CONCLUSIONES Y DISCUSIÓN

The methodological framework for this research study is interpretative phenomenology (IP). It is concerned with exploring and describing how a specific group of people within a given social context make sense or bring essence to a phenomenon they experience on a quotidian basis (Creswell, 2013; Smith & Osborn, 2007). This methodology strengthens CRT’s counter-

storytelling, because the former, according to Lester (1999), also centralises individual stories to challenge dominant, often inaccurate, assumptions within society. An interpretative researcher is mostly concerned about the meaning individuals attach to specific events or phenomenon. The interpretative phenomenological researcher views the human being in an optimistic manner by emphasising our “self-interpreting” abilities (Taylor as cited in Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2012). This implies that human beings are not merely puppets to an objective world. Rather, we are

continuously making sense of the happenings that occur in our lived realities. Interpretative phenomenology has its philosophical roots in phenomenology, hermeneutics, and an idiographic inquiry. These three components are outlined below.

Phenomenology. Edmund Husserl first pioneered the method of phenomenology (Finlay, 2011). Husserl’s phenomenology focused on exploring and understanding the pure essence or components of what makes a phenomenon and how individuals experience it. He was unconcerned about the interpretations of experiences, and rather sought out a purely descriptive, essentially undistorted and detached, phenomenology where individuals could freely articulate the structures of their experiences as they played out (Dahlberg, Drew, & Nystrom, 2008; Tufford & Newman, 2010). For instance, participants talking about incidents of racism, through this descriptive phenomenology method, are only intended to describe the experience, as it unravelled, without reflecting on why they believe that the incident occurred. In turn, researchers are expected to simply describe, verbatim, the participants’ descriptions about the given experience to comprehend the true essence of the phenomenon (Davis, 1995). Husserl believed that it was possible for researchers to attain a purely descriptive phenomenology by bracketing or quarantining all previous judgments and interpretations about the subject matter so that the true essence of an experience can be identified (Finlay, 2011; Luft, 2002; Sherman, 1987; Sokolowski, 1999). This technique is useful

21 for researchers as it enables them to be more curious and open towards the phenomenon of interest and not to act too quickly or automatically interpret it based on prior judgments (Finlay, 2008). However, a criticism of this technique is that Husserl assumed that, for a better understanding of the essence of things, researchers should remain impartial or isolated from their participants and from their own prior experiences as to not taint the research process (LeVasseur, 2003). He believed that it was possible to study other peoples’ experiences without using one’s own experiences to

understand them. There is great benefit in remaining impartial during research such as permitting the participants’ to be experts in their own narratives so that the final research project solely reflects their knowledge about the topic at hand rather than the researchers own biased interpretation of it. However, Dahlberg and colleagues (2008) have emphasised that it is incredibly unrealistic for phenomenological researchers to remain completely impartial during the research process, because it is important for researchers to place themselves in the participants’ shoes so that they can

understand these subjective experiences. They presented the technique of bridling or “holding back the influence of preunderstanding in order to slow down the process of understanding in a way that allows the phenomenon to be visible” as an alternative to bracketing (Gustin, 2017, p. 3). Bridling offers researchers a means to avoid imparting their prior judgements on the current research by explicitly acknowledging their biases and by being reflective of such influences throughout the research process (Dahlberg et al., 2008). More importantly, bridling permits researchers an opportunity to adopt an open mind-set about the phenomenon as it presents itself while allowing them to engage in a disciplined dialogue with their participants about the research topic, so interpretation occurs at a much slower rate (Dahlberg et al., 2008; Gustin, 2017).

Thus, to conclude this discussion, the descriptive phenomenological aspect of this IP study, attempted to attain a descriptive perception of SOC’s experiences with hidden racism at

Stellenbosch University. This resulted in ‘bridling’ instead of ‘bracketing’ my own prejudgments about the phenomenon so that it could express itself organically. This technique resonated with this research project, because I, as a SOC at Stellenbosch University, harbour certain biases about the experience of hidden racism as I have encountered such incidents while studying and living in Stellenbosch. Therefore, the process of bridling proved efficient as it alerted me to the role my own experiences could play in potentially polluting the data. In doing so, it offered a critically reflective space whereby I was able to question my own pre-judgements about hidden racism in a manner that allowed me to be open to the possibility of hearing a commonality of descriptions, and unexpected narratives. A section on my reflexivity as the researcher is presented later in this chapter.

Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the philosophy of interpretation and it seeks to go beyond the understanding of mere descriptive phenomenon by focusing on the “meanings embedded in

22 common life practices” (Lopez & Willis, 2004, p. 728). Thus, it is a deeper exploration of the meanings people attach to certain experiences in the world as well as looking at those seemingly innocuous experiences, which are packed with symbolism, but are often glossed over as

unimportant. Heidegger, who developed this theory, advanced the philosophy of hermeneutics by focusing on the way human beings are immersed in the world or the nature of being-in-the-world which he termed Dasein (Finlay, 2011). The idea of Dasein acknowledges that humans cannot be separated from the world in which they inhabit, because we are always interacting or participating in this world. We are so immersed in the world that Heidegger believed our subjective experiences could not be understood in isolation from the social or cultural context as these elements are “inextricably linked " (Lopez & Willis, 2004, p. 729). Thus, to understand one’s ‘being-in-the- world’, IP researchers are subjected to understand the context of these experiences.

This argument holds a lot of merit because, for instance, it is arguably impossible to understand the experience of hidden racism, which SOC encounter, without situating these

experiences within South Africa’s prejudiced history and the role Stellenbosch University played in perpetuating racialised rhetoric. It is common knowledge that some of the most prominent apartheid leaders, such as Hendrik Verwoerd and DF Malan, who promoted exclusivity and the oppression of Black bodies were taught at the University. The University’s cultural ethos is still predominately conservative Afrikaans, which presents significant problems for individuals who do not fit or accept this identity. Thus, Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology is about “interpreting and describing human experiences” by keeping in mind the context within which these experiences are embedded as this is important for researchers to understand the interpretations given about the phenomenon being investigated (Reiners, 2012, p. 3).

Hermeneutic phenomenology requires the IP researcher to immerse herself in the shoes of their participants to fully grasp what it must be like for them to encounter the phenomenon of interest (Freeman, 2008; Wertz, 2005). This perspective-taking attitude was continuously adopted during the data and analysis process. Smith and Osborn (2007) assert that a “double hermeneutic” process occurs during IP research as follow: as the participants are trying to interpret their messy lived experiences, the researcher also takes an active role by formulating their own interpretations about the participants’ experiences. The final write-up will be based on the researcher’s own perspective and those of the participants, but it is always anchored on the lived experiences of the participants. As such, the research space is dynamic and demands equal collaboration from both parties to develop a rich and comprehensive insight into the topic of investigation.

Idiographic inquiry. IP’s final theoretical stance is orientated towards an idiographic inquiry that focuses on an in-depth examination of individual cases and subjective responses

23 regarding the phenomena of interest as opposed to nomothetic modes of inquiry, which is more interested in studying groups or population for probability analysis (Smith & Osborn, 2007). This means that each individual participant, in an idiographic approach, is treated uniquely and thus the researchers can make certain statements about their participants, because they have had detailed access to these individual cases. Pietkiewicz and Smith (2012) state that idiographic researchers will proceed to develop a detailed analysis of every single case to find particular accounts in these narratives and then compare cases to find shared or uncommon experiences.

In summary, the IP method combines the theoretical roots of phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiographic inquiry to inform its methodology that focuses on individual in-depth description and interpretation of lived experiences. This was well suited for this study as the main objective was concerned with exploring both the essence of hidden racism, as well as the meanings individual SOC attach to these experiences. That is, participants are freely able to describe their experiences without disruption while simultaneously, interpreting these realities for themselves. The researcher also engages in an interpretive process to make sense of the participants’ overall racialised

experiences.