International Journal of Nursing Practice 2009; 15: 715

SCHOLARLY PAPER

Husserl and Heidegger: Exploring the disparity

Tracy McConnell-Henry RN BN GDN (Critical Care) MHSc (Nse Ed) PhD candidate MRCNA
Lecturer, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Ysanne Chapman PhD MSc (Hons) Bed (Nsg) GDE DNE RN

Associate Professor, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Karen Francis RN PhD MHlth Sc M Ed PHC Grad Cert Uni Teach/Learn BHlth Sc. Nsg Dip Hlth Sc. Nsg
Professor of Rural Nursing, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Churchill, Victoria, Australia

Accepted for publication August 2008 McConnell-Henry T, Chapman Y, Francis K. International Journal of Nursing Practice 2009; 15: 715 Husserl and Heidegger: Exploring the disparity Introduced as an alternative to empirical science, phenomenology offers nursing an insightful means for understanding nursing phenomena specically in relation to lived experiences. However, not all phenomenologies were created equal, a point which has left many a nursing researcher not only confused. Furthermore, this confusion might result in the choosing of a philosophical framework that is neither cognizant with the research question nor the epistemological lens through which the researcher operates. Drawing on common nursing examples to illustrate concepts, the authors closely examine and debate the disparities between Husserls transcendental phenomenology and Heideggers hermeneutic approach to phenomenology. The aim of the article is to demystify the dense language used and present the fundamental beliefs of each philosopher in a format that is accessible to novice phenomenologists. Key words: Heidegger, hermeneutics, Husserl, nursing, phenomenology, qualitative research.

INTRODUCTION
Over recent years there has been a mounting frequency of nurses choosing to employ phenomenology as a means of understanding nursing phenomenon. For this reason it is paramount that nurses are cognizant with two major types of phenomenology: Husserls transcendental phenomenology and Heideggers hermeneutic phenomenology. Both scholars works are notoriously difcult to read because of the dense German language used, coupled with variances in translation. Furthermore, their propensity to invent language to conceptualize a thought adds to many a readers frustration.

Initially, this paper will provide a brief overview of both philosophies. Having then established viewpoints, key differentiations between Husserlian transcendental and Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology will be articulated. In an attempt to illustrate how concepts relate to nursing contemporary nursing examples are employed. Although this paper is broadly aimed at students in the infancy of their phenomenology journey, it will also be a valuable resource to any nurse committed to critiquing qualitative research which claims to be underpinned by either Husserlian or Heideggerian tradition.

Correspondence: Tracy McConnell-Henry, Monash University, Northways Road, Churchill, Victoria 3842, Australia. Email: tracy.mcconnell-henry@med.monash.edu.au doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2008.01724.x

HUSSERL, HEIDEGGER AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHENOMENOLOGY

Phenomenology, as a philosophical research tradition, was developed as an alternative to the empirically based
2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

T McConnell-Henry et al.

positivist paradigm.1 The father of phenomenology, a mathematician, Edmund Husserl, developed transcendental phenomenology.2 Several years later, one of his students, Martin Heidegger, fascinated by the concept of phenomenology, but with tensions in regards to Husserls angle developed his own approach, hermeneutic phenomenology. A common misconception is the assumption that phenomenology and hermeneutics are interchangeable terms. Originating from the Greek word phaenesthai, meaning to show itself, a phenomenon might be considered anything that presents itself.3 Therefore, phenomenology is the study of phenomena.4 Conversely, the word hermeneutics comes from the Greek word hermeneusin, a verb, meaning to understand or interpret.5 Hermeneutics is the stream of phenomenology supported by Heidegger. Although originating as a method for studying theological scriptures, Heidegger redened hermeneutics as a . . . way of studying all human activities.6 It is the basis for interpretation, with the aim of allowing the text to speak for itself. Spiegelberg1 described phenomenology as a movement because there are no strict rules, nor uniform beliefs guiding this tradition. The common ingredient regardless of the type of phenomenology chosen is the concept of to the things themselves!.7 The things being the lived experience. This approach allows the things to speak for themselves while at the same time contextualizing them and for the most part, providing greater meaning of the phenomenon under review. Although philosophical and epistemological standpoints might differ, ultimately all phenomenologists subscribe to a similar goal, exploring the lived experience. Fundamentally, neither Husserl nor Heidegger aimed to produce methodologies. Rather when thinking about the work of these two scholars it must be remembered that what they offered were philosophies. It is these philosophies that have then been used as frameworks to underpin methodologies and hence research. Although Heidegger developed his thought after Husserl, this alone does not render Husserlian thought redundant. Moreover, it is a case of the research question, as well as the epistemological lens through which the researcher views the world, that should govern the choice of methodology. Caelli8 builds on this argument by insisting that because phenomenology is primarily a philosophy, the approach utilized to pursue a particular study should surface from the philosophical implications inherent in the question.
2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

