Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis

By Jonathan A. Smith. 2011

1,711 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Psychiatry and Mental health

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cf92a66339a893533b811ebc09d325e5b6bf7a66

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

1. D. Fletcher
2. D. Biggerstaff
3. Mustafa Sarkar
4. Henrik Gustafsson
5. Daniel Sousa
6. P. Hassmén
7. L. Finlay
8. Erik Lundkvist

In Psychiatry and Mental health

1. D. Biggerstaff
2. D. Fletcher
3. Mustafa Sarkar
4. Daniel Sousa
5. L. Finlay

Citations in the corpus

• Validation in Qualitative Research: General Aspects and Specificities of the Descriptive Phenomenological Method (2014, background): “…verifying an observation, but of validating an interpretation that must be not only probable, but more plausible than its alternatives, when criteria of qualitative superiority, dialectic of conjecture, validation between data and interpretation are scrupulously followed (Ricoeur 1986, p. 225).”
• Ordinary magic, extraordinary performance: Psychological resilience and thriving in high achievers. (2014, methodology): “The American Psychological Association’s (2010) Ethical 25 RESILIENCE AND THRIVING IN HIGH ACHIEVERS 14 Compliance Checklist was completed and, consistent with IPA principles (Smith, 2011) and 1 the researchers’ epistemologically interpretivist beliefs, the mutual connectedness between 2 the researc”
• An interpretative phenomenological analysis of burnout and recovery in elite soccer coaches (2012, background): “A specific list of criteria for good IPA has recently been discussed (Chamberlain 2011, Smith 2011), whereby Smith argues that good IPA needs to have certain rules for the occurrence of meaning units to be included in the results.”
• Evaluating the contribution of interpretative phenomenological analysis: a reply to the commentaries and further development of criteria (2011, background): “(Received 3 October 2010; final version received 16 November 2010) I would like to thank the commentators for their thoughtful comments on my paper (Smith, 2011).”
• Qualitative research methods in mental health and psychotherapy: A guide for students and practitioners (2011, neutral): “Smith (2010) has recently published a systematic review of IPA papers and described some of the general quality indicators that one might look for.”
• Discovering the structures of lived experience (2018, background): “However, it does not either provide procedures to identify the temporal structure of the experience under study (Smith 2011; Smith and Osborn 2003; Smith et al. 2009).”
• Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology (2012, methodology): “It is now widely used within British psychology (e.g. Clare, 2003; Duncan et al., 2001; French et al., 2005; Smith, 2011; Thompson et al. 2002).”
• Should Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) be Used With Focus Groups? Navigating the Bumpy Road of “Iterative Loops,” Idiographic Journeys, and “Phenomenological Bridges” (2020, background): “Step 8: Conduct Credibility Checks The research followed suggestions by Neale et al. (2013), Smith (2011), and Yardley (2008) to ensure the process was robust and followed high-quality standards.”
• Engaging Phenomenological Analysis (2014, background): “Smith (2011), for instance, recommends presenting an evidence trail open to audit to demonstrate the density of evidence (e.g., for N = 1–3, quotations are needed from every participant per theme; for N = 4–8, quotations are needed from at least three participants per theme).”