Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 222

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Description versus Interpretation: Competing Alternative Strategies for Qualitative Research

Giorgi, Amedeo·1992·Journal of Phenomenological Psychology

Abstract

In the contemporary scene, psychological researchers seeking alternative (qualitative) research strategies are turning increasingly toward interpretation theory. However, other strategies are also available, and one of these is descriptive science. Descriptive practices as the basis for the clarification of meanings have received less emphasis because of several epistemological assumptions about meaning that have appeared in the literature of interpretive science. Based upon the work of contemporary transcendental philosophers, especially J. N. Mohanty, this article argues that a descriptive scientific perspective can respond to some of the hermeneutic arguments about meaning and that solid findings can be established descriptively. It is argued that both description and interpretation are legitimate but that they are tied to different conditions and interests.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1163/156916292x00090

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 222

Metadata

Authors
Giorgi, A.
Venue
Journal of Phenomenological Psychology
Published
1992
Volume
23
Issue
2
Pages
119-135
ISSN
  • 0047-2662 (ISSN-L)
  • 1569-1624
OpenAlex
W2088699981
Cited by
222
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Description versus Interpretation: Competing Alternative Strategies for Qualitative Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1163/156916292x00090
The paper
Giorgi, A. (1992). Description versus Interpretation: Competing Alternative Strategies for Qualitative Research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916292x00090

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.