Ricouer (1981) supports the suggestion by Gadamer (1975/1989) that written interpretations of experience are constructions between the participant, the researcher and the reader and affected by temporality. Ricouer (1981) expands this idea further by suggesting that the written word takes on a meaning of its own because it enters an additional relationship with other texts so the meaning of a text can be more important than the meaning intended by the author. This implies that
uncovering the world of the author as well as uncovering the world of the participant becomes increasingly difficult when presented in written texts. In an attempt to resolve this difficulty Ricoeur (1981) proposes that all human action is viewed as text, as this is the only way it can be clearly examined and understood. So Ricoeur (1981) is suggesting reclassifying action as text to gain a better understanding of meaning and interpretation of action. Therefore the outputs of a
55 phenomenological study become textual representations of action and experience which can be explored within the context of those who constructed them. Hence the outputs of this study are textual representations of the experiences of the participants and are explored within the contextual frame of reference of my experience as a nurse lecturer as set out in the introduction of this study. When analysing text Ricoeur (1981) suggests we continually struggle against our cultural and historical distance. To resolve this Ricoeur (1981) proposes we try to gain an understanding of the proposed world by fusing our horizons with those of the participant as suggested by Gadamer (1975/1989). Unlike Gadamer (1975/1989) however, Ricouer (1981) suggests we cannot capture meaning at face value but need to view experience reported to us by others with a degree of empathy and suspicion. Ricouer (1981) states two mind-sets are required for understanding text with empathy and suspicion. These are demythologizing and demystifying. Demythologizing is a process of empathic engagement where we seek to identify meaning through a fusion of horizons as suggested by Gadamer (1975/1989). To do this we bring our way of seeing the world into play with the inherent text. Demystifying, in contrast to demythologizing, is where we seek to identify
meaning hidden beneath the surface. This may involve considering what was implied as well as what was said or may necessitate considering the motives behind the statement. By combining these approaches, interpretations of meaning can remain empathic to the participant while at the same time reflecting the critical perspectives of the researcher. The analytical approach I have taken in this study therefore seeks to employ both the demythologizing and demystifying processes in
interpreting the experiences of the learners. As a nurse who has studied at post-registration level I have an empathy with the participants which facilitates the first step in fusing horizons but my role as lecturer and researcher facilitates a more critical stance through a wish to understand how learning is experienced by nurse learners and a desire to seek to improve it. Thus work produced using hermeneutical phenomenology can be both representative and critical of experience. It is my intention to reflect this empathic criticality within my findings.
56 Ricouer (1981) also offers a note of caution for researchers with suspicious mind-sets engaging in demystifying approaches to analysis. Ricouer (1981) states that suspicion can cause the researcher to impose his view onto the text. This error, which Ricoeur (1981) referred to as illusions of the subject, can ultimately result in the researcher’s view dominating the work. This error needs to be avoided in hermeneutical phenomenological research because it is seeking to provide a constructed representation of the experience of the participant which reflects the worlds of both the participant and the researcher. The method of correcting this error, according to Ricoeur (1981), is for the researcher to focus the hermeneutic critique on themselves in addition to the object of the study. This self-reflective/self analytical approach is known as the hermeneutic critique and its adoption moves hermeneutical phenomenology forward into the realms of self-development and heuristics. Adopting the hermeneutic critique moves on from the original ideas on the subject/object
relationship proposed by Husserl, as phenomenology becomes concerned with the experience of both the object and the subject and the intersubjectivity between them. Thus it would appear the notion of introspective reflection originally suggested by Husserl has evolved into a process of self- reflection and critical awareness aimed at illuminating the ideological position of the researcher in relation to the subject of exploration. As Max Van Manen (1990, p. 45) states it is important for phenomenological researchers to consider: “not what can we do with phenomenology but ask what it can do with us.” As the position of the researcher is an important element of this study I have used contemplative reflection in the form of epoché and a reflective diary as analytical tools to monitor the relationship between myself as the researcher, the views of the participants and the
construction of the text.
The process by which data are analysed and representations constructed are of considerable importance in hermeneutical phenomenology. A specific approach for addressing these issues, based on the ideas of Gadamer (1975/1989) and Ricoeur (1981) has been proposed by Smith and Osborn (2003). This approach is called Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and is the methodological approach I adopted for this study.
57