76 PART ONE: INTRODUCTION the study is inductive in nature and aims to interpret this phenomenon. This is in line with the call for a shift towards a hermeneutic of experience as described above. The empirical segment of the research (Part Two) can be defined as explorative-explanatory research. 200 This perspective enables a deeper understanding of the phenomenon encountered, without, however, claiming to be representative for the communities as a whole or for practitioners of this practice in other contexts. This is something that needs to be kept in mind while engaging with the data and conclusions produced in this study. This would require a quantitative follow-up study verifying the categories established through the qualitative methods employed in this study. Still, this study opens up a new horizon in a meaningful way by articulating the theological constructs designed by the respondents in their own particular context. These constructs have relevance for the way in which church and theology as a whole discuss the issue of Eucharistic hospitality. Qualitative methods John Swinton and Harriet Mowat refer to the type of truth or understanding aimed at in this study as ideographic knowledge, which distinguishes itself from nomothetic truth based on the principles of falsifiability, replicability, and generalizability. 201 In contrast, ideographic knowledge “presumes that meaningful knowledge can be discovered in unique, non-replicable experiences.”202 They claim that qualitative methods are more suitable and therefore more often employed in ideographic research, over against a preference for quantitative methods in nomothetic research. Qualitative methods focus on description, interpretation, and understanding.203 Addressing the question of generalization, Swinton and Mowat claim that “[w]hile the findings of qualitative research studies may not be immediately transferable to other contexts, there is a sense in which qualitative research should resonate with the experiences of others in similar circumstances.”204 This is of special significance for the debate on Eucharistic sharing as both supporters and opponents of the practice claim that current exceptional cases 200 Cf. Van der Ven, Practical Theology, 125–27. 201 John Swinton and Harriet Mowat, Practical Theology and Qualitative Research (London: SCM Press, 2009), 40–43. 202 Swinton and Mowat, 43. 203 Swinton and Mowat, 46. 204 Swinton and Mowat, 47; Cf. Jeanine Evers on generalisation in qualitative research: Jeanine Evers, Kwalitatieve analyse. Kunst én kunde (Amsterdam: Boom Lemma, 2015), 141–43.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw