Phenomenological Understanding of the Meanings in the Lifeworld:
Bridging Philosophy and Research Methodology
Ayako Katadae
Abstract
Phenomenology has contributed to offering research methodologies and methods to uncover human experiences that are complicated, ambiguous, fuzzy, and intricate. Based upon the literature review, the purpose and key concepts of phenomenological research methodology were explained. Furthermore, this article addressed two significant schools of thought, and issues on generalizability and validity. Since the phenomenological research methodology started in philosophy, researchers do not only rely on technical research skills, but also pay attention to the underpinnings of the research skills.
Introduction
It is well known that the father of phenomenology is a German philosopher, Edmund Husserl. He evolved phenomenology; and since then, it has been a philosophical tradition, further expanded as an existential philosophy by Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Sartre. We go back to the beginning of the 20th century to celebrate the birth of phenomenology. It was then that Husserl （1970） lamented the fact that positivistic science was mere factual science, and the crisis of science was nothing but the loss of its meaning of life in the lived world. What he asserted was that we could only know what we experienced, and that only phenomenology could guide us to understand such lived experience.
Phenomenology started in the field of philosophy; then it grew up enough to guide researchers in choosing research methodologies and methods. Dahlberg, Drew, and Nyström （2001） have interpreted Husserl s point of view and described, Husserl s solution to the problem of a dehumanized science was to reinstate the everyday human world as the foundation of science （p. 44）. Furthermore, they stated that Husserl envisioned science as part of the world rather than holding an obscure and elite place in the world （Dahlberg et al., 2001）. Thus, in the language of the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln, phenomenologists believe in, and act out a slogan, a science of the people, by the people, for the people. Polkinghorne （1989） described the feature of phenomenology by contrasting with mainstream natural science:
The map developed for Western science during the past three centuries is based on the notion that reality consists of natural objects and that knowledge is a description of these objects as they exist in themselves. The purpose of the paths laid out on this map is to eliminate the distorting influence of personal perspective and the subjective properties of researchers. （p. 41）
He continued to state that phenomenological research has a different map as follows:
The phenomenological map is not antithetical to the mainstream natural science map, but it marks different features of the terrain. It locates geological features of human awareness and reminds us that the research journey needs to attend to the configurations of experience before moving on to assumptions about independent natural objects. （p. 41）
It has been said that phenomenologists were not interested in gaining generalizations such as laws and principles that govern phenomena. Explaining phenomena numerically, estimating the relationships between causes and effects, or predicting the magnitude of relationships between variables was not attractive to phenomenologists. In this connection, van Manen （2001） stated that phenomenological researchers have been less interested in the factual status of particular instances: whether something actually happened, how often it tends to happen, or how the occurrence of an experience is related to the prevalence of other conditions or events （p. 10）. To put it another way, they do not need explanation, estimation, or prediction. Rather, their research interests have been in explicating the meanings as we live them in our everyday existence, our lifeworld （p. 11）. Phenomenologists took a keen interest in the phenomenon itself. They wished to stay as close as possible to the phenomenon.
Purpose of Phenomenological Research
The purpose of phenomenological research is to understand the meanings of lived experience in the lifeworld. Dahlberg et al. （2001） said that being in the world thus means that we cannot avoid meaning. This fact is the starting point for phenomenological research （p. 113）. Since we cannot live without meaning, meaning is imperative and a target of phenomenological research. Phenomenology is an investigation of essences; it asks the nature of the phenomenon. One of the distinctive phenomenologists, Heidegger （1962） presented the purpose of phenomenology as being to let that which shows itself be seen from itself in the very ways in which it shows itself from itself （p. 58）. Van Manen （2001） stated that phenomenology is the systematic attempt to uncover and describe the structures, the internal meaning structures, of lived experience （p. 10）.
As stated, phenomenological research has been interested in the things themselves instead of following previously accepted scientific theories, principles or frameworks. A phenomenological approach does not provide us with effective theories that explain or control the world; rather, it offers the possibility of plausible insights that bring us into more direct contact with the world （van Manen, 2001）. Going to the things themselves has been a motto for phenomenological researchers, and always a part of their mindset. Phenomenology differs from other human sciences in that it makes a distinction between appearance and essence （van Manen, 2001）.
