This is my second post this week! ;)
In his chapter on analyses and examples Moustakas (1994) outlined a modification to the Van Kaam Method of Analysis and a modification to the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method of Analysis. Before I begin outlining my understanding and asking questions about it, I would like to give my own personal review of this section. That is, I think this is a pretty good chapter. However, I think it would have been better if Moustakas had demonstrated each step of the analysis with the same data. I felt like some continuity was lost because he pulled from various data sets. Also, had Moustakas stuck with the same data set, I would have read and understood more quickly and with less confusion. With that said, though, I think I got the general gist of things with one major exception.
I did flip back and two between pages 121 and 122 where the steps of the modified analyses were when I read through the chapter, and I admittedly followed the modified Van Kaam more because Moustakas (1994) provided more detail for that method. I think this resulted in some confusion on my part, though, towards the end of the chapter during which I felt the textual and structural descriptions did not align exactly with the procedural outline. Now, looking back at the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen Method (SCKM), I think the chapter perhaps aligns better with this method.
The one thing that really bothers me, though, is the structural description. As Moustakas (1994) stated, one should form an "Individual Structural Description of the experience based on the Individual Textual Description and Imaginative Variation" (p. 121). Then, according to what Moustakas said of the SCKM, one should "Reflect on your own textual description. Through imaginative variation, construct a description of the structures of your experience" (p. 122). Are both methods saying that structural description is based on the researcher's experience with the interviewees? Or is only SCKM doing this? Also, when Moustakas clearly states of the SCKM "construct a description of the structures of your experience (p. 122)," does he mean the researcher's personal experience with the same type of experience or the researcher's interpretation of the experiences of the interviewee? My interpretation of the actual examples Moustakas gave for the structural description step is that the researcher provides some sort of interpretive work, verging on psychoanalysis, of the interviewee. Clearly, I remain really confused about the structural description bit.
Overall Steps, as I understand them now:
1) Record all statements of relevance to the experience being studied (horizons).
2) Get rid of duplicates and vague comments.
3) List all of what remains (invariant horizons).
4) Group these statements into theme categories.
5) Organize the themes with their statement to create a story of the individual's experience (textual description).
6) Construct a structural description from your own interpretation *
7) Construct a textual-structural description that blends 5 & 6.
8) One you have complete the above for all interviewees, construct the textual-structural description, which is a synthesis of the experiences of the textual-structural description (#7) of all interviees' experiences.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Great questions, Jenn, and thanks for thoughtful work and diligence surrounding your individual project. Regarding your questions:
ReplyDelete(1) Are both methods saying that structural description is based on the researcher's experience with the interviewees? Or is only SCKM doing this?
The structural description is based on both the participants’ experiences. The SCKM method is the only one of the two that includes the researcher’s experience so this is why Moustakas is using your in his modification of the SCKM method. But be clear this is not the researcher’s experience “with” the participants, it is the researcher’s experience with the phenomenon.
(2) Also, when Moustakas clearly states of the SCKM "construct a description of the structures of your experience (p. 122)," does he mean the researcher's personal experience with the same type of experience or the researcher's interpretation of the experiences of the interviewee?
This is both the researcher’s experience and the participant’s experience. In the SCKM modified method, the first data will be obtained from the researcher’s own experience. This method requires that the researcher is also a participant in that she must have experienced the phenomenon. It starts with bracketing
Remember that phenomenology is both a philosophy and a methodology so it cannot only be explained through methodology. Because there are different schools of thought regarding Existential, Transcendental, and Hermeneutic, many researchers have adopt a mix of methodologies when they conduct their “phenomenological” studies and have borrowed from each of these. I want you to keep in mind that you need to always consider the purpose of your study when you are choosing your methodology and particularly when it comes to phenomenology. I am not sure if you have picked up on this yet or not but if the purpose of your work is to understand lived experience than a form of hermeneutic phenomenology aligns with this purpose better with this while if your purpose is to interpret and describe a some phenomenon, you might lean more towards transcendental phenomenology for that.
According to my memory of reading Moustakas' (1994) chapters provided by Dr. Davis as recommended reading (which includes the part you mentioned here), I think all he talked about was doing transcendental phenomenology. I didn't really see much difference between the Moustakas' two modifications--after all, they're all about bracket, reduction, and imaginative variation. However, you may want to explore so-called hermeneutic circle--I find it more accessible, easier to understand. Dr. Davis' example article on phenomenology week also specifies the procedures of doing hermeneutic circle.
ReplyDelete