Good advice. There are many kinds of phenomenology. Even Husserl’s own descriptive phenomenology can be broken up into psychological (intentional), constitutive (eidetic), transcendental and generative phenomenologies. And then there are the diverse varieties of existential and hermeneutic phenomenologies. If you are going to be doing research with phenomenology, you must know how you are approaching the phenomenon and what methods best suit your target.
- Phenomenology (redcurtain13.wordpress.com)
- PH4207 Phenomenology (philosophynusmodules.wordpress.com)
- Michel Henry’s Clandestine Subjectivity (philosophytheology.wordpress.com)
It’s getting clear to me now why every research methods book talking about phenomenology suggest the method that should actually be called descriptive phenomenology. In this post I’ll attempt to explain it to you too.
The thing is that the guy who ‘invented’ phenomenology in the very beginning of the 20th century, Husserl, was concerned with shedding light on a phenomenon of human experience, but his interest was in discovering the essential and general structures of a phenomenon, and constructing a rich description. Husserl’s followers continued this work of descriptive phenomenology, calling it simply – phenomenology. Phenomenology as a philosophy has since then experienced several strong influences including existential turn (deeper interest in personal meanings of experience) and hermeneutic turn (arguing that all understanding requires interpretation). This contributed to a range of phenomenological approaches available today (interpretative phenomenological analysis, critical narrative analysis, template analysis just to name a few).
View original post 161 more words