+ McConnell Henry

8/14/2019 + McConnell Henry

1/9

S C H O L A R L Y P A P E R

Husserl and Heidegger: Exploring the disparity

Tracy McConnell-Henry RN BN GDN (Critical Care) MHSc (Nse Ed) PhD candidate MRCNA

Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Ysanne Chapman PhD MSc (Hons) Bed (Nsg) GDE DNE RN

Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Karen Francis RN PhD MHlth Sc M Ed PHC Grad Cert Uni Teach/Learn BHlth Sc. Nsg Dip

Hlth Sc. Nsg

Professor of Rural Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Accepted for publication August 2008

McConnell-Henry T, Chapman Y, Francis K. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2009;15: 715

Husserl and Heidegger: Exploring the disparity

Introduced as an alternative to empirical science, phenomenology offers nursing an insightful means for understanding

nursing phenomena specifically in relation to lived experiences. However, not all phenomenologies were created equal,

a point which has left many a nursing researcher not only confused. Furthermore, this confusion might result in the

choosing of a philosophical framework that is neither cognizant with the research question nor the epistemological lens

through which the researcher operates. Drawing on common nursing examples to illustrate concepts, the authors closely

examine and debate the disparities between Husserls transcendental phenomenology and Heideggers hermeneutic

approach to phenomenology. The aim of the article is to demystify the dense language used and present the fundamentalbeliefs of each philosopher in a format that is accessible to novice phenomenologists.Key words: Heidegger, hermeneutics, Husserl, nursing, phenomenology, qualitative research.

INTRODUCTIONOver recent years there has been a mounting frequency of

nurses choosing to employ phenomenology as a means of

understanding nursing phenomenon. For this reason it is

paramount that nurses are cognizant with two major types

of phenomenology: Husserls transcendental phenom-

enology and Heideggers hermeneutic phenomenology.

Both scholars works are notoriously difficult to readbecause of the dense German language used, coupled with

variances in translation. Furthermore, their propensity to

invent language to conceptualize a thought adds to many a

readers frustration.

Initially, this paper will provide a brief overview of

both philosophies. Having then established viewpoints,

key differentiations between Husserlian transcendental

and Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology will be

articulated. In an attempt to illustrate how concepts relate

to nursing contemporary nursing examples are employed.

Although this paper is broadly aimed at students in the

infancy of their phenomenology journey, it will also be avaluable resource to any nurse committed to critiquing

qualitative research which claims to be underpinned by

either Husserlian or Heideggerian tradition.

HUSSERL, HEIDEGGER AND THEDEVELOPMENT OFPHENOMENOLOGY

Phenomenology, as a philosophical research tradition,

was developed as an alternative to the empirically based

Correspondence: Tracy McConnell-Henry, Monash University,Northways Road, Churchill, Victoria 3842, Australia. Email:[email protected]

International Journal of Nursing Practice 2009;15: 715

doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.01724.x 2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/9

positivist paradigm.1 The father of phenomenology, a ma-

thematician, Edmund Husserl, developed transcendental

phenomenology.2 Several years later, one of his students,

Martin Heidegger, fascinated by the concept of phenom-

enology, but withtensions in regards to Husserls angle de-

veloped his own approach, hermeneutic phenomenology.A common misconception is the assumption that phe-

nomenology and hermeneutics are interchangeable terms.

Originating from the Greek word phaenesthai, meaning

to show itself, a phenomenon might be considered any-

thing that presents itself.3 Therefore, phenomenology is

the study of phenomena.4 Conversely, the word herme-

neutics comes from the Greek word hermeneusin, a verb,

meaning to understand or interpret.5 Hermeneutics is

the stream of phenomenology supported by Heidegger.

Although originating as a method for studying theological

scriptures, Heidegger redefined hermeneutics as a. . . way of studying all human activities.6 It is the basis

for interpretation, with the aim of allowing the text to

speak for itself.

Spiegelberg1 described phenomenology as a movement

because there are no strict rules, nor uniform beliefs

guiding this tradition. The common ingredient regardless

of the type of phenomenology chosen is the concept of to

the things themselves!.7 The things being the lived expe-

rience. This approach allows the things to speak for

themselves while at the same time contextualizing them

and for the most part, providing greater meaning of thephenomenon under review.

Although philosophical and epistemological stand-

points might differ, ultimately all phenomenologists sub-

scribe to a similar goal, exploring the lived experience.

