Rebuttal Rejoinder: Present IPA For What It Is—Interpretative Psychological Analysis

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.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 51 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.