By virtue of understanding meaning, phenomenological research seeks essences, essential meanings, or essential themes embedded in lived experiences. The essence is what makes the thing what it is （van Manen, 2001）. By virtue of understanding the essence, phenomenological research seeks universal meanings among human beings. According to van Manen （2001）, The essence of a phenomenon is a universal which can be described through a study of the structure that governs the instances or particular manifestations of the essence of that phenomenon （p. 10）. Furthermore, he mentioned that phenomenology aims at making explicit and seeking universal meaning （p. 19）.
research. Universal meanings are something that makes people feel empathy. In this relation, van Manen （2001） delineated as follows:
A good phenomenological description is an adequate elucidation of some aspect of the lifeworld̶it resonates with our sense of lived life. In one of his lectures Buytendijk [the Dutch phenomenological psychologist] once referred to the phenomenological nod as a way of indicating that a good phenomenological description is something that we can nod to, recognizing it as an experience that we have had or could have had. （p. 27）
The phenomenological nod is brought by universal meanings and is clearly shown in the proverbs that transcend cultures and countries. I found many proverbs commonly used in both Japan and the U.S. such as It is no use crying over split milk, No horse is so well shod that it never slips, Sadness and gladness succeed each other, Soon gotten soon spent, One catches the hare and another eat it, and Storm makes oaks take deeper root. Both countries have a different culture, history, language, and value system. Proverbs, nevertheless, still have the power to make people in the countries look beyond these differentiations. This is what I call the universal meaning.
Key Concepts of Phenomenological Research
Essence
Phenomenological research is the study of essences （p. 10）, said van Manen （2001）. Describing the essence of lived experience is the focus of phenomenological research （Polkinghorne, 1989）. McMillan （2000） depicts that the purpose of phenomenological research is to fully understand the essence of the phenomenon. Essence is what makes the phenomenon what it is. Van Manen （2001） delineated the term of essence with an etymological discussion as follows:
The term essence derives from the Greek ousia, which means the inner essential nature of a thing, the true being of a thing. The Latin essentia, from esse means to be. Essence is that what makes a thing what it is （and without which it would not be what it is）; that what makes a thing what it is rather than its being or becoming something else. （p. 177）
In order to explain the concept of essence, Skuza （2003） demonstrated an example of the phenomenon of education:
For example, the phenomenon of education can take on numerous forms: kindergarten, elementary school, middle school, high school, higher education, post-secondary education, nonformal education and training. There is a point, however, where education becomes something else like recreational activities or social services. This point is the edge or the boundary of the phenomenon that marks the essence. In other words, the essence makes the phenomenon what it is. If the inner core, or form, changes, then the phenomenon becomes something else. （p. 57）
Essence shows how the phenomenon is significant. It expresses only the phenomenon. It is what makes the phenomenon what it is. Figuratively speaking, essences or essential meanings are dense and rich juices obtained from strained a lot of fresh fruits named lived experiences. The strainer is, phenomenologically speaking, reduction which is an action process of uncovering taken-for-grantedness and bringing us back to the essences.
Lived Experience
research （p. 36）. In the same fashion, Polkinghorne （1989） described that experience, as it is directly given, occurs at the meeting of person and world （p. 42）. He continued to describe the significance of experience in phenomenological research as follows:
The data of phenomenological research are descriptions of experience as it presents itself, not descriptions of objects and actions as they are assumed to exist outside of experience. In gathering protocols from subjects, researchers take the subjects reports as descriptions of their experience, not as statements about an independent reality. （p. 49）
In this relation, Fow （1996） mentioned that the data of this empirical-phenomenological approach is qualitative, based on rigorous, disciplined analysis of subjects lived-experience, without recourse to a transformation or reduction of data into quantitative terms （p. 220）.
