The three tensions of phenomenology appear to be:
- description vs interpretation
- reduction (bracketing) vs reflexivity
- general (essence) vs particular (idiographic)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309883101_A_framework_for_negotiating_positionality_in_phenomenological_research
However, it appears to be a Husserl vs Heidegger dichotomy with Husserl being description, reduction, general; and Heidegger being interpretation, reflexivity, particular.
As a phenomenological researcher, is it contradictory to apply an interpretive, reduction, particular position that integrates both schools of thought? Is it possible to achieve all positions of both as a way to present a broad representation of the phenomena?
I appreciate the value of both sides and envision all possibilities for answering my research question.
Article A framework for negotiating positionality in phenomenologica...
Hi Thomas,
Thank you for your response. I have read somewhere that "description" and "interpretation" in phenomenology are essentially the same thing; if we create themes to describe data, then we are using some level of interpretation to do so. I linked the article I read which provided these dichotomies, but I don't know if their definition is the same either.
Hermeneutics, in my understanding, is an interpretive approach. Please let me know if this is incorrect.
I plan to use Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as my tool for phenomenology. What do you think of this?
The general vs particular debate concerns the difference in how the phenomenon is viewed: whether the researcher looks for a shared essence of the phenomenon (general) or several idiographic features relevant to different individuals (particular).
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the clarification. I suppose I'm approaching my method from a less philosophical stance, ie: not an established school of thought, and not to contribute to philosophy. My approach just uses the tools of phenomenology (I'm dealing with children).
I think we're talking about the term 'interpretation' from different angles. I thought that the interpretive nature here is the interpretation of the phenomenological data done by the researcher (not the perceiver). The justification here is that the researcher comes with a set of understandings about the phenomenon and about the participants upon interaction, making it a more reflexive approach (no bracketing done). This is where my dilemma lies: can we take an interpretive view, yet still bracket our preconceptions?
I'd love to read some of the literature were you have gained your knowledge, Thomas. Can you provide me with any?
Brett
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Cell Biology
- Methods