HUSSERLIAN TRANSCENDENTAL PHENOMENOLOGY

In response to his disillusionment with natural science, as a means of studying human experiences, Husserl developed transcendental phenomenology.9 Husserl is credited with introducing the study of lived experience or experiences within the life-world (Lebenswelt).10 He contended that knowledge stems from conscious awareness and that the mind is directed towards objects. He termed this directedness intentionality.11 His approach examined the world pre-reectively. Hence, he advocated the use of phenomenological epoche. Epoche is the Greek word for bracketing. Husserl believed that in order to expose the true essence of the lived experience it was rst necessary for any preconceived ideas to be put aside.12

HEIDEGGERIAN HERMENEUTIC PHENOMENOLOGY

In contrast with Husserl, who supposed that conscious awareness equated with knowledge, Heidegger was interested in moving from description to interpretation. His focus was on deriving meaning from being.13 Heidegger vehemently rejected bracketing. In defending his stance against phenomenological epoche, Heidegger posited that prior understating, or fore-structure augmented interpretation. Therefore, Heidegger saw the researcher as a legitimate part of the research, as Being-in-the-world of the participant. Time, as obvious in the title of Heideggers masterpiece, Being and Time (1931), was pivotal to his thinking.14 He argued that time was . . . the essence of being.15 Furthermore, Heidegger held that along with time, context shaped understanding.

HUSSERLS CARTESIAN DUALITY VS. HEIDEGGERS DASEIN

The Cartesian concept of duality dominated science for centuries.16 Consequently, Husserl believed the mind and body to be mutually exclusive. Earlier components of his work were grounded in empirical science, but he became concerned that natural science provided an incomplete understanding of human experience.17 In developing transcendental phenomenology, Husserl aspired to preserve some semblance of objectivity, trusting that in doing so, credibility for his methodological advancement would be assured.

Husserl and Heidegger

Paramount to Husserlian phenomenology was the attempt to . . . come face to face with the ultimate structures (essences) of consciousness.10 Furthermore, consistent with Husserl being inuenced by Cartesian duality, he believed that the mind was directed towards objects, calling this directedness intentionality.18 By contrast, Heidegger rejected the mind-body duality of human existence underpinning Cartesian thought. Instead, he advocated a concept he termed Dasein. Dasein was the foundation upon which he built up the entirety of his thinking. Although not directly translatable into English, in colloquial German Dasein, means human existence with the entity to ask what is means to be or as described by Johnson19 to mean there being. As Dasein is not static, it can not be measured objectively.20 Fundamentally, Heideggerian phenomenology considered what it means to be, or as he termed it Being-inthe-world. The meaning of being is subject to the context of that being, but meaning always exists. Heidegger7 claimed that the aim should be to discover meaning, or to uncover . . . the universal structures of Being as they manifested themselves in the phenomena.7 As noted by Koch,10 the . . . understanding of being represents the existential distinction of Dasein.10 Dasein is the entity that allows humans to wonder about their own existence and question the meaning of their Being-in-theworld.14 Stumpf20 adds weight to this denition by explaining that Dasein is an inherent thing, that the person is within their world. For example when a nurse leaves a hospital the nurse is still within the world of nursing, and always able to understand, or consider, the meaning of being-in-the-world of nursing. In nursing research Benner and Wrubel21 refuted the appropriateness of Cartesian dualism, because as already noted, the nurse is always within nursing, and is not an object among the object of nursing. Moreover, if the aim of nursing research is to enhance understanding then Benner and Wrubel are rm that the acceptance of Dasein is suitable, to establish meaning. Gullickson22 summarized this idea by positing that . . . to exist is to nd meaning.22

ing of the phenomenon to be scrutinized. Husserl asserted that to generate valid data it was rst necessary for the researcher to put aside any presuppositions that he/she might have in relation to the question. He termed this epoche, but the concept is also referred to as bracketing (out) or reduction. What resulted was information that was fundamentally epistemological in nature. It provided a description of the experience, but made no attempt to derive meaning from the incident. Famous for saying back to the things themselves, Husserl endeavoured to present ndings that were pre-reective, prior to it being categorized.23 Heidegger disputed this idea, by suggesting that the researcher is as much a part of the research as the participant, and that the researchers ability to interpret the data was reliant on previous knowledge and understanding. Heidegger called this prior understanding fore-structure or fore-conception.24 He postulated that there is no such thing as interpretive research, free of the judgement or inuence of the researcher. Several researchers have challenged Heideggerian philosophy for this reason, by claiming that the involvement of the researcher inuences or taints the data.2527 What is acquired, in our opinion, is data that are obsessed with epistemology. We, along with a bevy of other scholars, feel more comfortable in adopting Heideggers quest for an ontological perspective, where the outcome is understanding and meaning through interpretation.2830 More to the point, Heidegger views the researcher as Being-in-theworld of the participant and the research question. What is vital, however, if any researcher does subscribe to the philosophical standpoint of Being-in-the-world attested to by Heidegger is that he/she is open and upfront with this viewpoint. In regards to bracketing, Heideggers message was simple: Understanding is never without presuppositions. We do not, and cannot, understand anything from a purely objective position. We always understand from within the context of our disposition and involvement in the world.19 In other words we construct our reality from our experience of Beingin-the-world. As observed by many a nurse researcher, as the researcher becomes immersed in Being-in-the-world of the participants it becomes nigh impossible for the researcher to maintain a bracketed stance.17,2934
2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

BRACKETING VS. PRESUPPOSITION

A chief distinction between Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology and Husserls transcendental phenomenology is disparity in attitude to background understand-

10

T McConnell-Henry et al.

KNOWING VS. UNDERSTANDING (EPISTEMOLOGY VS. ONTOLOGY)

Fundamentally, epistemology concerns itself with the theory of knowledge or how knowledge is acquired.16 Conversely, ontology relates to the theory of existence, or more pointedly examining what it means to exist or to be.35 Husserlian phenomenology is descriptive, with the intent being to raise awareness.36 Although both Husserl and Heidegger were innately interested in human experience, in many ways their thinking was poles apart. Compared with Husserl whose primary focus was epistemological, Heidegger saw himself as an ontologist, as demonstrated by his desire to uncover and unravel the meaning of being. However, having said that, Heidegger deemed that there was no discernable difference between epistemology and ontology. For him, knowing only came through interpretation and understanding.37 Husserl, by contrast, concentrated on knowledge and consciousness. By his own admission, Husserl, although able to see that the natural sciences were not able to adequately explain lived experience, was nevertheless a positivist, and as such to him, to know is to see.9 Although he aimed to explore human experience, Husserl was still motivated to offer objective data. As observed by Lowes and Prowse,38 Husserls positivist lens was obvious in him suggesting that transcendental phenomenology was the only rigorous science untainted by subjectivity.38 Although he was interested in human experience, given his mathematical background, Husserl used bracketing in an attempt to objectify research ndings, and hence achieve scientic rigour, so prized within the positivist paradigm. On a supercial level the notion of bracketing is meritorious. By acknowledging, examining and putting aside ones beliefs, the researcher should attain native data.10,25 Lowes and Prowse38 offered that in order to employ Husserlian principles that . . . researchers can, and must, transcend their natural attitude and suspend their beliefs about the existence of the objects of experience.38 There are, however, several shortcomings in this conception. The dilemma is founded in the fact that the researcher does not exist in a vacuum. Although the aim might be to put aside any preconceived ideas, in reality, to what degree is this truly feasible? Conversely, Heidegger completely discarded empirical science, promoting the subjective nature of human existence. Heidegger7 believed that people are, by nature,
2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

interpreting beings, and that any attempt to bracket oneself from a phenomenon will fail because it is intrinsically impossible. Both Merleau-Ponty39 and later Moustakas,3 cognizant of the limitations of bracketing, acknowledged that perhaps at best the researcher can only realistically aim for partial reduction, rather than epoche, or complete reduction as advocated by Husserl. Many nurse researchers claim to be inuenced by Husserlian thinking, and attempt to put aside their beliefs. However, many fail to explain, explicitly, the pragmatics of how this stance is achieved. In failing to do so, the reader is still left wondering to what degree any prior knowledge the researcher might have had inuences the nal interpretation. Crotty,40 while a vocal supporter of bracketing, contended that the epoche process is intended to bracket only what is naturally recognized in everyday knowledge. We question the limits of everyday knowledge, and further, practically how one goes about successfully engaging the epoche, or even knowing, with certainty when it has been achieved. Furthermore, regardless of the phenomenon in question, if the researcher conducts a literature review prior to commencing data collection, then some prejudice of the situation is formed, as background comprehension is constructed. If a researcher alleges to subscribe to Husserlian traditions a literature review should be purposefully avoided, because in conducting a review of the literature one innately develops a set of beliefs.

PHENOMENOLOGICAL REDUCTION VS. HERMENEUTIC CIRCLE

Husserl aimed to understand human experiences in the life-world (Lebenswelt), yet offer a tactic that traditional science would still recognize as rigorous. Therefore, he advocated the use of phenomenological reduction. He believed that by employing this technique, it would allow for reection on the research and at the same time neutralize . . . the ontic residue of consciousness ensuring that ndings were not vulnerable to the researchers agenda.9 So adamant was Husserl that phenomenological reduction was necessary, in his later work he condemned Heideggers existential hermeneutics as . . . corruption of the phenomenological enterprise,41 because he was of the opinion that the very point of life-world research was not . . . to lay out our own experiences but that of others.42 As an ontologist Heidegger asked questions that he thought would ultimately result in uncovering the

Husserl and Heidegger

11

meaning of being. He viewed humans as entities with the awareness and thus the ability to ask the ontological questions. He contended that the only true way for the researcher to conduct a hermeneutic inquiry was to have some prior knowledge, some fore-structure, so as to ensure that the questions asked were really pertinent.36This back and forth movement, of questioning and then re-examining the text, results in an everexpanding circle of ideas about what is might mean to be and is called the hermeneutic circle. According to Annells,43 the hermeneutic circle has innite possibility. Koch10 further elaborated this notion by explaining that every time the researcher re-explores the text, further possibilities are always feasible. Mulhall44 concluded by suggesting that the hermeneutic circle augments the elucidation of Dasein. Heidegger7 proposed that everyone exists hermeneutically, deriving signicance in whatever is experienced or sensed in the world. He criticized Husserl for failing to recognize or accept that the interpreter inescapably brings expectations or knowledge which can not be forgotten, overlooked or bracketed. The hermeneutic circle relies on the circular movement from the whole to the parts, incorporating the contributions of all deconstructing and then reconstructing, resulting in a shared understanding. Moreover, as discussed by Parse, Coyne and Smith45 hermeneutics is an insightful leap that alters the level of discourse analysis from the concrete to the abstract and leads to an understanding of the possibilities of Being, as revealed by human language. In other words, the participant offers their story, and by looking and re-looking at the data, searching beneath the words and at what is not immediately obvious, the researcher aims to end up with an ontological perspective of the participants experiences. By utilizing the hermeneutic circle the researcher attempts to read between the lines and uncover the true essence of the experience. Gadamer, a student of Heidegger, added to hermeneutic phenomenology in several ways. He suggested that understanding is attained only through dialogue and with the researcher being open to the opinions of others. Gadamer termed the understanding obtained when the researcher and the text meet as the fusion of horizons, and further lamented that in the setting of phenomenological reduction a shared understanding is not possible.46 Also, as pointed out by Koch,10 Gadamer argued that all researchers bring a history to the research environment, and that these . . . values . . . make the research

meaningful to its consumers.10 Bleicher47 agrees, stating that the hermeneutic circle, even in the absence of the researcher acknowledging the use of the tool, is unavoidable and that it should be embraced as a means for exposition of original insight.

