Waiting in the Wings: The Enactment of a Descriptive Phenomenology Study

Introduction: Setting the Scene

This paper is developed from a professional doctorate thesis by myself (Sinfield, 2022). To set the scene, the thesis focused on “Lecturers’ experience of service user involvement in nurse education” and was undertaken in two Higher Education institutions (HEIs) in the UK, using the methodology of descriptive phenomenology, which is where we will place our attention. The aim of my doctoral thesis was to explore adult nursing lecturers’ experiences of working with service users in Higher Education. Service users can be defined as: “Those who use health or social care services, whilst carers are those who provide care for others on an unpaid basis” (Fallon et al., 2012). An expert service user has been identified as a service user who has a particular role and has “expertise in their own experience” because of their experiential knowledge (Barnfield & Beresford, 2006). The objective of my thesis was to explore how service users were involved in the education of nurse students, and to identify nurse lecturer experiences of partnership-working with service users.

Descriptive Phenomenology (DP) is situated in the interpretivist paradigm to elicit subjective responses and employs an evolving analytic process, so it is applicable to those who want to incorporate a qualitative methodology into their sphere of practice orientated research. The overall aim of this paper is to present transferable methodological insights into a methodology which is becoming more established in the fields of nursing, healthcare, education, and social work (Farrell, 2020). To provide a realistic reflection of using descriptive phenomenology and supporting prompt notes to guide future research thinking and actions, this paper is deliberately written in the first person. The narrative commentary serves to demonstrate how descriptive phenomenology is enacted in both its application and rationale.

At first glance DP can appear daunting with complex philosophical ideas, unfamiliar terminologies and processes which are not straightforward. From critical reflection, researchers need to find their own way, to navigate the methodological minefield and turn these opportunities into an appropriate and useful way to support their work. For myself, the experience of intellectually grasping and applying DP, connected to ideas associated with theatre productions and grew to form a metaphor, which then promoted understanding of the methodology, framing a structure for its implementation. As such, the theatrical undertones in this paper connect with the metaphors of a performance, and how these can be realised and aligned to the methods of DP. These ideas came when I was thinking about the development of my methodology and its similarities to actors on a set, waiting for their parts to join a scene and take centre stage. The unwrapping of participant experiences became indicative of the illumination of different characters with the shaded and background aspects of the scenery intrinsically involved in each act. This visual representation reminded me of the theatrical tensions before, during and after a performance. Therefore, threaded through this paper are nods to the process of DP, aligned to the theatrical performance. The purpose of posing this metaphorical explanation for the reader is to show how complex thinking and sometimes remote ideas need to come to life in ways that makes sense to the researcher. It is easy to feel ambushed or caught out without an underpinning understanding of the philosophy of DP. Research is not simply a set of tasks but an intellectual pursuit supporting transparent and reasoned actions, which are consistent with the selected methodological premise. Without this knowledge and understanding there is a danger that the phenomenological approach may lack robustness and rigour.

