ABSTRACT
Both Giorgi and van Manen claim that the aim of PQR is to distil the meaning of a phenomenon from a text; but neither of them explains what kind of thing a ‘meaning’ is, or how it can be identified. They say only that meaning must be elucidated from the text and nothing but the text. Their examples suggest that, in practice, meaning is whatever Giorgi and van Manen say it is. There are no wellspecified and non-arbitrary procedures for achieving the ‘transformations in meaning’ and ‘thematic formulations’ that a PQR analysis is said to involve; and at no point does either author provide a theory of meaning, or criteria by which meaning attribution can be tested, checked, or evaluated. The idiosyncrasies of Giorgi and van Manen’s use of ‘meaning’ are reflected in PQR research reports. No published paper I have seen provides a discussion of the concept, nor is there any indication of how ‘meaning’ should be operationalised. This is particularly noticeable when ‘meaning’ is included in the statement of the research aim. Here are some examples from nursing. They are all papers in which the research aim is stated in such a way as to make ‘meaning’ central.
