what type of analysis is used in phenomenological research

Qualitative Research Methods

• Gumberg Library and CIQR
• Qualitative Methods Overview

Phenomenology

• Case Studies
• Grounded Theory
• Narrative Inquiry
• Oral History
• Feminist Approaches
• Action Research
• Finding Books
• Getting Help

Phenomenology helps us to understand the meaning of people's lived experience.  A phenomenological study explores what people experienced and focuses on their experience of a phenomenon.  As phenomenology has a strong foundation in philosophy, it is recommended that you explore the writings of key thinkers such as Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre and Merleau-Ponty before embarking on your research. Duquesne's Simon Silverman Phenomenology Center maintains a collection of resources connected to phenomenology as well as hosting lectures, and is a good place to start your exploration.

• Simon Silverman Phenomenology Center
• Husserl, Edmund, 1859–1938
• Heidegger, Martin, 1889–1976
• Sartre, Jean Paul, 1905–1980
• Merleau-Ponty, Maurice, 1908–1961

Books and eBooks

Online Resources

• Phenomenology Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry.

• << Previous: Qualitative Methods Overview
• Next: Case Studies >>
• Last Updated: Aug 18, 2023 11:56 AM
• URL: https://guides.library.duq.edu/qualitative_research

• Privacy Policy

Home » Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Phenomenology – Methods, Examples and Guide

Table of Contents

Phenomenology

Definition:

Phenomenology is a branch of philosophy that is concerned with the study of subjective experience and consciousness. It is based on the idea that the essence of things can only be understood through the way they appear to us in experience, rather than by analyzing their objective properties or functions.

Phenomenology is often associated with the work of philosopher Edmund Husserl, who developed a method of phenomenological inquiry that involves suspending one’s preconceptions and assumptions about the world and focusing on the pure experience of phenomena as they present themselves to us. This involves bracketing out any judgments, beliefs, or theories about the phenomena, and instead attending closely to the subjective qualities of the experience itself.

Phenomenology has been influential not only in philosophy but also in other fields such as psychology, sociology, and anthropology, where it has been used to explore questions of perception, meaning, and human experience.

History of Phenomenology

Phenomenology is a philosophical movement that began in the early 20th century, primarily in Germany. It was founded by Edmund Husserl, a German philosopher who is often considered the father of phenomenology.

Husserl’s work was deeply influenced by the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, particularly his emphasis on the importance of subjective experience. However, Husserl sought to go beyond Kant’s transcendental idealism by developing a rigorous method of inquiry that would allow him to examine the structures of consciousness and the nature of experience in a systematic way.

Husserl’s first major work, Logical Investigations (1900-1901), laid the groundwork for phenomenology by introducing the idea of intentional consciousness, or the notion that all consciousness is directed towards objects in the world. He went on to develop a method of “bracketing” or “epoche,” which involved setting aside one’s preconceptions and assumptions about the world in order to focus on the pure experience of phenomena as they present themselves.

Other philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre, built on Husserl’s work and developed their own versions of phenomenology. Heidegger, in particular, emphasized the importance of language and the role it plays in shaping our understanding of the world, while Sartre focused on the relationship between consciousness and freedom.

Today, phenomenology continues to be an active area of philosophical inquiry, with many contemporary philosophers drawing on its insights to explore questions of perception, meaning, and human experience.

Types of Phenomenology

There are several types of phenomenology that have emerged over time, each with its own focus and approach. Here are some of the most prominent types of phenomenology:

Transcendental Phenomenology

This is the type of phenomenology developed by Edmund Husserl, which aims to investigate the structures of consciousness and experience in a systematic way by using the method of epoche or bracketing.

Existential Phenomenology

This type of phenomenology, developed by philosophers such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Paul Sartre, focuses on the subjective experience of individual existence, emphasizing the role of freedom, authenticity, and the search for meaning in human life.

Hermeneutic Phenomenology

This type of phenomenology, developed by philosophers such as Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur, emphasizes the role of interpretation and understanding in human experience, particularly in the context of language and culture.

Phenomenology of Perception

This type of phenomenology, developed by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, emphasizes the embodied and lived nature of perception, arguing that perception is not simply a matter of passive reception but is instead an active and dynamic process of engagement with the world.

Phenomenology of Sociality

This type of phenomenology, developed by philosophers such as Alfred Schutz and Emmanuel Levinas, focuses on the social dimension of human experience, exploring how we relate to others and how our understanding of the world is shaped by our interactions with others.

Methods of Phenomenology

Here are some of the key methods that phenomenologists use to investigate human experience:

Epoche (Bracketing)

This is a key method in phenomenology, which involves setting aside one’s preconceptions and assumptions about the world in order to focus on the pure experience of phenomena as they present themselves. By bracketing out any judgments, beliefs, or theories about the phenomena, one can attend more closely to the subjective qualities of the experience itself.

Introspection

Phenomenologists often rely on introspection, or a careful examination of one’s own mental states and experiences, as a way of gaining insight into the nature of consciousness and subjective experience.

Descriptive Analysis

Phenomenology also involves a careful description and analysis of subjective experiences, paying close attention to the way things appear to us in experience, rather than analyzing their objective properties or functions.

Another method used in phenomenology is the variation technique, in which one systematically varies different aspects of an experience in order to gain a deeper understanding of its structure and meaning.

Phenomenological Reduction

This method involves reducing a phenomenon to its essential features or structures, in order to gain a deeper understanding of its nature and significance.

Epoché Variations

This method involves examining different aspects of an experience through the process of epoché or bracketing, to gain a more nuanced understanding of its subjective qualities and significance.

Applications of Phenomenology

Phenomenology has a wide range of applications across many fields, including philosophy, psychology, sociology, education, and healthcare. Here are some of the key applications of phenomenology:

• Philosophy : Phenomenology is primarily a philosophical approach, and has been used to explore a wide range of philosophical issues related to consciousness, perception, identity, and the nature of reality.
• Psychology : Phenomenology has been used in psychology to study human experience and consciousness, particularly in the areas of perception, emotion, and cognition. It has also been used to develop new forms of psychotherapy, such as existential and humanistic psychotherapy.
• Sociology : Phenomenology has been used in sociology to study the subjective experience of individuals within social contexts, particularly in the areas of culture, identity, and social change.
• Education : Phenomenology has been used in education to explore the subjective experience of students and teachers, and to develop new approaches to teaching and learning that take into account the individual experiences of learners.
• Healthcare : Phenomenology has been used in healthcare to explore the subjective experience of patients and healthcare providers, and to develop new approaches to patient care that are more patient-centered and focused on the individual’s experience of illness.
• Design : Phenomenology has been used in design to better understand the subjective experience of users and to create more user-centered products and experiences.
• Business : Phenomenology has been used in business to better understand the subjective experience of consumers and to develop more effective marketing strategies and user experiences.

Purpose of Phenomenology

The purpose of phenomenology is to understand the subjective experience of human beings. Phenomenology is concerned with the way things appear to us in experience, rather than their objective properties or functions. The goal of phenomenology is to describe and analyze the essential features of subjective experience, and to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness, perception, and human existence.

Phenomenology is particularly concerned with the ways in which subjective experience is structured, and with the underlying meanings and significance of these structures. Phenomenologists seek to identify the essential features of subjective experience, such as intentionality, embodiment, and lived time, and to explore the ways in which these features give rise to meaning and significance in human life.

Phenomenology has a wide range of applications across many fields, including philosophy, psychology, sociology, education, healthcare, and design. In each of these fields, phenomenology is used to gain a deeper understanding of human experience, and to develop new approaches and strategies that are more focused on the subjective experiences of individuals.

Overall, the purpose of phenomenology is to deepen our understanding of human experience and to provide insights into the nature of consciousness, perception, and human existence. Phenomenology offers a unique perspective on the subjective aspects of human life, and its insights have the potential to transform our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

Examples of Phenomenology

Phenomenology has many real-life examples across different fields. Here are some examples of phenomenology in action:

• Psychology : In psychology, phenomenology is used to study the subjective experience of individuals with mental health conditions. For example, a phenomenological study might explore the experience of anxiety in individuals with generalized anxiety disorder, or the experience of depression in individuals with major depressive disorder.
• Healthcare : In healthcare, phenomenology is used to explore the subjective experience of patients and to develop more patient-centered approaches to care. For example, a phenomenological study might explore the experience of chronic pain in patients, in order to develop more effective pain management strategies that are based on the patient’s individual experience of pain.
• Education : In education, phenomenology is used to study the subjective experience of students and to develop more effective teaching and learning strategies. For example, a phenomenological study might explore the experience of learning in students, in order to develop teaching methods that are more focused on the individual needs and experiences of learners.
• Business : In business, phenomenology is used to better understand the subjective experience of consumers, and to develop more effective marketing strategies and user experiences. For example, a phenomenological study might explore the experience of using a particular product or service, in order to identify areas for improvement and to create a more user-centered experience.
• Design : In design, phenomenology is used to better understand the subjective experience of users, and to create more user-centered products and experiences. For example, a phenomenological study might explore the experience of using a particular app or website, in order to identify ways to improve the user interface and user experience.

When to use Phenomenological Research

Here are some situations where phenomenological research might be appropriate:

• When you want to explore the meaning and significance of an experience : Phenomenological research is particularly useful when you want to gain a deeper understanding of the subjective experience of individuals and the meanings and significance that they attach to their experiences. For example, if you want to understand the experience of being a first-time parent, phenomenological research can help you explore the various emotions, challenges, and joys that are associated with this experience.
• When you want to develop more patient-centered healthcare: Phenomenological research can be useful in healthcare settings where there is a need to develop more patient-centered approaches to care. For example, if you want to improve pain management strategies for patients with chronic pain, phenomenological research can help you gain a better understanding of the individual experiences of pain and the different ways in which patients cope with this experience.
• When you want to develop more effective teaching and learning strategies : Phenomenological research can be used in education settings to explore the subjective experience of students and to develop more effective teaching and learning strategies that are based on the individual needs and experiences of learners.
• When you want to improve the user experience of a product or service: Phenomenological research can be used in design settings to gain a deeper understanding of the subjective experience of users and to develop more user-centered products and experiences.

Characteristics of Phenomenology

Here are some of the key characteristics of phenomenology:

• Focus on subjective experience: Phenomenology is concerned with the subjective experience of individuals, rather than objective facts or data. Phenomenologists seek to understand how individuals experience and interpret the world around them.
• Emphasis on lived experience: Phenomenology emphasizes the importance of lived experience, or the way in which individuals experience the world through their own unique perspectives and histories.
• Reduction to essence: Phenomenology seeks to reduce the complexities of subjective experience to their essential features or structures, in order to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness, perception, and human existence.
• Emphasis on description: Phenomenology is primarily concerned with describing the features and structures of subjective experience, rather than explaining them in terms of underlying causes or mechanisms.
• Bracketing of preconceptions: Phenomenology involves bracketing or suspending preconceptions and assumptions about the world, in order to approach subjective experience with an open and unbiased perspective.
• Methodological approach: Phenomenology is both a philosophical and methodological approach, which involves a specific set of techniques and procedures for studying subjective experience.
• Multiple approaches: Phenomenology encompasses a wide range of approaches and variations, including transcendental phenomenology, hermeneutic phenomenology, and existential phenomenology, among others.

Advantages of Phenomenology

Phenomenology offers several advantages as a research approach, including:

• Provides rich, in-depth insights: Phenomenology is focused on understanding the subjective experiences of individuals in a particular context, which allows for a rich and in-depth exploration of their experiences, emotions, and perceptions.
• Allows for participant-centered research: Phenomenological research prioritizes the experiences and perspectives of the participants, which makes it a participant-centered approach. This can help to ensure that the research is relevant and meaningful to the participants.
• Provides a flexible approach: Phenomenological research offers a flexible approach that can be adapted to different research questions and contexts. This makes it suitable for use in a wide range of fields and research areas.
• Can uncover new insights : Phenomenological research can uncover new insights into subjective experience and can challenge existing assumptions and beliefs about a particular phenomenon or experience.
• Can inform practice and policy: Phenomenological research can provide insights that can be used to inform practice and policy decisions in fields such as healthcare, education, and design.
• Can be used in combination with other research approaches : Phenomenological research can be used in combination with other research approaches, such as quantitative methods, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of a particular phenomenon or experience.

Limitations of Phenomenology

Despite the many advantages of phenomenology, there are also several limitations that should be taken into account, including:

• Subjective nature: Phenomenology is focused on subjective experience, which means that it can be difficult to generalize findings to a larger population or to other contexts.
• Limited external validity: Because phenomenological research is focused on a specific context or experience, the findings may have limited external validity or generalizability.
• Potential for researcher bias: Phenomenological research relies heavily on the researcher’s interpretations and analyses of the data, which can introduce potential for bias and subjectivity.
• Time-consuming and resource-intensive: Phenomenological research is often time-consuming and resource-intensive, as it involves in-depth data collection and analysis.
• Difficulty with data analysis: Phenomenological research involves a complex process of data analysis, which can be difficult and time-consuming.
• Lack of standardized procedures: Phenomenology encompasses a range of approaches and variations, which can make it difficult to compare findings across studies or to establish standardized procedures.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Cluster Analysis – Types, Methods and Examples

Questionnaire – Definition, Types, and Examples

Discriminant Analysis – Methods, Types and...

Case Study – Methods, Examples and Guide

MANOVA (Multivariate Analysis of Variance) –...

Observational Research – Methods and Guide

Qualitative study design: Phenomenology

• Qualitative study design

Phenomenology

• Grounded theory
• Ethnography
• Narrative inquiry
• Action research
• Case Studies
• Field research
• Focus groups
• Observation
• Surveys & questionnaires
• Study Designs Home

Used to describe the lived experience of individuals.

• Now called Descriptive Phenomenology, this study design is one of the most commonly used methodologies in qualitative research within the social and health sciences.
• Used to describe how human beings experience a certain phenomenon. The researcher asks, “What is this experience like?’, ‘What does this experience mean?’ or ‘How does this ‘lived experience’ present itself to the participant?’
• Attempts to set aside biases and preconceived assumptions about human experiences, feelings, and responses to a particular situation.
• Experience may involve perception, thought, memory, imagination, and emotion or feeling.
• Usually (but not always) involves a small sample of participants (approx. 10-15).
• Analysis includes an attempt to identify themes or, if possible, make generalizations in relation to how a particular phenomenon is perceived or experienced.

Methods used include:

• participant observation
• in-depth interviews with open-ended questions
• conversations and focus workshops. 

Researchers may also examine written records of experiences such as diaries, journals, art, poetry and music.

Descriptive phenomenology is a powerful way to understand subjective experience and to gain insights around people’s actions and motivations, cutting through long-held assumptions and challenging conventional wisdom.  It may contribute to the development of new theories, changes in policies, or changes in responses.

Limitations

• Does not suit all health research questions.  For example, an evaluation of a health service may be better carried out by means of a descriptive qualitative design, where highly structured questions aim to garner participant’s views, rather than their lived experience.
• Participants may not be able to express themselves articulately enough due to language barriers, cognition, age, or other factors.
• Gathering data and data analysis may be time consuming and laborious.
• Results require interpretation without researcher bias.
• Does not produce easily generalisable data.

Example questions

• How do cancer patients cope with a terminal diagnosis?
• What is it like to survive a plane crash?
• What are the experiences of long-term carers of family members with a serious illness or disability?
• What is it like to be trapped in a natural disaster, such as a flood or earthquake? 

Example studies

• The patient-body relationship and the "lived experience" of a facial burn injury: a phenomenological inquiry of early psychosocial adjustment . Individual interviews were carried out for this study.
• The use of group descriptive phenomenology within a mixed methods study to understand the experience of music therapy for women with breast cancer . Example of a study in which focus group interviews were carried out.
• Understanding the experience of midlife women taking part in a work-life balance career coaching programme: An interpretative phenomenological analysis . Example of a study using action research.
• Holloway, I. & Galvin, K. (2017). Qualitative research in nursing and healthcare (Fourth ed.): John Wiley & Sons Inc.
• Rodriguez, A., & Smith, J. (2018). Phenomenology as a healthcare research method . Journal of Evidence Based Nursing , 21(4), 96-98. doi: 10.1136/eb-2018-102990
• << Previous: Methodologies
• Next: Grounded theory >>
• Last Updated: Apr 8, 2024 11:12 AM
• URL: https://deakin.libguides.com/qualitative-study-designs

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 6: Phenomenology

Darshini Ayton

Learning outcomes

Upon completion of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Identify the key terms, concepts and approaches used in phenomenology.
• Explain the data collection methods and analysis for phenomenology.
• Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of phenomenological research.