Background Methodology: Phenomenology – Learning the Lines

Phenomenology is a complex philosophy, methodology and method undertaken in qualitative research to describe participant experiences, focusing on the ‘lifeworld’ of the individual. Phenomenology can be challenging to novice researchers because it draws upon views from consciousness of others, and expects the researcher to articulate this ‘given’ in its entirety (without adding or subtracting from that experience) (Giorgi, 2009). This paper offers a perspective whilst recognising there is no singular way to undertake phenomenological enquiry (Emiliussen et al., 2021). The lack of a prescriptive style and the differences in stages make phenomenology challenging, which is why the underlying principles and foundational underpinnings of this philosophy are so important for all researchers to appreciate; therefore this paper alongside others, acts as a guide for researchers. Empirical phenomenology is generally considered as either interpretative or descriptive. Interpretive phenomenology (established by Martin Heidegger) involves researcher engagement to draw interpretative meanings from experiential accounts, focussing on individual insights about a particular event or something that is happening in their lives. Whereas descriptive phenomenology (founded by Edmund Husserl,1913) remains closely aligned to the original experiences and aims to distinguish, understand, and make clear the essential feature of a defined phenomenon from the viewpoint of the persons directly involved. Both types of phenomenology have different theoretical reasons for the various ways in which the data is viewed, managed, and analysed. So, while the overarching research methodology of phenomenology unites the research, phenomena, and the researcher (Finlay, 2009), it is important for researchers to remain alert to the congruence of the chosen methodological approach. In my doctoral study (Sinfield, 2022), DP was selected to describe, classify, and articulate the specific experiences of lecturers working with expert service users, who were service users familiar with working alongside academics, healthcare professionals and students. The methodology provided a useful and robust way to tease out and reveal feelings, identities, and experiences by capturing small, time bound human understandings, which were translated into themes and important areas of discussion, both for research and for the working environment.

As a researcher, I knew qualitative methodology would be a suitable fit for my research question as I needed to gain access to the world of the participants, but more importantly, to represent their views and feelings. As a philosophy, DP was not conceived as a research method, therefore we have to carefully consider the philosophical underpinnings applied to the research. DP lends itself to qualitative studies, where an in-depth process of engaging the researcher in the participants lifeworld provides ‘important and illuminating’ accounts (Sokolowski, 2000, p. 57). The methodological process comprises of several distinct steps: 1. Bracketing; 2. Analysing; 3. Intuiting and 4. Describing (Swanson-Kauffman & Schonwald, 1988). Different researchers have used these processes, providing multiple ways to explore the data (Colaizzi, 1978; Giorgi, 1970; Swanson- Kauffman and Schonwald, 1988; Shorey & Ng, 2022). For example, Spiegelberg (1975) states three steps intuiting, analysing and describing, compared with Swanson-Kauffman and Schonwald (1988) who suggest their steps of Bracketing, Analysing, Intuiting and Describing which ‘blend,’ together to reveal an understanding of the phenomena being studied. Novice researchers need to be comfortable in their own skin to embed a process they can follow, recount and suggest, which seeks to find the true meanings from the multiple versions they will encounter, and streamline the data to extract the essential essence. For the current study, steps were not consecutively employed, but merged into each other, as the process of accessing the data developed. For this study, the issue of bracketing was important given the closeness of my professional position to my research role, and the fact that some of my interviews were as an insider.

These blended steps outlined above provide the essences (key features) of the phenomenon. This distillation process refines the essences further, and progresses to allow the researcher to engage and adopt their position, in order to slow down, concentrate fully and reveal ‘the given’ (Giorgi, 2008a, p. 9). To achieve this, Husserl’s phenomenological theory included a pre-reflective state, known as ‘aboutness’ or ‘whatness’ of the phenomenon which is applied through describing the distinctiveness of each experience (Brookes, 2015). Here Husserl links the perspectives of intentionality which is where Husserl suggests ‘every experience is about something’ and envisioned meanings from experiences linked to these objects or concepts (McIntyre and Smith, 1989). Husserl’s method has been revised by several phenomenologists with Giorgi (1994) suggesting that researchers require an open attitude when considering the phenomena, whilst Finlay (2009) purports the willingness for a change of attitude is necessary. For myself, I realised early on that openness and a readiness to review my previous assumptions were needed at all stages of the research process, but I was glad to have previous experiences to set the stage for developing new understandings. The rationale for choosing DP instead of interpretive phenomenology (IP) was linked to my background as a nurse and wanting to focus upon my participants, as the central characters in this performance, linking this to the theoretical underpinnings aligning with my nursing background (Skea, 2016). The importance of valuing the descriptions, tracing them back and forth between participants and trying to exact the intentionality from that experience led me to view DP as the correct approach for my research. Also, the importance of acknowledging my use of bracketing processes were central to my undertaking of DP, instead of IP.

