Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Hermeneutic phenomenology is a qualitative research approach that seeks to understand the meaning of lived experiences. It combines phenomenology, which focuses on the structure of experience, with hermeneutics, which focuses on the interpretation of meaning.

Hermeneutic phenomenology acknowledges that experience is always interpreted, both by the participant and the researcher, through a double hermeneutic. The participant interprets their own experience, and the researcher then interprets the participant doing so.

Philosophical Origins

Hermeneutic phenomenology was developed primarily through the work of Martin Heidegger and later expanded by philosophers including Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur.

Heidegger and Dasein

Heidegger, in Being and Time, argued that human existence, which he called Dasein, is fundamentally interpretive. Dasein is always already engaged in the world. Its understanding of that world is shaped by its history, culture, and personal experiences.

Heidegger rejected the idea of a purely objective or neutral observer. He argued that understanding always involves a fusion of horizons between the interpreter and the interpreted.

Gadamer and the Dialogical Turn

Gadamer developed these ideas further. He stressed the dialogical nature of understanding, meaning it has the structure of a two-way conversation rather than a one-way reading.

He argued that understanding emerges through a conversation between the interpreter and the text or phenomenon being interpreted.

This conversation is shaped by the interpreter’s preconceptions, which Gadamer called prejudices. Historical context shapes it too.

Gadamer’s concept of the hermeneutic circle highlights the iterative process of understanding. Our initial understanding shapes how we interpret the parts. In turn, our interpretation of the parts reshapes our understanding of the whole.

In practice, hermeneutic phenomenology is often used in fields like nursing, education, and psychology. It helps researchers understand how people make sense of significant life experiences, illness, professional practice, or other phenomena that are complex and deeply personal.

Practical Steps

Hermeneutic phenomenological research embraces the dynamic, evolving nature of understanding. Meaning here is never fixed. It emerges through the interplay between the researcher, the participant, and the phenomenon itself.

This approach allows researchers to generate insights that are both rigorous and relevant, contributing to a deeper understanding of human experience and its meaning in the world.

1. Research Question Formulation

A well-crafted question guides the researcher’s exploration of lived experiences and ensures that the study remains focused on the interpretive process.

Formulate a research question that is open-ended, exploratory, and focuses on the lived experience of the chosen phenomenon. The question should invite participants to share their personal perspectives, meanings, and understandings.

Develop a question focused on lived experience:

The research question should directly target the personal and subjective experiences of individuals. The aim is to understand how people make sense of their world and the meanings they ascribe to specific phenomena.

For example, a hermeneutic phenomenological question does not ask “What are the effects of chronic pain on daily life?” That question is too objective. Instead, it asks: “How do individuals living with chronic pain experience and make sense of their daily lives?”

This shift in focus emphasizes understanding the world from the participants’ perspectives.

Ensure interpretive potential:

The research question should be open-ended and exploratory, inviting participants to share their unique perspectives and interpretations.

It should not impose predetermined categories or seek to confirm pre-existing hypotheses. Simple yes-or-no questions are out.

So are questions that lead to factual or objective responses. The goal is to explore the complex and nuanced ways individuals interpret and give meaning to their experiences.

2. Recruit Participants

In hermeneutic phenomenology, the recruitment of participants is not a mere procedural step but a crucial element that shapes the entire research process.

By carefully selecting participants who have direct experience with the phenomenon of interest and who can offer unique insights and perspectives, researchers lay the foundation for a rich and meaningful hermeneutic phenomenological study.

• Direct Experience: The cornerstone of hermeneutic phenomenology is the exploration of lived experience. Therefore, participants must have first-hand, direct experience with the phenomenon being investigated. This ensures that the data gathered is rich, nuanced, and grounded in the participants’ own lifeworlds.
• Purposeful Selection: Researchers carefully and intentionally select participants who can offer unique and insightful perspectives on the phenomenon under study. This selective process ensures that the study captures the diversity and richness of human experience.
• Idiography: This approach emphasizes the in-depth study of the individual, recognizing that each person’s experience is unique and holds valuable meaning. The researcher’s goal is not to generalize findings to a larger population but to gain a deep and nuanced understanding of the phenomenon as it is lived and interpreted by each individual.

3. Data Collection

The data collection methods employed should facilitate an in-depth exploration of the participant’s lifeworld, their everyday world of lived, taken-for-granted experience. The aim is to capture the nuances of their experiences and the meanings they ascribe to them.

