Phenomenography — a “good‐for‐nothing brother” of phenomenology? Outline of an analysis

Abstract This article will argue that five different ways of doing phenomenography can be found amongst the works of Gothenburg phenomenographers: Discursive, Experimental, Naturalistic, Hermeneutic and Phenomenological. Commenting on an earlier version of phenomenography, Jacob Needleman stated that it was “a ‘good‐for‐nothing’ brother of phenomenology”. We will argue that it is not. It is productive research, even if at times the degree of methodological reflection applied by phenomenographers to their work is found wanting. Two of five forms of Gothenburg phenomenography can be developed by recourse to phenomenology.