文献类型：期刊文献

中文题名：解释现象学分析在中国的运用：系统评价及指南

英文题名：Interpretative phenomenological analysis in China: A systematic review and guideline

作者：侯力琪[1];唐信峰[2];何丽[3];贾晓明[4]

第一作者：侯力琪

机构：[1]香港理工大学应用社会科学系,香港;[2]香港大学社会工作及社会行政学系,香港;[3]北京联合大学师范学院,北京100011;[4]北京理工大学人文与社会科学学院,北京100081

第一机构：香港理工大学应用社会科学系,香港

年份：2019

卷号：27

期号：11

起止页码：1826-1841

中文期刊名：心理科学进展

外文期刊名：Advances in Psychological Science

收录：CSTPCD;;国家哲学社会科学学术期刊数据库;北大核心:【北大核心2017】；CSSCI:【CSSCI2019_2020】；CSCD:【CSCD2019_2020】；PubMed;

语种：中文

中文关键词：解释现象学分析;系统评价;质性研究

外文关键词：interpretative phenomenological analysis;systematic review;qualitative research

摘要：作为一种质性研究方法,解释现象学分析在心理学及社会科学的其他领域中逐渐兴起。目前在中国,运用解释现象学分析的研究质量参差不齐,对这些研究进行系统评价,可以为将来的研究提供指导。通过对中英文数据库的检索及筛选,最终纳入49篇期刊文章。根据Smith(2011)为解释现象学分析提出的4个标准对这些文章进行评价,结果显示,26篇研究明确提及了解释现象学的理论原则,33篇文章的资料收集及分析过程清晰透明,大部分研究(n=40)条理清晰、言之成理,但只有约1/4的研究(n=13)提供了足够强的证据来支持其提取出来的主题。只有4篇全部达到质量标准,11篇基本达到标准,大部分文章没有达到标准。最后,本研究尝试提出一份解释现象学分析的使用指南,供将来的研究参考。
As a qualitative method, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) has been increasingly employed in psychology and other social sciences disciplines. In China, the quality of research using IPA was doubtful, and thus a systematic review of the current studies was warranted. Through a comprehensive search in Chinese and English database and screening, 49 articles were included. According to Smith’s criterion, 26 studies explicitly referred to IPA theoretical principles;33 studies had clear and transparent data collection and analysis process. Most of the studies (n = 40) were coherent and plausible, however, only a small proportion of the studies (n = 13) provided strong evidence to support the themes. In the forty-nine included studies, only 4 articles were rated as “good”, 11 articles were “acceptable”, and the remaining 34 articles were “unacceptable”. Based on previous research and recommendations, this study attempted to present a guideline to conduct and write a good IPA study.