What is phenomenology ?

The key concept in phenomenological studies is the individual .

Phenomenology is a method and a philosophical approach, influenced by different paradigms and disciplines. 1

Phenomenology is the everyday world from the viewpoint of the person. In this viewpoint, the emphasis is on how the individual constructs their lifeworld and seeks to understand the ‘taken for granted-ness’ of life and experiences. 2,3 Phenomenology is a practice that seeks to understand, describe and interpret human behaviour and the meaning individuals make of their experiences; it focuses on what was experienced and how it was experienced. 4 Phenomenology deals with perceptions or meanings, attitudes and beliefs, as well as feelings and emotions. The emphasis is on the lived experience and the sense an individual makes of those experiences. Since the primary source of data is the experience of the individual being studied, in-depth interviews are the most common means of data collection (see Chapter 13). Depending on the aim and research questions of the study, the method of analysis is either thematic or interpretive phenomenological analysis (Section 4).

Types of phenomenology

Descriptive phenomenology (also known as ‘transcendental phenomenology’) was founded by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). It focuses on phenomena as perceived by the individual. 4 When reflecting on the recent phenomenon of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is clear that there is a collective experience of the pandemic and an individual experience, in which each person’s experience is influenced by their life circumstances, such as their living situation, employment, education, prior experiences with infectious diseases and health status. In addition, an individual’s life circumstances, personality, coping skills, culture, family of origin, where they live in the world and the politics of their society also influence their experience of the pandemic. Hence, the objectiveness of the pandemic is intertwined with the subjectiveness of the individual living in the pandemic.

Husserl states that descriptive phenomenological inquiry should be free of assumption and theory, to enable phenomenological reduction (or phenomenological intuiting). 1 Phenomenological reduction means putting aside all judgements or beliefs about the external world and taking nothing for granted in everyday reality. 5 This concept gave rise to a practice called ‘bracketing’ — a method of acknowledging the researcher’s preconceptions, assumptions, experiences and ‘knowing’ of a phenomenon. Bracketing is an attempt by the researcher to encounter the phenomenon in as ‘free and as unprejudiced way as possible so that it can be precisely described and understood’. 1(p132) While there is not much guidance on how to bracket, the advice provided to researchers is to record in detail the process undertaken, to provide transparency for others. Bracketing starts with reflection: a helpful practice is for the researcher to ask the following questions and write their answers as they occur, without overthinking their responses (see Box 1). This is a practice that ideally should be done multiple times during the research process: at the conception of the research idea and during design, data collection, analysis and reporting.

Box 6.1 Example s of bracketing prompts

How does my education, family background (culture), religion, politics and job relate to this topic or phenomenon?

What is my previous experience of this topic or phenomenon? Do I have negative and/or positive reactions to this topic or phenomenon? What has led to this reaction?

What have I read or understood about this topic or phenomenon?

What are my beliefs and attitudes about this topic or phenomenon? What assumptions am I making?

Interpretive or hermeneutic phenomenology was founded by Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), a junior colleague of Husserl. It focuses on the nature of being and the relationship between an individual and their lifeworld. While Heidegger’s initial work and thinking aligned with Husserl’s, he later challenged several elements of descriptive phenomenology, leading to a philosophical separation in ideas. Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology takes an epistemological (knowledge) focus while Heidegger’s interest was in ontology 4 (the nature of reality), with the key phrase ‘being-in-the-world’ referencing how humans exist, act or participate in the world. 1 In descriptive phenomenology, the practice of bracketing is endorsed and experience is stripped from context to examine and understand it.

Interpretive or hermeneutic phenomenology embraces the intertwining of an individual’s subjective experience with their social, cultural and political contexts, regardless of whether they are conscious of this influence. 4 Interpretive or hermeneutic phenomenology moves beyond description to the interpretation of the phenomenon and the study of meanings through the lifeworld of the individual. While the researcher’s knowledge, experience, assumptions and beliefs are valued, they do need to be acknowledged as part of the process of analysis. 4

For example, Singh and colleagues wanted to understand the experiences of managers involved in the implementation of quality improvement projects in an assisted living facility, and thus they conducted a hermeneutic phenomenology study. 6 The objective was to ‘understand how managers define the quality of patient care and administrative processes’, alongside an exploration of the participant’s perspectives of leadership and challenges to the implementation of quality improvement strategies. (p3) Semi-structured interviews (60–75 minutes in duration) were conducted with six managers and data was analysed using inductive thematic techniques.

New phenomenology , or American phenomenology , has initiated a transition in the focus of phenomenology from the nature and understanding of the phenomenon to the lived experience of individuals experiencing the phenomenon. This transition may seem subtle but fundamentally is related to a shift away from the philosophical approaches of Husserl and Heidegger to an applied approach to research. 1 New phenomenology does not undergo the phenomenological reductionist approach outlined by Husserl to examine and understand the essence of the phenomenon. Dowling 1 emphasises that this phenomenological reduction, which leads to an attempt to disengage the researcher from the participant, is not desired or practical in applied research such as in nursing studies. Hence, new phenomenology is aligned with interpretive phenomenology, embracing the intersubjectivity (shared subjective experiences between two or more people) of the research approach. 1

Another feature of new phenomenology is the positioning of culture in the analysis of an individual’s experience. This is not the case for the traditional phenomenological approaches 1 ;  hence, philosophical approaches by European philosophers Husserl and Heidegger can be used if the objective is to explore or understand the phenomenon itself or the object of the participant’s experience. The methods of new phenomenology, or American phenomenology, should be applied if the researcher seeks to understand a person’s experience(s) of the phenomenon. 1

See Table 6.1. for two different examples of phenomenological research.

Advantages and disadvantages of phenomenological research

Phenomenology has many advantages, including that it can present authentic accounts of complex phenomena; it is a humanistic style of research that demonstrates respect for the whole individual; and the descriptions of experiences can tell an interesting story about the phenomenon and the individuals experiencing it. 7 Criticisms of phenomenology tend to focus on the individuality of the results, which makes them non-generalisable, considered too subjective and therefore invalid. However, the reason a researcher may choose a phenomenological approach is to understand the individual, subjective experiences of an individual; thus, as with many qualitative research designs, the findings will not be generalisable to a larger population. 7,8

Table 6.1. Examples of phenomenological studies

Phenomenology focuses on understanding a phenomenon from the perspective of individual experience (descriptive and interpretive phenomenology) or from the lived experience of the phenomenon by individuals (new phenomenology). This individualised focus lends itself to in-depth interviews and small scale research projects.

• Dowling M. From Husserl to van Manen. A review of different phenomenological approaches. Int J Nurs Stud . 2007;44(1):131-42. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2005.11.026
• Creswell J, Hanson W, Clark Plano V, Morales A. Qualitative research designs: selection and implementation. Couns Psychol . 2007;35(2):236-264. doi:10.1177/0011000006287390
• Morse JM, Field PA. Qualitative Research Methods for Health Professionals. 2nd ed. SAGE; 1995.
• Neubauer BE, Witkop CT, Varpio L. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect Med Educ . 2019;8(2):90-97. doi:10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2
• Merleau-Ponty M, Landes D, Carman T, Lefort C. Phenomenology of Perception . 1st ed. Routledge; 2011.
• Singh J, Wiese A, Sillerud B. Using phenomenological hermeneutics to understand the experiences of managers working with quality improvement strategies in an assisted living facility. Healthcare (Basel) . 2019;7(3):87. doi:10.3390/healthcare7030087
• Liamputtong P, Ezzy D. Qualitative Research Methods: A Health Focus . Oxford University Press; 1999.
• Liamputtong P. Qualitative Research Methods . 5th ed. Oxford University Press; 2020.
• Abbaspour Z, Vasel G, Khojastehmehr R. Investigating the lived experiences of abused mothers: a phenomenological study. Journal of Qualitative Research in Health Sciences . 2021;10(2)2:108-114. doi:10.22062/JQR.2021.193653.0
• Engberink AO, Mailly M, Marco V, et al. A phenomenological study of nurses experience about their palliative approach and their use of mobile palliative care teams in medical and surgical care units in France. BMC Palliat Care . 2020;19:34. doi:10.1186/s12904-020-0536-0

Qualitative Research – a practical guide for health and social care researchers and practitioners Copyright © 2023 by Darshini Ayton is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Phenomenological Research: Methods And Examples

Ravi was a novice, finding it difficult to select the right research design for his study. He joined a program…

Ravi was a novice, finding it difficult to select the right research design for his study. He joined a program to improve his understanding of research. As a part of his assignment, he was asked to work with a phenomenological research design. To execute good practices in his work, Ravi studied examples of phenomenological research. This let him understand what approaches he needed and areas he could apply the phenomenological method.

What Is Phenomenological Research?

Phenomenological research method, examples of phenomenological research.

A qualitative research approach that helps in describing the lived experiences of an individual is known as phenomenological research. The phenomenological method focuses on studying the phenomena that have impacted an individual. This approach highlights the specifics and identifies a phenomenon as perceived by an individual in a situation. It can also be used to study the commonality in the behaviors of a group of people.  

Phenomenological research has its roots in psychology, education and philosophy. Its aim is to extract the purest data that hasn’t been attained before. Sometimes researchers record personal notes about what they learn from the subjects. This adds to the credibility of data, allowing researchers to remove these influences to produce unbiased narratives. Through this method, researchers attempt to answer two major questions:

• What are the subject’s experiences related to the phenomenon?
• What factors have influenced the experience of the phenomenon?

A researcher may also use observations, art and documents to construct a universal meaning of experiences as they establish an understanding of the phenomenon. The richness of the data obtained in phenomenological research opens up opportunities for further inquiry.

Now that we know what is phenomenological research , let’s look at some methods and examples.

Phenomenological research can be based on single case studies or a pool of samples. Single case studies identify system failures and discrepancies. Data from multiple samples highlights many possible situations. In either case, these are the methods a researcher can use:

• The researcher can observe the subject or access written records, such as texts, journals, poetry, music or diaries
• They can conduct conversations and interviews with open-ended questions, which allow researchers to make subjects comfortable enough to open up
• Action research and focus workshops are great ways to put at ease candidates who have psychological barriers

To mine deep information, a researcher must show empathy and establish a friendly rapport with participants. These kinds of phenomenological research methods require researchers to focus on the subject and avoid getting influenced.

Phenomenological research is a way to understand individual situations in detail. The theories are developed transparently, with the evidence available for a reader to access. We can use this methodology in situations such as:

• The experiences of every war survivor or war veteran are unique. Research can illuminate their mental states and survival strategies in a new world.
• Losing family members to Covid-19 hasn’t been easy. A detailed study of survivors and people who’ve lost loved ones can help understand coping mechanisms and long-term traumas.
• What’s it like to be diagnosed with a terminal disease when a person becomes a parent? The conflict of birth and death can’t be generalized, but research can record emotions and experiences.

Phenomenological research is a powerful way to understand personal experiences. It provides insights into individual actions and motivations by examining long-held assumptions. New theories, policies and responses can be developed on this basis. But, the phenomenological research design will be ineffective if subjects are unable to communicate due to language, age, cognition or other barriers. Managers must be alert to such limitations and sharp to interpret results without bias.

Harappa’s Thinking Critically program prepares professionals to think like leaders. Make decisions after careful consideration, engage with opposing views and weigh every possible outcome. Our stellar faculty will help you learn how to back the right strategies. Get the techniques and tools to build an analytical mindset. Effective thinking will improve communication. This in turn can break down barriers and open new avenues for success. Take a step forward with Harappa today!

Explore Harappa Diaries to learn more about topics such as What Are The Objectives Of Research , Fallacy Meaning , Kolb Learning Styles and How to Learn Unlearn And Relearn to upgrade your knowledge and skills.

Reskilling Programs

L&D leaders need to look for reskilling programs that meet organizational goals and employee aspirations. The first step to doing this is to understand the skills gaps and identify what’s necessary. An effective reskilling program will be one that is scalable and measurable. Companies need to understand their immediate goals and prepare for future requirements when considering which employees to reskill.

Are you still uncertain about the kind of reskilling program you should opt for?  Speak to our expert   to understand what will work best for your organization and employees.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Phenomenological Qualitative Methods Applied to the Analysis of Cross-Cultural Experience in Novel Educational Social Contexts

Ahmed ali alhazmi.

1 Education Department, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia

Angelica Kaufmann

2 Cognition in Action Unit, PhiLab, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

The qualitative method of phenomenology provides a theoretical tool for educational research as it allows researchers to engage in flexible activities that can describe and help to understand complex phenomena, such as various aspects of human social experience. This article explains how to apply the framework of phenomenological qualitative analysis to educational research. The discussion within this article is relevant to those researchers interested in doing cross-cultural qualitative research and in adapting phenomenological investigations to understand students’ cross-cultural lived experiences in different social educational contexts.

Introduction: The Qualitative Method in Educational Research

Many scholars in phenomenology hold the view that human beings extract meaning from the world through personal experience ( Husserl, 1931 ; Hycner, 1985 ; Koopmans, 2015 ; Hourigan and Edgar, 2020 ; Gasparyan, 2021 ). Investigating the experience of individuals is a highly complex phenomenon ( Jarvis, 1987 ): annotating and clarifying human experience can be a challenging task not only because of the complexity of human nature, but also because an individual’s experience is a multidimensional phenomenon, that is, psychologically oriented, culturally driven, and socially structured. Hence, much uncertainty and ambiguity are surrounding the description and exploration of an individual’s experience. Such uncertainty is due to the multidimensional aspects that constitute and form an individual’s experiences, including ongoing and “mediated” behaviour ( Karpov and Haywood, 1998 ), feelings, and cognition. In all these respects, the complexity of experience becomes especially evident in certain investigative contexts such as the one we decided to explore, that is the study of the cross-cultural interactions of individuals who experience a transition from their own cultural and educational social context to a different one. In this article, it is argued that a hybrid phenomenological qualitative approach that, as shall be illustrated, brings together aspects of descriptive phenomenology, and aspects of interpretative phenomenology ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Lopez and Willis, 2004 ), could assist researchers in navigating through the complexity of cross-cultural experiences encountered by individuals in novel social educational contexts. Descriptive phenomenology was derived mainly from the philosophical work of Husserl and particularly from the idea of transcendental phenomenology ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Lopez and Willis, 2004 ; Giorgi, 2010 ). In contrast, an interpretive phenomenological methodology was derived from the works of scholars like Merleau-Ponty (1962) , Gadamer (2000) , and Gadamer and Linge (2008) . These two approaches overlap in the research methods and activities and are deployed to assist the research by promoting engagement with responsive and improvised activities rather than with mechanical procedures. The general qualitative methodology of social science research has shaped phenomenology as a methodological approach just as reliable as quantitative and experimental methods, as recently discussed by Høffding et al. (2022) , who stressed the advantages of phenomenology in qualitative research (see also Zahavi, 2019a , b ). Since we are interested in cross-cultural experiences, in the past, for example, we used such phenomenological qualitative type of investigation to find out what it is like for Saudi international students to transition from a gender-segregated society to a mixed-gender environment while studying and living as international students ( Alhazmi and Nyland, 2013 , 2015 ). We were interested in further understanding the phenomenon of transitioning itself rather than collecting students’ opinions and perspectives about the experience of transitioning. The investigation was conducted to capture and describe essential aspects of the participants’ experience, to understand the experience encountered by students in their novel social educational context. Besides this specific study case, the same hybrid methodology, as shall be suggested, may be applied to the study of similar types of social environments and groups. We refer to our past work on cross-cultural transitioning experience to help the reader translate how the phenomenological qualitative methodology can be applied in relatable scenarios in educational research.

As Giorgi (1985) , Van Manen (1990) , Moustakas (1994) , and other phenomenologists have stated, interviewing individuals who experience specific phenomena is the foundation source that phenomenological investigation relies on to understand the phenomenon. Accordingly, aspects that are core to the interviews are the following: (1) general attributes of the conducted interviews, (2) criteria of selection for potential participants, (3) ethical considerations of dealing with human participants, and (4) the interviewing procedures and some examples (these will be presented in section “Practising Phenomenology: Methods and Activities”).

To design a phenomenologically based qualitative investigation, we suggest considering three aspects: (1) the aim of the investigation; (2) the philosophical assumptions about the sought knowledge; and (3) the investigative strategies. These three aspects of the investigation shall be approached while keeping in mind the two following rationals: (1) looking for essence and (2) flexible methods and activities.