Fundamentally, neither Husserl nor Heidegger aimed to

produce methodologies. Rather when thinking about the

work of these two scholars it must be remembered that

what they offered were philosophies. It is these philoso-

phies that have then been used as frameworks to underpin

methodologies and hence research.

Although Heidegger developed his thought afterHusserl, this alone does not render Husserlian thought

redundant. Moreover, it is a case of the research question,

as well as the epistemological lens through which the

researcher views the world, that should govern the choice

of methodology. Caelli8builds on this argument by insist-

ing that because phenomenology is primarily a philoso-

phy, the approach utilized to pursue a particular study

should surface from the philosophical implications

inherent in the question.

HUSSERLIAN TRANSCENDENTALPHENOMENOLOGY

In response to his disillusionment with natural science, as

a means of studying human experiences, Husserl devel-

oped transcendental phenomenology.9 Husserl is credited

with introducing the study of lived experience or expe-riences within the life-world (Lebenswelt).10 He con-

tended that knowledge stems from conscious awareness

and that the mind is directed towards objects. He termed

this directedness intentionality.11

His approach examined the world pre-reflectively.

Hence, he advocated the use of phenomenological

epoche. Epoche is the Greek word for bracketing.

Husserl believed that in order to expose the true essence

of the lived experience it was first necessary for any

preconceived ideas to be put aside.12

HEIDEGGERIAN HERMENEUTICPHENOMENOLOGY

In contrast with Husserl, who supposed that conscious

awareness equated with knowledge, Heidegger was inter-

ested in moving from description to interpretation. His

focus was on deriving meaning from being.13 Heidegger

vehemently rejected bracketing. In defending his stance

against phenomenological epoche, Heidegger posited that

prior understating, or fore-structure augmented inter-

pretation. Therefore, Heidegger saw the researcher as a

legitimate part of the research, as Being-in-the-worldof the

participant.

Time, as obvious in the title of Heideggers master-

piece,Being and Time(1931), was pivotal to his thinking.14

He argued that time was . . . the essence of being.15

Furthermore, Heidegger held that along with time,

context shaped understanding.

HUSSERLS CARTESIAN DUALITY VS.HEIDEGGERS DASEIN

The Cartesian concept of duality dominated science forcenturies.16 Consequently, Husserl believed the mind and

body to be mutually exclusive. Earlier components of his

work were grounded in empirical science, but he became

concerned that natural science provided an incomplete

understanding of human experience.17 In developing tran-

scendental phenomenology, Husserl aspired to preserve

some semblance of objectivity, trusting that in doing so,

credibility for his methodological advancement would be

assured.

8 T McConnell-Henry et al.

2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd


3/9

Paramount to Husserlian phenomenology was the

attempt to . . . come face to face with the ultimate

structures (essences) of consciousness.10 Furthermore,

consistent with Husserl being influenced by Cartesian

duality, he believed that the mind was directed towards

objects, calling this directedness intentionality.18 Bycontrast, Heidegger rejected the mind-body duality

of human existence underpinning Cartesian thought.

Instead, he advocated a concept he termed Dasein.

Dasein was the foundation upon which he built up the

entirety of his thinking. Although not directly translat-

able into English, in colloquial German Dasein, means

human existence with the entity to ask what is means

to be or as described by Johnson19 to mean there

being. As Dasein is not static, it can not be measured

objectively.20

Fundamentally, Heideggerian phenomenology con-sidered what it means to be, or as he termed it Being-in-

the-world. The meaning of being is subject to the context

of that being, but meaning always exists. Heidegger7

claimed that the aim should be to discover meaning, or to

uncover . . . the universal structures of Being as they

manifested themselves in the phenomena.7

As noted by Koch,10 the . . . understanding of being

represents the existential distinction ofDasein.10 Daseinis

the entity that allows humans to wonder about their own

existence and question the meaning of their Being-in-the-

world.14

Stumpf20

adds weight to this definition by explain-ing that Dasein is an inherent thing, that the person is

within their world. For example when a nurse leaves a

hospital the nurse is still within the world of nursing, and

always able to understand, or consider, the meaning of

being-in-the-world of nursing.