Phenomenological interviews:

Semi-structured interviews are commonly used in hermeneutic phenomenology.

The interview process is seen as a dialogical encounter where meaning is co-constructed.

The researcher uses open-ended questions to encourage participants to articulate their experiences in detail.

Through careful listening, the researcher attempts to understand the participant’s world and how they make sense of the phenomenon.

Prompting and probing help. They elicit richer data and maintain a conversational flow.

The researcher can follow the participant’s lead, probing interesting areas as they emerge, allowing for in-depth exploration of the participant’s experiences and interpretations.

This back-and-forth exploration of perspectives helps to bridge the gap between the researcher’s and participant’s horizons.

Flexibility is key; the researcher should be responsive to the participant’s cues and be willing to deviate from the interview guide if needed.

Written narratives and journals:

Personal accounts and diaries can offer valuable insights into the participant’s lived experiences.

This method allows participants to reflect on their experiences in their own time and space, potentially revealing deeper layers of meaning.

Researchers can analyze these texts for recurring themes, patterns of meaning-making, and the participant’s evolving understanding of the phenomenon.

Document observations:

Observation can supplement interview data, providing a richer understanding of the participant’s lifeworld and the context in which the phenomenon is experienced.

Observations can be documented through field notes, capturing details about the setting, the participant’s behavior, and any relevant interactions.

In some cases, the researcher’s own self-reflection on their experiences can serve as a data source.

Record contextual information:

Hermeneutic phenomenology emphasizes understanding experiences within their social, cultural, and historical contexts.

Researchers should document any relevant contextual factors that might influence the participant’s experience of the phenomenon.

This includes details about the participant’s background, their environment, and cultural norms that might shape their interpretation of the phenomenon.

4. Initial Reading

In hermeneutic phenomenology, the initial reading of the collected data marks the beginning of the interpretive journey.

This stage is not about hastily extracting themes or rushing to conclusions. Instead, it is a process of immersing oneself in the participants’ narratives and developing a preliminary understanding of their lived experiences.

Here’s a closer look at this crucial step:

Reading and re-reading the data:

The researcher reads the entire data set, including transcripts, written narratives, and observation notes, multiple times.

This repeated engagement allows for deeper immersion in the participants’ words and a gradual unfolding of meaning.

Each reading may reveal new insights, prompting further reflection and interpretation.

There is no fixed number.

The researcher should re-read the data until they feel a sense of familiarity and richness in their understanding of the participants’ experiences.

Preliminary understanding:

The initial reading phase aims for a holistic understanding of the phenomenon, built from participants’ experiences. It begins with the “big picture,” not detailed analysis.

The researcher examines language as the primary medium of experience, paying attention to word choices, cultural significance, and multiple layers of meaning.

This helps researchers enter the participant’s world.

During this phase, researchers focus on overall tone, mood, and recurring patterns in the narratives.

They identify and highlight key statements that capture essential experiences, emotions, and meanings.

These key statements will serve as anchors in the subsequent stages of analysis.

Engage in a hermeneutic phenomenological attitude:

It’s important to be aware of one’s own biases and assumptions and to approach the data with an open and curious mind.

As the researcher engages with the data, they should note down their initial impressions, thoughts, and feelings.

This process of reflexivity, examining and documenting one’s own assumptions and influence on the research, helps to acknowledge the researcher’s own pre-understandings. It shows how they might be shaping the interpretive process.

This ongoing self-awareness helps the researcher to recognize the limitations of their own perspective and be more open to the participant’s viewpoint.

By acknowledging their own positionality, the researcher is better equipped to engage in a genuine fusion of horizons.

5. Detailed Analysis

The detailed analysis stage is a dynamic and iterative process, guided by the principles of the hermeneutic circle and an openness to the evolving understanding of the phenomenon.

Extracting meaning units:

Meaning units are concise and meaningful summaries of key ideas or experiences expressed by the participants.

They capture the essence of the lived experience, conveying the participant’s perspective and interpretation.

They represent significant aspects of how participants perceive, feel, think, and make sense of the phenomenon.

For example:

• “I feel like I’m just going through the motions, like a robot” – captures a sense of emotional depletion and detachment.
• “I’m constantly worried about making a mistake; the stakes are just too high” – reveals the intense pressure and anxiety experienced.
• “I used to love my job, but now it just drains me” – highlights a shift in perspective and a loss of passion.

