Heidegger vs Husserl: Phenomenological choices

In the course of my research towards developing a framework for a Visual Communication Phenomenological Methodology, I have now followed literature back to Nursing sources. Several recommended papers have been useful, and in turn they have also pointed to other possibly useful nursing sources.

Lopez and Willis (2004) help to clarify the different philosophical underpinnings to a Phenomenological study, and the importance of positioning the study clearly within one of the two philosophical schools of Phenomenology.

I'm basing my study on Moustakas' (1994) guidelines, but those are merely generic and non-partisan. As Lopez and Willis state "implementing a method without an examination of its philosophical basis can result in research that is ambiguous in its purpose, structure, and findings" (p726). So I will need to position my research methodology firmly within either the eidetic or hermeneutic schools.

Eidetic Phenomenology is descriptive of the phenomena, and is Husserlian in its philosophical roots. Hermeneutic Phenomenology is interpretive and owes its philosophical roots to Heidegger, a student of Husserl. Where the importance of choosing the philosophical school for a study resides is in how its findings are generated and used. Both schools deal with this differently. Hence the importance of not being generic in the design of the methodology, but philosophically specific.

In Eidetic (Husserlian) research it is important for the researcher to absolutely 'bracket out' prior personal knowledge and biases, to achieve "transcendental subjectivity". This results in the researcher holding in "abeyance ideas, preconceptions, and personal knowledge when listening to and reflecting on the lived experiences of participants" (p728). From these lived experiences features or essences that are common under Phenomenological scrutiny emerge that represent the phenomena's true identity. This is so so that a generalised description can be made, through a foundationalist approach, with a belief (reflecting scientific values) that these essences "can be extracted from lived experiences without a consideration for context" (p728).

In the Hermeneutic philosophical school (or even movement) its application has predominantly been in Theology, and its purpose is to go beyond mere descriptions of core concepts, or essences, "to look for meanings embedded in common life practices" (p728) to bring out what is normally hidden in human experience. Its focus therefore is on what humans experience rather than know within what Heidegger terms being-in-the-world. This situates the experience within a context of a life-world, which all sounds comfortably similar to what Dourish (2004) and Suchman (1987) discuss in part of their respective theses.

As Lopez and Willis discuss "Heidegger asserted that humans are embedded in their world to such an extent that subjective experiences are inextricably linked with social, cultural, and political contexts" (p729). In Hermeneutic Phenomenology its foundational aspect is on the "interpretation of the narratives provided by participants in relation to various contexts" (p729), meaning that unlike Eidetics, the context remains crucial to understanding through interpretation. A fundamental divergence in approaches between the two schools lies in the act of 'bracketing'. In Hermeneutic Phenomenology making any preconceptions on the part of the researcher explicit and explaining their use within the research has a long tradition. Absolute 'bracketing out' that prior knowledge is inconsistent with an interpretive approach. This is a crucial difference I need to build into MY methodology.

Finally Lopez and Willis summarise that an interpretative approach is "useful in examining contextual features of experiences that might have direct relevance to practice. Moreover, a critical hermeneutic framework can enable the researcher to bring to light hidden features of an experience that would be overlooked in a purely descriptive approach" (p734). They urge for careful consideration of which school to choose to inform the analysis. Naturally I feel my framework approach to the methodology is more interpretative, and that will be more useful within design (more on this in a future post).

References used:

DOURISH, P. (2004). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
LOPEZ, K.A., and WILLIS, D.G. (2004) Descriptive Versus Interpretive Phenomenology: Their Contributions To Nursing Knowledge. Qualitative Health Research, 14(5), pp726-735.
SUCHMAN, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Organisation of the Perceptual, Emotional and Cognitive Processes

Frascara, in discussing Visual Communication's focus on selecting the visual elements of text and image communicate it's "Sinn"* says,

"Every shape evokes a response - more or less cognitive, more or less emotional. This demonstrates the importance of designers in the organization of the perceptual, emotional, and cognitive processes to be followed by the viewer, beyond purely aesthetic issues. It would be a fundamental error to believe that in design one can deal with the form independent of content, or with sensorial, independent of the cognitive and the emotional." (2004, p65)

