phenomenology

Bracketing practical considerations in Husserlian phenomenological research

Conal Hamill and Helen Sinclair discuss bracketing in Husserlian phenomenological research
Abstract Nursing research leans heavily towards naturalism, with phenomenol ogy commonly adopted. The three main schools of phenomenology used are Husserls descriptive approach, Heideggers interpretive hermeneutic approach and the Dutch Utrecht School of phenomenology which combines characteristics of both. Husserls approach the description of ordinary human experiences as perceived by each individual involves four main steps: bracketing, intuiting, analysing and describing. Many phenomenological nurse researchers con sciously decide to adopt a Heideggerian approach because of the perceived difficulties in achieving bracketing. This paper examines the concept of bracketing (epoch) and outlines some of the practical considerations when attempting to achieve it.

key words

bracketing Husserlian phenomenology process of bracketing lived experience

Bracketing Bracketing, derived from mathematics, is a fundamental methodological princ iple of Husserlian phenomenology. The researchers preconceptions are held in abeyance to ensure researchers do not allow their assumptions to shape the data collection or impose their understanding and construction on the data (Crotty 1996, Polit and Beck 2008). We argue that this is a somewhat narrow concept ualisation as we believe bracketing continues to have an effect through
16 NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2

out the research process, not just in the data collection and analysis phases. A critique of a Husserlian research study ought to include the degree to which bracketing affected the trustworthiness and rigour of the study in addition to data collection and analysis. In mathematics, brackets are used to separate one part of an equation from another, allowing you to focus on that part in isolation from the others. In phenomenological research, brackets are used to temporarily hold in abeyance the foreknowledge of the researcher (Priest 2002). This is important because interpretivists believe that the social world is actively constructed by each individual and that we are continually making sense of and interpreting it (Moran 2000). By bracketing, the researcher does not influence the participants understanding of the phenomenon. Thus, it is their reality. Essentially, each participant can present the researcher with new knowledge and new understanding in the search for the essence of things through the identification of essential themes (Beech 1999, Parahoo2006). This approach is etic that is an outsiders view and contrasts with Heideggerian phenomenology where the social world of the participants is fused with that of the researcher in an attempt to co-construct reality an emic (insiders view) approach. The latter is attractive to many nurse researchers who can draw on their previous knowledge and clinical practice during the research process, allowing them to work collaboratively with the participants and to collectively illuminate the phenomenon of interest. Participants are viewed as co-researchers. Our foreknowledge, however, can minimise our ability to research the topic thoroughly: we unconsciously bring assumptions about the topic into the research process (Parahoo 2006) and are therefore not as open to understandings and meanings that participants bring. By bracketing, we can tempor arily suspend what we think we already know and actively listen to patients and their individual reality (Box 1). LeVasseur (2003) suggests we regard bracketing as our natural attitude: that is, as the ordinary lack of curiosity with which most of life is lived. I (CH) was told by a student that she was nursing a patient who was two days post-mastectomy. I asked to meet the patient, anticipating from my
NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2 17

phenomenology

Box 1. Qualities of the bracketing researcher n Self-critical and self-aware (reflective) being aware of their values and how this may influence question phrasing, data collection and analysis. Curious and quizzical do I understand this phenomenon correctly as described by n my participants? Precise do the use of words/terms/phrases mean the same to my participants and n vice versa? n Insightful check understanding with research supervisor. n Willingness to be wrong check back with participants. n Openness to the alternative interpretation of peers. n Organised. n Honest and transparent (trustworthiness criteria). Articulate, write up your study in the first person, take ownership of what your n analysis indicates.

