Module 6 - Feb. 14-Feb. 27 - Continuation of last module

Qualitative Methods
Reflective worksheet 4 due - discussion forum instead

This is what I have been grappling with:

Phenomenology and the intentionality of consciousness.  I posted a question on the discussion forum - perhaps it will help to clarify. Below is the question that I posted:

I’ve been trying to develop an understanding of the “intentionality of consciousness” (IC) as it relates to phenomenology. Creswell’s (2007) definition states, “being conscious of objects always is intentional. Thus, when perceiving a tree, ‘my intentional experience is a combination of the outward appearance of the tree and the tree as contained in my consciousness based on memory, image, and meaning’ (citing Moustakas)” (p. 236).  In addition, Creswell describes IC as an idea “that consciousness is always directed toward an object. Reality of an object, then, is inextricably related to one’s consciousness of it” (p. 59) and, I’m wondering, by extension one’s unique perception of it?  

Does this relate to the distinction between real things (noumena) and our perceptions of them (phenomena), with the focus in phenomenology being the perceived thing (Willis, 2007)? Would the postpositivist stance on this be that reality exists outside of our perceptions? Willis explains, “the key focus of phenomenological research in its pure form is consciousness” (p. 172). I’m also wondering how this relates to other qualitative methodologies – would consciousness not also be a factor, given the subjective nature of reality in qualitative research?


Good discussion here.  One of the main ideas behind the interpretive process is that reality is internally located, as such, reality is found in the perceptions of the participants.  When we get to this point, we begin to understand that participants are active participants in their world and have intentionality about how they both understand and come to know their world.  We are not just acted upon by external realities but we can act upon those realities as well.  This is why Descartes said, I think therefore I am.  This is an expression of conscious intentionality.

Dr. J

Another thing I am trying to work out is the differentiation between all of the paradigms, methods, ideologies, world views, approaches ... in particular, the relationship between phenomenology and interpretivism.

Creswell (2007) notes that in his discussion of the 5 approaches, "we will see the constructivist [interpretivist] worldview manifest in phenomenological studies" (p. 21).  Okay, sounds good - implying that phenomenology embraces a constructivist/interpretivist world view and would therefore be considered a methodology utilizing a particular worldview.  Creswell also presents Phenomenology as one of the 5 approaches in his book.

However, Willis states, "In the case of hermeneutics, it shares a great deal with phenomenology and interpretivism" (p. 302) - a statement which seems to place phenomenology and interpretivism on a parallel level.

Willis also states, "Another supporting theory for interpretive qualitative research is phenomenology and a related movement, existentialism" (p. 107).  So in this case, phenomenology is thought of as a theory?

Still trying to work this one out.

Also, I found the following from the book referenced below:

“There are two main research philosophies: positivism and phenomenology.  Positivism promotes a more objective interpretation of reality, using hard data from surveys and experiements, while phenomenology (or interpretivism) is concerned with methods “  (pp. 69-70).

Altinay, L., & Paraskevas, A. (2008).  Planning Research in Hospitality and Tourism, 2008, Hungary: Elsevier. 

And Dr. Jensen's words:

So we must remember that qualitative research operates under a unique set of epistemological and ontological assumptions.  As such, it requires a different set of procedures of how we come to know.  The result is that if we use quantitative understandings and apply it to qualitative research, we would say that flexibility or emergent design lacks rigor because we need a controlled environment and an objective context.  What we need to understand is that because of the epistemologies and ontologies of qualitative research, we actually need flexibility and emergent design to remain consistent with a subjective reality.  This means that flexibility and emergent design are necessary structures for qualitative research.  This is why we have to be careful to not apply quantitative logic to qualitative research.


Notes from Dr. Jensen's postings:

Yes, you kind of right Ana.  The other consideration that we must make is that the creative process is based upon a sound understanding of the practices linked to the qualitative epistemologies we work under. A solid understanding of these qualitative realities, then allows the researcher to make conscious and informed decisions about the research design and how and it ways creativity will be implemented.  It is not just creativity for creativity sake.  It is creativity based upon specific practices that give meaning and purpose to the work.  It is creativity that is driven by a theoretical lens that gives the researcher direction.

Dr. J

Kevin,

I remember a student equating the difference in structure as being the difference between paint by numbers painting - quant research and creative painting - qualitative research.  But we can push this metaphor even deeper when looking at the issue of structure or what appears to be lack of structure in qualitative research.  In that must also remember that there is structure to just painting as well.  There is technique and art theory behind just painting.  The painting becomes more skilled and articulate as we learn about and apply those various painting strategies - however flexible and emergent they may be - to the art project.  This is exactly what is happening with qualitative research. Although it is fluid and emergent, there is theory and technique behind the whole process.

Dr. J

Dr. J I really love that analogy.  If I am correct in understanding, it clarifies a lot me.  So, what I am reading is that advanced creative painting (qualitative research) requires basic strategies, processes and technique that can be applied as we create a work of art, but our art develops as we paint, and we have an idea of what we want, but we don't know exactly the form it will take, how the painting will look, etc.

Nei

Yes, that is partially correct.  For example in grounded theory research, we really don't know what will be revealed at the end.  The theory emerges from the study process.  In research using case study for example, the lit review, our knowledge of the theory on the topic, and other experiential factors give the researcher a pretty good expectation of what will emerge, but we are always ready to see and discover new things that we might not have expected.  So in some research, we really don't know what will emerge, in other research projects, it is still creative, but we have a pretty good idea what will emerge.

Dr. J

 In doing so, this gives qualitative rigor because we can talk to people about not just "how" we did the research, but also about "why" we made the decisions we did through the research process.

You are partially right but you need to be careful how you speak of structure.  Structure is about proceeding with the research in a way that is consistent with the epistemological and ontological assumptions of that research. The structure in qualitative research gives concepts to the researcher on how to be flexible and how to be emergent.  It is not just a free for all.  This is structure because the epistemologies and ontologies of each methodology will tell the researcher the degree to which a study should be emergent or flexible and how it should be incorporated into the study consistent with the necessary data collection methods and data analysis processes.

Dr. J