Doing a Hermeneutic Phenomenology Research Underpinned by Gadamer’s Philosophy: A Framework to Facilitate Data Analysis

Interpretive work has been known for its intriguing feature of lacking a prescribed method for analysing data (Fleming et al. 2003). Instead of strictly adhering to a specific method, hermeneutic phenomenological approaches are based on a body of knowledge and understandings, a history of the lives of philosophers and authors, which, taken as an example, symbolises both a basis and a methodological ground for current human science research practice (Van Manen, 2016). Although Gadamer (1975) proposed valued insights into how one may acquire a deep understanding of texts, he did not suggest either a methodology or a method for doing so. Nevertheless, it is within Gadamer’s view that in order to understand, a systematic approach is needed. Gadamer (1975) clarified that hermeneutics is not a simple matter of endorsing a method; however this poses a struggle for the hermeneutic researcher, who needs structure to begin the research process. Although Moules et al. (2015) believe that developing a formula for analysis in interpretive work would be antithetical to hermeneutics, other authors have offered procedural steps to data analysis (Colaizzi, 1978; Fleming et al. 2003; Van Manen, 1984).

I found it difficult to find a proposed method that covered the main concepts of Gadamer’s philosophy (pre-understandings, fusion of horizons and the hermeneutic circle). Analytical frameworks that reflected the main concepts of Gadamer’s philosophy (pre-understandings, fusion of horizons and the hermeneutic circle) in a similar way were found to be too vague to follow (De Sales, 2003; Koch, 1993).

Accordingly the analytical framework by Fleming et al. (2003) appeared useful as it offered a template containing five clear steps for analysing Gadamerian-underpinned research. Fleming et al.’s (2003) five steps are a translation of Gadamer’s hermeneutic philosophy from his seminal text (Gadamer, 1960); which was then translated from German to English (Gadamer, 1975) and revised (Gadamer et al., 2004, 2013); thus, they closely adhere to his philosophical tenets. This analytical framework was chosen because it provided the clearest guide to how to use the major concepts of Gadamer’s work (pre-understandings, hermeneutic circle and fusion of horizons) and how to integrate them into the research study. The process starts from as early as choosing a research question to maintaining the trustworthiness of the findings, which seemed structured in a sense. So for this reason, Fleming et al.’s (2003) analytical framework was chosen over other frameworks that were used in Gadamer’s research studies such as (Austgard, 2012; De Sales, 2003; Koch, 1993). Although Fleming et al.’s (2003) framework was the clearest guide and widely used in research studies from different disciplines (Marynowski, 2014; Söderhamn et al. 2013; Thorkildsen et al. 2015), I was still unclear in how I would gain understanding through dialogue with the text which is the fourth step of the framework.

Therefore, I chose to integrate Ajjawi and Higgs’s (2007) stages of data analysis with Fleming et al.’s (2003) framework. In their study, Ajjawi and Higgs’s (2007) used hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate how experienced practitioners learn to communicate clinical reasoning. They described using six stages of data analysis to analyse the data. I found the six stages very detailed, structured, clear to follow and used in other research studies (Bynum et al. 2019, 2020; Obatusin et al. 2019). The stages were particularly informative in relation to how to apply the fourth step of the chosen framework of Fleming et al. (2003), which is ‘Gaining understanding through dialogue with text’. So, I chose to integrate Fleming et al.’s (2003) five steps with Ajjawi and Higgs’s (2007) six stages of data analysis. The combination and resultant framework is outlined in Table 1.

In this first step, it is essential to examine the appropriateness of the research question with the methodological assumptions. Research conducted through a Gadamerian tradition is established from an aim to attain deep understanding of a phenomenon. So according to Gadamer (1990) the essence of the question contributes to the opening up of possibilities for deep understanding. He highlighted the significance of choosing the correct questions for elaboration of the hermeneutic situation. Thus, the original or opening research question impacts the whole research process. He additionally stated that there is no understanding without the activity of questioning and that there is a very narrow relationship between the two that gives sense to hermeneutic research (Gadamer, 1990).

