In The Main, Phenomenological Studies Could Be Said To Be More Relevant To

In the main, phenomenological studies could be said to be more relevant to data collection involving either a questionnaire seeking open-ended responses or a structured or unstructured interview since they are concerned with documenting perceptions of human experience which are typically not easily reducible to numerical data.
The manner in which interview data is analysed is determined by how the data is recorded: usually in the form of an interview transcript. Although a researcher could analyse interview data quantitatively by, for instance, examining the length of responses to each question and comparing the differences between male and female subjects; analysis of phenomena is perhaps more easily dealt with qualitatively. The aim is to select a data sample that can be used to provide a coherent explanation of the phenomenon studied; because this sample is related to one individual, the data may not be reliably generalisable but the theory generated by data analysis may be.

Conclusion
In summary, the results of randomised controlled trials group together individual results to look for generalisations rules governing disease prevention and treatment that are common to a particular group of people and can be applied to the wider population; whereas the phenomenological approach can generate theories or rules that can be applied in a general sense but at its heart focuses on individual experiences and embraces variation and the unusual.

Recommendations
Due to the huge scope of the topic of clinical research methods that have been discussed here, it is recommended that further exploration be carried out in the neuropsychological field to discover more about the analysis of physical phenomena arising from psychological conditions: much more could be learned about the fascinating topic of phenomenology, especially when regarded in contrast with the very different research method of the randomised controlled trial.
Bibliography
1. British Medical Journal, 2003, Clinical Evidence (Concise), Volume 10, BMJ Books
2. Fewtrell, D & O'Connor, K, 1995, Clinical Phenomenology and Cognitive Psychology, Routledge
3. Polgar, S & Thomas, S, 2000, Introduction to Research in the Health Sciences, 4th edition, Churchill Livingstone
4. Medical Research Council, 2003, Clinical Trials for Tomorrow: An MRC Review of Randomised Controlled Trials, MRC Clinical Trials Series
5. Gerhard Fortwengel (2004), Guide for Clinical Trial Staff: Implementing Good Clinical Practice, Karger
6. Seale, J, Gebski, V & Keech, A, 2004, 'Generalising the Results of Trials to Clinical Practice', MJA; 181 (10): 558-560
7. Edited by Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka (2002), Phenomenology World-Wide: A Guide for Research and Study, Kluwer Academic Publishers
8. Menken, M (2002), 'Demystifying Neurology', BMJ 2002; 324: 1469 - 1470
9. University of Iowa Mental Health Clinical Research Centre http://iowa-mhcrc.psychiatry.