An interesting discussion on different phenomenological methods - Finlay (2009)

This text is handy as it gives an analysis of several types of phenomenology within one paper. It has helped situate me more clearly within hermeneutic phenomenology. I need to take a bit of time to read Giorgi, however, so that I can understand and engage with his objections to IPA (and most other forms of phenomenology, it seems...)


Finlay, L. (2009). Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology and Practice, 3(1), 6-25.

Introduction

There is great diversity in phenomenological research,however, all phenomenological researcher wish to gain rich description of lived experience. There is much debate over different methods, some of which appears unduly critical. The author highlights six questions to discuss in this paper, in order to help develop dialogue rather than diatribe between different approaches.

What counts as phenomenology?

There area great any methods and techniques described as phenomenological. Psychological phenomenology, according to Giorgi (1989) has four core characteristics:

1. the research is descriptive
2. it uses phenomenological reductions
3. explores the intentional relationship between persons and situations
4. discloses the essences of meaning in human experience

However, there are a range of variations: open lifeworld approach of Dahlberg et al., van Manen's lived experience human science enquiry based on University of Utrecht tradition, Hallig et al.'s dialogic approach, the Dallas approach (Garza, 2007), Todres' embodied lifeworld approach and Ashworth's lifeworld approach.

Other phenomenological methods do not explicitly use Husserlian techniques such as eidetic variation, such as Smith's IPA. Smith, whilst claiming the method to be phenomenological, also identifies with hermeneutics, recognising the essential role of the researcher. This author suggests that Smith (2004) does not advocate the use of bracketing.

The discussion/argument over what qualifies as phenomenological frequently stems from disagreement over whether it follows the Husserlian viewpoint or not. Further, confusion is compounded when there is a mixing of philosophies and viewpoints, for example using Husserlian philosophy but perhaps being Heideggerian in acknowledging the role of the researcher's own experience, rather then reduction.

Finlay's definition of phenomenological research is work that provides rich description of experience, where the researcher adopts an open phenomenological attitude, setting aside judgements and initially avoiding theoretical frameworks. She also requires that the researcher follows a consistent philosophy/methodology.

General description or idiographic analysis?

There is disagreement over the focus of phenomenological research. Those of the Husserlian tradition, such as Giorgi seek the universal 'essences' of a phenomenon. Idiographic details are of no importance once analysis has been completed. For other researchers, idiographic meanings are of importance, whether or not they lead to generalisations. Smith (from other reading) believes that IPA must concentrate on the individual - generalisations may be made, but not at the loss of view of the individual. Halling (2008) follows the middle ground, suggesting that idiographic experiences can also illuminate more general structures of experience. Halling suggests following three levels of analysis: firstly looking at one person's experience of a phenomenon; secondly they explore those themes common to the phenomenon. Finally, they explore the philosophical and universal experiences of the phenomenon, moving between experience and abstraction as the researcher analyses the data.

Description or interpretation?

Phenomenological research starts through a description of a person's experiences. The researcher then analyses these data to identify themes, drawing out implicit meanings as well as those that are explicit. The area of discussing implicit meanings in the data is where the researcher can move from description to interpretation.

There is frequently a delineation between descriptive phenomenology and interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenology. Husserlian (descriptive) phenomenology stays close to the text and only make assertions that can be intuitively clearly drawn from the data. The users of interpretive phenomenology argue that interpretation cannot be separated from the description, it is an integral part of our 'being-in-the-world'. The data are already interpreted through the participant, and then through the researcher.

Finlay argues that there is a continuum between description and interpretation, upon which phenomenological research all sits. van Manen (1990) discusses that there is a greater level of interpretation in studies where nonverbal aspects are of greater importance, as well as when using other types of data such as artwork. van Manen finds it important to clarify the difference between interpretation that draws attention to a concept and interpretation that imposes an external framework on the description, developing Gadamer's ideas. Wertz (2005) suggests that interpretation is valid, so as to place the ideas within the whole, but the interpretation must remain grounded within the data.

Researcher subjectivity

All phenomenological research is characterised by the connections between the researcher and the researched. However, there are differences in how this subjectivity is acknowledged. Whichever form of phenomenology one use, it is vital to be open to the "other" and retain an open attitude.

The key difference between phenomenologists is whether the subjective experiences of the researcher are brought to the foreground and explored. Those following the Husserlian tradition seek to perform reduction, to reduce the influence the researcher has on the phenomenon. Researchers must bracket their preconceptions and past knowledge on the phenomenon.  This "setting aside"  must take place throughout the research, not just at the beginning.

Hermeneutic phenomenologists suggest that it is not possible to bracket one's experiences, but instead it is important to acknowledge one's pre-existing beliefs, and question them if new evidence comes to light. Within this field, subjectivity is placed in the foreground, so that one can recognise biases, whilst being open to the 'other' (Gadamer, 1975). In reality, this means the researcher must shift between a focus on personal assumptions and then returning to theparticipant's experiences with fresh eyes. However, navel-gazing must be avoided - it is the participant's experience which should be privileged, not the researcher's. Finlay discusses Merleau-Ponty's (1968) idea of a co-creation of data through the dialogic encounter of the interview.

Science or art?

Giorgi posits phenomenology as a human science, being systematic, methodological, general, and critical. However, others suggest that it can have close links with art as well as science. There is disagreement over the relative importance of the two elements.

Giorgi (2008) stresses the importance of maintaining scientific rigour, through systematic processes deeply based on the data. Other phenomenologists look to more artistic interpretations such as literary prose, art and poetry. Finlay tells us to  look to our audience and determine how our argument can best be made.

Modern or postmodern paradigms?

Finlay discusses the confusion over which paradigm phenomenology sits within. These paradigms don't seem to be in accord with those we've looked at. Giorgi suggests that his phenomenology comes from a grounded critical realist tradition, but with its roots in Husserlian phenomenology, it could be argues that his views sit within a naturalistic paradigm.

This discussion of where phenomenology sits is confused not least by the differing definitions of postmodernism.

Conclusion

Phenomenology is adaptable.

Further reading

Gadamer (1975) Truth and method

Giorgi (1989) One type of analysis of descriptive data: procedures involved in following a phenomenological method.

Giorgi (1997) The theory, practice and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure

Giorgi (2008) Concerning a serious misunderstanding of the essence of the phenomenological method in psychology

Halling (2008) Intimacy, transcendence and psychology: closeness and openness in everyday life

van Manen (1990) Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy.

Wertz (2005) Phenomenological research methods for counselling psychology

IPA insights: Callary, Rathwell & Young

To be honest, reading the papers I have done so far, I'm quite surprised at the sorts of papers that get published. I seem to have hit a seam of research papers analysing how they have done research. This is a bit weird or me, with my science background. It does make me somewhat concerned - if so many people feel they need to write papers explaining how they completed a research process, then maybe it's going to be rather difficult to do for a first assignment due to be handed in by early March.