• The researcher’s aim is that of identifying the essential and invariant structure (i.e., the essence ) of the lived experience as this is described by the participants ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Crotty, 1998 ; Cresswell, 2008 ). This allows the researcher to ‘return to the concrete aspect of the experience’ ( Moustakas, 1994 , p. 26) by offering a systematic attempt to present the experience as it appears in consciousness ( Polkinghorne, 1989 ) and to focus on the importance of the individuals and their respective views about the lived experience ( Lodico et al., 2006 ). It is essential to keep this aim (i.e., identifying the essence of lived experience ) in mind when conducting a phenomenological qualitative investigation as this is the core aim of phenomenology. According to Finlay (2006 , 2008 ), exploring and understanding the essential structure and themes of the lived experience encountered by individuals is critical. Researchers adopting these perspectives ‘borrow’ the participants’ experience and their reflections on their experience to get a deeper understanding and to grasp the deeper meaning of the investigated experience ( Van Manen, 1990 , p. 62). This is what Finlay (2006 , 2008 ) calls ‘dancing’ between two approaches, and it is also the approach that we endorse. As pointed out by Høffding and Martiny (2016) , in this explorative process the interviewer needs to understand the relation between the interviewee’s experience and their description of it, since the interview constitutes a second person perspective in which one directly encounters another subjectivity and shall not elicit closed answers such as “yes” or “no” (see section “Attributes of the Conducted Interviews”). This feature is useful when exploring an experience that has not been sufficiently explored and discussed.
• The suggested phenomenological qualitative approach offers a strategy that ‘sharpen the level on ongoing practices in phenomenologically inspired qualitative research’ ( Giorgi, 2006a , p. 306). Methods and activities for data collection are flexible, and the analysis is designed to be aligned with the theoretical and philosophical assumptions underlying qualitative research. The present strategy allows a researcher to dialogue with both the participants and the data to produce a multi-layered description of the experience. This feature is academically important in terms of conducting a rigorous qualitative study that provides trustworthy knowledge ( Crotty, 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln, 2003 ; Creswell, 2007 , 2009 ; Bryman, 2008 ).

The three core aspects of the investigation (1) the aim of the investigation; (2) the philosophical assumptions about the sought knowledge; and (3) the investigative strategies, informed by these two rationals , are essential to developing a phenomenologically oriented qualitative method to examine the lived experience and for identifying its essence.

Aim and Method

Thinking about the actual object of our investigation, that is, the lived experience of individuals is an essential aspect of phenomenological qualitative research. The researchers need to identify their aim very carefully by focusing on the lived experience of the subject being interviewed and on the structure of such experience rather than on the opinion of the participants about the experience.

In our previous studies, we were interested in describing the cross-cultural experience lived by Saudi students transitioning from their home country to another. Call the experience of transitioning ‘experience X’ and call Saudi students ‘group Y’. The research sought to examine the major question and the supplementary questions around which the study revolved, which was the following: “ What does the experience X look like for the individuals belonging to group Y? ”

As the question is broad in scope and quite complex, we decided to address it from a particular angle to grasp the essence of the students’ experience rather than providing a superficial description or a personal reflection of the experience. The efforts were directed to identify the most prominent overt display of the students’ experience; the focus was on investigating the most invariant and essential aspect of their experience. From this viewpoint, the research was directed to the quest of ‘what’ individuals encounter and ‘how’ they encounter it. This aim is characterised by the research design as exploratory (e.g., Blumer, 1986 ; Stebbins, 2001 ; Ritchie and Lewis, 2003 ). Exploratory research design allows researchers to “taste” and experience social phenomena and provides a journey of discovery that consists of adventure ( Willig, 2008 ) and surprise. The researcher, guided by the research inquiry, may arrive to discover an unanticipated phenomenon.

In particular, the study of cross-cultural experience involves two aspects: first is what we can call a “transitioning experience” between two cultures. The second is the potential impact that “transitioning experience” has upon the identity of those individuals who lived the experience. The conceptualisation of the phenomenon (i.e., cross-cultural experience) must be addressed, and the theoretical perspective informing its conceptualisation should be considered while developing such a phenomenological approach.

Two theoretical perspectives can allow understanding the phenomenon of cross-cultural transition: the first one is the sociocultural theory, which has been developed from Vygotsky’s works (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978 ; Doelling and Goldschmidt, 1981 ; Cole, 1995 ; Wertsch et al., 1995 ); and the second one is symbolic interactionism theory, which draws on the works of Mead, Blumer, and others (e.g., Kuhn, 1964 ; Mead, 1967 ; Blumer, 1986 ; Denzin, 1992 ; Clammer et al., 2004 ; Urrieta, 2007 ). These two perspectives informed the conceptualisation of the research phenomenon and how the phenomenon has been approached methodologically. For what concerns Vygotsky and neo-Vygotskian authors (and their sociocultural perspectives), they facilitate our understanding of the phenomenon of cross-cultural transition and its investigation. For example, Vygotsky and neo-Vygotskian authors conceptualise the individual ability to adjust to the new culture. The assumption that underlies the investigation is that individuals can acquire new cognitive developmental patterns of thought employing what these authors call “mediational assistance of tools, signs, and other cultures” ( Kozulin, 2018 ).

For what concerns instead, the symbolic interactionism approach, this latter allows researchers to understand cross-cultural experienced phenomena by taking into consideration the role of symbolic meanings in forming individuals’ experience. The core assumption developed from this perspective is that symbolic meanings are developed, while individuals acquire their understanding of both their internal and external world.

To analyse cultural identity and this transitioning experience, another relevant aspect to consider is that symbolic interactionists assume that the definition of individual self and identity are both constructed in and played out through interaction with the environment and the other selves surrounding us. As stated by Hollander et al. (2011) , the most basic requisite for symbolic interaction is the existence of social selves who come together to share information, emotions, and goods—the full range of human activities. The conceptions that people have of themselves, and others shape how they present themselves. In turn, how they present themselves allows others to infer what actors privately think of themselves and others (p. 123). Another aspect to be noted is that in the context of cross-cultural transitioning, cultural identity reflects how individuals think and feel about belonging to their culture and to the larger society from which they come from; it is in the essence of their experiences, the sense of belonging to, or attachment with, either or both cultural groupings. To fully appreciate this, we need to “borrow” from different authors’ arguments, ideas, and theoretical perspectives and adopt the hybrid perspective that we mentioned.

With this in mind, we present an overview of our research aims and the attributes that they involve: exploration and philosophical assumptions about sought knowledge.

Exploration

The study process is not a recipe to follow but rather a journey to take, and as Willig (2008 , p. 2) pointed out, the concept of research ‘has moved from a mechanical (how-to-apply-appropriate-techniques-to-the-subject-matter) to a creative (how-can-I-find-out?) mode’.

A study should be designed to maintain the subjective approach of the researcher towards the exploration of the phenomenon being investigated, as well as to appreciate the inter-subjective nature of the approach involved in the investigation of the phenomenon itself. A phenomenological qualitative method allows to track empathy and recognition of both the researcher’s and the participant’s subjectivity in relation to the phenomenon being explored.

The design is aimed to provide the researcher and the audience, with an opportunity to test and experience the phenomenon through descriptions of the essence of the experience. By concentrating on exploration as an essential aim, we evoke flexibility—the type of flexibility that allows researchers to shift between lines of inquiry and move from one activity to another to uncover the structure of the experience. The direction and proposal concerning the activities should be open enough to accommodate the complexity and ambiguity that surrounds any examined phenomenon. Flexibility consists of merging the exploratory research with phenomenological and qualitative practices.

Philosophical Assumptions About Sought Knowledge

We consider ontological assumptions, that is, specific beliefs about some aspect of reality, and epistemological assumptions, that is, specific beliefs about some aspect of knowledge, that constitutes the phenomenon being the object of the investigation. Ontological and epistemological assumptions are considered an essential part of the research design. Therefore, researchers should identify these assumptions while engaging with the research process, as they will play a significant role in framing the research questions and justifying the research methodology, on the one hand, and the methods and activities, on the other hand ( Guba, 1990 ; Guba and Lincoln, 1994 ; Crotty, 1998 ; Denzin and Lincoln, 2003 ; Creswell, 2009 ; Høffding and Martiny, 2016 ; Martiny et al., 2021 ; Høffding et al., 2022 ).

Ontological Assumptions of the Phenomenological Investigation

Ontological assumptions are, here, propositions about the nature of social reality—that is, what exists in a social context ( Crotty, 1998 ; Blaikie, 2000 ). They relate to questions about reality: for example, what reality does exist? Does it have an external existence or is it internally constructed? However, not all phenomenologists consider ontological issues a real concern for designing and practising qualitative inquiry. That is because the ideas of phenomenology appeared as a reaction to the scientific positivist philosophical view of knowledge that dominated the philosophy of science. The phenomenological arguments, when they first appeared, were not concerned with ontological questions but rather they focussed on providing an alternative epistemological approach about how we can access knowledge that tends to be subjective and internally mediated. In other words, phenomenology, in its original form, is an attempt to explore the relationship between the knower and the known, which is an epistemological issue in philosophy rather than an ontological position. The main issue that concerns phenomenology, from these perspectives, is whether we assume or not that reality exists outside of human consciousness, i.e., before or independently of whether we think and reason about it. The epistemological question needs to be answered from both positions. The epistemological question is the real dilemma, and this concerns who is invested in the study of human consciousness. From this perspective, what is provided by human consciousness is our social reality, regardless of its internal existence, before we think about it. Knowledge is what research usually attempts to provide, therefore, it is what should concern a researcher. According to Spinelli (2005 , p. 15), “We have no idea whether ‘things in themselves’ truly exist. All we can say is that, as human beings, we are biased towards interpretations that are centred upon an object-based or ‘thing-based’ world”. In addition, ontological assumptions should be identified clearly before one practice phenomenological research. This perspective has relied on Heidegger’s thesis, which moved the discussions concerning phenomenology to the ontological level when he discussed the philosophy of existence and being from a phenomenological perspective ( Laverty, 2003 ; Tarozzi and Mortari, 2010 ).

The basic philosophical assumption underlying a phenomenological investigation is that truth can be found and can exist within the individual lived experience ( Spiegelberg and Schuhmann, 1982 ). Our study is based on arguments about the existence of a social world as internally mediated, which means that as humans, we must interact with this existence and construct meanings based on our culture and beliefs, historical development, and linguistic symbols.

In our work, we considered an internal reality that was ‘built up from the perception of social actors’ ( Bryman, 2008 , p. 18) and that was consistent with the subjective experiences of the external world ( Blanche and Durrheim, 1999 ). This assumption was supported by Dilthey (1979 , p. 161) who said that ‘undistorted reality only exists for us in the facts of consciousness given by inner experience (, and) the analysis of these facts is the core of the human studies’.

The meanings emerged from the research methods and activities, and from this systematic interaction with the participants in this research and from sharing their experience, for example, about our work on students transitioning from their home country to the novel educational social context. These meanings should be considered a central part of the social reality that a study should report upon. This assumption underlies and merges implicitly with the second level of assumptions, the epistemological assumptions of phenomenology.

Epistemological Assumptions of the Phenomenological Investigation

In qualitative research, the researcher can be considered the subject who acts to know the phenomenon that is considered as the object. Accordingly, the phenomenon of cross-cultural transition between two cultures can be seen as an (object) for the deed of the investigator who is seen as (subject). Identifying the relationship between subject and object is essential to developing a coherent and sound research design. The following epistemological considerations are relevant to the current investigation.

Intentional Knowledge

The first element is intentionality. This concept is at the heart of the phenomenological approach ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Crotty, 1998 ; Husserl and Hardy, 1999 ; Barnacle, 2001 ; Creswell et al., 2006 ; Tarozzi and Mortari, 2010 ). The original idea of phenomenology was built on this concept, introduced by Brentano (1874) . Intentionality is the direction of the content of a mental state. This is a pervasive feature of many different mental states: beliefs, hopes, judgements, intentions, love, and hatred. According to Brentano, intentionality is the mark of the mental: all and only mental states exhibit intentionality. To say that a mental state has intentionality is to say that it is a mental representation and that it has content. Husserl, who was Brentano’s student, assumed that this essential property of intentionality, the directedness of mental states onto something, is not contingent upon whether some real physical target exists independently of the intentional act itself. This is regardless of whether the appearance of the thing is an appearance of the thing itself or an appearance of a mediated thing. Such consciousness and knowledge of the thing amount to perspectival understanding. Therefore, a person’s understanding is an understanding of a thing or an aspect of a thing (object). The key epistemological assumption, derived from Husserl’s concept of intentionality, is that the phenomenon is not present to itself; it is present to a conscious subject ( Barnacle, 2001 ). Therefore, the knowledge that an individual hold about the phenomenon is mediated and one cannot have ‘pure or unmediated access’ which is other than a subjective mediated knowledge ( Barnacle, 2001 , p. 7). We have access only to the world that is presented to us. We have an intention to act, to know what is out there, and we only can have access to an intentional knowledge that the knower can consciously act towards ( Hughes and Sharrock, 1997 ). Therefore, the assumption held here is that knowledge is the outcome of a conscious act towards the thing to be known ( Hughes and Sharrock, 1997 ).

Subjectively Mediated Knowledge

The second epistemological assumption is related to the previous one, that of intentionality. It is that we either assume that the social world and a phenomenon do exist outside of our consciousness (see, for example, Vygotsky, 1962 ; Burge, 1979 , 1986 ), or that they do not, but we are able only, as individuals, to interact with it and produce meaning for it through a conscious act. Consciousness is the ‘medium of access to whatever is given to awareness’ ( Giorgi, 1997 , p. 236); therefore, epistemologically, only subjective knowledge can be known about the experienced world. This assumption leads to the next epistemological assumption held in this investigation, which claims that knowing other people’s experiences is the outcome of constructed and dialogical knowledge.

Constructed Dialogical Knowledge

By stating that the knowledge obtained from a phenomenological study is constructed dialogically, we differentiated between philosophical knowledge on life experiences, and the knowledge provided by certain research practices that explore and understand other people’s descriptions of their lived experience ( Giorgi, 2006a , b ; Finlay, 2008 ).

From a phenomenological perspective, we assume that knowledge provided through the research activities is a result of the researcher’s and participants’ interactions with the phenomenon that is subject to the investigation. The essence of the argument here is that the ‘experience’ is best known and represented only through dialogical interaction: an interpretative methodology that analyses (spoken or written) utterances or actions for their embedded communicative significance ( Linell, 2009 ). For what concerns us, interaction occurred between two inseparable domains: between the conscience of the researcher and the participants, and between these consciousnesses and the phenomenon explored. The qualitative methodology provided a direction for this study by way of navigating through the first domain, which was the interaction between researcher and participants. The first domain had two levels of interaction, with the first being the relationship between researcher, participants, and raw data as a dialogical relationship—a dialogical relationship in the sense that the researcher is actively engaged, through dialogue (in the form of spoken or written communicative utterances or actions), in constructing reasonable and sound meanings from the data collected from the participants ( Rossman and Rallis, 2003 ; Steentoft, 2005 ). The importance of such a dialogical relationship, in phenomenological research, is supported by Rossman and Rallis (2003) .

Phenomenological Qualitative Methods and Strategies

Two forms of phenomenological methodologies can be noticed in the literature of qualitative research: descriptive phenomenology and interpretive phenomenology ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Lopez and Willis, 2004 ). Descriptive phenomenology was derived mainly from the philosophical work of Husserl and particularly from the idea of transcendental phenomenology ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Lopez and Willis, 2004 ; Giorgi, 2010 ). In contrast, an interpretive phenomenological methodology was derived from the works of scholars like Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty (1962) , Gadamer (2000) , and Gadamer and Linge (2008) .

These approaches overlap in the research methods and activities and are used to assist the research by promoting engagement with responsive and improvised activities rather than with mechanical procedures. In fact, key principles of both descriptive and interpretative phenomenology are peoples’ subjective experiences and the meanings they ascribe to their lived world and how they relate to it ( Langdridge, 2007 ). No definite line distinguishes or separates these two approaches or attitudes. Deploying both binaries is what differentiates our phenomenological qualitative approach from other qualitative approaches in the field (see, for example, Finlay, 2008 ; Langdridge, 2008 ).

Descriptive Attitude

The descriptive attitude in ‘the sense of description versus explanation’ ( Langdridge, 2008 , p. 1132; Ihde, 2012 ) occurs where the emphasis is on describing what the researcher hears, reads, and perceives when entering the participants’ description of their experience. According to Ihde (2012 , p. 19) it is that attitude that consists in ‘describe phenomena phenomenologically, rather than explain them’. The whole phenomenological qualitative approach process is not description vs. interpretation, since interpretation is inevitably involved in describing and understanding the description of other people’s lived experiences ( Langdridge, 2008 ). As presented in Figure 1 , the descriptive attitude is served by the bracketing mode and by the reduction process in order to generate a textural description of the described lived experience ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Creswell, 2007 ).

