Introduction

One of the greatest challenges in “doing” phenomenological research, in attempting to learn from the experiences of others, is figuring out just what to “do”. This appendix aims to encourage prospective hermeneutic researchers by offering, in its entirety, the method I developed to research the experiences of Irish university students with mental health difficulties presented in this book and elsewhere. It is offered in the spirit of open access, in response to the many kind emails from students and practitioners who get in touch to ask “how did you do it?”. This is not the hermeneutic phenomenological method, but rather a demonstration of how one phenomenological study, beginning from a point of deep engagement with the philosophy of hermeneutic phenomenology, proceeded to understand the experiences of one cohort within the higher education system.

This approach was inspired by a desire to understand lived experience and position the experiences of others as valuable a form of knowledge as the findings from the most rigorous scientific study. To do so required attending to four inter-related commitments:

1. A commitment to the philosophical principles of hermeneutic phenomenology;

2. A commitment to the ontological and epistemological integrity of the research approach;

3. A commitment to the trustworthiness of the data and process; and

4. A commitment to ethically sensitive research.

This appendix focuses on the second, third, and fourth of these commitments. It does so with the explicit assertion that the first, an understanding of the philosophical principles of hermeneutic phenomenology, is primordial and essential. Indeed, the most frequent criticism levied at phenomenological researchers is a lack of awareness of the philosophical foundations upon which this approach to research rests. A personal understanding of the philosophy of phenomenology means that a researcher, when faced with the many inevitable day-to-day research quandaries and decisions, responds to these in a way that upholds the integrity of the approach rather than reacts with “solutions” offered by other, sometimes opposing, approaches, methodologies, or methods. The philosophy of phenomenology, and the original texts of philosophers such as Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, and others, can initially appear intimidating and impenetrable to many, if not most, researchers. In an attempt to offer a handrail to guide first steps into this rich but often-intimidating philosophical domain, I wrote a paper, “Researching Lived Experience in Education: Misunderstood or Missed Opportunity” (Farrell, 2020), to which I brazenly refer interested researchers.

This appendix, in tun, will attend to (a) the ontological and epistemological assumptions, or paradigm, within which hermeneutic phenomenological research is conducted, (b) the method by which the data presented in this book were generated and analysed, (c) how the trustworthiness of these data were upheld and guaranteed, and (d) the measures implemented to ensure that the research was conducted and disseminated to the highest ethical standards. It will be organised by each accordingly:

1. paradigm

2. method

3. trustworthiness

4. ethical considerations.

The aspiration is to be clear and to offer practical insights into how the research was “done”. Again, this is just one hermeneutic phenomenological method, offered in the hope that it might guide, encourage, and offer some sense of direction to the perspective phenomenological researcher.

1.  Paradigm

Bateson (Bateson, 1972, p. 320) argued all researchers are philosophers in that “universal sense in which all human beings […] are guided by highly abstract principles”. These principles include beliefs about ontology, or the nature of reality and what can be known about it; epistemology, or the relationship between the knower and what can be known; and methodology, or how the researcher can go about finding out what they believe can be known. Thus, one’s ontology directs our epistemology which in turn guides our methodology.

This net, containing the researcher’s ontological, epistemological, and methodological premises, is often referred to as a paradigm (Guba, 1990). A researcher’s paradigm acts as a framework, or lens, through which we view a particular phenomenon. Paradigms are human constructions categorised by differences in beliefs about the nature of reality and knowledge construction. They are established by communities of scholars and as such can be neither proved nor disproved. There are a number of different research paradigms, the four major ones being positivist, postpositivist, interpretive, and critical social theory (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011).

Hermeneutic phenomenology is considered to sit within the interpretive paradigm. The interpretative paradigm evolved from the Heideggerian view of the nature of being-in-the-world and of humans as self-interpreting beings. Interpretivists study phenomena through the eyes of people in their lived situations with the ultimate goal of understanding. Benner (1994) highlights how interpretive inquiry is concerned with articulating, appreciating, and making visible the voices, concerns, and practices of those who are the focus of the inquiry.

