Nursing and care

Nursing entails getting to know people and providing high-quality care. In order to comprehend their patients, nurses must engage in studying and verifying the entire individual. The majority of nurses are preoccupied in conducting phonological research. They do it because the research takes into account the values of the person’s entire being as well as their experience. As a result, when nurses need to perform phenomenological investigations, they must choose the best technique to avoid jeopardizing the value of their research. The purpose of this paper is to explore the numerous phonological research methods developed by two well-known philosophers and to describe the essential tenets of each research approach. The paper will also highlight the contrast between the researches methods presented. In conclusion, the paper will provide a study-based rational for and statement for the method believed to offer the best understanding of human experience.

Edmund Husserl’s Phenomenological Research Methods

Husserl’s phenomenology applies methodological assumption that scientific mastery starts with a new and, unbiased explanation of its subject matter. Hassel utilized two methods known as epochs, which restrain from effects that could bias or short-circuit description. One of the “epoch of the natural sciences” calls for the researcher to refrain from integrating natural scientific assumptions, hypotheses, explanations, and creating ideas of the matter in question. This epoch necessitates placing aside previous scientific theories so as obtain better access, in Husserl’s popular phrase, “to the things themselves”! This epoch gives the researcher to the display of the subject matter as it is before and, free from scientific knowledge. It comes back to occurrences as they are lived as opposed to starting with scientific presumptions. (Thomas & Pollio, 2002) It is a methodological way and, does not mean that such information is false; it merely temporarily stops science, excludes it from play, and does not use it in order for the new study to obtain matters to be researched. This epoch gives the researcher to the “natural attitude” in the world preceding. It goes back to the occurrence as they lived as opposed to starting with scientific presumption. Most of the time we fail to realize the experimental and, conscious procedures used to give to the world objectively, do not consider its meanings and do not handle the individual performances that make up the meanings of the world. The natural attitude is proper for physical scientific studies, which does not research subjectivity or meaning; nonetheless, sciences that solicit information of human experience stops being naïve regarding consciousness. They need a transition of attitude, a fresh epoch, and the epoch of natural attitude. The second epoch is a procedural abstention applied to delay or set aside our “naïve” perception in the existence of what displays in the life-world so as to concentrate on instead on its individual manners of aspect and giveness-the meanings of lived through and the individual performances that extend human conditions. The second epoch investigations that come from it permits us to remember our own experiences and, to clearly go in and reflect on the lived world’s for other individuals so as to understand the interpretation of the world as they are shown to the first person’s perceptions. The researcher can study their primary area of experience and bear an intersubjective outlook of experience that permits access to other people’s experiences. Hurssel denotes the focus on experience as the phenomenological psychological reduction since it “reduces” the research field to the psychological. This existence of the psychological permits the researcher to considerably describe the interpretations and psychological presentations of lived-through conditions.

Eidetic forms the central tenet of Husserl’s research methods. Eidetic Phenomenology describes the situations and this study requires the researcher to completely “bracket” previous individual information and biases, in order to reach transcendental subjectivity. This ends up in the researcher holding in personal knowledge, abeyance ideas, and preconceptions while observing and reviewing the lived experiences of participants. Out of these lived experiences, essences or features that are normal in phenomenological scrutiny appear that constitute the phenomena’s real identity.

The American psychologist, Amedeo Giorgi in 1970s, was the brain behind Husserl’s descriptive phenomenological method. Giorgi’s basis was the predominant philosophy laid out by Husserl in addition to his previous professional encounter in psychophysics. Giorgi was among the first people who established qualitative research in psychology and the humanistic psychology movement.

