Crafting Phenomenological Research

Mark D. Vagle

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781351700917
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Research & Methodology in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Building off the success of its award-winning first edition, the second edition of Crafting Phenomenological Research continues to be the leading resource for those interested in a concise introduction to phenomenological research in education and social sciences.

Joining leading contemporary practitioners, such as van Manen, Giorgi, and Dahlberg, Vagle walks the reader through multiple approaches to designing and implementing phenomenological research, including his post-intentional phenomenology, which incorporates elements of post-structural thinking into traditional methods. Vagle provides readers with methodological tools to build their own phenomenological study, addressing such issues as research design, data gathering and analysis, and writing.

Replete with exercises for students, resources for further research, and examples of completed phenomenological studies, this book affords the instructor an easy entrée into introducing phenomenology into courses on qualitative research, social theory, or educational research.

New to this edition:

• 
  
  

• An additional first chapter that outlines the historical background of phenomenological philosophy and methodology.

• 
  
  

• A feature called "snapshots" that provides brief commentary and/or examples to illustrate concepts and ideas.

• 
  
  

• Updated "resource digs" providing more examples, with the addition of more international resources.

p.1

PART I

Exploring Philosophical Concepts and Notions in Phenomenology

p.2

In this part of the book we will work our way through the following important questions:

1. What are some of the historical foundations of phenomenology? (Chapter 1)

2. What is a phenomenon in phenomenology? (Chapter 2)

3. What is intentionality and why is it so important in phenomenology? (Chapter 3)

4. How might prepositions help us grasp some of the philosophical nuances of phenomenology and put them to use methodologically? (Chapter 4)

In order to address these questions, I work across a number of philosophers and philosophical ideas in an attempt to emphasize aspects of phenomenological philosophies that I think are important to grasp in our crafting of phenomenological research. However, I do not come anywhere close to doing justice to the depth and complexities of these phenomenological philosophies. I strongly encourage you, as you continue to hone your craft, to be in dialogue with these philosophies. I learn new and incredibly important things each and every time I return to luminaries such as Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Gadamer, and Deleuze (to name a few). If I have learned anything in the last 15 years of studying philosophy within and outside phenomenology circles, it is that when we read and study philosophy, especially primary sources such as those listed above and especially if reading and studying philosophy is new to us, it is wise to remind ourselves of two things:

1. Philosophical texts are not written directly to us, as are many academic texts with which we might be accustomed. In this respect, philosophical texts might be, stylistically at least, more like novels. We are entering into ongoing dialogues/debates/arguments about ideas—philosophical in this case. We are not being told directly what something means or how it should be interpreted, nor are we provided guidance about what to “do” with the ideas. Turning ourselves over to this sense of journey and dwelling with ideas can free us up to engage in uncertainties.

2. Related, philosophical texts and the ideas therein are often not quickly and easily understood. They must be read and re-read, written about, discussed, and debated. I have heard my former colleague Bettie St. Pierre at the University of Georgia (USA) urge others to let the texts “wash over” them. We are in pursuit of possible understandings and interpretations, not the understanding. Turning ourselves over to ambiguities is also important.

p.3

With all this in mind, I have tried to capture some of the ideas important to phenomenology in an accessible way without oversimplifying complex matters. To do so, I share my own ongoing understandings, draw on contemporary philosophers who have also tried to write directly to the reader in an accessible manner (Dermot Moran and Robert Sokolowski in particular), and point to some of the ways high-amplitude phenomenological researchers such as Max van Manen, Karin Dahlberg, and Amedeo Giorgi use philosophical ideas to lay out their understandings of and preferred approaches to crafting phenomenological research.

While going to these sources yourself is necessary, I do hope that you will leave this part of the book feeling as though you have some sense of my interpretations of the philosophical ideas—particularly insofar as you are able to incorporate these ideas in your own unique crafting of phenomenological research and to engage in the never-ending complexities these ideas offer as your craft grows and changes in and over time. I also want to stress that I made some difficult choices about what to emphasize in this part.

In this second edition I added a new first chapter designed to introduce some of the history and foundations of phenomenology. I have organized the chapter like I now do when I teach phenomenological philosophy, methodology, and research methods. I provide a graphic organizer with the philosophy at the “30,000 feet” level, the methodology at the “10,000 feet” level, and the methods “on the ground”—and then discuss some of the key “things to know” at each of these levels. The remaining chapters of this part look much like they did in the first edition of the book, with some updates throughout and some weaving of ideas I introduced in Chapter 1. I still erred on the side of “less is more” by foregrounding and privileging the notions of phenomenon and intentionality and backgrounding a number of other very important notions such as intuiting, intersubjectivity, lifeworld, phenomenological reduction, and phenomenological and natural attitudes. The latter are indeed discussed, but are woven through the central notions of phenomenon and intentionality in this chapter and are discussed in Part II as well.

My choices here are somewhat different than others who have written texts dealing with phenomenological research methods. Some spend considerable time tracing key historical developments in the philosophy (e.g., van Manen 2014), others spend concerted time discussing the contributions of particular philosophers (e.g., Smith, Flowers, and Larkin 2009), and others do a bit of both (e.g., Dahlberg, Dahlberg, and Nystrom, 2008).

