Yumi Nishimura, Ph.D., R.N.
Tokyo Metropolitan University
In my doctoral program, I engaged in phenomenological research using Merleau-Ponty as a guide to explore the experiences of nurses working with patients in a vegetative state. Later, a philosopher specialized in Merleau-Ponty proposed a joint research project, which resulted in the publication of a book entitled Phenomenological Nursing Research: Theory and Practice.
Initially, I was reluctant to write a book on research methods, and it took many consultations before I decided to publish it. This was because the method in phenomenology is not predetermined but rather revealed in contact with the event to be explored, and is examined in that contact. In other words, “the event forces the method,” and I thought that summarizing the phenomenological method in a book would be contrary to the idea of phenomenology.
The philosopher who invited me to collaborate with him on the book claimed that it was necessary to show the way to proceed with phenomenological research, not dictate procedures. To achieve this, he suggested a collaborative study in which several philosophers and nursing scholars would discuss the issue. Rather than presenting a single method, the book presents a variety of theoretical and practical aspects, including theoretical discussions of methods, various methods introduced so far, and specific examples from my own methods. This intended to allow readers to think about methods based on the phenomena they were trying to explore.
Phenomenological Nursing Research offers an example of examining methods in the context of the event, taking direct philosophical cues, and referring to existing methods. Therefore, even though the research methods of different articles may be described as “phenomenological nursing research,” the methods may be discussed in a variety of styles. We thought that it would be difficult for research using such methods to be accepted for peer review by academic journals. Therefore, I believed it was necessary to first make people aware of the existence of this style of research, and I have introduced this method at every opportunity, including in special features in journals and symposiums and lectures at academic conferences.
Around that time, graduate students started submitting phenomenological research and cleared peer review. I remember how relieved I was, but at first, many people queried how phenomenological research, especially its unique “terminology” and “small number of cases and situations” could be generalized and universalized as research. I remember that many people noted that “phenomenological research is not universal.” Therefore, there was a time when we repeatedly discussed the universality of the results of phenomenological research. However, even if the exploration of experience and practice focuses on one person’s narrative or practice, it is not something that can be captured by the number “1,” because it is itself interspersed with interactions with a variety of people. We sought to understand this by explaining it repeatedly.
In addition, we realized that the ontology and epistemology inherent to phenomenology and the terminology used to describe them made it difficult for the reader to understand. Of course, there are difficulties in understanding each research study from a non-specialist point of view, but I felt that the image of being difficult had been attached to phenomenology in particular. We thought it was our job to dispel this image. On the one hand, we did not use phenomenological terms forcibly, and on the other, if it was difficult to describe an event without using phenomenological terms, we required authors to describe it in a way that would make it clear. I think that reviewers have recently come to understand this.
Through this process, I came to question whether we are adequately examining the methods required for the event. Have we become overly formalistic so as to pass peer review? It is important to pass peer review, but if the paper, especially the description of the method, becomes too formal, the results based on it (i.e., phenomenological description) may also become too formal. To prevent this from happening, I would like to continue to examine the method in line with the event.
Phenomenological research discloses things that even the experiencer was not clearly aware of. Therefore, phenomenological descriptions are expected to be received with surprise. I think the most important thing is that reviewers and many readers will experience that surprise. I am considering proposing criteria for peer review from this perspective.