Focusing on the topic being studied is more important than preoccupation with theory and method

What is it about?

There have been numerous intense debates in phenomenological circles, most recently among Max van Manen, Jonathan Smith, and Dan Zahavi. as to what is and what is not phenomenological research. These debates are typically less than constructive insofar as the focus is on who is right and who is wrong. In my commentary, I address the largely unacknowledged but significant difficulty of critiquing research in phenomenology in a way that is consistent with the phenomenological values of openness, wonder, and setting aside presuppositions. Further, I argue that we should revisit the meaning of authority within the phenomenological tradition by giving greater attention to extent to which research does justice to the phenomenon under study, rather than just asking whether a particular researcher has ‘correctly’ understood phenomenological philosophers such as Edmund Husserl. Finally, I suggest that our critiques should consider what we might learn from the ideas of others in addition to addressing their limitations.

Featured Image

Photo by Daria Nepriakhina on Unsplash

Photo by Daria Nepriakhina on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The task of understanding the method and theory of another phenomenological researcher is rather more difficult than we have generally assumed. This article spells out what the difficulties are and how they might be overcome. It also argues for a deeper understanding of phenomenology (based on Merleau-Ponty) , one that is less sectarian than most in the literature and reminds us that doing justice to the phenomenon being studied is a fundamental criteria for evaluating research.

Perspectives