Then again, maybe there are a lot of qualitative journals out there, looking for material to fill them, and a lot of researchers out there looking to get papers published.

Anyway, this paper was worth reviewing because it looks specifically at IPA rather than other forms of phenomenology. I suppose my key concern from this paper is that they talk about bracketing. I'm going to have to look more closely about how bracketing does or does not fit into IPA. My understanding was that it isn't done. Perhaps their use of language here is imprecise, as they also talk about writing reflexively on their own experiences of the topic. This sounds more like the reflexivity required of interpretative phenomenology rather than transcendental. Perhaps this is the point that the authors of the previous paper I read were trying to make - unless the author is explicit on the theoretical underpinnings of their work, confusion can reign. I will need to explore Smith's work on IPA to see where I stand with regard to bracketing.

There are some useful examples within this paper of how they have tried to attain rigour (trustworthiness?) through use of group discussion of the themes drawn out and their analysis. Not something I will be able to do, but it gives an indication of the sorts of process I should put myself through to increase trustworthiness.

Callary, B., Rathwell, S., & Young, B. W. (2015). Insights on the process of using interpretative phenomenological analysis in a sport coaching research project. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 63-75.

Using IPA

IPA is informed by three key positions: phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2013). Phenomenology describes the 'what' and 'how' of individuals' experienced phenomena, describes the essences of an experience but does not analyse - according to Cresswell (2013). However, what if we're looking at interpretative phenomenology? Hermeneutics seeks to interpret the spoken  or written word to identify the meaning of the speaker. Idiography pertains to small scale research relatable to one or a few people rather than generalising the findings to a larger population.

Smith (2004) links the four key characteristics of IPA to these three positions:

1. IPA is idiographic because a detailed analysis is made of one case before moving on to the next
2. IPA is inductive - research questions are broadly constructed to allow for unanticipated themes to emerge.
3. Results are discussed in relation to existing literature
4. IPA researchers are influenced by their own lived experience and interpret data through their own lens.

IPA includes a double hermeneutic - the researcher attempts to make sense of the participant, who is attempting to make sense of their own experience (Smith, 2004).

Smith's guidelines for good quality IPA studies include having a clear focus, having both a descriptive and interpretative analysis with both convergent and divergent themes notes.

IPA in sport studies

A range of studies in sport science have been completed using IPA but papers based on the research do not always indicate how the study was performed. Giorgi (2011) complains that because IPA does not follow fixed methods, it is impossible to replicate IPA studies. OK, so, I know I'm only a beginner in all of this, and I haven't read much of Smith's books yet, but I thought that qualitative work wasn't so hung up on replicability. I'll have to read both Giorgi and SMith and see what's going on here. Not much love lost, for sure.

The paper continues with an overview of previous sport science studies and identifies the gap in the literature which this study seeks to add to: a sharing of methodology.

Preparing the IPA study

A discussion of how the discovering of IPA as a methodology caused a change in the team's research question, to concentrate on lived experiences is followed by an explanation of how data were gathered: numbers, development of interview questions, and (confusingly) bracketing.

Collecting rich and personal data on participants' lived experiences

The team explain how interviewing did not go to plan and the interviewer had to think on their feet to get the personal experiences required rather than more general thoughts. This is something I will need to be aware of as I would imagine it is easy to fall into. Methods to avoid this include funnelling (Smith & Osborn, 2003): a three step approach - personalising the statement, understanding the meaning and acquiring the lived experience. They also prompted the participants ahead of the interview that they were interested in the interviewee's own experiences.

Individual level analysis

Each interview is analysed separately to discover emerging themes. These can then be examined across the interviews. Read the interview as a whole, then line by line analysis of the transcript to code the experiences. These allow patterns in the text to be seen - the development of inductive themes. In this study, each team member did it separately.

Group level analysis

List all themes in each transcript, examine the operational definitions to find similarities across all participants and combine similar themes under 4 or 5 broad higher order themes.

Challenges and strategies in IPA data analysis

It is key to lay to one side the coding from previous transcripts, so that convergences and divergences in the data are respected. Through reflexion of emerging themes, this can be done (though this paper again talks about bracketing). Rigour in the process was supported by the group discussions throughout the process - team members' challenging coding and interpretation meant that each stage was rigorously discussed and agreed upon.

Conclusions for researchers interested in using IPA

IPA produces rich data allowing for in-depth understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Further reading:

Cresswell (2013) Qualitative enquiry and research design

Giorgi (2011) IPA and science: A response to Jonathan Smith

Smith (2004) Reflecting on the development of IPA

Smith, Flowers, & Larkin (2013). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: theory, method and research.

Smith & Osborn (2003) IPA in JA Smith (Ed) qualitative psychology: a practical guide to methods

Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology - Sloan & Bowe

I'm not sure this paper add much more to my thoughts on Heideggerian phenomenology being the way to go than the previous paper. However, it does talk through some examples of extracts from interviews. This is of use as it shows what does and what doesn't constitute experience (at least in the authors' minds) as opposed to opinion. It concentrates on van Manen's phenomenology, which categorises themes that emerge from the data into four 'existentials':

1. Lived space - spatiality
2. Lived body - corporeality
3. Lived time - temporality
4. lived human relation - relationality.

Sloan, A. & Bowe, B. (2014). Phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology: The philosophy, the methodologies, and using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate lecturers' experiences of curriculum design. Quality & Quantity, 48, 1291-1303.

1. Introduction

There is always an element of the ineffable to life (van Manen, 1997). This article discusses hermeneutic phenomenology. Within this methodology, one must read texts, which are the spoken accounts of personal experience, and isolate themes, as van Manen describes. Themes are written interpretations of lived experiences. Identifying themes, rather than opinions, can be difficult for an early stage researcher.

2. What is qualitative methodology and what is phenomenology?

Qualitative methodologies recognise the experiential, subjective life world of humans, to describe their experiences in depth. The article then gives an overview of the process.

3. An historical perspective on phenomenology

A discussion of Husserl and then Heidegger's views on phenomenology. Gadamer further developed hermeneutic phenomenology and developed interpretative phenomenological thought into a philosophy now known as gadamerian hermeneutics. This concentrates on how language reveals being  understanding can only come through language. Language is seen as a mode of being (ontological) rather than a mode of knowing (epistemological). van Manen developed Gadamer's work, showing how language reveals being within cultural and historical contexts understood by participant and researcher, and through language.

4. Descriptive vs hermeneutic

Both Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology are valid. However, there are differences. Husserlian involves bracketing off influences to reach the essences of the experience.

5. Phenomenology becoming a methodology or approach

As well as a philosophy, phenomenology has developed into a range of methodologies, including: descriptive; hermeneutic, IPA and template analysis.

6. van Manen's hermeneutic phenomenology

van Manen's approach follows that of Gadamer through language revealing being (or existence) within some historical and cultural contexts. The researcher moves through the hermeneutic circle, from part of the text tot the whole and then back to part, to establish truth by discovering phenomena and interpreting them. Through the hermeneutic circle, understanding is brought to a part of the text by its relation to the whole. This then illuminates the part further.

