reflexivity in interpretive phenomenological analysis.

Background Interpretative phenomenological analysis focuses on understanding individual experiences through interpretation. A double hermeneutic is created as the researcher makes sense of participants’ experiences. It is crucial to undergo a process of reflexivity to provide a credible and plausible explanation of participants’ accounts and avoid assumptions.

Data sources Research undertaken with six sub-Saharan African healthcare professionals.

Review methods Articles were selected from Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Medline and Google Scholar. Searches were based on relevance and with priority to those dated over the past five years.

Discussion This article has reviewed pertinent literature and personal examples of reflexivity in research practice to aid nurse researcher understanding and encourage its use, particularly when employing interpretative methodologies.

Conclusion Reflexivity is an active process that may, at times, be difficult and probing, but which is crucial to becoming self-aware and thus able to see any influences that could affect data collection or analysis. This process will increase understanding and allow for a more rigorous approach.

Implications for practice Many practical examples are offered for using reflexivity. Nurse researchers may choose one or a mixture of the options offered, such as use of time and space to distance themselves from their research, aspects of practical self-presentation, or a reflexive diary.

Nurse Researcher. 20, 6, 12-16. doi: 10.7748/nr2013.07.20.6.12.e1209

Peer review

This article has been subject to double blind peer review

Conflict of interest

None declared

Received: 08 November 2012

Accepted: 07 February 2013

Want to read more?

RCNi-Plus
Already have access? Log in

or

3-month trial offer for £5.25/month

Subscribe today and save 50% on your first three months
RCNi Plus users have full access to the following benefits:
  • Unlimited access to all 10 RCNi Journals
  • RCNi Learning featuring over 175 modules to easily earn CPD time
  • NMC-compliant RCNi Revalidation Portfolio to stay on track with your progress
  • Personalised newsletters tailored to your interests
  • A customisable dashboard with over 200 topics
Subscribe

Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now


Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more