Barnard folds into this the semiological roots of Visual Communication,

"Signs and codes are the bases of meanings in semiology. And signs and codes are explained in terms of learned and variable cultural rules. For semiology, then, communication is a cultural phenomenon, not an engineering problem, as it is in communication theory.” (2005, p28)"

Semiologically the Mise en Scene of a design's elements are produced and organised by the designer to facilitate the reception by the viewer. This is constructed through culturally specific manipulation of image and text as the cultural positioning of the elements aids the generation of meaning. Barnard continues,

"So for semiology, communication is the production and exchange of messages and meanings, not the transmission of messages. A message or meaning is something constructed in communication, not something that pre-exists communication. ” (2005, p28)"

He uses the phrase "communication is a cultural phenomenon, not an engineering problem" with which he means that this construction can only be investigated through qualitative methods.

The Interaction Design heavy weight Bruce Tognazzini (he founded the Apple Human Interface Group and acted as Apple's Human Interface Evangelist) wrote back in 2003 in an AskTog article "It's Time We Got Respect" that,

"(I have had managers who have) told me flat-out they could not hire such a 'designer' because their engineering-trained executives would not allow squandering company money on such 'soft' people when they could hire another engineer. Besides, they already had a graphic designer to make things pretty (if unusable). 'Designer' is perceived by the predominantly male population of both computer company management and engineering as a wimp word.” (2005, p28)"

Unfortunately this prejudiced attitude to designers, especially Graphic Designers, still continues. In a PhD-Design ListServ post Dr Terence Love recently provoked a backlash from 'soft' designers when he posted a discussion question "Are Visual Approaches to Design Outdated?" (2010). Love, from an engineering design background, is just one example of how this narrow functionalist perspective on how Visual Communication works is still perpetuated. As Tog says in his article seven years ago,

"Engineers also have trouble differentiating between graphic designers, who primarily limit themselves to the surface of the interface, and interaction people, who, like building architects, need to concern themselves with each and every aspect of a project, right down to core technology decisions.” (2003)

This argument is dealt elsewhere on this blog where I argue that we are more than the artifice, that we are designers of the 'aesthetics of use', so I won't continue this here, but will turn this back towards the phenomenological aspect.

If communication, meaning, interpretation and construction can only be understood through qualitative means then, I argue that a methodology of understanding this through adaptation of research methods taken from Phenomenology would help reposition Visual Communication's status. As sections of the HCI research community are also looking to a Phenomenological paradigm over the last decade to understand experience, especially aesthetic experience, this strengthens my research perspective.

* Sense, generally synonymous with meaning at a conceptual level [Bedeutung] (Derrida, 1981, p29)

References used:

BARNARD, M. (2005) Graphic Design as Communication. Abingdon: Routledge.

DERRIDA, J. (1981) Semiology and Grammatology: Interview With Julia Kristeva. In: J. DERRIDA. Positions. London: The Athlone Press, pp 15-36.

FRASCARA, J. (2004) Communication Design: Principles, Methods and Practice. New York: Allworth Press.

LOVE, T. (2010) Are Visual Approaches to Design Outdated? 8 April. PhD-Design [online]. [8 April 2010]. Available from: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind1004&L=PHD-DESIGN&F=&S=&P=46972

TOGNAZZINI, B. (2003) It's Time We Got Respect [online]. [Accessed 2nd January 2009]. Available from: http://www.asktog.com/columns/057ItsTimeWeGotRespect.html

Probing Experience

Mattelmäki in her book based on her Doctorate "Design Probes" features this diagram on the process for the application of probes. The caption reads:

"Fig. 53. The upper process stages describe the application of probes like empathy probes. The desire to create an understanding of the phenomena in an interactive process is emphasised. The lower process stages describe the way in which the probes are applied like cultural probes as sources of inspiration"

The Application of Probes
Source: (Mattelmäki, 2006, p99)

The application begins with "Tuning In" (bracketing in phenomenological methodology), then "Probing", followed by two forms of "Interpretation", one deeper (top) than the other (bottom).