7. Hermeneutic phenomenology and reflexivity

Reflexivity (reflection upon or examination of a situation or experience) can help in interpreting the meanings discovered when using hermeneutic phenomenology. Researchers need to be conscious of, and reflect upon, the ways in which their questions, methods and subject position might impact on the data or interpretation of that data. This is retrospective reflection - on that which has already occurred.

Reflexivity is frequently discussed in hermeneutic phenomenology - the researcher uses empathy or prior experience to aid data analysis and/or interpretation.

8. Interviewing

Open, deep and dialogic interviews are frequently used to gather data in qualitative research methodologies.

9. The research  method

Phenomenology seeks to co-construct knowledge. The focus of the researcher - their questions, their responses - will aid in data gathering as much as the recorded experiences of the participants. When using reflexivity, the researcher's own background, prior knowledge and experience may influence data gathering and analysis.

van Manen's phenomenology allows the use of common experiences between researcher and participant to conduct a structural analysis of the most common, familiar and self-evident. Through this, an evocative description of human actions and experiences as they occur in the life-world are developed.

10. Examples of isolated thematic statements

The authors then run through some excerpts from transcripts from their own research and discuss whether experiences and then themes have been identified or whether the researcher has merely identified opinion.

11. Conclusion

There is a requirement to get to know the text, so that data can be isolated and recognised as being of value to the study or not. When isolated, the experience must be interpreted to represent the phenomenon that the researcher wishes to bring to light. This bringing to light is the contribution to knowledge.

Further Reading

van Manen 1997. Phenomenology of practice

Standing outside the interview process?

This is a really pertinent piece of work. It helps clearly explain the differences between Husserlian and Heideggerian phenomenology. I had pretty much grasped them, it seems. It also seems that I had by chance made the right decision about the process of bracketing, or rather not. I find it difficult to understand how a researcher can 'bracket' out prior experiences and knowledge if undertaking phenomenological research, and so the Heideggerian process of co-creation of the interview between the interviewer and the participant seems to naturally make more sense to me. I'm rather surprised to find myself writing this, with my positivist background in science!

One interesting thought from this paper is that they suggest that confusion and not clearly nailing your phenomenological colours to the mast is relatively common, at least in nursing research. I have to admit that I find this rather surprising - even a cursory glance at the literature clearly indicates that these two concepts of phenomenology are different and so need to be approached in different ways. Anyway - on to the paper. I think it's one I'll come back to time and again.

Lowes, L. & Prowse, M. (2001). Standing outside the interview process? The illusion of objectivity in phenomenological data collection. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 38, 471-480.

1. Introduction

Phenomenological interviewing as data collection is defied by a philosophical position. However, these are rarely stated within articles - perhaps due to word count restrictions. The authors suggest that there is lack of methodological clarity if the philosophical position of the author is not clearly identified. This can, in turn, affect rigour and trustworthiness of the work.

2. Phenomenology as a philosophy and a research approach

There are different interpretations of phenomenology. The omission of a clear statement about the philosophical underpinnings of the phenomenological research method used results in confusion which can affect the overall quality and rigour of the research. Researchers claiming affiliation to either Husserl or Heidegger need to substantiate their claim in their methodological account.

3. Husserl's philosophy

Husserl believed that, in order to ensure the validity or objectivity of research, the researcher needed to examine any preconceptions or beliefs, acknowledge them, and then bracket them - 'reduction'. In order to come to an understanding of an experience that is uncontaminated by our preconceptions, we must try to remove as many layers of experience as we can. Husserl's phenomenology is known as 'transcendental' as he believed that the researcher must transcend their natural attitudes and stand outside the research process, to ensure the objectivity of the research.

4. The pursuit of objectivity through bracketing

The process of bracketing is questioned by philosophers and researchers. Merleau-Ponty (1964) suggests that complete reduction is impossible as the researcher's consciousness is engaged 'in the world' and so cannot be transcended. Crotty (1996) points out that bracketing does not just refer to the researcher but also the participant. Considering the difficulty that researchers have with bracketing, suggesting that participants should have the skills to do so, to consider the work rigorous, seems somewhat troublesome. Furthermore, it must be remembered that Husserlian phenomenology was based on efforts to ensure objectivity and therefore links to positivism, rather than the subjectivity sought through interpretivism (Harper & Hartman, 1997)

There is a question over how researchers do lay aside their biases in practice. There has been a move toward a more pragmatic view of bracketing, but this hardly holds close to the Husserlian ideal.

5. Heidegger's philosophy

Heidegger emphasises the importance of 'being in the world' - both the participant and the researcher are in the world and both view human experience through language, history and cultural perspectives. The hermeneutic phenomenology of Heidegger sees a shift from the aims of objectivity with Husserlian phenomenology. We cannot bracket our 'being in the world' but can only interpret experiences through our own beliefs, prior experiences and preconceptions. The defining characteristic of Heideggerian phenomenology is the incorporation of the researcher's preconceptions in the generation of data.

6. Heideggerian phenomenological interviews

The products of Heideggerian phenomenological interviews are a co-creation by interviewer and respondent. This means that the researcher's experiences, as well as those of the respondent, are captured within the data.

7. The influence of preconceptions on the interview process

Husserlian phenomenology requires the bracketing out of all of the researcher's preconceptions. This is difficult to achieve - researchers choose their studies because they are of importance to them in some way. In Heideggerian phenomenological research, the researcher's background, preconceptions and interest in the study topic influence their responses to participants, data generation and analysis (Rodgers & Cowles, 1993). Credibility therefore relies on the researcher demonstrating self-awareness throughout the research process. Heideggerian phenomenologists acknowledge and document their preconceptions and the possible effects on the interview structure and participants' responses. Reflective journals can be used to make this process visible. At each stage of the study position statements can be produced to explicate preconceptions. It must be considered that preconceptions are open to reinterpretation throughout the interview and analysis process - this should also be documented.

8. Interviewer as co-participant in the research

Interviewers and participants co-create data through interaction where each affects the responses of the other. This enhances the richness of data collection. However, we need to consider the issue of interviewer bias, particularly where there is a perception of power of the interviewer over the respondent, as could occur in education and healthcare. Explicit consideration of this issue will augment trustworthiness.

Nevertheless, it is important o ensure that questions do not guide the respondent to answer in a particular way which merely confirms the preconceptions of the researcher. The researcher must maintain some level of objectivity within the interview, to ensure that they maintain a critical distance and can see alternative viewpoints.

9. The literature review

Opinions differ as to when the phenomenological researcher should review the data. ethically, some research must be performed before the interview, to ensure that the respondent's time is not wasted with questions which do not uncover new thoughts or ideas. Some researchers suggest that in Husserlian phenomenology, a review of the literature should only be completed after interviews, to reduce the preconceptions that must be bracketed. within Heideggerian phenomenology, the researcher's preconceptions are a part of the research process, and so the idea of a literature review producing bias is irrelevant.