The hybrid phenomenological qualitative method.

Bracketing refers to the efforts that should be made to be open to listening to and observing the described phenomenon with fresh eyes. It is an attempt to put aside any prejudgements regarding the phenomenon being investigated ( Salsberry, 1989 ; Moustakas, 1994 ; LeVasseur, 2003 ; also see a critical discussion in Zahavi, 2019a , 2020 , 2021 , and in Zahavi and Martiny, 2019 ). This mode also allows one to engage phenomenologically with the reduction process concerning the participants’ descriptions of their lived experiences. What the bracketing mode offers to a phenomenological qualitative study is: (1) temporary suspension of any prejudgements or assumptions related to the examined phenomenon that might have limited and restricted how the phenomenon appeared for the participants, while being aware that it is impossible to be completely free from any presuppositions; and (2) assistance in maintaining the involvement of previous experiences and perceptions about the phenomenon to recognise and realise what constitutes other aspects of the explored experience. According to Moustakas (1994 , p. 85) adopting a bracketing status allows that ‘whatever or whoever appears in our consciousness is approached with an openness’. The bracketing mode influences most stages of the research activities about the following aspects:

• – Forming descriptive research questions free from presuppositions to guide and direct the research enquiry, leading to the achievement of a study’s aims.
• – Responding to and engaging with previous works that were concerned with the same experience.
• – Conducting descriptive interviews that allow participants to share and describe their lived experiences.
• – Re-describing the described experience with careful treatment of the data included, maintaining the involvement of the researcher, and avoiding being selective or discriminating in the re-description of the experience.

Phenomenological Reduction

Phenomenological reduction is the process of re-describing and explicating meaning from the described experience ( Giorgi, 1985 , 2006a , b ; Moustakas, 1994 ; Crotty, 1998 ; Todres, 2005 ; Creswell, 2007 ; Finlay, 2008 ). Such strategies are used to underlie the data analysis process. For Moustakas (1994) and others (e.g., Todres, 2005 , 2007 ), the phenomenological reduction of human experience deals with two dimensions of the experience: texture and structure.

The texture is the ‘thickness’ of an experience ( Todres, 2007 , p. 47); it is a description of what the experience is like. Accordingly, the texture is an extensive description of what happened and how it appears to the researcher. The texture is the qualitative feature of the experience ( Moustakas, 1994 ; Creswell, 2007 ). The structure of the experience deals with emergent themes, and these describe the essential aspect of the experience. Such themes ‘can be grasped only through reflection’ on the textural descriptions of the participant’s experience ( Keen, 1975 , as cited in Moustakas, 1994 , p. 79).

Interpretive Attitude

The interpretive attitude is the second strategy to be used to approach the data. It is part of the phenomenological approach towards discovering the essential structure and meanings of the experience as described by the participants. The interpretive attitude is part of the methodological strategies used to search for the essence of the experience. This approach is used mainly in the final stages of the research activities when the data analysis is being conducted.

As Finlay (2008 , 2009 ) argued, ‘interpretation (in phenomenological practice) is not an additional procedure: It constitutes an inevitable and basic structure of our “being-in-the-world.” We experience a thing as something that has already been interpreted’ (p. 10). Therefore, to achieve a meaningful description and understanding of the essential aspect of an experience, we should move from the bracketing mode to an imaginative variation mode to reflect on the first step of the phenomenological reduction, which is a textural description.

Imaginative Variation Mode

In the phenomenological literature, imaginative variation is akin to the induction process in that it aims to extract themes and essential meanings that constitute the described experiences ( Klein and Westcott, 1994 ; Moustakas, 1994 ; Giorgi, 2006a , b , 2009 ; Creswell, 2009 ). It should be mentioned, however, that in the phenomenological practise, shifting from a descriptive to an interpretive attitude is ‘interpretive so far’ ( Klein and Westcott, 1994 , p. 141). It shall be noted that usually applying phenomenology within qualitative methods is seen as working with a version of ‘factual variation’ that, in comparison to ‘imaginative variation’, works with qualitative data (as described in Høffding and Martiny, 2016 ). However, since our approach is not purely fitting within the epistemological assumptions of positivism and neo-positivism, but rather it reflects the epistemological assumptions of the hermeneutical approach, we prefer to adopt ‘imaginative variation’, and remain consistent with our hybrid view that attempts to balance descriptive and interpretative methods of investigation. The imaginative variation mode enables a thematic and structural description of the ‘experience’ to be derived within the process of phenomenological reduction. This mode assists in focusing on the second aspect of the research, which requires an examination of how the experience might affect the cultural identity of the participants, that is, that part of their self-conception that is typically influenced by the cultural background of their country of origin, and that is responsible for shaping their social values and beliefs. This strategic mode can guide the researcher to shift from the descriptive to the interpretive attitude. According to Von Eckartsberg (1972 , p. 166) such a mode ‘constitutes the reflective work, looking back and thinking about this experience, discovering meaningful patterns and structures, universal features that are lived out concretely in a unique fashion’. This will be considered describing “past experience” as “mediated experience” in the final analysis. And mediation is an essential process that individuals engage with in relation to their experience. Reflecting on people’s personal experiences requires mutual and reciprocal respect between researcher and participants ( Klein and Westcott, 1994 ). This aspect allows the researcher to engage with the texture of the participant’s personal experience, to reflect on it, and to decide on possible meanings in relation to the whole context. It also allows the participants to evaluate the researcher’s reflection. This methodological mode can play a significant role in the process and activity of data analysis.

Practising Phenomenology: Methods and Activities

We provided an overview of the methodology that we endorse as hybrid since it embeds both descriptive and interpretive phenomenological attitudes. To implement and explicate this approach in the practice of the research, we can take suggestion of Moustakas (1994) about organising the phenomenological methods around three categories: (1) methods of preparation, (2) methods of collecting data and gaining descriptions about the phenomenon, and (3) methods of analysing and searching for the meaning. These categories are useful when it comes to conducting a phenomenological qualitative study because they allow for the reporting of the most significant methods and ensure that activities are conducted in a logical order.

Methods of Preparation, Activities, and Data Collection

If the nature of the study is emergent, like in most qualitative research (e.g., Creswell, 2009 ; Hays and Singh, 2011 ), the research purpose and questions are emergent too; they grew initially from personal experience and then emerge through the process of conceptualising a research topic around experience being investigated, for example, the experience of cross-cultural transition lived by individuals who move from their own cultural and educational context to a different one. In our past work, this was the transition of Saudi students, both males and females, from Saudi Arabia to Australia. These students experienced the transition from a gender-segregated, deeply religious cultural and educational social context to a different one, where gender-mixed interactions are not limited to members of one’s own family, such as in Saudi Arabia. In Australia, these students experienced life in a gender-mixed educational social context that is not built on religious pillars. The experience that we investigated consisted of: the cross-cultural transition to a different educational social context. As Giorgi (1985) , Van Manen (1990) , Moustakas (1994) , and other phenomenologists have stated, aspects that are core to the interviews are the following: (1) general attributes of the conducted interviews, (2) criteria of selection for potential participants, (3) ethical considerations of dealing with human participants, and (4) the interviewing procedures and some examples.

Attributes of the Conducted Interviews

The main attributes of the interviews may be summarised as follows:

As an interview is influenced by the mode of bracketing, prior to each of the interviews it is necessary to elicit the participant’s experience separately from any comparison with one’s own. The interviews are about what the participants want to say rather than what the main researcher wants them to say or what the main researcher expect them to say. It is important to point out that the interviews are designed in such a way to encourage discursive answers rather than affirmative or negative answers (as discussed in Høffding and Martiny, 2016 ). Engaging with the interviews has the scope of seeking new views and perspectives about the phenomenon that is being investigated, and not simply to confirm or disconfirm what is already known about that phenomenon.

Here is an example of spontaneous answers to open questions taken from our previous work: Z. talks freely about the first week of experience in the novel educational social context in Australia: “Explicitly, the first class was horrible; was very bad. It is probably because I have not been in such position [mixing with males]. So, I was silent most of the time; I did not talk with any one most of the time; and I isolated myself in corner…. Mixing [with unknown males] is difficult for me because I have to deal with foreign men and I do not know them … I do not have a problem to speak with men. But the problem for me [is that] sometimes I think what if this man cross the limits between how I can deal with such behaviour. So I preferred to stay away from the men. In the first time it was hard, I could not do anything by myself. Many times, I just cried. The life [here] was mysterious in the beginning.”

And again towards the end of the stay in Australia, Z. spontaneously shares how her worldviews about herself have been changed by being in a gender-mixed educational environment. For example, Z. stated clearly that she is now confident ‘to deal with male’—after all the ‘scariness’ and ‘horribleness’ that was felt in the beginning. She learned from her experience in a gender-mixed environment how to make her own rules that males cannot cross. Z. said: “… Being here has changed my personality completely…. The most important advantages from (being here) refined my personality in a good way, and I became more independent…. I refined my personality. Not only me, who realised that, but my family also said that: Z. has changed…. Finally, I learned how to deal with man with confidence and how to make my own rule. So When I come back to Saudi Arabia, I will be more confident.”

During the interviewing activity, is also important to share experiences with the interviewees in order to practice empathy ( Corbin and Morse, 2003 ; Dickson-Swift et al., 2006 ; August and Tuten, 2008 ; Mitchell and Irvine, 2008 ; Mallozzi, 2009 ) and be respectful for what they feel about their experiences ( Klein and Westcott, 1994 ). These techniques are outlined to show interviewees that the researcher is interested in hearing detailed accounts ( Hays and Singh, 2011 ) about their experiences. As Hays and Singh (2011) have suggested, such involvement during an interview activity may encourage participants to share their experiences more freely, if they feel they are in a friendly situation. The advantages of this technique can be reflected in the descriptions of the answers provided and in the participants’ helpfulness in reviewing the transcribed interviews and adding or correcting data.

Selection of the Participants

A purposive sampling method can be used to select the participants. This is a type of nonprobability sample. The main objective of a purposive sample is to produce a sample that can be logically assumed to be representative of the population. This is often accomplished by applying expert knowledge of the population to select in a nonrandom manner a sample of elements that represents a cross-section of the population. For example, in our past work, such expertise was given by the author being a Saudi citizen who went to study in Australia. Such methods are considered fitting for most investigations if one wants ‘to discover, understand, and gain insight … from which the most can be learned’. Another reason to use a purposive sampling method is that in qualitative, particularly in phenomenological inquiry, the aim is not to generalise findings to a population but to develop insights and in-depth exploration of an under-researched phenomenon ( Onwuegbuzie and Leech, 2007 ). The concern is not about the number of participants. Rather, the focus should be on the intensity of participation and the diversity of the participants. Moustakas (1994) suggested that the number of participants in a phenomenological study can be from 1 to 20, depending on the time frame (see, Halldórsdóttir, 2000 ; Morse, 2000 ; Starks and Trinidad, 2007 ; Jones and Lavallee, 2009 ).

This section describes how the data and reports on the activity conducted can be treated to generate findings from the interviews. The following series of processes is indicative of the path followed to arrive at the findings for this research, which relied heavily on the works of Hycner (1985) , Moustakas (1994) , Giorgi (1997) , and Wertz (2005) when a plan for data treatment is developed. Warning of Hycner (1985) against using the term data analysis when engaging in a phenomenological approach has been considered. The concept of analysis involves breaking things into parts, while phenomenology is about potting parts of any experience (phenomenon) together to get a sense of the whole, to get into phenomenological “reduction.” We are looking for “the essence.” This requires getting a sense of the whole rather than of the part. Therefore, we prefer to use “explication.” Explication usually points to the process of being explicit about the constituents of the whole phenomenon. Using a popular term like analysis may be inconsistent with how the data are treated because the term analysis usually implies a process of breaking things into parts. Therefore, to avoid misleading uses of terminology, the suggestion is to use the term data explication, which Groenewald (2004) suggested. Explication usually points to the process of being explicit about the constituents of the whole phenomenon ( Hycner, 1985 ; Groenewald, 2004 ).

The Interviewing Procedure

In order to capture and explicate the essence and the structures constituting the experience encountered by the participants nine steps can be followed: (a) transcribing participants’ interviews, (b) developing a sense of the whole, (c) developing meaning units for each participant’s experience (horizontalisation), (d) clustering relevant units of meanings, (e) translating the meaning units, (f) developing textural (i.e., narrative) descriptions for each individual, (g) searching for essential structures that could express the entire textural description, (h) evaluating the textural description, and (i) synthesising the structure from all participants’ accounts. Each step is addressed in further detail in the remainder of the paper.

Transcription

After the interviews are conducted with all the participants, the interview recordings are transcribed. After having confirmed the privacy and confidentiality statements that are provided by the third-party transcribers are confirmed, verbally and by email, interviews are sent to the transcribers, and records should be deleted after the completion of the transcription process.

Developing a Sense of the Whole

Following the transcription process, the second step consists in developing a general sense for each participant’s description. This involves listening to all the recordings several times as well as reading the transcripts several times. Repeating the procedure is useful to make sure the content of the interviews is carefully approached: In fact, this process helps the investigator to become familiar with the context of the units of meaning and themes that they sought to extract in the next step. At this stage, the goal is to get a general sense of what participants had told the investigator about their experience. This sense provides a foundation for the following process of data explication. Engaging in this activity helps the investigator to switch on and keep the focus on the phenomenon itself, which appear within the descriptions of the participants.

It is essential to the phenomenological attitude to pay full attention to both the spoken and written forms of the data. Developing a sense of the wholeness and of the entirety of what everyone had expressed regarding their experience is necessary because the goal of the investigation is to find the essential meanings of the experience as encountered by the participants ( Hycner, 1985 ; Moustakas, 1994 ). Each transcript and record should be read and listened to separately and at different times. This step allows getting an overall sense of the data.

Developing Meaning Units for Each Participant’s Experience (Horizontalisation)

After transcribing the interviews, and once a general sense of the whole description of the phenomenon has been gained, it is possible to formally engage with the data treatment in order to extract the invariant meaning units and themes that constitute the experience encountered by the participants. Every statement, phrase, sentence, and paragraph in each transcript is examined to elicit statements relevant to the experience. At this stage, the attitude is to go through the transcripts with an open-minded attitude, as much as possible ( Hycner, 1985 ). This means to stay in the bracketing mode and be as descriptive as possible. Moustakas (1994) called this stage of data treatment ‘horizontalisation’, as this is where the descriptions of each individual turn to a horizon. The horizon, in the discussion of the phenomenological data treatment, refers to the context from which an experienced phenomenon could appear; it is the source that comprises the core themes and meanings of the experienced phenomenon. The notion of phenomenological ‘horizon’ has been conceptualised differently according to which philosophical perspective is adopted. For example, the term can appear in Nietzsche, Husserl, and Heidegger, wherein it has been used to refer to very different concepts ( Scott, 1988 ; Von Eckartsberg, 1989 ; Husserl and Hardy, 1999 ; Heidegger and Dahlstrom, 2005 ; Christofi and Thompson, 2007 ). Therefore, to avoid confusion around the term ‘horizon’, the term is presently substituted by the expression ‘meaning units’, as this term refers directly to what is being achieved at this stage of data explication. Invariant meaning units are the non-repetitive or overlapping statements that explicitly or implicitly capture a moment, or several moments, of what has been experienced (i.e., the texture of the experience). To develop the meaning units from the participants’ accounts, the following sub-steps come next: listing all statements relevant to the experience , and going through the list of statements by checking each statement against two criteria suggested by Moustakas (1994 , p. 121): (1) Is the statement essential for understanding the phenomenon being studied? (2) Can it be abstracted and labelled? Any statement that conforms to these criteria was included as an invariant meaning unit. The statements that did not meet these criteria—those that are repetitive, overlapping, or unclear—are eliminated.

This process is difficult as well as the most critical one ( Wertz, 1985 ) because the entire investigation depends on these units of meaning. It takes time to be confident in eliminating some statements that do not meet the relevancy requirement.

