Level 1 – understanding

Level 1 should answer the question What does it mean?, which is a ‘third-person approach’ (Osborne, 2006, p. 22) and can be achieved by using the basic process from Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009) that is the second hermeneutic circle (see Figure 9). The second circle contains the elements’ text, which displays the objective experience of the interviewee, dialogue, sub-interpretation, and pattern of interpretation. It is worth

emphasising that phenomenological hermeneutics begins with a text, and the researcher has to recognize the multi-functionality of it; it can be used as a whole and its passage as parts, but the text is also a part of the phenomenon (whole) (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009; Osborne, 2006). Therefore, for this research, the interview is considered as a whole, which is composed of different questions and answers (parts), but these questions are also a whole of their parts (identified meanings). Similarly, for the participant observation the observation is the whole and the different observed situations are its parts.

As mentioned above, in level 1 the aim is to understand what is meant by the author of the text. It is obvious that without a text, no dialogue is possible. The dialogue resonates with Gadamer’s dialectical process (knocking at the text), which was fully explained at the

beginning of the last section. It is a dialogue with the text (transcribed interviews, participant observation) and is important so that sub-interpretation can emerge (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009), which finally allows for developing thematic patterns (Cohen et al., 2000; van Manen, 1990). Streubert and Carpenter (2011) named the first step in level 1 as ‘naïve reading’ (p.85) and explained it as immersing oneself into the general meaning of the text.

70

Before dealing with ‘naïve reading’, it is vital to explain the meaning of a theme and how to identify a theme. To do this, van Manen’s (1990) book, ‘Researching lived

experience’, provides an in-depth description of the nature, meaning, and identification process of a theme. He explained that a theme might be understood ‘as the structure of experience’ (van Manen,1990, p. 79) because we try to seek meaning in the text, which lies before us, in order ‘to grasp the essential meaning of something’ (van Manen,1990, p. 77).

For the sake of clarity, it is also important to emphasise that the essence of those thematic patterns is different from those which were developed in the literature review.

Although both are similarly named, there is a difference between them; hence, there is also a difference in the outcome as introduced below. The thematic patterns developed in the literature review identify elements of knowledge creation, which might be hidden (or not) through the construction of the text is contrarily linked to the structure of experience.

To identify the themes ‘the selective or highlighting approach’ (van Manen, 1990, p.

93) is used to reveal statements, sentences, or experiences, which might be important for the phenomenon under examination. This identification is undertaken by the dialectic process, where questions are asked about the text and the answers allows us to identify themes (van Manen, 1990).

Gadamer (2010) emphasised, as already introduced, the importance of questions and answers. Using questions for a dialogue is important because a question contains a subject issue and might lead ‘in unforeseen directions’ (Palmer, 1969, p. 199), which means that the researchers are guided by the question that in turn allows them to obtain new insights about the subject through the question asked. Only by aiming a question onto the text, can the text be understood (Gadamer, 2010) and the question emerges out of our pre-understanding.

This means that first the transcribed data for this research was read several times as a whole (Osborne, 2006; Streubert & Carpenter, 2011) to immerse into the text (Cohen et al.,

71

2000). Then, the different parts were analysed. During the participant observation, the

observed events were considered as a part. In the interview, a part was the text of a question.

The question what does it mean was addressed to these parts regarding the author and the identified themes were marked for further use. This was undertaken by first using the software Atlas-Ti to analyse and then, a matrix to synthesise the structure of meanings and reflections. Both these techniques allowed the researcher to manage and analyse a vast amount of data effectively.

An example is conducive to improve clarity. To do this, a possible question and answer of the interview was used, which was ‘How do you solve problems?’ The open question allowed the interviewee to reflect their experience where the answer might be

‘we really have great and open-minded guys within the organisation who are always keen and free for a short discussion about a problem or to answer a question; does not

matter if have a lot of workload or not’.

In this example, the interview was read as a whole first (naïve reading) (Streubert &

Carpenter, 2011). Through this reading, the answer or rather the experience of an interviewee in response to a question, the ‘hidden basic question’ (Gadamer, 2010) to the text becomes important. Hence, a question, for instance, ‘What supports knowledge creation or NDKM?’

was asked to the interviewee’s answer. Drawing on this question, elements were identified (meanings), which were then marked using the software Atlas-ti.

The last and the most important step is the reflection on the meanings. This reflection is about the identified meanings of the phenomenon and puts the meanings in their ‘own thematic context’ (van Manen, 1990, p. 87). This allows getting a ‘better fix’ (van Manen, 1990, p. 87) on the identified meaning and bears the researcher’s pre-knowledge or rather their experience. To be more precise, the identified meanings (i.e. statement or passage of a

72

text) are labelled with appropriate thematic patterns (e.g. culture, communication, etc.), which allow for getting a bigger picture of the meaning.

It is rather obvious that a meaning can be put to more than one pattern, yet the definition process of the thematic pattern is drawn on the researcher’s pre-knowledge and prejudice, which is highly valuable according to Gadamer’s way of understanding. In this process, there are no wrong or bad decisions, because it is right in the sense of how it appears to the researcher. This is also a very creative process, which allows going forward and

backward in the text to change or add new experience and shows the dynamic character of this analysing process.

In this process, the concept of ‘fusion of horizons’ bridges the different

understandings (i.e. pre-knowledge and new experience of the researcher – author) and allows ‘being taught something by the pastness or otherness’ (Fry, 2009).

In this regard, it is important to introduce Polanyi (1966/2009) because his insights explain not only the spiral movement but also the dynamic process, which is often used in this analysing process. Polanyi (1966/2009) stated that ‘The growing mind recreates the whole conceptual framework and all the rules of reasoning’ (pp. 45–46). Polanyi (2009) demonstrated this with the example of a child’s reasoning improving through the new

understanding achieved through their relationships with others. Applying this to this research leads to the understanding that a researcher starts with a ‘scanty repertoire of innate mental connections’ (Polanyi, 2009, p. 45). The researcher’s involvement in the research results in the growth of their mind, which in turn improves their power of decision-making. This is applicable not only to a new or young researcher, but also to an advanced one. As mentioned at the beginning of this research, the social phenomenon of this research is in a constant state of revision because of the social interaction of the text interpreter (Bryman & Bell, 2007;

73

Saunders et al., 2009), which also underpins the suitability of the chosen philosophy of research.

This short introduction explains that although a reflection process is defined for this research, there are no real boundaries, as the researcher can go forward and backward within the different patterns or the whole research to recreate or rewrite elements of the research depending on the growth of their mind. This does not result in an endless process, where the researcher is lost in a vicious spiral of permanent creation and recreation. However, there is a possibility of doing this and is desirable but not necessary, as Gadamer’s phenomenological hermeneutics is a creative and dynamic approach and not a fixed one.