I think it's always useful to work with phenomenological hermeneutics, taking a few axes of human experience, like body, time, physical sensation, even amusement. All that could be cover by lived narrative.

Best wishes,

Gabriel

We know phenomenological research very well. We would like to learn about the analysis methods and relevant literature for these methods.

Phenomenological is an analysis method, I would recommend Nili Portugali, The Act of Creation and the Spirit of a Place, A Holistic-Phenomenological Approach to Architecture.

I'd recommend Susan Kozel's brilliant book" Closer: Performance, Technologies, Phenomenology" for an embodied approach to the analysis of lived experiences. http://www.amazon.com/Closer-Performance-Technologies-Phenomenology-Leonardo/dp/0262113104

Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology of the body and embodiment provides a valuable approach!

Thank you very much for your recommendations.

I believe Moustakas "Heuristic Approach" is better for a current lived experience because it documents an experience as close to the present as possible. But the researcher cannot control the topic per se as much, except that it is a lived a experience of a certain problem, and or circumstance - which is valuable in its own right. As soon as we want a structure of a specific experience, I think the easiest is to default to Giorgi's psychological phenomenology, but I think Van Manen's "Researching Lived Experience" offers a more robust and accessible methodology.

But from the very little detail that you provided on what it is for, I would have to agree with Dr. Kuepers above, or go with Moustakas "Heuristic Approach" stated above; since I would imagine that you want to explore how people perceive a particular task or problem.

Before analysing, sensing, appraoching, interpreting... As variuos research forms of qualitative research emphasise...

Have a look at Depraz, Varela, Vermersch (2002) - On Becoming Aware - A pragmatics of experiencing. They do not remain merely theoretical, but aim to provide a pragmatic approach to capture experience.

There is a wide range of conceptual and methodological ways to "analyze" lived experience, though I would never use the word" analyze" because it moves one back into positivist/analytic/instrumentalist approaches to human life and experience. From my perspective, phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches are the best way to explore lived experience. Two excellent introductions to these approaches are: (1) Linda Finlay's PHENOMENOLOGY FOR THERAPISTS (Wiley/Blackwell, 2011); and Man van Manen's just-published PHENOMENOLOGY OF PRACTICE (Left Coast Press, 2014).

I strongly recommend Amedeo Giorgi's The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach.

I have used it in research papers interviewing faculty nurses on the practice of collaboration in academia. Despite the title, Giorgi says it can be used in any other social science. It is not just for psychology. He knows Husserl well, having studied him in the U.S. and Europe, and takes the philosphical Husserl into a phenomenology of practice -- makes phenomenology into a stepped procedure.

Amedeo Giorgi: A Life in Phenomenology

http://phenomenologyblog.com/?p=485

Giorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburgh, Pa: Duquesne University Press.

There is a large literature on "environmental and architectural phenomenology." See my review at:

https://www.academia.edu/200038/Phenomenology_Place_Environment_and_Architecture_A_Review_2000_

That review is also on this site.

Also check out issues of ENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHITECTURAL PHENOMENOLOGY, which regularly covers phenomenological work relating to architecture and design issues.

In regard to phenomenological method, one of the best starting points is Max van Manen's books, particularly his newest just published: A PHENOMENOLOGY OF PRACTICE (Left Coast Press, 2014). To me, a much more useful approach to phenomenology than Giorgi's (or Jonathan Smith's IPA).

David Seamon

Thank you very much William and David. Your contributions to my question are very helpful .