What Is Bracketing In Qualitative Research?

Bracketing, also known as epoché or phenomenological reduction, is a technique where researchers set aside (or “bracket out”) their own preconceptions, assumptions, and prior knowledge about a phenomenon to study it more objectively.

Bracketing is a key element of quality in qualitative research, allowing researchers to embrace subjectivity while also managing its potential pitfalls.

This concept was introduced by Edmund Husserl, the founder of phenomenology, and while its use has expanded beyond that philosophical tradition, its meaning remains somewhat ambiguous.

Scholars have offered various definitions, including:

This lack of a singular definition reflects the complexity of bracketing and the flexibility inherent in qualitative research.

However, this ambiguity also presents challenges, as it can make it difficult to determine how, when, and if to use bracketing effectively.

Tensions in Bracketing

There is no consensus among scholars on several key aspects of bracketing, creating tensions that researchers must navigate:

• What is being bracketed? Some researchers focus on bracketing beliefs and values, while others emphasize thoughts and hypotheses, biases, emotions, preconceptions, presuppositions, or assumptions.
• When should bracketing occur? Some advocate for bracketing at the start of the research, while others suggest focusing on it during data analysis. However, given the iterative nature of qualitative research, preconceptions arising at any stage can impact the entire process.
• Who should bracket? While the focus is typically on the researcher, some argue that participants should also engage in bracketing.
• How should bracketing be conducted? Various methods have been proposed, including:
  • Writing reflective memos before and during research
  • Maintaining a bracketing journal
  • Having regular discussions with peers or supervisors about potential biases
  • Conducting preliminary interviews to surface personal assumptions

The choice of method often depends on the nature of the research and the anticipated emotions or cognitions the researcher might encounter.

What should be bracketed?

In phenomenological research, bracketing involves suspending preconceptions and judgments to approach the phenomenon with an open mind.

This allows researchers to focus on the participant’s experience without imposing their own interpretations.

Here are some elements that researchers typically bracket during phenomenological research:

• Previous knowledge: Researchers should set aside their prior knowledge about the phenomenon, including theoretical frameworks and personal experiences. Bracketing previous understandings is crucial, but this does not mean striving for objectivity. Instead, it’s about recognizing and acknowledging the impact of one’s subjectivity.
• Assumptions about the truth of participant statements: It’s important to accept the participant’s experience as valid and real, even if it contradicts the researcher’s own beliefs or understanding. For example, if a participant describes a dream, the researcher should not dismiss it as “just a dream.”
• Personal feelings and needs: Researchers should minimize the influence of their own emotions and needs on the research process. This is especially important in therapy, where it is unethical for the therapist to prioritize their own needs over the client’s.
• Cultural assumptions and values: Researchers should be mindful of their own cultural biases and avoid imposing them on the participant’s experience.

When should bracketing occur?

Bracketing is not a one-time event but an ongoing process that should be integrated into every stage of the research.

This framework emphasizes the iterative nature of bracketing, recognizing that preconceptions can arise and need to be addressed throughout the study.

Bracketing Throughout the Research Process

1. Project Conceptualization: Before data collection, bracketing helps researchers acknowledge their motivations, experiences, and potential biases related to the research topic. This early reflexivity aids in formulating clear and unbiased research questions and selecting appropriate methods.
2. Data Collection: During data collection, bracketing allows researchers to remain open to unexpected insights while managing potential emotional responses. Regularly writing reflective memos or engaging in discussions with colleagues after interviews or observations can help surface and address emerging preconceptions.
3. Transcription: The act of transcribing itself can be a valuable bracketing exercise. As researchers listen attentively to the audio recordings, they are forced to confront their assumptions and biases about the participants and the research topic. This repeated engagement with the raw data can lead to a more nuanced understanding of the phenomenon under study.
4. Data Analysis: Bracketing during analysis is crucial for ensuring that interpretations are grounded in the data and not skewed by the researcher’s preconceived notions. Engaging in bracketing interviews with an outside source or continuing reflexive journaling can help maintain this critical distance.
5. Writing: Bracketing while writing ensures that participant voices are presented authentically and that the researcher’s interpretations are transparent and grounded in the data.

Additional Considerations for Timing

• Emotionally Charged Research: Bracketing is especially critical when exploring sensitive topics. Researchers may need to employ bracketing more frequently to manage their emotional responses and protect themselves and the integrity of the study.
• Researcher’s Familiarity with the Topic: If a researcher has personal or professional experience with the research subject, bracketing is crucial from the outset to identify and manage potential biases.
• Emergence of New Insights: Bracketing should be used whenever the researcher encounters surprising or unexpected findings. These moments can challenge existing assumptions and require careful reflection to ensure that interpretations remain grounded in the evolving understanding of the data.

Remember that bracketing is not about eliminating preconceptions altogether, as that is often impossible.

It is about consciously acknowledging, analyzing, and managing them throughout the research process.

By consistently engaging in bracketing, researchers can enhance the rigor, trustworthiness, and depth of their qualitative research.

How should bracketing be conducted?

