Iranian Journal of Sociology

Abstract Validity issues in phenomenological research are what this article investigates. Phenomenology is an attempt to enrich the world as it is experienced, and for its method -a mere emphasis on pure "description"- an alternative has been found, "to interpret" the experience. Descriptive phenomenology ensures that descriptions reflect the phenomenon as it was first experienced by the participants. Interpretive phenomenology, however, wants to determine the meanings of the phenomenon just as they appear in the participant's mind. In descriptive phenomenology, validity issues have been investigated in different ways: (1) a fundamental description of the phenomenon must be able to correctly capture the essence that has been intuited; (2) experts can be used to judge phenomenological analysis; (3) return to participants. In interpretative phenomenology, what is important is whether the phenomenological interpretations of meaning structures are valid, and the themes and the insights inferenced from the descriptions are appropriate and novel?