虽然可以认为定性方法有利润,有些模糊,因为他们利用多学科领域如现象学、解释学、现象学是社会建构的方法有很多种,有大量重叠的目的和不同的方式他们分离的经验从有经验的人的研究。将叙事探究与IPA相比，现象学和解释学分析的证据是多种多样的(Smith, 2015)。通过叙述探究，研究得出的结论是有根据的，可支持的，并强调人类经验的语言现实。故事被用于解释和现象学研究(Creswell, 2013)。虽然在参与者经验的编年史方面可以与IPA相媲美，但叙述研究法更深入地研究了研究者/参与者在一段时间内的协作以及环境的社会互动。叙述探究的简单原则是把个人看作是讲故事的人。挑衅和审查账户是叙述调查的共同焦点(McGannon, K. & Smith, B.)。,2015)。在IPA中，叙述提供了丰富的经验洞察力，与此不同的是，叙事故事被视为以整体方式获得意义的主要标准。叙事探究解决了复杂性以及人类和文化中心的问题。参与者的看法很重要，但不是根本重点。
While it could be argued that qualitative methodologies possess margins that are somewhat blurred, as they draw on multidisciplinary fields like phenomenology and or hermeneutics, different methods of phenomenology are socially constructed and have an extensive overlap in their purposes and vary in the manner in which they detach the experience from the experienced persons at the end of the research. Comparing narrative inquiry to IPA, evidence of phenomenological and interpretive analysis (Smith, 2015) is varied. With narrative inquiry, research produces findings that are well-grounded, supportable, and emphasize the linguistic reality of human experience. Stories are used for interpretive and phenomenological research (Creswell, 2013). Although comparable to IPA in the chronicling of participant experience, narrative inquiry delves deeper into the understanding of researcher/participant collaboration over a period of time as well as the social interaction of the environment. The simple principle of narrative inquiry is that individuals are viewed as storytellers. Provocation and examination of accounts are the common focus in the narrative inquiry (McGannon, K. & Smith, B., 2015). Unlike in IPA, where accounts provide rich experiential insight, narrative stories are observed as the primary standard through which meanings are derived in a holistic manner. Narrative Inquiry addresses issues of complexity as well as human and cultural centeredness. Participant perception is important but not the fundamental focus.