experience of nursing breast cancer patients and personal knowledge of a close relative who had a mastectomy, that she may be traumatised, anxious and unwilling to speak about her situation. In fact, she was delighted to have been diagnosed early, particularly as she had an older sister who died from breast cancer some years previously. My foreknowledge in this situation meant that I was not as open as possible to the notion that individuals have their own realities. In a research context, my presuppositions would have limited my understanding of her perspective and could have introduced bias into the data collection and analysis process. By becoming curious, we do to some extent bracket prior understanding (LeVasseur 2003). Should the focus of bracketing be exclusively the phenomenon under investigation (Beech 1999) or to the world (Priest 2002)? The world includes ones existence (Koch 1999) and judgements about the external world (Paley 1997). Moran (2005) clearly states that the true meaning of the epoch, Husserls preferred terminology for bracketing, is to exclude the naive, natural, objective attitude to the world, as it is impossible to be confined to the isolated phenomena. If the phenomenon under investi gation is a table, the table is in a room, in a house, in a street and so on. Therefore, everything that is perceived brings horizons of possible further perceptions (Landgrebe 1981).
18 NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2

Additionally, there is diversity in the literature on what exactly is to be brack eted. Box 2 highlights some of the suggestions about what should be mentally purged (LeVasseur 2003) or suspended (Moran 2005) while bracketing. Bracketing is difficult to achieve because it can be impossible for research ers to suspend their presuppositions totally, particularly if they are unaware they have them (Parahoo 2006). Although I believed bracketing enhanced my research (Sinclair 2006), in practice the steps involved in this complex process were a challenge. In some interviews, I found that my ability to bracket was compromised it was evident at times that when posing the questions, I had used my knowledge of the concept to direct the participant. However, my awareness of this deviance, albeit transient, will enhance my ability to remain true to the Husserlian approach. Unfortunately, if one is unaware of personal feelings and preconceptions, it is impossible to set aside these issues, this issue is more a function of ones reflectivity rather than ones objectivity (Ahern 1999). The bracketing researcher must strive to acknowledge that being unaware has major implic ations for the rigour of the research and hence must take every reasonable step to ensure that presuppositions are brought to the level of consciousness, acknowledged, then bracketed. Being aware of the effect this can have and the fact that some potentially leading questions were asked by temporarily being unaware why they were

Box 2. What is to be bracketed? n Assumptions (Crotty 1996, LeVasseur 2003). n Assumptions and judgements (Paley 1997). n Biases and beliefs (Dowling 2004). n Beliefs or presuppositions (Draucker 1999). n Experiences and issues (Wall et al 2005). n Experiences and knowledge (Beech 1999). n Judgement (Moran 2005). n Perceptions (Rose et al 1995). n Preconceptions, biases and judgements (Beech 1999). n Presuppositions (Beech 1999). n Presuppositions or pre-understandings (Koch 1999).

NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2 19

phenomenology

asked (Parahoo 2006) meant that the analysis of the data associated with those questions can be re-examined to see if the researcher had overly nfluenced the participants response. In any research study, there will be i limitations, so the important issue is how they are recorded, dealt with and declared as part of the audit trail (Sandelowski 1986) so readers can determine their effects on the study. By acknowledging the error, greater transparency is achieved and more rigour is introduced. This also allows the researcher to go back to the participants to ascertain if their answers to any leading questions need to be rectified in the light of this thorough analysis. Has the researchers interpretation of the data been corrupted or misinterpreted? Ahern (1999) notes that in many phenomenological publications and conference presentations, researchers state they have attempted to bracket, but this is often not made explicit. Here, we offer some practical considera tions which may ensure that bracketing is maximised and that researchers are aware of their presuppositions during all stages of the research process. Achieving bracketing Bracketing should be considered throughout the entire research process, not just at the data collection and analysis phases. Practical ways to achieve this include: Before starting the project, write down what you know of the topic and what 1.  you think are the issues (Burns and Grove 2003), thereby bringing them into consciousness. Revisiting these throughout the project can ensure that your ideas, values and culture have not overridden those of the participants 2.  Delay your literature review until after data collection and analysis to ensure that you are not phrasing questions or analysing data for themes that you know exist in the literature. 3.  Keep a reflective journal to document your thoughts, feelings and percep tions throughout the research and examine your position on issues raised and emerging themes. Why are these themes emerging and who are they important to me or the participants? 4.  Develop an audit trail (Kahn 2000) to provide a framework for establishing trustworthiness of the study. Check for credibility, dependability, audit ability, and transferability (Guba and Lincoln 2005).
20 NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2

