Phenomenological Research Methods

Clark Moustakas

• Verlag: SAGE Publications, Inc
• Jahr: 1994
• ISBN:
  9781483384856
• Auflage: 1
• Thema: Social Sciences
• Thema: Social Science Research & Methodology

In this volume, Clark Moustakas clearly discusses the theoretical underpinnings of phenomenology, based on the work of Husserl and others, and takes the reader step-by-step through the process of conducting a phenomenological study. His concise guide provides numerous examples of successful phenomenological studies from a variety of fields including therapy, health care, victimology, psychology and gender studies. The book also includes form letters and other research tools to use in designing and conducting a study.

1

HUMAN SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES AND MODELS

In distinguishing my own phenomenological design and methodology from that of other qualitative models that guide human science research, of the various qualitative inquiries I will briefly outline five that stand out for me: Ethnography, Grounded Research Theory, Hermeneutics, Duquesne University’s Phenomenology, and Heuristics. I will also list commonalities of theories of human science inquiry that guide qualitative research.

ETHNOGRAPHY

Ethnography involves extensive fieldwork and may be pursued in a variety of social settings that allow for direct observations of the activities of the group being studied, communications and interactions with the people, and opportunities for informal and formal interviews (Bogdan & Taylor, 1975; Jorgensen, 1989; Lofland, 1971). Ethnographic studies have been conducted from anthropological (Benedict, 1959; Mead, 1928, 1975), sociological (Van Maanen, Dabbs, & Faulkner, 1982) and psychological (DiGregorio, 1983; Holmes, 1993) perspectives or frameworks. Van Maanen (1982) observed that:

The result of ethnographic inquiry is cultural description. It is, however, a description of the sort that can emerge only from a lengthy period of intimate study and residence in a given social setting. It calls for the language spoken in that setting, first-hand participation in some of the activities that take place there, and, most critically, a deep reliance on intensive work with a few informants drawn from the setting, (pp. 103–104)

Ethnographic research involves an initial engagement of exploring, planning, getting ready to conduct the study, including obtaining permissions for observation and participation, exploring the geography of the setting, and developing a plan for the scheduling of visits.

Bogdan and Taylor (1975) offer these strategies: (1) Look for key words in observing interactions and in recording comments of participants and staff; (2) Concentrate on opening and closing statements; (3) Soon after leaving the setting, make notes of all that can be remembered; (4) Don’t talk to anyone until recording of field notes has been completed; (5) Diagram physical layout of setting; and (6) Outline specific acts, events, activities, and conversations (p. 63). Patton (1990) suggests the following:

1. Be descriptive in taking field notes.
2. Gather a variety of information from different perspectives.
3. Cross-validate and triangulate by gathering different kinds of data—observations, interviews, program documentation, recordings, and photographs—and using multiple methods.
4. Use quotations; represent program participants in their own terms. Capture participants’ views of their experiences in their own words.
5. Select key informants wisely and use them carefully. Draw on the wisdom of their informed perspectives, but keep in mind that their perspectives are limited.
6. Be aware of and sensitive to the different stages of fieldwork.

   a.	Build trust and rapport at the entry stage. Remember that the evaluator-observer is also being observed and evaluated.
   b.	Stay alert and disciplined during the more routine, middle phase of fieldwork.
   c.	Focus on pulling together a useful synthesis as fieldwork draws to a close.
   d.	Be disciplined and conscientious in taking detailed field notes at all stages of fieldwork.

7. Be as involved as possible in experiencing the program as fully as possible while maintaining an analytical perspective grounded in the purpose of the fieldwork.
8. Clearly separate description from interpretation and judgment.
9. Provide formative feedback as part of the verification process of field-work. Time that feedback carefully. Observe its impact.
10. Include in your field notes and evaluation report your own experiences, thoughts, and feelings. These are also field data (pp. 273–274).

Wolf’s study (1991) of motorcycle clubs is a fine example of ethnographic participant-observation research. In conducting his investigation he observed and participated in a range of activities that included drinking and socializing with the members; assisting them in the customizing or repairing of their motorcycles; loaning money to or borrowing money from them; exchanging motorcycle parts; engaging in conversations at a motorcycle shop; joining them on a duck hunt, fishing trips, and dinners; riding with them; and adding his physical presence when club members were being threatened. After 2 years of involvement with the bikers, Wolf’s relationship with them became less frequent and less intense and ultimately ended entirely. He comments on his departure:

What I shared with these men led me to believe that I would at least maintain ties of friendship after I completed the ethnography. The enduring emotion would be one of comradeship. I was wrong. I would be like so many of the ex-members who simply drifted away, never to be seen or spoken of again, (p. 222)

Patton (1990) has summarized the values of participant observation research: (1) By direct observation the researcher is better able to understand the context in which the people live and share activities and their lives; (2) First-hand experience enables the researcher to be open to discover and deduce what is significant; (3) The researcher is able directly to observe activities and infer meanings not in the awareness of participants and staff; (4) Through direct observation, the researcher can learn things that research participants and staff may not be willing to disclose; (5) The researcher can include his or her own perceptions of what is essential in understanding the setting, its participants and staff; and (6) First-hand observation and participation enables the researcher to gather data through direct experience and thus be able to understand and interpret the setting and participants being studied and evaluated.

GROUNDED RESEARCH THEORY

Another qualitative approach in human science inquiries is known as grounded theory. In this research approach, the focus initially is on unraveling the elements of experience. From a study of these elements and their interrelationships a theory is developed that enables the researcher to understand the nature and meaning of an experience for a particular group of people in a particular setting (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). In grounded research the theory is generated during the research process and from the data being collected. The hypotheses and concepts are worked out in the course of conducting the study and from an analysis of data.