Lived experience belongs to human beings; it is immediate, pre-reflective, and pre-categorical. Giorgi （1997） took the view that a more precise meaning is given to the word experience （p. 236） within phenomenology. Lived experience comprises lived body, lived time, lived space, and lived relations. Lived experience is not mere experience; rather, it is dynamic, vivid, vital, and fresh experience as it is; and further, it is filled with essential meanings. Phenomenological research aims to understand lived experience as it is; it, however, is not an easy task. Lived experience is embedded in the lifeworld; and it is imperceptible because of the colored̶not clear̶sunglasses of our taken-for-grantedness.
The world is filled with taken-for-grantedness. We, human beings, are always wearing colored sunglasses when we see something in our daily lives. When human beings were born in the world, we were innocent without wearing any sunglasses. It has been well known that toddlers who acquired languages become crazy questioners saying that, What is this? What is that? Why? or Why not? They are innocent about the things, and have not conceptualized anything in the world.
Lifeworld
As previously noted, lived experience is embedded in the lifeworld. The term lifeworld came from Lebenswelt which means the world of lived experience （van Manen, 2001）. According to Gadamer （1995）, it is the world in which we are immersed in the natural attitude that never becomes an object as such for us, but that represents the pregiven basis of all experience （pp. 246-247）. Lifeworld is the world of natural attitude of everyday life. Though lived experience is embedded in the lifeworld, it is barely understood because of the natural attitude.
Natural Attitude
Natural attitude covers our everyday world and life, and directs us to take things for granted in all of our everyday activities. It prevents us from re-achieving contact with the lifeworld, and facilitates to generate taken-for-grantedness. It has been said that human experiences are characterized by the natural attitude, which is the primary position for all phenomenological researchers （Dahlberg et al., 2001）. In this connection, Dahlberg et al. （2001） made a very short remark, We live the natural attitude, so to speak （p. 46）. Dahlberg et al. （2001） stated that to be in the natural attitude means that one does not consciously analyze what one is experiencing （p. 46）. Once we are immersed in natural attitude, we tend to lose a sense. Imagine the following scenes. You are walking. All of sudden, your shoulder bumps another person. Immediately after bumping, you feel the existence of your shoulder which had not been recognized previously. That is the moment when you cast off your natural attitude of bodily walking, and experience lived body. Casting off natural attitude is critical throughout phenomenological research.
Reduction
Reduction means action or process of uncovering taken-for-grantedness and bringing us back to essences of everyday experiences. Reduction was originally a philosophical concept and phenomenologists applied it to practical research. It is an inside technique required for phenomenological research, and aims to re-achieve direct contact with the lived experience in the lifeworld. For reduction, having consciousness, having intentionality, suspending natural attitude, and bracketing pre-judgment and assumptions are identified as concrete methods. Researchers may gain large amount of experiences through interviewing; nevertheless, the essences of lived experience are invisible because of being covered with natural attitude. Then, phenomenological researchers utilize the technique of reduction to go to the essential pieces embedded in the large quantity of experiences. Understanding of the essential meanings of the phenomenon is never possible without reduction.
Moran （2000） referring to reduction stated that, phenomenology s first step is to seek to avoid all misconstructions and impositions placed on experience in advance, whether these are drawn from religious or cultural traditions, from everyday common sense, or, indeed, from science itself （p. 4）. Furthermore, reduction means that a person must withhold past knowledge about the phenomenon he/she is researching in order to be fully open to the concrete instance of the phenomenon as presented by the subject's description （Giorgi, 1997）. In the same connection, van Manen （2001） stated that to come to an understanding of the essential structure of something we need to reflect on it by practicing a certain reduction （p. 185）. In this vein, he presented four steps of reduction as follows: （a） awakening of a profound sense of wonder and amazement at the mysteriousness of the belief in the world; （b） overcoming one s subjective or private feelings, preferences, inclinations, or expectations that would prevent one from coming to terms with a phenomenon or experience as it is lived by others; （c） stripping away the theories or scientific conceptions and thematizations which overlay the phenomenon one wishes to study, and which prevents one from seeing the phenomenon in a non-abstracting manner; and （d） seeing past or through the particularity of lived experience toward the universal essence that lies on the other side of the concreteness of lived meanings. In addition to the technique of reduction, van Manen （2001） identified six types of reduction: （a） heuristic reduction, （b） hermeneutic reduction, （c） phenomenological reduction, （d） eidetic reduction, （e） methodological reduction, and （f） ontological reduction.
