Methoden vergelijken

	Kritische Interpretatieve Fenomenologische Analyse	Interpretatieve fenomenologie
Vakgebied	Kwalitatief	Kwalitatief
Familie	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Jaar van ontstaan	1996 (IPA); critical variant explicitly theorised in the 2000s–2010s	1927 (Heidegger); systematised for human sciences by van Manen in 1990
Grondlegger	Jonathan A. Smith (IPA); critical extension developed within the IPA tradition by Smith, Flowers, Larkin and associated scholars	Martin Heidegger (philosophical foundation); Max van Manen (methodological systematisation)
Type	Qualitative research design and analytic approach	Qualitative interpretive research design
Oorspronkelijke bron	Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Sage. ISBN: 978-1412908344	van Manen, M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. State University of New York Press. ISBN: 978-0791404645
Aliassen	Critical IPA, CIPA, critical-lens IPA, critical interpretive phenomenology	hermeneutic phenomenology, van Manen phenomenology, Heideggerian phenomenology, interpretive phenomenological inquiry
Verwant	5	5
Samenvatting	Critical Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Critical IPA) is a qualitative approach that combines the double-hermeneutic interpretive work of standard IPA with an explicit critical lens, examining not only how participants make sense of their experience but also how power, social structures, ideology, and systemic inequalities shape that experience. It retains the ideographic, person-centred rigour of IPA while asking whose interests are served and what is silenced or constrained.	Interpretive phenomenology is a qualitative research design that investigates the meaning people attribute to their lived experiences by combining phenomenological description with hermeneutic interpretation. Rooted in Heidegger's ontology and systematised for social and human sciences by Max van Manen, it moves beyond description to ask what an experience means within a person's broader lifeworld, cultural context, and situated understanding. The researcher's own interpretive horizon is treated as an analytical resource rather than a bias to eliminate.