In nursing research Benner and Wrubel21 refuted the

appropriateness of Cartesian dualism, because as already

noted, the nurse is always within nursing, and is not an

object among the object of nursing. Moreover, if the aim

of nursing research is to enhance understanding then

Benner and Wrubel are firm that the acceptance ofDasein is suitable, to establish meaning. Gullickson22

summarized this idea by positing that . . . to exist is

to find meaning.22

BRACKETING VS. PRESUPPOSITIONA chief distinction between Heideggerian hermeneutic

phenomenology and Husserls transcendental phenom-

enology is disparity in attitude to background understand-

ing of the phenomenon to be scrutinized. Husserl asserted

that to generate valid data it was first necessary for the

researcher to put aside any presuppositions that he/she

might have in relation to the question. He termed this

epoche, but the concept is also referred to as bracketing

(out) or reduction. What resulted was information thatwas fundamentally epistemological in nature. It provided

a description of the experience, but made no attempt to

derive meaning from the incident. Famous for saying

back to the things themselves, Husserl endeavoured to

present findings that were pre-reflective, prior to it being

categorized.23

Heidegger disputed this idea, by suggesting that the

researcher is as much a part of the research as the partici-

pant, and that the researchers ability to interpret the data

was reliant on previous knowledge and understanding.

Heidegger called this prior understanding fore-structureor fore-conception.24 He postulated that there is no such

thing as interpretive research, free of the judgement or

influence of the researcher.

Several researchers have challenged Heideggerian phi-

losophy for this reason, by claiming that the involvement

of the researcher influences or taints the data.2527 What is

acquired, in our opinion, is data that are obsessed with

epistemology. We, along with a bevy of other scholars,

feel more comfortable in adopting Heideggers quest for

an ontological perspective, where the outcome is under-

standing and meaning through interpretation.2830

More tothe point, Heidegger views the researcher as Being-in-the-

worldof the participant and the research question. What is

vital, however, if any researcher does subscribe to the

philosophical standpoint ofBeing-in-the-worldattested to

by Heidegger is that he/she is open and upfront with this

viewpoint. In regards to bracketing, Heideggers message

was simple:

Understanding is never without presuppositions. We do not,

and cannot, understand anything from a purely objective

position. We always understand from within the context of our

disposition and involvement in the world.19

In other words we construct our reality from our experi-

ence ofBeingin-the-world.

As observed by many a nurse researcher, as the

researcher becomes immersed inBeing-in-the-worldof the

participants it becomes nigh impossible for the researcher

to maintain a bracketed stance.17,2934

Husserl and Heidegger 9



4/9

KNOWING VS. UNDERSTANDING(EPISTEMOLOGY VS. ONTOLOGY)

Fundamentally, epistemology concerns itself with the

theory of knowledge or how knowledge is acquired.16

Conversely, ontology relates to the theory of existence,or more pointedly examining what it means to exist or

to be.35

Husserlian phenomenology is descriptive, with the

intent being to raise awareness.36 Although both Husserl

and Heidegger were innately interested in human experi-

ence, in many ways their thinking was poles apart.

Compared with Husserl whose primary focus was episte-

mological, Heidegger saw himself as an ontologist, as

demonstrated by his desire to uncover and unravel the

meaning of being. However, having said that, Heidegger

deemed that there was no discernable difference betweenepistemology and ontology. For him, knowing only came

through interpretation and understanding.37 Husserl, by

contrast, concentrated on knowledge and consciousness.

By his own admission, Husserl, although able to see that

the natural sciences were not able to adequately explain

lived experience, was nevertheless a positivist, and as such

to him, to know is to see.9 Although he aimed to explore

human experience, Husserl was still motivated to offer

objective data. As observed by Lowes and Prowse,38

Husserls positivist lens was obvious in him suggesting

that transcendental phenomenology was the onlyrigorous science untainted by subjectivity.38

Although he was interested in human experience, given

his mathematical background, Husserl used bracketing

in an attempt to objectify research findings, and hence

achieve scientific rigour, so prized within the positivist

paradigm. On a superficial level the notion of bracketing is

meritorious. By acknowledging, examining and putting

aside ones beliefs, the researcher should attain native

data.10,25 Lowes and Prowse38 offered that in order to

employ Husserlian principles that . . . researchers can,

and must, transcend their natural attitude and suspendtheir beliefs about the existence of the objects of experi-

ence.38 There are, however, several shortcomings in this

conception. The dilemma is founded in the fact that the

researcher does not exist in a vacuum. Although the aim

might be to put aside any preconceived ideas, in reality, to

what degree is this truly feasible?

Conversely, Heidegger completely discarded empirical

science, promoting the subjective nature of human exist-

ence. Heidegger7 believed that people are, by nature,

interpreting beings, and that any attempt to bracket

oneself from a phenomenon will fail because it is

intrinsically impossible. Both Merleau-Ponty39 and later

Moustakas,3 cognizant of the limitations of bracketing,

acknowledged that perhaps at best the researcher can

only realistically aim for partial reduction, rather thanepoche, or complete reduction as advocated by Husserl.

