Phenomenology is an approach to qualitative research that focuses on the commonality of a lived experience within a particular group. The fundamental goal of the approach is to arrive at a description of the nature of the particular phenomenon (Creswell, 2013).  Typically, interviews are conducted with a group of individuals who have first-hand knowledge of an event, situation or experience. The interview(s) attempts to answer two broad questions (Moustakas, 1994): What have you experienced in terms of the phenomenon? What contexts or situation have typically influenced your experiences of the phenomenon (Creswell, 2013)?  Other forms of data such as documents, observations and art may also be used. The data is then read and reread and culled for like phrases and themes that are then grouped to form clusters of meaning (Creswell, 2013). Through this process the researcher may construct the universal meaning of the event, situation or experience and arrive at a more profound understanding of the phenomenon.

With roots in philosophy, psychology and education, phenomenology attempts to extract the most pure, untainted data and in some interpretations of the approach, bracketing is used by the researcher to document personal experiences with the subject to help remove him or herself from the process. One method of bracketing is memoing (Maxwell, 2013).

In my study of the factors that drive employees to use compliance hotlines, I used the phenomenological approach and methods glean answers. Of the five approaches described by Creswell, the approach most closely aligned with the study’s objectives. While the question was not ultimately resolved, the richness of the mined data produced further opportunities for inquiry.

References

Creswell, J.W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among the Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. (pp. 77-83)

Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. (pp. 135-136)

In this mini-study, I am examining the issue of compliance participation in one healthcare company. Specifically, I want to determine the factors that drive internal employees to anonymously report instances of fraud, waste and abuse. To do this, I have used a phenomenonological approach and have completed interviews with five participants, the total number in the study.

During the interviews, some participants appeared to be more forthcoming than others, but all the meetings were enlightening. Among the more interesting revelations was that while employees who expressed a positive relationship to their work unit and the company stated a willingness to report wrongdoing (even without the protection of anonymity), information from this study indicated those employees with more ambivalence, who had a more negative impression of their departments, greater mistrust of management, low morale and feelings of “not being able to take it anymore” were more likely to actually use the anonymous hotline. This brings up questions of empowerment vs. powerlessness in how the hotline is used. The issue of power in the workplace is a recurring one.

I would like to triangulate this finding it with previous research. Studies that examine the behavior of employees who express low morale and job security will be useful to this end.

In this chapter, Maxwell focuses on the importance of having a clear understanding of the goals of your research, as they are an important part of the research design and justification of your research. Maxwell refers to goals in the broadest sense including “motives, desires, and purposes” of your research. He states that goals serve two important purposes: 1) “They help guide your design decision to ensure that your study is worth doing, that you or those you write for, get something of value out of it. Second, they are essential to justifying your study, explaining why your results and conclusions matter” (p. 23).

Maxwell describes three different kinds of goals: personal goals, practical goals, and intellectual goals. He notes that it is neither necessary nor advisable for researchers to separate between “their research and the rest of their lives.” He says this separation results in loss opportunities to gain from one’s ”insights, questions, practical guidance” and motivation to get the research done. (p.24).

Maxwell, however, cautions researchers to be aware of their personal goals and biases and how they may be shaping your research such as the selection of your questions, settings, participants, data collection, and the resulting potential impact on your conclusion (p 26). He recommends, “to think about how best to achieve these and to deal with the possible negative consequences of their influence” (p. 27).

Maxwell explains practical goals are focused on “accomplishing something—meeting some need, changing some situation, or achieving some objective.” He describes intellectual goals as focused on “understanding something.” They help researches help determine why and what is happening, and answer questions that previous research has not satisfactorily addressed (p. 28).

Maxwell further notes, “research questions need to be questions that your study can potentially answer.” He cautions against using questions which use terms such as “can” or “should” since they are open-ended in nature and no amount of “data or analysis can fully address (p. 29). Consequently, Maxwell recommends that researchers ensure that they frame their research questions “in ways that help you achieve your study goals.” For further information on designing your research questions see chapter 4.