Meaning units are the building blocks of codes. They provide the raw material for developing and refining codes.

The process of identifying meaning units often precedes coding, as it allows researchers to immerse themselves in the data and understand the participants’ experiences before assigning conceptual labels.

Coding significant statements:

Codes are conceptual labels or tags assigned to segments of data that share a common theme or idea.

They represent a higher level of abstraction than meaning units, grouping similar ideas together to identify patterns in the data.

For example:

• Emotional Exhaustion – to encompass feelings of depletion, detachment, and cynicism.
• Fear of Failure – to capture anxieties about making mistakes and high-stakes situations.
• Loss of Meaning – to represent the experience of diminished passion and purpose in work.

By grouping similar meaning units together under a common code, researchers can begin to see patterns and relationships within the data.

The process of moving from meaning units to codes is often iterative and dynamic.

This step repeats often. As researchers analyze the data and develop codes, they return to the meaning units to refine their understanding, checking that the codes still capture the essence of the participants’ experiences.

Documenting the interpretive process:

Hermeneutic phenomenology acknowledges the active role of the researcher in the interpretation process.

It is crucial to document this process through reflexive notes and memos.

This documentation captures the researcher’s evolving understanding of the data, their decisions about coding and theme development, and their reflections on how their own perspectives might be influencing the analysis.

In short, this matters. Reflexive notes help ensure transparency and trustworthiness (the qualitative-research equivalent of validity and reliability), allowing others to trace the researcher’s interpretive journey and understand how they arrived at their conclusions.

Applying the hermeneutic circle:

The hermeneutic circle describes the continuous back-and-forth movement between understanding the parts and the whole.

Researchers constantly shift their focus between individual statements, emerging themes, and the overall context of the participant’s narrative.

This circular process allows for a deeper and more comprehensive interpretation as the researcher continually refines their understanding.

For example, a researcher studying the experience of isolation might notice a participant mentioning feelings of “being invisible.”

Look closer, though. This statement can be understood in relation to the individual’s own experience. It also prompts the researcher to consider broader themes, such as social invisibility and the impact of societal structures on individual lives.

The pattern holds up.

This interplay between the part and the whole leads to richer interpretations.

The hermeneutic circle ensures that the analysis remains grounded in the data while also acknowledging the researcher’s active role in the interpretation process.

6. Theme Development

The theme development stage in hermeneutic phenomenology involves refining and organizing the insights gleaned from the detailed analysis.

It’s an iterative process of moving from a collection of individual meanings to a more structured and coherent understanding of the phenomenon as a whole.

Grouping related meanings:

At this point, you’ve extracted meaning units and coded them.

Now, you begin to group codes based on conceptual similarities.

These groupings (or categories) form the foundation for developing themes.

For example, if you are researching the experience of grief, you might group codes including feelings of emptiness, loss, and yearning under a broader theme of ‘experiencing profound absence’.

Developing theme structure:

As you group codes, a hierarchical structure of themes and subthemes begins to emerge.

Superordinate themes, representing broader and more overarching aspects of the phenomenon, are identified.

These superordinate themes are further broken down into subthemes that capture the nuances and variations within the broader themes.

Considering relationships between themes:

Theme development is not simply about categorization; it’s also about understanding the connections and interplay between themes.

Consider how themes overlap, influence, or contradict each other.

Explore the dynamic interplay of experiences and how they contribute to the overall understanding of the phenomenon.

For instance, a researcher might explore how the theme of “searching for an explanation” intertwines with themes of “not being believed” and “withdrawing from others.”

Analyzing these relationships can provide deep insights into the lived experience of the phenomenon.

Returning to raw data for verification:

Throughout the theme development process, it’s essential to continuously return to the raw data – the interview transcripts, written narratives, and observation notes.

This iterative process ensures that the themes are grounded in the participants’ own words and experiences, preventing researcher bias from dominating the interpretation.

If a theme doesn’t seem adequately supported by the data, it might need to be revised, refined, or even discarded.

The goal is to create a thematic structure that accurately and comprehensively represents the essence of the participants’ lived experiences.

7. Integration

The integration stage represents the culmination of the interpretive journey. Here, the researcher moves beyond thematic analysis. They synthesize the findings, weave them into a coherent narrative, and explore their broader significance.

Here’s a closer look at the key processes involved in this final stage:

Synthesizing findings:

At this stage, the researcher steps back from the individual themes and considers the overall picture that has emerged from the analysis.

The goal is to weave the themes together into a cohesive narrative that captures the essence of the participants’ lived experiences of the phenomenon.

This synthesis goes beyond simply summarizing the themes; it involves identifying the key insights, highlighting the interconnections between themes, and constructing a meaningful and compelling story about the phenomenon.

Writing an interpretive summary:

The researcher crafts a written account of the study that presents the findings in a clear, engaging, and insightful manner.

This interpretive summary goes beyond a mere presentation of themes and subthemes. It involves:

• Rich descriptions of the participants’ experiences, using vivid language that brings the phenomenon to life.
• Direct quotes from the participants to illustrate the themes and provide a sense of the participants’ voices.
• Analytic commentary that connects the themes, explains their significance, and offers insights into the meaning of the phenomenon.

This written account should be accessible to a wider audience, while remaining grounded in the principles of hermeneutic phenomenology.

The researcher must strike a balance between staying true to the participants’ experiences and offering a scholarly interpretation that contributes to the broader understanding of the phenomenon.

Connecting to existing literature:

The integration stage involves situating the findings within the context of existing knowledge and research.

The researcher reviews relevant literature to identify areas of convergence and divergence. The analysis might:

• Support existing theories
• Challenge prevailing assumptions
• Identify gaps in current understanding
• Offer new perspectives on the phenomenon.

This process of connecting to existing literature helps to validate the findings, enhance their significance, and contribute to the ongoing scholarly conversation about the phenomenon.

Considering practical implications:

Hermeneutic phenomenology, while rooted in philosophical inquiry, also recognizes the potential for practical applications.

Researchers reflect on the implications of the findings for various fields, such as:

• Clinical practice: Insights into lived experiences can inform therapeutic approaches and interventions.
• Education: Understanding how people learn and make sense of experiences can inform pedagogical practices.
• Policy development: Knowledge of lived experiences can contribute to more informed and sensitive policies.

The researcher might offer recommendations for practice or future research based on the insights gained from the study.

---

Example: The Lived Experience of Burnout Among Healthcare Workers

1. Research Question Formulation:

Driven by a desire to understand the increasing rates of burnout among healthcare workers, a researcher might formulate the following broad and open-ended research question:

What is the lived experience of burnout among healthcare workers?

2. Recruit Participants:

The researcher seeks to recruit a small, purposeful sample of healthcare workers who have personally experienced burnout.

A diverse group of participants representing different roles (e.g., nurses, doctors, technicians) and healthcare settings (e.g., hospitals, clinics) would be ideal.

3. Data Collection:

In-depth, semi-structured interviews would be conducted with each participant. The researcher might start with a broad question, such as:

“Can you tell me about your experiences with burnout?”

Follow-up questions would encourage participants to elaborate on their feelings, thoughts, bodily sensations, and how burnout has affected their personal and professional lives.

4. Initial Reading:

After transcribing the interviews, the researcher engages in multiple readings of each transcript.

The goal is to immerse oneself in the data, paying close attention to the participants’ language, tone of voice, and the emotional weight they attach to their experiences.

5. Detailed Analysis:

Moving back and forth between the parts and the whole of the data (the hermeneutic circle), the researcher begins to identify meaningful units within the transcripts.

These units might be phrases, sentences, or longer passages that capture significant aspects of the participants’ experiences.

For example:

• “I feel like I’m just going through the motions, like a robot.”
• “I’m constantly worried about making a mistake; the stakes are just too high.”
• “I used to love my job, but now it just drains me.”

The researcher makes notes in the margins, highlighting these units and jotting down initial thoughts, questions, and connections.

6. Theme Development:

As patterns and connections emerge, the researcher begins to group the meaningful units into themes. These themes represent shared aspects of the participants’ lived experiences of burnout.

Some possible themes that might emerge from this study include:

• Emotional Exhaustion: Feelings of depletion, detachment, and cynicism.
• Depersonalization: A sense of distance and disconnection from patients and colleagues.
• Reduced Personal Accomplishment: A diminished sense of competence and meaning in one’s work.
• Impact on Identity: Burnout leading to changes in self-perception, relationships, and overall well-being.

