Skip to main content

A hermeneutic phenomenology


DRAFT

A hermeneutic phenomenology--inductive, dialectical, iterative, reflexive process for producing a phenomenological description

DATA

Review claimed account(s) of a phenomenon

Construct a preliminary definition/description/example of the phenomenon to use as a beginning tool for inclusion

Apply this delimitation to the account(s) selected

Sort accounts based on direct-experience ("re-creation") or about-experiencing ("report")

Select the richest account(s) for inclusion

BRACKETING

Identify, set aside, account for all biases and assumptions with reference to the phenomenon

Detail the inquirer's interest and participation in the phenomenon

Place the inquirer into the mix of what the phenomenon is and how it is experienced

As appropriate, include the inquirer's experience of the phenomenon into the mix of accounts

CODING

Place each account into, for example, a table and separate into meaning units (e.g., sentences)

Code the units as to relevancy to, boundaries of, and themes or theme clusters belonging to the phenomenon as at this stage understood

Note all invariant statements

Set aside units not part of the phenomenon

TAXONOMY AND MATRIX

Paraphrase each account using qualities and features

Build each paraphrase into a narrative of each account and elaborate meanings based on original language

Confirm each narrative as a textual representation of the phenomenon under study yet lifted from the specific context for each original

Determine if each narrative compares favorably with the preliminary understanding used as a basis for inclusion in the inquiry

Determine if each narrative compares favorably with the coding of qualities and features as drafted thus far

Adjust paraphrases, narratives, and coding so that there is  consistency between and among these

Confirm accuracy of depiction between the results and the original accounts

Draft a matrix of qualities and features of the phenomenon and posit a taxonomy for same to be used in subsequent views and reviews of the themes and structure of the phenomenon

DESCRIPTIONS

For each narrative write a textural description

Consider consistency, coherence, etc., among all sources of reference (preliminary conceptualization, original account, coding, paraphrase, narrative) until a point of satisfactory "correspondence" is achieved

For each narrative write a structural description

Include movement between and among themes in terms of parts and whole, their relationships and dynamics (e.g., chronology, action (plot), logic, etc.)

Consider the structure's consistency, coherence, etc., among all sources of reference (preliminary conceptualization, original account, coding, paraphrase, narrative) until a point of satisfactory "correspondence" is achieved

Adapt descriptions as necessary using most accurate terms, understandings, and textures to this point

SYNTHESIZING

Combine structural and textural descriptions for each account

Compare with each account and the taxonomy-matrix developed from the above refinements

Compare themes and descriptions

Refine each to set a matrix

Using the resulting taxonomy write a structural-textural description for each account

SYNTHESIS

Create one textural-structural description

De-contextualize as needed ("lift the phenomenon out of the particular")

Illustrate the phenomenon as necessary

Refine the description so that it is clear on what is experienced and how it is experienced

Assess the final description for inclusiveness and accuracy among all aspects and stages of its development

Comments

Post a Comment

Contributions to the subjects of this journey welcome.

Popular posts from this blog

Exercise one: The data do show

A. For each writing, what is the phenomenon described? Can it be rendered in a word or phrase? This is to say that each is about something--a noema, an X, an it . B. Is each writing "a direct description of our experience [of that something] as it is"? This is to say, or claim, that each is a phenomenological description comprised of both the it and how one experiences that it . C. Each writing as an  it in itself is an object of intentional gaze, or could be; each is a phenomenon which can itself be described, both noema and noesis. Which, 1 or 2 below, is more clearly a writing/text/work as phenomenological description? . . . Just to get things started. SAMPLE #1 {BEGIN WRITING} The last poem Years and years and years past I would write a gift, and thought it shared the love at Christmas. Now and now and now at last through the years I sift, and think to share our love at Christ's mass. Then and then and then repast I would mine eyes uplif...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is (a) writing

From a glossary of phenomenology*, we have these. Intentionality: The term "intentionality" indicates the inseparable connectedness of the human being to the world. Brentano, and later Husserl, argued that the fundamental structure of consciousness is intentional (Spiegelberg, 1982). And every conscious experience is bi-polar: there is an object that presents itself to a subject or ego. This means that all thinking (imagining, perceiving, remembering, etc.) is always thinking about something. The same is true for actions: grasping is grasping for something, hearing is hearing something, pointing is pointing at something. All human activity is always oriented activity, directed by that which orients it. In this way we discover a person's world or landscape. We are not reflexively conscious of our intentional relation to the world. Intentionality is only retrospectively available to consciousness. Or as Merleau-Ponty said, the world is revealed to us as ready-made and al...
Post a Comment
Read more

Aside

"Lauren Silbert uses brain scans to try to zero in on what happens when two people click." (http://www.radiolab.org/2011/apr/18/soul-mates-and-brain-doubles/) Ms. Silbert read a story and had her brain activity mapped (scanned). Then she told the story to others and their brain activities were mapped. One listener's brain activity matched that of the storyteller, exactly. Thesis? The matching points represent the same experiences of the words-images that comprise the story. And if they match entirely, both storyteller and listener have had the same experience that the words create (evoke?). Is this the fundamental phenomenology of writing--the intentionality--to create in your experience that which I intend and had when I wrote what I did?
Post a Comment
Read more