The interpretive paradigms assumes a relative ontology (there are multiple realities), a subjectivist epistemology (knower and respondent co-create understandings), and a naturalistic (in the natural world) set of methodologies (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). Ontologically, the interpretive paradigm is based on relativism, a view of truth as composed of multiple realities that can only be subjectively perceived. Epistemologically, interpretivists believe that knowledge is subjective; that there is no one ultimate or “correct” way of knowing. This epistemological view of knowledge as subjective has led some to consider interpretivism a paradox in that interpretivists attempt to develop an objective science from subjective experience (Denzin and Lincoln, 2011). Rainbow and Sullivan (1987) attest that this paradox is based on an objective-subjective split when, in fact, as Munhall (2012) points out, “objectivity is a subjective notion”.

Methodologies associated with the interpretive paradigm, reflecting both its relativist ontology and subjective epistemology, are united by an emphasis on the intersubjective construction of meaning and understanding. Knowledge is generated in interpretive research when “relevant insights emerge naturally through research-participant discourse” (Coffey and Atkinson, 1996, p. 54). Therefore, the researcher’s perspective is inextricably bound up within the findings of an interpretive inquiry. The interpretive paradigm views knowledge building as an inherently social act (the hermeneutic circle) and, as a result, methodologies within this paradigm tend to be qualitative.

While methodology (stemming from the Greek hodos meaning “way” and logos meaning “to study”) refers to “the pursuit of knowledge”, method (stemming from the Greek methodos) refers to the “mode” by which knowledge is pursued. The mode by which knowledge was pursued in this study forms the focus of the next section.

2.  Method

Heidegger talked about phenomenological reflection as following certain woodland paths towards a “clearing” where something could be shown or revealed in its essential nature. These paths (methodos ), however, cannot be determined by fixed signposts, rather “they need to be discovered or invented as a response to the question at hand” (van Manen, 1990, p. 29). Indeed, it has been said that the method of hermeneutic phenomenology is that there is no method (Gadamer, 1979; Rorty, 1979).

What is offered here is the methodos by which the experiences of the students represented throughout this book were generated, analysed, and understood. It is not the method of hermeneutic phenomenology by any means, but just one method that might offer insights and points of reflection for other hermeneutic phenomenological researchers. I hope it is helpful.

2.2  Sample

Sampling

According to Steeves (Steeves, 2000, p. 45), sampling “implies that a researcher is choosing informants because those informants might have something to say about an experience they share with others”. As a result, qualitative researchers typically, although not exclusively, employ non-probability sampling techniques. Non-probability sampling refers to a number of sampling strategies (e.g. convenience sampling, purposive sampling, opportunistic sampling, quota sampling, judgemental sampling, and snowball sampling). Non-probability sampling techniques, in contrast to probability sampling (the word probability deriving from the Latin probabilitas, a measure of authority or authoritativeness), do not aim to generate a sample representative of the entire population. Herein lies what many consider the major weakness of non-probability sampling.

Basically, non-probability samples are not samples at all but could be regarded as complete populations from which no statistical generalisations to larger populations can be made.

(Abdellah and Levine, 1979, p. 332)

However, as the aim of qualitative research is to generate rich, contextually laden, explanatory data, it has little concern with generalisations or generating population-based estimates. Indeed, the relevance of generalisability to qualitative research has long been disputed, with transferability deemed a more appropriate measure of probabilitas (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Sandelowski, 1986). Research subjects in qualitative studies are selected, not because they increase the study’s p-value, but because they provide insight into the phenomenon under study.

Purposive sampling was the non-probability sampling strategy adopted for this study. Purposive sampling is based on the premise that study participants should be chosen based on the purpose of their involvement in the study. The strength and potency of purposive sampling, argues Quinn Patton (2002, p. 230), “lie in selecting information-rich cases for study in-depth […] those [cases] from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the inquiry”. As the purpose of this study was to explore the lived experience of distress, direct experience of a mental health difficulty was an essential criterion for participation. The type or severity of mental health problem was not pertinent, nor was “expert” (e.g. psychiatrist or other mental health professional) validation or diagnosis. Hermeneutic phenomenology aims to understand subjective experience, and as distress is a highly subjective experience, it was considered futile to attempt to objectively categorise (i.e. via diagnoses, psychiatric classifications) this experience. However, by virtue of the majority of participants being recruited through university disability services, which, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 4, require a diagnosis as evidence of eligibility, the majority of the students in this study had received a diagnosis.