However, the researcher must be mindful of not trying to fit their study findings into a conscious or unconscious framework developed from previous studies. The consideration of theoretical constructs from the literature can be documented in a research journal.

10. Quality indicators

A defining quality indicator in Heideggerian research is a detailed explication of the interviewer's preconceptions and reference to these throughout the research process (Paley 1997). In contrast, a quality indicator in Husserlian phenomenology is an account of how the interviewer's preconceptions have been treated so as not to influence the research in any way.

11. Conclusions

Researchers cannot stand outside the interview process but must consider fully their preconceptions.

Further reading

Crotty (1996) Phenomenology and nursing research

Harper & Hartman (1997) research paradigms. In P. Smith (Ed.). Research mindedness for practice.

Merleau-Ponty (1964) Primacy of perception and other essays

Rodgers & Cowles (1993) The qualitative research audit trail: a complex collection of documentation.

Reflections on learning: widening capability and the student experience

This paper is obliquely linked to my interests but does have some useful information and links. It discusses some theories which may be of relevance in my analysis stages. The social context at the beginning is also useful to help me understand the greater picture. I was drawn in by the title, with 'widening capability' - I initially believed this was to do with widening participation. The link is certainly there, exploring methods of assessment which acknowledge the life experiences of those students from a non-traditional background, but it is more to do with developing skills through this acknowledgement.

Summary: Useful background, some further reading to explore.

Garratt, D. (2011). Reflections on learning:  widening capability and the student experience. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(2), 211-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2011.572866

Social Context

There has been rapid and unprecedented expansion of HE in the UK (David, 2010) with an increase in students from non-traditional backgrounds entering HE. Garratt draws attention to the theme of increasing diversity and looks at the implications for learning and teaching, to produce a more socially just pedagogy.

Crozier et al. (2008) suggest that the discourse of WP only involves the 'desire to participate' rather than affecting change in the 'ability to participate' once the students have entered HE. Walker (2008) invokes the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (2007) who believe that within the UK, HE is not fully promoting equality.

Garratt's research question is: "How can HE programmes widen 'capability' by encouraging student reflection on learning and personal knowledge and further recognise the outcomes in order to develop a more inclusive pedagogy, integrating formal and informal learning?"

Methodology and data sources

Garratt identifies the participants, states that it is a qualitative account, with vignettes taken from student learning logs. The study is a post-hoc rationalisation (Hockings et al, 2010). Garratt goes over the ethics process and suggests that the study was done as it was for heuristic reasons. For my own info: heuristic: method not guaranteed to be optimal but sufficient for the immediate goals. Garratt used a hermeneutic approach, moving between theory and data, to find "warrantable understandings" (Ivanic et al., 2007) - illuminating and capable of inference, rather than seeking 'truth'.

Learning log - discussion of the student assessment

Theoretical framework

Sen (1992, 1999) discusses notions of equality in learning, closely linked with the concept of 'capabilities'. Capabilities are the opportunities given to individuals to enable them to realise their potential.

The space between an individual's 'internal capabilities' (Nussbaum, 2000) and 'functionings' (realisation of measurable outcomes) is mediated by the external environment. Bourdieu's  concepts of 'habitus' and 'cultural capital' help demonstrate how students have varying levels of accessibility to particular forms of high status knowledge, based on prior learning experiences and dispositions (Crozier et al, 2010). Crozier et al (2010) suggest that there is a disjunction between the habitus of students from non-traditional backgrounds and the unfamiliar field of experience at university.

Garratt uses Critical Race Theory to analyse the vignettes, using rich data to explore the 'warrantable understandings' drawn from the work.

Widening capability in student experience

Students telling their own stories in accordance with freedoms they have reason to value, the learning task provided opportunity to widen 'capability' and allow students to participate more confidently in their learning.

Hockings et al (2010) "students value teaching that recognises their individual academic and social identities and that addresses their particular learning needs".

Bates (2007): productive pedagogies that seek to develop a capability approach and further the course of social justice in education often usefully possess the following characteristics:...... Intellectual quality - development of higher order thinking.....

Further reading:

Bates (2007) Developing capabilities and the management of trust. In Walker & Unterhalter (eds) Amartya Sen's capability approach and social justice in education.

Crozier, Reay, Clayton, Colliander, Grinstead (2008) Different strokes for different folks: diverse students in diverse institutions - experiences of higher education

Crozier, Reay, & Clayton (2010) The socio-cultural and learning experiences of working-class students in higher education. In David (below).

David M. (Ed.) (2010) Improving learning by widening participation in higher education

Hockings, Cooke & Bowl (2010) Learning and teaching in two universities within the context of increasing student diversity: Complexity, contradictions and challenges. In David's book above

Ivanic, Edwards, Satchwell and Smith (2007).  Possibilities for pedagogy in further education: harnessing the abundance of literacy.

Nussbaum (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach

Sen (1992) Inequality re-examined

Sen (1999) Development as freedom

Walker (2008) Widening participation, widening capability

Doing Heideggerian hermeneutic research: A discussion paper

Smythe, E. A., Ironside, P. M., Sims, S. L., Swenson, M. M., & Spence, D. G. (2008). Doing Heideggerian hermeneutic research: A discussion paper. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 1389-1397. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2007.09.005

This was quite a difficult paper to read. In summary, it is one main researcher, in discussion with colleagues, going through the thought processes that lead them to hermeneutic analysis of their work. It goes into some depth on Heidegger's Dasein, etc. There are a few useful points which I could use in my assignment.

Within this sort of work, rigour is often renamed trustworthiness (needs a citation). The authors stress that they do not link to Husserl or his followers such as Colazzi and Giorgi. They choose to stay close to the experience itself (ontologic) rather than try to articulate a more generalised analysis of essence (ontic).

1. At the heart

"In the midst" of a specific situating that is constantly in flux". Specific knowing can only come in the moment. Gadamer spoke of the rom to "play" - some room to explore within a structure (e.g. wheels on a bike needing some 'pay' to allow for their free movement).

Phronensis: a key part of Heideggerian hermeneutics - the "wisdom in action" that knows in the moment and finds the way, day by day. Researchers in  phenomenology are  never outside their research - they are always in the midst, making choices and living with possibilities.

2. Our quest

There is an understanding that their research cannot produce objective, scientific concepts of truth. Heidegger (in Harman, 2007) refers to truth as 'unconcealment' yet what we seek will move in and out of concealment as we try to seek it. "Thinking is not a 'working out' but a 'letting come' (Dunne, 1993).

3. Translation to method

3.1 The phenomenological conversation
Within phenomenology, the method must, at times, make way for 'Dasein' - being in the moment. Each conversation is unique, even when an interview framework is used. "What matters most is openness to what 'is' - to the play of conversation" (p. 1392).