Methods: Data Collection

This next section outlines some key moments within my experience of using DP, which enabled me to analyse and understand the data, and then really understand the data. As described by Farrell (2020) the understanding of data can be included with a small ‘u’ or a capital ‘U’ translating a deeper understanding by the researcher (Polkinghorne, 1983). This is a crucial point to make, many novice researchers align their studies to DP, but for myself the transformation of understanding and Understanding became a significant point in my research journey, from incorporating to applying DP. From the outset, it would have been easier to simply interview, transcribe then discuss my data findings. However, the process of applying DP meant I had additional layers of understanding, these additions helped develop and strengthen my phenomenological attitude, descriptions, and analysis. This enabled me, as the researcher, to become part of a process, and I believe represents a multi-layered level of significance, derived from the lifeworld of the participants (nurse lecturers). This illustrates Husserl’s intersubjectivity and his connectedness with research, people, surroundings, culture and society, which he believed led to a shared understanding, being and existing (Christensen et al., 2017). My novice intersubjective account is demonstrated by moving from the understanding to the Understanding (Farrell, 2020), which was an apparent process; not a step. Sometimes, it appeared that I was still in one episode of understanding, before reaching into the next. Researchers need to take care when conducting DP that they do not assume this process of understanding will just happen, but to check and reconsider their grasp of the data and methods, to see if their position within the research has shifted. For myself, this was an experience I had not expected, and it formed an important part of the process, which arguably helped develop a more complete Understanding. By involving myself with the theoretical components of DP, I recognised the crucial nature of clarity, the articulation of ‘essence,’ and the concept of ‘givenness’ (Giorgi, 2008b) in strengthening my analytic methods and consequently my applied research findings, aligned with the doctoral journey.

With my nursing hat firmly positioned in the interpretivist lens and with all ethical approvals being attained; the data collection interviews were undertaken. The loosely applied semi-structured interviews acted as a guide rather than a prescribed format, allowing me to take the steps to develop as a researcher and the realisation that phenomenological interviews need to have sufficient depth to determine meaning. I used open and broad questions, this format is important to DP, so participants are not ‘led’ but ‘directed.’ This allows the phenomena to reveal itself, rather than being interpreted (Giorgi, 2008a), as I adopted the phenomenological attitude. This was a skill which took time to acquire. Therefore, pilot interviews and discussions about how to apply language suitable to my own interviewing style needed careful consideration. This reminded me of a character on stage, becoming part of the central performance whereby the audience are enthralled and captured in those specific moments of a performance. The idiosyncrasies of the interviewing/research process, from negotiating the complexities of gatekeeper issues, to meeting participants and then obtaining and translating data into the themes and sub-themes, were important parts of developing the ‘character’ of this study. Not to be rushed or quickened, but to be undertaken in such a way that the component parts of this process were allowed to be drenched in the spotlight. This was important to myself as a researcher, my population and to the overall study. Without this time for illumination and for my participants to take centre stage, the depth and descriptions may have been less acute and more flimsy. I remember my peers undertaking interviews and transcribing them quickly, keenly moving onto writing up, at the time this seemed frustrating and I wondered why my interviews, transcriptions and data analysis seemed slower in comparison. However, on reflection this comparison was not appropriate, as my peers were not undertaking DP, and I can now appreciate the differences in the length of time taken. I can now see and acknowledge this time was vital, that I needed to absorb my participants data, to extract those subtle intonations and inner feelings from participants, to build and construct the layers of my data and to understand once again, then Understand. My thoughts about DP now accept the significance of reflexivity, and its importance for the researcher who undertakes “navigating both pleasures and hazards of the marshy swamp” and all this entails (Finlay, 2002, p. 226).

A useful quote by Finlay recognises and sums up this time in a researcher’s role, providing a more substantial understanding of the inner self and the ongoing journey of reflexivity which is required to understand researcher position within a study:

“Multiple options are needed to reflect diversity in qualitative methodologies and in order that different voices can be heard. Multiple options also allow us to relate to research material in different ways.” (Finlay, 2002 p. 226.).

