Questions related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
As part of my PhD research, I am investigating the culture and ethos of a particular group whilst also focusing on how lived experience and the backgrounds of my participants' influence their interpretations of the world and particular objects.
Initially, I was thinking of using Hermeneutic phenomenology as my theoretical perspective and ethnography as my methodology. However, given the nature of my research questions, methods that align more with phenomenology will be required to unearth lived experience.
I have found a few articles within the nursing discipline that use methods that align with both methodologies (phenomenology and ethnography), and then triangulate the data using both perspectives.
I would like to hear from others who have perhaps used a dual methodological approach or the views from others who believe the use of hermeneutic phenomenology and ethnography are a suitable/unsuitable combination in a singular piece of research.
I've been reading a paper and they have used Colaizzi's method and chosen methodology is interpretive phenomenology. I've only seen Colaizzi's method used with descriptive phenomenology. Does anyone know if any papers that use Colazzi's method with interpretive/hermeneutic phenomenology?
I am wondering what is the nature of Heideggerian phenomenology? Husserl as I have read is seeking to arrive at pure knowledge (beyond doubt) through directed conscious experience - a priori science. But I am not sure about Heideggerian phenomenology. Since it interprets the world through one's situatedness in it, can we say that it is posteriori?
I am currently working on my dissertation and using NVivo to analyze my data. I started line by line hand coding and decided it was going to take too long, so I started using NVivo. I am going through transcripts and coding line by line (creating a node for each line as applicable). I've been searching for resources on using NVivo for Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenological analysis, but really haven't found much that is helpful. Any information would be greatly appreciated!
My dissertation is using a Gadamerian hermeneutic phenomenological approach. My University requires a theoretical basis for my study and I have chosen the Theory of Planned Behavior. Therefore, I will have a priori themes. I plan to pilot my interview questions, to assess content validity, with a panel of experts on the topic of my dissertation. However, I don't believe I should just "wing it" and make up my own interview questions that aren't research based. I cannot find any literature describing how to create the interview questions. Thanks for any advice available.
I'm doing a proposal on THE EXPERIENCES OF ASSESSMENT AND COMPULSORY DETENTION UNDER THE MHA 1983/2007 FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SOCIAL WORKERS", I am a little stuck .. can someone tell me the difference between "Hermeneutical phenomenological (HP) analysis" and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)"? AM I right to say that that HM is more of an approach and IPA is the actual analysis? I need to clarify what I will be using in the methodology and I am currently stuck. Any help would be much appreciated
I'm doing a study of the experience of resiliency in an immigrant community. I place it somewhere between narrative inquiry and interpretative phenomenology (IP). Most of the IP studies I am finding are quite dated. I found some good method sources, but looking for actual examples . They may not be purely IP, narrative inquiry works too, as long as it's interpretative. Thanks in advance!
Hi all I am really stuck with regards to my methodology (suicide research)
I am unclear on what the distinct differences are between Hermenenutic Phenomenology methodology and Narrative methodology as both seem to draw on the lived experiences of participants and both use themes to code and analyse the interview data which is exactly what I am looking for - any help/tips would be greatly appreciated!
thanks in advance
My thesis explores residential care for older people in a country other than my own western country. I am drawn to pragmatism because I will be asking 'what' and 'how' questions and it is notable that Indian dialectical philosophy; the Sanskrit concept of anekàntavada corresponds with western dialectical pragmatism in that both views hold there is no singular reality (ekànta) (Schang, 2010).
This far, the majority of my reading links pragmatism to mixed methods designs (qual/quant). Is there a reason why this paradigm is not linked with qualitative designs?