Clustering Relevant Units of Meaning Into Groups

After developing the list of relevant meaning units, it is necessary to go through them several times in the mode of imaginative variation to identify a significant theme that could be clustered as a possible unit of meaning. Turning the attention to imaginative variation is useful in examining identified meaning units reflectively, adding the dimension that allows subjective judgements. To avoid inappropriate subjective judgements, it is important to keep bracketing one’s own presuppositions to see what might possibly emerge ( Von Eckartsberg, 1972 ; Moustakas, 1994 ). However, it should be acknowledged that the researcher’s prior experience cannot be completely isolated, as the researcher must use their constituted mind ( Al-Jabri, 2011b ) to understand and to identify the emerging themes. To minimise this necessary risk, it is recommended to ask external reviewers to be independent judges and check for consistency under the themes that are selected. At this stage, each case is still being treated individually to identify the unique experience of each participant. This approach is also useful for obtaining an in-depth understanding of the data, rather than rushing into the whole. These clusters are the core themes to use in organising the invariant meaning units (here referred to as “the core themes of the experience” of the phenomenon; Moustakas, 1994 , p. 121), before revisiting them to develop the textural description of the participant’s experience. This step helps organise the textural description of the experience ( Moustakas, 1994 ).

Translating the Meaning Units

In previous stages, the data explication can be kept, as much as possible, to what is expressed by the participants. This should all be done in the primary language spoken by the participants (i.e., native language or most used language, since native language is not always the best know language—especially in individuals who grew up or were educated in a language other than the language of the family of origin) to allow participants to express their experience by using their ‘tools’ ( Vygotsky, 1962 ). This is important for getting a deeper description of the experience because language interacts with thinking and consciousness dialectically. The underlying assumption is that language, as a mediating tool, shapes participants’ experience, and it is also a result of experience, and a significant constituent of the epistemological system of a given cultural group. Furthermore, like Burkitt (2011 , p. 269), we maintain that sociocultural theory and symbolic interactionism theory promote an assumption ‘that language does not express thoughts that already exist but provides the tools to bring thoughts into existence’.

In our previous work, the preferred language during the interviews was Arabic, spoken both by the researcher and the participants. Subsequently, the interviews were translated into English to be accessible to the scientific community internationally.

Developing a Textural Description for Each Individual

The sixth step consists in constructing a description of the texture of the experience from the clustered meaning units. This step provides rich, thick descriptions of each individual’s experience. The textural description, which is by now translated in the language in which the study is conducted (if different from the language in which the participants expressed themselves during the interviews), presents what is experienced by each participant to provide this thick description, it is important to ask the following question for every invariant meaning unit: what can possibly appear as the texture of the participant’s experience?

It should be indicated that as part of the process at this stage, some of the texture can appear in different meaning units, which means there is still some repetition and/or overlapping of the meaning units that are not eliminated in the fourth step.

Searching for Essential Structures That Could Express the Entire Textural Description

After constructing textural descriptions for each participant, it is time to deploy the imaginative variation mode again to search for essential structures that could encompass the entire textural description of the participant: a possible theme that could be the essential structure of the experience of this participant—essential in the sense that the experience could not be described without this theme, or themes. At this stage, the interpretive attitude comes into play to help the investigator to identify the structure of the textual description. The interpretive attitude is important during this process because it involves deep contemplation and reflection on the textural description to capture the structural meaning.

Evaluating the Textural Description and Structural Theme of Each Participant’s Experience

Once the textural and structural descriptions are ready, we have reached the evaluation step. In this step, we suggest adopting the following criteria from phenomenological guidelines of Hycner (1985) : Do the participants agree with the identified textures and structures to represent what they had described in the interview? Did the investigator miss any other essential aspect of the participants’ experiences that the participants would like to add?

Synthesising the Structures From All the Participants’ Accounts

The final step consists in synthesising the structures of the material gathered from all participants’ accounts to ‘communicate the most general meaning of the phenomenon ( Giorgi, 1985 , p. 20). Because this activity is the final activity in terms of the data treatment, the main research question of the study must be addressed directly.

The discussion over the structures that emerge from all participants’ interviews should take the form of writing a composite summary to describe how the experienced phenomenon is seen by the participants ( Giorgi, 1985 ; Hycner, 1985 ; Van Manen, 1990 ; Moustakas, 1994 ). In this summary, it is important to concentrate on the common aspects of the experience as an essence of the phenomenon. At the same time, it is crucial not to ignore the unique and different views of the participants.

In this article, we have presented a hybrid phenomenological method embedded in qualitative analysis that we suggest should be deployed in educational research. Our analysis is relevant to those researchers interested in doing qualitative research and in those interested in adapting phenomenological investigation to understand experiences in different educational groups and social contexts, such as cross-cultural transitions, as we have shown. A phenomenological qualitative method provides a theoretical tool for educational research as it allows researchers to engage in flexible activities that can describe and help to understand complex phenomena, such as various aspects of human social experience.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Alhazmi A. A., Nyland B. (2013). The Saudi Arabian international student experience: from a gender-segregated society to studying in a mixed-gender environment . Compare 43 , 346–365. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2012.722347 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Alhazmi A. A., Nyland B. (2015). Contextualization of Saudi international students’ experience in facing the challenge of moving to mixed gender environments . Am. Int. J. Contemp. Res. 5 , 87–97. [ Google Scholar ]
• Al-Jabri M. A. (2011b). The Formation of Arab Reason: Text, Tradition and the Construction of Modernity in the Arab World. London: I. B. Tauris. [ Google Scholar ]
• August R. A., Tuten T. L. (2008). Integrity in qualitative research: preparing ourselves, preparing our students . Teach. Learn. 22 :82. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barnacle R. (2001). “ Phenomenology and wonder ,” in Phenomenology. ed. Barnacle R. (Melbourne: RMIT University Press; ), 3–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blaikie N. W. H. (2000). Designing Social Research: The Logic of Anticipation. Malden, MA: Polity Press, Cambridge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blanche M. T., Durrheim K. (1999). “ Histories of the present: social science research in context ,” in Research in Practice: Applied Methods for the Social Sciences. eds. Blanche M. T., Durrheim K., Painter D. (Cape Town, South Africa: University of Cape Town Press; ), 1–17. [ Google Scholar ]
• Blumer H. (1986). Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brentano F. (1874). Psychology From an Empirical Standpoint.
• Bryman A. (2008). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burge T. (1979). Individualism and the mental . Midwest Stud. Phil. 4 , 73–121. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4975.1979.tb00374.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burge T. (1986). Individualism and psychology . Philos. Rev. 95 , 3–45. doi: 10.2307/2185131 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Burkitt I. (2011). “ Identity construction in sociohistorical context ,” in Handbook of Identity Theory and Research (New York, NY: Springer; ), 267–283. [ Google Scholar ]
• Christofi V., Thompson C. L. (2007). You cannot go home again: a phenomenological investigation of returning to the sojourn country after studying abroad . J. Couns. Dev. 85 , 53–63. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00444.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Clammer J., Poirier S., Schwimmer E. (eds.) (2004). Figured Worlds: Ontological Obstacles in Intercultural Relations. University of Toronto Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M. (1995). Culture and cognitive development: from cross-cultural research to creating systems of cultural mediation . Cult. Psychol. 1 , 25–54. doi: 10.1177/1354067X9511003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Corbin J., Morse J. M. (2003). The unstructured interactive interview: issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics . Qual. Inq. 9 , 335–354. doi: 10.1177/1077800403009003001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Creswell J. W., Shope R., Plano Clark V. L., Green D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research . Res. Sch. 13 , 1–11. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cresswell T. (2008). The Production of Mobilities. Routledge, 337–345. [ Google Scholar ]
• Crotty M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin N. K. (1992). The conversation . Symb. Interact. 15 , 135–150. doi: 10.1525/si.1992.15.2.135 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Denzin N. K., Lincoln Y. S. (2003). Strategies of Qualitative Inquiry. 2nd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dickson-Swift V., James E. L., Kippen S., Liamputtong P. (2006). Blurring boundaries in qualitative health research on sensitive topics . Qual. Health Res. 16 , 853–871. doi: 10.1177/1049732306287526, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dilthey W. (1979). Dilthey Selected Writings. ed. Rickman H. P. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Doelling I., Goldschmidt M. (1981). The Theory of Social/Historical Forms of Individuality Its Development State and Its Methodological Meaning for Marxist Cultural Theory/Cultural History . Leipzig, Germany: Central Institute for Youth Research.
• Finlay L. (2006). Dancing between embodied empathy and phenomenological reflection . Indo-Pacific J. Phenomenol. 6 , 1–11. doi: 10.1080/20797222.2006.11433930 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finlay L. (2008). A dance between the reduction and reflexivity: explicating the ‘phenomenological psychological attitude’ . J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 39 , 1–32. [ Google Scholar ]
• Finlay L. (2009). Debating phenomenological research methods . Phenomenol. Pract. 3 , 6–25. doi: 10.29173/pandpr19818 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadamer H.-G. (2000). Subjectivity and intersubjectivity, subject and person . Cont. Philos. Rev. 33 , 275–287. doi: 10.1023/A:1010086224341 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gadamer H.-G., Linge D. E. (2008). Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gasparyan G. (2021). Double-sided transformations of culture-bound constituents in William Saroyan’s cross-cultural domain . Transl. Stud. Theor. Pract. 1 , 31–44. doi: 10.46991/TSTP/2021.1.2.031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgi A. (ed.) (1985). Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgi A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure . J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 28 , 235–260. doi: 10.1163/156916297X00103 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgi A. (2006a). Concerning variations in the application of the phenomenological method . Humanist. Psychol. 34 , 305–319. doi: 10.1207/s15473333thp3404_2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgi A. (2006b). Difficulties encountered in the application of the phenomenological method in the social sciences . Anal. Psicol. 24 , 353–361. doi: 10.14417/ap.175 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgi A. (2009). The Descriptive Phenomenological Method in Psychology: A Modified Husserlian Approach. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Giorgi A. (2010). “ Phenomenology and the practice of science, ” in Existential Analysis: Journal of the Society for Existential Analysis. Vol . 21 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Groenewald T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated . Int J Qual Methods 3 , 42–55. doi: 10.1177/160940690400300104 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Guba E. G. (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guba E. G., Lincoln Y. S. (eds.) (1994). “ Competing paradigms in qualitative research ,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research. Vol . 2 . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 163–194. [ Google Scholar ]
• Halldórsdóttir S. (2000). “ The Vancouver school of doing phenomenology ,” in Qualitative Research Methods in the Service of Health. eds. Fridlund B., Hildingh C. (Studentlitteratur: Lund; ), 47–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hays D. G., Singh A. A. (2011). Qualitative Inquiry in Clinical and Educational Settings. New York, NY: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Heidegger M., Dahlstrom D. O. (2005). Introduction to Phenomenological Research. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Høffding S., Martiny K. M. (2016). Framing a phenomenological interview: what, why and how . Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 15 , 539–564. doi: 10.1007/s11097-015-9433-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Høffding S., Martiny K., Roepstorff A. (2022). Can we trust the phenomenological interview? Metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological objections . Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 21 , 33–51. doi: 10.1007/s11097-021-09744-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollander J. A., Renfrow D. G., Howard J. A. (2011). Gendered Situations, Gendered Selves: A Gender Lens on Social Psychology. 2nd Edn. Rowman & Littlefield. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hourigan R. M., Edgar S. N. (2020). “ The foundations of phenomenology: epistemology, methodology, and analysis ,” in Approaches to Qualitative Research: An Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education , Vol . 1 110. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes J. A., Sharrock W. W. (1997). The Philosophy of Social Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E. (1931). Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology [Trans. by W. R. B. Gibson]. Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Husserl E., Hardy L. (1999). The Idea of Phenomenology. Vol . 8 . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hycner R. H. (1985). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data . Hum. Stud. 8 , 279–303. doi: 10.1007/BF00142995 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ihde D. (2012). Experimental Phenomenology: Multistabilities. Albany, NY: State University of New York. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jarvis P. (1987). Meaningful and meaningless experience: towards an analysis of learning from life . Adult Educ. Q. 37 , 164–172. doi: 10.1177/0001848187037003004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones M. I., Lavallee D. (2009). Exploring perceived life skills development and participation in sport . Qual. Res. Sport Exercise 1 , 36–50. doi: 10.1080/19398440802567931 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karpov Y. V., Haywood H. C. (1998). Two ways to elaborate Vygotsky's concept of mediation . Am. Psychol. 53 , 27–36. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.53.1.27 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keen E. (1975). A Primer in Phenomenological Psychology.
• Klein P., Westcott M. R. (1994). The changing character of phenomenological psychology . Can. Psychol. 35 , 133–158. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.35.2.133 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Koopmans L. (2015). Individual Work Performance Questionnaire Instruction Manual. Amsterdam, NL: TNO Innovation for Life – VU University Medical Center. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kozulin A. (2018). “ Mediation and internalization ,” in The Routledge Handbook of Sociocultural Second Language Development. eds. Lantolf J., Poehner M. E., Swain M. (New York: Routledge; ), 487–504. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuhn T. (1964). “ A function for thought experiments ,” in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (University of Chicago Press; ), 240–265. [ Google Scholar ]
• Langdridge D. (2007). Phenomenological Psychology: Theory, Research and Method. Pearson Prentice Hall. [ Google Scholar ]
• Langdridge D. (2008). Phenomenology and critical social psychology: directions and debates in theory and research . Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 2 , 1126–1142. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00114.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Laverty S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: a comparison of historical and methodological considerations . Int. J. Qual . 2 , 21–35. doi: 10.1177/160940690300200303 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LeVasseur J. J. (2003). The problem of bracketing in phenomenology . Qual. Health Res. 13 , 408–420. doi: 10.1177/1049732302250337, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Linell P. (2009). Rethinking Language, Mind, and World Dialogically. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lodico M., Spaulding D., Voegtle K. (2006). Methods in Educational Research: From Theory to Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lopez K., Willis D. (2004). Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge . Qual. Health Res. 14 , 726–735. doi: 10.1177/1049732304263638, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mallozzi C. A. (2009). Voicing the interview: a researcher’s exploration on a platform of empathy . Qual. Inq. 15 , 1042–1060. doi: 10.1177/1077800409334227 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martiny K. M., Toro J., Høffding S. (2021). Framing a phenomenological mixed method: from inspiration to guidance . Front. Psychol. 12 :602081. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.602081, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mead G. H. (1967). Mind, Self and Society. Chicago University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Merleau-Ponty M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mitchell W., Irvine A. (2008). I’m okay, you’re okay? Reflections on the well-being and ethical requirements of researchers and research participants in conducting qualitative fieldwork interviews . Int J Qual Methods 7 , 31–44. doi: 10.1177/160940690800700403 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Morse J. M. (2000). Editorial: determining sample size . Qual. Health Res. 10 , 3–5. doi: 10.1177/104973200129118183 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moustakas C. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Onwuegbuzie A. J., Leech N. L. (2007). Sampling designs in qualitative research: making the sampling process more public . Qualit. Rep. 12 , 238–255. doi: 10.46743/2160-3715/2007.1636 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polkinghorne D. E. (1989). “ Phenomenological research methods ,” in Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology (Boston, MA: Springer; ), 41–60. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritchie J., Lewis J. (2003). Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rossman G. B., Rallis S. F. (2003). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [ Google Scholar ]
• Salsberry P. J. (1989). Dialogue on a research issue: phenomenological research in nursing—response . Nurs. Sci. Q. 2 , 9–13. doi: 10.1177/089431848900200106, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott T. (1988). “ The horizon of time and ontological difference ,” in Hermeneutical Phenomenology: Lectures and Essays. ed. Kockelmans J. J. (Lanham, MD: University Press of America; ), 67–80. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spiegelberg H., Schuhmann K. (1982). The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction. The Hague: M. Nijhoff. [ Google Scholar ]
• Spinelli E. (2005). The Interpreted World: An Introduction to Phenomenological Psychology. Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Starks H., Trinidad S. B. (2007). Choose your method—a comparison of phenomenology, discourse analysis, and grounded theory . Qual. Health Res. 17 , 1372–1380. doi: 10.1177/1049732307307031, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stebbins R. A. (2001). Exploratory Research in the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steentoft D. (2005). “Research as an act of learning: exploring student backgrounds through dialogue with research participants.” in Proceedings of CERME 4 , ed. M. Bosch; February 17-21, 2005; Sant Féliu de Gixols.
• Tarozzi M., Mortari L. (2010). Phenomenology and Human Science Research Today. Bucharest, Hungary: Zeta Books. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todres L. (2005). “ Clarifying the lifeworld: descriptive phenomenology ,” in Qualitative Research in Health Care. ed. Holloway I. (Maidenhead: Open University Press; ), 104–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• Todres L. (2007). Embodied Enquiry: Phenomenological Touchstones for Research, Psychotherapy and Spirituality. London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. [ Google Scholar ]
• Urrieta L. (2007). Figured worlds and education: an introduction to the special issue . Urban Rev. 39 , 107–116. doi: 10.1007/s11256-007-0051-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Manen M. (1990). Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. New York: State University of New York Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Eckartsberg R. (1972). Experiential psychology: a descriptive protocol and a reflection . J. Phenomenol. Psychol. 2 , 161–171. doi: 10.1163/156916272X00100 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Von Eckartsberg R. (1989). The unfolding meaning of intentionality and horizon in phenomenology . Humanist. Psychol. 17 , 146–160. doi: 10.1080/08873267.1989.9976848 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky L. S. (1962). Language and Thought. Ontario: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Vygotsky L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wertsch J. V., del Río P., Alvarez A. (eds.) (1995). Sociocultural Studies of Mind. Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wertz F. J. (1985). “ Method and findings in a phenomenological psychological study of a complex life-event: being criminally victimized ,” in Phenomenology and Psychological Research. 155–216. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wertz F. J. (2005). Phenomenological research methods for counseling psychology . J. Couns. Psychol. 52 , 167–177. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.167 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Willig C. (2008). Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology. New York, NY: McGraw Hill/Open University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahavi D. (2019a). Getting it quite wrong: van Manen and smith on phenomenology . Qual. Health Res. 29 , 900–907. doi: 10.1177/1049732318817547, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahavi D. (2019b). Second-person engagement, self-alienation, and group-identification . Topoi 38 , 251–260. doi: 10.1007/s11245-016-9444-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahavi D. (2020). The practice of phenomenology: the case of max van Manen . Nurs. Philos. 21 , 1–9. doi: 10.1111/nup.12276 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahavi D. (2021). Applied phenomenology: why it is safe to ignore the epoché . Cont. Philos. Rev. 54 , 259–273. doi: 10.1007/s11007-019-09463-y [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahavi D., Martiny K. M. M. (2019). Phenomenology in nursing studies: new perspectives . Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 93 , 155–162. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.01.014, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