ATEMPORAL VS. TEMPORALITY

Time (temporality) and space (spaciality) were pivotal to Heideggers thinking. The converse was true of Husserl. Indeed, as Barry48 noted, Husserl encouraged the putting aside of any temporio-spatial awareness or judgments, in an attempt to leave only consciousness. For Husserl consciousness alone constituted the real truth.17 Fundamentally, Husserl opined that the experience was the experience, regardless of the context, which differed notably from Heideggers belief in the importance of context. Heidegger believed that humans are at all times immersed in their world, and that context impacts heavily on both existence and experience.49 In line with Heideggers belief that Dasein is relative to context, so too did he believe that Dasein is never devoid of a mood or disposition, for which he used the word Bendlichkeit.14 Regardless of the phenomenon, the starting point is always the mood in which the experience is lived. Although being totally in control of the context is rare, humans are always, nevertheless, in control of being able to derive a meaning (Verstehen) from the situation.19 Although Husserl strived to develop a means for studying human experience, his phenomenology nevertheless arose from the natural sciences, whereby objectication of ndings remained the gold standard. Husserl placed little importance on time. Indeed he stated that his epoche approach . . . bars me from using any judgement that concerns spatio-temporal existence.23 He saw experiences as an accrual of events and that the setting or prior experiences had no bearing on the accumulation of these incidents. By contrast Heidegger argued that temporality is central to being, in that neither knowledge nor experience is gained statically. Furthermore, knowledge is not gained only through necessity, or as Husserl attested to but . . . always in the active and the possible. We are temporal beings in a temporal world.15 When Heidegger7 referred to time, it was not in the linear, chronological sense. To his way of thinking, time was uid and attempting to explain human experience in an atemporal fashion was nonsense. Past experiences inuence both present and future dealings.
2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

12

T McConnell-Henry et al.

As an example of the applicability of temporality to nursing, consider the following scenario. On the rst day of a clinical placement a nursing student asks the preceptoring nurse How often should I take Mr Smiths vital signs? A nurse who subscribes to Husserlian thought would answer with absolution, such as four hourly. On the other hand, a nurse inuenced by Heidegger would more likely respond that depends because a Heideggerian thinker is governed by temporality. Given such a question the nurse would consider, for example, the patients condition, stability, therapeutic interventions and previous responses to treatments as well as previous experience with clients with a similar diagnosis, to name just a few. In other words the nurse would draw on preconceived ideas in relation to past experience and knowledge. By approaching the situation utilizing Husserls philosophy the nurse would offer a prescriptive answer, with no respect for previous experience, because to Husserls way of thinking human experiences are simply accrued events, objects among objects, rather than experiences that build upon previous experiences. Epistemologically, given the holistic approach employed in contemporary nursing, to subscribe to Husserlian philosophy is nonsensical.

TO SEE MEANS TO KNOW VS. MULTIPLE TRUTHS

Kohak50 signied the positivism in Husserls approach by declaring that his overarching thought was to know means to see. Moreover, Husserl feared that an attempt to interpret the participants contribution, by using fore-structure as the basis of interpretation, might lead to misunderstanding of essence of the experience.42 Merleau-Ponty39 built on this argument by suggesting that meaning and experience happen concurrently. Conversely, Heidegger7 stressed that it is not possible to live devoid of interpretation. Taylor51 agrees, illustrating this point by stating that our understanding is rooted in our own denitions, which is in line with Heideggers belief in the subjectivity of multiple truths. Hermeneutic phenomenology is concerned with interpretation and uncovering. Transcendental phenomenology, by contrast aims is to expose the absolute truth via description. Heidegger claims that this theory does not exist. As noted by Faulconer and Williams,15 . . . within a hermeneutic way of understanding, truth is how things are.15 The truth about an experience, as professed by one person, taking into account temporality and spaciality,
2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

