Snelgrove Sherrill Ray
College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Nurse Res. 2014 Sep;22(1):20-5. doi: 10.7748/nr.22.1.20.e1277.
To discuss the methodological and epistemological challenges experienced when conducting a longitudinal interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) of patients' experiences of chronic low back pain (CLBP).
The author draws on experiences of managing interpretive analysis while undertaking an IPA of patients with CLBP for more than two years.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted at three points in time from a purposeful sample of ten patients.
There was a recognition that prolonged contact between researcher and participant increases the challenges related to minimising bias and managing researcher emotionality and empathy.
Two main challenges are discussed: the usefulness of 'bracketing' in longitudinal qualitative research and maintaining an inductive approach; and consideration of the emotionality of interviewing and the role of empathy.
A longitudinal design adds potential analytical pitfalls, including a priori theorising and emotional involvement. Interpretative and emotional safeguarding included reflection and reflexivity, an iterative approach and the role of phenomenological strategies such as the hermeneutic circle. The efficacy of these is discussed, along with the ambiguity surrounding concepts such as bracketing.
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH/PRACTICE: Although the topics discussed relate specifically to this methodology and a particular research project sample, they are applicable to qualitative research designs in similar populations.
探讨对慢性下腰痛（CLBP）患者的经历进行纵向解释现象学分析（IPA）时所面临的方法学和认识论挑战。
作者借鉴了在对CLBP患者进行IPA的两年多时间里进行解释性分析的经验。
从十名患者的目的样本中，在三个时间点进行了半结构化访谈。
人们认识到，研究者与参与者之间的长期接触增加了与尽量减少偏差以及管理研究者的情感和同理心相关的挑战。
讨论了两个主要挑战：“加括号”在纵向定性研究中的有用性以及保持归纳法；以及对访谈中的情感性和同理心的作用的考虑。
纵向设计增加了潜在的分析陷阱，包括先验理论化和情感投入。解释性和情感保障包括反思和自我反思、迭代方法以及现象学策略（如诠释循环）的作用。讨论了这些方法的有效性，以及围绕“加括号”等概念的模糊性。
对研究/实践的启示：尽管所讨论的主题具体涉及这种方法和特定的研究项目样本，但它们适用于类似人群的定性研究设计。