Sample size

Sample size is often one of the most perplexing issues in hermeneutic phenomenological research. When Harry Wolcott (1994, p. 3) was asked “how many qualitative interviews is enough?” by a team of researchers from the British National Centre for Research Methods, he replied “the answer, as with all things qualitative, is ‘it depends’”. Phenomenological studies, however, tend to involve smaller sample sizes as these are more cost and time efficient and allow for greater focus on depth rather than breadth. Speaking about sample size, Quinn Patton suggests:

No rule of thumb exists to tell a researcher precisely how to focus a study. The extent to which a research or evaluation study is broad or narrow depends on purpose, the resources available, the time available, and the interests of those involved. In brief, these are not choices between good and bad but choices among alternatives, all of which have merit.

(Quinn Patton, 2002, p. 228)

This research began with an anticipated sample size of 10–12 students. However, when an invitation was extended through three recruitment channels (youth mental health service and two university disability support services) the level of interest from students far exceeded expectations. It became clear that the opportunity to share their story rather than be “subjected” to a researcher-defined battery of questions, or survey, was of great interest to students. It was decided that, in line with the “open” principle of hermeneutic phenomenology, all students who would like to share their experiences should be offered the opportunity to participate (even if it did add a year to the research!). In total, 27 students shared their experiences as part of this study (Table 1).

Table 1

Participants – Overview

Pseudonym	Age	Sex	UG/PG	Field of study*	Interviews
Adrianna	22	F	UG	AHSS	2
Alicia	22	F	UG	AHSS	1
Annie	21	F	UG	AHSS	2
Ashley	22	F	UG	AHSS	1
Claire	20	F	UG	STEM	1
Ella	21	F	UG	AHSS	1
Faye	20	F	UG	Health Sciences	1
Fiona	19	F	UG	AHSS	1
Greg	29	M	PG	STEM	1
J. D.	20	M	UG	AHSS	1
James	26	M	PG	STEM	1
John	29	M	UG	AHSS	1
Joseph	43	M	UG	AHSS	1
Kate	27	F	PG	AHSS	1
Kinsley	21	M	UG	AHSS	1
Lauren	21	F	UG	AHSS	1
Leon	41	M	UG	AHSS	1
Louise	30	F	UG	Health Sciences	2
Mai	22	F	UG	Health Sciences	1
Marie	23	F	UG	STEM	2
Mary	26	F	PG	AHSS	2
Millie	19	F	UG	AHSS	1
Niamh	21	F	PG	AHSS	1
Robert	25	M	UG	AHSS	1
Sarah	26	F	PG	AHSS	2
Sophie	20	F	UG	AHSS	2
Thomas	19	M	UG	AHSS	2

2.4  Data analysis

Perhaps the greatest challenge in adopting a philosophical approach such as hermeneutic phenomenology is translating its often complex philosophical concepts into methodological techniques. Indeed, as Roberts and Taylor (1998, p. 109) have noted, “many of the so-called phenomenological methods leave prospective researchers wondering just what to do”. In attempting to overcome this challenge, data generated over the course of this study were analysed using a combination of the principles of the hermeneutic circle and the methodological framework for thematic analysis offered by Braun and Clarke (2006).

The hermeneutic circle as method of interpretation

The concept of the hermeneutic circle can be viewed from both ontological and methodological perspectives. Heidegger and Gadamer both viewed the circularity of interpretation not so much as a methodological principle, but as a ubiquitous and inescapable feature of all human efforts to understand. As such there is no method, experience, or meaning that is independent of the hermeneutic circle. Moreover, all efforts to interpret or understand are always located within some background (e.g. socio-historical tradition, value system, or practice) that cannot be ignored. Prior to generating and analysing the data, time was devoted to explicating this background (a significantly abridged version of this explication can be seen in Chapters 1 and 2).

