I'm so glad!

Both are very respected philosophers, and whichever you choose should align with your understanding and stance on studying phenomena.

I'm so glad it was helpful to you. Thank you for the feedback.

thank you :)

I haven't made a video on that yet, but I will work on it. You can get more detail on Heidegger in my book, however. I address in more detail.

The theoretical framework for a phenomenological dissertation is phenomenology. So in transcendental phenomenological research, the theoretical framework is Husserl's transcendental phenomenology. Any additional theory makes is a hybrid study. Since Husserl theorizes that one must suspend understandings in order to get to the essence of a phenomenon, an additional framework would defeat that purpose. So I would say yes, the approach is not followed correctly to Husserl's philosophy if an additional framework is used. However, researchers can use components of Husserl and create a new kind of method. It is not pure transcendental phenomenological research but something else.

​@@drkatpeoples ma'm. This is what I am trying to do. Use certain elements from Husserl and combine with Heiddgger's Herm. Method.

Simply put, the essence is the structure of the phenomenon. Essence is that "thing" that makes the phenomenon what it is. Without this essence or structure, a phenomenon would not be that phenomenon. It's like a definition but, obviously, much more complex than simply a dictionary sentence. So finding the essence of a phenomenon is the goal of phenomenological research. The "how" of it is explained in the video (very simply) through Husserl's way and Heidegger's way as applied in phenomenological research. But even more simplistically, one can ask, "What IS this phenomenon?" Different philosophers have different theories on how to get to the essence of a phenomenon, but the definition is the same across phenomenology.

Yes, great observation. I suppose you might need to imagine you were interviewing cats, and they told you about their lived experiences of being furry or having tails. Although, I thought that might muddy things a bit so I stuck to the basics to keep it super simple. You can refer to my book for more accurate qualitative examples of analysis however.

@@drkatpeoples I looked at it as more of the experience of cats - so rather than the objective data points, it would be the lived experience of encountering cats. Although that starts straying into Merleau-Ponty territory (love perception work), I was thinking more sensory experiences of encountering cats: soft fur, sound of purring, meows, sharpness of claws, cat behavior like rubbing against legs, behaviors, and so on. The prompt "What is a cat?" kept me from moving in the direction you mentioned - interviewing cats (so to speak). Good stuff though! My dissertation is almost done, Husserl by way of Giorgi. This video, the others you did, and your book really helped me back when I was getting started. Thank you for providing such great, clear guidance. :)

You can add an additional theory to the theory of phenomenology, and you would have a sort of hybrid study. This would work well with hermeneutic phenomenology. You would use the theory of planned behavior as a lens to look through.

@@drkatpeoples Thank you for your reply, it is so helpful for me

Sorry for the delay. The Moustakas book is one way to approach transcendental phenomenological method, but I do find that students are often confused by it, and I do not find it is as close to Husserl's phenomenology as I would like it to be. I would recommend Giorgi's works for doing transcendental phenomenological method as he is very clear. If you are set on working through Moustakas, it would be helpful for me to know what is confusing you about the three summaries specifically.

You can do a case study if it's one person or just a few. This would give you ability to focus on thoughts, experiences, and everything else. If it's a study where you want to reach saturation, you can do a grounded theory, narrative research, and a few other qualitative methods depending on your goal and approach. Those allow you to open up to thoughts and opinions.

@@drkatpeoples Thank you so much for your reply, your videos are really helpful, and your books are so beneficial too! I am a novice in phenomenology. May I ask you another question? Here I would like to check with you again. Can interpretive phenomenology be used together with other theories? For example, interpretive phenomenology is used to collect and analyze data, and then other theories are also used as lens analysis in the discussion part. And if It is descriptive phenomenology, the researcher certainly can not use other theories. Am I right? I learned this from your videos.

@@offlingua6791 IPA is its own method altogether that utilizes a few philosophers to ground it. It is an idiographic method and is pretty unique. With that said, elements of its data analysis method can certainly be adopted within your own method or it can be combined with another method. If you want to stick to pure transcendental phenomenology, you would not utilize other theories, that is correct. I would be hard pressed to see how it might be useful with transcendental, possibly with some data analysis organization ideas.

www.amazon.com/Write-Phenomenological-Dissertation-Step-Step/dp/1544328362/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2K7PY7JVC1BN6&keywords=how+to+write+a+phenomenological+dissertation+a+step-by-step+guide&qid=1650338300&sprefix=how+to+write+a+pheno%2Caps%2C96&sr=8-1

I'm so glad it was helpful!

No, both of those researchers have their own methods. Moustakas wrote a book about transcendental phenomenological research, but he has his own method, which is heuristic. Van Manen actually uses the concept of bracketing in his method, which is Husserlian. He utilizes a number of philosophies to ground his method, which is Lived Experience Human Science Inquiry. It is a reflective phenomenological approach.

@@drkatpeoples thanks .. I am doing Phenomenological interviews of people who suffered trauma for part of my doctoral research (Practical Theology Doctorate) ... would there be a best phenomenologist to use?

​@@DaleSanger it really is up to you and how you connect with a certain phenomenology, but if you can go either way, I would go with Husserl's transcendental phenomenology as your theoretical framework. His work is empowering.

I wouldn't make those comparisons as I think they differ exponentially, but if pressed, you could say that Heidegger would agree more with Popper than with Kuhn, and Husserl would side with Kuhn rather than Popper.

bracketing your understandings and biases means they are irrelevant. You question and seek to understand the data as it is presented as if you have no understanding of any concepts coming to you. There is no re-evaluation of bracketed understandings at any point. The data is the only information, and your understanding is set aside too look at it with eyes that seek to understand what is presented without any suppositions of your own.

@@drkatpeoples Thanks for the clarification.

Indeed, it is not a method in itself as Heidegger was not a researcher. He was a philosopher. Phenomenology is not a method either. It is a philosophy. Researchers have taken phenomenology and turned its principles into research method. This is also the case for the hermeneutic circle. So in itself, the hermeneutic circle is not a method but a concept about understanding. As researchers, we use the concept of the hermeneutic circle and apply it to research.

@@drkatpeoples Yes, as a philosopher Heidegger seemed more interested in ontology and understanding being rather than cats. It's hard to see from you example how this "use of a concept" differs in any advantageous way from standard scientific method with its dependence on the subject/object dichotomies. Where's the phenomenological contextualizations of furriness or pointedness in a historical or conceptual matrix? What you are describing seems to be simply old fashioned empiricism.

@@BOBCLARK330 Thanks for your comment. Yes, Heidegger was interested in ontology, which is different when shifting to phenomenological research. In ontology, the meaning of Being is something that is not knowable as the object of research but rather a stipulation of science. It is important to distinguish between scientific knowledge and the philosophy that thematizes what Being means. It is also important to understand the nature of the coexisting deconstructive and hermeneutic traits of shifting perspectives from philosophy to research method, which makes hermeneutics the unintended beginning to an incomplete venture. If fundamental ontology destroys the history of ontology by leading the way, it cannot ground empirical science because it undermines the very foundation that allows it to exist. Through philosophical prejudices, any revision of the starting point is deemed unnecessary, and the understanding of Being as presence is seen as trivial and discarded. If research is to produce any results, regional domains of beings, the Bezirke or Felder regions, need to be reorganized by these established interpretations. However, Heidegger never finished explaining what Being and Being as time would be when these revisions happened. Also, fundamental ontology progresses as hermeneutics since it inquiries about Being by cross-examining Dasein about its own Being and creates a fixation of Dasein with its own being. So the final meaning that is reached is Dasein's being, and merely as the horizon of temporality from where that meaning of Being is acquired. If your hermeneutic question is about the positive part of fundamental ontology, it is clear that it is not direct or complete. Simply, all that is concluded is an understanding of Being in its being without any explained determination. So, finally, while Heidegger’s Being and Time raises questions where law applies, it does not come to any answer but tasks us with the mission to think about Being beyond being present-at-hand. Philosophy is not science nor is it the usher for sciences because it does not actually answer the question of Being because it satisfies itself with working out Dasein’s restriction, it’s everydayness. The stumbling block you may have is seeing fundamental ontology as a synonym for research method rather than two completely different constructs that speak to one another through a common language but never become one. In the analysis of phenomenological research, historical and conceptual components are pulled in and are further expanded upon in the discussion section, but this video is simply a starting point for dissertation students to understand theoretical framework of phenomenology and how to begin applying it in research analysis.

