Methodology Now

Since yesterday I have been reading about the murky water of the current methodological milieu.  One article I have read (Lather, 2013) discussed concerns for hegemonic methodological practice, yet again standardizing methodological practices, despite large segments of the research community.  This of course is most unfortunate, as I would hope reasoning beings would acknowledge that not everything can be quantified and that empirical procedures, no matter how careful otherwise, cannot possibly eliminate researcher bias.  Everything is biased, even from the procedure chosen.  As this is the case, is there a solution? Should anything just go?

 According to Rosiek (2013), the best thing we can do is be pragmatic - to realize the impossibility of objectivity but to do work of integrity. St. Pierre and Jackson (2014) echo this in their discussion of the rigidity of methodological procedures.  For instance, why must Foucault be confined to a literature review? Why can't his words count as well as participant data?  There are numerous methodologies out there, and there are more to be invented. I agree with these authors in that it is time for wider acceptance of methodological practices.

Some Hermeneutic Phenomenology and a Little Poststructuralism

After reading Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004), I read an article in their bibliography by Laverty (2003).  In this Laverty gives a great overview of the history of transcendental and hermeneutic phenomenology, though she refers to transcendental phenomenology as just phenomenology.  I wish I had read this article first.

Laverty (2003) identified Husserl as the origin of phenomenology.  Husserl believed one could bracket out his or her pre-understanding of a phenomenon, thus more closely approaching a method bearing some kinship to positivism. Yet, Heidegger and later Gadamer considered this nonsense, believing that one can never separate himself or herself from lived experience.  They rather promoted the researcher and the participants “[working] together to bring life to the experience being explored, through the use of imagination, the hermeneutic circle and attention to language and writing” (Laverty, p. 21).  As such, hermeneutic phenomenology seems to embrace the inclusion of theoretical lenses. 

Ultimately, I now recognize I perhaps philosophically prefer hermeneutic phenomenology, but it is difficult to let go of the step by step procedures of Moustakas (1994) and Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004).  However, I will revisit another article I read earlier this semester which illustrated its authors’ steps of using the hermeneutic circle.  Also, I have begun reading Van Manen’s book, or at least the chapter on reflection, and I have thus far read of three approaches to coding.

As for postructuralism and structuralism, I found some clarification tonight in reading an additional chapter of Grbich (2013). That is, I finally think I got a clearer sense of the distinction between structuralism and poststructuralism. I did not understand what was meant in the previous chapter about Derrida believing meaning was deferred; however one statement now clarifies that.  It is written of postructuralism that “meaning is seen as more complex, deferring endlessly to many possibilities which are only limited by the imagination of the writer and the reader” (p. 187).  This is illustrated quite nicely with various interpretations of “Jack and Jill.” By conrast I gather structuralism would have there is only one truth as to what the rhyme means.   

Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 1-29.

Moerer-Urdahl, T. & Creswell, J. W. (2004). Using transcendental phenomenology to explore the “Ripple Effect” in a leadership mentoring program. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(2), 19-35.

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

Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. London, Ontario, Canada: The State University of New York Press.

Discrepancies

This afternoon I read Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004), albeit more slowly, and I think I was mistaken about something I posted earlier.  The authors articulated that they used the Moustakas modification in the tradition of Stevick, Colaizzi, and Keen, and I thought I recognized their use of Moustakas' other modification, the Van Kaam method as the procedure for analysis in the study.  However, as I read closely, it also appeared Moerer-Urdhal and Creswell did not exactly follow the modification they stated.  Below are the steps of analysis Moerer-Urdahl employed:

1. The researchers described their own experiences (bracketing).  However, there is no indication that this was written down.  The senior researcher just discusses thinking about her own mentoring experiences. (p. 22)
2.  Horizonalization – “In this phase of analysis, we simply wanted to learn how individuals viewed the term, the ripple effect” (p. 23). Here the researchers indentified statements related to the research questions on the ripple effect of the mentoring program.  Also, the researchers did not put these statements in any particular order.  
3.   Meaning Units or Themes: In this step redundant statements are eliminated, and irrelevant statements are deleted (But why would there be irrelevant statements?). The researcher then organizes the horizons (what remains) into themes.
4.  The researcher revisits the research questions regarding the what and how of experience. What was experienced will inform the textual description, and how it was experienced will inform the structural description. The researcher writes the textual description first and then writes the structural description.  The textual description seems to include several quotes of just what the participants said.
5.  The researcher synthesizes the textual and structural descriptions into a composite description.  This represents the essence of the experience.

Setting bracketing aside, there are still differences between this procedure as the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method Moustakas outlines.  On page 122 Moustakas (1994) notes that reflection of the researcher's own textual description should come after the verbatim textual descriptions of the participants and that the researcher should "construct a description of the structures of [his or her] experience."  Yet, in  Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell (2004) the authors address the "how" of the participants experiences, not the researchers for the structural description.  Also, while Moerer-Urdahl and Creswell appear to focus strictly on the experience of participants, at least beyond the initial step of epoche or bracketing, Moustakas shows that the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method appears to incorporate the researcher's experience with the phenomenon into the analysis.