|
Sixteen Heads of Anglican and Uniting Church independent schools were asked to describe their experiences of providing leadership to religiosity in their schools. It was found that there was a common but strong ironic tension characterising how each of the affiliated Churches engaged with the religious culture of their schools. The authenticity of this research was established through a carefully designed model of phenomenology. A valid distinction between the notions of epoche and bracketing was articulated and then a process for the clear operationalisation of both was designed. The professional literature seems reluctant to be as specific in describing either concept within qualitative research methodology. This presentation will describe how the researcher activated both and how the intuitive connection of the researcher's own life experiences to the data provided by the sample Heads could be authenticated thus demonstrating the uniqueness of phenomenology as a social research method.
It was hoped to locate data which would reveal not simply the features of religious witness and inquiry in their schools and the relationship the Heads negotiated with their Church as perceived by the Heads, but also "the personhood of the [Head] and the emotions that person experiences while leading" (Loader, 1997, p.3). The dominant characteristic expected then of the proposed study would be the non-rational and subjective data contributed by the Heads.
The primary data collection device was a semi-structured interview with each Head with questions fitting either the main, probe or follow-up categories described by Rubin and Rubin (1995). The main and probe questions were asked at face-to-face interviews with follow-up questions or member-checking devices (Punch, 2004) being conducted by email correspondence. A careful interview protocol was designed based largely on the work of Wengraf (2001).
In contemplating a methodology, it was clear from a pre-research review of the scholarly literature and a preliminary inquiry based upon conversations with a range of Heads of schools of different religious affiliations, that a qualitative framework was apposite. The potential of phenomenological method emerged because of its perceived capacity to process authentically the subjective and the value-laden from a small, purposeful, non-representative sample group.
There are two conceptual propositions supporting phenomenological method within qualitative research design. The first is that the reality of a set of human experiences will be uncovered through the detailed yet subjective descriptions provided by the people being studied (Creswell 1994) and second, that "establishing the truth of things" (Moustakas, 1994, p.57) begins with the researcher's perception. The researcher is able to rely upon "intuition, imagination and universal structures to obtain a picture" (Creswell, 1998, p.52) of the experiences under study. I was therefore attracted by the possibility that my own experiences as the Head of both an Anglican and a Uniting Church school at different times could be used authentically to enhance the significance of the proposed study.
The research report was written in the first narrative person. If the researcher and the research respondents as living human beings, reflecting together about shared meanings, are at the core of phenomenology, it seemed dysfunctional and illogical for the research findings to be de-personalised by the use of the third narrative person. As the narrator in this study, I was legitimately to be an active agent in establishing with the respondents the dependable research findings. Conscious that it not only confronted the formal and impersonal tone of positivism as well as the objective, interpretative styles of much social inquiry, including those of the qualitative tradition, I decided a phenomenological research report reflected a more authentic outcome if written in the first narrative person.
When I was Head at different times of two independent church schools, it became very clear to me that my leadership of the religious domain of two complex Church schools was operating within uncertain and ill-defined theoretical and empirical guidelines. I knew that the governing Councils of both my schools had made certain, but not extensive, inquiries into my religious views before my appointment as Head was announced. I knew both the schools declared their denominational affiliations and made public statements in their promotional materials that they were learning communities where 'Christian values' were extolled. However, I was never entirely confident I understood the affiliated Church's expectations of me or to what extent I had formal accountability to the presiding senior figure of the Church. I was also unaware of any clear guidelines from either of my governing Councils for my leadership of religiosity. Even the descriptor 'Church school' began to assume for me meanings which did not helpfully guide professional and public discourse associated with such issues as religious and values education or even the constitutional validity of government funding. The relationship between my schools and their Churches seemed to need a mutually supportive re-definition, especially if any aspiration to be 'denominationally distinctive' (McLaughlin, 1996, p.320) was to be realistic.
Hearing the voices of a group of contemporary Heads of Church schools as they told their personal stories or related the 'epiphanic moments' (Angelides, 2001, p.430) of their leadership experiences, and then interpreting their accounts through a phenomenological integration (Gearing, 2004) in which my own experiences were germane, provided sharp insights into the uniqueness of the experience of leading religiosity in an Australian independent Church school of Anglican or Uniting Church tradition.