Many nurse researchers claim to be influenced by Hus-

serlian thinking, and attempt to put aside their beliefs.

However, many fail to explain, explicitly, the pragmatics

of how this stance is achieved. In failing to do so, the

reader is still left wondering to what degree any prior

knowledge the researcher might have had influences the

final interpretation. Crotty,40 while a vocal supporter of

bracketing, contended that the epoche process is intended

to bracket only what is naturally recognized in every-

day knowledge. We question the limits of everydayknowledge, and further, practically how one goes about

successfully engaging the epoche, or even knowing, with

certainty when it has been achieved.

Furthermore, regardless of the phenomenon in ques-

tion, if the researcher conducts a literature review prior to

commencing data collection, then some prejudice of the

situation is formed, as background comprehension is con-

structed. If a researcher alleges to subscribe to Husserlian

traditions a literature review should be purposefully

avoided, because in conducting a review of the literature

one innately develops a set of beliefs.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL REDUCTIONVS. HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE

Husserl aimed to understand human experiences in the

life-world (Lebenswelt), yet offer a tactic that traditional

science would still recognize as rigorous. Therefore, he

advocated the use of phenomenological reduction. He

believed that by employing this technique, it would allow

for reflection on the research and at the same time neu-

tralize . . . the ontic residue of consciousness ensuring

that findings were not vulnerable to the researchersagenda.9 So adamant was Husserl that phenomenological

reduction was necessary, in his later work he condemned

Heideggers existential hermeneutics as . . . corruption

of the phenomenological enterprise,41 because he was of

the opinion that the very point of life-world research was

not . . . to lay out our own experiences but that of

others.42

As an ontologist Heidegger asked questions that he

thought would ultimately result in uncovering the




5/9

meaning of being. He viewed humans as entities with

the awareness and thus the ability to ask the ontological

questions. He contended that the only true way for

the researcher to conduct a hermeneutic inquiry was to

have some prior knowledge, some fore-structure, so

as to ensure that the questions asked were reallypertinent.36This back and forth movement, of questioning

and then re-examining the text, results in an ever-

expanding circle of ideas about what is might mean to

be and is called the hermeneutic circle. According to

Annells,43 the hermeneutic circle has infinite possibility.

Koch10 further elaborated this notion by explaining that

every time the researcher re-explores the text, further

possibilities are always feasible. Mulhall44 concluded by

suggesting that the hermeneutic circle augments the elu-

cidation ofDasein.

Heidegger7

proposed that everyone exists hermeneuti-cally, deriving significance in whatever is experienced or

sensed in the world. He criticized Husserl for failing to

recognize or accept that the interpreter inescapably brings

expectations or knowledge which can not be forgotten,

overlooked or bracketed. The hermeneutic circle relies

on the circular movement from the whole to the parts,

incorporating the contributions of all deconstructing and

then reconstructing, resulting in a shared understanding.

Moreover, as discussed by Parse, Coyne and Smith45

hermeneutics is an insightful leap that alters the level of

discourse analysis from the concrete to the abstract andleads to an understanding of the possibilities of Being, as

revealed by human language. In other words, the partici-

pant offers their story, and by looking and re-looking at

the data, searching beneath the words and at what is not

immediately obvious, the researcher aims to end up with

an ontological perspective of the participants experi-

ences. By utilizing the hermeneutic circle the researcher

attempts to read between the lines and uncover the true

essence of the experience.

Gadamer, a student of Heidegger, added to hermeneu-

tic phenomenology in several ways. He suggested thatunderstanding is attained only through dialogue and with

the researcher being open to the opinions of others.

Gadamer termed the understanding obtained when the

researcher and the text meet as the fusion of horizons, and

further lamented that in the setting of phenomenological

reduction a shared understanding is not possible.46 Also,

as pointed out by Koch,10 Gadamer argued that all

researchers bring a history to the research environment,

and that these . . . values . . . make the research

meaningful to its consumers.10 Bleicher47 agrees, stating

that the hermeneutic circle, even in the absence of the

researcher acknowledging the use of the tool, is unavoid-

able and that it should be embraced as a means for expo-

sition of original insight.

ATEMPORAL VS. TEMPORALITYTime (temporality) and space (spaciality) were pivotal to

Heideggers thinking. The converse was true of Husserl.