The hermeneutic circle is essentially based on the idea that understanding the meaning of a text as a whole involves making sense of the parts, and grasping the meaning of the parts depends on having some sense of the whole. As such, interpretive understanding goes forward in stages, with continual movement between the parts and the whole allowing understanding to be enlarged and deepened.

Figure 1

The hermeneutic circle as method of interpretation.

The hermeneutic circle, by its very circular nature, suggests that the meaning of a text is not something that can grasped once and for all. Meaning exists in a complex interplay between parts and whole. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-step process of data analysis provided a flexible framework for analysing the “parts” as well as the “whole” of the text. It is a framework that enjoys “theoretical freedom” (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p. 5) in that it is applicable across a range of epistemological and theoretical approaches without impeding on the particular values of an approach such as hermeneutic phenomenology. As Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 4) themselves acknowledge, “one of the benefits of thematic analysis is its flexibility”. As such, it is a methodological framework that can be adapted to align more closely with the approach taken. Figure 2 outlines the relationship between the data analysis procedure employed in this study, Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis, and the hermeneutic circle itself.

Figure 2

Relationship between individual data analysis procedure, hermeneutic circle and Braun and Clarke’s (2006) method of thematic analysis.

The steps taken to analyse the data in this study were as follows.

1. Listen to audio. Each interview was listened to and transcribed verbatim.

2. Format transcription. Each interview was listened to a second time, checked for accuracy, and the transcripts formatted for analysis. This simply involved coping the data from the masterfile into a new document, increasing the line spacing and adding a wide margin on one side for the descriptive labels and jottings below.

3. Add descriptive labels and jottings. Each interview was listened to for a third time and descriptive labels and jottings were added to a margin constructed along the side of the transcript. This was the point at which content and themes began to be noted and a sense of what the dataset reveals overall began to form. The labels and jottings at this stage mainly comprised striking quotations or words used by the students. This helped ensure the labelling process remained as true to the students’ own words as possible.

4. Conduct individual thematic analysis . Each individual student’s data set was analysed thematically. This step enveloped three of Braun and Clarke’s methodological steps (as seen in Figure 2). It also marked the step where the data began to be “transformed” (Wolcott, 1994). This transformation involved actively uncovering themes or, as van Manen (1990, p. 90) describes them, “knots in the webs of our experiences, around which certain lived experiences are spun and thus lived through as meaningful wholes”. A theme, according to Braun and Clarke (2006, p. 82), “captures something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set”. This individual level of analysis continued for each student and, once completed, was followed by a “stepping back” and taking stock of all of the themes or thematic nodes generated.

5. Compile thematic nodes. Each of the 331 thematic nodes generated by phases 1–4 was written on individual strips of card with the student’s pseudonym written on the back. Each piece of card was then laid out, organised, and collapsed under thematic headings. For example, “‘picked on’ by teachers” (Mai), “Bullying” (Marie, Ella, Niamh, J. D., Sophie), and “Dyslexia” (J. D., Sarah) were all themes relating to issues that students described affecting their early school experiences and so were collapsed under the thematic heading of “Difficulties in School”. Significant time and thought were dedicated to this organising and compiling, and the sounding board of a “critical friend” (see trustworthiness section below) was particularly helpful in this process.

6. Write the narrative summary offered the opportunity to step back and review the “whole”. It involved writing a “narrative summary” of each student’s story that was both temporal and thematic, that is, it told their story, as they described it unfolding, and ensured that the major themes identified in earlier phases were represented in this chronological telling. The anonymised narrative summaries of each of the 27 participants were presented as an appendix in the final report. During the data generation process, and particularly in the early stages of data analysis, a structure began to emerge from the students’ narratives. It became clear that the students themselves, when given freedom and space to tell their story in their own words, did so in a particular way. Their stories followed a “plot”. Step seven involved plotting this narrative for each student.

