3.7.1 Introduction to phenomenology
Phenomenology means, when taken literally, ‘the study or description of phenomena’, where phenomena is taken to mean ‘anything that appears or presents itself to someone.’ Phenomenology then ‘involves the description of things as one experiences them’ (Hammond, Howarth and Keat, 1991 pp. 1). Put simply, one could ask the question ‘What is this or that kind of experience like?’ (Van Manen, 1990, p9).
Different perspectives of phenomenology have evolved over time and, depending on your philosophical assumptions, phenomenology could be located in a number of different paradigms; positivist (Husserl), post-postitivist (Merleau-Ponty), interpretivist (Heidegger), and constructivist (Gadamer) (Racher and Robinson, 2003). Creswell argues that because phenomenology involves subjective experiences of a phenomenon and objective experiences of commonality with others then there is a refusal of the subjective-objective dichotomy. Phenomenology therefore lies somewhere on a continuum between
qualitative and quantitative research. Some forms take a more positivistic approach, for example descriptive, empirical or transcendental phenomenology as described by Hussurl and practiced by Giorgi. Other forms of phenomenology are more interpretivist in nature such as that as described by Heidrgger and Gadamer and practiced by van Manen (Creswell, 2013).
Phenomenology is not only a research method used by qualitative researchers but also a perspective and I’ll outline the development of phenomenology as a philosophy and a methodological research approach below.
3.7.2 The Development of Phenomenology
Although first used by the philosophers Kant and Hegal in the 18th century, it was Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) who first developed the school of phenomenology. Husserl was influenced by Brentano who first used the phrase ‘descriptive phenomenology’. This led Husserl to argue that phenomenology is a rigorous study of things as they appear in order to understand human experiences and consciousness. Husserl argues that individual experiences should be described ‘pre-reflectively’ without interpretation, or in other words what is immediate in our consciousness before we have thought about it (Dowling, 2007). Husserl believed that phenomenology is a return to principles of Ancient Greek philosophy founded on the search for wisdom, true knowledge and understanding on the cosmos and man’s place in it (Stewart and Mickunas, 1974). This is in contrast to the attempt at the end of the 19th century to restrict the scope of philosophy to empirical studies due to the success of the natural sciences in explaining the physical world, a term that phenomenologists referred to as “scientism”. Husserl suggests that phenomenology should be a philosophy without presuppositions; that you should suspend judgments about what is real until the investigation is over; a term Husserl called “epoche”. Following Husserl’s approach the phenomenologist would take an objective, unprejudiced approach, describing the phenomenon without interpretation; this places Husserl’s form of phenomenology more towards the positivistic end of a positivistic/interpretivist continuum. Amadeo Giorgi is a contemporary advocate of Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology, using research methods that advocate pure descriptions of the lived experiences of people without
interpretation. This approach encourages researchers to ‘bracket’ or ‘epoche’ their own assumptions of the phenomenon being investigated in order to focus purely on the descriptions of the participants without any interpretation or meaning making by the researcher (Van Manen, 2011). A term associated with phenomenology is ‘intentionality.’ The idea here is that every conscious thing we do or experience is intentional and directed towards an object of some kind (Moran and Sokolowski, 2000), and that the reality of an object is actually related to our own consciousness of it. Husserl would classify reality then, not as divided into subjects and objects but as both subjects and objects as they appear in our consciousness. Following on from this Husserl also rejects the subject-object dichotomy, instead suggesting that ‘the reality of an object is only perceived within the meaning of the experiences of an individual’ (Creswell, 2013, p78). Merleu-Ponty built on the work of Husserl taking a post-positivistic approach advocating phenomenology as a way of rediscovering our first experiences, and helping us view them in a new light; that is as a pre-reflective experience (Moran and Sokolowski, 2000). He engaged extensively with the sciences and descriptive psychology but argued that the objective and subjective are inseparable. He believed that the essence of a phenomenon is reality, but that essence cannot be fully known. He held many of the perspectives of Husserl but without separating out consciousness from the world (Racher and Robinson, 2003).
Martin Heidegger, however, advocates the use of hermeneutic phenomenology arguing that the lived experience should be interpreted by the researcher (Racher and Robinson, 2003). This approach sits within an interpretative paradigm and involves the researcher being open, empathic and curious to what is being described by the participants, whilst also being reflexive and mindful of one’s own position (Finlay, 2014). Heidegger’s view is that the phenomenon should be understood rather than just be described and that in order to find understanding of meaning one must interpret. In the interpretivist paradigm the investigation is on human experience, subjectivity and multiple possible truths (Racher and Robinson, 2003).
Gadamer, (1976) builds on the work of Heidegger by taking a constructivist approach to phenomenological philosophy. He advocates that one should
situate the meaning of others in relation to our own meanings. In other words, understanding is constructed by the researcher from their interpretation of the descriptions of others, and placed in the context of their own personal experiences and involvement of being in that world themselves (Spence, 2001). Gadamerian phenomenology is more dialogical and requires further feedback and discussion between research and study participants (Dowling, 2007). 3.7.3 Phenomenology as a methodological approach
The Dusquesne School of Psychology at Pittsburgh University are credited with developing research methodologies for existential-phenomenological research that follow a more positivist Husserlian approach of description, reduction and search for meanings that are transformed into a general description of experience (Polkingholm, 1989). Bracketing is a fundamental strategy in transcendental phenomenology; however, in research studies, it is common for researchers to describe their own experiences with the phenomenon and bracket out their own views prior to describing the experiences of the research participants. The research data, as advocated at Dusquesne, is then reduced to significant statements, quotes and themes. This is followed by a textual description of what the participants experienced, a structural description of how they experienced it, and finally a combination summary to convey the essence of the experience (Moustakas, 1994).
Hermeneutical phenomenological research methods seek to understand the individual’s subjective experiences as they engage with the phenomenon rather than the objective reality of the phenomenon itself. Van Manen describes hermeneutical phenomenological research as being both descriptive and interpretative, arguing that phenomena have to be interpreted and that a lived experience must be explained in such a way that it involves an interpretative process (Finlay, 2014). When planning a research project, van Manen (1990, pp. 163) suggests researchers identify the phenomenon as ‘the object of human experience to be studied’. In doing so, he argues that it isn’t really possible to explain human behaviour in the same way as when studying the natural sciences. Interpretative phenomenology is always retrospective requiring reflection on past experiences (Van Manen, 1990). Research subjects therefore
need to have already experienced the phenomenon under investigation, and be able to recount and reflect on the experiences they have had. In hermeneutical phenomenological research methods the research makes an interpretation of the meaning of the lived experiences (Van Manen, 1990). Van Manen doesn’t subscribe to the need for the researcher to bracket themselves from the research completely; however, there needs to be an openness and sensitivity and being aware of our own bias.
Dilthey and Rickman, (1976) argue that we can explain nature but human life we must understand. Van Manen argues that natural sciences are studied through observation, experiment and quantitative measurement, whilst studies of human understanding involves description, interpretation and reflection (van Manen, 1990). I wanted to take an interpretivist approach to my research so did not merely want to describe the experiences of others. I choose to interpret their experiences alongside my own, and that of other published work, to construct meaning and understanding in a reflexive manner. For my research, this meant that I explained my own background that led up to the research in chapter 1. As I interviewed participants who had experienced the phenomenon I wanted to explore their personal experiences, interpreting their answers as I did so, and to probe deeper as necessary. I then constructed a narrative that included my interpretation of these experiences, placing the findings in the context of my own experiences and that of others from the literature, while ensuring that I represent the participants’ voices bringing in my own voice in a reflexive way.