Indeed, as Barry48 noted, Husserl encouraged the putting

aside of anytemporio-spatialawareness or judgments, in an

attempt to leave only consciousness. For Husserl con-

sciousness alone constituted the real truth.17 Fundamen-

tally, Husserl opined that the experience was the

experience, regardless of the context, which differed

notably from Heideggers belief in the importance ofcontext. Heidegger believed that humans are at all times

immersed in their world, and that context impacts heavily

on both existence and experience.49

In line with Heideggers belief that Daseinis relative to

context, so too did he believe thatDaseinis never devoid

of a mood or disposition, for which he used the word

Befindlichkeit.14 Regardless of the phenomenon, the start-

ing point is always the mood in which the experience is

lived. Although being totally in control of the context is

rare, humans are always, nevertheless, in control of being

able to derive a meaning (Verstehen) from the situation.19

Although Husserl strived to develop a means for study-

ing human experience, his phenomenology nevertheless

arose from the natural sciences, whereby objectification of

findings remained the gold standard. Husserl placed little

importance on time. Indeed he stated that his epoche

approach . . . bars me from using any judgement that

concerns spatio-temporal existence.23 He saw experi-

ences as an accrual of events and that the setting or prior

experiences had no bearing on the accumulation of these

incidents. By contrast Heidegger argued thattemporalityis

central to being, in that neither knowledge nor experi-ence is gained statically. Furthermore, knowledge is not

gained only through necessity, or as Husserl attested to

but . . . always in the active and the possible. We are

temporal beings in a temporal world.15 When Heidegger7

referred to time, it was not in the linear, chronological

sense. To his way of thinking, time was fluid and attempt-

ing to explain human experience in an atemporal fashion

was nonsense. Past experiences influence both present

and future dealings.




6/9

As an example of the applicability of temporality to

nursing, consider the following scenario. On the first day

of a clinical placement a nursing student asks the precep-

toring nurse How often should I take Mr Smiths vital

signs? A nurse who subscribes to Husserlian thought

would answer with absolution, such as four hourly. Onthe other hand, a nurse influenced by Heidegger would

more likely respond that depends because a Heidegge-

rian thinker is governed by temporality. Given such a

question the nurse would consider, for example, the

patients condition, stability, therapeutic interventions

and previous responses to treatments as well as previous

experience with clients with a similar diagnosis, to name

just a few. In other words the nurse would draw on

preconceived ideas in relation to past experience and

knowledge. By approaching the situation utilizing

Husserls philosophy the nurse would offer a prescriptiveanswer, with no respect for previous experience, because

to Husserls way of thinking human experiences are

simply accrued events, objects among objects, rather than

experiences that build upon previous experiences. Epis-

temologically, given the holistic approach employed in

contemporary nursing, to subscribe to Husserlian philoso-

phy is nonsensical.

TO SEE MEANS TO KNOW VS.MULTIPLE TRUTHS

Kohak50

signified the positivism in Husserls approach bydeclaring that his overarching thought was to know

means to see. Moreover, Husserl feared that an attempt

to interpret the participants contribution, by using

fore-structure as the basis of interpretation, might lead

to misunderstanding of essence of the experience.42

Merleau-Ponty39 built on this argument by suggesting

that meaning and experience happen concurrently. Con-

versely, Heidegger7 stressed that it is not possible to live

devoid of interpretation. Taylor51 agrees, illustrating this

point by stating that our understanding is rooted in our

own definitions, which is in line with Heideggers beliefin the subjectivity of multiple truths.

Hermeneutic phenomenology is concerned with inter-

pretation and uncovering. Transcendental phenomenol-

ogy, by contrast aims is to expose the absolute truth via

description. Heidegger claims that this theory does not

exist. As noted by Faulconer and Williams,15 . . . within

a hermeneutic way of understanding, truth is how things

are.15 The truth about an experience, as professed by one

person, taking into account temporality and spaciality,

might differ markedly from that believed by another

person. Hence, truth is not necessarily situated in the

opposite polarity to falsity, rather truth is intertwined

within perception. Every experience is unique to that

person, in that context; however, experiences might still

resonate with that of another.A nursing example to illustrate nursings tension with

truth is patients perception of pain. Contemporary

nursing prides itself on its holistic manner. In line with

this approach, it is instilled in nurses that pain is whatever

the patient says it is. Yet at the same time nurses remain

desperate to employ pain rating scales to validate what the

patient reports. Instead of qualitatively exploring the

patients pain, and therefore need for pain relief, many

nurses agonize over the arbitrary number the patient gives

in response to a choice on a Likert scale. A Husserlian-

influenced nurse would readily accept the number,believing to know means to see. Conversely, the

Heideggerian-inclined nurse would consider why the

patient has pain, whether there is similarity with patients

previously seen with this condition and make an inter-

pretation from that prior understanding.

