A reply to ‘Phenomenology as research method or substantive metaphysics? An overview of phenomenology's uses in nursing’ by Vicki Earle: a phenomenological grapevine?

Abstract

When Husserl wrote Ideas, he made reference tosome of his earlier work that had ?not been understood?and had been ?heedlessly pushed aside?(Husserl, 1983, p. xviii). He argued that the distinctionhe had attempted to make between phenomenologyand psychology had been misinterpreted asa criticism of psychology. Subsequently, Husserl wentto great lengths to explain the terminology that heused when writing about phenomenology, to avoid?prevailing misinterpretations, [that are] ever so richin consequences? (Husserl, 1983, p. xviii). Husserlwas not to know the prophetic nature of his observationsregarding misinterpretation of phenomenology,nor the irony that almost a century later, theissue would continue.This response is prompted by a reading of Earle?s(2010) overview of phenomenology?s use in nursing,published in an earlier edition of Nursing Philosophy.In this paper I raise three concerns ? inspired byHusserl ? namely: that many nursing scholars have:(1) misinterpreted phenomenology; (2) ?pushed aside?primary phenomenological texts; and (3) been blindto the consequences of these actions. This is not tosuggest that Earle has misinterpreted phenomenologyper se, but that somewhat paradoxically, sheappears to have ignored some key texts. Earle?saccount is used as impetus for discussion regardingwhat I term the ?phenomenological grapevine?, andthe consequences of this for nursing research.The stated aim of Earle?s paper is to address theblurred boundaries of phenomenology. To underpinthis, she provides an overview of phenomenology,referring to the works of key phenomenologicalfigures including: Husserl, Heidegger, Gadamer, andMerleau-Ponty. She presents a ?critical discourse?regarding nursing?s use of phenomenology and fromthis concludes that researchers must do a better job ofdemonstrating their knowledge of phenomenology.Earle highlights how nurses have come under attackfor not showing that they understand the philosophicaltenets of ?true? phenomenology. Overall, Earlehighlights several criticisms levied at nurse researchers?use of phenomenology and in so doing, foregroundsa multiplicity of challenges associated withthis approach to research.This provides a helpful referencefor any researchers grappling with the inherentintricacies of phenomenology. However, there is astrange irony in Earle?s account that will be capturedin the ensuing discussion.Earle uses Crotty?s (1996) attack on the use of phenomenologyin nursing as her point of departure.Here she describes how Crotty examined the phenomenologicalworks of North American nurseresearchers and concluded that the methods weremostly descriptive and uncritical. The criticisms ofother scholars who believe that nursing gets phenomenologywrong are also discussed, namely: Paley(1997, 1998), Thomas (2005), Porter (2008), Ortiz(2009). Specifically, the point is made that many nurseresearchers misunderstand the central tenets of Husserl?sdescriptive phenomenology (Paley, 1997) andmisinterpret the work of Heidegger (Paley, 1998;Ortiz, 2009).