Husserl and Heidegger’s Phenomenology

Husserl and Heidegger’s Phenomenology

Phenomenology refers both to philosophical framework and to epistemological orientation. As epistemology, phenomenology has had major implications for the social sciences, providing the fundamental tenets and methods for qualitative research. Originator of the phenomenological approach, Husserl proposed that human consciousness undergirds experience, but that both must be transcended, acknowledged, and set aside in order to reach the truth of any given phenomenon. Husserl therefore favored the use of descriptive methods, which aim for objectivity as much as possible. Husserl’s student Martin Heidegger rejected the notion that it was even possible at all to ascertain some objective understanding (Reiners, 2012). Instead, Heidegger celebrated what individual ascriptions of meaning had to offer when interpreting phenomena. Whereas Husserl’s epistemology is concerned with how and why people feel, think, or believe what they do, Heidegger’s ontological and hermeneutical methods are more concerned with discerning the nature of consciousness itself and the conclusions that can be drawn from lived experience. Husserl’s work went on to inform descriptive research methods used in the social sciences, whereas Heidegger’s work gave rise to interpretive research methods. Research methods like interviews can be used with either a descriptive or an interpretive approach to phenomenological psychology.

Descriptive (Husserl-based) Phenomenological Methods

Descriptive phenomenological research methods emerged from Husserl. The main tenets of descriptive phenomenological methods are to allow the participants to share their descriptions and thereby construct the lived experience independently of the researcher’s own background, perspective, or biases. Conclusions can be drawn from a set of data collected from methods such as interviewing. One goal of descriptive phenomenological research is the construction of meaning based on the phenomena of lived experiences. Phenomenological researchers like Giorgi (2007) developed systematic methods by which researchers could collect and analyze data. Unstructured interviews, during which participants relay their narratives using the language or even non-verbal communications of their choice, are one of the cornerstones of descriptive phenomenological research. Descriptive phenomenology can also use other data collection methods such as diaries, collections of oral histories. Researchers bracket their biases as much as possible using descriptive phenomenological methods, by refraining from asking too many guided questions or basing their research on a hypothesis. In some cases, the researcher may seek patterns in the data, which can then be qualified, clarified, or verified by further engagement with the participants: a method promoted by Colaizzi (Reiners, 2012). Other descriptive phenomenologists advocate the use of “expert judges” to ensure research validity (Reiners, 2012, p. 2). However, the Giorgi method of descriptive phenomenological research negates the importance of any sort of validation during the data collection process, instead relying solely on the raw and unfiltered data.

Interpretive (Heidegger-based) Phenomenological Methods

Heidegger’s phenomenology gives rise to research methods that focus “on the human being’s existence in their world as an individual and within their social context,” (Horrigan-Kelly, Millar & Dowling, 2016, p. 5). The individual’s lived experience, their feelings, thoughts, impressions, and sense of self, are all taken into consideration along with contextual variables such as race, class, or gender. Some methods of analysis based on Heidegger’s interpretive phenomenology are described as “hermeneutic circle” because the researcher continually reviews the data and generates new questions (Reiners, 2012). The researcher assumes more of a participant-observer role, in that there is no pretense to shed biases, backgrounds, beliefs, or theoretical frameworks. Rather, the researcher is firmly situated within the phenomena being studied. Specific methods used can therefore be either structured or unstructured interviews, field research, and mixed-methods research designs. When searching for patterns of meaning, the researcher is free to use preconceived categories based on research hypotheses or research questions. The researcher can also taken into account the subjects’ interpretation or analysis of their own experiences.

Primary Differences Between Descriptive and Interpretive Methods

The primary differences between Husserl-based and Heidegger-based methods are with regards to a priori knowledge. Husserl believed that the best way to study being in the world was by isolating the phenomenon, separating it from prior knowledge such as what other researchers had concluded, or what the researcher might believe based on their opinions or cultural background. Heidegger believed that a priori knowledge was actually integral to the nature of being in the world. However, applying any phenomenological research methods to the social sciences requires a level of academic rigor that demands consistency and the assurance of internal validity. Phenomenological research of any type therefore does need to consistently apply one method (descriptive or interpretive) and remain true to that method during the data collection and analysis process (Groenwald, 2004). Internal validity can be obtained through the use of research questions that help determine the data collection methods, sampling methods, and other aspects of research design including how to best present the data and analysis to the research community.
Therefore, a researcher using Husserl methods of descriptive phenomenology would conduct in-depth interviews while also taking note of their own subjective perceptions and experiences during the process. By recording such impressions, the researcher carefully brackets their a priori knowledge or any biases. The researcher is also challenged to differentiate between the subjects’ a priori knowledge or background and their description of the phenomena (Englander, 2012).

A researcher using a Heidegger method of interpretive phenomenology would be “intersubjective,” because the researcher and the subject both contribute subjective experiences and also acknowledge the meanings that may be ascribed to the phenomenon (Horrigan-Kelly, Millar & Dowling, 2016, p. 5). Intersubjectivity can be woven into the data collection process itself. The researcher reflects on the phenomenon and what it means, as well as recording the phenomena, such as any observable behaviors. Contextual variables related to both researcher and subject, as well as the phenomena, are also taken into account as dutifully as possible during the data collection and interpretation processes. Participants can then share their experiences and interpretations thereof, to offer the potential for a complex, data-rich narrative describing being in a particular social world.

Research-Based Statement and Rationale

As challenging as the Husserl model is, it remains a lofty ideal in phenomenological research. To set aside biases and assumptions is the basis of scientific objectivity. Without resorting to the reductionism and materialism of the scientific method, it is still possible to bracket personal experiences and a priori knowledge when gathering and interpreting data. Both the descriptive and interpretive methods of phenomenological research present challenges in terms of maintaining internal and especially external validity. However, the complexity of the human experience precludes the application of experimental research to the study of all phenomena. The use of descriptive phenomenological methods may be best when encountering an unknown or peculiar phenomenon for which there has yet to be any broad consensus on interpretation. The use of interpretive phenomenological methods may be best used for studying research questions with a large body of literature, but which require a fresh perspective.




References
Englander, M. (2012). The interview: data collection in descriptive phenomenological human scientific research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology 43(2012): 13-35.
Giorgi, A. (2007). Concerning phenomenological methods of Husserl and Heidegger and their application in psychology. Collection du Cirp 1(2007): 63-78, http://www.cirp.uqam.ca/documents%20pdf/Collection%20vol.%201/5.Giorgi.pdf
Groenwald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 3(1): 42-55.
Horrigan-Kelly, M., Millar, M., & Dowling, M. (2016). Understanding the key tenets of Heidegger’s philosophy for interpretive phenomenological research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 2016: 1-8.
Reiners, G.M. (2012). Understanding the differences between Husserl’s (descriptive) and Heidegger’s (interpretive) phenomenological research. Journal of Nursing and Care 1(5): doi:10.4172/2167-1168.1000119