When I met with the mothers for interview purposes, I explained that I did not have a set of questions to ask and they were invited to reflect openly and deeply on their experiences through asking them open-ended question (Laverty, 2003)). The interviews were in the form of conversations and to deepen the understanding, the opening question was followed with clarifying questions (Fleming et al. 2003). I usually started the interview with this opening question ‘Tell me about your experience of caring for your child receiving GHT?’ and then used probing questions like ‘Tell me more about this?’ or ‘What is this like for you?’ Consistency on using this main question throughout the interviews was generally maintained to keep the mothers and I oriented to the subject being researched and to continue asking relevant questions throughout the study to reach a deep understanding (Geanellos, 1999).

Researchers using the Gadamer’s philosophy need to identify their pre-understandings or prejudices on the topic of interest (Fleming et al. 2003). It is recommended remaining open to hidden prejudices and that unexamined prejudices may impact or limit the horizon of understanding so one’s prejudices need to be provoked (Fleming et al. 2003). Prejudice can limit the individual’s horizon which consequences in not seeing far enough, underestimating the familiar, which results in not seeing or closing off further understandings by assuming it is already known (Geanellos, 1999). With my personal experience (providing GHT to my son) and professional experience (registered nurse and lecturer) and underpinning my study with the philosophy of Gadamer, I knew I had to bring my pre-understandings and prejudices of the topic into consciousness. Reflecting upon my prejudices would enable me to move past my pre-understandings and transcend my horizons to better understand the phenomena, which will influence the research findings (Fleming et al. 2003). I found this process not as easy as it might seem. In order to provoke my pre-understandings, I needed to bring out hidden prejudices and ones that I might underestimate myself. An appropriate approach I found to help bring my pre-understandings to the surface was having conversations with my supervisor, colleagues and family members. Then the pre-understandings that became visible within the discussions was described and analysed in the research report (Fleming et al. 2003). During the research process my pre-understandings changed from the point of data collection until the write-up stage and in order to actively focus on this transformation, I consistently documented my thoughts and reflections in a diary. I also re-read and reflected on my accounts in my reflective diary to help remain oriented to the phenomena and to enable me to enter the hermeneutic circle (Geanellos, 2000; Mortari, 2015).

Gadamer disliked the expression ‘collecting data’ or ‘gaining information’ and preferred to use the term ‘gaining understanding’ (Fleming et al. 2003). He remarked that understanding may only be potential through dialogue, one being open to the opinion of the other (Gadamer et al. 2004). Dialogue means not only a conversation between two people, but also a dialogue between reader and text. In both cases, language is considered the mean and it is through language that understanding becomes potential (Gadamer et al. 2004; McCaffrey et al. 2012). In order for the text to be co-created by the researcher and participants, I sought to capture the temporality of every remark within a conversation and so I acted as an active research instrument. Understanding would come into view when my horizon infuses with the horizon of the participant (Morse, 1994).

A ‘horizon’ is a series of vision that incorporates everything seen from a specific vantage point (Gadamer et al. 2004). A person with no horizon, in Gadamer’s opinion, does not see far enough and overestimates what is nearest at hand, while to have a horizon means being able to see past what is familiar at hand. This is where questioning becomes practical, as it helps the person create new horizons and understandings possible which is a critical aspect of the interpretive process (Laverty, 2003). Gadamer emphasised that we are all part of history and consciousness and he recognised the merging of individual’s horizon within the prejudices of history, including those offered by people and text in the development of knowledge and understating (Gadamer et al. 2004). Therefore, in my doctoral study, it was important for me to try to understand how my personal feelings and experiences could influence the research and then incorporate this understanding into the study and this was encouraged by maintaining a reflective diary throughout the entire process of data collection, analysis and write-up.

Gadamer emphasised the necessity of writing down the interviews (transcribing) even though he supports the power of spoken words over the written. However the researcher should not totally rely on the written words (transcripts and diaries) but should also listen to the spoken words (audio-tapes) (Gadamer et al. 2004). ‘Text’ not only signifies to the written transcript, but also to recordings, comments made by the researcher about the interview situation and observations. Field notes describing the context and emotions not captured by the recordings were written next to the interview text.

Hermeneutic phenomenological research aims to highlight the experience under exploration as close as possible to how it was lived by the participant, while noting the interactions and overlapping horizons between researcher and participant (Cohen et al. 2000). Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) criteria of credibility, dependability, conformability and transferability were used to establish trustworthiness.