The Guide to Thematic Analysis

• What is Thematic Analysis?
• Advantages of Thematic Analysis
• Disadvantages of Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Analysis Examples
• How to Do Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Coding
• Collaborative Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Analysis Software
• Thematic Analysis in Mixed Methods Approach
• Abductive Thematic Analysis
• Deductive Thematic Analysis
• Inductive Thematic Analysis
• Reflexive Thematic Analysis
• Thematic Analysis in Observations
• Thematic Analysis in Surveys
• Thematic Analysis for Interviews
• Thematic Analysis for Focus Groups
• Thematic Analysis for Case Studies
• Thematic Analysis of Secondary Data
• Thematic Analysis Literature Review
• Introduction

Thematic analysis vs. phenomenological analysis in qualitative research

What are the benefits of combining thematic analysis and phenomenological analysis, how do you analyze data in phenomenology.

• Thematic vs. Content Analysis
• Thematic Analysis vs. Grounded Theory
• Thematic Analysis vs. Narrative Analysis
• Thematic Analysis vs. Discourse Analysis
• Thematic Analysis vs. Framework Analysis
• Thematic Analysis in Social Work
• Thematic Analysis in Psychology
• Thematic Analysis in Educational Research
• Thematic Analysis in UX Research
• How to Present Thematic Analysis Results
• Increasing Rigor in Thematic Analysis
• Peer Review in Thematic Analysis

Thematic Analysis vs. Phenomenology

Thematic analysis and phenomenological research are two methodological approaches widely used in qualitative research . Thematic analysis is a key component in qualitative research that focuses on analyzing qualitative data for identifying themes and patterns. It provides a structured framework to interpret diverse data sets, enabling expert and novice researchers to derive insightful conclusions from qualitative content. In conjunction with thematic analysis, phenomenology helps researchers understand and describe experiences from the perspective of those who have lived them. By focusing on individuals' lived experiences, this approach seeks to uncover the essence of phenomena as they are perceived by different participants. Both approaches offer qualitative researchers distinct methodological principles for exploring and understanding qualitative data . This article will detail the specifics and important differences of each approach, outlining their methodological principles, applications, and the nuances that distinguish them within the field of qualitative research.

Thematic analysis and phenomenological analysis are two prominent methods used in qualitative research to extract meaningful insights from data. While both approaches aim to deepen our understanding of human experiences and perceptions, they differ significantly in their methodological focus, qualitative data process, and outcomes. This section delineates these distinctions to clarify when and how each method can be optimally employed.

Focus of analysis

The thematic analysis process is primarily concerned with identifying and interpreting patterns or overarching themes within qualitative data . Its focus is on the content and occurrence of these themes as they emerge across a dataset, allowing researchers to synthesize and describe key features of the data. This method can be applied across various data types and is not limited to exploring subjective experiences but can also examine perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors.

In contrast, a phenomenological philosophy to data analysis is dedicated to exploring and describing the lived experiences of individuals to understand the essence of a particular phenomenon. This approach looks into how individuals perceive and make sense of their experiences, emphasizing the depth and richness of subjective experience. Scholars looking at nursing and midwifery conducting qualitative research, for example, seek to describe participants' experiences in hospital and healthcare settings rather than provide a bird's eye view of the research context as a whole.

Data interpretation

The way data is interpreted in thematic analysis and phenomenological analysis also differs. Researchers undertake thematic analysis-based research by coding data and organizing these codes into broader themes that encapsulate significant aspects of the data. The interpretation may be somewhat detached, providing a detailed analysis on what the data reveals about the research question. For instance, qualitative health research that adopts a thematic analysis may be interested in the prevailing and common insights relevant to the qualitative inquiry being addressed, such as the most effective healthcare practices or the most pervasive challenges to providing healthcare.

On the other hand, phenomenological analysis requires a more immersive and interpretative approach for the purpose of exploring the ontological and epistemological foundations within a particular context. Researchers engage deeply with participants' descriptions of their experiences, striving to interpret the essence of these experiences. This process often involves iterative reading and reflection, aiming to uncover underlying meanings and connections that illuminate the phenomenon being studied.

Research outcomes

Lastly, the outcomes of thematic analysis and phenomenological analysis serve different research purposes. Thematic analysis approaches provide a structured and clear representation of themes within a dataset as researchers organize data thematically, offering a broad overview that can inform policy, practice, or further research. It is versatile and can support various research aims, including descriptive, exploratory, or explanatory studies.

Conversely, phenomenological analysis yields a deep, nuanced understanding of a specific phenomenon as experienced by individuals. The findings are richly descriptive, focusing on the quality and texture of experiences. Such outcomes are particularly valuable in fields where understanding human experiences is crucial, such as psychology, healthcare, and education, offering profound insights into people's lives and perspectives.

Qualitative insights made easy with ATLAS.ti

Turn to our intuitive data analysis platform to make the most of your research. Download a free trial today.

Integrating thematic analysis and phenomenological analysis in a single research study can offer a robust and nuanced understanding of qualitative data . While thematic analysis provides a structured approach that allows researchers to identify patterns in the data, a descriptive phenomenological tradition offers a deep dive into individuals' lived experiences. When combined, these methods can complement each other, providing a comprehensive exploration of both the breadth and depth of the subject matter that quantitative methods cannot adequately address. This section discusses three key benefits of synthesizing these approaches in research.

Enhanced depth and breadth of understanding

Thematic analysis is a flexible method aimed at identifying and categorizing themes across a broad dataset, offering a panoramic view of the data. When paired with phenomenological analysis, researchers can also gain profound insights into the depth of individual experiences. This combination allows for a more holistic understanding, where the thematic breadth complements the phenomenological depth, offering a well-rounded perspective of the research topic. Keep in mind that a study that adopts multiple research questions can certainly benefit from a methodological approach that adopts both thematic analysis and phenomenological analysis to address the nuances of each research question.

Increased methodological rigor

Combining thematic and phenomenological analyses can enhance the methodological rigor of a study, which makes the research more persuasive to its intended audience. Thematic analysis, with its systematic approach to the data coding process and theme development, provides a clear framework that adds structure to the research process and a deeper understanding of socially constructed phenomena. When integrated with the deep, context-rich insights derived from phenomenological analysis, the study gains a level of depth and nuance that either method alone might not achieve. This synthesis can increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the research findings.

Richer data interpretation

Employing both qualitative methods in a study can lead to a richer and more nuanced data interpretation. Thematic analysis can identify prevalent themes and patterns, setting a broad contextual backdrop for the data. Phenomenological analysis, meanwhile, delves into the subtleties of individual experiences, highlighting unique perspectives and nuances. By synthesizing these approaches, researchers can cross-validate and enrich their interpretations, offering a more comprehensive and multifaceted analysis of the data. This integration not only enhances the interpretive depth but also provides a more textured and detailed portrayal of the research subject.

Analyzing data within a phenomenological framework requires a focus on individuals' lived experiences, aiming to uncover the essence of the phenomena under investigation. This approach emphasizes depth and context, seeking to provide a comprehensive understanding of how participants perceive and experience the given phenomenon. When applying phenomenological analysis in the context of thematic analysis, researchers can extract nuanced insights that inform broader themes. Below are key steps in conducting phenomenological data analysis for thematic exploration.

Understanding the phenomenological context

Before diving into data analysis, it is crucial to establish a clear understanding of the phenomenological context. This involves defining the phenomenon of interest and considering its significance from the participants' perspectives. Researchers should immerse themselves in the subject matter, acknowledging their preconceptions and assumptions to approach the data with an open mind. This preparatory step sets the stage for a focused and insightful analysis, ensuring that the examination is rooted in the participants' experiences and the phenomenon's intrinsic nature.

Engaging in epoché and phenomenological reduction

Epoché, or bracketing, is the process of setting aside the researcher's preconceptions and assumptions to engage with the data in its purest form. This step is followed by phenomenological reduction, where the researcher distills the data to its essential qualities, focusing on the participants' descriptions and expressions related to the phenomenon. During this phase, the analyst identifies significant statements, extracts meaning units, and begins to form an understanding of the core essence of the experiences shared by participants. These processes are foundational in interpretive phenomenology, enabling the researcher to approach the data with clarity and rigor.

Identifying themes and essence

After thorough engagement with the data through epoché and reduction, the next step involves identifying themes that emerge from the participants' accounts. This thematic identification is guided by the essence of the lived experiences as conveyed by the participants. The researcher clusters related meaning units into themes, ensuring each theme accurately reflects the underlying essence of the experiences. These themes are then examined in relation to one another and to the phenomenon as a whole, constructing a coherent narrative that encapsulates the depth and complexity of the participants' lived experiences. Through this meticulous process, phenomenological analysis provides a detailed and profound understanding of the phenomenon, offering valuable insights that can inform broader thematic analyses and contribute to a richer comprehension of the research topic.

A qualitative approach starts with ATLAS.ti

Powerful tools and an intuitive interface make qualitative research easier than ever. See how with a free trial.

How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others

• A Qualitative Space
• Open access
• Published: 05 April 2019
• Volume 8 , pages 90–97, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Brian E. Neubauer 1 , 2 ,
• Catherine T. Witkop 3 &
• Lara Varpio 1  

513k Accesses

439 Citations

43 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Introduction

As a research methodology, phenomenology is uniquely positioned to help health professions education (HPE) scholars learn from the experiences of others. Phenomenology is a form of qualitative research that focuses on the study of an individual’s lived experiences within the world. Although it is a powerful approach for inquiry, the nature of this methodology is often intimidating to HPE researchers. This article aims to explain phenomenology by reviewing the key philosophical and methodological differences between two of the major approaches to phenomenology: transcendental and hermeneutic. Understanding the ontological and epistemological assumptions underpinning these approaches is essential for successfully conducting phenomenological research.

This review provides an introduction to phenomenology and demonstrates how it can be applied to HPE research. We illustrate the two main sub-types of phenomenology and detail their ontological, epistemological, and methodological differences.

Conclusions

Phenomenology is a powerful research strategy that is well suited for exploring challenging problems in HPE. By building a better understanding of the nature of phenomenology and working to ensure proper alignment between the specific research question and the researcher’s underlying philosophy, we hope to encourage HPE scholars to consider its utility when addressing their research questions.

Similar content being viewed by others

Phenomenology and Education

Bridging the gap between research and practice: using phenomenographic findings to develop training for career practitioners

Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

A Qualitative Space highlights research approaches that push readers and scholars deeper into qualitative methods and methodologies. Contributors to A Qualitative Space may: advance new ideas about qualitative methodologies, methods, and/or techniques; debate current and historical trends in qualitative research; craft and share nuanced reflections on how data collection methods should be revised or modified; reflect on the epistemological bases of qualitative research; or argue that some qualitative practices should end. Share your thoughts on Twitter using the hashtag: #aqualspace

Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.—Douglas Adams

Despite the fact that humans are one of few animals who can learn from the experiences of others, we are often loath to do so. Perhaps this is because we assume that similar circumstances could never befall us. Perhaps this is because we assume that, if placed in the same situation, we would make wiser decisions. Perhaps it is because we assume the subjective experience of an individual is not as reliably informative as objective data collected from external reality. Regardless of the assumptions grounding this apprehension, it is essential for scholars to learn from the experiences of others. In fact, it is a foundational premise of research. Research involves the detailed study of a subject (i. e., an individual, groups of individuals, societies, or objects) to discover information or to achieve a new understanding of the subject [ 1 ]. Such detailed study often requires understanding the experiences of others so that we can glean new insights about a particular phenomenon. Scholars in health professions education (HPE) are savvy to the need to learn from the experiences of others. To maximize the effectiveness of feedback, of workplace-based learning, of clinical reasoning, or of any other of a myriad of phenomena, HPE researchers need to be able to carefully explore and learn from the experiences of others. What often curtails these efforts is a lack of methodology. In other words: HPE researchers need to know how to learn from the experiences of others.

Phenomenology is a qualitative research approach that is uniquely positioned to support this inquiry. However, as an approach for engaging in HPE research, phenomenology does not have a strong following. It is easy to see why: To truly understand phenomenology requires developing an appreciation for the philosophies that underpin it. Those philosophies theorize the meaning of human experience. In other words, engaging in phenomenological research requires the scholar to become familiar with the philosophical moorings of our interpretations of human experience. This may be a daunting task, but Douglas Adams never said learning from the experiences of others would be easy.

The questions that phenomenology can answer, and the insights this kind of research can provide, are of foundational importance to HPE: What is the experience of shame and the impact of that experience for medical learners [ 2 ]? What does it mean to be an empathetic clinician [ 3 ]? What is the medical learner’s experience of failure on high stakes exams [ 4 ]? How do experienced clinicians learn to communicate their clinical reasoning in professional practice [ 5 ]? Answers to such questions constitute the underpinnings of our field. To answer such questions, we can use phenomenology to learn from the experiences of others.

In this manuscript, we delve into the philosophies and methodologies of two varieties of phenomenology: hermeneutic and transcendental. Our goal is not to simplify the complexities of phenomenology, nor to argue that all HPE researchers should use phenomenology. Instead, we suggest that phenomenology is a valuable approach to research that needs to have a place in HPE’s body of research. We will place these two approaches in the context of their philosophical roots to illustrate the similarities and differences between these ways of engaging in phenomenological research. In so doing, we hope to encourage HPE researchers to thoughtfully engage in phenomenology when their research questions necessitate this research approach.

What is phenomenology?

In simple terms, phenomenology can be defined as an approach to research that seeks to describe the essence of a phenomenon by exploring it from the perspective of those who have experienced it [ 6 ]. The goal of phenomenology is to describe the meaning of this experience—both in terms of what was experienced and how it was experienced [ 6 ]. There are different kinds of phenomenology, each rooted in different ways of conceiving of the what and how of human experience. In other words, each approach of phenomenology is rooted in a different school of philosophy. To choose a phenomenological research methodology requires the scholar to reflect on the philosophy they embrace. Given that there are many different philosophies that a scientist can embrace, it is not surprising that there is broad set of phenomenological traditions that a researcher can draw from. In this manuscript, we highlight the transcendental and the hermeneutic approaches to phenomenology, but a broader phenomenological landscape exists. For instance, the Encyclopedia of Phenomenology, published in 1997, features articles on seven different types of phenomenology [ 7 ]. More contemporary traditions have also been developed that bridge the transcendental/hermeneutic divide. Several of these traditions are detailed in Tab.  1 [ 8 , 9 , 10 ].

To understand any of these approaches to phenomenology, it is useful to remember that most approaches hold a similar definition of phenomenology’s object of study. Phenomenology is commonly described as the study of phenomena as they manifest in our experience, of the way we perceive and understand phenomena, and of the meaning phenomena have in our subjective experience [ 11 ]. More simply stated, phenomenology is the study of an individual’s lived experience of the world [ 12 ]. By examining an experience as it is subjectively lived, new meanings and appreciations can be developed to inform, or even re-orient, how we understand that experience [ 13 ].