might differ markedly from that believed by another person. Hence, truth is not necessarily situated in the opposite polarity to falsity, rather truth is intertwined within perception. Every experience is unique to that person, in that context; however, experiences might still resonate with that of another. A nursing example to illustrate nursings tension with truth is patients perception of pain. Contemporary nursing prides itself on its holistic manner. In line with this approach, it is instilled in nurses that pain is whatever the patient says it is. Yet at the same time nurses remain desperate to employ pain rating scales to validate what the patient reports. Instead of qualitatively exploring the patients pain, and therefore need for pain relief, many nurses agonize over the arbitrary number the patient gives in response to a choice on a Likert scale. A Husserlianinuenced nurse would readily accept the number, believing to know means to see. Conversely, the Heideggerian-inclined nurse would consider why the patient has pain, whether there is similarity with patients previously seen with this condition and make an interpretation from that prior understanding. Those who favour positivist thought might argue that there is room for empirical science in nursing, devoid of the need to consider context, citing examples such as sound aseptic techniques must be employed when attending to invasive procedures. We would counter this notion by contending that knowledge has been derived from context-specic experience. Familiarity, or drawing on previous knowledge being the fundamental point. This concept is reminiscent of Heideggers inuence, whereby the goal is understanding ahead of certainty.

STRINGENT METHOD VS. NO METHOD

Bleicher,47 a nurse researcher, asserted that understanding is not the outcome of a prescribed and adhered to recipe, or method, rather it emerges from within the hermeneutic circle. In line with Heideggerian tradition, given that he claimed his standpoint a philosophy, not a methodology, when employing hermeneutic phenomenology the nurse researcher is responsible for identifying a unique criteria for rigour.52 Sandelowski53 has suggested that there is no universal agreement on appropriate measures to demonstrate rigour in qualitative nursing research. An example of the pragmatics utilized to demonstrate rigour is journaling, a technique favoured by Koch.54 Other prominent researchers who devised their own criteria for

Husserl and Heidegger

13

rigour include Chapman,30 Benner55 and Taylor.56 The point of indicating rigour is to instil trust and condence in research ndings. Above all, given that the goal of a hermeneutic inquiry is a shared understanding the principle hermeneutic phenomenologists subscribe to most heavily is resonance. In considering the trustworthiness of interpretation it is more appropriate to consider the concept of resonance rather than truth.57 Lincoln and Guba58 elaborate by suggesting that in order to establish trustworthiness it is essential that a researcher clearly identies and documents decisions made throughout the analysis stage because auditablity is the hallmark of trustworthiness in qualitative research. Clayton and Thorne59 concur. Nevertheless, they expand the idea of trustworthiness to include credibility, indicating that to ensure credibility the researcher must represent the participants perspective as transparently as possible. From a practical perspective it is the responsibility of the researcher to dene how these goals will be met. For researchers inuenced by Husserlian convention, however, such as Crotty,40 Oiler25 and Paley27 bracketing is synonymous with rigorous research. Additionally, Husserlian phenomenologists see merit in structured approaches, such as those devised by Giorgi60 suggesting that by employing clearly dened methods ensure validity.61 Again, such approaches mimic empiricism. Additionally, to trust a stringent method is to have a preconceived idea about what is right by investing enormous faith in the right way in order to achieve the right outcome and consequently as Faulconer and Williams15 suggested . . . to have a method is already to have an interpretation.15

dimensional description of Lebenswelt . . . that would not neglect any of its meaningful ontological features.63 More recently the German Social theorist, Jurgen Habermas, inuenced by Kant and the theory of Enlightenment, has taken the tradition of exploring life-world and lived experience and examined it through a critical lens. His intent is not only to achieve understanding but moreover, the emancipation of social theory and change, in light of ndings.64,65 Gadamer, as already mentioned, clearly illustrated his allegiance with Heideggers thinking, obvious in his expansion of hermeneutics. A contemporary scholar who has further extended the work of Heidegger is Canadian educationalist Max van Manen. His particular interest is in pathic inquiry into pedagogical experience, whereby interpretation via reection on language is the cornerstone of his work.66

CONCLUSION
Contemporary nursing researchers have eagerly embraced the qualitative paradigm and, more particularly, phenomenology as an apt means for studying human experience. Although many nurse researchers might be familiar with the term phenomenology, few are cognizant with the forms this research methodology might take. This paper has contrasted and discussed the disparity between two different types of phenomenology, namely Husserls transcendental and Heideggers hermeneutic phenomenology. Furthermore, we have drawn on everyday nursing examples to illustrate phenomenologys applicability to nursing. With the understanding gained from this paper it is hoped that nurses are better equipped to understand phenomenology, as a suitable research framework for investigating lived experiences.