My rough adaptation of Mattelmäki's diagram showing how my use of the probe differs from hers.

I am interested in using the probe to prepare each volunteer's perception - to help them attune themselves into understanding their own ability to appreciate experience from identifying a beginning until a consummation, without undue influence. Using the probe tasks they will in Task 1 attune themselves in their own way, with varying degrees of success or correlation to each other. In Task 2 which will be post-observation they will self-reflect and evaluate themselves, using their own method (mediated through the provided material in Task 2) to evaluate their experience. This method will be un-scientific, and Mattelmäki suggests that a more appropriate description would be "making sense, outlining or interpretation" (p88).

I will give the Probes out to those who volunteer at a briefing (1). Each volunteer will then do Task 1 before coming to a pre-observation contextual interview (2). At this audio recorded interview (3) I will get a sense of who this person is, how they are preparing themselves to be observed, and to bracket and document any prejudgments they may have of the observation. They will then be observed using the interactive installation (videoed and photographed for reference) (4). Post-observation, the volunteer will be directed to do Task 2 before the next interview. This post-observation contextual interview (5) will be a de-brief, and the task result will be used to begin the recorded interview. This fragmented qualitative data will then lead to (6). (6) is the development of a Visual Communication phenomenological framework.

The development of my Probe will be detailed in a separate post(s). Here are some examples of different Probes from Mattelmäki's book.

Source: (Mattelmäki, 2006, p79)

Source: (Mattelmäki, 2006, p83)

References used:

MATTELMÄKI, T. (2006). Design Probes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Art and Design Helsinki. Helsinki, Finland.

Cultural Probes

In planning my research methodology based primarily on a phenomenonological research framework I am looking into the adaptation of Bill Gaver's "Cultural Probe" to begin the preparation of each research volunteer (more on this in future posts and via Aesthetic Volunteers).

Source: (Kjeldskov et al., 2004)

First developed by Gaver and his team in 1999, a Cultural Probe is a kit of inspirational materials designed and brought together to elicit responses from research volunteers. Hemmings suggests that "each probe object should be capable of invoking a different form of response that fits within a category of acceptable emotional responses" (Hemmings et al., 2002, pp44-45). With each object within the kit, it is there to provoke "inspirational responses from people" (Gaver et al., 2004, p53).

Source: (Gaver et al., 2004)

These responses are in no way comprehensive information about the individual, they can be seen as "fragmentary clues about their lives and thoughts" (ibid). Gaver sees Probes as producing a dialectic between the researcher and volunteer (2004, p55). The Probe kit is not to be used in front of the researcher but like "planetary probes, cultural probes are ‘sent-out’ by researchers and return fragmentary data over time" (Kjeldskov et al., 2004, p4)

Source: (Gaver et al., 2004)

The Cultural Probe can bring in valuable information in an non-scientific way, relying on more creative methods. Gaver is critical of those who have adapted the idea and have since made it more analytical. He warns that in making it too focused on specific analysable results, the researcher loses the rich insights into a subject's experience.

Source -unpublished: (Gaver et al., 2004)

One of the researchers to have adapted Cultural Probes is Adam Crabtree from the Equator Group. Cultural Probes are in no way problem free. An inherent problem for a researcher is "just what the data is and, with that, just what the focus of analysis is" (Crabtree et al., 2003, p9). Like those design researchers who use Cultural Probes, Crabtree sees them being "the first stage in an ongoing and difficult process of design" (ibid) providing useful insights that can be explored through the design phase or through a more detailed qualitative study.