The researcher refines and clarifies the themes, ensuring they are grounded in the data and capture the essence of the participants’ experiences.

7. Integration:

The final stage involves synthesizing the findings, weaving the themes together into a coherent narrative that offers a rich and nuanced understanding of burnout among healthcare workers.

• The researcher draws on vivid language and direct quotes to illustrate the themes and bring the participants’ experiences to life.
• The researcher situates the findings within the context of existing literature, highlighting points of convergence, divergence, and new insights.
• The researcher reflects on the practical implications of the study, exploring how the findings might inform interventions, support systems, and policies aimed at addressing burnout in healthcare settings.

The final product might be a journal article, a book chapter, or a presentation.

Regardless of the format, the goal stays the same. The insights should honor the participants’ experiences, contribute to scholarly knowledge, and potentially promote positive change.

---

Benefits of Hermeneutic Phenomenological Research

Some benefits of conducting hermeneutic phenomenological research include:

• Gaining a Deep Understanding of Lived Experience: Hermeneutic phenomenology allows researchers to gain a deep understanding of the meaning that individuals make of their experiences. This understanding can be valuable in a number of contexts, including clinical practice, education, and policy development.
• Giving Voice to Marginalized or Underrepresented Groups: Hermeneutic phenomenology can be used to amplify the voices of individuals who have been traditionally silenced or ignored. This can help to challenge dominant narratives and to promote social justice.
• Developing New Theories and Insights: Hermeneutic phenomenology can be used to generate new theories and insights about the human condition. These theories and insights can be valuable in informing our understanding of ourselves and the world around us.
• Interventions: Hermeneutic phenomenology can make a valuable contribution to practice in a number of ways. By providing a deeper understanding of lived experiences, it can help practitioners to develop more effective interventions and policies, and provide more empathetic and person-centered care.

Phenomenology vs. Hermeneutic Phenomenology

The two traditions share a name. They part ways on one question: what should a researcher do with their own preconceptions?

Husserl’s Phenomenology

Phenomenology was developed by Edmund Husserl. It centers on the meticulous description of phenomena as they directly present themselves to consciousness.

Its aim is to bracket, or suspend, the researcher’s own preconceptions and biases. This process is called epoché. Through it, Husserl believed, a pure and unadulterated account of experience becomes possible.

He believed this rigorous method could reveal the universal essences of phenomena. These are the underlying structures that transcend individual perspectives.

His approach emphasizes the possibility of objective observation. It strives to capture the true nature of experience as it appears in consciousness.

Heidegger’s Hermeneutic Phenomenology

Hermeneutic phenomenology, largely influenced by Martin Heidegger, shifts the focus. Its concern is interpreting the meaning of lived experiences.

Understanding, on this view, is not a passive reception of information. It is an active, interpretive process. It is shaped by the researcher’s own background and perspectives.

Hermeneutic phenomenologists draw on Heidegger’s concept of Dasein. Our being-in-the-world, they argue, is always already interpretive. We are constantly engaged in making sense of our experiences.

Instead of bracketing preconceptions, hermeneutic phenomenology embraces the researcher’s pre-understandings as valuable tools. Gadamer called these pre-understandings prejudices. They form the starting point for a dialogical process of interpretation.

Rather than striving for a purely objective description, hermeneutic phenomenology combines description with interpretation. The goal is meaning within context.

Experiences, on this view, are always embedded in a web of historical, cultural, and personal meanings. All observation is inherently interpretive. It is shaped by the fusion of horizons between researcher and participant.

This fusion of horizons is a merging of perspectives. The researcher acknowledges their own pre-understandings. At the same time, they stay open to the participant’s unique viewpoint.

Hermeneutic phenomenology often employs the hermeneutic circle as a tool for analysis. This means moving back and forth between the parts and the whole of the data.

Initial interpretations guide a closer look at specific parts. Those closer readings, in turn, revise the understanding of the whole. The process repeats until a coherent understanding emerges.

In essence, the two traditions offer different pathways to human experience. Phenomenology aspires to uncover universal essences through objective observation. Hermeneutic phenomenology embraces the interpretive nature of understanding, seeking to illuminate the meaning of lived experiences within their specific contexts.