5.  Use supervisor support and/or steering committee feedback to check that your interpretation of data can be seen, bearing in mind that others may not find the same themes or come to the same conclusions. Check that themes are grounded in raw data and that others can see what you see in the data. 6.  Participant feedback check your interpretation of the data rather than the accuracy of the transcript. Have you misinterpreted the participants description and meaning? Is their use of language and description the same as yours? Is it influenced by personal values and culture? Do you really understand their position? Does anything seem odd, different or unexplained in the data? If so, seek understanding and meaning by going back to your participants. 7.  Peer/supervisor review of interview schedule and transcripts look for leading questions or questions that reflect your understanding of the phe nomenon rather than being open to new understandings. Check your literature review themes do not occur in your research findings 8.  without due evidence. Process of bracketing In an earlier study when I (HAHS) was a novice researcher (Sinclair 2006), Iachieved bracketing by a process similar to that undertaken in my previous role as an oncology counsellor, when empathising with clients. One of the fundamental conditions required to be an effective counsellor is the ability to empathise, a continuing process whereby counsellors lay aside their ways of experiencing and perceiving reality, preferring to sense and respond to the experiences and perceptions of the client (Mearns and Thorne 1999). This laying aside has similarities to the suspension of in the process of bracketing, and is therefore worth exploring further to determine if this can assist novice researchers with bracketing. The empathic process involves counsellors physically and psychologically tuning in to the clients, setting aside their judgements and biases and walk ing in the clients shoes. The counsellor reflects frequently but briefly to the clients core messages, being flexible and tentative, using reflection to keep the client focused on important issues and moving gradually toward
NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2 21

phenomenology

the exploration of sensitive topics and feelings (Egan 2002). Communication skills required are active listening, reflection, appropriate questioning and observation of non-verbal behaviour. Empathy is manifested by the willing ness and effort of the helper to perceive, capture and understand the individ uals current and potential world, as exactly as possible, with all its subjective meanings and feelings (Vymetal 1997). Like bracketing, empathic ability can be developed. There are four levels of empathy that exist (Mearns and Thorne 1999), ranging from level zero (demon strating no level of understanding) to level three (showing an understanding beyond the level of the clients immediate awareness). Husserlian research ers may not require level three ability, but to access the participants reality, the researcher should seek to demonstrate an advanced ability to empathise. This may assist participants in deeper exploration, further intentionality towards the phenomena and uncovering of a deeper lived experience. Empathy is a process (Mearns and Thorne 1999) as is bracketing (Beech 1999) and both are active rather than passive processes. Empathy aims to access the inner experiences and world of the client and bracketing aims to expose the essences of consciousness to access the lived experience (Koch1999). Additionally, empathy requires counsellors to lay aside their frames of reference and adopt the frames of reference of their clients, or their ways of experiencing the world (Mearns and Thorne 1999), essentially entering the life worlds of the participants (LeVasseur 2003). The clients reality is exposed by the counsellor through the demonstration of empathy with unconditional positive regard and congruence (Mearns and Thorne 1999), by entering their world and encouraging deeper exploration, to enhance their self awareness and subsequently, discover more effective ways of managing. The exposure of the participants reality in phenom enology is achieved through bracketing by ensuring researchers do not allow their assumptions and understanding to shape the data collection and analysis (Crotty 1996). It is also important to acknowledge some of the differences between empathy and bracketing. Who is to benefit from or be enlightened by access ing the real life world of the participant? Empathy should primarily benefit the client by assisting them in coming face-to-face with their reality; bracket
22 NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2

