Reflections on " A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated"
The article that I read is by Thomas Groenewald, A Phenomenological
Research Design Illustrated. It seems that the purpose is to help us understand
what phenomenology means and how it is practiced, by starting with its
etymological roots, the reasons and purpose of using this research approach,
and the ethical application of phenomenology on the research topic of
co-operative education. The logic presented in this article, from explaining
the origin of phenomenology to the evaluative process in determining what
approach to use, to ensuring integrity
of data collection and research findings was certainly helpful for me to learn
what it means to write an effective research paper. I generally do not see this
thorough logical approach in other articles. Is this something that is
generally done in the background in preparation for writing an article? It
seems to me that the logical format of this article is essential for any
research paper.
I had a couple of moments during reading this article that
caused me to stop:
- On page 4 of the article, the author begins to describe the philosophical roots of phenomenology. The specific excerpt that sparked my interest is “…people can be certain about how things appear in, or present themselves to, their consciousness. To arrive at certainty, anything outside the immediate experience must be ignored…” In other words, reality or certainty is within the immediate experience. To understand a phenomenon, a researcher needs to then understand one’s experience to that phenomenon.
- Another moment of reflection was on page 5, when the author describes how phenomenology was not accepted in the 1970’s. This reminded me of my reflections from the article on qualitative research methods, and reaffirmed my previous question – what is required for a research approach to become accepted by the academic community
- I also stopped on page 8, where the author quoted Hycner- “the phenomenon dictates the method (not vice-versa).” This simple message emphasizes the importance of taking a logical and scientific, unbiased approach – to start with the research topic (phenomenon) and from there evaluate the appropriate research approach to answer the research question.
- Page 12 and Page 13 discuss the concept of bracketing. Specifically on page 13 the author states “the researcher must bracket his/ her own preconceptions and enter into the individual’s lifeworld and use the self as an experiencing interpreter.” Although I agree conceptually, I find it this would be a challenge and practice.
The question I am grappling is whether there is any opportunity
for a researcher to share their own perspective in a research paper?
Hey Naureen,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your summary and your thoughts on the reading. Something that made me think was your comment: “To understand a phenomenon, a researcher needs to then understand one’s experience to that phenomenon.” I feel that, to do this well, we need to have that element of humility that you referred to in my last blog post. This is a word that I keep coming back to since I returned to study; to live and study with humility is essential to allow for illuminating or transformative experience. If we come to our research, or indeed any aspect of our lives, with our mind already fixed and focused on our own perspective and experience, there is no room for anything to be added to what we know. It is this openness to “other” that is so important in our learning and living and the word “humility” encapsulates this.
You asked, “whether there is any opportunity for a researcher to share their own perspective in a research paper” I believe that there is certainly an opportunity for a researcher to share their own perspective, but this must come after the process of data collection, analysis, and presentation. Phenomenology seems to stress this need for a detachment in our observations and the maintaining of objectivity and neutrality. This can be achieved up to a point but if the voice (perspective) of the researcher is not presented in the later stages, is the research then simply a clinical and sterile account of the phenomenon? In many cases, I would say that the voice of the researcher needs to be present similar to seasoning in cooking; if it is absent, the depth of flavor (insight) is missing – used too heavily, it overpowers the other elements and destroys the whole.