Framing a Phenomenological Mixed Method: From Inspiration to Guidance

Abstract

Despite a long history of researchers who combine phenomenology with qualitative or quantitative methods, there are only few examples of working with a phenomenological mixed method—a method where phenomenology informs both qualitative and quantitative data generation, analysis, and interpretation. Researchers have argued that in working with a phenomenological mixed method, there should be mutual constraint and enlightenment between the qualitative (first-person, subjective) and quantitative (third-person, objective) methods for studying consciousness. In this article, we discuss what a framework for phenomenological mixed methods could look like and we aim to provide guidance of how to work within such framework. We are inspired by resources coming from research in mixed methods and existing examples of phenomenological mixed-method research. We also present three cases of phenomenological mixed methods where we study complex social phenomena and discuss the process of how we conducted the studies. From both the research inspiration and our own studies, we depict the landscape of possibilities available for those interested in mixing phenomenology with qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as the challenges and common pitfalls that researchers face. To navigate in this landscape, we develop a three-fold structure, focusing on (1) the phenomenological frame, (2) the phenomenologically informed generation of qualitative and quantitative data (tier one), and (3) the phenomenologically informed analysis and interpretation of data (tier two).

Can we trust the phenomenological interview? Metaphysical, epistemological, and methodological objections

“…Yet, it goes without saying that phenomenological interviews have a limited scope of applicability, as does any other method. We are hopeful and excited about the potential of mixed methods designs that combine interviews, experiments, measures and intervention even if the negotiation of research paradigms is, at best, complicated (Martiny et al, 2021). The phenomenological interview, we believe, has an essential role to play here.…”

“…Complementary strategies are to "front-load phenomenology" (Gallagher, 2003) into an experimental design or employ a mixed method set-up that applies mutual constraints such that interviews becomes a guide and arbiter to conclusions of those cognitive, psychological and even biological underpinnings. Explaining ways of working with mixed methods is much beyond the scope of the current argument that we address elsewhere (Martiny et al, 2021).…”

“…This paper deals with a sub-question in this grand debate and defends the reliability and validity of what we call phenomenological interviews: semi-structured, ethnographically inspired interviews that inform discussions in phenomenology, philosophy of mind, and cognitive sciences, for instance as presented in Høffding (2019) and Martiny et al (2021). The paper defends the position that, when properly conducted and analyzed, such interviews and the phenomenological analyses and conclusions drawn from them, are in no principled way less reliable or valid than other quantitative or experimental methods in general.…”

Looking from within: Comparing first-person approaches to studying experience

“…Høffding and Martiny (2016) propose a phenomenological research framework, which integrates knowledge about qualitative interviews and phenomenological psychology. In addition, Martiny et al (2021) also suggest a phenomenologically inspired research framework to apply phenomenology in the process of data generation and data analysis and combine both qualitative and quantitative data. Another attempt to combine phenomenological first-person data with third-person data was also proposed in the neurophenomenological framework by Varela (1996).…”

“…However, to be well acquainted with phenomenology is a complex endeavor and the application of a phenomenological approaches can be time-consuming. A solution could be to set up collaborative and interdisciplinary research teams with expertise in both phenomenology and experimental design (Martiny et al, 2021).…”