Misinterpretive phenomenology: Heidegger, ontology and nursing research

被引:52
作者
Paley, J
机构
[1] Inst. for Health Services Research, University of Luton, The Spires, Luton, LU1 5DU
关键词
experience; Heidegger; hermeneutics; methodology; ontology; phenomenology; philosophy; research; science; social;
D O I
10.1046/j.1365-2648.1998.00607.x
中图分类号
R47 [护理学];
学科分类号
1011 ;
摘要
This paper argues that Heidegger's phenomenology does not have the methodological implications usually ascribed to it in nursing literature. The Heidegger of Being and Time is not in any sense antagonistic to science, nor does he think that everydayness is more authentic, more genuine, than scientific enquiry or theoretical cognition. It is true that social science must rest on interpretive foundations, acknowledging the self-interpreting nature of human beings, but it does not follow from this that hermeneutics exhausts all the possibilities. Positivist approaches to social science are certainly inconsistent with Heidegger's ontology, but realist approaches are not and structuration theory, in particular, can be seen as a sociological translation of his ideas. Social enquiry in nursing is not therefore confined to studies of lived experience. Indeed, lived experience research constitutes not a realization, but rather a betrayal, of Heidegger's phenomenology, being thoroughly Cartesian in spirit.
引用
收藏
页码:817 / 824
页数:8
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1994, ORG MODERNITY SOCIAL
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1979, TRUTH METHOD
[3]  
[Anonymous], 1979, Philosophy and the human sciences: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences. The possibility of naturalism, DOI DOI 10.4324/9781315756332
[4]  
[Anonymous], INTERPRETIVE PHENOME
[5]  
[Anonymous], 1963, SOCIAL THEORY SOCIAL
[6]  
Banonis B C, 1989, Nurs Sci Q, V2, P37, DOI 10.1177/089431848900200111
[7]  
Benner P. E., 1989, PRIMACY CARING STRES
[8]  
Bhaskar R., 1986, SCI REALISM HUMAN EM
[9]  
BOURDIEU P, 1990, OTHER WORDS ESAYS RE
[10]  
Callon Michel., 1986, Power, Action, Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1467-954X.1984.TB00113.X