Those who favour positivist thought might argue that

there is room for empirical science in nursing, devoid of

the need to consider context, citing examples such as

sound aseptic techniques must be employed when attend-

ing to invasive procedures. We would counter this notion

by contending that knowledge has been derived fromcontext-specific experience. Familiarity, or drawing on

previous knowledge being the fundamental point. This

concept is reminiscent of Heideggers influence, whereby

the goal is understanding ahead of certainty.

STRINGENT METHOD VS.NO METHOD

Bleicher,47 a nurse researcher, asserted that understanding

is not the outcome of a prescribed and adhered to recipe,

or method, rather it emerges from within the hermeneu-

tic circle. In line with Heideggerian tradition, given thathe claimed his standpoint a philosophy, not a methodol-

ogy, when employing hermeneutic phenomenology the

nurse researcher is responsible for identifying a unique

criteria for rigour.52 Sandelowski53 has suggested that

there is no universal agreement on appropriate measures

to demonstrate rigour in qualitative nursing research. An

example of the pragmatics utilized to demonstrate rigour

is journaling, a technique favoured by Koch.54 Other

prominent researchers who devised their own criteria for




7/9

rigour include Chapman,30 Benner55 and Taylor.56 The

point of indicating rigour is to instil trust and confidence

in research findings.

Above all, given that the goal of a hermeneutic inquiry

is a shared understanding the principle hermeneutic phe-

nomenologists subscribe to most heavily is resonance. Inconsidering the trustworthiness of interpretation it is

more appropriate to consider the concept of resonance

rather than truth.57 Lincoln and Guba58 elaborate by sug-

gesting that in order to establish trustworthiness it is

essential that a researcher clearly identifies and documents

decisions made throughout the analysis stage because aud-

itablity is the hallmark of trustworthiness in qualitative

research. Clayton and Thorne59 concur. Nevertheless,

they expand the idea of trustworthiness to include cred-

ibility, indicating that to ensure credibility the researcher

must represent the participants perspective as transpar-ently as possible. From a practical perspective it is the

responsibility of the researcher to define how these goals

will be met.

For researchers influenced by Husserlian convention,

however, such as Crotty,40 Oiler25 and Paley27bracketing

is synonymous with rigorous research. Additionally,

Husserlian phenomenologists see merit in structured

approaches, such as those devised by Giorgi60 suggesting

that by employing clearly defined methods ensure

validity.61 Again, such approaches mimic empiricism.

Additionally, to trust a stringent method is to have apreconceived idea about what is right by investing enor-

mous faith in the right way in order to achieve the right

outcome and consequently as Faulconer and Williams15

suggested . . . to have a method is already to have an

interpretation.15

BEYOND HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGERHusserls transcendental phenomenology was revisited by

French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, following

encouragement by his comrade Jean-Paul Sartre.Although Sartre was initially fascinated by the writings of

Husserl, over time he eventually saw more merit in

Heideggers viewpoint.62 Merleau-Ponty found particular

interest in Husserls work, Crisis of European Sciences.

Although Merleau-Ponty fervently refuted Husserls

dualist mindset, identifying self as body, he nevertheless

advocated Husserls stance on bracketing.12 Despite

subscribing to phenomenological reduction, Merleau-

Ponty however did attempt to develop a . . . multi-

dimensional description ofLebenswelt. . . that would not

neglect any of its meaningful ontological features.63

More recently the German Social theorist, Jurgen Hab-

ermas, influenced by Kant and the theory of Enlighten-

ment, has taken the tradition of exploring life-world and

lived experience and examined it through a critical lens.His intent is not only to achieve understanding but more-

over, the emancipation of social theory and change, in

light of findings.64,65

Gadamer, as already mentioned, clearly illustrated

his allegiance with Heideggers thinking, obvious in his

expansion of hermeneutics. A contemporary scholar who

has further extended the work of Heidegger is Canadian

educationalist Max van Manen. His particular interest is in

pathic inquiry into pedagogical experience, whereby

interpretation via reflection on language is the corner-

stone of his work.66

CONCLUSIONContemporary nursing researchers have eagerly embraced

the qualitative paradigm and, more particularly, phenom-

enology as an apt means for studying human experience.