In his book, Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Strauss (1987) defines grounded theory as a detailed grounding of the research inquiry by careful analysis of the data, involving the examination of field notes, study of the transcribed interviews sentence by sentence, coding of each sentence or phrase, sorting the codes, making comparisons among the categories, and ultimately constructing a theory. During the process “the researcher puts down theoretical questions, hypotheses, summary of codes” thus “keeping track of coding results and stimulating further coding, and also a major means for integrating the theory” (p. 22). The

procedures for discovering, verifying, and formulating grounded theory … are in operation all through the research project and … go on in close relationship to each other, in quick sequence and often simultaneously…. Memos are likely to become increasingly elaborate, summarizing the previous ones or focusing closely on closing gaps in the theory. (Strauss, 1987, pp. 23–24)

Although the ultimate aim is to construct an integrated theory, “no sequential steps are laid out in advance.” Each research project has “its own detailed sequences” that depend on the data available, the interpretations and experience of the researcher, and the contingencies that influence and guide the research, both personally and professionally (p. 24).

Using grounded interpretative research in an investigation of physician socialization, Addison (1989) includes the following tenets and practices:

1. Grounded theory researchers continually question gaps in the data—omissions and inconsistencies, and incomplete understandings. They continually recognize the need for obtaining information on what influences and directs the situations and people being studied.
2. Grounded theory researchers stress open processes in conducting of research rather than fixed methods and procedures.
3. Grounded theorists recognize the importance of context and social structure.
4. Grounded theory researchers generate theory and data from interviewing processes rather than from observing individual practices.
5. In grounded theory research, data collecting, coding, and analysis occur simultaneously and in relation to each other rather than as separate components of a research design.
6. Grounded theory is an inductive process: theory must grow out of the data and be grounded in that data. (p. 41)

As grounded research is conducted, the experience being observed is labeled. Strauss and Corbin (1990) illustrate the process in the following:

Suppose you are in a fairly expensive but popular restaurant. … While waiting for your dinner, you notice a lady in red. She appears to be just standing there in the kitchen, but your common sense tells you that a restaurant wouldn’t pay a lady in red just to stand there, especially in a busy kitchen. Your curiosity is piqued, so you decide to do an inductive analysis to see if you can determine just what her job is…

You notice that she is intently looking around the kitchen area, a work site, focusing here and then there, taking a mental note of what is going on. You ask yourself, what is she doing here? Then you label it watching. Watching what? Kitchen work.

Next, someone comes up and asks her a question. She answers. This act is different than watching, so you code it as information passing.

She seems to notice everything. You call this attentiveness. Our lady in red walks up to someone and tells him something. Since this incident also involves information that is passed on, you also label it, information passing.

Although standing in the midst of all this activity, she doesn’t seem to disrupt it. To describe this phenomenon you use the term unintrusiveness.

She turns and walks quickly and quietly, efficiency, into the dining area, and proceeds to watch, the activity here also.

She seems to be keeping track of everyone and everything, monitoring. But monitoring what? Being an astute observer you notice that she is monitoring the quality of the service, how the waiter interacts and responds to the customer; the timing of service, how much transpires between seating a customer, their ordering, the delivery of food; and customer response and satisfaction with the service.

A waiter comes with an order for a large party, she moves in to help him, providing assistance.

The woman looks like she knows what she is doing and is competent at it, experienced.

She walks over to a wall near the kitchen and looks at what appears to be a schedule, information gathering.

The maitre d’ comes down and they talk for a few moments and look around the room for empty tables and judge at what point in the meal the seated customers seem to be: the two are conferring, (pp. 63–64)

I have selected Montgomery’s (1990, 1991) study of the care-giving relationship to illustrate grounded theory research. Her study focused on understanding caring from the perspective of the care-giver’s experience. Montgomery herself worked with nurses as a psychiatric/mental health consultant in hospital settings. She states: “I used a naturalistic grounded theory approach in which I interviewed nurses and asked them to talk about experiences that stood out for them” (1991, p. 92). The 35 nurses who were interviewed had been referred to Montgomery by others who believed that these nurses were “exemplars of caring.” From the interviewing and the data, the “over-riding theme of caring was the experience of spiritual transcendence … defined as experiencing oneself in relation to a force greater than oneself (p. 92). The spiritual dimension included three properties: (1) Caring is a spiritually transcendent phenomenon distinguished from “over-involvement, rescuing or co-dependency.” (2) Caring awakens a source of energy that accounts for “how spiritual transcendence serves as an important resource for self renewal and motivation for the care-giver, so that caring is associated with profound fulfillment and growth rather than burnout.” (3) Caring, inspired by spiritual transcendence, provides the care-giver with a sense of personal fulfillment and emotional satisfaction (p. 93).

An example of the spiritual dimension is exemplified by the following narrative of one of the care-givers in Montgomery’s research:

Spiritualness … comes from a deep sense of ministration to the individual. You minister to the spirit within the body. Sometimes you will not even recognize the person outwardly because of deterioration. You minister to the spirit I wasn’t aware of that twenty-years ago, and I think for many nurses it’s dormant. (Montgomery, 1991, p. 97)

Another care-giver contributes this portrayal of the spiritual dimension: “There is an endless amount of love of God for people. … God has given to the whole, to everybody, and it’s available to be used. And so I can love these people with my whole heart” (p. 103).

In a concluding comment on her grounded theory research, Montgomery (1991) emphasizes that care-g...