Rebuttal Rejoinder: Present IPA For What It Is—Interpretative Psychological Analysis. (October 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: van Manen, Max
• Is Part Of: Qualitative health research. Volume 28:Number 12(2018)
• Page Start: 1959
• Page End: 1968
• Publication Date: 2018-10
• Subjects: Canada -- phenomenological method -- psychological method -- analysis -- interpretation -- themes -- sampling -- personal sensemaking -- phenomenological insights -- qualitative -- reflection -- unreflected experience; Health -- Periodicals; Health behavior -- Periodicals; Health -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals; Health behavior -- Research -- Methodology -- Periodicals; 610.7205
• DOI: 10.1177/1049732318795474
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1049-7323

Abstract

I appreciate this opportunity to join Jonathan Smith in his rebuttal to my discussion of the meaning and method of his interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Different forms of inquiry make unique contributions to our understanding of professional practices of psychology, education, pedagogy, nursing, medicine, and other health sciences. So, it should be worthwhile to understand the nature of these potential contributions and their methods. But what if some methods are misnamed, misconstrued, or misdirected? Does it matter? Perhaps or perhaps only academically. I am happy to engage in this rejoinder with Jonathan Smith—certainly there is merit in dialogue and discussions surrounding our understandings of phenomenology as a method for human science research. In addition, I feel collegial amity for Jonathan and his interest in phenomenology and willingness to engage in conversation. In this rejoinder, I will express my views of IPA and Jonathan's rebuttal in some brief detail and with considered care.