Reactions and notes from Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Suny Press.
Exploring Hermeneutical Phenomenology
Dictionary Entries for this Post:
Hermeneutical Phenomenology: "A human
science that is interested in the human world as we find it in all
its variegated aspects. Unlike research approaches in other social
sciences which may make use of experimental or artificially created test
situations, human sciences wishes to meet human beings- men, women, children-there where
they are naturally engaged in their worlds. In other words,
phenomenological research finds its point of departure in the situation, which
for purpose of analysis, description, and interpretation functions as an
exemplary nodal point of meanings that are embedded in the situation"
(18).
Research Method: "The philosophical framework,
the fundamental assumptions and characteristics of a human science
perspective" (27).
Research Technique: "The...variety of theoretical
and practical procedures that one can invent or adopt in order to work out a
certain research method" (28).
Research Procedure: "Allows us to proceed, to go
forward, and to get something accomplished" (28).
Bridling Thoughts:
The item I would like to discuss that perplexed me while
reading was the difference between "description" and "interpretation" as it relates to Van Manen's concepts of Phenomenology (24).
I can certainly decipher the difference of definition, but I find it harder to do so when utilizing the technique of phenomenology, as I am still trying to wrap my head around its own definition.
It seems that in phenomenology, one wants to be able to provide a description of "lived experience" but which can provide data, but then interpret that data without making assumptions about our own perceptions of that lived experience of the others, might in fact, be. How do we as researchers, utilize the descriptions for interpretative and even analytic purposes, when the heart of phenomenology stems from what others are experiencing, which is truly unique to them? I found what my classmate Angel said in one of our discussions very intriguing. She noted that she felt haughty when trying to interpret data, because she felt that, who was she to be determining what someone else's experience was? I understand her thought lines. It is paradoxical to me to interpret that which we have not lived through the description of what others have. It then is indeed, up to the interpretation to bridge this gap. The author says this: " Phenomenology is, on the one hand, description of lived experience, and on the other hand, description of meaning of the expressions of lived experience. The two types of descriptions seem somewhat different in the sense that the first one is an immediate description of the lifeworld as lived (which I, Sara, understand) whereas the second one is an intermediate (or a mediated) description of the lifeworld as expressed in symbolic form (which I, Sara, do not quite understand)" (25). He goes on, "When description is thus mediated by expression (for example: by blushing, talk , action, a work of art, a text) then description seems to contain a stronger element of interpretation. Actually it has been argued that all description is ultimately interpretation" (25).
Ah! There is the crux. Perhaps I should focus less on what the difference of these actions are, and more on how they work together with the constructs of phenomenology and at different times and for different purposes.. Description and Interpretation are all part of the method, technique and procedures, and if I am understanding correctly, should be viewed as such. Interesting, to say the least!