3.2. Working with the data
Heidegger suggests that our understanding is always already there and cannot nor should be divorced from our thinking. "We are called by a particular story, just as one 'stops' in front of a particular painting in an art gallery". One can never teach another how to think because meditative thinking, as described by Heidegger (1992) is an experience of being-lost-in-thought. The  minute one tries to 'describe' how one thinks, one moves from being-in-thought to a more ontic process that is different.

Van Manen (1990, p. 79) 2Grasping and formulating a thematic understanding is not a rule-bound process but a free act of 'seeing'  meaning". What we call themes are not necessarily the same thing said again and again but rather an understanding we have seen something that matters significantly, something that we wish to point the reader towards.

They suggest that themes aren't 'findings' removed from the data but to indicate what the researcher senses within the text and to indicate to the reader that this will be analysed further.

3.3. Offering
Reliability is not important but what provokes the researcher to wonder.

3.4. Inviting
Heideggerian phenomenology invites the reader to make their own journey.

4. The 'experience'

4.1. At the beginning, the research question is not important and is not fixed. "The focus of the research is held but the questions we bring to that focus will grow and change as our understanding builds."

4.2. Captured by a thought
Insights

4.3. Enjoying
Letting the ideas jump out.

4.4. Working
Listen for the ideas that jump out.

4.5. Listening and responding
Must have an openness to the thinking that emerges and respond to those insights with  more questions.

4.6. The unutterable circle of writing

4.7. Openness
writing as thinking rather than writing as reporting. Be open to the unexpected.

4.8. Always an impression
Findings of hermeneutic phenomenological research is the impression gained. It seeks to engage others in their own thinking experience.

4.9. Discerning trust
The researcher has a responsibility to listen in a way that seeks to understand the meaning of what is said, and to respond with thinking that provokes and engages. Resonance - the hallmark of trustworthiness.

4.10. 'Graced moments'
A hallmark of phenomenological research is the act of 'graced moments' (Heidegger) - a shared sense of belonging to the insight that seems to go beyond what was said, yet is felt and understood as being true.

4.11. Being self
Let thinking come, as it comes. 'Being there' in the midst of what is.

4.12. Conclusion
The paper sought to provide words for the unutterable process of phenomenological research. Phenomenological researchers listen to the participants' story of their lived experiences, trusting that new understandings come through the data. Writing hermeneutically is thinking.

Overall, this paper shines through with the joy that the researchers seem to feel as they engage with the process of research and particularly with the process of analysis of the text.


Further reading:

Dunne (1993) Back to the rough ground.

Harman (2007) Heidegger explained. From object to phenomenon.

Heidegger (1992) What calls for thinking?

Heidegger (1995) Being and time.

Van Manen (1990). Researching lived experience.

Deep swimming and murky waters: Phenomenological interviewing

This paper is a useful one to consider and review just prior to interviewing. It goes through the process and its difficulties, for an early stage researcher. The key point to keep in mind seems to be that you need to make sure you use questions appropriately to probe deeply enough to get answers to the research question.

King, D. (2014). Deep swimming and murky waters: Phenomenological interviewing - reflections from the field. Education Journal, 3(3), 170-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20140303.18

Abstract: A reflection on the merits and caveats of phenomenological interviewing as an educational research tool.

1. Introduction: Phenomenology - issues in educational research

1.1. Phenomenology - what it is.
"The difficulties of stating point-blank what phenomenology is are notorious" (Wimpenny & Gass, 2000). There are disagreements about differing approaches to phenomenology and even disagreement over whether it is an approach or a method (Wilkes 1991 - can't find online at the moment). There is a discussion of the primacy of subjective consciousness; awareness that this consciousness bestows meaning and that this meaning can be accounted for through reflexivity. Polit, Beck & Hungler (2001) suggest that the approach is of use when studying a phenomenon that is not well described.

1.2. Why it is valued in educational research
Human experience is revealed through rich descriptions from the people being studied. It preserves the integrity of the situation where it is used (Cohen, Mannion & Morrison, 2007). This leads to insight and awareness of participants' inner worlds. The phenomenological researcher uses their "intuition, imagination and universal structures to obtain a picture" (Cresswell, 1998) of the experience under study. The subjective judgement of the researcher is a key part of the phenomenological approach (Polit & Hungler, 1991).

1.3. Bracketing
The author discusses the role of bracketing as vital in Husserlian/transcendental phenomenology. He then discusses Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology where we cannot separate our own 'being in the world' (dasein?). Attempts to bridge the gap between Husserl's and Heidegger's views on bracketing have led to the suggestion that the researcher acknowledges the subjective views that describe individual realities. These views include those of the researcher. The author suggests self reflection as a tool to define the researcher's concerns and explain their world view. Open acknowledgement  of the researcher's viewpoint is made explicit to the reader. The philosophical viewpoint of the researcher should be made clear, to provide methodological transparency. Rigour and trustworthiness rest on the researcher clearly demonstrating their preconceptions and contribution to the interview process (Lowes & Prowse, 2001).

The researcher  is the primary instrument of research therefore we need to begin by examining, identifying and acknowledging values, experiences and expectations in relation to the research, and why we are interested in the topic. This can be done through a researcher as instrument statement.

2. Framing the research question.

Framing the initial research question is the first step in the research process (Wellington, 2011). At the bottom of page 172 - some (possibly) good information on how to come up with a research question, by working through the author's own thought processes.

3. Interviews as research instruments

The role of interviewing as a means of data collection is to gather knowledge as generated between humans, often through conversations. Interviews allow subjects to provide their personal views and interpretations of the world. Interviews are multi-sensory, with both verbal and non-verbal communication. There is co-construction of the interview between the interviewer and interviewee (Walford, 2001). "A tacit tension exists between the need for an interviewing framework and the essential naivety required for phenomenological interviewing" (p. 175). The author's suggestion here is that, especially for the beginning researcher, questions do need to be outlined prior to the interview. However, the researcher should have the courage and intuition to follow up areas of interest that relate specifically to the research question, even if they haven't been considered during the planning process.

3.2. Phenomenological interviewing and the interview framework
Seidman (1991) suggests that the researcher needs to have an interest in the stories of others. e need to remain open to emergent experiences. Interview schedules are developed to identify the experience and its meaning for the participants.

4. Sampling and conducting the interview

Use of purposive sampling - selecting appropriate information from sources to explain meanings. We need to make a conscious decision on the site of choice for interviewing as this can affect interviewee response.

5. Ethical considerations

We have a moral obligation to conduct research ethically and to take all necessary precautions to avoid harm. Must seek approval from the ethics committee. BERA require voluntary informed consent. A participant information sheet and consent form are provided. Clear and accurate records of the research procedures followed. Secure data storage.

6. IPA of interview transcripts

The author suggests approaching the data with two aims:
1. To try to understand the participants' world and describe 'what it is like';
2. To develop a more overtly interpretative analysis, positioning the initial description in a wider social, cultural and theoretical context  (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006 - have already read this - go back to!) The novice is therefore using a proven framework.

6.1. Phenomenological reduction
There should be bracketing of the researcher's personal views and assumptions during analysis. It is an analysis of the experience 'as lived' rather than allowing personal/theoretical concepts to get in the way of the rigour with which the description was being analysed. Need to read the transcripts 'naively' several times to get a sense of the whole (consider the hermeneutic circle here - exploration of the part/the whole and back to the part?)

6.2. First order constructs
Hycner (1985) recommends that the researcher delineates units of general meaning through scrutiny of verbal and non-verbal responses, to distil the meaning of the participant, using rich data from the participants themselves.  "Construct" = an abstract or general idea extracted from specific instances by systematically arranging ideas or terms to create a mental framework. First order constructs are units of participant statements kept in their original verbatim form.

6.3. Second order constructs
This is where we interpret meaning from the verbatim text to illuminate the phenomenon in approachable terms (Van Manen, 1990). We look for convergence and divergence by interpreting the narrative and describing and arranging themes into categories - second order constructs.
Taber (1991) describes first order constructs s how the participant conceptualises the phenomenon of interest and second order constructs as how the researcher makes sense of the phenomenon through interpretation.

6.4. Clustering of themes
The second order constructs are grouped into themes. During this phase the researcher moves between the parts and the whole (hermeneutic circle), and clusters the themes into a meaningful relation - structural synthesis of the core elements of the described experience.

7. Discussion of findings

The direct story of the participant recounted that mentoring was a good, helpful experience. The researcher then positioned the participant's interpretation of 'goodness' and 'helpfulness' within a theoretical framework to gain a full picture of what the mentoring experience meant. The researcher clustered the themes under three key constructs defined in relation to the pupil's interpretation of her mentoring experience: mentor constructs, pupil constructs and impact constructs.

8. Conclusion - reflections on phenomenological interviewing

Trustworthiness of the data is an issue  the participants may feel they have to provide the 'true' answer. This would depend on any power relationship between interviewer and participant. The researcher found that he needed more detailed responses to answer the research question - see my comments at the beginning. This is something I must try to get right!

Further reading:

Cohen, Mannion & Morrison, 2007 Research methods in education (6th ed.).

Cresswell (1998) Qualitative enquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions.

Larkin Watts & Clifton 2006. Giving voice and making sense in IPA

Lowes & Prowse (2001). Standing outside the interview process? The illusion of objectivity in phenomenological data generation.

Polit, Beck & Hungler (2001). Essentials of nursing research: methods, appraisals and utilisation.

Polit & Hungler (1991) Nursing research: principles, methods (3rd ed.).

Taber (1991) Triangulating job attitudes.....

Seidman (1991) Interviewing as qualitative research

Van Manen (1990) Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy

Walford (2001). Doing qualitative educational research: a personal guide to the research process.

Wellington, 2011. Educational research: contemporary issues and practical approaches.

Wilkes (1991). Phenomenology: A window to the nursing world. In G. Gray & R. Pratt, Towards a discipline of nursing (pp. 229-246). Melbourne, Australia: Churchill Livingstone.

Wimpenny & Gass (2000) Interviewing in phenomenology and grounded theory: Is there a difference?

More IPA - still no idea why I'm keen

I've read a little more about the 'nitty gritty' of IPA, as well as some more background on its history and theory. Daunting, but still I haven't come across a reason why I shouldn't pursue this path. My main concern, I suppose, is that a lot of the literature relates to its use in psychology/health psychology rather than in education. If you search, there is a range of material out these using it in education, albeit relatively recent. I've not got a real idea on the quality of the material either.

Incidentally, while I'm making some notes about assignment 1 (and potential dissertation thoughts), I've come across some reference to Tinto's student retention/departure models, which merit further investigation. (Also, Austin's theory on student involvement - not looked into this at all at the moment). These could be of use, depending on what my research finds. I need to keep them in mind. However, I'm not sure, if I use IPA, whether I should be 'free' of theories until after I have done my first lot of analysis - I may potentially organise my questions to support the theories I'm considering aligning my thoughts to.

Anyway, enough navel-gazing. My most recent reading (usual caveats apply - I'll need to paraphrase before use):

Larkin, M., Watts, S., & Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voice and making sense in Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 102-120.

Abstract

IPA involves the phenomenological requirement to understand and give voice to the concerns of participants. The interpretative requirement to contextualise and 'make sense' of the claims and concerns. The paper looks to explore the relationship between the phenomenological and interpretative aspects of IPA. It covers the epistemological range of IPAs interpretative focus and its relationship to the more descriptive features of phenomenological analysis. Drawing upon concepts from Heideggerian phenomenology the paper situates its conclusions within a contextualist position.

Introduction: IPA

There is a belief that IPA is 'simply descriptive'. However, it is only seen as this as it is a flexible, accessible and applicable tool. This is not to say that it is without vigour. To be done correctly the novice researcher must be aware that its inherent flexibility may make other,  more prescriptive, methods 'safer'. The authors believe that IPA is a powerful method when carried out correctly.

The idea that IPA is 'simple' may stem from Conrad's use of the words "insider's perspective" and is invariably used to describe others' work with IPA. To be able to gain an "insider's perspective" requires thought. Some IPA research, particularly in health psychology, has avoided interpretation of data and the formation of concepts. This oversimplification can make IPA seem superficial.

IPA research is ideographic - it focuses on the individual. That is not to say that findings from IPA studies cannot be applied more widely, but that this wider application is not very generalizable (??? - my own thoughts - need to clarify and then support!)

IPA studies, methodologically, produce an intensive and detailed analysis of a relatively small number of participants. A range of methods can be used to gather data, including semi-structured interviews. Findings are reported thematically. The process is flexible and similar to other qualitative methods.

There is a phenomenological emphasis on the lived experience of the participants. The IPA researcher must seek to understand the world of the participant and to describe it. However, our experience of the participant's world can only ever be partial - the account is constructed by both participant and researcher. Nevertheless, the researcher's aim is to reproduce a view as close as possible to that of the participant. The second stage (double hermeneutics) is to perform an interpretative analysis. Here, the researcher takes into account the wider social, cultural and theoretical context when revisiting the description. The interpretation "aims to provide a critical and conceptual commentary upon the participants' personal 'sense-making' activities'" (p. 104). The researchers can consider 'what it means for the participant to have made these claims and expressed themselves within this situation. within this, the researcher may draw upon existing theoretical constructs'. So here, I've answered my question about whether/when to draw on existing theory such as Tinto, Bourdieu (if they are relevant!).

The paper expands on the phenomenological and interpretative aspects of IPA. The background is drawn from Heidegger and hermeneutics. There follows a discussion on the role of IPA in qualitative psychology.

Husserl, Heidegger and phenomenology as the study of persons-in-context

I'm going to have to review other papers on Husserl vs Heidegger, as I don't really understand this. Husserl made human consciousness central to his analyses. He also believed in the role of bracketing.
Heidegger was concerned that a person is always a 'person-in-context': "We are a fundamental part of a meaningful world and the meaningful world is a fundamental part of us". We can only be understood as a function of our involvement within the world and the world can only be understood as a function of our interactions with it.