Credibility indicates the confidence to the truth of the data and its interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this study, methodological coherence and researcher’s responsiveness were strategies for achieving this. Methodological coherence is reflected throughout the process of the study in a non-linear way as the researcher moves back and forth between framework and application to guarantee congruence amongst deciding on a research question, literature, recruitment, data collection and analysis (Laverty, 2003). My responsiveness was achieved by sustaining truthfulness, staying open and being sensitive while listening to each participant’s story to ensure their perspective was clearly noted and represented as clearly as possible. And then the use of direct quotes upheld from the used text allows the reader to partake in the validation of the data. Dependability is the stability of data over time and conditions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It is however uncertain whether dependability can be indorsed to a study that is underpinned by Gadamer’s philosophy as the researcher’s horizon and those of the participants will change; therefore, a final interpretation will not be achievable, and interpretation of data will change over time.

Conformability is the objectivity of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Coherent with hermeneutic phenomenology, I did not hold an objective position, but included my pre-understandings as part of the data. Objectivity in hermeneutic research can be comprehended as being open to the study text. Transferability according to Lincoln and Guba (1985) is generalisability of the data. To what extent can findings be transferred to other settings or a group? As my study was a hermeneutic one, the aim of the study was not to generalise the findings; but to provide deep description of the phenomenon of caring for a child receiving GHT from mothers’ perspective.

Understanding according to Gadamer can only be achieved by creating harmony between the whole and the parts of the text (Gadamer, 1990). This proposes a standard for trustworthiness in relation to the development of understanding rather than simply to the end result of the study. My responsibility as a Gadamerian researcher was thus to deliver adequate detail of the processes and the findings in the research report. It is suggested by Denzin and Lincoln (1998) that reflexivity plays an essential part in amplifying the integrity, credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative research study. This involves ways of questioning own thoughts, attitudes, reactions and habitual actions in an attempt to understand our role in relation to others (Bolton, 2018). Being self-aware involves thinking about positionality such as ethnicity, age and previous life experiences, social identity, role and personality (Dowling & Cooney, 2012). This did help with looking more critically at situations and relationships and finding ways to revise and enhance being and relating (Cunliffe, 2009). As a novice doctoral researcher using reflexivity, I found this practice rather challenging and chaotic. It was a learning curve and a tool I learnt quite gradually along the way. I found Valandra (2012) tips and guidelines on reflexivity and professional use of self in research very useful in facilitating my reflexivity. Valandra (2012) offers suggestive reflexive questions at every phase of a research study. In the pre-research phase, it involved being honest with myself about my biases and limitations, my knowledge or lack of it, around the topic and population of inquiry and the possibility of my perspectives and experiences to affect the research process. Some pre-research phase questions considered in alerting myself to the topic, idea or population from Valandra (2012) included:

I tried engaging in dialogue with myself to experience answering these questions to highlight my awareness of my experience in relation to the object, topic and intended audience. I wrote down my pre-understandings and knowledge around the topic of GHT, which stemmed from my personal and professional experiences. During the implementing phase, I kept a diary to capture and document my thoughts, feeling, insights and field notes and such questions from Valandra (2012) were considered along the way:

In the analysing and writing up phases of the study, reflexive logs were mainly written as side notes on the interview transcript documents as well as annotations along the way that were entered into NVivo 11. Such questions from Valandra (2012) were considered:

Considerable time was spent deliberating on whether the transcripts should be returned to the participants. From the literature, there appeared to be opposing views on ‘member-checking’ that has been one of the techniques to improve rigour in qualitative studies (Grbich, 1998). However, Caelli (2001) proposes returning transcripts to participants to review, clarify or validate findings depending on one’s theoretical stance. Both McConnell-Henry et al. (2011) and Webb (2003) suggest that member-checking is unsuited for phenomenology as there is no edict in interpretive research to verify or generalise findings. This is grounded on the belief that the participants’ story being true at that specific time and on reflection can change their recollections and change their initial beliefs and perceptions. Thus, in agreement with this principle, transcripts of the interviews were not returned to the participants for checking. However, participants were asked if they wanted to remove anything disclosed in the interview and one mother asked to remove one piece of information from the transcripts. The findings were discussed on many occasions with my supervisor as it is recognised that ‘experts’ can help to corroborate the findings (Whitehead, 2004), enabling further insight and depth through challenge and discussion (McConnell-Henry et al. 2011).