This relationship is in place at the very beginnings of a phenomenological inquiry. The challenge for a researcher is to allow the voices of subjectivity to emerge authentically in coming to an understanding of what essentially the research respondents mean in their personal accounts expressed through the data collection devices. This placed upon me as the researcher, the obligation to separate any past knowledge or experience I might have had in the leadership of Anglican and Uniting Church schools but then to legitimise that experience by connecting it interpretatively to the meanings of the respondents. Such a connected relationship was only made possible by the concepts of epoche and bracketing.
The literature has generally treated bracketing and epoche as interchangeable or synonymous (Gearing, 2004; Beech, 1999; Ray, 1990; Spiegelberg, 1973). Gearing (2004) however, declared there are some underlying philosophical differences between the two terms, but they can be described or defined interchangeably "to reflect the similarity of their core essences" (p.1430). But the definition and activation of both epoche and bracketing often lacks uniformity of standards particularly when critical engagement occurs with the issue of researcher subjectivity in data interpretation. Gearing (2004) commented
Many ensuing phenomenologists who accepted [bracketing] as essential to the tradition...interpreted or described this concept individually to fit with their respective phenomenological writings (p.1431).The literature is not forthcoming in describing the activation of bracketing or epoche in phenomenological inquiry or providing exemplars of operations which demonstrate the concepts at work in a research project. Furthermore, there is some scepticism expressed by Ashworth and Lucas (2000), Colaizi (1978 in Ahern, 1999) and Porter (1993) that it is possible to attain the degree of objectivity required for authentic epoche/bracketing if a researcher has had experience of the phenomenon under attention. Crotty (1996) Groenewald (2004) and Schultz (1994) also raise the additional question of how researchers deal with the differing intensity of experiences over time and within changing contexts. Even individual respondents in a study may provoke varying emotional impacts upon the memory of a researcher of the same event. Myerhoff and Ruby (1992 in Ahern, 1999) prefer the term reflexivity whereby the researcher seeks to understand the impact of personal experiences on data interpretation rather than engaging in futile attempts to eliminate it.
Gearing (2004) is not alone in identifying practical distinctions between epoche and bracketing. Variations of function and purpose are also argued by such researchers as Ahern (1999), Denzin and Lincoln (1994), Groenewald (2004) and Patton (1990). The distinctions emerge from how a researcher engages with data at the pre-empirical, collection stage and how that engagement shifts at the post-empirical interpretation stage. Patton (1990) described epoche separately from bracketing as "an-ongoing analytic process" (p.408), which implies it should be dynamically integrated into the sequential progress of the whole research method from the very beginning of the study. Acts of bracketing, on the other hand, would occur at those interpretative moments when a researcher holds each of the identified phenomena up for serious inspection. A researcher then allows those personal ideas and feelings held in epoche to synthesise with those observations as interpretative conclusions. This is the process described by Gearing (2004) as 'reintegration' (p.1434) which consists of "...the unbracketing and subsequent reinvestment of the bracketed data into the larger investigation" (p.1434). Epoche, accordingly, allows for empathy and connection, not elimination, replacement or substitution of perceived researcher bias. Bracketing advances that process by facilitating a recognition of the essence of meaning of the phenomenon under scrutiny.
My major challenge then in seeking an authentic phenomenological method, was the design of a particular mechanism which enabled me to be aware of my own potential for bias, how to suspend that bias at the commencement of data collection, and then use an explicit process to evaluate the significance of that bias in data interpretation. There needed to be a functional symmetry between myself and the research focus and then a structural relationship between myself and the data under examination.
Such symmetry was first established by considering the etymology of the word epoche. The word appears to be Greek, thence Medieval Latin, the form being epock meaning a check or a pause (Macquarie, 1997). In modern English, the form is epoch meaning "a particular period of time marked by distinctive events" (Macquarie, 1997, p.716). Accordingly within qualitative research, epoche can reasonably be interpreted as highlighting a particular period when significant events occur in the experiences of a researcher, but any impact from the memory of which need to be put aside during data collection. It therefore contains connotations of continuity and sequence, as opposed to the single act or episode of bracketing which would occur at or immediately prior to data interpretation. Brook (2005) supports the notion of epoche implying a continuous dynamic of setting aside unexplained assumptions
... epoche becomes the performing of all visible bracketing eg the existence of a thing, its historical connotations, its place in a causal framework etc where bracketing is often specific to a particular assumption (Glossary).The symmetry of the intellectual dynamics inherent in the application of epoche and bracketing can be illustrated figuratively.
