capture the individual’s experiences.

As Edel (1984) comments, it is

important to uncover the “figure under the carpet” that explains the
multilayered context of a life. Active collaboration with the participant is
necessary, and researchers need to discuss the participant’s stories as well as
be reflective about their own personal and political background, which
shapes how they “restory” the account. Multiple issues arise in the
collecting, analyzing, and telling of individual stories. Pinnegar and Daynes
(2007) raise these important questions: Who owns the story? Who can tell
it? Who can change it? Whose version is convincing? What happens when
narratives compete? As a community, what do stories do among us?

PHENOMENOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Definition and Background

Whereas a narrative study reports the stories of experiences of a single
individual or several individuals, a phenomenological study describes the
common meaning for several individuals of their lived experiences of a
concept or a phenomenon. Phenomenologists focus on describing what all
participants have in common as they experience a phenomenon (e.g., grief
is universally experienced). The basic purpose of phenomenology is to
reduce individual experiences with a phenomenon to a description of the
universal essence (a “grasp of the very nature of the thing,” van Manen,
1990, p. 177). To this end, qualitative researchers identify a phenomenon
(an “object” of human experience; van Manen, 1990, p. 163). This human
experience may be a phenomenon such as insomnia, being left out, anger,
grief, or undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (Moustakas, 1994). The
inquirer then collects data from persons who have experienced the
phenomenon, and develops a composite description of the essence of the
experience for all of the individuals. This description consists of “what”
they experienced and “how” they experienced it (Moustakas, 1994).
Beyond these procedures, phenomenology has a strong philosophical
component to it. It draws heavily on the writings of the German
mathematician Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) and those who expanded on
his views, such as Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty (Spiegelberg,
1982). Phenomenology is popular in the social and health sciences,
especially in sociology (Borgatta & Borgatta, 1992; Swingewood, 1991),
psychology (Giorgi, 1985, 2009; Polkinghorne, 1989), nursing and the
health sciences (Nieswiadomy, 1993; Oiler, 1986), and education (Tesch,
1988; van Manen, 1990). Husserl’s ideas are abstract, and Merleau-Ponty
(1962) raised the question, “What is phenomenology?” In fact, Husserl was
known to call any project currently under way “phenomenology”
(Natanson, 1973).
Writers following in the footsteps of Husserl also seem to point to
different philosophical arguments for the use of phenomenology today
(contrast, for example, the philosophical basis stated in Moustakas, 1994; in
Stewart and Mickunas, 1990; and in van Manen, 1990). Looking across all
of these perspectives, however, we see that the philosophical assumptions
rest on some common grounds: the study of the lived experiences of
persons, the view that these experiences are conscious ones (van Manen,
1990), and the development of descriptions of the essences of these
experiences, not explanations or analyses (Moustakas, 1994). At a broader
level, Stewart and Mickunas (1990) emphasize four philosophical
perspectives in phenomenology:

A return to the traditional tasks of philosophy. By the end of the 19th

century, philosophy had become limited to exploring a world by
empirical means, which was called “scientism.” The return to the
traditional tasks of philosophy that existed before philosophy became
enamored with empirical science is a return to the Greek conception of
philosophy as a search for wisdom.
A philosophy without presuppositions. Phenomenology’s approach is
to suspend all judgments about what is real—the “natural attitude”—
until they are founded on a more certain basis. This suspension is
called “epoche” by Husserl.
The intentionality of consciousness. This idea is that consciousness is
always directed toward an object. Reality of an object, then, is
inextricably related to one’s consciousness of it. Thus, reality,
according to Husserl, is divided not into subjects and objects, but into
the dual Cartesian nature of both subjects and objects as they appear in
consciousness.
 The refusal of the subject-object dichotomy. This theme flows
naturally from the intentionality of consciousness. The reality of an
object is only perceived within the meaning of the experience of an
individual.
An individual writing a phenomenology would be remiss to not
include some discussion about the philosophical presuppositions of
phenomenology along with the methods in this form of inquiry.
Moustakas (1994) devotes over one hundred pages to the philosophical
assumptions before he turns to the methods.

Defining Features of Phenomenology

There are several features that are typically included in all
phenomenological studies. I rely on two books for my primary information
about phenomenology: Moustakas (1994) taken from a psychological
perspective and van Manen (1990) based on a human science orientation.