This pausing and deliberation helped me to think in-depth about the data, and to avoid the rush for results and writing up. The sinking in or slowing down of this process helped me to engage with the data and allowed me to feel like I was becoming embedded within the research process; a feeling that may have been missed if I had only scraped the surface, which may have occurred had I used a different methodology?

Bracketing

Bracketing is arguably a unique and distinct process, which has been challenged by many (Cohen & Omery, 1994; Heidegger, 1962; Le Vasseur, 2003), but remains a core function in the representation of participant views, untainted by the researcher’s perspective. To engage and identify with lecturers’ experiences for the purposes of this study, I needed to fully connect, without supplementing, augmenting, or distorting the data. This can be compared with an actor getting into character and leaving behind their prior individual persona to ensure they represent an accurate portrayal of the new character they become, without bias or preconceptions. However, like actors, the process of bracketing did not mean that I had ‘lost’ myself, rather that I acknowledged the boundary between my experience and the experience of the participants.

To undertake DP effectively, I needed to become absorbed with the process and the underlying principles of bracketing, the more I adapted to bracketing, the more it seemed to make sense. Bracketing in Husserlian terms has two parts: a phenomenological reduction and an eidetic reduction (Husserl, 1977). As the researcher, I needed to de-robe from my past experiences. This meant that I needed to find out about my participant experiences and consequently push my own past assumptions and thoughts aside. However, to do this I needed to explore and identify my previous knowledge, discarding any confirmatory biases and preconceptions. At the beginning of the bracketing process, I reflected upon my own experiences of service user involvement, creating a mind map of my own thoughts. My experiences as a student nurse, qualified practitioner and nurse lecturer were helpful in providing my professional opinion. Yet, my experiences as a service user and carer revealed another lens to focus upon. This microscopic examination of my thoughts, beliefs and preconceptions helped me to formulate distinct areas which might have previously influenced my ideas. The experience of bracketing enhanced awareness of my own thoughts and a bird’s eye view of the central stage emerged, devoid of all the props, fittings, and fixtures to support the performance. From this perspective, I was able to feel my inner voice quietening, and the sense of becoming more open to the lifeworld of others increased. I recognised my lived world experience as distinct from someone else’s, and my attention turned to the participant experiences, within their own realities and lives. Metaphorically, as the lights of the performance, slowly become stronger, the participant experiences in my study emerged more vividly. I realised the consequences of contaminating the participant’s descriptions and wanted to encapsulate the rawness of their voices within my data. The illumination of the participant’s voices was paramount in this process and the consequential silencing of any personal monologue, helped to effectively develop my bracketing techniques. Bracketing has been argued to be difficult, unattainable, and ineffective (Cohen & Omery, 1994; Heidegger, 1962; Le Vasseur, 2003). Indeed, in one supervisory session the ability to bracket was challenged and I realised that I had accepted bracketing as a surface-level task, rather than as an intellectual pursuit which evolves slowly as the many layers, depths and consistencies are revealed. This was an invaluable and unexpected part of my learning because it awakened my critical thinking and provided a formative experience for defending my thesis and to ensure that I had a secure and applied methodological understanding.

