Phenomenology The “lived” experience What we will cover

Phenomenology The “lived” experience

What we will cover

Phenomenology as a Philosophy

Transcendental Phenomenology Edmund Husserl (1859-1938)

• Sprouted from post WWII positivism. Phenomenology rejects positivism.

• This can be achieved through reduction (Epoché)

• “transcend” the experience to discover meaning.

Transcendental (descriptive) Phenomenology

• Within the range of unique experiences, there is a larger, transcending, essential and unvarying quality of a phenomenon…that can be discovered!

Hermeneutic (interpretive) Phenomenology

• Martin Heidegger (1889-1976)

• Hans-George Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur

• Disagrees with Husserl’s epoche.

• An effort to “get beneath” the subjective experience and find the genuine, objective nature of things.

• Focuses on the relationship between the event and the person, and how meaning is formed in that relationship.

• Leads to endless possibilities and endless interpretations.

• Our relationship with things is not the object/subject relationship.

Existential Phenomenology

• Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908-1961) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)

• Rejects Husserl’s belief of transcendance and embraces the lived experience, the concrete.

• Aim is not to find a common theme, but the goal is to "concentrated upon re-achieving a direct and primitive contact with the world.“

• Describes everyday experience as it is perceived by the consciousness of individuals.

• This “new” phenomenology rejects the historical division between the inquirer and the social world (subject/object)

• This movement marked a return to studying the direct, lived experience of the “field worker” as a source of knowledge about the world.

Phenomenology as a Methodology two camps-a resurgence in the 1970s

• DESCRIPTIVISTS

• Believe it is possible to suspend personal opinion to arrive at a single, essential, descriptive presentation of a phenomena

• Think that if there is more than one reality, that leaves doubt, ignorance, and a lack of clarity.

• Husserl followers

• (Rapport 2006)

Phenomenology…as a Methodology

• …is focused on the subjective experience of individuals or groups.

• …is personal. The world as experienced by the individual, not relationships between people.

• …uses small, purposive samples of 3-10 participants that have experienced the phenomenon.

• …attempts to describe accurately a phenomenon from the person’s perspective.

Phenomenology as a Methodology

• …is where art and science collide? The interpretation of lived experience and daily life. Understanding meaning from the world around us.

• …assumes that “There is a structure and essence to shared experiences that can be narrated” (Marshall 2006 p. 104)

• …assumes that the only things we can know, are those that are directly observable and experienced. The only reality we can know is the one we directly experience.

Phenomenologists….

• REJECT scientific realism (objects exist independently of our knowledge of their existence).

• DISAGREE that the empirical sciences are better methods to describe the features of the world.

• DESCRIBE the ordinary, conscious experience of things.

• OPPOSE the acceptance of unobservable things.

• REJECT naturalism and positivism.

• BELIEVE objects in the natural world, cultural world, and abstract objects (like numbers and consciousness) can be made evident and thus known.

• RECOGNIZE the role of description prior to explanation by means of causes, purposes, or grounds.

• DEBATE whether Husserl’s transcendental epoche and reduction is useful or even possible.

• STUDY the “life-world” (the taken-for-granted pattern of everyday living).

• http://www.phenomenologycenter.org/phenom.htm#2

Strengths of phenomenology

• Efficient and Economical (only in terms of data generation or maybe not at all. . .)

• Direct Interaction with Participants

• Allows the researcher to ask for clarification and to ask immediate follow-up/probing questions
• Allows the researcher to observe nonverbal responses which can be supportive or contradictory to the verbal responses

• Data is in the participants’ own words

More Strengths

• Synergy: participants react to and build upon the responses of other participants.

• Flexible research tool

• Applicable to a wide range of settings and individuals.

• Results are easy to understand (in terms of people’s direct opinions and statements)

• Marvin Farber 1966

Weakness of phenomenology

• Findings are difficult to generalize to a larger population

• Small number of participants who are often attained in a convenient manner
• Individual responses are not always independent of one another
• Dominant or opinionated members may overshadow the thoughts of the other group members (only if group interviews are performed).

• Data is often difficult to analyze and summarize.

• Researcher may give too much credit to the results (immediacy of a personal opinion)

• Requires a quality moderator

• It is a “soft science” at best, really it is not science, it is more like philosophy and religion (Charles Harris, 2006)

• Critics of phenomenology think you cannot describe the unique experiences AND make generalizations about the experiences at the same time.

• Marvin Farber 1966

Disciplines that use Phenomenology

• Nursing

• Education

• Psychology

• Social Sciences

• Urban Planning

• Art

• Pretty much anything

• The Experience of Motor Disability

• A Young Child’s Sense of Time and the Clock

• Awaiting the Diagnosis

• The Stillness of a Secret Place

• Nature Experience of 8-12 year old Children

• Possibilities of the Father Role

• The Nature of at Home-ness

• Phenomenological Research Titles

• Loneliness

• A Lived Experience of Making a Drawing: Drawing Amy

• Mathematics Teaching: Moving from Telling to Listening

• Being Nostalgic Naming our Child

• Women’s Anxious Pursuit of Attractive Appearance

SELECTING A PEAK TO CLIMB

• UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION MAKING PROCES OF EXPEDITION GROUPS IN THE NEPAL HIMALAYA

Understanding the Decision Making Process

• Purpose of the Study

• Description of the Process

• Lessons learned

• Applications of the study

Purpose

• Understanding decision making factors of climbing tourist to Nepal.

• Describe experience upon a peak to climb.

Description of the process

• Research pre-knowledge

• Factors for decisions

• Elevation of mountain
• Pioneering opportunities

• Phase 1

• Collect contact information.
• Participants selection
• Coordinate meetings in Katmandu

Phase 2:

• Phase 2:

• In-depth, face-to-face interview.
• Capture the content meaning.
• Semi-structured Interview
• General frame-setting questions
• Probing questions
• Point theoretical saturation
• Rich Text is generated

Phase 3:

• Phase 3:

• Cluster themes
• Considerations coded analyzed
• Develop models
• Compare with theoretical literature
• Member check

Applications of the Study

• Enhance Conservation Planning

• Minimize social impacts

Activity

Interview Groups

• Interviewer

• Jess
• Katie
• Keith
• Jon
• Jill
• Ardis
• Eleonora
• Craig
• Alexis