Gadamer suggested that a systematic approach is required for phenomenological research but did not offer a methodology to guide researchers. In fact, he rejected the idea that applying rules could lead to better understanding (Gadamer 1996). van Manen, who is used extensively by those who undertake an hermeneutic approach, acknowledges the difficulties experienced by researchers. He accepts that phenomenological texts of interest to professional practitioners differ from other social science texts which engage in more theoretical and philosophical phenomenology. While phenomenological researchers in general use a variety of data sources such as poetry, art, literature and dialogue, in the health sciences, data are more usually obtained from interviews with those who may provide an insight to the phenomena of interest.
To analyse findings, van Manen (1990) maintains that phenomenological researchers require an approach which facilitates reflection and interpretation and ultimately leads to an understanding of the phenomenon of interest. He suggests the following steps; turning to the nature of the lived experience, investigating the experience as we live it and hermeneutic phenomenological reflection and phenomenological writing. Fleming et al (2003) noted that these steps are largely consistent with the work of Gadamer, but that there are some differences, such as in their consideration of the role and value of pre-understanding. For both, understanding implies an investigation into ones pre-understanding. van Manen suggested that this should be turned against itself to reveal its shallow or concealing character, whereas Gadamer has a more positive view. For him, the value of identifying and reflecting on one’s pre-understandings enables the researcher to enter the hermeneutic circle to engage
authentically with the nature of the inquiry. Pre-understanding is visited time and time again.
Although Gadamer stresses the importance of the dialogue over the written text, in qualitative research it is usual for interviews to be transcribed. In analysing these, the researcher must read texts while listening to the words in order to create a common understanding with the participant (Gadamer 1996). Text can include reflections on the interview and the observations of the researcher. Non-verbal expressions also influence understanding. Analysis of conversations should occur within the hermeneutic rule, moving from the whole to the part and back to the whole (Gadamer 1990).
Fleming et al’s (2003) method draws directly from Gadamer’s hermeneutic phenomenology. This consists of five stages; the first is to decide on the research question which must be consistent with a hermeneutic approach, i.e. to gain a deep understanding of a phenomenon of interest. This is followed by an exploration and identification of the researcher’s pre-understandings through reflection and confrontation with different belief systems. This process should enable the researcher to transcend their own horizon. Following this is the period of data collection whereby the researcher seeks to gain understanding through dialogue with participants. During this stage, researchers must remain open to the experiences of the other and it is through dialogue and language, using open conversation the researcher finds ways of developing a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of interest. A new understanding ultimately emerges through a fusion of horizons between the researcher and participant.
Analysis for both van Manen and Fleming involves examining interview texts to find an expression that reflects the fundamental meaning or understanding of the text as a whole. The starting point for this will influence the meaning of the whole and facilitate an understanding of every other part of the text. This first encounter with the text is influenced by a sense of anticipation, which has developed through the pre-understanding of the researcher. In the next phase every sentence or section is investigated to expose its meaning for understanding of the subject matter. This stage will facilitate the identification of themes, which in turn should lead to a rich and detailed understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. These themes
are then challenged by, and in turn, challenge the researcher’s pre-understandings. Every sentence or section of the text is then related to the meaning of the whole text and with it, the sense of the text as a whole is expanded. This is the significance of expansion of the unity of the understood sense (Gadamer 1990). Heidegger and Gadamer maintained that understanding is not possible without pre-understandings but for Gadamer, pre-understandings are repeatedly reflected upon so that a fusion of understanding can be achieved.
For Gadamer, the hermeneutic circle is only fully experienced by the movement forwards and backwards, with this comes an expanded understanding of the whole text, and the meaning of individual parts can widen. For Fleming, the final step involves the identification of passages that seem to be representative of the shared understandings between the researcher and participants. Such passages should give an insight into that aspect of the phenomenon being discussed.
Feedback to participants should then be provided and should precede further discussion in order to facilitate a shared understanding and complete the hermeneutic circle. The researcher, however, must take responsibility for the final interpretation (Fleming et al. 2003). The whole process could go on indefinitely as every understanding will change as time goes on. However, a decision normally based on time or resources will be taken on the number of times the cycle is repeated (Fleming et al 2003).