Heidegger rejects Cartesian dualism of separate subject and object. He develops the concept of 'Dasein' ('there being'/'being there') - by nature we are 'there', i.e. somewhere, always located within a specific context.

Ontological and epistemological bases for investigating the person-in-context

It is not possible to remove ourselves, our thoughts, our meaning systems, from the world 2to find out an objective truth". However, this is not to say that we  live within a relativistic kedgeree of thought. "What is real is not dependent upon us, but questions about the nature of their reality can only occur because we ask the question". "Things" cannot be revealed unless they are brought meaningfully into the context of human life. Any discoveries we make are just a function of the relationship between researcher and subject. The 'reality' which emerges from the work depends upon how it is constructed by the researcher.

To gain answers of value, we need to reflexively consider the most appropriate questions to ask. A key concept of IPA is using 'sensitivity and responsiveness' to provide useful outcomes. Sensitivity and responsiveness are key to the phenomenological context of this method/stance. This allows the participant to show themselves as themselves and reveal any subject matter on their own terms.

The paper discusses the "empathetic" treatment of the subject, but consider this against the paper on hermeneutic listening - an inappropriate word?

IPA and persons-in-context

IPA is interested in how a particular person experiences and understands the idea of interest. Our interest is in their perception of the subject rather than the subject itself. This is a really important idea to remember. This is what makes it such an interesting method/stance. We know that we can't get to the truth, so we seek a truth, as seen by the participant. We need to consider their truth in light of historical/social etc contexts - the interpretative part of IPA. "An account can be used to reveal something about a person, but only that person's current positioning in relation to the world of objects which have come to constitute the subject in their experience, culture and locale". The analyst must therefore focus on the person-in-context (a particular person in a particular context) and that person's relatedness to the 'phenomena at hand' is the topic we are interested in. "That is, we are interested in how they understand and make sense of their experiences in terms of their relatedness to, and their engagement with, those phenomena."

An account produced by a participant can be used thematically to reveal something real about the object we are studying. "In choosing IPA for a research project, we commit ourselves to exploring, describing, interpreting, and situating the means by which our participants make sense of their experiences" (p. 110). This is contextualism (Madill et al., 2000).

Giving voice: The 'phenomenological goal' demonstrated

Heideggerian phenomenology requires us to identify, describe and understand the 'objects of concern' in the participant's world and the 'experiential claims' made by the participant. These are the key feature of the first order, descriptive, coding in IPA. The authors give an example - Nigel. They study him in order to capture something "of what is important" to him in this context and with this topic at hand. The key element for Nigel is money - it permeates his words.

Making sense - the 'interpretative repertoire' revisited

IPA wants to go further than description; not least because it is hard to identify where description ends and interpretation begins. IPA goes beyond description as it focuses on sense-making activities and our 'involvement in the world'. Interpreting what it means for the participant to have such concerns, within their specific context.

Hermeneutics does not subscribe to a correspondence theory of truth. It assumes that any interpretation involving a hermeneutic circle in which the interpreter's perspective and understanding initially shape their interpretation, but that interpretation, as it reacts with the phenomena of interest, is open to revision and elaboration as the perspective and understanding of the interpreter, including their biases and blind spots, are revealed and evaluated.

P. 114: IPA has been developed to allow the researcher to produce a theoretical framework based upon, but capable of exceeding, the participant's own terminology and conceptualisations. The approach seeks to generate an 'insider's perspective' but no single theoretical assumption about how that perspective may be interpreted.

A range of analytical strategies can be used during interpretation. Anything used needs: carefully formulated research questions and subsequent analysis; a willingness to reflect on the process of data collection and analysis; a contextualised account.

Summary

IPA has developed as a set of core ideas (idiographic, phenomenological, interpretative analysis, with first person accounts as data, etc.). Some areas are flexible, e.g. epistemology procedure. It combines rich description of a phenomenological 'core' (aiming to capture something of the 'person-in-context'), with more speculative development of an interpretative account - the meaning of the claims and concerns.

Thinking about approaches to my research

I'm not quite sure why, but I seem to be thinking about using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) for my research for assignment 1. Not knowing why, I suspect, is not an appropriate reason I can provide to the module tutor to justify its choice.

I also have thoughts of Bourdieu whizzing around my brain, on a separate note. I'm going to investigate the ideas of cultural capital and habitus  and see if they coincide with my thoughts on assignment 1.

Anyway, back to IPA. The following paper I found to be quite useful in providing a quick overview of the approach. Nothing within it suggests that it's not an appropriate approach. I need to get hold of Smith's book on the subject and do some more reading. This paper discusses IPA in general and then its relevance to healthcare. It seems mostly used within psychology, but I cannot see why it can't be used within an educational setting.

Pringle, J., Drummond, J., McLafferty, E., & Hendry, C. (2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: A discussion and critique. Nurse Researcher, 18(3), 20-24.

This paper looks at the role of IPA within healthcare. Its roots are in psychology, so are there issues in using it  more generally?

Within IPA the role of the analyst is greater than within Husserl's phenomenology. The key difference between IPA and phenomenology is acknowledging the active role of the researcher in the analysis, making it, therefore, potentially less descriptive.

IPA is used for researching the individual and involves a two-stage interpretation. The researcher interprets the participant's attempts at sense-making - this is known as a 'double hermeneutic'.

There has been some confusion over phenomenological approaches to description and interpretation. IPA does not follow the critical interpretative framework of Koch. Smith et al. highlight the role of IPA as an in-depth analysis of individuals. This is one of the potential negatives of IPA - it is subjective and non-generalizable. However, we need to consider different definitions of validity. Useful insights of more a more general nature can evolve from IPA work. The depth of dialogue can contextualise the research to wider theory. There is a likelihood of "theoretical transferability" rather than empirical generalizability.

IPA uses smaller samples with the privilege on  the individual, allowing a deeper analysis. There's extensive use of direct quotes to anchor the findings.

IPA is bound within its theoretical roots, which provides both depth and purpose. The reader can assess transferability based on the richness and transparency of the data. However, we need to clarify and acknowledge the limitations that homogeneity of sample may cause, as this can limit transferability.

A wide range of data collection can be used with IPA but it is important to acknowledge and discuss any strengths and weaknesses of the chosen method. I would be most interested in using semi-structured interviews.

IPA is an adaptable account. Whilst there are guidelines, these are open to adaptation. It is not prescriptive. IPA stresses interpretation rather than description, capturing examples of both convergence and divergence rather than just on commonalities.

IPA is an evolving method, with changes occurring over time. It is suggested that now one should bracket previous interviews, to do justice to the individuality of each participant. I find this a little difficult, If we do not bracket our own frames of reference for IPA why should we need to bracket previous interviews? Need to look at the theory of this a bit more.

Researcher experience is part of the interpretative analysis. Maybe consider in relation to Kimball and Garrison's work on hermeneutics.