Although many nurse researchers might be familiar with

the term phenomenology, few are cognizant with the

forms this research methodology might take. This paper

has contrasted and discussed the disparity between two

different types of phenomenology, namely Husserls tran-scendental and Heideggers hermeneutic phenomenol-

ogy. Furthermore, we have drawn on everyday nursing

examples to illustrate phenomenologys applicability to

nursing. With the understanding gained from this paper it

is hoped that nurses are better equipped to understand

phenomenology, as a suitable research framework for

investigating lived experiences.

REFERENCES1 Spiegelberg H. The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical

Introduction, 3rd edn. Boston: Martinus-Nijhoff, 1982.2 Dreyfus H. Heidegger, Husserl and modern existentialism.

In: Magee B (ed.). The Great Philosophers: An Introduction toWestern Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press,1988; 254277.

3 Moustakas C. Phenomenological Research Methods. ThousandOaks, CA, USA: Sage, 1994.

4 Ray MA. The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic,theoretic and methodolgical concerns. In: Morse JM (ed.).Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks,CA, USA: Sage, 1994; 117134.




8/9

5 Palmer RE.Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleierma-cher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer. Evaston: NothwesternUniversity Press, 1969.

6 Dreyfus HL.Being-in-the-World. A Commentary on HeideggersBeing and Time, Division 1. Cambridge, MA, USA: MITPress, 1991.

7 Heidegger M.Being and Time. New York: State Universityof New York Press, 1962.

8 Caelli K. Engaging in phenomenology; is it more of achallenge than it needs to be? Qualitative Research 2001;11: 273281.

9 Velarde-Mayol V. On Husserl. Belmont, CA, USA:Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2000.

10 Koch T. Interpretive approaches in nursing research: theinfluence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of AdvancedNursing1995;21: 827836.

11 Crowell SG. Heidegger and Husserl: The matter andmethod of philosophy. In: Dreyfus H, Wrathall M (eds).A

Companion to Heidegger. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005; 4964.12 Stumpf SE, Frieser J. Philosophy. History and Problems, 7th

edn. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008.13 Mulhall S. On Being in the World. New York: Routledge,

1993.14 Gelven MA. Commentary on Heideggers Being and Time,

revised edition. DeKalb, IL, USA: Northern IllinoisUniversity Press, 1989.

15 Faulconer JE, Williams RN. Temporality in human action.An alternative to positivism and historicism. AmericanPsychologist1985;40: 11791188.

16 Speake J.A Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edn. London: PanBooks, 1984.

17 McManus-Holroyd AE.Chronic Illness: A Rejoining of Soul andSymptom. Churchill, Australia: Monash University, 2005.

18 Dreyfus H, Dreyfus S. From Socrates to expert systems:The limits of calculative rationality. In: Rabinow P, SullivanW (eds). Interprative Social Science: A Second Look. Berkley:University of California Press, 1987; 327350.

19 Johnson PA.On Heidegger. Belmont, CA, USA: WadsworthThomas Learning, 2000.

20 Stumpf SE. Philosophy. History and Problems, 5th edn. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

21 Benner P, Wrubel J.The Primacy of Caring: Stress and Copingin Health and Illness. Menlo Park, CA, USA: Addison-

Wesley, 1989.22 Gullickson C. My death nearing its future: A Heideggerian

hermeneutical analysis of the lived experience of personswith chronic illness. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1993; 18:13861392.

23 Husserl E. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology.London: Allen and Unwin, 1931.

24 Dowling M. Hermeneutics: An exploration. NurseResearcher2004;11: 3039.

25 Oiler C. The phenomenological in nursing research. NursingResearch1982;31: 171181.

26 Omery A. Phenomenology: A method for nursing research.Advances in Nursing Science 1983;5: 4963.

27 Paley J. Phenomenology as rhetoric.Nursing Inquiry2005;12: 106116.

28 Davenport JM. The experience of new nurses beginningcritical care practice: An interpretative phenomenologicalstudy (PhD Thesis). Baltimore, MD, USA: University ofMaryland, 2000.

29 Walters AJ. The comforting role in critical care nursingpractice: A phenomenological interpretation. International

Journal of Nursing Studies 1994;31: 607616.30 Chapman YB.Dimensions of SadnessExpanding Awareness of

Community Nurses Practice in Palliative Care. Adelaide: TheUniversity of Adelaide, 1999.