Therefore, the suggestion that bracketing is never totally achievable challenged my thinking and made me acutely aware that bracketing was a process, albeit sometimes misunderstood (Chan et al., 2013). I read multiple papers about bracketing, consolidating the dilemmas other authors faced, such as when to bracket, who should bracket (participant and researcher) and does bracketing start before the literature review. This helped me to conceptualise what bracketing meant to me, and my study, and I adopted Tufford and Newman’s (2010) explanation that bracketing is a continuum. I understood bracketing as a continual process, with unconscious prompts, and internal questions which were isolated, and kept in a separate vault; yet necessary to punctuate my developing insights throughout my research from conception to evolution of the multiple stages of conceptualising, data collection, analysis and discussion. To separate prior previous experience and approach each process afresh, the art of bracketing involves DP researchers acquiring the confidence and the ability to check and consciously dismiss invading thoughts, previous experiences, inner voices, and unconscious nudges. Previous studies demonstrating an applied understanding of bracketing include Baille’s (1996) exploration of registered nurses and their understanding of empathy, and Wirhana’s et al. (2018) study of nurse academics on satellite campuses. In both studies, the type and level of conscious internal dialogue developing through bracketing resonated with my own experience, continually questioning unconscious bias and increasing my depth of understanding and application of bracketing. Chan et al. (2013) recognises researcher’s individual interests, suggesting that disengagement from previous knowledge promotes new understandings to arise from the participant data. Hence, bracketing is necessary for immersion in the lifeworld of the participants and in theatrical terms, to become engrossed in the scene.

On reflection, my bracketing experience, and my wish to keep the data as untainted as possible, led to a lengthier data analysis phase. I sometimes felt caught in the wings of this performance, not able to gain access to that centre stage. Yet, I now see that this delay helped more clearly formulate my findings. Fischer (2009) discusses the unspoken complexities of bracketing which are often misrepresented or misunderstood and hastily pushed aside. This avoidance is something that I secretly hoped for, but the supervisory comments were integral to my bracketing and methodological experience, reflecting an inner critique of my bracketing abilities; an important point when choosing DP as opposed to IP. Bracketing helped me to stand back, see and absorb more; allowing descriptions to slowly evolve, instead of being tempted to explain straightaway. This aided my bracketing process and challenged my position, helping link fidelity throughout my research, through my actions and phenomenological attitude. Although, Colaizzi (1978) believes that bracketing is never fully achievable and this view is shared by others (Morrow, 2015), bracketing does highlight the essential core of DP and the need to continually stand-back, reflect and re-focus on the participants’ experiences; their words, not mine; or as Giorgi (2009) suggest, the participant’s ‘givenness’.

Applying Positionality and Reflexivity

Using a reflexive diary supported my bracketing techniques by noting internal conversations and allowing me to unload my previous expectations, beliefs, and understandings, so that I could feel ready and open to embrace how my participants viewed their world. This can be compared with the rehearsals prior to a performance and the need to consider the range of factors affecting each cast member. I became aware of how a small and potentially insignificant factor could sway my thinking. For example, during an interview, if a participant appeared flustered at a description which they gave, or when a question was answered by them, and then a clarifying statement followed, as if to reinforce the point. For each interview, I tried entering the frame of inquiry with an open attitude, storing my prior beliefs and preconceptions in a quieter place in my mind, acknowledged but separate, allowing participant’s views to take centre stage in the conversation. I considered my unique position of interviewing peers, and the possibility that I may think I knew their answer. But DP and its application of bracketing provides a new script, an unknown, fresh perspective. It allows my peers to take on their main role, leaving me as the researcher, as the audience, listening and watching as participants become engrossed in their character. Adams (2001) considers this as a ‘listening space’, providing an opportunity for participants to be heard, and for researchers to absorb these key moments, which later become the crux of data analysis and findings. Furthermore, Adams (2001) discussed intuitive sensing compared with judgement-making, this resonated with my nurse background, instinctively knowing if a patient is deteriorating and letting ‘gut feelings’ prompt action. The ‘listening space’ continually featured throughout the data collection phase and later through the data analysis as indicators of the bracketing process. I found myself unobtrusively listening to the participants, embracing part of their inner world (Giorgi, 2009), seeking out the nuanced nubs of their experiences. As a practitioner/researcher, it is easy to feel the need to rush, yet DP engenders value in this space and time, re-kindling the need to attentively listen and allow understanding to develop. This point is important because it highlights the relationship between the researcher and participant which exists in the moment, yet sets them apart, as Spiegelberg (1995) notes the research acts as “…a shuttle back and forth between our own understanding self and the other who is to be understood…constructing the other and his world on the basis of the clues we have put ourselves imaginatively” (p. 49–50). In this way, Husserl, Spiegelberg (1995) and Giorgi (2009) acknowledge the involvement of researcher, aligning this to the imaginative presence of the experience, and the analyses, which in descriptive phenomenology is known as intuiting. I noticed myself manoeuvring into the intuiting phase of data analysis when I shifted seamlessly from one step to the next. This transition has been likened to “live in the participants’ skin…” by Wojnar and Swanson (2007) and acceptance of engaging with the data, drawing together commonalities and Understanding (Farrell, 2020) of “what it must be like” (Wojnar & Swanson, 2007). The unfurling descriptive story is akin to the central character in a play, taking to the stage and acting out their role, in its’ entirety, with the audience totally immersed and focused. The final part of the descriptive phenomenology process is to describe the phenomenon from the essences which evolve (Colaizzi, 1978). Wojnar and Swanson (2007) make an important point that the suggested descriptions and representations must effectively illustrate these ‘given’ moments of my participants’ lifeworld, in other words, the descriptions must make sense to those who have experienced the phenomenon.

Data Analysis

My decision to use DP, necessitated judgements about the method for data analysis. Various other methods were considered such as Giorgi’s five step approach which needed training and support to undertake effectively (Englander & Morley, 2023). Hycner (1999) seemed more interpretive, which again cautioned me, as a novice researcher. However, Colaizzi’s method appealed to me, being used by other nurse researchers, and having a stepwise approach which I wanted to follow. Other methods are available, however, the purpose of this intended study was to seek lecturer’s views and a process of uncovering description as the primary focus was needed, which Colaizzi’s method offers. Finding the most suitable method took time, patience, and reflection, all of which helped me to refine my thoughts, consider the various options and to eventually decide that Colaizzi (1978) was the best fit for my study. Colaizzi’s data analysis provides a stepwise, flexible approach, ensuring detailed application of this methodology, but allows the researcher to consolidate some of the structural boundaries within the process (Whiting, 2001). This reminded me of how actors might use their initial reading of the script to discover the crucial characteristics of their given role and ensure that their portrayal depicts and integrates the different aspects of the character. In this way, methodological congruence became an important part of my phenomenological journey, working with the research question to make the connections between the approach, methodology and methods in a way that made sense.

The ability to use an analytic framework and apply it in practice was initially difficult and I found myself challenged by the underlying philosophical propositions. This part of the research process stands out as frustrating for both me and my supervisors. I initially wanted to include several different philosophies, reading and trying to piece together the parts which on the surface, appeared to overlap. Finlay (2009) asserts this as commonplace when trying to sort which approach to use, therefore I felt reassured that my complex thinking was all part of the decision-making process, albeit an unknown consequence of understanding. I almost had to wait for this process to logically evolve before I knew I understood and then Understood. I spent many hours reading, trying to identify the correct approach to support my study, but I now see that this was pivotal in providing the depth of foundational knowledge I needed to securely apply DP in a workable and appropriate way. Like an actor establishing character traits and a background to the script, I needed to familiarise myself with the various philosophies to support my study design, helping me to get into character for this process. Giorgi (2008a) and Finlay (2009) agree that lack of training in phenomenological methods leads to inconsistencies in approach, yet they agree that fundamentally a study is deemed to be termed as descriptive phenomenology if it includes description, reduction, and a search for essences. Once I had understood and could apply this set of principles, I felt a newfound confidence in my approach. Hence, this simplified account of the methodology of DP offers access to the underpinning philosophy, however it is recommended that readers wishing to engage with DP spend valuable time gaining a fuller knowledge of the principles of Husserlian philosophy; as well as perusing the many other authors who have adapted and applied this qualitative methodology in their work (Giorgi, 2008b; Morrow et al., 2015; Wirhana et al., 2018; Husain et al., 2023).

Reviewing the participant recordings, transcripts and my field notes situated me in the analytic process. Engaging with data allowed me to peel away the narrative layers and delve deeper into the lived experiences of my participants. I was surprised by the closeness that I felt to the data, I sensed an ability to visualise, hear and represent these voices with a clarity which I had not experienced before. There are seven steps within Colaizzi’s method which are outlined below with a corresponding conversation of how I undertook each step:

Discussion

This paper presents a narrative explanation of how DP seeks out lived experiences providing rich data and is useful for topics where little known information is available (Matua & Van Der Wal, 2015). Colaizzi’s data analysis can be incorporated into a practice-orientated, qualitative study and this paper outlines both principles of DP and application of a modified approach to Colaizzi’s method. The headspace and dedicated time required to undertake data analysis corresponds with the listening space advocated by Adams (2001). Those researchers using DP cannot underestimate the benefits of developing their reflexive attitude for gaining meaningful access to the participant’s narrative which is aligned to deep listening. The stance of quietening the mind includes the ability to adapt usual ways of thinking and questioning. To become immersed in the participant’s experiences demands consistent reflexive appraisal and is an essential, but progressively adopted skill. Such glimpses into an experience can be compared to actors waiting in the shadows until it is time for them to take centre stage for their spotlight position. In DP research, the researcher must learn to hold back, and allow the data to shape and fill the analytic space, similar to theatrical performances where actors wait for their final performance to emerge. This may mean accepting that the data given is enough, because at that time, it formed the participant narrative. For example, when interviewing, a question may arise in the mind of the researcher from a nugget of information presented, and while it may be tempting to directly prompt, there is a need to patiently wait and foster the discipline of guiding, but not influencing participants. In DP there is a reliance on the participant’s version of events, which may require the gentle coaxing, repetitions of words to elaborate upon, or may be an area where the silence becomes a moment of reflection to elicit thoughtful descriptors which might have otherwise remained unknown. Therefore, descriptive phenomenology is a useful methodology to describe ‘important and illuminating’ data (Sokolowski, 2000) and highlight the intrinsic, often hidden experiences, which can be so important to each individual experience. Shorey and Ng (2022) provide a useful scoping review of the characteristics of DP studies, this outlines the many traps that novice researchers may fall into by excluding certain steps or definitions within studies. In an attempt to provide a standardised format for DP researchers Shorey and Ng (2022) outline what to include, this is similar to the current paper which has been used to show the stages and discuss pertinent themes linked to DP and its ever changing landscape. Al-Sheikh Hussain (2023) adds important contributions to the discrepancies found in phenomenological nursing studies, in that he feels his paper “does not claim that nurse researchers are entirely undertaking improper phenomenological research or that their produced research is non-innovative. Moreover, the case of phenomenological nursing research and its altered practices must be acknowledged as a form of innovation in phenomenology (Giorgi, 2017)”. My position as a researcher undertaking DP welcomes these ideas, providing novice researchers with ‘permission’ to follow the stages of DP, within the boundaries of knowing that no one identified formula exists, or overrides, as the sole approach to DP. However, it is important to remain methodologically congruent and philosophically bound, so that DP is identified, examined and rationalised, as the most appropriate method for each individual study. There needs to be a recognition that phenomenology continues to move forward, in its implementation and impact, providing these nubs of experience and engaging phenomenologically to make this an exciting philosophy for researchers. The continually evolving descriptions which illuminate a lived experience advance understanding and knowledge to support DP, making it the exhilarating experience it becomes.