Reduction is never easy. In the courses of phenomenological research, graduate students often ask questions to their instructors such as How can we do reduction? How can we recognize that we completed reduction? How can we do good reduction? or How can we train ourselves for accomplishing good reduction? Such questions have troubled phenomenological researchers, because there has been no single or right answer.
At least, what I can describe here is that there are two important things for reduction. One is to be sensitive to the importance of reduction; another is that each researcher finds his/her ways to do reduction for meeting the purpose of reduction̶ uncovering taken-for-grantedness and bringing themselves back to the essences of everyday experiences. For instance, one of the ways of my reduction is not to review literature before doing research. The rationale is that too much knowledge reinforces natural attitude, which, unfortunately, will prevent me from re-achieving lived experience. In this connection, van Manen （2001） asserted that the problem of phenomenological inquiry is not always that we know too little about the phenomenon we wish to investigate, but that we know too much （p. 46）. Another way of my reduction is to trace four technical steps （van Manen, 2001） which were above mentioned. I bring the paper written the four
steps along every time I go to interviews. Before starting every interview, I read the paper repeatedly. After completing interviews, I post the paper on the wall so that I can keep the four statements in my mind during analyzing interview transcriptions.
Comparison of Descriptive and Hermeneutic
It has been said that phenomenology has two significant schools of thought: descriptive phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology. In this regard, Dahlberg et al. （2001） stated that, the difference between [descriptive] phenomenological and hermeneutic philosophy lies in [descriptive] phenomenology s emphasis on transcendence and pure description, and hermeneutics emphasis on pre-understanding and interpretation （p. 92）.
Descriptive phenomenology aims to uncover pure description of the lived experience （Dahlberg et al., 2001）. Giorgi （1992） made the contrast by stating that description was the clarification of the meaning of the objects of experience precisely as experienced （p. 122）; and on the other hand, interpretation was the clarification of the meaning of experiences objects in terms of a plausible but contingently adopted theoretical perspective, assumption, hypothesis, and so on （p. 122）. He responded critically to five hermeneutic arguments. Giorgi （1992） offered a counterargument to the following five objections by hermeneutic researchers: （a） Meanings are not univocal or unique, （b） interpretation is necessary to go beyond the data, （c） interpretation is necessary because of the unconscious, （d） humans are self-interpreting beings, and （e） all meanings are by definition interpretations. Through the counterargument, he attempted to assert the capability, efficacy, and appropriateness of descriptive phenomenology （Giorgi, 1992）. The most debatable point underlying the counterargument was the appropriateness or the necessity of interpretation. He stated: The descriptive researcher would say that one need not go beyond the data. One could describe the data
in its incompleteness or in its contradictory status. There is no rule that data must be aesthetically elegant or logically consistent. Whatever shows up is described precisely as it shows itself. （pp. 126-127） As clearly shown in his statement, descriptive phenomenologists have strong interests in gaining pure description without any interpretation. In this connection, Giorgi （1992） stated that a descriptive attitude implies a certain necessity demanded by saying that one describes what presents itself precisely as it presents itself, neither adding nor subtracting from it （p. 121）. Researchers analyze the original text as it is given, and they intend to get as close as possible to the original data （Dahlberg et al., 2001）. They believe that no interpretation is required. They may even assert that interpretation will prevent us from reaching fundamental nature of lived experiences. The focus has been on articulating pure description of lived experience and is not so much concerned with interpretation.