31 Robertson-Malt S. Listening to them and reading me: Ahermeneutic approach to understanding the experience ofillness.Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999;29: 290297.

32 Pearson A, Roberston-Malt S, Walsh K, Fitzgerald M.

Intensive care nurses experiences of caring for brain deadorgan donor patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2001; 10:132139.

33 FitzGerald M. The experience of chronic illness in ruralAustralia (PhD Thesis). Armadale: The University of NewEngland, 1995.

34 Chapman YB.The Lived Experience of Nursing Dying or DeadPeople. Hawkesbury: University of Western Sydney, 1994.

35 Bullock A, Stallybrass O, Trombley S.The Fontana Dictio-nary of Modern Thought, 2nd edn. London: Fontana Press,1988.

36 Thompson J. Hermeneutic inquiry. In: Moody E (ed.).Advanced Nursing Science Through Research. Newbury Park,CA, USA: Sage Publications, 1990; 223286.

37 Waterhouse RA.Heidegger Critique: A Critical Examination ofthe Existential Phenomenology of Martin Heidegger. Brighton,UK: Harvester Press, 1981.

38 Lowes L, Prowse MA. Standing outside the interviewprocess? The illusion of objectivity in phenomenologicaldata generation.International Journal of Nursing Studies 2001;38: 471480.

39 Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of Perception. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962.

40 Crotty M.Phenomenology and Nursing Research. Melbourne:Churchill Livingstone, 1996.

41 Spiegelberg H. Husserls phenomenology and existential-ism.The Journal of Philosophy1960;57: 6274.

42 Dahlberg KME, Dahlberg HK. Description vs.interpretationa new understanding for an old dilemma inhuman science research. Nursing Philosophy2004; 5: 268273.

43 Annells M. Hermeneutic phenomenology; philosophicalperspective and current use in nursing research. Journal of

Advanced Nursing 1996;23: 705713.44 Mulhall S. Heidegger and Being and Time, 2nd edn. New

York: Routledge, 2005.




9/9

45 Parse RR, Coyne BA, Smith MJ. Nursing Research: QualitativeMethods. Bowie, MD, USA: Brady CommunicationsCompany, 1985.

46 Gadamer HG.Truth and Method. London: Sheed and Ward,1975.

47 Bleicher J. Contemporary Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics asPhilosophy and Critique. New York: Routledge and KeganPaul, 1980.

48 Barry V. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Belmont, CA,USA: Wadsworth, 1983.

49 Steiner G.Heidegger. London: Fontana Press, 1978.50 Kohak E. Ideas and Experience: Edmund Husserls Project of

Phenomenology. Ideas 1. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress, 1978.

51 Taylor C. Interpretation and the sciences of man. In:Rabinow P, Sullivan W (eds). Interpretative Social Science: ASecond Look. Berkely: University of California Press, 1987;3381.

52 Koch T. Implementation of a hermeneutical inquiry innursing: Philosophy, rigour and representation. Journal of

Advanced Nursing 1996;24: 174184.53 Sandelowski M. The problem of rigour in qualitative

research.Advances in Nursing Science1986;8: 2737.54 Koch T. Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The

decision trail.Journal of Advanced Nursing 1994; 19: 976986.55 Benner P.From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clini-

cal Nursing Practice. Menlo Park, CA, USA: Addison-Wesley, 1984.

56 Taylor BJ. The phenomenon of ordinariness in nursing(PhD Thesis). Geelong: Deakin, 1992.

57 Gadamer HG.Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: Univer-sity of California Press, 1976.

58 Lincoln YS, Guba EG.Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park:Sage, 1985.

59 Clayton A, Thorne T. Diary data enhancing rigour: Analysisframework and verification tool.Journal of Advanced Nursing2000;32: 15141521.

60 Giorgi A. Phenomenology and Psychological Research.Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Duquesne University Press,1985.

61 Drew N. Exclusion and confirmation: A phenomenologyof patients experiences with caregivers. Image: Journal ofNursing Scholarship1986;18: 3943.

62 Dietsch E. The Lived Experience of Women with a CervicalScreening Detected Abnormality: A Phenomenological Study.Wagga Wagga, Australia: Charles Sturt University,

2003.63 Primozic DT. On Merleau-Ponty. Belmont, CA, USA:

Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001.64 McCarthy T. The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas.

Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1978.65 Finlayson JG.Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford:

Oxford University, 2004.66 van Manen M. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science

for and Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Albany, NY, USA: StateUniversity of New York Press, 1990.



Documents

+ McConnell Henry