Bracketing

Within phenomenography researchers aim to explore conceptions held by participants, to understand the world from the participant perspective. This is then necessarily dependent upon the students’ own lived experience of the world and researchers must recognise the individuality of experience. These reflected upon experiences are then categorised within categories of description to create an outcome space, a logically related and often hierarchical set of descriptions of the phenomenon in question (Marton, 1994; Ashworth & Lucas, 2000). To achieve this aim Ashworth and Lucas (2000) identified the need to have empathy with the student experience and for researchers to bracket their own assumptions relating to the phenomenon in question.

Marton (1994) stated that the researcher should bracket any preconceived ideas so that the focus is on similarities and differences in the ways phenomena appear to participants, rather than judging the extent to which the responses match the researchers understanding.

Ashworth and Lucas (1998, 2000) provide more detail in relation to bracketing and the kinds of presuppositions that should be bracketed. These are derived from the field of phenomenology and are identified as: importing earlier research findings, assuming pre-given structures or interpretations, presupposing the researchers own knowledge and beliefs, assuming certain research techniques prior to acquaintance with the nature of the phenomenon under study, and making assumptions about the cause of certain student experiences.

The issue of bracketing is a contested concept and Ashworth and Lucas (2000) did recognise that attempts to bracket will only be partially successful. Within the field of higher education many researchers will, like myself, also be subject teachers and will necessarily have an in- depth understanding of the subject discipline and at least some knowledge of educational

theory regarding student learning. Understandings regarding subject concepts and their associated theory are difficult to suspend when they become part of the individual’s life world. In addition, empirical research is guided by both prior theory and the area of interest of the researcher (Uljens, 1996), therefore researcher neutrality maybe an impossible aim. Webb (1997) saw particular issues for researcher neutrality arguing that phenomenographic research reports findings are subject to the discourses that they study and as such will report findings that reflect accepted versions of subject knowledge based on the researcher’s understanding. Nonetheless it is argued that efforts to set aside personal beliefs, prior knowledge and assumptions should be made to avoid prejudicing the data (Ashworth & Lucas, 1998, 2000; Hallett, 2014).

Orgill (as cited in Cousin, 2008) argued that it is reasonable to assume researchers have certain beliefs and experiences that will influence the research process. Orgill suggested that self- examination and open expression of these beliefs allows for more critical examination of research findings and adds additional insights into the research data. This position suggests a place for reflexivity in phenomenographic research undertakings and the reporting of them. The reflexive approach adopted in this study is discussed in section 6.3.2. Consideration of recent phenomenographic research literature suggests little attention is given to the issue of bracketing in reports, which perhaps reflects the inherent difficulties involved. Arguably these difficulties are greater when the subject discipline is of a professional nature such as nurse education. Any erroneous conceptions held by participants that have the potential to impact on patient safety cannot be left unchallenged. A more reflexive approach in acknowledging these issues and the actions taken by the researcher should they arise, allows for more open interpretation of the potential influence on the research findings. Contrary to negatively influencing the research, this approach can be seen as strengthening the research by its transparency and openness. This is the approach taken within this study.

As the focus of the interview was on the conceptions of recovery held by the interviewees attempts were made to put aside personal understandings of recovery. However, this has been recognised as a very difficult undertaking (Uljens, 1996; Ashworth& Lucas, 2000; Kim, 2010). This difficulty was experienced within the pilot study as the following extract demonstrates:

Extract 1

David:...it’s like the transformative experience of, they’ve experienced all these negative things and these awful things have happened as a result maybe like social isolation or whatever and it kind of strengthens them as a person and I think that is like the essence of recovery for me, when someone sort of goes through that strengthening process.

Interviewer: Is that something we might call resilience?

David: I suppose but then I suppose resilience comes from that, that’s how I understand it. Like because a baby isn’t resilient on its own necessarily but like once it grows..

David is seen to be discussing an aspect of recovery that is not necessarily named by him but which he sees as a process. This is then followed up by a suggestion from me as the

interviewer that what the interviewee may be talking about is resilience, a recognised aspect of recovery. David’s response shows that this was not actually what was meant. Failure to put aside personal understandings and the accepted disciplinary understandings of the concept of recovery on this occasion, demonstrated how researcher bias can be introduced. The pilot study interviews allowed for reflection of a personal position within the research, the opportunity to gain valuable insight into potential pitfalls, and to learn from mistakes made. The use of a reflexive journal aided this process of understanding personal biases and their potential to influence the data and is discussed in section 6.3.2.