| This study was a clarification of methodology in phenomenological psychology that compared the theoretical work of Edmund Husserl and Amedeo Giorgi. Specifically, three questions were addressed concerning: (a) the general structure of the phenomenological method, (b) the role of the phenomenological reduction, and (c) the meaning of sample size. The comparison found that Husserl's methodology was developed mainly for metascientific and philosophical purposes and, therefore, is not suited for practical research. Giorgi's methodology, on the other hand, was found to serve the goals and objectives of practical research by incorporating a human-subjects design. The comparison of these two theorists showed that: (a) The general structure of the phenomenological method is based on a descriptive approach taken to the data of experience involving an abstention from the natural attitude, a reduction to psychological phenomena, and imaginative variations in order to grasp essences and structures; (b) the role of the phenomenological reduction is to provide access to purely psychological data or phenomena, and (c) that the meaning of sample size depends on the researcher's phenomenological mode of understanding. These results were based on a presentation of the general psychological perspectives of the two theorists. Husserl was discussed with respect to his philosophical background, Cartesian starting point, psychological predecessors, and major psychological themes. Giorgi work was discussed with regard to his critique of natural scientific psychology, advocacy of a human scientific psychology, some major psychological themes, and perspective on the meaning of psychology as a human science. It was concluded that the phenomenological method has growing significance in contemporary American psychology and provides a viable humanistic alternative approach to traditional empirical and quantitative research methods. |