From this shared understanding, we now address how transcendental (descriptive) phenomenology and hermeneutic (interpretive) phenomenology approach this study in different ways. These approaches are summarized in Tab.  2 .

• Transcendental phenomenology

Phenomenology originates in philosophical traditions that evolved over centuries; however, most historians credit Edmund Husserl for defining phenomenology in the early 20th century [ 14 ]. Understanding some of Husserl’s academic history can provide insight into his transcendental approach to phenomenology. Husserl’s initial work focused on mathematics as the object of study [ 15 ], but then moved to examine other phenomena. Husserl’s approach to philosophy sought to equally value both objective and subjective experiences, with his body of work ‘culminating in his interest in “pure phenomenology” or working to find a universal foundation of philosophy and science [ 13 ].’ Husserl rejected positivism’s absolute focus on objective observations of external reality, and instead argued that phenomena as perceived by the individual’s consciousness should be the object of scientific study. Thus, Husserl contended that no assumptions should inform phenomenology’s inquiry; no philosophical or scientific theory, no deductive logic procedures, and no other empirical science or psychological speculations should inform the inquiry. Instead, the focus should be on what is given directly to an individual’s intuition [ 16 ]. As Staiti recently argued, this attitude towards phenomenology is akin to that of ‘a natural scientist who has just discovered a previously unknown dimension of reality [ 17 ].’ This shift in focus requires the researcher to return ‘to the self to discover the nature and meaning of things [ 18 ].’ As Husserl asserted: ‘Ultimately, all genuine and, in particular, all scientific knowledge, rests on inner evidence [ 19 ].’ Inner evidence—that is, what appears in consciousness—is where a phenomenon is to be studied. What this means for Husserl is that subjective and objective knowledge are intimately intertwined. To understand the reality of a phenomenon is to understand the phenomenon as it is lived by a person. This lived experience is, for Husserl, a dimension of being that had yet to be discovered [ 17 ]. For Husserl, phenomenology was rooted in an epistemological attitude; for him, the critical question of a phenomenological investigation was ‘What is it for an individual to know or to be conscious of a phenomenon [ 20 ]?’ In Husserl’s conception of phenomenology, any experienced phenomenon could be the object of study thereby pushing analysis beyond mere sensory perception (i. e. what I see, hear, touch) to experiences of thought, memory, imagination, or emotion [ 21 ].

Husserl contended that a lived experience of a phenomenon had features that were commonly perceived by individuals who had experienced the phenomenon. These commonly perceived features—or universal essences—can be identified to develop a generalizable description. The essences of a phenomenon, according to Husserl, represented the true nature of that phenomenon. The challenge facing the researcher engaging in Husserl’s phenomenology, then, is:

To describe things in themselves, to permit what is before one to enter consciousness and be understood in its meanings and essences in the light of intuition and self-reflection. The process involves a blending of what is really present with what is imagined as present from the vantage point of possible meanings; thus, a unity of the real and the ideal [ 18 ] .

In other words, the challenge is to engage in the study of a person’s lived experience of a phenomenon that highlights the universal essences of that phenomenon [ 22 ]. This requires the researcher to suspend his/her own attitudes, beliefs, and suppositions in order to focus on the participants’ experience of the phenomenon and identify the essences of the phenomenon. One of Husserl’s great contributions to philosophy and science is the method he developed that enables researchers ‘to suspend the natural attitude as well as the naïve understanding of what we call the human mind and to disclose the realm of transcendental subjectivity as a new field of inquiry [ 17 ].’

In Husserl’s’ transcendental phenomenology (also sometimes referred to as the descriptive approach), the researcher’s goal is to achieve transcendental subjectivity —a state wherein ‘the impact of the researcher on the inquiry is constantly assessed and biases and preconceptions neutralized, so that they do not influence the object of study [ 22 ].’ The researcher is to stand apart, and not allow his/her subjectivity to inform the descriptions offered by the participants. This lived dimension of experience is best approached by the researcher who can achieve the state of the transcendental I —a state wherein the objective researcher moves from the participants’ descriptions of facts of the lived experience, to universal essences of the phenomenon at which point consciousness itself could be grasped [ 23 ]. In the state of the transcendental I , the researcher is able to access the participants’ experience of the phenomenon pre-reflectively—that is ‘without resorting to categorization on conceptualization, and quite often includes what is taken for granted or those things that are common sense [ 13 ].’ The transcendental I brings no definitions, expectations, assumption or hypotheses to the study; instead, in this state, the researcher assumes the position of a  tabula rasa, a blank slate, that uses participants’ experiences to develop an understanding of the essence of a phenomenon.

This state is achieved via a series of reductions. The first reduction, referred to as the transcendental stage , requires transcendence from the natural attitude of everyday life through epoche , also called the process of bracketing . This is the process through which the researchers set aside—or bracket off as one would in a mathematical equation—previous understandings, past knowledge, and assumptions about the phenomenon of interest. The previous understandings that must be set aside include a wide range of sources including: scientific theories, knowledge, or explanation; truth or falsity of claims made by participants; and personal views and experiences of the researcher [ 24 ]. In the second phase, transcendental-phenomenological reduction , each participant’s experience is considered individually and a complete description of the phenomenon’s meanings and essences is constructed [ 18 ]. Next is reduction via imaginative variation wherein all the participants’ descriptions of conscious experience are distilled to a unified synthesis of essences through the process of free variation [ 25 ]. This process relies on intuition and requires imagining multiple variations of the phenomenon in order to arrive at the essences of the phenomenon [ 25 ]. These essences become the foundation for all knowledge about the phenomenon.

The specific processes followed to realize these reductions vary across researchers engaging in transcendental phenomenology. One commonly used transcendental phenomenological method is that of psychologist Clark Moustakas, and other approaches include the works of: Colaizzi [ 26 ], Giorgi [ 27 ], and Polkinghorne [ 28 ]. Regardless of the approach used, to engage rigorously in transcendental phenomenology, the researcher must be vigilant in his/her bracketing work so that the researcher’s individual subjectivity does not bias data analysis and interpretations. This is the challenge of reaching the state of the transcendental I where the researcher’s own interpretations, perceptions, categories, etc. do not influence the processes of reduction. It is important to note that modern philosophers continue to wrestle with Husserl’s notions of bracketing. If bracketing is successfully achieved, the researcher sets aside the world and the entirety of its content—including the researcher’s physical body [ 17 ]. While dedication to this bracketing is challenging to maintain, Husserl asserts that it is necessary. Suspending reliance on and foundations in physical reality is the only way to abandon our human experiences in such a way as to find the transcendent I. Researchers might borrow [ 29 ] practices from other qualitative research methods to achieve this goal. For instance, a study could be designed to have multiple researchers triangulate [ 30 ] their reductions to confirm appropriate bracketing was maintained. Alternatively, a study could involve validation of data [ 18 ] via member checking [ 31 ] to ensure that the identified essences resonated with the participants’ experiences.

Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology has been employed by HPE researchers. For example, in 2012, Tavakol et al. studied medical students’ understanding of empathy by engaging in transcendental phenomenological research [ 32 ]. The authors note that medial students’ loss of empathy as they transition from pre-clinical to clinical training is well documented in the medical literature [ 33 ], and has been found to negatively impact patients and the quality of healthcare provided [ 34 ]. Tavakol et al. [ 32 ] used a descriptive phenomenological approach (i. e. using the methodology of Colaizzi and Giorgi) to report on the phenomenon of empathy as experienced by medical students during the course of their training. The authors identified two key factors impacting empathic ability: innate capacity for empathy and barriers to displaying empathy [ 32 ].

• Hermeneutic phenomenology

Hermeneutic phenomenology, also known as interpretive phenomenology, originates from the work of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger began his career in theology, but then moved into academia as a student of philosophy. While Heidegger’s philosophical inquiry began in alignment with Husserl’s work, he later challenged several key aspects of Husserl’s transcendental phenomenology. A foundational break from his predecessor was the focus of phenomenological inquiry. While Husserl was interested in the nature of knowledge (i. e., an epistemological focus), Heidegger was interested in the nature of being and temporality (i. e., an ontological focus) [ 21 ]. With this focus on human experience and how it is lived, hermeneutic phenomenology moves away from Husserl’s focus on ‘acts of attending, perceiving, recalling and thinking about the world [ 13 ]’ and on human beings as knowers of phenomenon. In contrast, Heidegger is interested in human beings as actors in the world and so focuses on the relationship between an individual and his/her lifeworld. Heidegger’s term lifeworld referred to the idea that ‘individuals’ realities are invariably influenced by the world in which they live [ 22 ].’ Given this orientation, individuals are understood as always already having an understanding of themselves within the world, even if they are not constantly, explicitly and/or consciously aware of that understanding [ 17 ]. For Heidegger, an individual’s conscious experience of a phenomenon is not separate from the world, nor from the individual’s personal history. Consciousness is, instead, a formation of historically lived experiences including a person’s individual history and the culture in which he/she was raised [ 22 ]. An individual cannot step out of his/her lifeworld. Humans cannot experience a phenomenon without referring back to his/her background understandings. Hermeneutic phenomenology, then, seeks ‘to understand the deeper layers of human experience that lay obscured beneath surface awareness and how the individual’s lifeworld, or the world as he or she pre-reflectively experiences it, influences this experience [ 35 ].’ Hermeneutic phenomenology studies individuals’ narratives to understand what those individuals experience in their daily lives, in their lifeworlds.

But the hermeneutic tradition pushes beyond a descriptive understanding. Hermeneutic phenomenology is rooted in interpretation—interpreting experiences and phenomena via the individual’s lifeworld. Here, Heidegger’s background in theology can be seen as influencing his approach to phenomenology. Hermeneutics refers to the interpretation of texts, to theories developed from the need to translate literature from different languages and where access to the original text (e. g., the Bible) was problematic [ 36 ]. If all human experience is informed by the individual’s lifeworld, and if all experiences must be interpreted through that background, hermeneutic phenomenology must go beyond description of the phenomenon, to the interpretation of the phenomenon. The researcher must be aware of the influence of the individual’s background and account for the influences they exert on the individual’s experience of being.

This is not to say that the individual’s subjective experience—which is inextricably linked with social, cultural, and political contexts—is pre-determined. Heidegger argued that individuals have situated freedom. Situated freedom is a concept that asserts that ‘individuals are free to make choices, but their freedom is not absolute; it is circumscribed by the specific conditions of their daily lives [ 22 ].’ Hermeneutic phenomenology studies the meanings of an individual’s being in the world, as their experience is interpreted through his/her lifeworld, and how these meanings and interpretations influence the choices that the individual makes [ 13 ]. This focus requires the hermeneutic phenomenologist to interpret the narratives provided by research participants in relation to their individual contexts in order to illuminate the fundamental structures of participants’ understanding of being and how that shaped the decisions made by the individual [ 37 ].

Another key aspect that distinguishes hermeneutic phenomenology is the role of the researcher in the inquiry. Instead of bracketing off the researcher’s subjective perspective, hermeneutic phenomenology recognizes that the researcher, like the research subject, cannot be rid of his/her lifeworld. Instead, the researcher’s past experiences and knowledge are valuable guides to the inquiry. It is the researcher’s education and knowledge base that lead him/her to consider a phenomenon or experience worthy of investigation. To ask the research to take an unbiased approach to the data is inconsistent with hermeneutic phenomenology’s philosophical roots. Instead, researchers working from this tradition should openly acknowledge their preconceptions, and reflect on how their subjectivity is part of the analysis process [ 16 ].

The interpretive work of hermeneutic phenomenology is not bound to a single set of rule-bound analytical techniques; instead, it is an interpretive process involving the interplay of multiple analysis activities [ 35 ]. In general, this process:

Starts with identifying an interesting phenomenon that directs our attention towards lived experience. Members of the research team then investigate experience as it is lived, rather than as it is conceptualized, and reflect on the essential [phenomenological] themes that characterize the participant’s experience with the phenomenon, simultaneously reflecting on their own experiences. Researchers capture their reflections in writing and then reflect and write again, creating continuous, iterative cycles to develop increasingly robust and nuanced analyses. Throughout the analysis, researchers must maintain a strong orientation to the phenomenon under study (i.   e., avoid distractions) and attend to the interactions between the parts and the whole. This last step, also described as the hermeneutic circle, emphasizes the practice of deliberately considering how the data (the parts) contribute to the evolving understanding of the phenomena (the whole) and how each enhances the meaning of the other [ 35 ] .

In the hermeneutic approach to phenomenology, theories can help to focus inquiry, to make decisions about research participants, and the way research questions can be addressed [ 22 ]. Theories can also be used to help understand the findings of the study. One scholar whose engagement with hermeneutic phenomenology is widely respected is Max van Manen [ 38 ]. Van Manen acknowledges that hermeneutic phenomenology ‘does not let itself be deceptively reduced to a methodical schema or an interpretative set of procedures [ 39 ].’ Instead, this kind of phenomenology requires the researcher to read deeply into the philosophies of this tradition to grasp the project of hermeneutic phenomenological thinking, reading, and writing.

A recent study published by Bynum et al. illustrates how hermeneutic phenomenology may be employed in HPE [ 2 ]. In this paper, Bynum et al. explored the phenomenon of shame as an emotion experienced by medical residents and offer insights into the effects of shame experiences on learners. As a means in scholarly inquiry, this study demonstrates how hermeneutic phenomenology can provide insight into complex phenomena that are inextricably entwined in HPE.

Incorporating phenomenological research methodologies into HPE scholarship creates opportunities to learn from the experiences of others. Phenomenological research can broaden our understanding of the complex phenomena involved in learning, behaviour, and communication that are germane to our field. But success in these efforts is dependent upon both improved awareness of the potential value of these approaches, and enhanced familiarization with the underlying philosophical orientation and methodological approaches of phenomenology. Perhaps most critically, HPE scholars must construct research processes that align with the tenets of the methodology chosen and the philosophical roots that underlie it. This alignment is the cornerstone for establishing research rigour and trustworthiness.

Following a specific checklist of verification activities or mandatory processes cannot buoy the quality and rigour of a particular phenomenological study. Instead, beyond maintaining fidelity between research question, paradigm, and selected methodology, robust phenomenological research involves deep engagement with the data via reading, reflective writing, re-reading and re-writing. In Moustakas’s approach to transcendental phenomenology, the researcher reads the data, reduces the data to meaning units, re-reads those reductions to then engage in thematic clustering, compares the data, writes descriptions, and so on in an ongoing process of continually engaging with the data and writing reflections and summaries until the researcher can describe the essence of the lived experience [ 18 ]. In hermeneutic phenomenology, scholars describe engaging in a hermeneutic circle wherein the researcher reads the data, constructs a vague understanding, engages in reflective writing, then re-engages with the text with revised understandings [ 40 ]. In cycles of reading and writing, of attending to the whole of the text and the parts, the hermeneutic researcher constructs an understanding of the lived experience. In both traditions, deep engagement with the data via reading, writing, re-reading and re-writing is foundational. While this engagement work is not standardized, Polkinghorne suggests that rich descriptions of phenomenological research might be characterized by qualities such as vividness, richness, accuracy, and elegance [ 41 ]. While we question how these qualities might be evaluated in a qualitative study, they confirm that attention to the depth of engagement in reading and writing of the phenomenological data is a necessary condition for rigour.

Phenomenology is a valuable tool and research strategy. For those who are not familiar with its philosophical underpinnings or methodological application, it can seem challenging to apply to HPE scholarship. We hope this manuscript will serve to relieve some of the apprehension in considering the use of phenomenology in future work. We believe that the appropriate application of phenomenology to HPE’s research questions will help us to advance our understanding by learning from the experiences of others.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the United States Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

Cambridge Online Dictionary. 2019. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/research . Accessed 24 Feb 2019, Research.

Bynum W, Artino A, Uijtdehaage S, Webb A, Varpio L. Sentinel emotional events. The nature, triggers, and effects of shame experiences in medical residents. Acad Med. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002479 . Oct 1 [cited 2018 Oct 10] Epub ahead of print.

Article   Google Scholar  

Hooker C. Understanding empathy: why phenomenology and hermeneutics can help medical education and practice. Med Health Care Philos. 2015;2015(18):541–52.

Patel RS, Tarrant C, Bonas S, Shaw RL. Medical students’ personal experience of high-stakes failure: case studies using interpretative phenomenological analysis. Bmc Med Educ. 2015;15:1–9.

Ajjawi R, Higgs J. Using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate how experienced practitioners learn to communicate clinical reasoning. Qual Rep. 2007;12:612:38.

Google Scholar  

Teherani A, Martimianakis T, Stenfors-Hayes T, Wadhwa A, Varpio L. Choosing a qualitative research approach. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7:669–70.

