Rasgos conformacionales

Phenomenology is rooted in philosophy and focuses on the ‘lived experience’ (Sokolowski 2000; Burns and Grove 2005). Derived from the Greek words phainomenon and logos; it means literally “an account of what appears” (Lewis and Staehler 2010: p7). Phenomenology was developed to describe human experiences without looking at causality and as a way of resolving conflict between natural and human sciences (Jones 2002; Burns and Grove 2005). The ‘lived experience’ refers to experiences that portray the immediate pre- reflective consciousness one has about an experience (Kleiman 2004). Phenomenology demands that those involved in the experience reflect and describe the experience as it appears in their consciousness (Jones 2002).

Philosophically, the individual is seen as an integral part of the environment, with both the individual and the world having a fundamental and reciprocal role in how each is shaped (Burns and Grove 2005). Central to phenomenology is the tenet that there is no one reality - every individual has a unique perspective of reality – things are as they appear (Burns and Grove 2005; Streubert and Carpenter 2011). Phenomenology acknowledges the difference between appearance and essence (Van Manen 1990) and opposes the positivist view that reality and human perspective is separate (Holloway and Wheeler 2010).

As an inquiry method, phenomenology examines everyday experiences in order to understand the nature of that phenomenon. It provides opportunity to study and characterise details of an experience from the consciousness of those who lived through it (Polit and Beck 2008; Streubert and Carpenter 2011).

There is significant focus on the study of consciousness because it is only through consciousness that humans are able to connect to the world. Everything that humans know is directed towards consciousness and without consciousness there is no awareness (Van Manen 1990; Moran 2000). The nature of the phenomenon is a reflection of the nature of the person as a human being within the phenomenon as they live through and try to make sense of it. In so doing, that which is often overlooked as irrelevant is made visible and can show, through the personal reflections of the individuals, how these experiences influenced behaviour (Holloway and Wheeler 2010; Lewis and Staelher 2010).

The philosopher Franz Brentano (1838-1917) laid the foundations to this branch of philosophy, however, the term ‘phenomenology’ was used by Kant (1724 – 1804) in the context of how things appear to us (Moran 2000). Edmund Husserl (1859-1938) however is credited as the founder of phenomenology (Moran 2000; Sokolowski 2000). Other major proponents are Martin Heidegger (1889- 1976); Hans-Georg Gadamer (1900-2002); and Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1907- 1960). Three main schools exist: Transcendental, Hermeneutic and Existential.

Transcendental

Husserl, a major proponent of the German phase founded the transcendental movement, often referred to as ‘descriptive’. Transcendental phenomenology aimed to gather first hand knowledge of phenomena in order to describe experiences (Dowling 2004). Husserl a mathematician and positivist believed hard facts alone were insufficient to allow understanding. He developed phenomenology as a means of addressing the shortfall of positivism (Burns and Grove 2005). He proffered it was not possible to explain experiences by testing causality; they should be examined for their own merit. In order for a phenomenon to have occurred it needed to be described by those who experienced it. He opined that if no one was there to experience and describe the phenomena, it failed to exist (Burns and Grove 2005).

Three notions form the basis of Husserl’s approach. The first, intentionality is the core doctrine of phenomenology (Koch 1999). Described as ‘a ‘consciousness of’ or an ‘experience of’ something or another’ (Sokolowski 2000: 8), intentionality is a way of describing how in consciousness the mind directs its thoughts to an object, helping the human to connect to and become part of the world (Van Manen 1990; Jones 2002). For example, one cannot see without seeing something, even if that ‘something’ is an image in the mind, the consciousness has awareness of it (Koch 1999; Sokolowski 2000). Intentionality in the phenomenological sense is the conscious relationship individuals have to something (Sokolowski 2000). If a long distance runner was asked “what is it like to run a marathon?” they would need to focus their consciousness back to the thing itself - to the actual experience of running the marathon - in order to describe the nature of that experience (Lewis and Staehler 2010).