7. Plot the narrative . While the plotting of the initial stories began as an exercise in curiosity, it became clear that this structure was revealing something very important about the way in which the students were making sense of their experiences. It revealed the narrative meaning that the students had ascribed to their experiences and, as the same structure emerged in dataset after dataset, the plotting of narrative became not only an integral part of the data analysis process but a unique way of viewing each dataset, both in terms of its “parts” and its “whole”. These plots can be seen in Farrell (2022b).

This process of analysis yielded:

1. 27 narrative summaries

2. 46 themes (i.e. the nature of the lived experience)

3. A four-phase plot which offered an insight into how students organised their experiences into meaningful wholes (i.e. meaning).

At every stage of the research process, measures were taken to uphold the validity or trustworthiness of the data and to ensure that the research was conducted to the highest ethical standards. These measures form the focus of the remainder of this methodological appendix.

3.  Trustworthiness

Up until the late twentieth century, social science researchers had developed a certain degree of consensus about what counted as knowledge and, more importantly, what kind of knowledge claims could be validated. However, the “narrative turn”, which occurred towards the end of the century, posited a challenge to conventional forms of evidence. Researchers steering the narrative turn, which Polkinghorne (2007, p. 472) collectively refers to as “reformists”, argued that personal descriptions of life experiences offered knowledge about important, but often neglected, aspects of the human realm. The pre-existing group, which Polkinghorne (2007, p. 472) refers to as “conventionalists”, struggled to accept this new movement. Their dismissal of the claims generated by this form of research was largely justified by the failure of the claims to withstand conventional measures of validity.

In response, researchers, such as Lincoln and Guba (1985), took conventional criteria for establishing the “trustworthiness” of claims and developed parallel criteria for more qualitative research approaches. These criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability will structure the discussion around this study’s efforts to uphold standards of rigour and trustworthiness. Table 2 provides a visual overview of conventional measures of validity, Lincoln and Guba’s (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) parallel criteria for qualitative research, and the measures taken to uphold and demonstrate efforts to ensure that the data, interpretations, and claims espoused in this study are, in so far as it is possible, trustworthy.

Table 2

Criteria for establishing trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) and measures taken to ensure trustworthiness in this study

	Scientific paradigm criteria	Lincoln and Guba (1985)	Measures taken
Truth values	Internal validity	Credibility	✓ “Phenomenological nod” ✓ Critical friend ✓ Field journal
Applicability	External validity	Transferability	✓ Narrative summaries ✓ Sample transcript and analysed outputs from this transcript ✓ Critical friend
Consistency	Reliability	Dependability	✓ Overview of approach taken ✓ Explication of researcher’s bias ✓ Outline of methodology
Neutrality	Objectivity	Confirmability
			✓ Audit trail ✓ Direct quotations ✓ Critical friend report ✓ Sample transcript and analysed outputs from this transcript

4.  Ethical considerations

Hermeneutic phenomenological research methods, such as conversational interviewing, typically require the researcher to enter the participant’s lifeworld and access their lived experience (Polit and Hungler, 1999). This intrusion into the private sphere means that hermeneutic phenomenological research is categorised as “sensitive” research. Consequently, ethical considerations are of great importance in research adopting a hermeneutic phenomenological approach, particularly this study which sought to access the lived experience of psychological distress. Gaining ethical approval is at the heart of all research, particularly sensitive research. Accordingly, this study necessitated, and was successfully awarded, ethical approval from the ethics committees of the two universities and one mental health service from which students were recruited.

This research was underpinned by two main ethical principles: informed consent and confidentiality.

1. Informed consent is the principle that participants should not be coerced or pressured into research against their will, but that their participation should be based on voluntarism and with full understanding of the implications of participation. Informed consent has been the cornerstone of ethical guidelines since the Nuremberg Code – a code established as a result of the atrocities carried out by medical professionals during the Second World War. Students who volunteered to participate in this study were informed about the aims of this research, what participation would entail, and their rights as participants in a number of ways. They were provided with a copy of the consent form and given time to read this in advance of the initial interview. The interview itself began with a verbal reiteration of the study’s aims and the students’ rights, as well as an opportunity to ask any questions, before the student completed and signed the informed consent form.

