Abstract

Open peer commentary on the article “A First-Person Analysis Using Third Person-Data as a Generative Method: A Case Study of Surprise in Depression” by Natalie Depraz, Maria Gyemant & Thomas Desmidt. Upshot: I present a critical review of Depraz et al.’s target article and its promise to provide a novel “generative method” of analyzing first-person micro-phenomenological interviews using third-person physiological data. I argue that although indeed promising, the generative method may still be haunted by the issues pertaining to the other (neuro)phenomenological methods, like experimenter and respondent biases, and the problem with mistaking first-person with second-person data. In the end, I analyze the category of surprise and the way it was extracted from the data. The Philosopher’s Stone

Citation

Ciechanowski L. (2017) Has the philosopher’s stone of the interaction between first- and third-person data finally been found? Constructivist Foundations 12(2): 203–205. http://constructivist.info/12/2/203

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.