The descriptive phenomenological psychological method.

Abstract

Phenomenology, as a distinct philosophy in the modern sense, began with the publication of Logical Investigations (1900/1970) by Edmund Husserl. Husserl's thought developed continuously, if nonlinearly, over roughly a half century in which he was active as a scholar and thinker. He influenced many of the dominant philosophers of the 20th century who worked in the continental tradition (e.g., Heidegger, 1927Heidegger, /1962 Merleau-Ponty, 1945 Sartre, 1943Sartre, / 1956) and often the thought of those Husserl influenced became more wellknown than the thought of Husserl himself, often unfairly so (MacDonald, 2001), especially in the social and human sciences. Speigelberg (1982) has written the classic history of this movement, and the reader is referred to his work for more details concerning philosophical phenomenology and its history.There was also a grassroots American phenomenological movement in psychology that initiated with the work of Snygg (1935) in the 1930s, especially Snygg and Combs (1949) later. However, this development took place without any influence of continental philosophical phenomenology. In essence, phenomenology means for this tradition "from the point of view of the behaving organism itself" (Snygg, 1941, p. 406). The major contribution of this grassroots phenomenological tradition were pulled together and published by Kuenzli (1959). This book contains 14 chapters by the major representatives of this approach, including Snygg, Combs, Rogers, and MacLeod. A check of all the references indicates that no major philosopher of the continental philosophical tradition is referenced in any of the 14 chapters. Only in the selected bibliography section at the end of the book are two of Sartre's smaller works mentioned. Moreover, the idea of a phenomenological method as applied in psychology is not articulated in any of the chapters. Mostly the argument was presented as a need for a phenomenological "approach," "perspective," or "frame of reference." This tradition obviously has interesting aspects but it does not touch on the method to be articulated in this chapter. Neither does the defense of phenomenology by Rogers and MacLeod in the famous debate with behaviorism touch on the manner in which the phenomenological method should be used in psychology (Wann, 1964).

The empirical-phenomenological research framework: Reflecting on its use

“…This process of transformation aims to make explicit language found within the natural meaning units more implicit within the context of the lived experience. This is then situated nicely within the second goal of Giorgi and Giorgi's [16] third stage where to "generalise somewhat so that the analyses are not so situation specific" moves the narrative from the lived concrete experience to a phenomenal experience of clarity and specificness. Yet while being able to decipher the narratives into these central themes, it important to repeatedly asked these central themes "what does this tell me about men in nursing".…”

“…As a result the "reading for a sense of the whole" takes on a new meaning as the researcher is able to temporarily suspend their own beliefs, experiences and judgements. [15] This author found this process to be beneficial because it was felt at times they were often drawn back to their own experiences of being a nursing student and indeed as a registered nurse, but also being cognisant of Giorgi and Giorgi's (p.249) [16] comments of "what is experienced is understood to be an experiential given to the person experiencing the phenomena". In other words, having an awareness that being able to distinguish the presence of the phenomena (its mode of givenness) and how it actually exists in the person's consciousness and ".…”

“…In other words, it is a determination of the constituents of meaning as they apply to the concrete experiences of being a male nursing student as described by the participants which helps the empirical data to be understood in a more methodical fashion. [16] For Giorgi [14] the invariant constituents form the structure of the phenomena under investigation and as such the structure attempts to establish the "typicality" of the phenomenon and the relationship between the inter-linking qualities of the key constituent parts. The overall aim is therefore, to develop a singularly precise structure of the phenomenon.…”

“…The high specificity of the experiences are often associated with the structure -this is not the case simply because the structure espouses the variant constituents that relate or define directly with the phenomena. [16] As a result "the structure is meant to convey what is truly essential about a series of experiences of the same type". [16] Being faithful to Giorgi's [14] method means that reporting the structure is presented first in the discussion, followed by the individual variations and constituents.…”

“…[16] As a result "the structure is meant to convey what is truly essential about a series of experiences of the same type". [16] Being faithful to Giorgi's [14] method means that reporting the structure is presented first in the discussion, followed by the individual variations and constituents. Others have varied this approach inasmuch they have attempted to re-personalise the narrative accounts and contextualise them within a suitable and appropriate theoretical framework mainly as a result of phenomenological reporting pragmatics and narrative complexity.…”