Phenomenology
I created a remixed graphic rendering of the conceptual framework of phenomenology in order to gain understanding (see Figure 1).
Two central concepts in phenomenology are the notions of lifeworlds and intentionality. Lifeworlds are the immediate experiences of what already exists, emerging from the world in its natural and emerging state (Tracy, 2020). The lifeworld is where the phenomena are experienced and lived (Vagle, 2018). In this research, this lifeworld includes both the physical world of the participants' geographic localized ecologies but also their digital and electronic spaces described through I-Technology-World relationships (Idhe, 1990; Rosenberger & Verbeek, 2015). Intentionality is the meaning and “connections that emerge in relations, contexts, and across time” (Valentine et al., 2018, p. 463). This use of the word intentionality is not to be confused with the intent, purpose, aim, or plan to do something. For phenomenology, intentionality describes “the way humans are connected meaningfully with the world” (Vagle, 2018, p. 126). Phenomenological researchers are aware of how “words, language, concepts, and theories distort, mediate, and shape raw experience” (Tracy, 2020, p. 65). Criticality and self-reflection are imperative in phenomenological research (Tracy, 2020). (see Figure 1)
In order to fully understand the post-intentional phenomenological (P-IP) paradigm (Clifden & Vagle, 2020; Vagle & Hofsess, 2016) within which this research is framed, I will first explore the differences between the perspective of transcendental phenomenology and the hermeneutic, existential phenomenological research paradigms, since these two paradigms are often the ones that are applied to phenomenological research. I will then uncover the third type of phenomenological paradigm and explain why post-intentional phenomenology (Vagle, 2018; Valentine et al., 2018) provides the best fit for this research.
Transcendental Phenomenology
Transcendental, or descriptive phenomenology, is inspired by Husserl’s philosophy of consciousness (Tracy, 2020; Valentine, 2018). How the research participant knows, or is consciously aware of some object, real or imagined, thus holding a ‘consciousness of something’, is foundational for describing the “essence of a phenomenon or experience” (Valentine et al., 2018, p. 464). The researcher must set aside their biases or habits of seeing while conducting the research and data analysis. This is done through a process of bracketing or transcending previously conceived theory, experiences, and understandings. This removes the researcher’s influence from the interpretation of the phenomenon (Valentine et al., 2018; Tracy, 2020). Since meaning is derived from the “intentional relation between subject and object” the research studies the “of-ness” of the phenomenon (Vagle, 2018, p. 39). The focus is on accurate and rich descriptions of the phenomenon as it is understood or known by the research participants.For this research, the phenomenon under scrutiny is the MDL within OEPr. This research will shift away from transcendental phenomenology since I will not ‘bracket’ or suspend my “habits of seeing” (Tracy, 2020, p. 65). It is not just the knowing or understanding of the phenomenon of MDL within an OEPr, as seen through a teacher educator’s experiences that interests me. It is the phenomenon of how participants' MDL shapes micro-practices in becoming open educational practitioners that is the focus of this research.
Interpretive Phenomenology
Interpretive or hermeneutic phenomenology focuses on embodiment and being in the lifeworlds and intentions relating to a phenomenon, which is grounded in the philosophies of Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Gadamer (Valentine et al., 2018). This shift in phenomenology from knowing to being resulted from Heidegger’s ontological interest in how people give subjective meaning to phenomena. Interpretive phenomenology is thus not just concerned with consciousness, but in how lifeworlds constitute intelligible structures (Vagle, 2018) and how these meanings are revealed through language and discourse, thus emphasizing the intentionalities within people’s stories as a form of sense-making (Tracy, 2020). Vagle applies the preposition ‘in’ to describe the ‘in-ness’ of intentionality whereby the human subject is ‘in’ “intersubjective, contextual relationships” (Vagle, 2018, p. 42). Bracketing is replaced by reflective and reflexive practices that ‘bridle’ or restrain the researcher’s positionality and perspectives on the phenomenon (Valentine et al., 2018). In this way, the researcher is not removed from the research, but openly acknowledges their assumptions and positionality while sharing their reflexive understandings of the phenomenon (Valentine et al., 2018).
While a fuller presentation of interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) as outlined by Smith (2004) is beyond the purposes of this research, it is important to reveal three characteristic features of IPA – idiography, inductivity, and interrogation – that influence post-intentional phenomenological research. IPA follows an idiographic research sequence, meaning that the researcher collects one case or participant’s story at a time, bringing it to a degree of closure, before moving on to subsequent cases or to the cross-case analysis of themes for convergence or divergence (Smith, 2004). Since my research includes conducting interviews and storying events simultaneously and interwoven in time and space, this excludes IPA as a research method. Researchers following an IPA strategy will inductively analyze data while being open to unanticipated and emergent themes or topics while continuing to interrogate and illuminate extant literature (Smith, 2004). While these characteristics may be evident in the research, my process includes a fluidity to the coding and analysis that deductively generates themes and categories while I continue to explore patterns within the whole-part-whole descriptions of the phenomena in conjunction with the interview process.
While transcendental and interpretive forms of phenomenological theory are of interest, it is post-intentional phenomenology (P-IP) that provides the best fit for this research since I posit that the MDL of teacher educators fluent in OEPr will be gathered in a fluid, liminal, boundary crossing, and dynamic praxis that is continually shifting toward an ideal of becoming open, becoming literate, becoming teacher-educator. The next section explores P-IP as it relates to this research.