Discrepancies

This afternoon I read Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004), albeit more slowly, and I think I was mistaken about something I posted earlier.  The authors articulated that they used the Moustakas modification in the tradition of Stevick, Colaizzi, and Keen, and I thought I recognized their use of Moustakas' other modification, the Van Kaam method as the procedure for analysis in the study.  However, as I read closely, it also appeared Moerer-Urdhal and Creswell did not exactly follow the modification they stated.  Below are the steps of analysis Moerer-Urdahl employed:

1. The researchers described their own experiences (bracketing).  However, there is no indication that this was written down.  The senior researcher just discusses thinking about her own mentoring experiences. (p. 22)
2.  Horizonalization – “In this phase of analysis, we simply wanted to learn how individuals viewed the term, the ripple effect” (p. 23). Here the researchers indentified statements related to the research questions on the ripple effect of the mentoring program.  Also, the researchers did not put these statements in any particular order.  
3.   Meaning Units or Themes: In this step redundant statements are eliminated, and irrelevant statements are deleted (But why would there be irrelevant statements?). The researcher then organizes the horizons (what remains) into themes.
4.  The researcher revisits the research questions regarding the what and how of experience. What was experienced will inform the textual description, and how it was experienced will inform the structural description. The researcher writes the textual description first and then writes the structural description.  The textual description seems to include several quotes of just what the participants said.
5.  The researcher synthesizes the textual and structural descriptions into a composite description.  This represents the essence of the experience.

Setting bracketing aside, there are still differences between this procedure as the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method Moustakas outlines.  On page 122 Moustakas (1994) notes that reflection of the researcher's own textual description should come after the verbatim textual descriptions of the participants and that the researcher should "construct a description of the structures of [his or her] experience."  Yet, in  Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004) the authors address the "how" of the participants experiences, not the researchers for the structural description.  Also, while Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell appear to focus strictly on the experience of participants, at least beyond the initial step of epoche or bracketing, Moustakas shows that the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method appears to incorporate the researcher's experience with the phenomenon into the analysis.