Source: (Gaver et al., 2004)

My interest in using Cultural Probes is in developing the notion into a probe to begin the next research project. I will be using a volunteer group to engage in using an unfamiliar interactive installation within a gallery environment. This is to explore, from a Visual Communication perspective the Aesthetics of Interaction, observing an aesthetic experience of each volunteer. Before this activity I need to bracket my prior knowledge and experience to enter the research objectively. I will be selecting the volunteers from two briefing meetings in September. When each person volunteers they will be given a very specific 'EXPERIENCE' Probe. They will be asked to complete the tasks and bring the Probe with them at a contextual interview before the gallery event. This Probe will begin the process of understanding the volunteers prior thoughts on what 'experience' is, how they understand to recognise 'an experience', how the felt when within it, and their emotions whilst recollecting it.

Source: (Gaver et al., 2004)

This needs more development (and another post). I have included below some visuals of existing Cultural Probes as examples. My idea will not include cameras or diaries, as during the event they will be videoed and photographed any way for my own reference.

References used:

GAVER, W., BOUCHER, A., PENNINGTON, S., and WALKER, B. (2004). Cultural Probes and the Value of Uncertainty. Interactions 11(5), 53-56.

CRABTREE, A., HEMMINGS, T., RODDEN, T., CHEVERST, K., CLARKE, K., DEWSBURY, G., HUGHES, J. and ROUNCEFIELD, M. (2003) Designing with Care: Adapting Cultural Probes to Inform Design in Sensitive Settings, in Proc. of International Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group (OzCHI’03), pp. 4-13

HEMMINGS, T., CLARKE, K., CRABTREE, A., RODDEN, T. AND ROUNCEFIELD, M. (2002) Probing the Probes, Proceedings of the 7th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, pp. 42-50, Malmö, Sweden: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Available from World Wide Web: http://www.mrl.nott.ac.uk/~axc/documents/papers/PDC02.pdf

KJELDSKOV, J., GIBBS, M. R., VETERE, F., HOWARD, S., PEDELL, S., MECOLES, K. and BUNYAN, M. (2004) Using Cultural Probes to Explore Mediated Intimacy. Proceedings of OzCHI, University of Wollongong, [Accessed 4 August 2010]. Available from World Wide Web: http://dl.acs.org.au/index.php/ajis/article/viewFile/128/107

Textural-Structural Description of an Experience

I'm currently reading Phenomenal Research Methods by Clark Moustakas, a seminal work within Phenomenological qualitative research, to understand how to formulate my own Visual Communication research methodology. Husserl's Noema and Noesis becomes part of the methodology of understanding the meanings and essences of phenomena, through the construction of an Individual Textural Description and an Individual Structural Description.

The Individual Textural Description is constructed from transcripts of the interview going through a rigorous analysis to obtain relevant "validated invariant constituents and themes" (more in another post on that I think?).

The Individual Structural Description of the experience is based upon the textural description and "Imaginative Variation" (another post?).

The overall experience across the group can then be drawn from the descriptions into a Composite Description.

This is based on the Van Kaam method of analysis of Phenomenological data. Although the Stevick-Colaizzi-Keen method is in structure different, the use of the Textural-Structural Description appears to be the same. (pp120-122)

References used:
MOUSTAKAS, C. (1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Sage Publications.

The Phenomenological Quotidian

I first read of the term "Phenomenological Quotidian" in an essay by R.D. ABRAHAMS. In his essay Ordinary and Extraordinary Experience he draws pragmatist philosophy to phenomenology with an indirect comparison between the "Quotidian" and the pragmatist's concept of "experiential flow" (p68). Abrahams discusses a balance that on "the one hand, there is a flow of activity [pragmatist], and on the other, distinctive marked-out acts and events [quotidean], all going under the name of experience." His reasoning is based upon sociological phenemonologist Alfred Schutz's "contrast between ‘the world of paramount reality’ and all others". The quotidian being a "a representation of the ‘real’ world from which all other states of experience depart" (p67).

I am still to come across this term in the phenomenological literature I have, but the pragmatist idea of "experiential flow" may have links to a book I still need to read (on my reading pile since March 2009) that I'm sure will be come very useful. The book is Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.

References used:
ABRAHAMS, R.D. (1986) Ordinary and Extraordinary Experienc. In: V.W. TURNER & E.M. BRUNER, ed(s). The Anthropology of Experience. Chicago: University of Illinois, pp45-72.