CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 547Qualitative Research Methods and EthicsQualitative Research Methods and ApplicationsPhenomenology and Existential Philosophy

Bracketing in Research: A Typology

Gearing, Robin Edward·2004·Qualitative Health Research
DOI 10.1177/1049732304270394
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The term bracketing has increasingly been employed in qualitative research. Although this term proliferates in scientific studies and professional journals, its application and operationalization remains vague and, often, superficial. The growing disconnection of the practice of bracketing in research from its origins in phenomenology has resulted in its frequent reduction to a formless technique, value stance, or black-box term. Mapping the subtle theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of bracketing will facilitate identification and delineation of core elements that compose bracketing, and distinguish howdifferent research approaches prioritize different bracketing elements. The author outlines a typology of six distinct forms of bracketing that encompasses the methodological rigor and evolution of bracketing within the richness of qualitative research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1049732304270394

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Researcher bias was reduced by bracketing, with personal assumptions recorded and excluded as far as possible, and all members of the PUDDLES Global Collaboration iteratively checking findings and highlighting potential bias for removal.

    “Researcher bias was reduced by a process of ‘bracketing’ [30], whereby personal assumptions were recorded and excluded as far as possible, with all members of the PUDDLES Global Collaboration iteratively checking the findings and results, whilst highlighting any sources or examples of potential bias for removal.”

    From Preliminary findings on the experiences of care for parents who suffered perinatal bereavement during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as [30]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 91 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gearing, R. E.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Gearing, Robin Edward
ORCID
Gearing, Robin Edward
Venue
Qualitative Health Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2004-12
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
1429-1452
ISSN
  • 1049-7323 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7557
DOI
10.1177/1049732304270394
OpenAlex
W2105302560
Cited by
546
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 34
FWCI
13.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Qualitative Health Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Research Methods and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Keywords
bracketing, phenomenology, qualitative research methodology, researcher positionality, methodological quality, philosophical foundations of research
MeSH terms
Existentialism, Humans, Philosophy, Research Design, Social Sciences, Reproducibility of Results, Qualitative Research

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