An emphasis on a phenomenon to be explored, phrased in terms of a

single concept or idea, such as the educational idea of “professional
growth,” the psychological concept of “grief,” or the health idea of a
“caring relationship.”
The exploration of this phenomenon with a group of individuals who
have all experienced the phenomenon. Thus, a heterogeneous group is
identified that may vary in size from 3 to 4 individuals to 10 to 15.
A philosophical discussion about the basic ideas involved in
conducting a phenomenology. This turns on the lived experiences of
individuals and how they have both subjective experiences of the
phenomenon and objective experiences of something in common with
other people. Thus, there is a refusal of the subjective-objective
perspective, and, for these reasons, phenomenology lies somewhere on
a continuum between qualitative and quantitative research.
In some forms of phenomenology, the researcher brackets himself or
herself out of the study by discussing personal experiences with the
phenomenon. This does not take the researcher completely out of the
study, but it does serve to identify personal experiences with the
phenomenon and to partly set them aside so that the researcher can
focus on the experiences of the participants in the study. This is an
 ideal, but readers learn about the researcher’s experiences, and can
judge for themselves whether the researcher focused solely on the
participants’ experiences in the description without bringing himself or
herself into the picture. Giorgi (2009) sees this bracketing as a matter
not of forgetting what has been experienced, but of not letting past
knowledge be engaged while determining experiences. He then cites
other aspects of life where this same demand holds. A juror in a
criminal trial may hear a judge say that a piece of evidence is not
admissible; a scientific researcher may hope that a pet hypothesis will
be supported, but then note that the results do not support it.
A data collection procedure that involves typically interviewing
individuals who have experienced the phenomenon. This is not a
universal trait, however, as some phenomenological studies involve
varied sources of data, such as poems, observations, and documents.
Data analysis that can follow systematic procedures that move from
the narrow units of analysis (e.g., significant statements), and on to
broader units (e.g., meaning units), and on to detailed descriptions that
summarize two elements, “what” the individuals have experienced and
“how” they have experienced it (Moustakas, 1994).
A phenomenology ends with a descriptive passage that discusses the
essence of the experience for individuals incorporating “what” they
have experienced and “how” they experienced it. The “essence” is the
culminating aspect of a phenomenological study.

Types of Phenomenology
Two approaches to phenomenology are highlighted in this discussion:
hermeneutic phenomenology (van Manen, 1990) and empirical,
transcendental, or psychological phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994). Van
Manen (1990) is widely cited in the health literature (Morse & Field, 1995).
An educator, van Manen (1990) has written an instructive book on
hermeneutical phenomenology in which he describes research as oriented
toward lived experience (phenomenology) and interpreting the “texts” of
life (hermeneutics) (p. 4). Although van Manen does not approach
phenomenology with a set of rules or methods, he discusses it as a dynamic
interplay among six research activities. Researchers first turn to a
phenomenon, an “abiding concern” (van Manen, 1990, p. 31), which
seriously interests them (e.g., reading, running, driving, mothering). In the
process, they reflect on essential themes, what constitutes the nature of this
lived experience. They write a description of the phenomenon, maintaining
a strong relation to the topic of inquiry and balancing the parts of the
writing to the whole. Phenomenology is not only a description, but it is also
an interpretive process in which the researcher makes an interpretation (i.e.,
the researcher “mediates” between different meanings; van Manen, 1990, p.
26) of the meaning of the lived experiences.
Moustakas’s (1994) transcendental or psychological phenomenology is
focused less on the interpretations of the researcher and more on a
description of the experiences of participants. In addition, Moustakas
focuses on one of Husserl’s concepts, epoche (or bracketing), in which
investigators set aside their experiences, as much as possible, to take a fresh
perspective toward the phenomenon under examination. Hence,
transcendental means “in which everything is perceived freshly, as if for
the first time” (Moustakas, 1994, p. 34). Moustakas admits that this state is
seldom perfectly achieved. However, I see researchers who embrace this
idea when they begin a project by describing their own experiences with the
phenomenon and bracketing out their views before proceeding with the
experiences of others.
Besides bracketing, empirical, transcendental phenomenology draws on
the Duquesne Studies in Phenomenological Psychology (e.g., Giorgi, 1985,
2009) and the data analysis procedures of Van Kaam (1966) and Colaizzi
(1978). The procedures, illustrated by Moustakas (1994), consist of
identifying a phenomenon to study, bracketing out one’s experiences, and
collecting data from several persons who have experienced the
phenomenon. The researcher then analyzes the data by reducing the
information to significant statements or quotes and combines the statements
into themes. Following that, the researcher develops a textural description
of the experiences of the persons (what participants experienced), a
structural description of their experiences (how they experienced it in
terms of the conditions, situations, or context), and a combination of the
textural and structural descriptions to convey an overall essence of the
experience.