BEYOND HUSSERL AND HEIDEGGER

Husserls transcendental phenomenology was revisited by French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty, following encouragement by his comrade Jean-Paul Sartre. Although Sartre was initially fascinated by the writings of Husserl, over time he eventually saw more merit in Heideggers viewpoint.62 Merleau-Ponty found particular interest in Husserls work, Crisis of European Sciences. Although Merleau-Ponty fervently refuted Husserls dualist mindset, identifying self as body, he nevertheless advocated Husserls stance on bracketing.12 Despite subscribing to phenomenological reduction, MerleauPonty however did attempt to develop a . . . multi-

REFERENCES
1 Spiegelberg H. The Phenomenological Movement: A Historical Introduction, 3rd edn. Boston: Martinus-Nijhoff, 1982. 2 Dreyfus H. Heidegger, Husserl and modern existentialism. In: Magee B (ed.). The Great Philosophers: An Introduction to Western Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988; 254277. 3 Moustakas C. Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 1994. 4 Ray MA. The richness of phenomenology: Philosophic, theoretic and methodolgical concerns. In: Morse JM (ed.). Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 1994; 117134. 2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

14

T McConnell-Henry et al.

5 Palmer RE. Hermeneutics: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger and Gadamer. Evaston: Nothwestern University Press, 1969. 6 Dreyfus HL. Being-in-the-World. A Commentary on Heideggers Being and Time, Division 1. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1991. 7 Heidegger M. Being and Time. New York: State University of New York Press, 1962. 8 Caelli K. Engaging in phenomenology; is it more of a challenge than it needs to be? Qualitative Research 2001; 11: 273281. 9 Velarde-Mayol V. On Husserl. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2000. 10 Koch T. Interpretive approaches in nursing research: the inuence of Husserl and Heidegger. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1995; 21: 827836. 11 Crowell SG. Heidegger and Husserl: The matter and method of philosophy. In: Dreyfus H, Wrathall M (eds). A Companion to Heidegger. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005; 4964. 12 Stumpf SE, Frieser J. Philosophy. History and Problems, 7th edn. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008. 13 Mulhall S. On Being in the World. New York: Routledge, 1993. 14 Gelven MA. Commentary on Heideggers Being and Time, revised edition. DeKalb, IL, USA: Northern Illinois University Press, 1989. 15 Faulconer JE, Williams RN. Temporality in human action. An alternative to positivism and historicism. American Psychologist 1985; 40: 11791188. 16 Speake J. A Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edn. London: Pan Books, 1984. 17 McManus-Holroyd AE. Chronic Illness: A Rejoining of Soul and Symptom. Churchill, Australia: Monash University, 2005. 18 Dreyfus H, Dreyfus S. From Socrates to expert systems: The limits of calculative rationality. In: Rabinow P, Sullivan W (eds). Interprative Social Science: A Second Look. Berkley: University of California Press, 1987; 327350. 19 Johnson PA. On Heidegger. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Thomas Learning, 2000. 20 Stumpf SE. Philosophy. History and Problems, 5th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994. 21 Benner P, Wrubel J. The Primacy of Caring: Stress and Coping in Health and Illness. Menlo Park, CA, USA: AddisonWesley, 1989. 22 Gullickson C. My death nearing its future: A Heideggerian hermeneutical analysis of the lived experience of persons with chronic illness. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1993; 18: 13861392. 23 Husserl E. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. London: Allen and Unwin, 1931. 24 Dowling M. Hermeneutics: An exploration. Nurse Researcher 2004; 11: 3039. 25 Oiler C. The phenomenological in nursing research. Nursing Research 1982; 31: 171181. 2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd

26 Omery A. Phenomenology: A method for nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science 1983; 5: 4963. 27 Paley J. Phenomenology as rhetoric. Nursing Inquiry 2005; 12: 106116. 28 Davenport JM. The experience of new nurses beginning critical care practice: An interpretative phenomenological study (PhD Thesis). Baltimore, MD, USA: University of Maryland, 2000. 29 Walters AJ. The comforting role in critical care nursing practice: A phenomenological interpretation. International Journal of Nursing Studies 1994; 31: 607616. 30 Chapman YB. Dimensions of SadnessExpanding Awareness of Community Nurses Practice in Palliative Care. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide, 1999. 31 Robertson-Malt S. Listening to them and reading me: A hermeneutic approach to understanding the experience of illness. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1999; 29: 290297. 32 Pearson A, Roberston-Malt S, Walsh K, Fitzgerald M. Intensive care nurses experiences of caring for brain dead organ donor patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2001; 10: 132139. 33 FitzGerald M. The experience of chronic illness in rural Australia (PhD Thesis). Armadale: The University of New England, 1995. 34 Chapman YB. The Lived Experience of Nursing Dying or Dead People. Hawkesbury: University of Western Sydney, 1994. 35 Bullock A, Stallybrass O, Trombley S. The Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, 2nd edn. London: Fontana Press, 1988. 36 Thompson J. Hermeneutic inquiry. In: Moody E (ed.). Advanced Nursing Science Through Research. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 1990; 223286. 37 Waterhouse RA. Heidegger Critique: A Critical Examination of the Existential Phenomenology of Martin Heidegger. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press, 1981. 38 Lowes L, Prowse MA. Standing outside the interview process? The illusion of objectivity in phenomenological data generation. International Journal of Nursing Studies 2001; 38: 471480. 39 Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962. 40 Crotty M. Phenomenology and Nursing Research. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone, 1996. 41 Spiegelberg H. Husserls phenomenology and existentialism. The Journal of Philosophy 1960; 57: 6274. 42 Dahlberg KME, Dahlberg HK. Description vs. interpretationa new understanding for an old dilemma in human science research. Nursing Philosophy 2004; 5: 268 273. 43 Annells M. Hermeneutic phenomenology; philosophical perspective and current use in nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1996; 23: 705713. 44 Mulhall S. Heidegger and Being and Time, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Husserl and Heidegger

15

45 Parse RR, Coyne BA, Smith MJ. Nursing Research: Qualitative Methods. Bowie, MD, USA: Brady Communications Company, 1985. 46 Gadamer HG. Truth and Method. London: Sheed and Ward, 1975. 47 Bleicher J. Contemporary Hermeneutics. Hermeneutics as Philosophy and Critique. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980. 48 Barry V. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth, 1983. 49 Steiner G. Heidegger. London: Fontana Press, 1978. 50 Kohak E. Ideas and Experience: Edmund Husserls Project of Phenomenology. Ideas 1. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. 51 Taylor C. Interpretation and the sciences of man. In: Rabinow P, Sullivan W (eds). Interpretative Social Science: A Second Look. Berkely: University of California Press, 1987; 3381. 52 Koch T. Implementation of a hermeneutical inquiry in nursing: Philosophy, rigour and representation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1996; 24: 174184. 53 Sandelowski M. The problem of rigour in qualitative research. Advances in Nursing Science 1986; 8: 2737. 54 Koch T. Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing 1994; 19: 976986. 55 Benner P. From Novice to Expert: Excellence and Power in Clinical Nursing Practice. Menlo Park, CA, USA: AddisonWesley, 1984.

56 Taylor BJ. The phenomenon of ordinariness in nursing (PhD Thesis). Geelong: Deakin, 1992. 57 Gadamer HG. Philosophical Hermeneutics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976. 58 Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage, 1985. 59 Clayton A, Thorne T. Diary data enhancing rigour: Analysis framework and verication tool. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2000; 32: 15141521. 60 Giorgi A. Phenomenology and Psychological Research. Pittsburgh, PA, USA: Duquesne University Press, 1985. 61 Drew N. Exclusion and conrmation: A phenomenology of patients experiences with caregivers. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship 1986; 18: 3943. 62 Dietsch E. The Lived Experience of Women with a Cervical Screening Detected Abnormality: A Phenomenological Study. Wagga Wagga, Australia: Charles Sturt University, 2003. 63 Primozic DT. On Merleau-Ponty. Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning, 2001. 64 McCarthy T. The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1978. 65 Finlayson JG. Habermas: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University, 2004. 66 van Manen M. Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for and Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Albany, NY, USA: State University of New York Press, 1990.

2009 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd