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

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

All is interpretation

What appears to you is what is. There is nothing outside of you which tells you, or me, that IT, what ever "it" is, IS. The only way I can know is through me and my senses. My stream of experiences are mine, no one else's. These experiences do not prove the existence of the exterior world or anything in it. I construct that sense-world by attributing my sensations to an unknown universe. The world then is my projected picture of it, symbolic and approximate. We justify, on the whole, the external world by accepting our private evidence that something exists beyond ourselves. So, I contend, we go about our business thinking that I see, feel, hear--sense--what you think you see, etc., or can. Thus the bases for science and other things. I  becomes w e. And we proceed beyond me and under the illusion that my concrete reality is the same as yours, a "consensual realty." We carry on our oh-so-practical lives on what are defenseless and uncertain foundations. Thus all...
Post a Comment
Read more