There is no set way of analysis but manual coding enables an intimacy with the data which may not be achieved if using software.

The authors go on to discuss validity, which has been covered by Smith et al. The interpretation is subjective but external audits allow credibility. There is no single truth but the approach should provide a legitimate account. Triangulation of methods can be used to provide validity.

The authors discuss the use of IPA within healthcare. It is grounded in psychology. Therefore I need to consider its applicability to other disciplines.

Weekend 1 aditional reading: Hermeneutic Listening

This paper related to the session we had on interviewing. This is an interesting concept. Rather than laying aside our prejudices when we talk to an 'other', we acknowledge those prejudices (positive and negative), and work towards a common understanding. We do not need to change others' minds but find areas of common ground.

The notes I scribbled on the text whilst in the session were:
- We bring prejudices with us when we listen to others.
- We need to consider what someone is saying. In an interview, this happens in the moment - we need to listen carefully in order to respond in an appropriate way.

Kimball, S. & Garrison, J. (1996). Hermeneutic listening: An approach to understanding in multicultural situations. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 15, 151-159.

The article starts with a quotation by Gadamer, who was key in the development of hermeneutics. The quotation concerns conversation being a means of understanding. Conversation encourages consideration of others' viewpoints and also highlights new ways of interpreting our own positions. This is helical - consideration of others leads to greater understanding of ourselves, which leads to improved consideration of others, etc.....

The authors home in on multicultural conversations - for multiculturalism to work, there must be respect for others' experiences (and their interpretation of the experiences), and to create new understanding.

The authors warn against both 'passive listening', which can lead to the listener being 'assimilated' by a dominant culture, and also against 'empathetic listening'. The authors prefer a concept of listening as 'the art of interpretation'. Hermeneutics can be used to interpret the 'text' of a conversation to achieve understanding between individuals.

Within hermeneutics, meaning is developed within a particular context, amongst particular participants - the role of hermeneutics is to produce new understanding in both conversants. It is important to understand what a person says rather than understanding the person.

From empathy to ontological hermeneutics

There is, as mentioned, a difference between empathetic listening and hermeneutics. Empathetic listeners acknowledge prejudices and their role in understanding, but claim to be able to put them to one side in order to understand another person as they 'really are'. However, this claim is, according to hermeneutic listeners, very limiting. There is the assumption that prejudice is "bad", but Gadamer shows us that this assumption is incorrect. There has only been this negative connotation to the word since the Enlightenment. Prejudices are just 'pre-judgements' which allow us to get through everyday life.

One must recognise that we are "conditioned by historical circumstances" - we are the product of our experiences, values etc. We cannot eliminate this; to think that we can do so is false. Our participation in different communities (family, school, state, nation, race, gender etc.) shapes how we interpret the world and our pace within it. This is what makes us 'us'.

So, hermeneutic conversation requires us not to rid ourselves of these prejudices but to examine them, and free ourselves of those which hinder our efforts to understand others. It is only when we encounter difference that we can recognise our own prejudices and question them. Then understanding can be developed.

We do not necessarily have to take on the other's views when we examine our prejudices, but change of some sort will occur. "By coming into contact with different beliefs, ...[etc.], we become aware of our own prejudices". If we can interrogate these prejudices in light of the newly perceived alternatives, then new understanding is opened up both with others and in ourselves.

In this way, the authors suggest that the hermeneutic process is compatible with multiculturalism. Empathetic listening is not, as it presupposes that differences between people act as barriers to understanding which must be overcome. Prejudices cannot just be set aside - to suggest as much is to reduce the need for reflection on our pre-judgements. Empathy seeks to 'reproduce' the speaker's original meaning. This way, new understandings cannot be reached. Hermeneutics produces new, multicultural understandings.

Openness

'Openness' is more than being open to what the other means so that the understanding can be reproduced. Instead, the listener is open to new meanings and understanding that are being developed through the conversation. Meanings are produced rather than repeated. Meaning relies on more than one person within a specific socio-historical context having a discussion and jointly assigning meaning.

With regard to multicultural conversations, this openness can be thought of as an "openness to alternative interpretation", including self and culture. We reinterpret our experiences differently after time has passed, and also after encountering new people and cultures. This leads us to new meaning. What is said, what is not said (i.e. omitted), the tone of voice, all reflect our prejudices. By listening to ourselves as we speak to others, we can achieve greater awareness of our identity and what frames it.

How does this differ from empathy? A person committed to hermeneutic listening/understanding acknowledges that each person in the conversation is conditioned by different historical circumstances even if they share the same race, culture, gender, etc. It is important to acknowledge these differences rather than to eradicate them and use our own culturally conditioned prejudices to imagine another person's experiences. By responding with a question providing an analogy to the experience, the comparison may not be exact but new meanings can be made through this exploration.

Fusion of horizons in multicultural conversations

"So far, we have described hermeneutic listening as a continuous, cyclical process by which we become more aware of ourselves as well as the unfamiliar other." This leads to the "mutual creation" of new understandings and meaning. Gadamer calls these points where new understandings are reached as a 2fusion of horizons" - opening up a new horizon of understanding through conversation with others of different beliefs, culture, values, etc. Horizons are ever-moving. Where we enter situations that test our prejudices, our horizons will be redefined.

2The act of understanding involves the fusion of horizons" - through looking at other people's lives we broaden our own horizons. Within hermeneutics, it is important to accept the possibility of tension between different sets of prejudices but we can draw this out to create common understanding, a "social construction" shared by all.

The object is to neither have empathy for not to subordinate the other but to redefine our mutual horizons, whilst still acknowledging difference. This builds a common ground to continue the mutual dialogue.

Why listen?

Why should we go through the process of questioning our prejudices and shifting our horizons? Sometimes, we cannot avoid it. However mostly it is a conscious decision for at least one of three reasons:

1. education is to challenge familiarity with the novel/uncomfortable, to reach new understanding;
2. We can only come to know ourselves through our encounters with others. Otherwise we are unaware of the prejudices which shape our views;
3. when we wish to change ourselves, we need to interact with 'others'. Change in ourselves is a social process.

To sustain conversations with others can lead to new understanding which can be beneficial to our personal growth.

The writers finish by discussing that throughout the paper, their thoughts are underpinned by their own cultural prejudices.

My own thoughts?

Once again, this paper is about having an awareness of the lenses through which we see the world. In interpretivism, it is important not to try to put these lenses to one side. This is impossible. But what we must do is acknowledge that they exist.

Other thoughts: How does this link to Lyotard? The talk about Gadamer here suggests there is the reaching of a mutual understanding. However, if I remember correctly, Lyotardian paralogy goes further than that - moving towards a continuous expansion of knowledge and understanding.

Another thought (irrelevant but I wanted to capture it): when it spoke of change in ourselves being a social process, I was very struck by the way this links to Slimming World. when we wish to change, we need to interact with others. Nothing here to do with multiculturalism, but discussion amongst others to change an individual's mindset.