Figure 1: Balance between experiences and units of meaning
Source: after Gearing (2004)
This figure (above) attempts to illustrate how a balance is operating between a researcher's awareness of past experiences and the units of meaning identified in the data accounts of the research respondents. Each is kept apart from each other or held in suspension by epoche. The two states are taken through to reintegration when the items held in epoche are assessed for any synthesis with the flagged items data collected from the respondents. A mathematical allusion is helpful in understanding this process. A formula is devised by adding to the flagged items - but holding in brackets - the items of recall identified in epoche. This revealed how the bracketed data would stand in relation to the respondents' data in order to suggest conclusion. Gearing actually used the term 'unbracketing' (p.1434) to describe the event of removing the brackets which leads to a fusion between the two sets of information. The idea expressed in this fusion or unbracketing emerges as the interpretative statement. Epoche therefore is a habit of thinking which continues throughout the pre-empirical and post-empirical phases of the study. Bracketing is an event, the moment of an interpretative fusion and the emergence of the conclusion.
The Feelings Audit reflected the stark reality of what makes phenomenological inquiry authentic: with all of my personal dispositions and values, as the researcher, I was at the centre of the interpretative process. The audit was taken to each research interview to assist me in some personal reflection. It was not shared with the respondents. Its major purpose was to facilitate epoche by persistently reminding me of items where consciously I had to set aside any value judgments of items of data contributed by the respondent Heads.
Phenomenological theory often alludes to the seeking out of units of meaning. However, the term has an implicit pre-suppositional tone to it, whereby an item of relevance to the research area appears to have 'meaning' assigned to it in terms of its potential significance to interpretative conclusions yet to come in data analysis and hence the events of "un-bracketing" (Gearing, 2004, p 1434). In order to re-affirm the integrity of epoche as the on-going process of avoiding any such pre-suppositions at all costs, the term flagged item is used later in this article in the description of a six phase data interpretation process. However, the definition of units of meaning provided by Ratner (2001) was consistent with the treatment afforded flagged items in my study.
One word may constitute a meaning unit. Several sentences may also constitute a unit. A meaning unit may contain a complex idea. It simply must be coherent and distinctive from other ideas. The meaning unit must preserve the psychological integrity of the idea being expressed. It must neither fragment the idea into meaningless, truncated segments nor confuse it with other ideas that express different themes (p.2).
The research journal became deeply entwined in data interpretation as well as functioning as an aide-de-memoir which Miles and Huberman (1994, p.69) called memoing, an important data management process in qualitative research. Some of these themes and ideas emerged as a result of my own background and experience in the research area and were noted as such. The journal entries were dated but were not shared with the respondent and as such maintained the distinction between a researcher's theory language and the respondent's interview language (Wengraf, 2001). The content of the research journal was not used to establish a comparative framework across all the interviews. The phenomenological intention of the research was to hear the distinctive stories of each of the respondents. It was only at data interpretation that any shared or common themes in those descriptions became active components in my thinking.
I found keeping my personal views and experiences separate from data collection more challenging than I had anticipated. Simply utilising epoche as a habit of thinking appeared not to be enough. The mechanism required reinforcement through some practical measures. Accordingly any personal allusions to past experiences or possibly prejudicial comments I made during the interview conversation, which had potential to be pre-emptive, were not included in the interview transcript to protect the distinctive and personal voice of the Head's account. However a brief summary of any such allusions or observations was made in the research journal so that all subjective comment was held outside data collection until the event of data interpretation and a decision could be taken as to whether they augmented or reduced the significance of data. A cumulative record of quoted text from each Head's interview transcript was also kept and progressively graphed:
Source: Audited Transcripts of Research Interviews, conducted June/July 2004
This visualisation enabled me to detect if any one Head was assuming unwarranted dominance in the interpretation of data, or indeed, if I was not paying enough attention to any other Head. It is important to point out that the shaded areas in the above graphic represent items of data examined within the phenomenological process and which therefore illustrated the extent of the shared and common experiences among the Heads. This is consistent with Eichelberger's (1989) warning that phenomenological evidence is the product of the commonality of experiences by the respondents collectively, rather than through the dominance of any one individual story. My study was not to report upon sixteen differing stories of Church school leadership but to identify where there were common and shared experiences and to unite them as a single narrative about the nature of the experience.
