Choosing a suitable phenomenological orientation

van Manen (2016) suggests ‘methodological reduction’ as a preparatory move where the epoché of bracketing (Section 3.3.2.2) out the conventional approaches to researching the topic under investigation is used to and arrive at an appropriate approach. In defining my methodological approach, I had to be introspective in relation to my expectations of this study, while also critically examining my researcher subjectivity and ask myself how I intended to use my reflexivity to ensure that my own past experiences, cultural values, and administrator lens did not interfere with the research process. The decisions I needed to make to find my researcher stance and hence phenomenological orientation related mainly to the

three interrelated methodological dimensions of whether the focus is on the particular

(idiographic) or general object, my researcher subjectivity, and choosing between interpretation or description (Finlay, 2012; Hopkins, Regehr & Pratt, 2017):

Idiography is about choosing to focus on the particular or idiographic object that may relate to individuals (or a small group) and their context or the general which is the universal essence common to various instances of the phenomena. While I believe this research only seeks an idiographic analysis which could be said to be generalisable in relation to my sample group, and with no expectation to find a wider generalised understanding, Halling (2008), (as cited in Finlay, 2012, p.21), argues that it is possible that idiographic findings may also identify general structures of experiences.

In understanding my researcher subjectivity, I recognise that my presuppositions and

prejudices represent both my closedness and openness to the world, taking into consideration Heidegger’s philosophical concept of fore-structure (Finlay, 2003, Koch, 1999). Qualitative research is an interactive process that is shaped by not only my personal identity defined by my background, but also that of the participants (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). This calls for a methodology that allows me to distinguish between the participants’ world and my own and yet strive to become close enough to their lives by developing an awareness of my own values and biases (Morse & Field, 1996). As a first step I did an assessment of how I am positioned with regard to my participants, keeping in mind my values and my experiences (Cousin, 2009).

3.3.2.1 My researcher positionality

My personhood as the researcher is a ubiquitous factor in this thesis; in understanding my researcher positionality I asked myself where do I stand in relation to the participants, what

do I have in common with teachers in higher education, and what is it that stops me having a membership role in this group of participants (Corbin Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). While I have taught in the past, my current work as an administrator could have placed me far away from the ‘messy’ classroom realities classifying me as an outsider. However, my job as a

university leader – which is in so many ways intricately linked to understanding and

supporting the practice of teachers and the development of students into successful graduates – puts me in a category with interests in common with the participants, hence perhaps I am neither an outsider nor an insider, rather I occupy ‘the space in between’ (Corbin Dwyer &

Buckle, 2009). Sometimes it helps me to be an outsider ‘looking in’, whereby I have

sufficient distance from the participants to get a wider perspective and see the connections and causal patterns of their experience (Fay, 1996). The existence of a power asymmetry between me as the researcher and my participants cannot be denied as ultimately my researcher role gives me an ‘exclusive privilege’ of interpretation using the theoretical frameworks of my choice (Corbin Dwyer & Buckle, 2009). I could mitigate some of this by ensuring our relationship is not manipulatable, and by maintaining equality and encouraging their participation in the true sense of involvement (Burman, 1997). The phenomenological device of reduction (van Manen, 2016), explained in greater detail later in this chapter, gives me the ability to enter my participants’ world in a manner in which “both researcher and respondent feel good, rewarded and satisfied by the process and the outcomes” (Gleshne & Peshkin, 1992, as cited in Kvale, 2006, p.482).

3.3.2.2 Researcher subjectivity

The issue of researcher subjectivity during phenomenological research has been a divisive issue with regard to whether the researcher’s own experience and knowledge is completely ‘set aside’ (bracketed) or brought into the foreground reflexively by acknowledging it and

using that knowledge to seek insightful meaning (Finlay, 2012). Greenberg et al. (2019, p.34, citing Hut, 2001), explain ‘epoché’ or ‘bracketing’, as a process that allows us to describe another individual’s subjective state by rigorously putting aside our acquired biases, that ultimately makes a phenomenological investigation using first-person experiences possible.

I began by questioning my own position on the nature of reality and found myself taking a hermeneutic position whereby I accept the narratives of my participants as their construction of reality, to which I, as the researcher, apply my own understanding, with self-awareness in an interpretive act that generates co-constructed meaning of the participant experiences, to provide readers with a new or different understanding of the phenomenon (Koch, 1999). I echo Finlay (2003) in recognising my relativist and social constructionist thinking that took me towards Heidegger’s notion of ontology and his hermeneutic phenomenology that

provided relief in terms of my concerns about managing my presuppositions. Hermeneutic or interpretive phenomenology emphasises Heidegger’s idea of being-in-the-world and seeks to reveal the understanding of the meaning of Being (Annells, 1996). The literature review (Section 2.6.2) showed us the merit of considering Heidegger’s philosophy and his notion of ontology as a philosophical lens in research (Koch, 1999; Mackey, 2005). In studying human experiences situated in Africa, one would need to keep in mind the differences between the understanding of Being between Heidegger and African philosophy (Ramose, 2003;

Nasseem, 2003). In this study of an educational situation,

The primary aim of a phenomenological interpretation of education is therefore to disclose how learning is an essential characteristic of the being of humans and further, providing an ontological description of the primary characteristics of the being of humans that makes learning (and therein teaching) an existential possibility (Brook, 2009, p.54).

3.3.2.3 Choosing between interpretation and description

The variations in the many phenomenological orientations relate to choices between how the researcher engages with the participants’ narratives by using description or interpretation emerging from Husserl’s descriptive phenomenology and Heidegger’s hermeneutic

(interpretive) phenomenology. Finlay’s (2012) example of how the experience of ‘frustration’ with chronic fatigue has a more significant meaning for an athlete when compared to

someone who is not into performance sport, which shows that the lived experience of a person needs to be understood in the context of that person’s life situation. An interpretive approach allows me to reflexively use my subjective understanding drawing from my own experiences of working in African higher education when trying to make sense of the experiences of my participants while co-constructing meaning based on the researcher- researched relationship between me and my participants (Finlay, 2012). The researcher’s ‘pre-understandings’ can be dealt with by balancing between the two extremes of bracketing and reflexivity; the research purpose needs to be used to create a balance between

interpretation and rich description through the process of writing (Hopkins et al., 2017).

Coming to terms with these core aspects has allowed me to accept a “hermeneutic or

interpretive-descriptive phenomenology” as my research approach (van Manen, 2016, p.26). The method developed by van Manen (1990, 2016) may be termed as a “hermeneutic

phenomenological description” where the data collected is analysed through writing as an interweaving of analysis, reflection and description (Friesen, 2012, p.46), using Heidegger’s ontology (Heidegger & Stambaugh, 1996) and insights drawn from the phenomenological texts of Merleau-Ponty (1962) and Gadamer (2013).