@@BOBCLARK330 it is an empirical psychology, your are not wrong, it's main opponent for which it was developed to counter being transcendental idealism or kantian rationalism. The noumena becomes knowable through reduction of phenomena. Statistical methods for social sciences use sample groups, induction, and inference in a hermeneutics like fashion, for instance

@@olivercroft5263 I have no problem in believing Heidegger sought a response to Transcendental Idealism, but I don't think he managed to accomplish a definitive or useful solution to revealing the noumena. A problem remains that there can exist nearly infinite number of hermenuetical tactics and it becomes impossible to ever find a definitive result. Each result is also itself subject to an infinite regress of reassessments of the sorting tactics and their motives. It presents a dilemma perhaps akin to those of the Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle where what is revealed necessarily also conceals. I'm no Heidegger expert but, I tend to think that you can spend years trying to penetrate his murky metaphors and idiosyncratic jargon only to conclude that in the end he was little more than a garden variety mystic. Maybe he made a noble effort to pierce the veil, but perhaps it would be more useful to just skip right to the poetry he praised throughout his life.

you are so welcome! I'm glad it was helpful.

I'm so glad! You are very welcome.

Yes, I think that's perfectly appropriate. I would just advise you to ask about experiences only when framing those questions as opposed to opinions or thoughts since phenomenology is about experience. Since you are asking questions framed through fore-conceptions (i.e. lit review understandings), I would encourage a hermeneutic phenomenological study.

@@drkatpeoples Thankyou so much for your help!

Well, it could be any framework that fit the population studied. Perhaps Animal Theory would be appropriate for finding out the essence of cat.

@@drkatpeoples Thank you. So would you say that the additional framework is another one of the lenses also, or is it eg the fore-conceptions?

@@vanessaayoub5530 it is an additional lens, but it does come with certain fore-conceptions (which are the pre-understandings you gain from that theory about your phenomenon). Also, if you use an additional lens, your study would be a hybrid phenomenological study. You could title it, Animal Theory-Hermeneutic Phenomenological, for example.

@@drkatpeoples Much appreciate the clarification. Very helpful video :)

I am so glad they have been helpful. Any topic you would like a video on in particular?

@@drkatpeoples Regarding selecting either Husserl or Heidegger: You mentioned in the replies section of your video two years ago* that it depends on what speaks to you as a researcher, on what you believe about understanding phenomena, and that if you are immersed in the information it would be better to use Heidegger since it would be difficult to bracket (yet possible, and so Husserl could also be a choice). I am still at a loss, in spite of my two years Philosophy subjects in undergrad, plus one semester on Scheler's phenomenology in graduate school. I plan to study the experiences of my colleagues during their initial shift from onsite to online (in carrying out their work) at the start of the Covid Pandemic, which badly hit their area in Northern Italy last March to May 2020. Is it alright if I tell my dissertation adviser that I selected Husserl because I wish to strictly limit myself to what my colleagues express to me (and thus not to involve my pre-understandings and/or any other theoretical framework, which I feel might influence my analysis of the interviews)? Also that precisely because I am very familiar with my colleagues' activities, I would know what personal views to bracket (though making Heidegger frown a bit)? I don't know if this just merits a simple reply, or would be worth creating a video for (to detail a bit more the process of selecting Husserl vs. Heidegger, as well as the theoretical and practical advantages and disadvantages of following each - especially for a first time phenomenological dissertation writer). Thank you very much! * kzbin.info/www/bejne/gHi2n2B3hrhrZpY

@@safeph Yes, I believe that Husserl would be the most appropriate phenomenology for you in your research if you want to purposefully set aside your pre-understandings. Now, I would disagree that you would know ALL of the personal biases to bracket as there may be -many that do not stand out as of yet. However, whatever pre-understandings you have are irrelevant in transcendental phenomenological method. Hence, it is not needed that you note them. It is only important that you focus on the data at hand and take nothing for granted (as you might if you leaned on pre-understanding). I hope that's helpful to you!

@@drkatpeoples Thank you very much. Very helpful indeed!

I hope you find it helpful, and best of luck on your future research!

@@drkatpeoples thanks. I will let you know.

Interestingly I ordered your book on Amazon and then searched for videos on KZbin on the topic. Your video was the first one that popped up. I watched it and took notes. Only at the very end, I learned that this video was presented by the author of the book I had ordered. What a nice surprise! I can't wait to get your book, which should be here tomorrow. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge. I enjoyed and learned so much from your video!

@@roselifranco229 So glad it's been helpful, and I know the book will be even more helpful! :)

Perhaps you can contact the publisher, SAGE. They may be able to guide you better on how to get it.

yes, absolutely. Just be sure to explain how you will you family resilience as a lens within hermeneutic phenomenology.