‘Essence’ refers to the true meaning of an experience, a common theme, uncovered in the accounts of participants (Van Manen 1990). For example: perceptions, emotions or judgements recounted by participants (Moran 2000). ‘Phenomenological reduction’ also referred to as ‘epoché’ or ‘bracketing’ emerged as a result of the objective approach of Husserl, who believed that in order to effectively describe the phenomena under study the researcher had to hold [bracket] all previous experiences, personal beliefs or preconceptions about the subject in abeyance in order to create distance. The researcher could then take a more naïve approach and avoid interference with interpretation of the data (Wall et al., 2004; Holloway and Wheeler 2010; Lewis and Staehler 2010).

In the true phenomenological sense of bracketing the researcher is required to transcend all interpretation and bias in order to reveal the true essence of the experience (Beech 1999; Moran 2000;). With bracketing the researcher can look at phenomena as it occurred from a state of pre-reflection, from the minds of those who experienced the phenomenon, rather than as they [researchers] conceived it (Beech 1999).

To reiterate, I have over 15 years experience of simulation as a learner and a provider. In applying bracketing, I would have to set aside those experiences and any subsequent assumptions I may have as a result and see it as it is; from the perspective of one with no experience of it. This would be difficult to achieve.

Whilst the principles of intentionality and essence can be applied to all phenomenological approaches, phenomenological reduction is associated primarily with the transcendental approach and is criticised for being very difficult to do well and sometimes impossible to orchestrate (Van Manen 1990; Corben 1999; Grbich 2007). In response to this, Martin Heidegger, a pupil of Husserl advocated a more interpretative form of phenomenology.

Hermeneutic

Hermeneutic phenomenology opposed the concept of phenomenological reduction. Phenomenology is concerned with the study of people and of giving credence to the uniqueness of each person, which Heidegger recognised. He understood that factors such as past experience, education and psychosocial influences determined how individuals experience and interpret phenomena (Burns and Grove 2005; Lewis and Staehler 2010). He recognised that this tenet also applied to the researcher and that their past experiences contributed to the interpretive process by giving meaning to the findings (Moran 2000).

Gadamer (1976) a contemporary of Heidegger developed Heidegger’s main ideas further by recognising the importance of language, particularly ‘conversational speech’ in order to interpret and understand human experiences within the world. He believed language was a key element (Moran 2000) and that understanding was the central tenet, seeing the process of understanding as continuous and infinite. He also recognised that the background knowledge of the researcher played an integral part of the interpretive process of the research (Koch 1999).

The Hermeneutic approach acknowledges that human behaviour can really only be fully understood if both the behaviour and the thought processes behind the behaviour are examined in the context in which it took place (Parahoo 2006). Heidegger developed the notion of Being and Time. Being – ‘Dasein’ refers to the concept of human existence and is viewed as the most universal concept (Heidegger 1962). Heidegger was interested in examining human life and in so doing questioned the nature of Being and ‘temporality’; he saw all human existence as temporary, as taking place in time, between the past and the future and limited by death (Moran 2000).

He put forward the notion that a person is ‘situated’ as a result of being shaped by their world, by subjective life experiences, personalities, or emotions unique to them. Often people don’t notice their world until some experience impacts on their daily existence and Hermeneutics is a way of interpreting the human existence [Being] of an experience in context [Time] (Moran 2000).

Heidegger believed that because our lives are influenced by the past, we can, through the art of reflection, make sense of those events and use them constructively, to influence the future – to become aware of ‘possibilities’ (Jones 2002). This is known as ‘authenticity’ whilst an unwillingness or inability to self- awareness and reflection, a state known as ‘inauthenticity’ will lead to failure to recognise possibilities and therefore deny self growth (Jones 2002; Lewis and Staehler 2010;). This whole concept is a rejection of the Cartesian philosophy favoured by Husserl that believed the mind and reality were two separate entities and that everything had a cause and originated from God (Moran 2000).

Hermeneutics focuses on the subjective nature of an experience, taking Husserl’s concept of intentionality a step further. Heidegger criticised Husserl’s earlier interpretation, stating that it failed to take the person’s practical engagement with the experience into account. He argued that the nature of the experience was captured and revealed through the use of language and that the concept of Dasein was more relevant (Moran 2000).

Van Manen (1990:13) discussed the importance of language in phenomenological research referring to it as a ‘poetizing activity’ – reflecting on an original experience. He proffered phenomenology was a writing activity, with the researcher writing in order to convey authentic thought.

The thoughts of the researcher are of equal importance and a number of sources advise the researcher to keep a reflexive diary in order to acknowledge and record thoughts about experiences, the research process, personal assumptions and beliefs (Silverman 2005; Parahoo 2006; Grbich 2007). Parahoo (2006) in particular insists that this process, known as reflexivity, is continuous and although not an easy undertaking will help to ensure rigour and minimise the likelihood of previous experiences and preconceptions of the researcher adversely affecting the interpretative process. It is believed impossible to shut out past knowledge and experience, but acknowledging and reflecting on it can help sensitise the researcher to meanings which may otherwise be neglected and which may add depth to the findings. It can also add distance between the researcher and the participants if they share similar experiences (Todres and Wheeler 2001).

Existentialism

Heidegger’s influence helped shape a new school of phenomenological thought known as Existentialism, heralding the beginning of the French phase. Consciousness was not a separate entity but linked to human existence, or Being, as in Hermeneutics but the notion of ‘free choice’ was presented (Grbich 2007). It was postulated that people were morally free agents who created their own values and rules and accepted full responsibility for actions taken (Holloway and Wheeler 2010). This approach cast doubt on Husserl’s notion of essences and the part conscious awareness played in the lived experience, arguing that it was merely a process of intellectual re-enactment (Grbich 2007). One of the most influential proponents of this phase was Jean-Paul Sartre (1905 – 1980) who believed that people have an inseparable connection to their world. He was an atheist and as such rejected the notion of creationism.

Sartre offered the notion of contingency and cast off the view of any great plan for human existence, believing that we exist, events happen and that’s the sum of it. Life essentially is meaningless, unless man makes it such by his actions, which are driven by free will – what man becomes is not pre-ordained (Grbich 2007; Lewis and Staehler 2010). Sartre believed that the greatest challenge for mankind was to live authentically – to use self-awareness and reflection to shape future actions (Moran 2000).

Existentialism was not chosen for this study due to the complex underpinnings. Although Sartre rejected the notion of epoché [bracketing] he also believed that previous experiences should be left in the past and that there was always a choice, which man could use free will to make (Lewis and Staehler 2010). I found this notion to be similar to bracketing and was not confident that, as a novice researcher I had the skills to follow this approach.

The role of researcher in Phenomenology

Regardless of the approach taken, the researcher is the main data collection tool (Grbich 2007). Data collection methods are participative in nature, encompassing interviews, observation and documents such as diaries, poetry, personal histories and media materials (Denzin and Lincoln 2003). All are designed to meet the diverse needs of the participants and allow the researcher to explore the experiences of the participant in order to build up a picture of the lived experience. Communication and language are vital (Van Manen 1990) and the researcher must be able to build a trusting and relaxed relationship with the participants and not act as a detached observer.

In conclusion, a phenomenological approach can “document changes in feelings and experiences in depth and over time” (Grbich 2007, p85). It exposes multifarious human experiences and permits the researcher to explore what a specific phenomenon is like from the lived experience of those at the heart of the experience, using their own language and allowing meanings to be explored (Todres and Wheeler 2001).

The literature advised caution (Corben 1999; Paley 2004) as phenomenological researchers must give due diligence to issues such as: clarification of the specific school of phenomenology, in terms of philosophical underpinnings, in order to demonstrate understanding and avoid method slurring; posses clear understanding of the language and terms used; expertise of the researcher with regards to interviewing skills; and awareness of potential researcher bias and thus the importance of reflexivity (Corben 1999; Dowling 2004; Grbich 2007).