Procedures for Conducting Phenomenological Research

I use the psychologist Moustakas’s (1994) approach because it has
systematic steps in the data analysis procedure and guidelines for
assembling the textual and structural descriptions. The conduct of
psychological phenomenology has been addressed in a number of writings,
including Dukes (1984), Tesch (1990), Giorgi (1985, 1994, 2009),
Polkinghorne (1989), and, most recently, Moustakas (1994). The major
procedural steps in the process would be as follows:

• The researcher determines if the research problem is best examined

using a phenomenological approach. The type of problem best suited for
this form of research is one in which it is important to understand several
individuals’ common or shared experiences of a phenomenon. It would be
important to understand these common experiences in order to develop
practices or policies, or to develop a deeper understanding about the
features of the phenomenon.

• A phenomenon of interest to study, such as anger, professionalism, what

it means to be underweight, or what it means to be a wrestler, is identified.
Moustakas (1994) provides numerous examples of phenomena that have
been studied. Van Manen (1990) identifies the phenomena such as the
experience of learning, riding a bike, or the beginning of fatherhood.

• The researcher recognizes and specifies the broad philosophical

assumptions of phenomenology. For example, one could write about the
combination of objective reality and individual experiences. These lived
experiences are furthermore “conscious” and directed toward an object. To
fully describe how participants view the phenomenon, researchers must
bracket out, as much as possible, their own experiences.

• Data are collected from the individuals who have experienced the
phenomenon. Often data collection in phenomenological studies consists of
in-depth and multiple interviews with participants. Polkinghorne (1989)
recommends that researchers interview from 5 to 25 individuals who have
all experienced the phenomenon. Other forms of data may also be collected,
such as observations, journals, poetry, music, and other forms of art. Van
Manen (1990) mentions taped conversations, formally written responses,
and accounts of vicarious experiences of drama, films, poetry, and novels.
 • The participants are asked two broad, general questions (Moustakas,
1994): What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon? What
contexts or situations have typically influenced or affected your experiences
of the phenomenon? Other open-ended questions may also be asked, but
these two, especially, focus attention on gathering data that will lead to a
textual and structural description of the experiences, and ultimately provide
an understanding of the common experiences of the participants.

• Phenomenological data analysis steps are generally similar for all

psychological phenomenologists who discuss the methods (Moustakas,
1994; Polkinghorne, 1989). Building on the data from the first and second
research questions, data analysts go through the data (e.g., interview
transcriptions) and highlight “significant statements,” sentences, or quotes
that provide an understanding of how the participants experienced the
phenomenon. Moustakas (1994) calls this step horizonalization. Next, the
researcher develops clusters of meaning from these significant statements
into themes.

• These significant statements and themes are then used to write a

description of what the participants experienced (textural description).
They are also used to write a description of the context or setting that
influenced how the participants experienced the phenomenon, called
imaginative variation or structural description. Moustakas (1994) adds a
further step: Researchers also write about their own experiences and the
context and situations that have influenced their experiences. I like to
shorten Moustakas’s procedures, and reflect these personal statements at the
beginning of the phenomenology or include them in a methods discussion
of the role of the researcher (Marshall & Rossman, 2010).

• From the structural and textural descriptions, the researcher then writes
a composite description that presents the “essence” of the phenomenon,
called the essential, invariant structure (or essence). Primarily this passage
focuses on the common experiences of the participants. For example, it
means that all experiences have an underlying structure (grief is the same
whether the loved one is a puppy, a parakeet, or a child). It is a descriptive
passage, a long paragraph or two, and the reader should come away from
the phenomenology with the feeling, “I understand better what it is like for
someone to experience that” (Polkinghorne, 1989, p. 46).

Challenges
A phenomenology provides a deep understanding of a phenomenon as
experienced by several individuals. Knowing some common experiences
can be valuable for groups such as therapists, teachers, health personnel,
and policymakers. Phenomenology can involve a streamlined form of data
collection by including only single or multiple interviews with participants.
Using the Moustakas (1994) approach for analyzing the data helps provide
a structured approach for novice researchers. It may be too structured for
some qualitative researchers. On the other hand, phenomenology requires at
least some understanding of the broader philosophical assumptions, and
researchers should identify these assumptions in their studies. These
philosophical ideas are abstract concepts and not easily seen in a written
phenomenological study. In addition, the participants in the study need to be
carefully chosen to be individuals who have all experienced the
phenomenon in question, so that the researcher, in the end, can forge a
common understanding. Finding individuals who have all experienced the
phenomenon may be difficult given a research topic. As mentioned earlier,
bracketing personal experiences may be difficult for the researcher to
implement because interpretations of the data always incorporate the
assumptions that the researcher brings to the topic (van Manen, 1990).
Perhaps we need a new definition of epoche or bracketing, such as
suspending our understandings in a reflective move that cultivates curiosity
(LeVasseur, 2003). Thus, the researcher needs to decide how and in what
way his or her personal understandings will be introduced into the study.

GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH

Definition and Background

While narrative research focuses on individual stories told by participants,
and phenomenology emphasizes the common experiences for a number of