Acercamiento a las tradiciones pedagógicas (enseñanza y aprendizaje) en

Interpretation, which in hermeneutic phenomenology is fundamentally a textual reflection on lived experiences was guided by the approach described by Van Manen (1990). Observations, researcher reflections and impromptu conversation notes, and transcribed one-to-one prompted conversations, discussion group, and follow-up conversations formed the hermeneutic text and a multi-layered process of hermeneutic looping.

Dissimilar to many qualitative approaches, interpretation and research methods in hermeneutic phenomenology are deeply entwined and integrated, and the research process as a whole is interpretive (Smebye & Kirkevold 2013). While several hermeneutic phenomenological researchers outline their interpretive process in sequential, discrete phases, this seemed an overly logical, and linear presentation that attempts to simplify the reality of the more untidy, ongoing, and continuous cycling back, and re-interpreting process in this study. Interpretations in this study commenced immediately and were ongoing and overlapping throughout fieldwork, becoming increasingly enriched by participants’ interpretations, reflective questioning, and hermeneutic looping. Thus, interpretations can be pre-reflective, and hermeneutic looping commenced during the research conversations where feelings and thoughts were shared, and understandings constructed and co-constructed through language (Dahlberg et al. 2001). A phenomenologists’ primary interest is in the person’s experience and how they make meaning of the experience, rather than the

phenomenon itself (Bentz & Rehorick 2009; Wagstaff & Williams 2014).

This reflexive use of conversation and stories makes explicit that conversations are shared

interpretations, not a neutral exercise, but likely to reflect existing societal values, aspirations and to some extent, the values the conversation partner may perceive their co-participant wants to hear (Gadamer et al. 2004; Miles et al. 2013). Both the listener and the speaker interpret what was said, often continuing to converse to refine and negotiate interpretations and understandings of lived experiences collaboratively in real time (Dewar & Nolan 2013; Doyle 2012).

While hermeneutic phenomenological or single case studies utilising qualitative narrative-based enquiry and observations generally have between one and five participants, the outcome was thirty- one prompted conversations, two discussion groups, seven resident follow-up prompted

conversations and hours of impromptu conversations, observations, and reflections (Djivre et al. 2012; Hellberg et al. 2011).

All prompted conversations, discussion groups, and resident follow-up conversations were recorded. The recorded conversations were transcribed verbatim as close to the day of the conversation as practical. As one-to-one conversations and focus groups provide large amounts of rich narratives per participant (Creswell & Creswell 2013; Kvale 1996) the approach generated a large volume of text. The challenge was to select the most important features to address the essences while omitting excessive detail. The objective was to reflect critically and interpret the stories and symbolism that participants used to convey their lived experiences and emphasise the experiences and symbolism that I interpreted as the most significant, evocative, and meaningful.

The hermeneutic text was then interpreted in the context of the overall understanding of the situation of being-in-the-world-of-aged-care while continuously moving backward and forward between the parts, that is, the individuals’ stories, and the whole. The transcripts were read

repeatedly to develop an overall sense of the context and lifeworld experiences, before evolving into main clusters of related meanings.

The clusters of meaning were annotated, and quotes and accounts of lived experiences that ‘touched the researcher’ were highlighted in the transcribed texts, and further reflections written in readiness for the discussion groups and follow-up conversations. This involved looking at the whole experience and making decisions about the things that mattered most, and that influenced how the person thought of themselves or the place they were in (Paley 2014; Wagstaff & Williams 2014).

While meanings do not have to be repetitious, it is not to say that repetition was not meaningful in this study. Repetitive powerful imagery and symbolic stories that were at times about fear and loss touched the researcher and were crucial for developing meanings.

I continually reflected on the ‘thickly rich’ descriptions with ongoing interaction and hermeneutic looping with the research participants, supervisors, peers, and the literature. Fostering an inductive approach is particularly important in hermeneutic phenomenology where the researcher needs to set aside what they are looking for initially to be led by the participants and be sensitive to what the stories and text tell them (Laverty 2003; Tuohy et al. 2013).

It is then the acts of writing and re-writing, interpretation and re-interpretation that are intended to draw us deeper into our comprehension of experience, and our experience draws us deeper into writing, into the language to facilitate an understanding or seeing of something new in what is already taken-for-granted and to find meanings (Smythe et al. 2008).

Impromptu conversations, discussion groups, and follow-up conversations provided additional opportunities for re-interpretations that were essential elements of the ‘loop’. Ongoing, multi- layered looping served to evolve and further deepen understandings, and I addressed my foreknowledge continuously as recommended by Dahlstrom (2010) throughout the interpretive process to reduce the risk of subconscious filtering. In this way, contradiction, omission, and incongruence, as well as coincidence, were attended to in the research, and multiple simultaneous, interpretive possibilities were considered normal even welcomed as evidence of authenticity.

About halfway through the fieldwork, I presented initial findings and interpretations at the national Australian Association of Gerontologists conference in November 2015. The presentation was an early interpretation tested with a knowledgeable audience of several professions and academics from various fields. It was an opportunity to ‘loop’ preliminary interpretations to peers, facilitating an early consolidation of my understandings of the stories of lived experiences I was gathering, and a check for resonance. The experience proved beneficial as the feedback was excellent, clearly

demonstrating a reverberation between my interpretations and the lived experiences of the phenomenon by others. This facilitated the refinement of my research approach in subsequent prompted and follow-up conversations and the discussion groups.

The reflexive process included discussions about alternative interpretations, and the transcripts were revisited to expose any discrepancies in my interpretations, whether meaningful aspects had been omitted, or the meaning exaggerated to confirm or amend earlier interpretations and provide transparency about how methodological decisions were made (Feldman 1995; Håkanson & Öhlén 2016; Kamler & Thomson 2006). At times, alternative interpretations were included in the thesis recognising that a complex and profoundly personal research topic may have multiple valid meanings between individuals and the three participant groups.