In contrast, hermeneutic phenomenologists have eyes for interpreting the participants experiences into themes （van Manen, 2001）. They aim to find common themes in the description and to find language that captures these themes （Barritt, Beekman, Bleeker, & Mulderij, 1983）. Van Manen （2001） described the significance of hermeneutic phenomenology as follows:
Unlike research approaches in other social sciences which may make use of experimental or artificially created test situations, human science wishes to meet human beings̶men, women, children̶where they are naturally engaged in their worlds. In other words, phenomenological research finds its point of departure in the situation, which for purpose of analysis, description, and interpretation functions as an exemplary nodal point of meanings that are embedded in this situation. （p. 18）
Though I pictured two schools of thought briefly, as many scholars have argued, descriptive phenomenology and hermeneutic phenomenology cannot be clearly divided; rather, they are continuous. In this connection, Giorgi （1997） made the following assertion:
There is still a debate about whether or not interpretations are necessary for human phenomena, and the debate is not yet resolved at the philosophical level. In any case, it is clear that both description and interpretation have their place and cannot be reduced to each other. （p. 241）
Both of them aim to grasp the essential meaning of lived experiences in the lifeworld. Both of them aim to understand the everyday experience. The difference is to what extent focus is given to interpretation.
Generalizability and Validity
Importance of Generalizability and Validity
Any kind of research needs to consider generalizability and validity; though it has been controversial. Research does not take the form of either article from a newspaper or columns in a monthly magazine; it should be a scientific and academic enterprise. What allows a phenomenological study to be called research depends on whether or not generalizability and validity are taken into consideration in the process of the investigation. Terms such as generalizability and validity sound as if they are linked to positivistic research; however, any kind of research is required to consider them because research is never an ego trip; rather a social activity.
Generalizability
As for generalizability, there is a requirement to describe how the discovered essential meanings can be translated and made applicable to other settings. Polkinghorne （1989） described that the issue of generalizability for phenomenological findings is not one of population characteristics but the specificity of the essential description （p. 48）. He asserted that phenomenological research is contextual, nevertheless it is generalizable （Polkinghorne, 1986）. In the same way, Dahlberg et al. （2001） described the possibility of generalization:
The main assumption behind the idea of generalization and theory development is that the data analysis can be expressed in the form of a general structure, which in phenomenology would be an essence and in hermeneutics a main interpretation. This does not mean that the result is completely de-contextualized. On the contrary, phenomenological and hermeneutical research results are always contextual. Phenomenological and hermeneutical research results are thus never to be understood as universal. The general structure means that the result is lifted above the concrete level, but that it is still within a certain context, such as American health care or European education. （p. 228）
Dahlberg et al. （2001） insisted that the possibility of generalizing the results of research and establishing theories were dependent on the quality of the result. Schofield （1990） identified three levels of generalization: what is, what may be, and what could be. At any level of generalization, the quality is integral.
Validity
Polkinghorne （1989） stated that, the phenomenological researcher needs to be concerned throughout the investigative process with whether the findings are valid ̶that is, whether or not the findings can be trusted and used as the basis for actions and policy decisions （p. 57）. According to him, validity represents the notion that an idea is well-grounded and well-supported and thus that one can have confidence in it （p. 57）. Well-grounded and well-supported are represented by the word, soundness. The soundness
is required in every part of phenomenological research for validity. More specifically, in order to gain soundness, trustworthiness of interviews, the appropriateness of transcriptions, and the logic of analysis are indispensable. The emphasis is on how well other researchers and general people can understand the phenomenon. In addition, emphasis should also be placed on how well they can experience an Aha! moment. In this regard, Polkinghorne （1989） described that the degree of validity of the findings of a phenomenological research project, then, depends on the power of its presentation to convince the reader that its findings are accurate （p. 57）.
Qualitative research, including phenomenological research, does not have any single way to analyze the data. Some researches may wonder how there can be any validity in such research when there is no definitive way to analyze the data. It is my obligation to respond to the question. My counter argument includes the following three points: （a） There is no definitive way to analyze the data in any kind of sciences, （b） different interpretations occur less often than commonly believed, and （c） plural interpretations are strengths not weaknesses.