• Initial Reflexive Journaling (before data collection): Maintaining a research journal allows researchers to document their thoughts, feelings, and experiences related to the research topic.
  • Before commencing interviews, the researcher maintains a journal to explore her personal experiences with workplace discrimination.
  • This process helps her identify specific biases, assumptions, and emotional responses that could influence data interpretation.
  • She might write entries like:
    • “I’m noticing that my own anger about past experiences might lead me to interpret ambiguous statements from participants as evidence of discrimination, even if other factors are at play. I need to be mindful of this tendency during analysis.”
    • “I remember feeling isolated and unsupported when facing discrimination. I wonder if participants will express similar feelings, and how I can explore these sensitively without imposing my own narrative.”
• Bracketing Interviews (during data collection): Engaging in discussions with an outside source, such as a colleague or mentor not directly involved in the research, provides an opportunity for external scrutiny of the researcher’s assumptions and interpretations. These interviews can help uncover hidden biases and challenge preconceived notions.
• Memo Writing (during data analysis): Similar to journaling, writing memos throughout the research process allows researchers to document their evolving understanding of the data and reflect on potential influences shaping their analysis.
  • Memos can be used to analyze emerging themes, document methodological decisions, and critically examine interpretations.
  • Some examples of memo notes are:
    • “Several participants described feeling ‘invisible’ in meetings. This resonates with my own experiences, but I need to be careful not to overemphasize this theme just because it’s personally salient.”
    • “I’m noticing a pattern of women downplaying their accomplishments when discussing discriminatory experiences. This could be a coping mechanism, but it also raises questions about internalized sexism. I need to explore this further in the literature.”
• Mindfulness and Meditation: Practicing mindfulness or meditation can help researchers cultivate a state of detached observation, allowing them to approach data with greater awareness and less judgment. These techniques can help manage emotional responses and promote a more objective and open-minded approach to analysis.
• Engaging with Diverse Perspectives: Exposing oneself to literature, theories, and perspectives that challenge their existing views can help researchers broaden their understanding and identify potential blind spots. This might involve reading work from scholars with different theoretical orientations or engaging with research from diverse cultural contexts.
• Peer Debriefing (ongoing): Regularly discussing the research process and findings with colleagues, peers, or research supervisors provides a valuable opportunity for external feedback and critical reflection. Peers can help identify potential biases, challenge interpretations, and offer alternative perspectives that the researcher might have overlooked.
• Reflexive Team Meetings: When conducting research as a team, incorporating regular reflexive team meetings into the research process allows for collaborative bracketing. Team members can discuss their individual experiences, assumptions, and potential biases, helping each other identify and manage influences that might impact the research.

Choosing the right bracketing methods often depends on:

• the researcher’s personal preferences and comfort levels.
• the nature of the research topic.
• the research design.

It is crucial to emphasize that bracketing is not about eliminating preconceptions entirely, as that’s often impossible.

The goal is to systematically identify, acknowledge, and manage them to ensure a rigorous and credible research process.

By employing a combination of these bracketing methods and engaging in continuous reflexivity, researchers can enhance the trustworthiness and depth of their qualitative findings.

Bracketing in Transcription

Bracketing in transcription is a crucial, yet often overlooked aspect of qualitative research.

It involves the researcher consciously acknowledging their own biases and assumptions while transforming spoken data into a written format.

This process recognizes that transcription is not merely a technical act but an interpretive one, shaped by the researcher’s background, experiences, and research goals.

Here are some key considerations for bracketing in transcription:

• Purpose of Transcription: Clearly define the aims of the study and how the transcription will contribute to analysis.
  • For instance, a study focusing on the emotional nuances of a conversation might necessitate a more detailed transcription, capturing pauses, laughter, and tone, compared to a study primarily interested in content.
• Selection of Features: Consciously decide which features of speech to include or omit.
  • Will you transcribe every “um” and “ah,” or prioritize content flow? Will nonverbal cues like laughter or silence be noted?
  • These decisions reflect the researcher’s understanding of what constitutes meaningful data.
• Impact of Transcription Conventions: Different transcription conventions serve specific research purposes and reflect various theoretical stances.
  • For example, standard prose transcription might not capture the nuances of topic-associating narratives often used by individuals with an African American heritage, necessitating alternative formats like poetic stanzas.
• Reflexivity During Transcription: Engage in self-reflection throughout the process, documenting decisions and potential biases in memos. Questions to consider might include:
  • “Am I editing the language to make it more grammatically correct, potentially distorting the participant’s voice?”
  • “Are my personal experiences with the research topic influencing how I hear and transcribe specific words or phrases?”
• Transparency in Reporting: Clearly articulate the transcription methods and rationale in the research report.
  • This allows readers to understand the interpretive choices made and assess the trustworthiness of the findings.

Benefits of Bracketing

Bracketing offers several benefits to qualitative research:

• Increased rigor and trustworthiness: By acknowledging and managing their preconceptions, researchers can minimize bias and enhance the credibility of their findings. This aligns with the concept of confirmability in qualitative research, which refers to the degree to which the findings are shaped by the respondents rather than the researcher’s biases.
• Deeper understanding of the data: Bracketing forces researchers to critically examine their assumptions, leading to a more nuanced and insightful analysis. It promotes a more authentic representation of participant realities.
• Protection of the researcher: Bracketing can help researchers manage the emotional toll of engaging with sensitive topics, particularly in social work research where the researcher might be deeply connected to the research subject.

Reading List

Beech, I. (1999). Bracketing in phenomenological research. Nurse Researcher (through 2013), 6(3), 35.

Drew, N. (2004). Creating a synthesis of intentionality: The role of the bracketing facilitator. Advances in Nursing Science, 27(3), 215-223.

Gearing, R. E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative health research, 14(10), 1429-1452.

Husserl, E. (1931) Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology, trans. Gilson W. R.
B.. New York: Humanities Press, Original work published 1913.

LeVasseur, J. J. (2003). The problem of bracketing in phenomenology. Qualitative health research, 13(3), 408-420.

Rolls, L., & Relf, M. (2006). Bracketing interviews: Addressing methodological challenges in qualitative interviewing in bereavement and palliative care. Mortality, 11(3), 286-305.

Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative social work, 11(1), 80-96.