Science topic

Hermeneutic Phenomenology - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Hermeneutic Phenomenology, and find Hermeneutic Phenomenology experts.
Questions related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
5 answers
I am looking to make a distinctive difference between the two, if there is any.
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with Daan Van Cauwenberge, and would like to add that as 'inherently subjective experiences of existence' necessarily admit differentiation, the experience and interpretations of the same phenomena will also differ, and therefore ought to be understood as aspects only of that particular body of knowledge.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
4 answers
Hi all,
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Cordelia,
I went to a conference for qualitative research during my PhD studies. I was confused and apologetic about my multiple methods....I was told by someone there. "Stop apologizing for what you are doing....methods are designed to systematically produce findings. Do what you need to do and then defend it"..I have never forgotten this. I thought it was excellent advice...and now expect my students to do the same when they use 'mixed methods'
Your supervisors need however to be careful in choosing examiners. Traditionalists tend to defend their territory rather than look at the merits of something new. One of my examiners basically came just short of failing my PhD because he wanted me to have done something different. The other (international), concluded that the PhD should have been awarded on the methodology alone, never mind the resultant theoretical contributions.
So my advice is : Choose methods to suit the kind of knowledge that needs to be added to the "ology" [which I use loosely as the theoretical knowledge you are aiming for]. Defend it with sound philosophical reasons for the approach.
While you still have to defend the entire set of approach and methods you use and rationalize the overall methodology, the process of producing a PhD by paper, may make more sense for you....each paper is an analysis that has its own methodology.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
1 answer
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hannah Murphy Hi Hannah, have you found the answer if Colaizzi's method is applicable for data analysis in Hermeneutic Phenomenology? May I also ask the paper you've mentioned? Thank you
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
5 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Heidegger proposes what may be called a transcendental historicism, and the question is: to what extent are they compatible? Equally problematic: whether a hermeneutic phenomenology can answer (determine the horizon of, move within) its own questions.
Lafont notes that Heidegger substitutes the "ontological difference for the empirical/transcendental dichotomy" to distinguish between the "ontological structures of Dasein in general and its historical, ontic concretizations." In this way, Heidegger ascribes a "quasi-transcendental status...to the particular world-disclosure in which Dasein is thrown" and Heidegger can "do this in virtue of the possibility of affirming that a world-disclosure is something ontic (factually given, a cultural product) but at the same time always already ontological." Heidegger's concept of a world meaningfully constituted thereby attempts to have it both ways simultaneously – to interrogate our understanding of being within the line at which history and culture meet and yet circumvent the circular boundary in which both appear together or move.
See the latter parts of the first chapter of my thesis (paving the way) for further clarification.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
5 answers
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!
Relevant answer
Answer
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
4 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for your feedback. In my dissertation program I am required to use a theoretical framework.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
8 answers
Hi
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
Thanks
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Nicola: This is a much bigger question than I will try to take on here. I would not frame the difference of HM and IPA as one of an "approach" versus "actual analysis." For myself, both are variations on the hermeneutic phenomenology theme, if you will. I see van Manen's (1997) Hermeneutic Phenom. as a distinct, and pure HM perspective that can structure a study. However, van Manen does not outline clear steps, which I find philosophically congruent w/ his HM, but one that leaves novice researchers overwhelmed as it lacks structure (fyi: I teach/supervise novice researchers qual research). I really like the below referenced text and have had students use it as their guide to their dissertation research.
van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). London, Canada: The Althouse Press.
IPA, of Smith, Flowers, and Larkin (2009) "fame," is an integrated phenomenological approach blending: phenomenology, idiography, and hermeneutics. There has been a huge upsurge of IPA studies in my profession of counseling. I believe this to have occurred as Smith is a psychologist, and the counseling profession likes Smith et al's attention to procedure (editorial comment: as my profession continues to be dominated by post positivist thinking w/ slow movement toward the more radical social constructionist stance) Students have been more drawn to IPA as it provides structure, and is thus comforting as they step out into their world as new qualitative researcher.
For me, as is always the case w/ my students, I would ask you to ask yourself: "What is my philosophical stance toward inquiry? " For myself this is the first step to take when making a decision on "whose" phenomenology to use to guide a study. ~ David
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
10 answers
Hi all, I would like to ask if it's possible to develop a model based on the data derived from hermeneutic phenomenology, thanks.
Relevant answer
Answer
I would like to suggest that the question be re-phrased. Perhaps the question should be whether you should call your study a phenomenological study if you attempt to derive a theoretical model from it? The answer in this case is that you could, but you would rather not. You would be better advised to delve into the grounded theory literature and apply it properly, because that will be what you are actually attempting to do. Phenomenology primarily describes experiences rather than aspires to unravel causal mechanisms and theoretical underpinnings.