First, it is true that qualitative research has more ways of analyzing the data than quantitative research does. However, it should be mentioned that not only qualitative research but also quantitative research does not have any definitive way for data analysis. We tend to assume that for any kind of quantitative research data, there is a single correct statistical technique for analyzing it. Nevertheless, in fact, statistical analysis requires a great deal of judgment （Gall, Gall, & Borg, 2003）.
Regarding different interpretations, Kvale （1996） refers to that different interpretations of the same verbatim interview text definitely occur, though probably less often than commonly believed （p. 287）. This defense is supported by the fact I experienced in an interpretive research class in graduate school. In the class, an instructor handed out a written account about the experience of being advised as a graduate student. Graduate students in the class worked to put symbolic words that evoked responses from them and to find essential themes that captured those words. After doing individual works, I got together with three other students to share the essential themes that I had uncovered. Surprisingly, we listed very similar essential themes such as fear, confusion, concerns, approval, and doubt. This experience convinced me that qualitative research analysis is not as diffusive as it is sometimes claimed to be.
Concerning plural interpretations, I start with the statement by Kvale （1996）:
A postmodern approach forgoes the search of true fixed meanings and emphasized descriptive nuances, differences, and paradoxes. There is a change from a substantial to a relational concept of meaning ….Different interpreters constructing different meanings of an interview story is not a weakness, but a strength of the interview method. （p. 226）
The phenomena are not necessarily a single phase. This is a strong point of phenomenological research methods because plural interpretations highlight and uncover various aspects and realities of the phenomenon.
Conclusion
Phenomenology had a great impact on 20th century thinking. Regarding the background of its prosperity, Giorgi （1997） stated that it was not only because of its rigorous descriptive approach but also because it offers a method for accessing the difficult phenomena of human experience （p. 238）. As described, phenomenology has contributed to offering research methods to uncover human experiences that are complicated, ambiguous, fuzzy, and intricate. Phenomenology started in the field of philosophy; then it
grew up enough to guide researchers in other fields in choosing research methodologies and methods. Since phenomenology started in philosophy, phenomenological researchers do not only rely on technical research skills, but also pay attention to the underpinnings of the research skills.
References
Barritt, L., Beekman, T., Bleeker, H., & Mulderij, K. （1983）. Analyzing Phenomenological Descriptions. Phenomenology + Pedagogy, 2（1）, 1-17.
Dahlberg, K., Drew, N., & Nyström, M. （2001）. Reflective lifeworld research. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.
Fow, N. R. （1996）. The phenomenology of forgiveness and reconciliation. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 27（2）, 219-233.
Gadamer, H.-G. （1995）. Truth and method （J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.）. New York: Continuum. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. （2003）. Educational research: An introduction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Giorgi, A. （1992）. Description versus interpretation: Competing alternative strategies for qualitative research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 23（2）, 119-135.
Giorgi, A. （1997）. The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28（2）, 235-260.
Heidegger, M. （1962）. Being and time （J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.）. San Francisco: Harper.
Husserl, E. （1970）. Crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Kvale, S. （1996）. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McMillan, J. H. （2000）. Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer. New York: Longman. Moran, D. （2000）. Introduction to phenomenology. London: Routledge.
Polkinghorne, D. E. （1986）. Conceptual validity in a nontheoretical human science. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 17（2）, 129-149.
Polkinghorne, D. E. （1989）. Phenomenological research methods. In R. S. Valle & S. Halling （Eds.）, Existential-phenomenological perspectives in psychology: Exploring the breadth of human experience: With a special section on transpersonal psychology （pp. 41-60）. New York: Plenum Press.
Schofield, J. W. （1990）. Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. In E. W. Eisner & A. Peshkin （Eds.）, Qualitative inquiry in education （pp. 201-232）. New York: Teachers College Press.
Skuza, J. A. （2003）. The experience of acculturation for Latina adolescents from Mexico: A phenomenological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.
van Manen, M. （2001）. Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. Ontario, Canada: The Althouse Press.