Prompt Notes

From a practical perspective the following is included to help new researchers with their adoption of the DP process. The following table provides prompts developed from my thesis (Sinfield, 2022) and commentary by Chan et al. (2013). This content is to the analogy of a theatre performance to conceptualise the research process aligned with DP.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Stages	Prompt
What is the premise of the performance?	What is the title and why is this important to research? Does this study fit with DP and does this align with my study requirements, participants and overall aims and objectives? Have you reviewed other DP studies? Does this study provide lived experience in the context of where the research will take place?
What is included in the script?	How do you understand the methodology? Do you have a suitable method to obtain your data? E.g. interviews, research diaries, etc.
Who is involved backstage?	What is the process for gaining ethical approval? Who are the gatekeepers? Is any specific training needed i.e. interview training? Who can you get support from?
	Could local HEI’s or research and development departments in clinical practice help?
What props do you need?	What resources do you need and where will you get these from? Consider local HEI’s or research departments in clinical practice
Narrators	Who will support you with your study? Who are your supervisors? What roles will they undertake? What are your shared expectations? Consider clinical research supervisors or HEI supervisors
Stage play length- is this a series of acts?	What is the timeline of your study?
Intermissions	How will you manage your time?
Prompts	At what points do you need input from your supervisors? How will you use feedback?
Casting	Who are your participants? Are you an insider or outsider? Have you decided who will bracket? What about bracketing interviews for yourself?
Act 1 - setting the scene	What type of resources are needed to contextualise the background information?
	How will you undertake the literature reviews?
Act 2 – getting to know the characters	Data collection – how have you prepared? Will you undertake interview training/pilot interviews?
Act 3 – the plot	Data analysis – is your method workable? Do you understand the underpinning theory supporting your analytic activity?
Act 4 - the finale	Writing up the thesis or study
	Is the content methodologically congruent? In what ways have you reflexively represented the participant view? How have you presented the ‘story’ of your research to the reader?
	In what ways is the research question addressed? Is the thesis/study cohesive?
Review of performance – shadows, spotlights and centre stage!	The viva (if undertaking doctoral exams) or conference or practice presentation – How have you prepared? This is your time to contribute to the academic/clinical stage, to illustrate your knowledge and engage in an academic/clinical conversations about the process and outcomes of your research
Encore	If undertaking doctoral study after the viva, or submission to journal be prepared for revisions, pay attention to examiners’/reviewers comments. Identify ways to disseminate your work and become active in your academic/clinical world

Conclusion

To undertake DP necessitated a reflexive and responsive approach. This paper has illustrated the core considerations that arose from one DP doctoral thesis. Viewing the researcher positionality as an opportunity to become inquisitive about long held assumptions allows those using DP to meaningfully adopt the attitude of bracketing. Bracketing is not something that is done, but a way to be in the research frame. To have the awareness and ability to hold onto thoughts and ideas that either quickly spring to mind or emerge over time, means that attention can remain with the participant data. The impact of reflexivity knowing the impact of our researcher presence allows each participant interaction to be experienced afresh. New ways of thinking and understanding grow from the data, rather than repeating previously known and unchecked scripts. However, ensuring that the research findings faithfully represent the participant view involve the researcher committing their time, energy, and patience to a complex and challenging methodology.

The process of data analysis and the construction of significant statements to formulated meanings and clusters of themes eventually leads to emergent themes. This process takes time, contemplation and a depth of understanding which can significantly change the way researchers might view their topic and themselves. The metaphors associated with a stage play offer a way of describing the related features of a DP study. The background, scenery, lights, music, and actors contribute to the effectiveness of the performance. This paper demonstrates how the research process develops over time and importantly reveals how DP can reveal understandings which have not been identified or previously explored. DP research is most impactful when researchers accept that they are both directing the research, whilst also a member of the cast. This dual role demands an acute awareness of their influence in every part of the research process. As Colaizzi reminds us DP is ‘a method that remains with human experience, as it is experienced, one which tries to sustain contact with experience as it is given” (Colaizzi, 1973, p. 53). Therefore, DP researchers can only investigate the experiences of others if they are willing to identify, understand, hold, and take ownership of their own experience so that their attention can turn away from the self, to see more about others.