Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Alma, Hans A.; Smaling, Adri (2006)
Publisher: Co-Action Publishing
Journal: International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being
Languages: English
Types: Article
Some philosophers of science and social scientists disapprove of using empathy in human inquiry. Empathy would be neither sufficient nor necessary for understanding another person. In this article, the insufficiency of empathy will be recognized, but the necessity of empathy for interpersonal understanding in everyday life, situations of professional care, and certain forms of human inquiry, especially qualitative research, will be supported. However, empathic understanding should not be conceived as pure psychic identification, but rather as putting oneself imaginatively into the experiential world of another person with the aim to understand the other. Emotional resonance is not only an early phase of it, but also a basic facet. A comprehensive conceptualization of empathic understanding is developed, which makes empathy more worthwhile in professional contexts. Empathic understanding is conceived as a two-dimensional concept. The mental dimension refers to affective, cognitive, and interpretive facets or phases of empathic understanding and the social dimension refers to expressive, responsive, and interactive facets or phases of empathic understanding. These two dimensions are crosswise combined and the most optimal form of empathic understanding is called "dialogical-hermeneutical empathic understanding." In addition, the importance of imagination and the development of it for optimal empathic understanding are elaborated. Key words: Empathy, health care, dialogical hermeneutics, imagination, philosophy of science, qualitative methodology
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Alma, H.A. (2002). Ground breaking exploration: an exploration of imagination from the perspective of psychology of religion. Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, 56, 115 129.
    • Alvesson, M. (2003). Beyond neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to interviews in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 13 33.
    • Barnes, A., & Thagard, P. (1997). Empathy and analogy, http:// cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Articles/Pages/Empathy.html
    • Bohart, A. C., & Greenberg, L. S. (Eds). (1997). Empathy reconsidered. New directions in psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
    • Bru, D. (2001). Empathy: more than an attitude. Journal for Humanistics, 2(5), 50 57.
    • Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Robinson, R. E. (1990). The art of seeing: An interpretation of the aesthetic encounter. Los Angeles: The J. Paul Getty Museum.
    • Dewey, J. (1980). Art as experience. New York: Perigee Books. (Original edition 1934)
    • Dewey, J. (1981). Experience and nature (The later works 1925 1953: vol 1 1925). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
    • Dilthey, W. (1913 1974). Collected papers. Go¨ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
    • Duyndam, J. (2002). Empowerment by empathy. On good and gruesome empathy. In A. Halsema, & D. van Houten (Eds.), Empowering humanity. State of the art in humanistics (pp. 139 148). Utrecht: De Tijdstroom.
    • Eisenberg, N., & Strayer, J. (1987). Critical issues in the study of empathy. In N. Eisenberg, & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 3 13). New York: Cambridge University Press.
    • Fay, B. (1996). Contemporary philosophy of social science. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
    • Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method. London: Sheed and Ward. (Originally in German: Wahrheit und Methode, Tu¨ bingen, 1960.)
    • Gadamer, H.-G. (1988). On the circle of understanding. In M. Connolly John, & Keutner Thomas (Eds.), Hermeneutics versus Science? (pp. 68 78). Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.
    • Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 493 501.
    • Gendlin, E.T. (1968). The experiential response. In E. Hammer (Ed.), The use of interpretation in treatment (pp. 208 227). New York: Grune & Stratton.
    • Giddens, A. (1976). New rules of sociological method. London: Hutchinson.
    • Gorden, R. L. (1980). Interviewing: strategy, techniques, and tactics. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.
    • Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Essays on education, the arts, and social change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    • Harris, P. L. (2000). The work of the imagination. Oxford: Blackwell.
    • Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: The Free Press.
    • Hoofdakker, R., & van den (2001). Empathy. Journal for Humanistics, 2(5), 7 15.
    • Husserl, E. (1952). Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology. New York: The Macmillan Company. (First English edition in 1931; first German edition in 1913.)
    • Josselson, R. (1995). Imagining the Real. Empathy, Narrative, and the Dialogic Self. In R. Josselson, & A. Lieblich (Eds.), Interpreting Experience: the narrative study of lives (pp. 27 42). London: Sage.
    • Kearney, R. (1988). The wake of imagination: Ideas of creativity in Western culture. London: Hutchinson.
    • Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure?. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    • K o¨gler, H. H. & Stueber, K. R. (Eds). (2000). Empathy and agency. The problem of understanding in the human sciences. Boulder, Colorado, USA; Oxford, UK: Westview Press.
    • Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (First French edition in 1945.)
    • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968). The Visible and the Invisible. Evanston: Northwestern University Press. (First French edition in 1964.)
    • Murdoch, I. (1997). Existentialists and mystics: Writings on philosophy and literature. New York: Allen Lane The Penguin Press.
    • Nagel, E. (1961). The structure of science. Problems in the logic of scientific explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
    • Nickles, T. (Ed.). (1980). Scientific discovery, logic and rationality. Dordrecht/Boston: Reidel.
    • Palmer, R. E. (1969). Hermeneutics. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
    • Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    • Ramachandran, V. S. (2000). Mirror neurons. www.edge.org/ documents/archive/edge69.html
    • Ricoeur, P. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2002). From mirror neurons to imitation: facts and speculations. In W. Prinz, & A. Meltzoff (Eds.), The imitative mind: development, evolution and brain bases (pp. 247 266). Cambridge University Press.
    • Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered Therapy. Its current practice, implications and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    • Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
    • Rogers, C. R. (1967). The interpersonal relationship: the core of guidance. In C.R. Rogers, & B. Stevens (Eds.), Person to person. The problem of being human (pp. 85 101). New York: Pocket Books.
    • Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing. The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
    • Rudner, R. S. (1966). Philosophy of social science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    • Ryan, A. (1970). The philosophy of the social sciences. London: Macmillan.
    • Schachtel, E. G. (1984). Metamorphosis: On the development of affect, perception, attention and memory (with a preface by J. L. Singer). New York: Da Capo Press. (Original edition 1959.)
    • Schleiermacher, F. D. E. (1959). Hermeneutics. (Ed. and with an introduction by Heinz Kimmerle.) Heidelberg: Carl Winter: Universita¨tsverlag.
    • Schutz, A. (1962). Collected papers I (Ed.: M. Natanson). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    • Schutz, A. (1964). Collected papers II (Ed.: A. Brodersen). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    • Seale, C. (1998). Qualitative interviewing. In C. Seale (Ed.), Researching society and culture (pp. 202 216). London: Sage.
    • Silverman, D. (1989). The impossible dreams of reformism and romanticism. In J. F. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), The politics of field research. Sociology beyond enlightenment (pp. 30 48). London: Sage.
    • Smaling, A. (1996). Qualitative interviewing: contextualization and empowerment. In I. Maso, & F. Wester (Eds.), The deliberate dialogue (pp. 15 28). Brussels: VUBpress.
    • Smaling, A. (1998). Dialogical partnership *The relationship between the researcher and the researched in action research. In B. Boog, H. Coenen, L. Keune, & R. Lammerts (Eds.), The complexity of relationships in action research (pp. 1 15). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
    • Smaling, A. (2005). The meaning of empathic understanding in human inquiry. Paper presented at the 55th International Phenomenology Congress, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
    • Smaling, A., & Maso, I. (2002). The humanist potentialities of qualitative research: Inner growth, dialogical relationships, empowerment and normative professionalism. In A. Halsema, & D. van Houten (Eds.), Empowering humanity. State of the art in humanistics (pp. 37 60). Utrecht: De Tijdstroom.
    • Stein, E. (1989). On the problem of empathy. Washington, DC: ICS Publications (Kluwer). (Third revised edition; first English edition in 1962; first German edition in 1917).
    • Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.
    • van Strien, P. M. (1999). Empathy. Amsterdam: Thela-Thesis.
    • van Tilburg, W. (2001). Conditions for empathy. Journal for Humanistics, 2(5), 24 31.
    • Weber, M. (1949). The methodology of the social sciences. New York: Free Press.
    • Weber, M. (1968). The interpretive understanding of social action. In M. Brodbeck (Ed.), Readings in the philosophy of the social sciences (pp. 20 33). New York: MacMillan.
    • Winch, P. (1958). The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article

Collected from