Again, I opted for the “less is more” principle, since one of the primary purposes of this book is to introduce researchers to phenomenological research, and in my teaching and presenting on this matter students and others in attendance have often reported being overwhelmed by the sheer volume and complexity of the philosophy. One student said she heard a seasoned qualitative research scholar lament that phenomenology is a turn-off because it is one of those research methodologies that takes so long to grasp that it is not worth doing. My sense is that this has a lot to do with the philosophical nature of phenomenological research. I have found that one way to help make the philosophy a bit less overwhelming—especially if/when one is new to philosophical writings—is to provide a few clear entry points into the philosophy, and then proceed deeper in and over time as we hone our craft.

p.4

That said, I think it is incredibly important to go deeper into the philosophy than I do in this part. What I provide here is a taste of some of the salient philosophical ideas. I strongly encourage you to turn to the sources I cite and to the Resource Dig at the end of this part.

We begin with an introduction to phenomenology at 30K, 10K, and on the ground.

p.5

CHAPTER ONE Phenomenology A Historical Background

The first important thing to understand about the history and origin of phenomenology is that it is a philosophical discipline and movement, that some human and social science researchers have drawn heavily on in order to create a human science research methodology by the same name. When I teach phenomenology, I often use the visual metaphor below to illustrate the relationship between phenomenological philosophy, phenomenological research methodology, and methods.

30,000 Feet

Phenomenological Philosophies

10,000 Feet

Phenomenological Methodologies

On the Ground

Methods

At 30,000 (30K) feet (cruising altitude, if you will) are philosophical, ontological, and epistemological concepts, ideas, and issues; at 10,000 (10K) feet are broad methodological assumptions, guidelines, and logic that create a path, or way, to carry out systematic inquiries of phenomena; and on the ground are the particular methods (techniques, processes, tools) for gathering and analyzing phenomenological material (data).¹ In phenomenology, what we are concerned with at 30K feet very closely informs what we are concerned with at 10K feet. That is, the philosophical, ontological, and epistemological concepts in phenomenology are deeply connected to the methodological matters. And then the same holds true as one moves from 10K feet to “the ground.” The choices regarding the how, what, when, and where of gathering phenomenological material are deeply connected to the broader assumptions regarding systematic inquiry and then the philosophical, ontological, and epistemological concepts and ideas.

The remainder of this chapter is devoted to introducing the 30K, 10K, and “On the Ground” of phenomenology, in order to provide some foundational understanding as well as a roadmap for the rest of the book—where these ideas, concepts, and strategies are taken up more deeply.

p.6

Phenomenological Philosophy—30K Feet

The origins of phenomenology² as both a philosophical discipline and philosophical movement began in Western continental philosophy at the turn of the 20th Century, when Edmund Husserl published Logical Investigations (1900–1901). Although Husserl is described as the father or founder of phenomenology, present-day philosophers (e.g., Smith 2016; Moran 1999; Moran and Mooney 2002) are mindful that phenomenology was practiced in various forms for centuries prior—albeit not in name. For example, Smith argues that “when Hindu and Buddhist philosophers reflected on states of consciousness achieved in a variety of meditative states, they were practicing phenomenology. When Descartes, Hume, and Kant characterized states of perception, thought, and imagination, they were practicing phenomenology” (2016, 14). Smith goes on to emphasize how the term “phenomenology” appeared in Latin and German writings throughout the 1700 and 1800s (e.g., Hegel, Kant, Lambert, and Oetinger), and that phenomenology’s focus on states of consciousness was also informed greatly by developments in psychology in the late 1800s—in particular through the writings of Franz Brentano’s descriptive psychology.

Despite Smith’s point that phenomenology “existed in practice” long before Husserl’s time, it would be odd for these philosophies (e.g., Hindu, Buddhist) and philosophers (e.g., Descartes, Kant) to be called phenomenologists. Hence, for our purposes, it is not necessary to spend time delving deeply into each of the philosophers who preceded Husserl; though it is important to at least be able to briefly situate what preceded phenomenology historically, as the phenomenological movement was born out of critique of some of these earlier philosophical writings—especially Descartes’.

Descartes, a French philosopher, is often considered the founder of modern Western philosophy. He was born in the late 1500s and had a profound influence on Western philosophy and mathematics until his death in the mid-1600s. In fact, it is customary to read phenomenological, hermeneutic, and post-structural (to name a few) philosophical writings that refer to “Cartesian” (i.e., Descartes) thinking or ideas. Most often, these writings critique, resist, and/or distance themselves from Cartesian ideas—in particular Descartes’ assertion that the mind and everything outside of the mind are separated from one another. That is, the human being reasons her or his way through the world, with the mind “cut off” from the world, the body, the natural world, and so on. This is significant, as Descartes’ philosophy drove and animated hundreds of years of scientific inquiry in the West, informed positivism as a philosophical movement, and became engrained and embodied in the day-to-day living of people in the West (i.e., there is a truth, there is a right and wrong, either-or logic, etc.).

p.7

Husserl’s phenomenology was written in direct opposition to these Cartesian concepts and ideas—and his philosophy, at the time, helped catalyze a radical shift in Western philosophy. First, it directly opposed the mind–body/world dualism that dominated Western thought. Husserl emphasized that our consciousness is always “of” something. Today, this seems rather obvious to say. At the time,...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Crafting Phenomenological Research
• Praise
• Title
• Copyright
• Crafting Phenomenological Research
• Contents
• Acknowledgments and Credits
• Introduction
• Part I Exploring Philosophical Concepts and Notions in Phenomenology
• Part II Phenomenological Research Approaches
• Part III A Post-Intentional Approach to Phenomenological Research
• Epilogue
• Appendix: Additional Resources
• References
• Index