2. Confidentiality: The Declaration of Helsinki which outlines the ethical principles of medical research, added confidentiality and privacy to the Nuremberg Code. Confidentiality means not disclosing information gained from research in other settings, such as everyday informal conversation. It also relates to the protection of the identity of participants and sites in published accounts of the research. Participant confidentiality was a significant factor in this study – one that was taken very seriously. The only instance in which confidentiality would have been breached was in the event that participants were deemed to be at immediate risk of harming themselves or others. This was in line with standard ethical practice in mental health research (Psychological Society of Ireland, 2011) and participants were made fully aware of this limit to confidentiality verbally, in the information sheet and in the consent form which they were asked to sign before the first interview. Thankfully, this did not emerge as an issue at any stage throughout the study but if it had a protocol was in place at all times to ensure the researcher could access additional supports for the students if necessary. Anonymity was an important aspect of confidentiality. Students were asked to choose their own pseudonym – a name that they liked and felt represented them without making them in any way identifiable. Other distinguishing features such as names, places, courses of study, or events that would be considered usual or likely to make the student identifiable were altered to protect the student’s identity.

In addition to these two cornerstones of ethical research, Beauchamp and Childers (2001) outline a number of moral principles upon which ethical research practice is based. These are:

Respect for autonomy: respecting an individual’s right to make decisions and enabling them to make reasoned informed choices.

Respect for autonomy means respecting the participants’ freedom to decide what to do. This particularly relates to the students’ right to withdraw at any time without having to offer a reason. As already outlined, students were informed about their rights as participants in a number of ways – the participant information sheet, verbally at their first interview, and again in the consent form where they were required to tick boxes to confirm that they understood what was being asked of them and their rights as participants (including the right to withdraw at any time without giving a reason). Moreover, respect was one of the strongest values underpinning this research and respect for the student, and the stories they shared, extended far beyond the data generation process to every aspect of the analysis, write up, and dissemination phases.

Beneficence: seeking to achieve the best balance between risk and benefit that achieves the greatest benefits for the individual.

This study sought to capture the unique insight and expertise of those with lived experience of psychological distress so as to better understand the experience. At the outset, it wasn’t clear whether the participant would see any personal benefit in participating in the study. In addition, there was concern that participation might result in the student revisiting painful experience which may be distressing for them. However, as the data generation process unfolded it became clear that participating in this research offered students a rare opportunity to be listened to; to be truly heard for what they had to say without being interrupted or corrected; and for their perspectives and insights to be held as valuable sources of knowledge. In addition, students spoke about how much they wished to share their experiences in the hope that it might one day help someone else in a similar situation. It appears that these two, largely unforeseen, aspects of participation meant that sharing their stories as part of the research was a worthwhile and even “cathartic” (Kinsley – follow-up email) experience for the students.

Justice: addressing issues fairly for individuals in the same or similar situation.

This study viewed the phenomenon of psychological distress, to borrow Marcel’s (1950) sentiment, not as a problem in need of a solution but a mystery in need of evocative comprehension. It does not seek justice or to unravel a problem, rather to achieve a direct contact with the world of living with psychological distress. In this sense, the present study sought to “do justice” to participants’ lived experiences rather than result in justice for participants and those in a similar situation.

Non-maleficence: avoiding causing harm.

The protection of those who participated in this study was of utmost concern. This concern extended beyond the important ethical aspects associated with the data generation process, to the protection of the students accounts, and the integrity with which these stories were treated during analysis, presentation, and dissemination.

Conclusion

The ability to learn from the experiences of others, as Adams suggests at the beginning of this appendix, presents one of the greatest opportunities available to us as human beings. Hermeneutic phenomenology represents a powerful way of understanding lived experience. However, many prospective hermeneutic phenomenological researchers struggle to find an entry point into the complex philosophy of phenomenology; to align the ontological, epistemological, and methodological orientations of the approach; to demonstrate the trustworthiness or validity of the research; and to know that they have considered all possible ethical requirements. I hope that prospective hermeneutic phenomenological researchers will be reassured, even encouraged, in reviewing this one attempt to research lived experience. I wish you well.