Contributions to phenomenology. In: Embree L, editor. Encyclopedia of phenomenology. Vol. 18. Netherlands: Springer; 1997.

Ashworth P. An approach to phenomenological psychology: the contingencies of the lifeworld. J Phenom Psychol. 2003;34:145–56.

Vagle M. Crafting phenomenological research. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group; 2018.

Book   Google Scholar  

Tuffour I. A critical overview of interpretative phenomenological analysis: a contemporary qualitative research approach. J Healthc Commun. 2017;2(4:52):1–5.

Smith, David Woodruff. Phenomenology. Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/ . Accessed 9 Oct 2018.

Manen MV. Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London and New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group; 1997.

Laverty SM. Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: a comparison of historical and methodological considerations. Int J Qual Methods. 2003;2:1–29.

Kafle NP. Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. Bodhi: Interdiscip J. 2011;5:181–2.

Jones WT. The twentieth century to Wittgenstein and Sartre. San Francisco, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich; 1975.

Moran D. Introduction to phenomenology. Milton Park: Routledge; 2000.

Staiti A. The pedagogic impulse of Husserl’s ways into transcendental phenomenology: an alternative reading of the Erste Philosophie lecture. Grad Fac Philos J. 2012;33:39–56.

Moustakas CE. Phenomenological research methods. 1st ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1994.

Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. 1st ed. Evanston: Northwestern University Press; 1970.

Barua A. Husserl, Heidegger, and the transcendental dimension of phenomenology. Indo-Pacific J Phenomenol. 2015;7:1–10.

Reiners GM. Understanding the differences between Husserl’s (descriptive) and Heidegger’s (interpretive) phenomenological research. J Nurs Care. 2012;1:1–3.

Lopez KA, Willis DG. Descriptive versus interpretive phenomenology: their contributions to nursing knowledge. Qual Health Res. 2004;14:726–35.

Davidsen AS. Phenomenological approaches in psychology and health sciences. Qual Res Psychol. 2013;10:318–39.

Presuppose Nothing AP. The suspension of assumptions in phenomenological psychological methodology. J Phenomenol Psychol. 1996;27:1–25.

Gill MJ. The possibilities of phenomenology for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2014;17:118–37.

Colaizzi P. Psychological research as a phenomenologist views it. In: Valle RS, King M, editors. Existential-phenomenological alternatives for psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 1978.

Giorgi A. Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press; 1985.

Polkinghorne DE. Phenomenological research methods. In: Valle RS, Halling S, editors. Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: exploring the breadth of human experience. New York: Springer; 1989. pp. 41–60.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Varpio L, Martimianakis T, Mylopoulos M. Qualitative research methodologies: embracing methodological borrowing, shifting, and importing. In: Durning SJ, Cleland J, editors. Researching medical education. 1st ed. West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell; 2015. pp. 245–55.

Arksey H, Knight PT. Interviewing for social scientists. London: SAGE; 1999.

Birt L, Scott S, Cavers D, Campbell C, Walter F. Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qual Health Res. 2016;26:1802–11.

Tavakol S, Dennick R, Tavakol M. Medical students’ understanding of empathy: a phenomenological study. Med Educ. 2012;46:306–16.

Neumann M, Edelhauser F, Tauschel D, et al. Empathy decline and its reasons: a systematic review of studies with medical students and residents. Acad Med. 2011;86:996–1009.

Del Canale S, Louis DZ, Maio V, et al. The relationship between physician empathy and disease complications: an empirical study of primary care physicians and their diabetic patients in Parma, Italy. Acad Med. 2012;87:1243–9.

Bynum W, Varpio L. When I say … hermeneutic phenomenology. Med Educ. 2018;52:252–3.

Enos T, editor. Encyclopedia of rhetoric and composition. New York: Routledge; 2010.

Heidegger M. Being and time. Blackwell: Oxford UK and Cambridge USA; 1867.

Van Manen M. Researching lived experience: human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany, NY: SUNY; 1990.

Van Manen M. Phenomenology of practice. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc; 2014.

Grondin J. Gadamer’s basic understanding of understanding. In: Dostal RJ, editor. The cambridge companion to Gadamer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2002. pp. 36–51.

Polkinghorne D. Methodology for the human sciences. Albany: SUNY; 1983.

Download references

Intramural Grant, Uniformed Services University

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD, USA

Brian E. Neubauer & Lara Varpio

General Internal Medicine Service, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA

Brian E. Neubauer

Department of Preventative Medicine and Biostatistics, Uniformed Services Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA

Catherine T. Witkop

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian E. Neubauer .

Additional information

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the US Air Force, Department of Defense, or the US Government.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Neubauer, B.E., Witkop, C.T. & Varpio, L. How phenomenology can help us learn from the experiences of others. Perspect Med Educ 8 , 90–97 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2

Download citation

Published : 05 April 2019

Issue Date : April 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-019-0509-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Qualitative
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Python For Data Analysis
• Data Science
• Data Analysis with R
• Data Analysis with Python
• Data Visualization with Python
• Data Analysis Examples
• Math for Data Analysis
• Data Analysis Interview questions
• Artificial Intelligence
• Data Analysis Projects
• Machine Learning
• Deep Learning
• Computer Vision
• What is SEO SWOT Analysis?
• What is Regression Analysis?
• What is Protocol Analyzer?
• What is Quantitative Analysis?
• What is Data Munging in Analysis?
• What is Statistical Analysis in Data Science?
• What is Geospatial Data Analysis?
• What is Diagnostic Analytics?
• Multivariate Analysis in R
• Qualitative Analysis of Organic Compounds
• What is Data Munging?
• What is Phenotype?
• Principal Component Analysis with Python
• What is Physiology?
• How to perform Causal Analysis?
• What Is Spatial Analysis, and How Does It Work
• What is Data Analysis?
• What is Exploratory Data Analysis ?
• Methods of Economic Analysis

What is Phenomenological Analysis?

Phenomenological Analysis is a way researchers learn about the personal experiences of people. It helps us understand how different people see and feel about the world around them. Researchers listen carefully to what people say about their lives and try to see the world through their eyes. This helps us all learn more about how feelings and experiences shape our lives. PA is very special because it tells us not just what people do and feel, but also why they may feel a certain way. In this article, we are going to learn about Phenomenological Analysis in detail.

Table of Content

Phenomenological Analysis in Data Analysis

1. descriptive phenomenology, 2. interpretative phenomenological analysis (ipa), 3. phenomenological reduction, steps for conducting phenomenological analysis, when to use interpretive phenomenological analysis (ipa), challenges and limitations of phenomenological analysis, data collection methods for phenomenological analysis, advantages and disadvantages of phenomenological analysis.

Phenomenological Analysis is a way to study how people experience and make sense of events in their lives. It goes deep into personal perspectives, aiming to uncover the true essence of these experiences. This method roots itself in philosophy, drawing from thinkers who emphasized understanding life from the individual’s viewpoint.

Researchers use Phenomenological Analysis to collect stories and reflections through discussions or personal writings. They then use these narratives to find out common themes and unique information. This approach is extremely valuable in research where understanding emotions and subjective experiences is important. It helps us in better understanding how individuals see and react to their world.

Key Concepts in Phenomenology Analysis

Here are the key concepts in Phenomenology Analysis:

• Intentionality: Intentionality in phenomenology refers to the inherent directedness of consciousness towards objects. Consciousness is always about something, whether real or imaginary. This concept highlights the relational nature of consciousness and its constant engagement with the world. It is is crucial to understand intentionality to get how experiences are structured and interpreted. It highlights the active role of consciousness in shaping our perception of reality.
• Bracketing (Epoche): Bracketing, or epoché, involves suspending or setting aside preconceived beliefs and assumptions. It allows the researcher to approach phenomena with a fresh perspective. By bracketing our biases, we can observe phenomena as they present themselves. This method enables a deeper exploration of subjective experiences without any influence from external factors. Bracketing encourages a more open and unbiased investigation of lived experiences.
• Phenomenological Epoche: Phenomenological epoché extends the idea of bracketing to the entire philosophical enterprise. It involves setting aside all assumptions about the external world’s existence. This suspension allows for a pure exploration of subjective experiences. Phenomenological epoché enables researchers to focus solely on the phenomena as they appear in consciousness. It is a methodological tool to uncover the essence of lived experiences.
• Phenomenological Reduction: Phenomenological reduction involves removing layers of interpretation to access the essence of phenomena. It is a methodological process to understand the fundamental structures of consciousness. By reducing experiences to their core components, researchers can uncover universal truths. Phenomenological reduction facilitates a deeper understanding of the subjective aspects of reality. It enables researchers to transcend individual perspectives and access deeper layers of meaning.
• Lifeworld (Lebenswelt): The lifeworld or lebenswelt, refers to the subjective world of everyday experiences. It includes the lived experiences of individuals within their cultural and social contexts. The lifeworld is the background against which all experiences unfold. It is important to understand the lifeworld for understanding how individuals make sense of their realities. It highlights the interconnectedness of subjective experiences within broader socio-cultural frameworks.

Phenomenological analysis is a qualitative research methodology that seeks to understand and describe the lived experiences of individuals. It is rooted in the philosophical traditions of phenomenology, primarily developed by Edmund Husserl, and has evolved into various methodological approaches. There are three key approaches in phenomenological analysis: Descriptive Phenomenology, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), and Phenomenological Reduction.

Descriptive Phenomenology focuses on describing experiences without imposing preconceptions or interpretations. Its aim is to capture phenomena as they are perceived by individuals. Researchers collect rich, detailed data through interviews or observations. They then analyze this data to identify common themes and structures. This method highlights the subjective perspective of participants, uncovering the essence of their experiences. Husserl’s approach focuses on the intentionality of consciousness, which means that every act of consciousness is directed towards an object. This method aims to capture the pure essence of experiences without the influence of preconceived theories or biases.

• Descriptive phenomenology is widely used in social sciences to explore subjective experiences.
• Researchers collect data through interviews, diaries, journals, and other personal records.
• The analysis involves identifying significant statements, formulating meanings, and clustering these meanings into themes that capture the essence of the experience.

For example, Consider a study exploring the experience of living with chronic pain. Researchers might conduct in-depth interviews with participants, asking them to describe their daily experiences, feelings, and coping mechanisms. By analyzing these descriptions, researchers can identify common themes such as the impact on daily activities, emotional responses, and social interactions, ultimately capturing the essence of living with chronic pain.

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is a qualitative research methodology that explores how individuals make sense of their experiences. Developed by Jonathan Smith, IPA is grounded in phenomenology and hermeneutics, emphasizing the interpretative nature of understanding experiences. It is particularly useful in fields such as psychology, sociology, and healthcare.

Core Principles

• Idiographic Focus: IPA aims to offer insights into how a given person, in a given context, makes sense of a given situation.
• Double Hermeneutic: Researchers interpret the participants’ interpretations of their experiences.
• Contextual Understanding: IPA considers the context in which experiences occur, acknowledging the influence of personal and social factors.

IPA involves collecting qualitative data through interviews, focus groups, or diaries. Researchers analyze the data to uncover themes and meanings, focusing on how individuals make sense of their experiences. The analysis is iterative, involving multiple readings and interpretations to capture the depth and complexity of the experiences.

For Example, In a study exploring the experience of receiving a cancer diagnosis, researchers might conduct interviews with patients, asking them to describe their thoughts and feelings during the diagnosis process. By analyzing these accounts, researchers can identify themes such as emotional responses, coping strategies, and the impact on personal identity. The goal is to understand how patients make sense of this life-changing event.

Phenomenological Reduction, also known as epoche, is a methodological approach in phenomenology that involves suspending judgments about the existence or non-existence of the external world. This concept, introduced by Edmund Husserl, aims to focus on the phenomena themselves, free from theoretical biases and assumptions.

• Epoche: Researchers suspend their natural attitude and preconceived notions to focus on the pure experience.
• Eidetic Reduction: Analyzing the essences of experiences by theoretically altering elements to identify necessary characteristics.
• Transcendental Reduction: Examining the contributions of the mind and the given intuitions to the experience.

Phenomenological reduction is used to return to the phenomenon as it is experienced, without the influence of external theories. Researchers engage in a process of bracketing, setting aside their biases to explore the essence of the experience. This approach is often used in philosophical inquiries and theoretical explorations of consciousness and perception.

Consider a study exploring the experience of perceiving a work of art. Researchers might ask participants to describe their immediate impressions and feelings when viewing the artwork. By suspending their own judgments and focusing on the participants’ descriptions, researchers can identify the essential characteristics of the aesthetic experience, such as the interplay of colors, shapes, and emotions.

• Data Collection : Gather data through in-depth interviews, focus groups, or open-ended surveys. The aim is to capture rich, detailed descriptions of participants’ experiences.
• Bracketing : Researchers set aside their own experiences and biases to approach the data with an open mind.
• Reading and Re-reading : Thoroughly read the data multiple times to immerse oneself in the participants’ experiences.
• Identifying Significant Statements : Extract statements that are directly related to the phenomenon being studied.
• Formulating Meanings : Interpret the significant statements to uncover the underlying meanings.
• Clustering Themes : Group similar meanings into themes that capture the essence of the experience.
• Textural Description : Describe what the participants experienced.
• Structural Description : Describe how the experience happened, considering the context and conditions.
• Composite Description : Combine the textural and structural descriptions to present the essence of the phenomenon.

Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) is useful in specific research settings where understanding deep personal experiences is important.

• IPA is excellent for exploring how people process and cope with emotional events. It helps in understanding grief, joy, or trauma from a personal perspective.
• Researchers use IPA to understand how patients perceive their illnesses. This includes experiences with chronic diseases or life-altering diagnoses.
• Whether it is career changes, migration, or aging, IPA can provide important information about how these major life shifts affect individuals.
• IPA helps explore aspects of identity such as gender, sexuality, or cultural background. It’s beneficial in studies where personal identity plays a central role.
• It is also useful in therapeutic research, where understanding client experiences can improve counseling practices.

Here are some challenges of Phenomenological Analysis (IPA):

• Every researcher brings personal biases to the analysis. This can affect how they interpret the data.
• IPA requires a lot of time for interviews, analysis, and interpretation. It is a slow process.
• Effective IPA demands skilled researchers and Proper training in phenomenological methods is essential.
• Working closely with sensitive or traumatic experiences can be hard on researchers. They must manage this emotional impact carefully.
• Gathering rich, detailed narratives can lead to a large amount of data and deciding what to focus on can be challenging.
• Findings from IPA studies are not easily generalized to larger populations as they are specific to the individuals studied.

Here are some Data Collection Methods for Phenomenological Analysis:

• In-depth Interviews : In-depth interviews involve detailed conversations with participants. Researchers encourage interviewees to share their personal stories and feelings.
• Diaries or Journals : Participants may be asked to keep diaries or journals. This method provides ongoing information about their daily experiences and thoughts.
• Focus Groups : Focus groups can be used to explore collective views and experiences. They spark interactions that might not come up in one-on-one sessions. It is less common in IPA.
• Observational Methods : Sometimes, observing participants in their natural settings adds valuable context to their verbal narratives. This can be very useful in studies involving behavior or social interactions.
• Audio or Video Recordings : Capturing interactions or personal reflections through recordings can offer researchers the chance to analyze non-verbal cues. They also provide repeated viewings or listenings for deeper interpretation.

Advantages of PA

• PA helps us really get what someone is going through. It looks into their thoughts and feelings deeply.
• This method focuses on individual stories. Each person’s view and experience are important.
• PA can be used in many types of research. Whether it is health, education, or psychology, it fits well.
• It collects very detailed information. This helps in understanding complex issues better.
• By studying deep personal experiences, researchers can better empathize with others. This can lead to more compassionate approaches in many fields.

Limitations of PA

• PA takes a lot of time. Researchers spend hours listening to people, analyzing data, and writing reports.
• Not everyone can do PA well. It needs researchers who are trained to understand and interpret deep personal stories accurately.
• The method relies heavily on personal views. This can make the findings less objective, as they may be influenced by the researcher’s own beliefs and feelings.
• Because PA focuses so much on individual experiences, its findings often do not apply to everyone. What is true for one person may not be true for another.
• PA often deals with very personal and sometimes painful stories. This can be tough both for the participants sharing their experiences and for the researchers.

Phenomenological Analysis It is a unique tool that provides deep insights but also has its challenges. We learned that while PA is great for digging deep into individual stories, it takes a lot of time and skill. Also, the findings from PA are not always something we can apply to everyone. Yet, despite these limits, PA is invaluable. It helps us better understand each other’s experiences. This method shows us the complex world of human emotions and perceptions.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Data Science Blogathon 2024
• Data Analysis

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?