Meaning, lived experience, empathy and boredom: Max van Manen on phenomenology and Heidegger

Abstract

Phenomenology as Qualitative Research: A Critical Analysis of Meaning Attribution has attracted the attention of Max van Manen, who has published a highly critical review article. Anyone reading this article, but unfamiliar with the book, will get a distorted view of what it is about, whom it is addressed to, what it tries to achieve, and how it goes about presenting its arguments. Not mildly distorted, in need of the odd correction here and there, but systematically misrepresented. One problem is that van Manen appears to have an idée fixe which prevents him from recognizing that the book is not about a certain philosophical tradition (known as "phenomenology"), but about a particular type of qualitative research (also known, unfortunately and confusingly, as "phenomenology"). A second idée fixe disposes him to misread an earlier article of mine and (much more seriously) three works by Heidegger. My aim in this article is to describe these two idées fixes, and exhibit their consequences. In doing so, I will examine what van Manen has to say on four crucial topics: meaning, lived experience, empathy, and Heidegger's analysis of boredom in The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics.

Exploring the lived experiences of the suicide attempt survivors: a phenomenological approach

“…This study was a qualitative research with interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological approach that was conducted from February to September 2017. interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological is a qualitative methodology used to examine and understand the subjective, lived experience of individuals using an idiographic approach, in which detailed, individual cases are used to develop more general claims (Paley, 2018). As Smith and Osborn point out, interpretive hermeneutic phenomenological is "especially valuable when examining topics which are complex, ambiguous and emotionally laden", such as suicide (Smith & Osborn, 2008).…”

Interpretive phenomenological methodologists in nursing: A critical analysis and comparison

“…Furthermore, Paley asserts that collecting data through the use of interviews is distinctly anti‐Heideggerian and that more appropriate means of collecting data for a Heideggerian‐based study include observation, discourse analysis, and naturalistic experiments (Paley, ). Paley's assertions have not gone unnoticed by other scholars; the distinguished hermeneutic phenomenologist van Manen (2017b) published an incisive and at times scathing reply to Paley's assertions related to interpretive phenomenology to which Paley () also replied in similar fashion. Despite these at times fierce scholarly debates, it must be acknowledged that interpretive phenomenology as a research methodology has been and continues to be a valuable tool for the discipline of nursing with regards to generating knowledge that aligns with the principles and practice of nursing.…”

Webinar-Based Capacity Building for Teachers: “Lifeblood in Facing the New Normal of Education”

“…This study utilized an interpretive hermeneutic phenomenology (IHP) to explore the meanings of webinar-based capacity building from the point of view of the teachers who are making sense of it. IHP is a qualitative methodology used to understand the subjective, lived experience of individuals using an idiographic approach -an in-depth exploration of individual experience -to develop a general claim (Paley, 2018). With the situation of the pandemic that is constantly evolving and decision making is apparently uncertain, the utilization of this kind of phenomenology is viable because it capitalizes on topics that are "complex, ambiguous, and emotionally laden" (Smith & Osborn, 2008).…”