I would argue that as far as psychological/experiential studies are concerned, phenomenology is always the initial phase of a grounded theory (GT) research, whether acknowledged as such or not. In the case of more hermeneutic approaches, I would recommend Charmaz's constructivist approach to GT.
That said, not all models are theories. Some models are just a schematic representation of the findings, as illustrated by Broun & Clarke 2006. Thematic analysis also closely related to phenomenological analyses, though it is not as strictly bound to a philosophical background or a specific aim of delineating lived experiences.
Good luck.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
6 answers
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!
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks!
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
3 answers
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
Relevant answer
Answer
A follow up on this; i would say that there are more and less hermeneutically oriented approaches to narrative. Hermeneutics is a tradition of interpreting texts, that has been influential in the development of some varieties of narrative research. However, there are also other approaches to narrative, for example more thematic ones which rely on coding as you mention. Moreover, narrative methodology could refer to methods of analysis as well as methods of data collection. It is very well possible to adopt an interview or focus group method that is not strictly narrative, and analyse the resulting interview in a narrative way. Narrative as method of analysis can potentially be used for a wide variety of 'texts' (verbal but also written and visual ones). There are currently various handbooks available that may assist in finding the appropriate method for your research. Indeed there are various qualitative methods  for studying lived experience, so that in itself is an insufficient criterion. A narrative approach to lived experience takes story as root metaphor and is interested in contextual accounts of how people make sense of lived experience. Hope this helps.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
5 answers
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).
Relevant answer
Answer
Pragmatism became in the last three decades a cunning tag for whatever is supposed to be good to think in philosophy.  It is a tag given to a cloud, which is not recognised only because the English-speking world seem to have ignored and peacifully like to ignore other less palatable forms of such a universal recommended tag/container in history, and even in case this comfortable simplification of the array of forms of pragmatism were given a patch, the consequences of the remaining forms are either trivial or absurd, as I argued in various papers and books - with no refutation up to now. Thus the outcome ends up with just rhetoric advertising. I agree that QRD calls for an explicit philosophical frame, which however can't be a cloud of views, much the less advertising. So my answer to the question "Can pragmatism ...?"  is: no.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
12 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
I would say that we have in philosophy at least two strong examples of ontology-epistemology connection (in the broad, non-specific version of epistemology): Hegel, with the Idea that becomes matter and evolves to self-knowledge, and Wittgenstein, with the correspondence between the logical structure of the world and the logical structure of language
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
12 answers
Particularly in the context of reflective life-world research.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hermeneutics is, as Schleiermacher notes, "the art of understanding" - any understanding. Phenomenology whether explicitly interpretative (i.e., hermeneutic) or not, is the method for understanding lived experience (e.g., Giorgi, 2009; Smith et al, 2009; van Manen, 1991, 2014). Rennie (2012 - attached) claims that all qualitative methods are in actuality methodical hermeneutics - Giorgi's descriptive phenomenology included.
That said, sometimes such a question appears to be less one of method as it is a question of appropriate literature to ground one's work in. Thus, if you seek to understand an experience, use phenomenology (by the way, connecting to the original question, life-world is a term that originates in Husserl's and Brentano's phenomenological approaches, so there you have it). If you wish to understand something else, then choose the appropriate method.
I recommend Linda Finlay's work as well as Max van Manen's for a deeper understanding of phenomenology. Karin Dahlberg has an approach to phenomenology termed "life-world research" (2009). Either way, interpretative phenomenology (attaching a paper about its underpinings) is constituted on Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer for its hermeneutic foundations, and on Husserl mainly for its phenomenological foundations (see the IPA book by Smith et al, 2009) and the attached paper.
Good luck.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
12 answers
To understand common experiences of a ‘sense of place’ from the perspective of people living in heritage sites.
Relevant answer
Answer
It's great to see the strong emphasis on the use of a phenomenology to understand the sense of place of heritage sites. I've used this methodology, paired with photo elicitation as a method, quite effectively. For an example, you might want to take a look at:
Wells, J. C., & Baldwin, E. D. (2012). Historic preservation, significance, and age value: A comparative phenomenology of historic Charleston and the nearby new-urbanist community of I’On. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(4), 384-400.
I also explore the use of mixed methods in understanding "spirit of place" (akin to some aspects of sense of place) here:
Wells, J. C. (2014). A methodological framework for assessing the 'spirit and feeling' of world heritage properties. In T. Gensheimer & C. L. Guichard (Eds.), World heritage and national registers: Stewardship in perspective (pp. 19-32). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
You can view pre-press, pre-prints of these articles on my ResearchGate account.
Here is a newsletter article where I explore the use of phenomenologies in historic preservation (built heritage conservation) practice:
In general, I would recommend that you focus on existential phenomenology, rather than the hermeneutic strain. Essential reading will be:
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963). The structure of behavior. Boston: Beacon Press.
Tuan, Y. F. (1974). Topophilia: A study of environmental perception, attitudes, and values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Seamon, D. (1982). The phenomenological contribution to environmental psychology. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 119-140.
I would also not discount other methodologies, including quantitative examples, especially those used in environmental psychology. (Methods include photo sorts, photo elicitation, behavioral mapping, etc.)
If all of this interests you, I would recommend that you consider joining the Environmental Research Association where I co-chair the Historic Environment Knowledge Network (see http://www.edra.org/content/historic-environment ). And, if you are currently researching/working in this area, also consider submitting a proposal to present at the conference (http://www.edra.org/edra48madison).
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
5 answers
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
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Debbee,
You question about methods of analysis is a little too general,  i.e. I am not sure what is your research question. During your background research work you have already noticed that there are several methods and approaches. I don't think there is a preferable one, I think there may be one or more that are better suited to your research question.
As a general answer I have found some clear summary in Narayan Prasad Kafle [attached] which suggests (quote):
<<Though there is no prescription about the unanimous methodological sets of doing a hermeneutic phenomenological research, on the light of different researches conducted using this paradigm we can suggest for few  methodological guidelines. The noted scholars of this disciplines like van Manen (1990, 1997), suggest that there is no fixed set of methods to conduct this type of research. But as a variant of qualitative research the purposive sampling with information rich cases is suggested by Merriam (1998). For data generation, multiple tools can be utilized that include interview, observation, and protocols. Since the purpose is to generate the life world stories the research participants, depending the context and the area of research the appropriate tool can be applied. Data is recommended to be processed uncovering the thematic aspects by van Manen (1997). Data analysis is often  performed applying the hermeneutic cycle that constitutes of reading, reflective writing and interpretation in a rigorous fashion (Laverty, 2003). >>  see pg. 195
And I think the Laverty (2003) is particulary interesting (attached) and also Kinsella 2006 who goes more in details in the way the philosophical underpinnigs of Gadamer's work may relate to qualitative research.
I would also have a close look into Giorgi's work about the application of the phenomenological method in qualitative research.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
3 answers
In which sense we can use the concept of horizon or the sense of corps (body) ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Try:
The Phenomenological Approach to Poetry
Mikel Dufrenne
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
6 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Matias, and thanks for the question.
This is a quotation from the Zollikon Seminars that may shed some light on the issue: ‘to exist as Da-sein means to hold open a domain through its capacity to receive-perceive the significance of the things that are given to it [Da-sein] and that address it [Da-sein] by virtue of its own “clearing” [Gelichtetheit]’ (Heidegger, 2001: 4)
In Mladenov (2015: 11) I interpreted this as follows: 'to be Dasein means to be able to relate to entities as entities of a particular kind, for example, as instruments – available, ‘ready-to-hand’ (zuhanden) things (Heidegger, 1962: 98); or else as objects – self-contained, occurrent, ‘present-at-hand’ (vorhanden) things (pp. 67-8). Dasein understands being. That is why the definitive feature of Dasein on the ontic level – that is, the feature that distinguishes Dasein from other entities – is that it is ontological: ‘Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological.’ (p. 32) On the one hand, Dasein’s abilities at understanding being are realised by engaging with entities and others within the world – that is, by inhabiting a world. That is why the most basic state of Dasein is being-in-the-world (p. 78). On the other hand, in its being-in-the-world Dasein gets involved with entities and others in such a way as to let them be as entities and others.'
I hope this makes sense. Best wishes,
Teodor
Heidegger, M. (2001 [1959-69]) Zollikon Seminars: Protocols, Conversations, Letters, ed. M. Boss, trans. F. Mayr and R. Askay. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.
Heidegger, M. (1962 [1927]) Being and Time, trans. J. Macquarrie and E. Robinson. Oxford: Blackwell.
Mladenov, T. (2015) Critical Theory and Disability: A Phenomenological Approach. New York: Bloomsbury.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
22 answers
I would appreciate any information anyone may provide to understand the distinction between Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.
Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
I would put it little bit differently. Hermeneutic phenomenology is a much broader term (sometimes it can appear alongside the term phenomenological hermeneutics: the differences are philosophically important and it is about which part of the two is more relevant: interpretative process itself (hermeneutic circle) or grasping the essences of the phenomena). I would reserve the term hermeneutic phenomenology for the philosophical-intellectual movement. Interpretative phenomenological analysis is a more narrow term and it indicates a particular method of qualitative analysis of data that originates in the broader hermeneutic phenomenological movement. 
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
9 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
The role of the interpreter within Gadamerian hermeneutics has a specific characteristic in understanding human potential, through the ontic-ontology of Heidegger’s notion of Being. The word ontology comes from the Greek language meaning the study of Being, reviewed by Heidegger for contemporary philosophy by situating Being into the average everydayness of life . To Heidegger and Gadamer, understanding the concept of Being and ‘what it is to be’ human meant that by analysing this most fundamental of concepts we can then and only then begin to understand how we live and engage in the world through the medium of language . Language delivers pointers to the truth concealed within word meaning and reveals that something exists in a (hermeneutic) circle of ontological possibilities  understands….its existence in terms of the possibility of … be(ing) itself or not itself...” . Hence, we are aware and yet unaware of ourselves, ‘forgetting’ as we go about our daily lives, a pre-ontological awareness of existing through the experiences of everyday life . Heidegger’s question enabled a single minded attempt to analyse the human life experience as ontologically explicit and objectifiable as possible.
Fusion of horizons Gadamer's approach to the "philosophy of language  .
The key to investigating Gadamer’s concept of understanding is through logos .Logos is the vehicle for communicating with others, and when we think and speak we ‘‘…make what is not present manifest through …speaking…communicating everything that he means…”  This means that the word triggers a denoted name given to an object and a resulting mental image . When thinking of any object we unconsciously join up our internalised  thoughts within the shared, externalised medium of communicating with other people (Gadamer 2004). Therefore the commonality of language ensures a shared acceptance of meaning and ability to vocalise thoughts when alone or when with other people. That relates to the problem of language; we learn to think and use language from the first steps of  cognisance, a familiarising engagement experientially with the world and it with us (Aristotle in Gadamer 2004). This allows the interpreter to develop ways of knowing and predicting the world through the use of their senses of conformity, cohesion and survival within the world . Such predictive abilities mean we are always biased in our understanding of the spoken and written language as we become consciously aware of language only in unusual circumstances Gadamer suggests three inter-relational points of relevance to language and understanding: Firstly, the universality of language; every dialogue has the potential for ‘inner infinity,’
an ability to reason, project understanding onto another and read between the lines. This dialogue may be in the form of a reflective journal entry, a research participants narrative or everyday dialogue in the health and social sciences. A
questioning mind ensures that language fills in any gaps toward a shared understanding  opening up human potential for infinite dialogue with others in a fusion of horizons. Secondly, Gadamer refers to the essential forgetfulness of language; when losing the meaning of what is said there is potential for the ‘‘…real Being of language to unfold…” to be reduced . Gadamer develops the ontological (life experiences of the world)reflexivity of language as a means of communicating the meaning of what others say and write. As will be shown, this ontological freedom encompasses historicity, temporality and authenticity through hermeneutic analysis. Lastly, what Gadamer called I-lessness. When we speak we speak to someone and to our inner selves. When naming the word (in text or visually) we enable the unifying effect of language and communicating with others . Gadamer suggests there is a presence of spirit evident when using language, for example; projecting hesitancy, anxiety, intention and attitude. Gadamer refers to this as play in the hermeneutic game, a dynamic process of buoyancy, freedom potentiating reality and fulfilment of each players understanding. The play continues in the subjective inner world of thought and the motivation of the interpreter to play the game, to make sense of language as a key factor for understanding experience..
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
7 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Tom, I quote autopiesis and cognition (intro, pg. VX): 
"try to correlate the activity of the retina with the color experience of the world"....
"the new approach required us to treat seriously the activity of the nervous system as determined by the nervous system itself, and not by the external world; thus the external world would only have a triggering role in the release of the internally-determined activity of the nervous system".  
the ominiuos thing is that they not even quote them, the empiriocriticists!
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
11 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
See Shoma A. Chatterji's (1999)  "The Culture-specific Use of Sound in the Indian Cinema". The article explores how sounds such as those of heartbeats, thundering rain, singing nightingale, (silence) and environmental noise are used to express emotion not representable by audiovisual effects in the Hindi film. 
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
22 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree with Shane that you first must become clear about what it is you want to study (the ontology) before you decide what is the appropriate method. 
Dean says IPA and Grounded Theory are miles apart, but still they share a common philosophical core. Both think that once you have the data, you will generate codes from it rather than impose a code on it. So in way both think of theory as being derived from data, although in IPA the construction of the data might be considered more important than the generation of theory. The difference is that IPA gets more involved in the production of the data. That is, it gets involved in the way the subject reflects on its lived experience before he/she reports it.  This is supposed to allow you as a researcher to, as it were, get inside the subjects head (via the subject itself, of course). But, once the data is constructed in this way, the two schools of thought are very close. The critics of IPA will argue that there is a risk that the researcher influences the subject too much, so what you get is what the researcher has in her head rather than the subject. But, how else are you going to study the finer points of how someone construes their lived experience?
On a more practical note, this means that if you want to get involved very closely with how a few individuals construe the meaning of their lived experiences, perhaps because the phenomenon you are interested in is complicated and really requires the subjects to reflect very deeply about it (perhaps because they might not have reflected upon it before), then IPA is a good choice. If you think that your subjects will already be clear on what it is you want to know and therefore can report it without much reflection or thought, then Grounded theory (or some application of it) might suit better. This is as good an explanation as to why IPA is popular in psychology, because they are deeply involved in the more complicated aspects of our inner lives.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
2 answers
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.
Relevant answer
Answer
As you probably know, IPA is a fairly new approach, and many phenomenologists are quite opposed to its assumptions and methods. I would suggest you place IPA in the larger phenomenological literature. An excellent discussion of the various "modes" of phenomenology is Linda Finlay's PHENOMENOLOGY FOR THERAPISTS (2011), which has a chapter on IPA, but other approaches also.
I also recommend Max van Manen's new book, PHENOMENOLOGY OF PRACTICE (2014), which includes some superb chapters on "doing" phenomenology.
David Seamon
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
28 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Answer
Very briefly: for Heidegger, being is as it appears, therefore phenomenology is the same as ontology. For Husserl, the correlation between phenomena and reality is a problem that does not exist for Heidegger. It is not true that Husserl merely describes the contents of consciousness: he brackets the natural attitude that adscribes an external correlation to phenomena and hopes to regain the outside through a study of pure phenomena (eg, The Idea of Phenomenology); therefore Husserl does have ontological aims. Both Husserl and Heidegger have ontological aims, and have a radical disagreement on whether being=phenomena.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
17 answers
What's more powerful the image or the word? And why?
Relevant answer
Answer
Or May be Words, in some cases.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
19 answers
I understand there are critiques about his notion of life-world and epoche. I need some clarity on what the problems are exactly.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Mathew,
As Fink writes in his/Husserl's 6th, phenomenology has to be experienced, not read. He goes on to emphasize that reading rather experiencing leads to the bewildering feeling of looking at a bedazzling text written queer language that does not yield any clarity or understanding. Furthermore, Husserl's body of work represents a process of experimenting with phenomenological thinking rather than a coherent system of thought and this might be proved as confusing even more. Here are my $.02 on how to start, they represent my own experience and yours is likely to be different and reflective of your natural attitude and lifeworld. Husserl's starting point was mathematics and the origin of logic and he devoted most of his energy to dissect the roots of logical thought. Since you are most interested in the methodological aspects of phenomenology (which Fink considers as the theory of method) I recommend that you start with Husserl's 5th, continue with Heidegger's basic problems of phenomenology and then move to Fink's 6th. Fink attempted to close the gaps in Heidegger's and Husserl's views of phenomenology and built a better (my personal view) platform combining both. As a companion text, I would look at Bruzina's excellent research on Husserl and Fink and peek at Schutz's investigations of the lifeworld. In any case, my recommendation is start your own reduction as soon as possible and as you read the texts so that you will be thinking and swimming at the same time. The longer path in the natural realm is the shortest in the transcendental. Pending on your level of interest and dedication, this might take longer than you think so take a deep breath and prepare for a marathon.
Good luck and hope it helps,
Ronnen
PS
I would wait with the French phenomenological offspring until completing the above.
  • asked a question related to Hermeneutic Phenomenology
Question
22 answers
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?
Relevant answer
Two important concepts for Gadamer complicate the account of understanding given above. Prejudice, or a fore structure of meanings with which we approach a text within a tradition of interpretation. Secondly distanciation, the process by which the text severs it's connection with the author, context, and time. He is reacting against the epistemological hermeneutics of Dilthey, and denying that you can develop a method for achieving authorial meanings. Ontological hermeneutics is basically claiming to tell us what happens to us every time we understand a text, that is, we achieve a fusion of horizons..