ing should primarily benefit the researcher in coming face-to-face with the participants reality. Empathy encourages the counsellor to overcome detach ment in the relationship, whereas as a result of bracketing, the Husserlian researcher remains almost detached in the interview process, the strength of this detachment being that it enhances objectivity (Carr 1994), reduces misconceptions and biases (Paley 1997) and enhances rigour (Oiler 1982). When to stop We have suggested that bracketing starts at the beginning of a study, not just at the data collection and analysis phases. It has also been acknowledged that bracketing is a temporary position, and by definition, it must have an end point. A review of the literature does not indicate any advice on this. It is our position that bracketing stops when the research stops that is, after the project has been completed. By now the researcher ought to have ensured they remained as faithful as humanly possible to the participants descript ion and that the essence of their description is reported accurately. Further debate and discussion on when to stop bracketing is needed. Conclusion By using bracketing in a study, the truth is arrived at based on participants descriptions rather than the sole interpretations of the researchers. It is develop mental, so an inexperienced researcher may not be proficient or comfortable with it, particularly during the interview phase of data collection. We hope that the steps outlined here will in some way help nurse researchers to bracket more effectively. The overall aim is to produce data and descriptions of the essence of the phenomenon that has not been adjusted, massaged, embellished or misinterpreted by participants or researchers alike. Bracketing is a skill and like any skill, the more you practise it the better you will becomen
Conal Hamill RN, RNT, BSc(Hons), MSc is nurse lecturer at the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens University Belfast, UK Helen AH Sinclair RN, Dip Counselling, BSc(Hons), MSc is teaching fellow at the School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens University Belfast, UK

This article has been subject to double-blind review

NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2 23

phenomenology

references
Ahern KJ (1999) Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. Qualitative Health Research. 9,3, 407-411. Beech I (1999) Bracketing in phenomenological research. Nurse Researcher. 6, 3, 35-51. Burns N, Grove SK (2003) Understanding Nursing Research. Third edition. Saunders Company, Philadelphia PA. Carr LT (1994) The strengths and weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative research: what method for nursing? Journal of Advanced Nursing. 20, 4, 716-721. Crotty M (1996) Phenomenology and Nursing Research. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh. Dowling M (2004) Hermeneutics: an exploration. Nurse Researcher. 11, 4, 30-39. Draucker CB (1999) The critique of Heideggerian hermeneutical nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 30, 2, 360-373. Egan G (2002) The Skilled Helper: AProblemManagement and Opportunity-Development Approach to Helping. Brooks/Cole, PacificGroveCA. Guba EG, Lincoln YS (2005) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, LincolnYS(Eds) The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Third edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks CA, 191-215. Kahn DL (2000) Reducing bias. In: CohenMZ, Kahn DL, Steeves RH (Eds) Hermeneutic Phenomenological Research: A Practical Guide for Nurse Researchers. Sage Publications, London, 85-92. Koch T (1999) An interpretive research process: revisiting phenomenological and hermeneutical approaches. Nurse Researcher. 6, 3, 20-34. Landgrebe L (1981) The Phenomenology of Edmund Husserl. Cornell University Press, London. LeVasseur JJ (2003) The problem of bracketing in phenomenology. Qualitative Health Research. 13, 3, 408-420. Mearns D, Thorne B (1999) PersonCentred Counselling in Action. Second edition. SagePublications, London. Moran D (2000) Introduction to Phenomenology. Routledge, London. Moran D (2005) Edmund Husserl: Founder of Phenomenology. Polity Press, Cambridge. Oiler C (1982) The phenomenological approach in nursing research. Nursing Research. 31, 3, 178-181. Paley J (1997) Husserl, phenomenology and nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 26, 1, 187-193. Parahoo K (2006) Nursing Research: Principles, Process and Issues. Second Edition. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Polit D, Tatano Beck C (2008) Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice. Eighth Edition. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia PA. Priest H (2002) An approach to the phenomenological analysis of data. Nurse Researcher. 10, 2, 50-63. Rose P, Beeby J, Parker D (1995) Academic rigour in the lived experience of researchers using phenomenological methods in nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 21, 6, 1123-1129. Sandelowski M (1986) The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science. 8, 3, 27-37. Sinclair H (2006) A Phenomenological Study of Vicarious Traumatisation Among Ward Based Registered Oncology Nurses. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Queens University of Belfast. Vymetal J (1997) Empathy understanding through identification. Sbornk Lkarsk. 98, 4, 317-325. Wall C, Glenn S, Mitchinson S et al (2005) Using a reflective diary to develop bracketing skills during a phenomenological investigation. Nurse Researcher. 11, 4, 20-29.

24 NURSERESEARCHER 2010, 17, 2