Crafted Stories: Interpretive Leaps in Hermeneutic Phenomenology with Professor Susan Crowther

How many participants does a phenomenological study really need—and are practices such as pilot studies and member checking methodologically congruent? In this bonus Q&A episode of The Phenomenology Collective, Lewis and Sally respond to questions submitted by listeners. Rather than offering universal rules, they explore why phenomenological researchers must make thoughtful, transparent decisions grounded in their particular methodology and study. Together, they consider the relationship between participant numbers and analytical depth, the ethical implications of collecting more experiential material than a researcher can meaningfully engage with, and whether pilot studies sit comfortably within phenomenological inquiry. They also discuss the contested place of member checking and reflect on what examiners hope to encounter when reading a phenomenological thesis. In this episode, we discuss: Why more participants do not necessarily produce better phenomenological research Balancing depth, feasibility and ethical responsibility Whether pilot studies are methodologically congruent with phenomenology The possibilities and limitations of member checking Why researchers must take ownership of their interpretations What examiners look for in a phenomenological thesis The importance of methodological coherence, accessible writing and researcher voice

What does it mean to practise transcendental (or descriptive) phenomenology? In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore how Moustakas’ transcendental phenomenology moves from philosophical ideas into the practical realities of doctoral research. We’re joined by Professional Doctorate candidate Emma Collins, who is using Moustakas’ approach to explore student nurses’ lived experiences of leadership learning. Drawing on her research journey, Emma offers an honest account of what it means to work descriptively with experience and to encounter a familiar phenomenon as if seeing it for the first time. Together, we explore the distinctive commitments of transcendental phenomenology, including epoché, phenomenological reduction, horizonalisation, imaginative variation, and the movement from individual descriptions towards a composite essence. In this episode, we discuss: What makes Moustakas’ approach transcendental and descriptive Why epoché is central—and what it looks like in practice Approaching a familiar phenomenon with openness and freshness Moving from horizons and invariant constituents to phenomenological descriptions The difference between the texture and structure of an experience Using imaginative variation to illuminate the conditions of experience Balancing individual descriptions with the search for shared meanings and essences How images can support the description of experiences that are difficult to articulate

What happens when a doctoral student chooses phenomenology, but their supervisor’s own methodological expertise lies elsewhere? In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore the possibilities—and responsibilities—of supervising phenomenological research beyond one’s principal methodological specialism. We’re joined by Professor Hilary Engward, an experienced doctoral supervisor whose own methodological background is principally in grounded theory. Hilary reflects on how supervisors can support phenomenological researchers through curiosity, critical questioning and a willingness to learn alongside the student—without pretending to possess every answer. In this episode, we discuss: Why the research question should guide the choice of methodology What it means to “stick to the methodology like glue” Balancing creativity with methodological rigour Supervising beyond your expertise Learning to think and communicate phenomenologically The importance of finding a wider phenomenological community This conversation reminds us that good supervision does not depend upon one person knowing everything. It requires intellectual humility, shared responsibility and a willingness to remain genuinely curious.

What does it mean to listen to a child who does not communicate through conventional speech? In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore how phenomenology can help us encounter experiences expressed beyond words. We’re joined by Hannah McCormack, a final-year PhD researcher at the University of Dundee whose hermeneutic phenomenological study explores the voices and lived experiences of very young children with special educational needs and disabilities. Drawing on more than 20 years in early years education, Hannah challenges the assumption that an absence of speech means an absence of voice. Together, we discuss: How gesture, movement, gaze and touch can communicate meaning The difference between hearing a child and genuinely listening Using hermeneutic phenomenology with non-verbal participants The importance of time, familiarity and attentive presence The role of parents and practitioners in interpretation Navigating consent, assent and ethical inclusion Remaining open and methodologically rigorous when conventional interviews are not possible

What does it really mean for a researcher to make sense of a participant making sense of their experience? In this episode of The Phenomenology Collective, we explore Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) and its distinctive value within practice-based research. We’re joined by Dr Gillian Ferguson, an experienced social worker, educator and IPA researcher whose doctoral study explored how social workers experience learning through their everyday practice. Together, we consider why IPA is more than a method of data analysis—and what it demands from researchers seeking to understand the meanings people make of their professional lives. Gillian helps us unpack the double hermeneutic: the process through which the researcher attempts to make sense of the participant making sense of their experience. We explore how empathy, careful questioning and interpretation work together, and how practitioner knowledge can enrich analysis when brought into a disciplined and reflexive relationship with participants’ accounts. In this episode, we discuss: Why phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography must run throughout an IPA study The difference between describing an experience and interpreting its meaning What the double hermeneutic looks like in practice How practitioner-researchers can work reflexively with their existing knowledge Why skilled questioning matters during phenomenological interviews The danger of rushing towards solutions before properly understanding experience How small, idiographic studies can influence professional practice and policy