Pragmatic researchers ask ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions by selecting a variety of data collection methods which are capable of answering different research questions (Creswell, 2014, Murphy et al, 1990). For them, situations nor indeed entities cannot be divorced from context which means that investigations and explorations are embedded within the socio-economic-political and historical contexts (Ball, 1979, Creswell, 2014). For pragmatists, ‘truth’ is a relativistic concept which changes unpredictably from place to place and time to time, dependent on ‘the situation, the context, the issue…’ (Johnson & Gray, 2015). Although pragmatists are not constrained by singular paradigms, the epistemological and ontological inferences within pragmatism imply that deliberate actions have consequences which create situations (Cherryholmes, 1994, Creswell, 2011, 2014). Being unencumbered by abstract thought on the nature of ‘reality’ a pragmatist researcher looks to examine what is really going on within social processes of the concrete world and offers readers ‘descriptions, theories, explanations and narratives’ (Cherryholmes, 1992:13).
Hi everyone. I'm currently doing a MA thesis and one of the questions which came up meanwhile is the difference between ontology and epistemology. Now, I assume to know the difference: ontology studies "what there is", epistemology "how we know things", crudely. In my thesis, a question I address is whether philosopher X "goes beyond the epistemological (in this case, linguistic) turn". Meaning, whether he manages to refocus (his) philosophy on ontology instead of on epistemology, as many philosophers of language have done.
My question then is this: is it possible at all to engage in ontological philosophy while not focusing (as much) on epistemology? Are ontological questions not questions about "knowing what there is", hence about a certain kind of knowledge, and hence influenced by epistemology, the way we would indeed know such things?
The way I look at it, a focus on ontology could be possible perhaps insofar as it is a priori - which, surely, all ontological research should be, or am I wrong there? A priori research, e.g. logical deductions, could give us ideas about what things there are, without empirical research. Sure, this is also a kind of 'knowing things', but a quite different kind.
Now, this distinction comes across as a bit vague, I'm sure, and hence, I would like to hear input from you guys. Most specifically, on these questions: is ontological philosophy not always influenced strongly by epistemology? + Is it more or less fair to say that ontological 'research' (in the philosophical sense) should be a priori - if it is a posteriori / empirical, could it still be ontological, does it not become a research into 'secondary' qualities, not being-as-being?
I am using hermeneutic phenomenology to explore midwives experiences of medicine management within the midwifery setting. I have read a vast amount of literature in relation to the different perspectives of phenomenology the data analysis techniques for HP appear confusing. I am currently exploring thematic analysis, IPA and Max van Manen, any other suggestions would be much appreciated.
Thank you Debbee
I'm looking for introductory remarks on this idea, as well as reflections on it's implications for the theory and practice of existential psychotherapy.
I would appreciate any information anyone may provide to understand the distinction between Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.
In the modern age, hermeneutics is characterized by a progressive transformation, using the new concept of language by philosophers such as Herder, Hamann, Humboldt, concepts that will prepare the ground for the establishment of an autonomous formulation of philosophical hermeneutics by the German philosopher and theologian Schleiermacher.
In the transition between the modern and contemporary times hermeneutics sees the assertion of its philosophical autonomy, distinguishing both from the exegetical, philological and legal one, and from a "universal hermeneutics" tied to a conception still "technical". It is on this strategy that still moves the work of Friedrich Meier, philosopher and esthete who defines hermeneutics a "science of the rules by which the meanings may be known by their marks," or "the science of the rules that must be followed in the interpretation of all or at least most kinds of signs. "
With Meier there are still trying to process an universal hermeneutics based on the technical rules of interpretation, position that will be overcome when hermeneutics will assume a role decidedly philosophical. This will be done in two significant milestones: the first due to Schleiermacher and his conception of hermeneutics as "the art of linguistic understanding"; the second due to the influence of Heidegger and his conception of hermeneutics as "phenomenology of existential understanding". In turn, the hermeneutics of Schleiermacher could form on its own, observing only two philosophical premises, which arose earlier and outside of hermeneutical philosophy: the new concept of "history" and the new concept of "language".
It was Schleiermacher to realize the limits of an hermeneutics understood only as " philological methodology " against the universal problem of interpretation, taking care to elaborate a general hermeneutics based on a foundation not only philological or technical but above all linguistic and philosophical.
To Schleiermacher some basic central hermeneutics must be recognized, first of all that of the "hermeneutical circle." The hermeneutical circle indicates the circular motion that in the interpretation of any text, literary, philosophical, religious, links the understanding of the totality of the text to the understanding of its parts, and in turn influences the understanding of the individual parts to that of the whole text. Schleiermacher established also a second hermeneutical norm: the principle of intuition, with which indicates that beyond external rules and methodological canons, hermeneutics is characterized as a process of identification with the inner life of the author.
The philosophical problems that have characterized the post-Kantian thought, and in particular the conflicts between scientific explanation and hermeneutic understanding (Dilthey), and then between logic and history, nature and spirit, were the basis of the great philosophical debates of the second half of the twentieth century, which saw opposing respectively structuralism and existentialism, positivism and dialectic, Marxism and phenomenology, and then they made the background of the debate between epistemology and hermeneutics.
Varela's neurophenomenology aims to marry modern cognitive science with Husserlian methods of phenomenological investigation. What is Varela's take on issues pertaining to the 'ego' or even the 'transcendental ego'? Is there any extended text addressing this issue? Could you please, if possible, provide details of these relevant texts?
I am interested in thoughts and publications about any kind of similarities or relation between rhythm, structure, hierarchies in nature and in narration in audio-visual art work. Is there any similarity, does narration adapt processes we do know out of nature, we have experienced by living in specific environment influencing our way of story telling? Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledge and ideas with me.
I am currently a post-grad student who is contemplating on using either a grounded theory or interpretative phenomenological analysis in my study. However, I keep on hearing from others who have done the process about the importance of the choice of philosophy right at the beginning. I have read about the 3 schools of philosophy in phenomenology (and would probably read more) but I was hoping if other experienced researchers would be able to help me by providing practical examples of its implication. I have a rough idea of how it would translate but it would be reassuring to hear other people's opinion and experience. Thank you.
I have a total of 5 interviews with migrant Pakistani Muslim women - 2 of the women were diagnosed with postnatal depression (PND) and 3 of them were not diagnosed, but subjectively felt that they were experiencing PND in the postnatal period.
I was originally going to use the diagnosed participants as pilot interviews and not include them within the research analysis. However having spoken with my professor, I thought about changing my research slightly and doing a comparative IPA study, which involves comparing the findings of diagnosed and non-diagnosed women and seeing what themes are generated in these 2 groups of women.
Before I commit to this change I thought it wise to do background research and find out if this kind of research has ever been done using IPA. I have done my own search but am struggling to find anything. Ideally if you know of research like this being done in Maternal psychological health that would be ideal, as it would be specific to my topic area then. However, even if there is this kind of research done in any topic using IPA, then that will be fine too.
Any advice or papers that you know of would be highly appreciated.
Husserl makes it quite clear that phenomenology is not metaphysics, and as such Husserl only tends to the structures that idealism provides, and the incorporation of real experience into said structures that could lead us towards a transcendental intersubjectivity. Husserl's phenomenological reduction allows existence to be whatever it may be, and it would not change the structures of such consciousness. So Heidegger's metaphysical tendencies makes his criticism completely irrelevant since it comments on Husserl's science as though it were a philosophy, when pure phenomenology is designed and intended not to be a philosophy, but rather the science of philosophy which is a world of difference. Or did I get this all wrong?
I see Gadamer's philosophy in Truth and Method as radar.
An event happens we get certain signals. Based on these signals we send out a response (our response is heavily laden with language that plays us). This response hits the event and we get returned feedback. We recalculate and send back another response, this time we get a slightly nuanced feedback. We repeat this "dialogue" and eventually we get a sense of the form of this "thing".
The next time an event "like this" happens, based on the historicity of our being we know to engage it such manner. Yet, this case shows something different of the "thing" and so our knowledge of the thing grows yet is always revealing previously hidden realms.
Am I way off here?