Redundant units, that is those not assigned to a topic of significance, were not discarded from the data but transferred to a miscellaneous category in case their significance to the holistic impact of any one Head's account, or to the phenomenon, became apparent. Minority voices were thereby retained because they are "important counterpoints to bring out regarding the phenomenon researched" (Hycner, 1999, p.154).
Thirteen topics of significance were decided upon with an additional grouping of miscellaneous being the flagged items which were not coded. I then satisfied myself that these objective categories could be reasonably confirmed as functioning responses to the main questions at interview as well as within the ambit of the research intention and the research questions. This was consistent with processes developed by Weston, Gandell, Beachamp, McAlpine, Wiseman and Beachamp (2001) in their phenomenological study into the characteristics of university teaching, whereby the starting point for the design of a qualitative data coding system was to establish the relationship between such a system and the primary research questions. The topics of significance were listed under the major contextual issues according to the following table:
| Major contextual issue | Topics of significance |
| The Head and leadership | Relationships with stakeholders Expectations from Church and Council The spiritual leader or not? Religious formation Low fee schooling |
| Religiosity described | Religiosity Contemporary social forces Formal Religious study |
| The school praxis | Teaching and learning Staff Students |
| Denominational | Worship traditions Theology of education |
| Miscellaneous | Uncoded |
| Source: Transcripts of research interviews with sixteen sample group Heads | |
The orientation standpoint involved my epistemological and ontological stances as the researcher. As a result of acknowledging my past experiences in independent Church school leadership and my awareness of their impact upon my perception of a personal reality, I was able to flag references within each of the written transcripts of the interview as being of potential consequence to the research objective. This was never seen to be a breach of epoche because all assumptions about causations, consequences and wider significance were suspended. Epoche disallows 'constructivist meanings' (Gearing, 2004, p.1437) to be attached which have potential to pre-empt later interpretations. To discern an item to be of potential relevance to an openly stated research intention is not to infer any conclusions about meaning.
The second element of praxis involved the research analysis itself. Flagged units were extracted from the written transcripts and clustered together on the basis of their having common elements related to the Heads' experiences. Each group or cluster was given an objective coding title as a topic of significance. To have been included, each flagged item had to have a systematic relationship to the questions at the research interview. They had to have been indicated by the Heads as specific elements of thought which were compellingly represented in their shared and expressed experience of leadership of religiosity.
The third element involved the reintegration of the research praxis with the research objective. It therefore included the final and essential phase of bracketing. The topics of significance were categorised within emergent contextual areas, which provided the headings and the content for each of the interpretative chapters of the completed thesis. The subsequent "reinvestment of the bracketed data into the larger investigation" (Gearing, 2004, p.1434) was achieved by dismantling the bracketed ideas and bringing the released data into reintegration with the Heads' accounts.
It was fully appreciated at the outset that the research objectives would venture into a complex scenario of human values and attitudes, nuances of definition relating to the inherently emotional subject of religious witness, and a range of ideas and propositions that would be difficult to express as single and coherent themes. The research design, and in particular the typology for epoche and bracketing outlined in this article appear to have had dependable outcomes, indicated by the fact that I found it relatively straightforward to isolate ten major conclusions from the study all of which sat clearly within the boundaries of the initial research questions.
The conclusions expressed the realities of shared and common experience which could only have emerged from the non-rational and subjective descriptions contributed by the Heads, or as Loader (1997) had hoped, from their "personhood of ... and the emotions [they] experience while leading religiosity in their schools". (p.3). The major phenomenon uncovered was the irony which infiltrated the relationship between the modern independent school and its contemporary Church. Irony was the detectable phenomenon in a variety of contexts. It was found in the defensive tone of the language the Heads used when speaking of their Churches yet often they would also insist they held a deep respect for their school's religious foundation. The Heads regarded the cultivation of religiosity as fundamentally an educational exercise and did not consist of seeking to increase Church membership or engaging in active proselytism. There was an impressive groundswell for the reform of the school-based subject, religious studies, but the major characteristic of these reforms were that they will have no expectation of conversions to the traditions of the affiliated Church nor will they be based on any credal imperatives defined by the Church. The Heads appear to be walking a narrow, not clearly defined, line of wishing to show respect to the school's Church affiliation by readily identifying with it but not allowing it to influence their leadership of religiosity. To some extent they rely upon the quality of the personal relationship they can maintain with senior figures of the diocese to maintain cordiality, but their dominant preference is to give much greater significance to the foundational religious precepts of their school rather than to those of the contemporary Church structures. The Heads seek solace in the stability of their foundational traditions and not the workings of the modern institution that is the Church.
