Paley John
Department of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Nurs Inq. 2005 Jun;12(2):106-16. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1800.2005.00263.x.
The literature on 'nursing phenomenology' is driven by a range of ontological and epistemological considerations, intended to distance it from conventionally scientific approaches. However, this paper examines a series of discrepancies between phenomenological rhetoric and phenomenological practice. The rhetoric celebrates perceptions and experience; but the concluding moment of a research report almost always makes implicit claims about reality. The rhetoric insists on uniquely personal meanings; but the practice offers blank, anonymous abstractions. The rhetoric invites us to believe that knowing is subjective and involved, but at the same time it recommends a technique (bracketing) which can only represent a crude, and entirely misconceived, gesture towards objectivity. Finally, the rhetoric claims that generalisation is beside the point; but the majority of researchers generalise anyway. In quietly ignoring their own rhetoric, 'phenomenologists' appropriate scientific prerogatives illegitimately. For their methods do not entitle them to lay claim to anything resembling 'objectivity', or generalisability, or 'reality', or theoretical abstraction. Like other researchers, they want to talk in generalisable terms about reality; they want to be objective, they want to do theory. But they are saddled with a philosophy that is disabling, because it says they can only talk about perceptions, and meanings, and uniqueness.
关于“护理现象学”的文献受到一系列本体论和认识论因素的驱动,旨在使其与传统科学方法区分开来。然而,本文审视了现象学的言辞与现象学实践之间的一系列差异。其言辞推崇感知和体验;但研究报告的结尾几乎总是对现实做出隐含的断言。其言辞坚持独特的个人意义;但实践却提供空洞、匿名的抽象概念。其言辞促使我们相信认知是主观且具参与性的,但同时它推荐一种技巧(加括号),而这一技巧只能代表一种对客观性的粗糙且完全错误的姿态。最后,其言辞声称概括无关紧要;但大多数研究者无论如何还是进行了概括。“现象学家”在悄然无视自身言辞的情况下,非法地挪用了科学特权。因为他们的方法无权宣称任何类似于“客观性”“可概括性”“现实”或理论抽象的东西。和其他研究者一样,他们想用可概括的术语谈论现实;他们想要做到客观,想要进行理论研究。但他们背负着一种起阻碍作用的哲学,因为这种哲学认为他们只能谈论感知、意义和独特性。