Alternative and Related Qualitative Approaches

Hermeneutic phenomenology is one of several qualitative traditions that ask how people understand and give meaning to their lives. It is often confused with, or deliberately combined with, its closest relatives.

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)

Interpretative phenomenological analysis comes from the same lineage. It also frames analysis as a double hermeneutic. The researcher tries to make sense of the participant making sense of their world.

Hermeneutic phenomenology foregrounds a philosophical apparatus: Dasein, fore-understanding, the fusion of horizons. IPA takes a different route. It is built around a more prescriptive, case-by-case coding procedure.

It typically works with smaller, more homogeneous samples. Each transcript is analysed on its own first, before the researcher looks across cases.

The boundary between the two is genuinely contested. Some methodologists treat IPA as one application of hermeneutic phenomenology to psychology. Studies increasingly combine the two frameworks rather than choosing between them.

IPA is closely associated with the psychologist Jonathan Smith. His work sits in the same phenomenological-hermeneutic tradition described here.

Grounded Theory, Thematic Analysis and Ethnography

Grounded theory: this shares a commitment to building understanding directly from participants’ own accounts. Its endpoint, though, is different.

It does not aim to illuminate what an experience means. Instead, it generates an explanatory theory of a social process, using systematic coding and theoretical sampling.

A hermeneutic phenomenological study of grief asks what grief means to the people living it. A grounded theory study is more likely to build a stage model of how people move through it.

The two goals differ sharply.

Thematic and content analysis: this identifies and organises patterns of meaning across a data set. It uses tools such as coding and theme development.

It carries none of hermeneutic phenomenology’s philosophical commitments about the nature of understanding. It can be applied within almost any theoretical framework, or none at all.

No fore-understanding needs theorising.

Ethnography: this grounds its data in sustained immersion in a setting. It relies on extended observation and participation over time.

Interview or narrative accounts are not its main source. The two traditions can be combined, but they draw on different kinds of data.

Critical Evaluation

Hermeneutic phenomenology has real strengths and real, still-debated limitations. Both are worth setting out before choosing the approach for a study.

Strength: Access to Meaning Other Methods Miss

Hermeneutic phenomenology does not reduce experience to categories or frequencies. Because of this, it can surface aspects of illness, caregiving and professional practice that structured methods miss.

Two examples make this concrete. One is the demanding, individualised work of understanding another person’s spiritual needs in dementia care (Toivonen et al., 2018). The other is the double meaning of a hospital unit as both a holding space and a transitional space for stroke survivors (Suddick et al., 2021).

A quantitative measure can establish that an experience is common. Only an interpretive method of this depth can show what it means to live through it. This is part of why the tradition has become a default choice in nursing and healthcare research (Annells, 1996).

Rigour Without a Standard Method

Heidegger and Gadamer wrote as philosophers, not method-writers. So hermeneutic phenomenology has no single agreed procedure.

This leaves open exactly what counts as a rigorous analysis. It makes published studies genuinely difficult to compare against one another (Standing, 2009).

Recent work has tried to close this gap. It has done so in two different ways.

Alsaigh and Coyne (2021) built an explicit, teachable data-analysis framework. It is organised around Gadamer’s three core concepts: pre-understanding, the hermeneutic circle, and the fusion of horizons.

Suddick et al. (2020) argue differently. What should be evaluated, they say, is the visible, reflexive labour a researcher documents at every stage, not adherence to a fixed template.

The debate is a live methodological problem. It is not a settled one.

Contemporary Research

The clearest recent test of the approach comes from a study of nurses supporting the spiritual needs of older people living with dementia.

• Aim: Toivonen, Charalambous and Suhonen (2018) set out to describe nurses’ experience of supporting spirituality in dementia care, a topic on which prior qualitative research had concentrated on palliative and end-of-life care.
• Method: Working from an explicitly Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenological stance, they interviewed a purposive sample of 17 nurses about their day-to-day practice.
• Results: Supporting spirituality meant coming to understand each older person’s spiritual needs, expressed both verbally and non-verbally, within a framework of person-centred, individualised care.
• Conclusion: Developing this kind of spiritual understanding is genuinely difficult, demanding work. Nurses need better tools and training to respond to each person’s individual spiritual needs.

A smaller study reached a similar conclusion from a different population. A different team ran this one. Suddick, Cross, Vuoskoski, Stew and Galvin (2021) interviewed four stroke survivors about their time on an acute stroke unit.

