Reliability and validity issues in phenomenological research.

Abstract

Reliability and validity are two areas where the criteria of logical empiricism appear to be imposed upon phenomenology as a research method. Cross-paradigmatic communication can result in difficulties because the same words may have different meanings. It cannot be assumed that reliability and validity have the same meaning in logical empiricism and phenomenology. Even among the three most frequently used phenomenological methods in nursing research, lack of consensus exists regarding the issues of reliability and validity. In order to help clarify reliability and validity from the phenomenological perspective, Colaizzi, Giorgi, and VanKaam's methodologies are compared and contrasted regarding their stance on these issues. Lincoln and Guba's four major criteria for rigor in qualitative inquiry, truth value, applicability, consistency, and neutrality may offer phenomenologists an appropriate alternative to logical positivists' terminology.