Maxwell begins discussion on “goals qualitative research can help you achieve” by distinguishing between qualitative research and quantitative research. The most important difference, he states, is that quantitative research employs “variance theory” that is, seeing “the world in terms of variables” (page 29) while qualitative research uses “process theory” which looks at data from the perspective of people, situations and events, the interactions therein forming the basis of analysis. Which is best to use? It depends on the kinds of questions being addressed and intellectual goals (page 29).

Maxwell contends qualitative research is well suited to accomplishing five goals (page 30):

1. Understanding the meaning to study participants of events, actions, situations or experiences that affect them. Here, the author notes disagreement among researchers on how study participants interpretation of reality vs. reality is handled (page 30). However, he emphasizes that it is the focus on participant’s interpretation of experiences and how this influences their behavior that is a major distinction from quantitative methods.
2. Recognizing how the study participant’s behavior or actions was shaped by context or unique circumstances
3. Discerning how process leads to outcomes, actions and events
4. Identifying unexpected phenomena and generating new theory
5. Developing causal explanations

Maxwell notes that recent research indicates field research is superior to solely quantified approaches in developing explanations of how actual events resulted in specific outcomes.

When tackling credible threats to validity in research methods, the author asserts that qualitative research, with its use of inductive, open-ended strategy has three further advantages:

1. It produces readily understood, plausible results and theories. Here Maxwell claries with an example from Patton (1990, pp. 19-24) (page 31)
2. Its design is oriented to improving “practices, programs or policies” rather than remaining neutral
3. Its process is participatory and collaborative

Maxwell ends this section by highlighting the need for ongoing assessment of “personal, practical and intellectual goals” by the researcher. The examples he provides throughout this chapter illustrates how reassessment can benefit him or her. In particular, Maxwell encourages the use of a “the researcher identity memo,” a writing exercise which may help us clarify the personal identity we bring to the mini study.

Maxwell provides several examples to help illustrate the chapter’s main concepts.

In 2.1 (p 25), Using Personal Experience to Choose a Dissertation Topic, researcher Carol Kaffenberger found her doctoral work suspended by a significant family illness: her daughter’s hospitalization and long term treatment for leukemia.

The crisis caused a significant upheaval in the family, yet Carol believed her other teen children to be coping well. She was then surprised by the amount of lingering anger and distress they exhibited and, even though counseling was her area of expertise, she came to understand that her prior assumptions about their needs had been totally incorrect. Motivated by this rift, Carol switched her dissertation topic to study the long term impact and meaning of adolescent cancer for survivors and siblings.

Message: you might be the best person to study a topic that’s significantly impacted your life.

In 2.2 (p 26), The Importance of Personal Values and Identity, researcher Alan Peshkin experiences widely differing emotions about two of his study subjects: devout rural communities. One community he liked and admitted that he felt “protective” toward its members. In the second, he felt “alienated” and “annoyed.”

Alan’s realization of these biases led him to a preemptive self-examination before embarking on new research. He explored his feelings and goals, then created a tool to avoid perceiving his own “untamed sentiments” as data.

Message: Negative as well as positive biases can effect your research if you don’t recognize them.

In 2.3 (p 32), Deciding on a Dissertation Topic, doctoral student Isabel Londono feels a conflict between her personal, professional and academic interests. She weighs many factors before finally deciding to “do my thesis about something that moves me.”

Message: your research should be on learning about the topic itself, not on how you believe you might profit from the study’s outcome.

In 2.4 (p 35), Researcher Identity Memo, Barbara Noel shares the reasons for her interest in bilingual culture, with a deep exploration of her own developmental experience as a bicultural American. She is candid about the emotions that the topic generates (anger, affinity) and cautions herself that “putting myself in their shoes” might mean making incorrect assumptions about her participants’ meanings.

Of note: Barbara re-evaluated her feelings after research had begun and made additional notes to her memo.