They found the unit worked as a “holding space”, offering protection amid the disruption of stroke. It also worked as a “transitional space”, through which survivors’ sense of self was challenged or reasserted.

Two spaces, one unit.

Read together, the two studies point to the same finding. Hermeneutic phenomenology’s characteristic result is not one shared experience. It is a small number of richly differentiated ways of living through the same event.

Idiographic Depth Versus Generalisability

The approach studies a small, purposively selected group in depth: 17 nurses in Toivonen et al. (2018), four stroke survivors in Suddick et al. (2021).

This is a deliberate methodological choice. It is not a limitation the researchers failed to overcome.

The aim is a rich, individualised account of how a phenomenon is lived. It is not an estimate of how common a particular experience is in the wider population.

Quantitative psychology usually aims for nomothetic knowledge: general laws that apply across a population. Hermeneutic phenomenology deliberately gives that up in exchange for depth.

This is a genuine trade-off. Hermeneutic phenomenological findings are best read as evidence of the range and depth of possible experience, not as a representative sample of it.

Cultural and Ethical Considerations

Heidegger’s and Gadamer’s hermeneutics developed within a specifically European, twentieth-century philosophical tradition. The setting matters. It rests on assumptions about selfhood, language and history that are not universal.

Applying the method to participants from very different cultural backgrounds carries a risk. It can impose a culturally specific way of theorising “understanding” onto experiences that may not be organised in the same terms.

The risk is real.

Kearney (2015) has tried to extend hermeneutic interpretation beyond language, into the lived, sensing body. Much of how people make sense of experience, he argues, happens through touch and embodied perception rather than words alone.

Words are not the only channel.

The method also asks participants to reflect at length on vulnerable experiences: dementia caregiving, surviving a stroke, occupational burnout. Informed consent, debriefing and the researcher’s own emotional engagement all need active, ongoing management.

Reading List

• Alsaigh, R., & Coyne, I. (2021). Doing a hermeneutic phenomenology research underpinned by Gadamer’s philosophy: A framework to facilitate data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20.
• Annells, M. (1996). Hermeneutic phenomenology: Philosophical perspectives and current use in nursing research. Journal of advanced nursing, 23(4), 705-713.
• Applebaum, M. (2012). Phenomenological psychological research as science. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 43(1), 36-72.
• Dostal, R. J. (1987). The world never lost: The hermeneutics of trust. Philosophy and phenomenological research, 47(3), 413-434.
• Frechette, J., Bitzas, V., Aubry, M., Kilpatrick, K., & Lavoie-Tremblay, M. (2020). Capturing lived experience: Methodological considerations for interpretive phenomenological inquiry. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19.
• Gadamer, H. G. (1977). Philosophical hermeneutics. Univ of California Press.
• Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. Harper & Row.
• Kafle, N. P. (2011). Hermeneutic phenomenological research method simplified. Bodhi: An interdisciplinary journal, 5(1), 181-200.
• Kavanagh, C. (2018). What contemporary models of disability miss: The case for a phenomenological hermeneutic analysis. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 11(2), 63-82.
• Kearney, R. (2015). What is carnal hermeneutics?. New Literary History, 46(1), 99-124.
• Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic phenomenology and phenomenology: A comparison of historical and methodological considerations. International journal of qualitative methods, 2(3), 21-35.
• Ricoeur, P. (1975). Phenomenology and hermeneutics. Noûs, 85-102.
• Smith, J. A. (2007). Hermeneutics, human sciences and health: Linking theory and practice. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on health and Well-being, 2(1), 3-11.
• Standing, M. (2009). A new critical framework for applying hermeneutic phenomenology. Nurse Researcher, 16(4).
• Suddick, K. M., Cross, V., Vuoskoski, P., Galvin, K. T., & Stew, G. (2020). The work of hermeneutic phenomenology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1609406920947600.
• Suddick, K. M., Cross, V., Vuoskoski, P., Stew, G., & Galvin, K. T. (2021). Holding space and transitional space: stroke survivors’ lived experience of being on an acute stroke unit. A hermeneutic phenomenological study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 35(1), 104-114.
• Toivonen, K., Charalambous, A., & Suhonen, R. (2018). Supporting spirituality in the care of older people living with dementia: A hermeneutic phenomenological inquiry into nurses’ experiences. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 32(2), 880-888.