Wheels turn, but I always find myself behind

While I posted last night on narrative analysis, I thought I would also update with a note on phenomenology.  I did read the section on phenomenology in Madison's book (2005) this weekend, and I didn't find any spots of contention.  Indeed, I agree "the perceiver determines meaning, and therefore it is human perception, not external influences or objects of the material world, that is at the core of our analysis" (p. 57). While I do believe there is a tree out there no matter how or if we perceive it, our reality is in some part constructed by an interaction of our own minds and what is out there (Grbich, 2013).  I believe this is called constructivism.  I further cannot disagree that "subjectivity is historically produced within different contexts" (p. 61).  That is, there are no two people on earth with a history of identical experiences, and so we vary in our perceptions. However, I tend to think that the degree of similarity in our experiences influences our similarity and difference to one another.  Thus, I don't have a problem with the composit experiences some phenomenological researchers have generated (Moustakas, 1994). 

Further, Lacan (as cited in Madison, 2005) does make sense in asserting that language colors our experiences.  I do agree to a large extent, but I feel there are some things that can be communicated without language.  Maybe I'm a little murky on this, and I really would like to avoid this study of language or picking apart words that some people incorporate into their research.

Also, today I began looking at Moustakas (1994) and read through the first chapter.  Some things were familiar, but I paid particular attention to what Moustakas refers to as empirical phenomenological research and heuristic research.  This empirical phenomenology seems simple enough: read to get an overall sense of things, and then read more carefully for meaning to surface. Further, I was interested in heuristic phenomenology, and I am not writing it off.  I like that the researcher does not have to distance his or herself from the research, and I do like that various artifacts may be included in addition to interviews.  I became concerned, however, when I saw the word narratives. But now I gather narrative accounts do not necessarily necessitate narrative analysis.  Please clarify.

Finally, I regret that I am just now beginning to read the dissertation you suggested, but it does look like it will be the most helpful of all.  I see that the researcher will marry phenomenology and critical theory by studying experiences of rape in hopes of contributing to critical awareness.  A similar approach does sound like a plausible direction for the dissertation areas I'm considering.

Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

          

Madison, S. D. (2005). Critical ethnography: Method, ethics, and performance. Thousand Oaks,   Sage.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.