Key words in the expression of this dominant conclusion of irony spoke of human relationships, personal philosophies and chosen preferences, the need to seek understanding and support in the onerous challenges of leadership, the empathy felt by the Heads for the full extent of stakeholders in the school community, the inculcation of values, and the reasonableness of religiously based expectations of staff within the full educational praxis of the school. They were entirely to do with the essences of human behaviour which often lie beneath the surface of the official lines of reportability and accountability in formal organisations such as schools. Such is the power of phenomenology.
Angelides, P. (2001). The development of an efficient technique for collecting and analysing qualitative data: the analysis of critical incidents. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(3), 429-442.
Ashworth, P., & Lucas U. (2000). Achieving empathy and engagement: a practical approach to the design, conduct and reporting of phenomenological research. Studies in Higher Education, 25(3), 295-309.
Beech, I. (1999). Bracketing in phenomenological research, quoted in Gearing, RE 2004, Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1429-1452.
Brook, I. (2005). Phenomenology and environment, Masters' Degree Course Notes, Lancaster University Philosophy Department, accessed on September 24th, 2006 at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/philosophy/awaymove/405/wk1.htm
Colaizzi, P. F., (1978). Pyschological research as the phenomenologist views it, in Ahern, K.J. (1999). Pearls, pith and provocation: Ten tips for reflexive bracketing. Qualitative Health Research, 9(3), 408.
Creswell, J. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crotty, M. (1996). Phenomenology and nursing research, in P Barkway (2001). Michael Crotty and nursing phenomenology: Criticism or critique? Nursing Inquiry, 8(3), 191-200, accessed 15/02/05 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11882218&dopt=Abstract
Denzin, N. & & Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gearing, R. E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1429-1452.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1). Accessed 21/02/05 at http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/groenewald.pdf
Hycner, R.H. (1999). Some guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview data, pp.143-164 in A. Bryman, & R. Burgess. (Eds). Qualitative Research Vol. 3. Sage Publications, London, South Africa.
Loader, D. (1997). The inner principal. London UK: The Falmer Press.
Lukiv, D. (2004). Bracketing and phenomenology, McNaughton Centre, Quesnel, Canada, accessed 22/02/05 at http://asstudents.unco.edu/students/AE-Extra/2004/6/Art-1.html
Macquarie (1997). The Macquarie dictionary (3rd Ed), Macquarie Library Pty Ltd. Macquarie University, NSW.
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Myerhoff, B. & Ruby, J. (1992). A crack in the mirror: reflexive perspectives in anthropology, quoted in Ahern, K.J. (1999) Pearls, pith and provocation: ten tips for reflexive bracketing, Qualitative Health Research, 9(3), 407-411.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 2nd Ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Punch, K.F. (2004). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London UK: Sage Publications.
Porter, S. (1993). Nursing research conventions: objectivity or obfuscation? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 18, 137-143.
Ray, M. (1990). Phenomenological method for nursing research, quoted in Gearing, R.E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1429-1452.
Ratner, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural-psychological themes in narrative statements. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 2(3). Accessed 24/02/04, at http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/3-01/3-01ratner-e.htm
Rieman, D. (1986). The essential structure of a caring interaction: Doing phenomenology, quoted in Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five traditions. London, UK: Sage Publications.
Rubin, H. & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: A method to the madness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Schultz, S. (1994). Exploring the benefits of a subjective approach in qualitative nursing research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 412-417.
Speigelberg, H. (1973). The phenomenological movement: An historical introduction, quoted in Gearing R.E. (2004). Bracketing in research: A typology. Qualitative Health Research, 14(10), 1429-1452.
Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviews. London: Sage Publications.
Weston, C. Gandell, T. Beachamp, J. McAlpine, L.Wiseman, C. & Beachamp, C. (2002). Analysing interview data: the development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381.
| Author: Dr John Bednall has been Head of two Australian independent schools and currently is director of a small educational and social research consultancy. He has taught social research methods at the University of Notre Dame. Email: johnbednall@bigpond.com
Please cite as: Bednall, J. (2006). Epoche and bracketing within the phenomenological paradigm. Issues In Educational Research, 16(2), 123-138. http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/bednall.html |