Martin Heidegger’s Phenomenological Research Methods

Just like phenomenology, Heidegger’s hermeneutic Phenomenology deals with the human experience and the world life. Heidegger focused towards enlightening features and, aspects that seemed insignificant in an experience that may be ignored in our lives, with the aim of establishing meaning and obtaining a sense of understanding. Heidegger perceived humans as being worried creatures with an attention on their fate in a foreign world. According to him, consciousness is not distinct from the world and, in fact, it is an establishment of a past-lived experience. (Heidegger & Dahlstrom, 2005) His perception was that understanding is a primary form of human existence and, therefore understanding is not how we see the world but rather how we are. The philosopher focused on the historicity of comprehension as an individual’s situation or background in the world. As known in the past, an individual’s background or history, constitutes what culture offers an individual from the time he is born and is passed on to the later generation, displaying the way of comprehending the world. Going by this understanding, a person is able to tell what is real. However, Heidegger also thought that a person’s background is not always fully explicit. The philosopher describes as viewing the world and people as being incapable related in historical, culture and social contexts. According to Heidegger, Pre-understanding is an element for existing in the world and it constitutes the organization or meanings of a culture that exists prior the understanding and forms part of our historical of our past. He further asserted that nothing could be experienced without having to refer to an individual’s past understanding. Researchers describe the philosopher’s view as an indissoluble harmony between an individual and the world. Meaning is generated as people are built by the world while people are simultaneously building the world out of their experiences and backgrounds. Interpretation is viewed to be key in the process of understanding. Heidegger stressed that by being human, individuals automatically become interpreters, and that every experience constitutes an interpretation affected by a person’s past. The philosopher opines that all opinion is attached to a particular set of force structures inclusive of a person’s past that cannot be removed. One, therefore, is required to have full knowledge and describe the interpretive effects. (Van Manen, 2016) This interpretive method is achieved via a hermeneutic circle, which rotates from the fractions of the experience to the total experience and repeats the circle to enhance the intensity of engagement with the comprehension of the texts.

Heidegger laid out a wide range of key tenets in his phenomenological research method. The tenets include the idea of experiences with being in the world, being, being with, the care structure, spatiality temporality. One of the key tenets of his Philosophy recognizes existence, as “being in the world” understood as inseparability and embeddedness from the world. From this basis, Heidegger dismissed Husserl’s method of Phenomenological reduction and his perception of the transcendental ego.

Max Van Manen is the psychologist behind the development of Heidegger’s phenomenological research methods. Manen has participated in inquiry in pedagogy and phenomenology through studies funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada. The hypothetical perspective and system of the several research proposals are based on a phenomenological model of people’s science inquiry first illustrated in 1990.

A Contrast of Basic Differences among the Phenomenological Research Methods

Hurssel, being a logician, epistemologist, mathematician, and primarily a philosopher focused in grounding scientific and theoretical knowledge. On the other hand, while Heidegger he embraced the arts and scientific knowledge in his methods, his thoughts were inspired to focus on the question of being and mainly articulated matters concerning essential ontology. (Moustakas, n.d.) Although both philosophers claimed to apply the phenomenological method, Hurssel was more consistent as he was logical and, based his methods on secure knowledge and in addition to his discovery and utilization of phenomenological reduction. The question of being dominated Heidegger’s thoughts and because he found the question of being having originated from Dasein, he thought that Dan was the one to interpret the question. (Cohen, Kahn, & Steeves, 2000)Therefore, he gave priority to interpretation. According to him, the phenomenological method of description is found within interpretation.

Conclusion

Literature reveals that most researches following the descriptive method are applied to highlight features of experiences that have not been adequately understood. On the other hand, the interpretive method is applied to analyze contextual aspects of an experience concerning other effects such as gender, employment, well-being, or culture of groups or people experiencing the situation. Having known this makes it possible for researchers to gain a better understanding of the experience, in order for caregivers to get proper knowledge required to address the needs of such people. The choice a proper phenomenological research method that is in harmony with Heidegger’s interpretive or Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology is important to the reliability of the proposed study. The nurse researcher is encouraged to observe care when naming and choosing their study approach, because their choices may have consequences in the quality of future studies.

References

Van Manen, M. (2016). Phenomenology of practice (1st ed.). Abingdon: Routledge.

Thomas, S. & Pollio, H. (2002). Listening to patients (1st ed.). New York: Springer Pub. Co.

Moustakas, C. Phenomenological research methods (1st ed.).

Cohen, M., Kahn, D., & Steeves, R. (2000). Hermeneutic phenomenological research (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Heidegger, M. & Dahlstrom, D. (2005). Introduction to phenomenological research (1st ed.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

.