Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Q1. Although theoretically a researcher conducting a phenomenological inquiry could establish hypotheses to predict the structure and features of phenomena being explored, this approach would not follow the “bracketing” method suggested by Husserl. What are the advantages of either using hypotheses to predict phenomena or bracketing to explore such phenomena? Are these two approaches mutually exclusive? If so, why? Phenomenological research does not naturally lend itself to constructing a hypothesis along the lines of the scientific method. It is by definition context-specific and observational. There is no attempt to isolate particular variables from the researcher’s framework and simply focus on a single phenomenon. Husserl’s use of bracketing frames any predictions specifically from a first-person standpoint: “to ensure that the respective item is described exactly as is experienced, or intended, by the subject” (Beyer, 2016, p.5). The observer can predict that he or she will perceive something but not state that this observation is true of the phenomenon itself. Thus the scientific method with a predictive hypothesis is not always useful for a researcher, although in some limited instances, where only observational impressions are being predicted, it could be applied to some specific contexts....
For example, when talking to a group of African-American teens about their interactions with the police, it might be hypothesized that the teens were likely to believe that race had an impact upon their interactions with the police, without determining beforehand what those impressions might be; by merely bracketing the phenomenology and solely focusing upon the impressions of the researcher, arguably some of the value of conducting such an investigation might be lost. The downside, however, is that with the bracketing method, the focus of the research is solely upon the researcher not upon the actual subjects. The only way in which the hypothesis method and the bracketing method could coexist is if the researcher developed a hypothesis about his or her own bracketing, or the impressions he or she was likely to have. But this might only serve to reinforce any personal prejudices he or she might have about the observed phenomenon, again making the observations of limited value. While Husserl may be correct in noting the only thing we can truly know are our own impressions, most readers want at least some useful information, even if it is imperfectly derived, about something beyond the observer’s mind.
Reference
Beyer, C. (2016). Edmund Husserl. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:
Phenomenological Design: An Overview Phenomenology is one of a multitude of different qualitative designs that a researcher can select. Other potential options include case studies, ethnographies, and grounded research. Phenomenology is one of the oldest and most flexible of all qualitative approaches. Phenomenology is a way of knowing that is focused not upon a predefined research question or even a highly specific community or individual like an ethnography or case study.
The shift toward standardized testing has failed to result in a meaningful reduction of high school dropout rates, and students with disabilities continue to be marginalized by the culture of testing in public education (Dynarski et al., 2008). With that said, the needs of students with specific educational challenges are diverse and complex, and the solutions to their needs are not revealed in the results of standardized testing (Crawford &
Negotiation Skills A High Impact Negotiations Model: An Answer to the Limitations of the Fisher, Ury Model of Principled Negotiations This study aims to discover the ways in which blocked negotiations can be overcome by testing the Fisher, Ury model of principled negotiation against one of the researcher's own devising, crafted after studying thousands of negotiation trainees from over 100 multinational corporations on 5 continents. It attempts to discern universal applications of
While these are some of the more famous elements of rhetorical theory, they do not require extensive discussion here for two reasons. Firstly, they are fairly well-known. Secondly, and more importantly, they actually do not provide much insight into the uses of rhetoric, because Aristotle implicitly inserts an ethics into his discussion of rhetoric that precludes it from having as robust an application to the real world as would
social science research are qualitative and quantitative research methods. Qualitative research is believed to operate from a subjective, constructionist view of reality, whereas quantitative research operates from an objective, positivist viewpoint of the world. There has been quite a bit of debate over the merits of each of these approaches, often with one paradigm belittling the assumptions of the other. The current literature review explores the philosophical foundations of
people generally think that we can detach ourselves from the world around us and objectively evaluate and reason through our experiences. This is the classical line of thought initially proposed by philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, and, later, Descartes who fashioned his Cartesian principle to the purpose that we can step back, evaluate our internalized knowledge, think it through and from thence, decide which to accept, which to erase