Validation in qualitative research: general aspects and specificities of the descriptive phenomenological method
Abstract
The criteria for the validation of qualitative research are still open to discussion. This article has two aims: first, to present a summary of concepts, emerging from the field of qualitative research that present answers regarding issues of validation, reliability, and generalization; and second, to propose six concepts that allow the monitoring of the validation of phenomenological research within the context of qualitative research in psychology—intentionality, psychological phenomenological reduction, eidetic psychological analysis, syntheses of identification, phenomenon versus individual, and invariant structures. It is argued that there are general criteria that qualitative methods must meet, and specific methodological criteria to monitor the quality control. A final definition is proposed, to delimit the validation, reliability, and generalization of the phenomenological research results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Any nuances in the statements that might hinder a clear interpretation were discussed by the authors to reach intersubjective plausibility.
“Any nuances in the statements that might hinder a clear interpretation were also discussed by the authors to reach intersubjective plausibility (Sousa, 2014), a shared understanding of the statements.”
From Transforming the bio-based sector towards a circular economy: What can we learn from wood cascading? (2020) · cites this paper as Sousa, 2014
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 46 · Cited by 185
- Authors
- Sousa, D.
- Affiliations
- ISPA - Instituto Universitário (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Sousa, Daniel
- ORCID
- Sousa, Daniel
- Venue
- Qualitative Research in Psychology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-03-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 211-227
- ISSN
- 1478-0887 (ISSN-L)
- 1478-0895
- OpenAlex
- W1874575714
- Cited by
- 185
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 11.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Qualitative Research in Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
- Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
- Keywords
- reliability, generalization, intentionality, invariant structures
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
