With the mission in mind to articulate an approach that is scientifically competent to meet the appeals from health care, education, social work, and other disciplines, the theme of this article is to rethink the essential ideas of phenomenological and hermeneutical research approaches, by exploring their philosophical underpinnings and especially the essential ontological idea of inseparability. We examine the fissure between approaches that favor description or interpretation and explore the arguments for a third approach that has the power to close the false epistemological methodological gap.

This paper explores the basics of human science, namely within the understanding of perception, which in fact is about how we as humans are in relationship to the world. There are several philosophical and psychological traditions trying to explain the nature of perception, the perceived, and the role of the perceiver. An idea that we argue against is that perception is about a changing subject perceiving a constant world, which means that there is a sharp dividing line between subject and object. Instead we argue that subject and object make up a dynamic relationship.To Not Make Definite What is Indefinite: A Phenomenological Analysis of Perception and Its Epistemological Consequences in Human Science ResearchPerception is in a way the foundation of human being. Perception is the way in which we relate to the world or rather, it is the way we are to the world, and it is through perception that we gain knowledge of the world. Merleau-Ponty (1995) says this about the fundamental importance of perception:Perception is not a science of the world, it is not even an act, a deliberate taking up of position; it is the background from which all acts stand out, and is presupposed by them, (x) Analytic philosophy as well as academic psychology, for example in the form of cognitivism or behaviorism, hold on to the idea of a changing subject perceiving a constant world, which means that there is a sharp dividing line between subject and object. Consequently, this understanding is prevalent in the areas of human science research and its practices. Following Husserl, we argue instead that perception is a dynamic relationship, made up by both subject.and object. The subject perceives the world, and the world presents itself to the subject. It is within this relationship that meaning arises.The lifeworld theory and its confirmation of the lived experience is a phenomenological strength. However, embedded here is also a problem, that unnoticed could be a phenomenological weakness. The lifeworld multiplicity and ambiguity is not something that could be easily grasped and clearly understood. We are all aware of those situations when humans, within as well as outside the scientific world, experience the same world very different. All of a sudden, for example, it becomes obvious that two persons listening to the same words one says, understand the said completely differently. Or, on a lonely road in dusk we might mistake a bush for a threatening person. Husserl's Epistemology -As We Understand ItThis paper begins in the epistemology that Husserl created. As the philosophical equilibrist as we argue he is, he walks the This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

This article focuses on patients' violence against caregivers. Several studies show that violence and threats within the health care setting are an increasing problem. Encounters that become violent have been the issue of many debates but the phenomenon is still not fully understood. It is important to understand the course of events in violent encounters, both for the sake of the patients and the caregivers' well-being. The aim of this study was to describe the essence of violent encounters, as experienced by nine patients within psychiatric care. Guided by a phenomenological method, data were analyzed within a reflective life-world approach. The findings explicate violent encounters characterized by a tension between "authentic personal" and "detached impersonal" caring. "Authentic personal" patients are encountered in an undisguised, straightforward, and open way, and they sense unrestricted respect that caregivers would show another human being. In these encounters violence does not develop well. However, in caring that is "detached impersonal," the encounters are experienced by the patients as uncontrolled and insecure. These encounters are full of risks and potential violence.

No abstract

In this article, we identify some worrying problems in the contemporary practice of qualitative research, such as the confusion regarding content and meaning in content analysis, the frequent use of standardized methods that avoids philosophy, as well as the description/ interpretation dichotomy in empirical research. Since they all arise from a failure to understand the concept of meaning, we return to the question of meaning as the axis that qualitative research pivots around. We examine the meaning of meaning, and how meaning differs from content, and we then ask what consequences this has for research. Even though our analysis is rooted in phenomenological philosophy, we argue that that the ideas that we present are valid for any qualitative research approach. The question of understanding and relating to meaning, we argue, is a momentous issue for qualitative research, where we either continue safeguarding the very essence of qualitative research as dealing with human phenomena, or give it up in favor of more pragmatic and clear-cut methods that seemingly does away with the question of meaning.