Instrucciones generales sobre medidas de protección colectivas

Phenomenologists are interested in the meaning and common features of a lived experience and seek to provide a detailed account of such. Comprehended through embodied experience or perception, meaning is created through the experience of moving through space and across time (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). With its roots in early twentieth century European philosophy, phenomenology is an approach that is widely used for investigating experiences within health research (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007; Pringle, Drummond, McLafferty & Hendry, 2011). It has also been described as a ‘powerful tool’ for human science (Mortari & Tarozzi, 2010:10). In contrast to positivism, phenomenology sees reality as both relative and subjective and attempts to examine how people think and interpret phenomena. It has a particular interest in the basics of social existence and stems from the philosophical concerns of ‘being- in-the-world’ (Heidegger, 1962) and an interest with the lived experience of human beings within ‘life-world’ (Husserl, 1970).

Husserl (1859-1938), the founding principal of phenomenological inquiry, first argued for experience to be examined in the way that it occurred and in its own

terms (Husserl, 1970; Laverty, 2003; Smith et al., 2009). In order to suspend

judgement or bias about a particular phenomenon and see it clearly, Husserl proposed we should ‘bracket out’ any past experiences or pre-suppositions about the nature of the phenomena (Husserl, 1970; Laverty, 2003; Osborne, 1994;

Pringle et al., 2011). He argued that ‘life-world’ is understood, ‘as what individuals experience pre-reflectively, without resorting to interpretations’ (Dowling, 2007:132). Therefore, it is experience as it is, before applying ways to understand it, explain it, or think about it (Crotty, 1998).

Within phenomenological literature, bracketing is suggested as a method which encompasses; pre-conceptions (Glaser, 1998, 2010), pre-suppositions (Crotty, 1998), beliefs and values (Beech, 1999), biases (Creswell & Miller, 2000), emotional sensitivity (Drew, 2004), assumptions (Charmaz, 2006), and thoughts and hypotheses (Starks & Brown Trinidad, 2007). Furthermore, within phenomenological research, ‘the implementation of bracketing can help mitigate any adverse effects of unacknowledged pre-conceptions related to the research; increase the study’s rigour; and protect the researcher from the cumulative effects of examining what may be emotionally challenging material’ (Tufford & Newman, 2010:81).

In contrast, Heidegger (1889-1976), who began his career as a student of Husserl’s, questioned Husserl’s philosophy and went on to distance himself from his approach. Through his major work Being and Time (1962), Heidegger questioned the possibility of knowledge outside of an interpretative stance (Smith et al., 2009). Heidegger’s hermeneutic phenomenology, like Husserl’s phenomenology, is concerned with human experience as it is lived. However, Heidegger challenged Husserl’s construction of phenomenology, as a purely descriptive philosophy (MacKey, 2005).

Heidegger referred to phenomenology, which seeks to uncover understanding of the meaning of ‘being’ as hermeneutic and designated it an interpretive, rather than descriptive process (Heidegger, 1962). The word hermenuetic, ‘derives from the Greek word hermeneuein which means to interpret or to understand’ (Crotty, 1998:88). Schleiermacher was one of the first to write systematically about hermeneutics theory of interpretation, as a generic form and offered a holistic view of the interpretative process (Smith et al., 2009). Hermenuetic inquiry has the

potential to uncover meanings or intentions that are hidden within the text (Crotty, 1998). Schleiermacher believed in order to understand the writer as well as the text, by engaging in detailed, comprehensive and holistic analysis, you could understand, ‘the utterer better than he understands himself’ (Schleiermacher, 1998:266). As such, interpreters may uncover explicit awareness of meanings and assumptions that the authors themselves fail to articulate (Crotty, 1998).

Heidegger introduced interpretation as both a concept and method of phenomenology (Heidegger, 1962). He believed there were many ways for a human to be-in-the-world but most significant was the awareness of one’s own ‘Being’ across time and space (Heidegger, 1962). Heidegger embarked on the phenomenology of human ‘Being’ or the state he named as ‘Dasein’ (Heidegger, 1962), which translated from German literally means ‘being there’ (da sein). Whilst Husserl’s primary concern was focused around psychological processes such as individual perception, awareness or consciousness; Heidegger was more concerned with existence itself, activities and relationships we experience, together with the lens through which the world appears to us and is made meaningful (Heidegger, 1962; Smith et al., 2009).

Heidegger’s student, hermeneutic theorist Gadamer, also believed modern science theories failed to generate understanding of human beings and their activities (Gadamer, 1989). Developing Heidegger’s work further, Gadamer (1975) believed that rather than distorting biases that hinder understanding, our pre-conceptions provide a necessary frame of reference from which our initial perspective on a given phenomenon can develop (Thompson, Pollio & Locander, 1994). Gadamer argued hermeneutical understanding is based on historical understanding that mediates past (tradition) and present (interpretation) (Crotty, 1998). He described this process as ‘a fusion of horizons’ (Crotty, 1998:101). Like Heidegger, Gadamer believed the horizon of the present cannot be formed independently of the past (Crotty, 1998) and advocated a return to humanistic tradition (Turner, 2003).

Phenomenological research typically uses interviews or extended conversations as the source of data (Rudestam & Newton, 2007). However, as phenomenologists are interested in the meaning and common features of a lived experience, major themes are identified and represented from the participant’s account, to provide a detailed description of the authentic experience (Denscombe, 2007). Although phenomenology has been criticised as lacking scientific rigor compared to other methodologies (Rawson, 1999; Denscombe, 2007), a study with a phenomenological oriented stance, provides rich, complex, detailed data and is suited to small scale research (Dallos & Vetere, 2005).

After consideration of all elements needed for undertaking human science research, a qualitative, phenomenological approach with its focus on understanding, meaning and experiences of participants, was deemed to be the most appropriate methodological fit to meet the aims of this research study. This approach recognises and values an individual’s perception on a subject, which reflects an important aspect of the therapeutic relationship in the researcher’s role as a therapist. This led to further consideration of the more recent methodology/method, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009).